UKC

I believe in a greater power, call it God or what you will. But its awful what some people do in the name of religion. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/07/catholic-church-child... . I was discriminated against by the Catholic church as a child. And you see things done by Muslims and stuff.
Is it just people abusing power or what.
Its such a shame because the underling philosphies of most religions are good. Peace, Love and Forgivness, just getting on with people.
As I get older I get more cynical about people

In reply to Lenin:
Attacks on religion often begin with the Church. An imperfect human organisation created by people with their own motives and failings and with its own cultural imperatives. Then the members of the organisation are human, subject to their own imperfections. Of course the fact that many in the church who are well motivated seek to do good only helps those other members who are self serving, corrupt or evil and who should be rooted out. What better cover for an evil doer than an organisation that tries and preaches believing the best in people and allows the evil to operate under a canopy of "doing good".

I'm not attacking the church here, just trying to express my own understandings of why it is so often linked with people doing bad things - it reflects human failings, in common with other systems that are based on altruism - e.g. communism

In reply to Lenin:

Is your "greater power" good, bad or ambivalent?

P.s I like your "underling philosophies", most appropriate.

In reply to Lenin:

Human society has always been violent, and grouping together gives the potential for greater powers of domination. So it's no surprise that religions are powerful and often violent.
God is a construct by humans for reasons outwith this argument.

In reply to Lenin:

why do you need a higher power to live a life with "peace, love and forgiveness?"

the so called "golden rule" was discussed long before modern religions came on the scene. you don't need a god to live life as a decent human being.

In reply to Lenin:

Humans evolved first, the belief in greater powers came second, and organized religion third. We do carry an awful lot of evolutionary baggage, and it shows in our behaviour and social organization including religion.

CB

In reply to Lenin:


When people say this my first question is always "why?"

In reply to Lenin:

>the underling philosphies of most religions are good.

That is, at best, a partial truth. The underlying philosophies of most religions are actually a mixed bag - some good, many bad, some outright horrific.

If I understand correctly, Islam has a tenet that resolves these contradictions by decreeing that where two passages conflict the later one is correct.

In reply to Lenin:


You can only call those the "underlying philosophies" of most religions if you first cherry-pick the aspects you like.

How about the concept of being hideously tortured in hell for all eternity, merely for finding certain doctrines unconvincing or for not being sufficiently obsequious to some god who wants to be worshipped?

In reply to Thrudge:

The underlying philosophy of Islam is not at all mixed, but wholly bad. It involves submission to a vicious, all-controlling deity who punishes you with vile physical tortures in hell for eternity (very vividly described), if you do not convert to his creed, despite the Islamic belief in predestination and a deity that orders every minute event claiming that you have no choice in your actions anyway, be you a submitter or a "kuffar". All religions struggle with the predestination/freewill dilemma, but Islam really ties itself in knots.

Islam also promises unlimited and very material delights endlessly if you do "submit" (i.e. if Allah makes you submit, as you do not really have free will), it is a straightforward "brutal and endless punishment if you don't do what you are told, endless goodies if you do". It has all the morality of an offer by a Mafia boss.


Yes, the doctrine of "abrogation".

Which in context, even following its own logic, is complete nonsense. The Koran is supposedly the perfect word of God, with a golden copy residing in heaven, eternal, invariant and perfect, like Allah himself. So how can it possibly be self contradictory, or some verses (the more violent, intolerant, expantionist ones invariably), replace others? (The more conciliatory, live-and-let-live, you believe what you want and I will believe what I want ones).

You cannot have perfection version 2.

As the West is so essentially secular now, many Westerners especially "liberals" (who are seldom very liberal), completely fail to understand the religious viewpoint, and how all-pervasive it is and universal for believers. It permeates every aspect of their being, it is not just a philosophical idea they are interested in. This also leads to the illusion that all religions are the same in their basic principals, they simply are not and have radically different world views.

In reply to Simon4:


I'm sure you're right Simon. The only problem is that this means all my Muslim friends and colleagues are living a double life, appearing outwardly to be quite normal, but in reality they're obsessed with the medieval interpretation of their religion. They must only be pretending to be my friends so that they can expedite my passage to eternal hellfire.

Well it's either that, or you're talking bollocks.

In reply to Simon4:


I listened to this last night. It gives an interesting insight into how conflicts persist http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510308/hidden-brain

In reply to Lenin:


Which episode are you referring to? 24 shown on the page you link.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
or alternative three, your "muslim" friends are presumably just as detached from the core tenets of their religion as most de facto secularized people who may still call themselves "christian" (in fact, I would include myself there).

I do, however, remember how strong religious convictions (hardcore Lutheran protestantism in this case) permeated every idea, thought, even emotion of the members of the church congregation I used to attend many years ago. I can attest to them not ticking like your garden variety, semi-secularized "cultural christians".

I have absolutely no doubt that the same level of religious ideas dominating every aspect of life will also be found in orthodox jews, fundamentalist hindus or islamist muslims of whatever denomination.

The problem then becomes that many aspect of islamic orthodoxy, and especially its rejection of a separation between faith and politics, are indeed not compatible with the values and principles of a modern, secular society.

CB
edit: forgot the main point: It is indeed difficult to comprehend from the outside how such people view the world though a religious lens, down to the finest detail.

In reply to Phil Anderson:

Sorry 24 Tribes and Traitors. Its from the perspective of an Isreali Paratrooper and Palestianians visiting a concentration camp. How if you perceive someone as your enemy you can lack empathy for them. I will need to listen to it again as I was half asleep.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Or, a third option, they cherry-pick their religion, picking only the bits they like -- which, of course, most religious believers do.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Of course they do, contrary to Simon's assertion about Muslims

"...the religious viewpoint, and how all-pervasive it is and universal for believers. It permeates every aspect of their being"

It's not a third option, you're agreeing with me that S4 is talking bollocks.

In reply to wercat:


Attacks on the church are entirely justified all the while they don't acknowledge their failings and continue to consider themselves to be not only morally superior, but the infallible source of morality itself (or at least his spokesperson). This in itself wouldn't be an issue were it not for otherwise secular governments treating the church with undue reverence.

Take the Catholic church on abortion. I entirely understand the pro-life argument. I don't agree with it, but I understand it and world consider the church's position entirely valid, were it not for:
Their position on contraception being ridiculous;
The church's historic demonising of single mothers being in no small part to blame for some women wanting abortions;
The alternatives to abortion that the Church has supported (the thought of those laundries brings a chill to my spine).

And yet they are seen as an organisation that has some extraordinarily valid argument to bring to the table.

In reply to cb294:


What you and Simon are doing is saying that your amateur Islamic theology trumps their religious observance. Which is not a compelling position.

The starting point is that the religion makes no sense. All theology is intellectually worthless, it's just playing word-games with a random starting soup found in a holy book.

You can't show something to be "true" about a religion by making theological arguments about what the religion "really" says. The religion *is* what anyone says it is - so we have many competing versions including what my friends say Islam is and what ISIS say Islam is. One is no more "true" than the other. Both are nonsense, one is fairly harmless (not totally, and certainly isn't something I would like to see more of), one is very harmful.

The main point is that when someone from outside the religion comes in and starts saying what the religion is or isn't for a political motive - as S4 does repetitively - this theology is has even lower value than that coming out of the religion itself. It really is total dogshit and not worth listening to, at all.

In reply to knthrak1982:



I wasn't defending the church (as a class of organisations), simply pointing out how it is bound to be subverted. I'm not sure whether a less hierarchical group like the Quakerscould be so affected though any group in society is open to be alpha-personality-dominated and manipulated

In reply to rallymania:

Exactly, and let's say you did meet St Peter, or Ra upon death.. are they really going to punish a good human being for not devoting time to worshipping them? If so.. then why would anyone worship a higher being that is happy to punish fellow humans.. how is that being a good person, if you allow others to suffer in the next realm?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I guess we are talking cross purposes here. Yes everyone makes their own religion, but the fundamentalists view everything in life exclusively through the lens of their religion, whichever one this may be.
This mindset is so divorced from the "pick and choose" observance of the "normal" believers (again true of all religions) that we, as secularized westerners (even if we call ourselves christians, jews, or muslims) fail to understand this.
For me, this failure to comprehend already starts with what makes devout catholics in Poland or Ireland believe in the crap spouted by the pope, even though I briefly had the personal experience of attending a similarly fundamentalist Lutheran congregation which gave me some insight. My best explanation is collective mental illness, as charismatic christianity and schizophrenic delusions are not that far apart. And Simon4 is right, taken absolutely literally (as done by some), islam is particularly unpleasant: there is a difference between ISIS and your random pentecostal/charismatic congregation, who may be just as fundamentalist but do not blow people up.

CB

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Simon's comment was mostly about Islam (the ideology) rather than about Muslims. One can reasonably enough separate the ideology taught by mainstream clerics from the attitudes of the wider set of believers.

For example, the Catholic religion is against contraception but most Catholics are not. In the same way, large numbers of Muslims are (thankfully) far more moderate than the Islamic religion.

In reply to cb294:


Yes, and I agree it's impossible for me and most people to relate to the world-view of the fundamentalist.


If that's what he said, I would agree. But as ever, he makes no distinction between your normal pick-and-mix believers and fundamentalists, implying that all the normal Muslims we meet every day hold the same beliefs as ISIS. This is patently untrue, and is politically motivated stirring-up of hatred towards people who are part of our communities. It's repulsive.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


That's odd, because what he said was


which is attributing a view to Muslims that when you talk to them, they don't seem to hold.

In reply to Lenin:

People, what have you done?
Locked him in his golden cage.
Made him bend to your religion
Him resurrected from the grave.

One of Ian Anderson's finer rants, that. I must spark up the hifi and play it.

T.

In reply to rallymania:

That's something like what my Dad said to the Catholic priest who's job it was to convert him before he could marry my Mum, in the end he said 'It's not quite meant to happen like this, but you seem like a nice person' and was given the okay to marry my Mum.

In reply to cb294:

Which kind of Islamic ideology? There's lots of 'flavours'.

In reply to Simon4:


A bit of a sweeping statement there.
If it were wholly bad then it would hardly have become a major world religion. All religions are good in the eyes of those who follow them (with the possible exception of worshippers of Cthulu and Satanists). Islam deals as much with mercy as it does with slaying the unbeliever, As much with charity as it does with punishing apostates, and as much with education as it does with repression.
My point is that people make it what they want to be. Good and bad. that is the story of relgion from day one. Don't like the message, then change the message or find a new one. But always pretend that it was divine inspiration.
I am not defending religion just commentating that a sweeping generalisation is no help

In reply to cb294:


I would argue the opposite. If one were to ask them then I would expect them to say that they were very much believers in the core tenets of their religion. The same for Christians. People still believe they have a handle on God. These core tenets are just what you want them to be. Compare Catholicism with Protestantism, C of E or Jehovah's Witness or indeed Islam. The only similarity is that they base their religions on the same story but with their own twist. Core tenets are mutable things when you look close

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

You're ignoring the fact that Simon4 knows more about what Muslims believe than Muslims do.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Word*.

*Hateful modern vernacular

In reply to Lenin:
If you start to feel cynical, remember there's human goodness too, which is always present. Human badness, nutsness, and goodness will always be present, and it's possibly just down to where one focuses in the end?

There can be good nutsness

In reply to Lenin:


Gods?
My simplistic reasoning goes like this ...
Think of all the old civilisations; Ancient Greeks, Romans, Aztecs etc. They all had hundreds of Gods that they worshiped and quite often sacrificed humans for them. But we all know now that they were all bunkum, so what makes the current 'God' so special or that it is the 'True God' that has always existed?
All bollocks.

The greater 'Power' is Nature and the Laws of Physics.
We don't live in the Dark Ages any longer.

In reply to Timmd:

>There can be good nutsness

Nice one.

In reply to Lusk:

Its odd how evangelical some atheists can be. It does not bother me if people are atheist. But it does seem to bother people if people believe in "something".

In reply to Lenin:


Believing something is fine as a little hobby. But it has no place in schools in any form. It has no place in parliament either.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


You just summed up religion.

In reply to Lenin:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

In reply to summo:


In your opinion. I was shit on by the Catholics* but I can see why some people would want their children to be educated within a certain set of values.

*I am not Catholic but went to a convent school.

In reply to Lenin:


They can educate them at home after school with any fictional stuff they like. School should be a place of fact, doesn't mean it can't be fair and just though.

In reply to summo:

In your opinion its fictional, what gives you the right to impose your beliefs on someone?

In reply to Lenin:

As there is zero evidence. Schools should focus on teaching the most proven view of the world to date.

Physics or biology lessons in 2217 will be different to now, but they should not be same as the view of some religious person in the middle ages as we can now prove that wrong.

In reply to Lenin:


Nothing gives anyone that right. Thread finished.

In reply to Lenin:

' I can see why some people would want their children to be educated within a certain set of values.'

I think *all* children have the absolute right to be educated with a certain set of values. And these values are treating other people as you would wish to be treated yourself; recognising that others may have a different point of view that may be more valid than yours; above all, not conducting yourself in a way that would make social life impossible, e.g. being (routinely) dishonest, stealing, murder and all the rest.

All these values are anchored in enlightened self interest and common sense, they have no need for a sky fairy to justify them.

In reply to summo:


I can agree with that. I remember meeting a spooky guy from Kentucky in Florida. I mentioned I had just travelled through Georgia and saw a lot of churches. He said "the wrong kind of churches" in a way that made me want to get out of there. I suspect he though God makes the tide come in and out morning and night. When I know thats Shiva

In reply to summo: Can you prove all religions to be wrong - certainly where religion has tried to impose its views over science then as science develops, religions get shown to be a bit foolish. But where religions have left the how to science, and concentrated on the why, then I think you would have difficulty disproving them.

Science still hasn't got beyond the big bang. Maybe it will in the future, but at the moment it's looking a bit uncertain.

Remember that science has only been saying that the universe started from nothing for about 60-70 years. The bible has been saying that for about 3,500 years.

In reply to Michael Hood:


No, but currently there is zero evidence to support it



It never will, in all likelihood by the very nature of what the big bang/ s/ crunch was.


Which book or document is that old? Factually verified?

In reply to Jon Stewart:
A sort of omnipotent thing then. Holy Spagetti monster does this mean that Simon4 is GOD!!!!

In reply to Lenin:

Religion gives weak and powerless men the ability to control others.

In reply to Lenin:

Eeeee its been ages since we had a good religious thread. Well done!

In reply to summo: There are no physical copies of any books of the bible from 3,500 years ago (that have been found) but the Dead Sea Scrolls go back a bit over 2,000 years and have a complete copy of the book of (I think it's) Isiah. He lived (according to the Bible of course) several hundred years after Moses and quite a while before 2,000 years ago.

So 3,500 years would be a bit hard to prove but it's pretty reasonable to think that the books of Moses preceded the book of Isiah (since he mentions Moses and Moses's books came from somewhere) so again pretty reasonable to assume that it was some time over 2,000 years ago - which is certainly more than 60-70 years ago.

Actual written copies of the books of Moses - just looked up about the Dead Sea Scrolls - there are fragments of most if not all of the first chapter of Genesis (i.e. the creation story).

In reply to Michael Hood:
But what actually proves anything in them is true, you are already making what you call reasonable assumptions to their age and that's before you consider what they wrote and why. In proving or disproving you do not make assumptions.

In reply to Michael Hood:
In the kids room we have a few hundred kids books from credible educated writers, printed by modern companies and stocked in libraries.... but that does not mean the bfg, fairies, trolls, dragons, elves, ghosts, ufos etc... are real. They might be, but with our current understanding of the universe there is zero evidence, so they are currently classed as fiction. If I owned a library I would put any religious book in exactly the same section.

In reply to Michael Hood:


Religions have survived by being ambiguous. You can't prove a load of contradictory stories, which might be metaphorical, or not, which might imply one thing or not, to be wrong. Religions don't make specific, falsifiable claims about the world - or they did, but in the face of science have had to backtrack on such claims and replace them with ambiguity. They are quite nebulous bits of human culture: texts, traditions, people saying things to other people in contexts that imbue authority. This all operates outside the framework of reason, which is the framework we use to say whether things are likely or unlikely to be true.

When we apply reason to the claims made by religions, such as the existence of gods, heaven, spirits, etc, we see no evidence to support such claims and conclude that they are very unlikely to be true.


All cultures have their creation story; there is nothing special about the one in the Bible, it's as unhelpful in describing the history of the universe as the story of Kaang and his big tree that the Kalahari Bushmen believe in. Muslims - more so normally than Christians - have a penchant for saying how their story somehow predicts the discoveries made by physicists. It doesn't, and nor do any of the others.

You've basically got a binary choice when it comes to thinking about the big questions that are hard to answer, such as where did we come from, what is morality, what things exist, etc: go with reason, using philosophy and science to uncover relevant information and concepts that help illuminate these things. Or you can pick a tradition and believe stuff that other people believed in the past and which operates outside the framework of reason. With this latter option you have the problem that there are lots of different traditions to choose from, so you then need to construct a way of justifying why your tradition is right but others are wrong, and you also need to only half-believe in reason. That's fine if that's the way you want to do things, it's your business, but I think it's fair to say that it is a (selective) rejection of reason in favour of tradition.

In reply to summo: I think Occam's razor could be used to show that it's more likely that the Bible is pretty old rather than being written recently - so unless you've got any objections, can we at least agree that it's very old (>2,000 years) although it's impossible to state exactly how old.

I can't talk about all religions because I don't know them, I can only talk about my own, Judaism, and I'm nowhere near an expert. What I do know about it is that Judaism has a completely self-consistent belief system about (let's call it) the spiritual world. The problem from your point of view (and mine to a large extent) is that it still comes back to the "you can't prove it" problem.

What I find interesting is things like this - the law in Leviticus (I think it's there) states pretty clearly the kinds of fish that can be eaten by the Jews - they've got to have scales and fins. Now a long time ago (I would reckon 1500-2500 years ago but I'm not going to press on that but again I think it would be pretty easy to show pre renaissance at least), the head Rabbis had a problem - if you're buying a piece of fish then it's easy to see if it's got scales but what if that piece hasn't got a fin? How can you be sure it's kosher, that there were fins on the rest of the fish? Their answer was - scales are sufficient since all scaled fish have fins. Since then, I don't believe anybody has found a scaled fish without fins - but the point is - how could they be so sure with their "limited" view of the world and its species at that time. It would only take one counter-example to make the ruling look stupid.

Now you may argue - lucky guess, or coincidence, but there are rather a lot of them.

It's thing's like that which keep me on the fence with belief in God, I've come to the conclusion that there is no way I can KNOW one way or the other so I don't worry about it.

In reply to Lenin:


Compared to the desire of evangelical religionists, I think 'evangelical' atheists are very thin on the ground.

I don't remember _ever_ being accosted in the street by an atheist telling me there's no god, or screaming at me that I'm not going to burn in hell.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2015/11/25/christianity-has-a-m...

As for your initial assertion "God made man, Man made religion", I'd suggest that man created both god and religion.

In reply to captain paranoia: But why (or maybe just how) did the universe come into existence?

The real problem we have with religions is where there is lack of tolerance and a need to push your views on other people - standards of behaviour (tolerance & let live) that we in the west regard as pretty sacrosanct (couldn't miss that one )

If you believe that the universe just is, and you decide to live by certain standards, but somebody else believes there is a creator and decides to live by other standards which they say come from that creator, then you can both get along fine as long as you can tolerate the other's views and the standards promote living in some level of harmony.

If only all religions and religious adherents were like that then most of the issues would go away.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Just because elements of the Bible can be traced back 3500 years, it doesn't make it any more 'true'. Not that it has remained constant over those 3500 years, having been subject to revision, editing and reinterpretation. Christianity is certainly not a fixed church.

As for the dietary rules of Leviticus, they read like a combination of recipe book and food hygiene rules, written without knowledge of what causes food-related illness. For instance:

"7:16 But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice: and on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten: 7:17 But the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire.

"7:18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity."

Might more simply have been written "use within two days of offering".

In reply to Michael Hood:


I don't know. But that's not an excuse to invent God (where did God come from?).

It's these questions that caused Man to populate the world with spirits, and create myth to 'explain' the things he couldn't understand. We no longer believe in Thor; we know how thunder and lightning are created.

These are all questions you should have asked yourself as a young teenager.

In reply to Michael Hood:


That's what I try to do. I have no problem with religious belief unless it attempts to claim moral superiority, and undue influence over the world.

In reply to Michael Hood:

I recommend "The Unauthorized version" by Robin Lane Fox - as a scholarly study on when the various books of the Bible were written and variations thereof.
"A history of God" by Karen Armstrong - self explanatory

Essentailly the Bible is old (but not the oldest religious text. That honour would have to go to the Vedic texts of Hinduism and the Buddhist texts. Not to mention the Greek and Roman texts) and a collection of various tales, laws, religious stories etc. from the tribes living in the Middle East several thousand years ago. The God we know of started life as a tribal deity (YHVH or YAWEH) and progressed to all encompassing God. Though this is not unique as most multi-god religions have an overarching deity or demiurge. What makes the Judaic God different is his personal involvement in human affairs. Most other over arching deities are placed beyond the day to day world.

In reply to summo:


Rather a delayed reaction I'm afraid, but your assertion above is always false. All proofs rely on assumptions but you try to make as few of them as possible and make them as robust as possible. Without assumptions of some sort we get back to Descartes "I think therefore I am" and then stall.

In reply to captain paranoia: Trying to understand the written old testament without the accompanying oral law (codified a long while ago) is not going to get you very far on understanding the old testament.

>Might more simply have been written "use within two days of offering".

Then it would have meant something different - Judaism believes that every little nuance of language in the books of Moses is intended to convey something, so if the simplest form isn't used, it's not just saying something simple.

My (very) limited knowledge of Christianity has that more literal readings are used.

In reply to captain paranoia:


I certainly did ask myself (and moved away from religion), as I got older I wasn't so sure, and as I said above, now I don't think there's any way (for me at least) to have surety - but that's ok - I can still live my life as a reasonable, nice person.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


You don't have to make a binary choice, you can merge the two as long as you separate the how (science) and why (religion). Try reading some of Jonathon Sacks' books.

The person who doesn't believe in God will say that they see no evidence, but the believer will see evidence of God everywhere in nature, in the beauty and complexity and design etc.

Which leads me onto... for myself I must have another go at reading "The Blind Watchmaker" since he's firmly on the no evidence side, however I find Dawkins a bit heavy going and a bit of an arrogant tw*t. He makes the same ignorant (I mean this in its true sense, not as a derogatory comment) generalisations about religions as a lot of people on here do. In the west we (hopefully) get a reasonable scientific education, but our religious education is in the main woefully poor. So when we come to think about science v religion (or whether that question is necessary or relevant), we do it with a very immature understanding of religion (usually one in particular), so we're not really in a very good place to make a quality judgement.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Point of information, Greek & Roman are definitely more recent than the bible and the Vedic texts and Buddhist texts etc.

The Christian bibles (esp St James) are a translation of the Greek translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic. Bound to be correct in English after that I mean for a start - what's all this virgin bit? Wasn't there in the originals.

Edit: There might be a Latin intermediary somewhere along the line too.

In reply to Michael Hood:


A lot of work has gone into thinking about this question, and the people who've dedicated their lives to this work say this kind of thing:

youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s&

There's loads there that I don't understand (I've studied physics but to nowhere near this level) but without being able to grasp a lot of the specific content one can still see the kinds of concepts that relate properly to the question. In the most general terms, when you look deeply at reality, it has a mathematical structure. There are laws of nature that tell us what can and can't exist, and how things that exist behave. There is still a deep mystery of why the laws are the way they are - this process of inquiry into nature does not provide an ultimate answer but it illuminates more and more of reality as it progresses.

Religion might have positive influences on individuals' lives, for example by providing structure, offering a sense of meaning, reassurance about death, community identity, etc. It's not my thing but I'm perfectly happy to accept the positive things religion can do for individuals (I'm not particularly concerned about whether on balance this is outweighed by harm caused in the name of religion: we are where we are). But it isn't a serious way to approach questions about the nature of reality. Ancient people didn't know stuff we don't by magic - but they still asked the same questions about existence, so they had creation stories. The stuff that we've discovered by rational inquiry into nature shows the creation of the universe to be very far removed conceptually from the evolution of human beings on earth, and certainly absolutely nothing to with morality and food hygiene and Middle Eastern tribal history and other things that crop up in Holy Books. Those books aren't the appropriate place to look for answers when you've got the efforts of brilliant minds collaborating over centuries to reveal more and more about the mysteries of nature.

Here's a bit more on seriously trying to learn as much as we can about the existence of the universe:

youtube.com/watch?v=uQbtDdiua8Y&

It's very challenging stuff but it's good to know that brilliant people are making really serious efforts to learn as much as is humanly possible about these big questions.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Yes. You assume or develop a theory. You can test that theory, gather evidence etc.. You repeat as it should not be a fluke or one off. You then publish to allows other to critically test your evidence.

I will ask again for your evidence of any religion being true?

There is no blind faith in science and their shouldn't be any in kids education either.

In reply to Michael Hood:

The Greek texts are certainly not as old as the Vedic texts which generally start around 1500 BC in Sanskrit. But they are old. The earliest known texts The Iliad and the Odyssey were put down around the 8th century BC (760 - 710) while the earliest Judaic texts (the Silver Scrolls) date to around 586 BC. Obviously the traditions go back further into unwritten history

In reply to Duncan Bourne: I stand corrected - they may of course go back into earlier written but not preserved history but that's a pretty pointless debate.

In reply to Lenin:
In a 13.7 billion year old universe, made up of al least 200 billion galaxies, each made up of an average of 100 billion stars, I find it wonderous that The Creator should be interested in a sub-species of primates who have be around for a few thousand years on a planet orbiting an insignificant star on an outer spiral arm of the Milky Way. Even more wonderous is that they should be interested in the actions of any one of these 7 billion primates alive at present (especially those actions done in bed).

How lucky we are!













Or perhaps IF there is a Creator, they are a little busy with other stuff to really notice? And IF there is a creator, I think we can be certain it is nothing like we could possibly imagine, let alone comprehend. It is also certain that the scrawlings of some iron-age goat herders, who weren't even advanced for their time, didn't explain it either.

The only "religion" worth following is Life. In my opinion, the sooner we all realise that the better. The Golden Rule is all we need from religion and that's older than the bible and perhaps not even exclusive to humans. Secular knowledge and morals in the Western World have crushed the garbage in the Bible.

P,S, If you think that Islam is an exclusively bad ideology, perhaps you should take a look at Deuteronomy. Chapter 13 is particularly entertaining.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


Funny, I thought the Judaic religions pinched their ideas from the Zoroastrians.

In reply to Lenin:

I think what most people mean when they make this sort of vague claim is not that they really believe in a random and undefined 'greater power' but that they hope there is one. Because otherwise it's just us people doing our simultaneously depressing and wonderful and plain batshit crazy stuff for our allotted span then shuffling of to eternal oblivion.

The more decisive among us though have either embraced the void or thrown our hand in with a proper religion with buildings to visit on allotted days and other people and rules and rewards like guaranteed eternal life, group singing and the smiting of our enemies.

In reply to Lenin:

I stopped believing in imaginary friends when I was about four, although it I still cherry pick good ideas from the various religions and belief systems of the world.

In reply to DaveHK:


Seems about right!

In reply to Baron Weasel:


I still cherry pick imaginary friends!

In reply to Lenin:

Cool !!!

4 posts, 4 dislikes.

Either a serial disliker or a serial bible basher!

(Awaiting a fifth! )

In reply to Hugh J:


Certainly a bit of a jealous God - a couple of points...
1. This only applies to Jews going off the straight and narrow.
2. There are many laws in the Bible which are thought to have never been enacted - in terms of transgression and punishment, sometimes because the evidential requirements are so high. The town-wide destruction may be one of those.

Judaism doesn't seek to convert others, gentiles (non-jews) are meant to follow the Noachide laws (funnily enough given to Noah) which include things like don't murder, set up a system of government, etc.

In reply to summo:


Not evidence, but I'd point you to the Kuzari Principle. Basically this asks, how do you get a myth to be accepted by a whole nation if 1) The myth says EVERYONE at that time witnessed it & 2) there is a continuing tradition of handing down the myth from father to son. Basically, unless it is based on something, it would be very difficult if not impossible to introduce a false myth that said everyone in year X saw it and since then it's always been passed down. Joe Bloggs (and many others) would say, what are you talking about, first I've heard of it, my dad never told me.

Many religions rely on a divine revelation to an individual, which then gets transmitted to believers. Not sure if any besides Judaism rely on a divine revelation to the whole nation.

These aren't scientific proofs of course, they're just philosophical arguments.

In reply to Hugh J:


Is she like that woman from Weird Science with the massive hooters?... If I still had imaginary friends that's what mine would be like anyway!

In reply to aln:

Life is confusing for a young child, so many mixed messages.

When I was young we were encouraged to 'use our imagination, but , one day, as we get older, we are told not to 'make up stories' , and later as a young child my mother would scold me 'lying' having previously encouraged me!
( smacking me even - back in the 1960's)

Then she would pack me off to The band of Hope .
Confused , is an understatement, their 'tall tales' were worse than any I could ever make up.

In reply to Michael Hood:


Easy, you (1) say that it is virtuous to believe it and immoral to doubt it, (2) punish anyone who says otherwise, and (3) control the education of kids.

We have the example of two religions, Mormonism and Scientology, that were simply made up by con-men. That blatant falsity of the whole thing didn't stop sufficient people believing it. Mormonism has grown as fast as any of the traditional religions did, and if you gave it a few hundred years more with them in control of libraries and education, it would then be very hard to discern the fraudulent origins.

In reply to Lenin:


Yes, they can be rather fundamentalist about their insight into the truth.

That requires a lot of faith in their wisdom.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Interestingly, the Iliad and some part of the old testament recycle Akkadian and Sumerian myths, and partially refer to the same people and events (e.g., the opening of the Iliad, where Apollon decimates the Greek army with his arrows very clearly refers to the aborted siege of Jerusalem by Sargon a few years earlier. If you see the texts in parallel, together with the Sumerian and Egyptian accounts this is strikingly obvious (I an not an expert myself, but recently read a book by Raoul Schrott on the sources and context of the Iliad).

CB

In reply to Michael Hood:
Dawkins is good popular science but tedious when he bangs on about God.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

In any book based religion you will find some laws/doctrines/claims that are so central that they are accepted by the vast majority of denominations, which I would call core tenets. Most are nevertheless ignored or accepted as obsolete explanantions, allegories or myths by the majority of non-fundamentalist believers. Virgin birth, catholics and contraception, transmutation during communion (not applicable to protestants, but to catholics and plenty other denominations), Muhammad-al-Mahdi still waiting inside some rock (Shia muslims), anyone?

CB

In reply to Lenin:

Juts reverse the position of 'god' and 'man' in the first part of your post's title and you have it!

In reply to captain paranoia:

As for your initial assertion "God made man, Man made religion", I'd suggest that man created both god and religion.

Hey, Kevin, didn't realise you were a Neil Carter fan! I've been reading his stuff since he started blogging about losing his belief.

And you're right....religion has had such a privileged place for so long that believers interpret even what by any reasonable standards is mild questioning of their beliefs as "evangelical atheism". Maybe they should remove the beams from their own eyes before complaining about the specks of dust in atheists' eyes?

In reply to Lenin:


I have no right to "impose my beliefs" on someone....but I DO have the right, and arguably the duty, to question, criticise and even laugh at beliefs held by others that fly in the face of all evidence and are demonstrably either plain wrong or have such a low probability of being true that they may as well be regarded as "wrong".

In reply to cb294:
Floods are a common theme and there are submerged archaeological remains off Greece, Israel & Egypt.

In reply to Simon4:

Always amusing to have UKC's answer to Steve Bannon spew forth his spittle fuelled hatred.

In reply to Michael Hood:


Brilliant! So by the same measure Norse Gods are true, the Romans and Greeks were bang on, as is Hinduism and in fact every religion that has (or has had at some time) a reasonably widespread set of followers is absolutely true.

Utter rubbish. The one thing I always notice in these discussion is how little effort religious people put into trying to test and validate their theories rigorously. It's like they just need an answer so that they can carry on believing what they believe, and once one comes along that sounds vaguely plausible that's enough for them.

So tiresome.

I don't care what you believe, but I'd love to see people (all people) using their brains more to explore ideas.

In reply to Lenin:

Gods were invented to explain the unexplained, or to coerce others into doing what you want them to.

In reply to Michael Hood:

>What I find interesting is things like this - the law in Leviticus (I think it's there) states pretty clearly the kinds of fish that can be eaten by the Jews - they've got to have scales and fins. Now a long time ago (I would reckon 1500-2500 years ago but I'm not going to press on that but again I think it would be pretty easy to show pre renaissance at least), the head Rabbis had a problem - if you're buying a piece of fish then it's easy to see if it's got scales but what if that piece hasn't got a fin? How can you be sure it's kosher, that there were fins on the rest of the fish? Their answer was - scales are sufficient since all scaled fish have fins. Since then, I don't believe anybody has found a scaled fish without fins - but the point is - how could they be so sure with their "limited" view of the world and its species at that time. It would only take one counter-example to make the ruling look stupid.

Freshwater eels are fish with scales and no fins

In reply to Lenin:

exactly, so can we remove the influence of the religion in politics and education for starters please?

you also commented that some atheistic are "evangelical" in their discussions... i wonder where they learnt that from? but seriously... it matters to me that as much of what i "believe" in is true. can be independently verified and is likely the most rational explanation. I'm also NOT AFRAID of the phrase "we don't know yet" Religion often wants to attribute humans lack of understanding of a subject to "ok, well God did it" in which case as our knowledge of the universe increases, the things attributable is diminishing. its known as the god of the gaps
neil degrasse tyson explains it very well here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GfQ1WNgXaw&t=301s

In reply to ajsteele: It seems that the definition of scales from a kosher point of view is slightly narrower than the anatomical definition. From somewhere on www.chabad.org

This is because the definition of fins and scales – as they regard to kosher – are clearly designated by Jewish law. Not every "scale" meets this limited definition. According to Torah law, in order to be considered a "kosher sign," a scale must be easily removable without tearing the fish's skin.

Eel's scales are part of their skin and cannot be removed without tearing the skin.

Well you learn something new every day by looking

In reply to Phil Anderson:


I don't think you've grasped the idea properly. The crux of the matter is that the whole (Jewish) people were witnesses to the event (whatever that was). Not some of them or most of them but all of them. And then every generation passes down the story that the whole of generation X were there as witnesses, and that the story has been handed down through every generation. That's a difficult myth to get throughout a society without some sort of core event to start it all off. If you were trying to get such a myth totally across a society, how would you stop people from basically saying - doesn't agree with what my dad said, or my mate's dad, or his mate's dad, first I've heard of it, etc.

I'm not saying that this shows that there was a divine event to start, just that it makes it more likely that some sort of impressive thing happened to cause this belief.

It's very different from the beginnings of Christianity and Islam which basically start from a single person claiming divine revelation and persuading their mates of the "truth" of it and it gaining momentum from there. I think the Mormons is similar with John Smith's (is that the right name) revelations.

As for Norse, Greek, Roman gods, I've no idea how they propagated into their societies

In reply to elsewhere:


I'm not sure Dawkins is just "popular" science, his work on phenotypes was particularly ground-breaking.

Personally, I prefer Sam Harris, though others will find him tedious too. He's not as confrontational as Dawkins, but just as damning. I find his method of argument far more gentile and as a result, far more persausive. His book "The End of Faith" dismantles religion beautifully. Unlike Dawkins, he wholeheartedly believes in the benefits of spirituality (without God obviously) and is more along the lines of Christopher Hitchens when it comes to personal belief, i.e. believe what you like in private, but don't force it on me or others.

In reply to Michael Hood:

is there an actual record of the number of people who witnessed this event? ie all the people witnessed it.... i mean if that's several million people that's pretty amazing, but if it's 10 it's be pretty easy to explain away. and anyway "the number of people reported to have witnessed an event" has no bearing on if it happened and what caused it. even if say 10 thousand people watch a new phenomena, and all claimed it must be a sign from god...it's possible something other than god caused it, as per my post above, god is often invoked to explain what we don't understand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

put it another way... right now in 2017 you can travel to various parts of the world and interview face to face people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. they never have any verifiable proof so we largely dismiss their claims. most religions rely on you believing testimony of similar "fantastical" events documented by people who cannot be interviewed and yet what's written in their book is unequivocal?

for the rest of us, that's just not good enough reason to believe.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Personally, I reckon Moses came up with a good old yarn to keep some of his followers in line who were getting hacked off with the march and no sign of any promised land, possibly somewhere around Mt Sinai? Mary of Nazareth came up with a good yarn and Joseph followed it in order to keep from being stoned to death.

I'm not a Bible expert. As a seven year old I lost interest somewhere around, "In the begining was the word and the word was God". I asked my teacher what came before God and when I got the answer "Nothing came before God." I thought, "Well that's rubbish then." and have paid little attention since, but instead preferred to read encyclopedias, you know - facts and stuff.

Personally, I think religion is predicated on the fear of mortality and if you don't follow the rules fire and torture await you for eternity. Such a loving Creator!

In reply to Rob Naylor:


I'm not; it appeared on my FB page yesterday, because you reacted to it...

I'm pretty self-contained on these matters, and rarely seek the thoughts of either theists or atheists.

In reply to Hugh J:

I have huge sympathy with Dawkins. There is so much self-deception, deceit, complacency, ignorance, superciliousness, vacuity and downright lying by most apologists for religion that I totally share Dawkins frustrations.

Actually, I think he is surprisingly mild given the level of provocation.

If someone wants to believe that the earth is flat then a) I wont tend to believe that they truly do, and b) it doesn't really affect me anyway. But if someone believes that their god has told them to blow me up, well that does affect me, so yes I do deny their right to believe that.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Agreed. That's the Christopher Hitchens point of view.

In reply to Michael Hood:


So in summary there is absolutely zero evidence.

But, you would would like to believe that there was a divine event despite there being no proof, that doesn't constitute any level of evidence in itself, only your willingness to believe things that have no evidence based foundation.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Here's Dawkins being unusually polite with creationist Wendy Wright. If you get past about 10 minutes without giving up the will to live, you're doing well.

youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8&

In reply to Michael Hood:


I see... You're talking about things like the revelation at Sinai right?

The Kuzari principle gives a very colourful and one-sided interpretation of how we know about that story. It's lovely to think of parents passing the story on to their children, generation after generation to keep the story alive. IT certainly seems to imply that the story has survived largely unchanged through all those generations.

The reality is that we have a single surviving report of something that allegedly happened almost 4500 years ago. At best it was built up from disparate sources and munged together, it is hardly an unbroken stream of truth.

The Kuzari principle seems to completely disregard how myths and legends develop over time, and ends up basically saying "If we assume that the Torah is true, then we can prove that the Torah is true".

Not a terribly convincing approach.

This is a good page f you' like to hear more about the arguments against it - https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=we...

In reply to rallymania:


Well if you go by the Bible there was a census taken which showed ~600,000 males of military age (20-60) which would mean a total population for the Exodus of about 2-3m with all the kids etc. Some say there were more than that because of many Egyptians who sided with the Hebrews (not Jews yet - wait for it) after the Egyptian hierarchy had got a bit of a kicking with the 10 plagues.

I have difficulty accepting those sorts of numbers but the story is of a sizeable body of people, not just 10 or 20. And yes you're right it doesn't show that something divine happened, maybe just something impressive (Aliens?).

In reply to Hugh J:
I only judge Dawkins for the popular science book I read. I can't comment on his real science.

Edit: I'll put that back so a reply makes more sense.

I don't understand why some atheists care what other people believe.

In reply to elsewhere:

Watch the YouTube link above and I think you'll see why they are bothered by what some people not only believe, but push as the undeniable truth.

The promise of 72 virgins might also be a problem for some atheists too.

In reply to Hugh J:


I lasted less than 2, I just can't take American Evangelism

In reply to Hugh J:

You've been indoctrinated by Christianity - and I'm afraid they're just wrong - even from a religious point of view

In reply to Michael Hood:

Why do you think this? ie that the whole Jewish people witnessed something? As for something like even the existence of Moses: there's no indication at all outside the bible that the Hebrew people were slaves in Egypt, nor that they wandered in the desert for however long. There's certainly at least one story on clay tablets of a baby being born and hidden in reeds in a casket waterproofed with pitch that pre-dates the bible.

What reliably indicates that "all" the people witnessed something, other than later writings that purport to say so, but which are just as likely to have been invented for the purposes of control by an elite trying to consolidate power?

In reply to Michael Hood:

Err . . . No. Quite the opposite. I know that Hell isn't mentioned in the Bible, but that is how at least 2 of the 3 Judaic religions push their vile lies on to the masses. It is and always has been about control of the masses, by any means or lies possible.

As for American Evangelism, they are pushing for Creationalism to be taught in science classes in the most powerful country in the world. That should be plenty enough to get most rational people hot under the collar.

In reply to Michael Hood:


If.

Of course the Bible (or any other religious tract) is going to make such claims. Just as JK Rowling says you can fly broomsticks in a game called quidditch.

You cannot take any religious tract as evidence of the truth of what is contained in that religious tract.

In reply to Phil Anderson: Although some people argue such, I don't think the Kuzari principle has enough strength to show that something divine happened. I think it has enough strength to make it highly possible that a momentous event is at the root of the revelation at Sinai, and the subsequent (probably pretty immediate) interpretation of that event has then made it into a divine revelation.

As I've said above, I'm a bit of a fence sitter on this area. I don't see any evidence from a scientific point of view that would prove God, so I'm sceptical. But I also see many highly intelligent and learned people who do believe in God, and I'm envious of their strength of belief. So I ended up deciding that there's no way I'll ever know but to not let that worry me either.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Judging from your contribution to this thread I think that's only slightly less probable than the existence of God.

Are you sure you're not a hedging your bets type? i.e. I've got nothing to lose in believing in God, but I'll miss out on an eternity of bliss if I don't.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Especially when you consider global and regional population at the time. I expect that trump used the same principle to estimate crowds at his inauguration.

One person counts 12 people, he describes it enthusiastically as up to a hundred supporters. The next says several hundred, then his mate around a thousand. You get the idea . . So in the end some cult leader and his two cronies meeting in the back room of some mesopatanium pub has turned into a million people marching.... 4000 years later.

In reply to Rob Naylor:


I think it's the difference between saying "my dad saw it so you better believe it" and "your dad saw it so you better believe it". So the type of myth that requires universal witnessing and universal transmission is less likely to be totally invented on nothing. Of course it's still open to levels of manipulation and distortion.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Beyond here lies nothing.

And as Mark Twain said, 'I didn't exist for billions of years, and it caused me not the least discomfort whatsoever.'

In reply to Michael Hood:

Great Scott! We're having a reasoned and intelligent discussion about religion on UKC... It's a miracle! Perhaps there is a God after all!

In reply to Hugh J: Maybe you can answer this one for me - re evolution.

I don't have any problems with evolution causing adaptation through natural selection so that you get umpteen species. However has evolutionary theory cracked the big branching points - i.e. what causes different phylum (I think it's that level which describes the different body types) to appear at some stages and not to appear at others. Is there yet any fossil trace of intermediate phylum forms?

Or should I go and read Dawkins or someone similar?

In reply to Phil Anderson:


Nah. In a universe this big miracles are almost guaranteed!

In reply to Michael Hood:

Yes, Richard Dawkins for evolution, "The Selfish Gene" is a good place to start. It's not too wordy in a scientific way and is good for the layman. Perhaps, John Marnard-Smith if you really get into it. Funnily enough a bloke called Charles Darwin also knew a thing or two, I think he might have written a book.

In reply to elsewhere:


If religionists of whatever colour applied their morals and rules only to themselves, it would be largely fine (child welfare issues etc. excepted). However, they patently do not, instead they constantly demand exceptions from the rules applying to the rest of society simply because they believe that religious laws are above society (and this is the harmless case, where they do not try to impose their faith derived morals on everybody else, as happens much too often).

This is extremely off putting, and probably the basis of most anti-religious sentiment.

In addition, the constant demand that one should "respect" belief is annoying. Why should a special status be granted to belief based on nothing but tradition? If something is wrong, it deserves ridicule. If you claim we are here by creation 5000 odd years ago rather than evolution over billions of years you are simply an idiot, and should be ridiculed just as if you were a flat earther. There really is no qualitative difference in the justifications for established religions, conman creations like LDS or Scientology, or parody religions like pastafarianism.

Beyond this special pleading for protection from criticism, the constant demand for special rights just because (e.g. allowing religious employers to discriminate based on sex, sexual orientation, or religion) gets on my nerves badly.

To clarify, I know exactly where I come from culturally, and how Christianity and protestantism in particular have shaped the society I live in. I listen to Bach oratories and cantatas, and church bells ringing is for me the sound of home, something I am deeply missing here in atheist East Germany.

But still, I know that all evidence falls on the side of man having created god, not the other way round.

CB

In reply to Hugh J: Yes I've got a rather thick paperback by some Darles Charwin or such - must be my daughter's from her genetics degree. I seem to remember he's not an easy reader.

Must get hold of Selfish Gene - I believe he doesn't rant against god in that one.

In reply to Lenin:

A thought has just occurred to me.

Why is it that the religious desire so much to be proven right, when scientist celebrate when they are proven wrong?

Also, in a recent in depth American poll, why was it found that atheists followed ethical principles more in tune with Jesus Christ than Christian.

(I guess they are rhetorical question, i know the answer to at least the first one).

In reply to Hugh J:

to quote someone smarter than me (ie most people lol)

"i'd rather a question i can't answer than an answer i can't question"

In reply to Michael Hood:


Few historians today regard this whole episode as historical. For one thing there is zero archaeological evidence of the Jewish people having been in Egypt, and a million-odd people usually leave an archaeological record. Most historians of the period would say that the entire story of the Jews living in Egypt and then being led out by Moses is made up for theological reasons, rather than being based on real events.

It is fairly common for such stories to made up or embellished for mythological reasons, and then as generations go by to become accepted as factual.

[Note, it is the case that at some times around then the Jewish people -- while in the Jewish lands -- would have been subject to Egyptian overlords, and maybe a small number were taken as slaves to Egypt.]

In reply to Michael Hood:


"Big" branching points are simply what little branching points look like after a long time. Take a "little" branching point, and then both branches survive for evolutionary eons, and themselves keep branching and sub-branching. From the perspective now, the original little branching point now looks to be a pretty major one!

Compare to, say, an elderly oak tree. The big divisions of the main trunk look pretty major. But now think about how those divisions started, they started as minor little twigs when the tree was much smaller.

So you're asking the wrong question when you ask for fossil evidence of phylum-level branching -- all branching will look like "little" branching when it occurs.


Yes! Indeed somewhere Dawkins (in explaining the above point) asks the rhetorical question: Why is it that this oak tree only produces new little twigs nowadays, and no longer produces new big branches? Answer, anything that was "new" was always a little twig!

Perhaps not quite zero evidence
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Star-of-David-found-engraved-into-an-ancie...

In reply to Michael Hood:


Difficult. DNA evidence clearly shows that all living organisms are related, and gives a reasonable branching pattern to most animal fundamental body plans (i.e. phyla). The support for phyla groups is excellent (e.g. all moulting animals / ecdysozoa as group within the animals where the mouth forms at the original opening of the embryo / protostomes).

DNA differences can also be used within certain bounds to time the divergence of lineages. While this is not particularly precise, it appears clear that the main lineages must have split long before the Cambrian explosion 500 odd My ago, where loads of the current phyla pop up on the fossil scene. It follows that the lineages as such must have existed, even if all probably superficially looked like mud burrowing worms of one description or other.

The Cambrian explosion was therefore most likely not so much an explosion of lineages, but an explosion of fossils! Suddenly, everybody developed bodies that left traces (which was rare before, even though we do have assemblages like the Ediacara biome). One explanation could be the evolution of predation as a life style. If this scenario were true, though, it would readily explain why the transitional forms, which were presumably all small, wormish, and soft bodied, did not leave identifiable fossils.

One tier down, though, you can see how evolution experimented with dozens of highly distinct and bizarre forms of arthropod, before settling on our extant spiders, insects, and crustaceans and their relatives.

The only convincing case for intermediate fossils at the phylum level come from the other, large protozoan lineage called lophotrochozoa (named after their distinct larvae). There, forms have be identified in the Sirius passet and Burgess shale faunas that clearly carry markers (distinct bristles and shells) that link them to both annelids (earthworms and their mainly marine relatives) and snails. Again, going slightly down, even today you can find living fossils that show that snails have a segmented precursor. If you look carefull you can find so called polyplacophorans (segmented snails) in rocky tide pools, e.g. on the Gower.

CB

In reply to cb294:

I was saying just that in the pub the other day..

[great posts btw]

In reply to elsewhere:

The Jerusalem Post - that's not going to be propaganda then!

Fake news, if ever I saw it.

1) I drew a Star of David when I was about 4 years old having never seen one before and was then told what it was.

2) To be greeted by a banner saying "Atheism in the US is on the rise - what do US senators and Israeli ministers have to say about it?"

Well I can answer that question in full Anglo-Saxon if you like.

In reply to cb294:

Core tenets are still mutable things. For instance take Christianity.
As you say dictates about Contraception are a core tenet of the Catholic faith (though ignored as you say) but not of Protestant Christian beliefs. The Core tenet that Christ is the son of God was a subject of debate until it was decided at the council of Nicaed in 325 AD. As you say transmutation and the edicts of the Pope are not accepted by other Christian faiths. In fact when it gets right down to it the "core tenets" of Christianty are pretty simple and open to wide interpretation. So one God, Jesus the son of God, the Bible as the Holy book (to be interpretated literally or metaphorically according to ones religious persuasion), a few notable religious festivals, devotion to God and prayer. There is generally accepted a willingness to do good deeds but that didn't stop the crusades of the Middle ages and the witch trials of England or even the excesses of the Spanish inquisition.
Pretty much the same goes for Islam, though as a slightly younger religion it has fewer off shoots. Heck there are even some branches of Sufism that advocate the burning of the Q'ran. Not only that but plenty of Medieval Islamic texts have pictorial depictions of Muhammed (though I doubt that you would find any modern equivalents).
For instance here:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=659804&v=1#x8514071

Core Islamic Beliefs: Six Articles of Faith (brackets my comments)

1. Belief in One God: The most important teaching of Islam is that only God is to be served and worshipped. Also, the biggest sin in Islam is to worship other beings with God. In fact, Muslims believe that it is the only sin that God does not forgive if a person dies before repenting from it. (Satanic verses anyone?)

2. Belief in Angels: God created unseen beings called angels who work tirelessly to administer His kingdom in full obedience. The angels surround us at all times, each has a duty; some record our words and deeds. (very Catholic I thought)

3. Belief in Prophets of God: Muslims believe that God communicates His guidance through human prophets sent to every nation. These prophets start with Adam and include Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace be upon them. The main message of all the prophets has always been that there is only One true God and He alone is worthy of being supplicated to and worshipped. (and laterly Joseph Smith and probably a few other "final" prophets)

4. Belief in Revealed Books of God: Muslims believe that God revealed His wisdom and instructions through ‘books’ to some of the prophets like the Psalms, Torah, and the Gospel. Over time, however, the original teachings of these books got distorted or lost. Muslims believe the Quran is God’s final revelation revealed to Prophet Muhammad and has been fully preserved. ( Every Judaic religion going has "corrected" "distortions" or added "new final revelations". It is the main means of progression from a religion that doesn't suit your needs to one that does)

5. Belief in Day of Judgment: The life of this world and all that is in it will come to an end on an appointed day. At that time, every person will be raised from the dead. God will judge each person individually, according to his faith and his good and bad actions. God will show mercy and fairness in judgment. According to Islamic teachings, those who believe in God and perform good deeds will be eternally rewarded in Heaven. Those who reject faith in God will be eternally punished in the fire of Hell. (Ragnorak, etc. The Hindus sidestepped the problem of "The End of days" with reincarntaion and the cycle of life)

6. Belief in Destiny and Divine Decree: Muslims believe that since God is the Sustainer of all life, nothing happens except by His Will and with His full knowledge. This belief does not contradict the idea of free will. God does not force us, our choices are known to God beforehand because His knowledge is complete. This recognition helps the believer through difficulties and hardships.

Core Religious Practice of Islam: The Five "Pillars" of Islam

In Islam, worship is part of daily life and is not limited to mere rituals. The formal acts of worship are known as the five "pillars" of Islam. The five pillars of Islam are the declaration of faith, prayer, fasting, charity, and pilgrimage.

1. Declaration of Faith: The "Declaration of Faith" is the statement, "La ilaha illa Allah wa Muhammad Rasul-ullah", meaning "There is no deity worthy of being worship except God (Allah), and Muhammad is the Messenger (Prophet) of God"). The Declaration of Faith is more than just a statement; it must be shown with one's actions. To convert to the faith of Islam, a person has to say this statement.

2. Daily Prayer: Prayer is a method by which a Muslim connects to God and gathers spiritual strength and peace of mind. Muslims perform five formal prayers a day.

3. Zakah: A type of charity. Muslims recognize that all wealth is a blessing from God, and certain responsibilities are required in return. In Islam, it is the duty of the wealthy to help the poor and needy.

4. Fast of Ramadan: Once each year, Muslims are commanded to fast for an entire month from dawn to sunset. The period of intense spiritual devotion is known as the fast of Ramadan in which no food, drink and sex is allowed during the fast. After sunset one can enjoy these things. During this month Muslims practice self-control and focus on prayers and devotion. During the fast, Muslims learn to sympathize with those in the world who have little to eat.

5. The Hajj Pilgrimage to Mecca: Every Muslim strives to make once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage to the sacred sites in Mecca, in present-day Saudi Arabia. It is the most intense spiritual experience for a Muslim. Typically, 2-3 million perform hajj every year.

Core Teachings of Prophet Muhammad

Classical scholars of Islam have condensed the teachings of Prophet Muhammad into a few statements. These comprehensive statements touch every aspect of our lives. Some of them are:

1) Actions are judged by the intention behind them.

2) God is Pure and does not accept anything unless it is pure and God has commanded the faithful with what He commanded the prophets.

3) Part of a person’s good observance of Islam is to leave aside what does not concern him.

4) A person cannot be a complete believer unless he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.

5) One should not harm himself or others.

6) Don’t let your focus in this life be to amass worldly gain and God will love you. Don’t be concerned with what people have, and they will love you.

None of which tell you to go out and slay unbelievers, though undoubtably there are Muslims who ardently believe this to be the way to Heaven. All of which contradict the assertion by Simon that Islam is "wholly bad". It is just another religion with a set of rules that people put their own spin on.

In reply to Michael Hood:


Some perspective is required on just how rare fossils are. As a rough guesstimate at the upper end, there are maybe 1-10 million fossils in the hands of humans right now. The exact number doesn't matter. Many of those are the same things (e.g. trilobites).
How many animals are there on Earth right now? Well the number is something like 100 billion, and if we guesstimate an average lifespan of 10 years, then we can say that over the lifespan of all life (let's take the last billion years which has the more impressive stuff). 10,000,000 animals / ((1,000,000,000 years / 10 years) * 100,000,000,000 animals) = 0.0000000000001 or 0.00000000001% chance that a given animal that existed ended up as a fossil. Even if you change the numbers around, you get the same result - being fossilized and then found is highly, highly, highly unlikely. This is not to mention that certain environment types simply do not produce fossils at all - acidic swamps and jungle would produce close to zero evidence of fossilized animals because they dissolve the bones. Where do we find some of the most interesting animals today? In the rainforest where we can expect them not to ever enter the fossil record.

With that said - despite how minute our window into the past is, we have found intermediate forms. There is evidence that dinosaurs were warm blooded to various degrees, there are strange dog-like dinosaur creatures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid

In reply to SenzuBean:

Fossils back to 3.77billion years ago. https://www.google.se/amp/s/www.adn.com/nation-world/2017/03/01/newfound-3-...

Michael- think this pre dates man and religion!!

In reply to summo:

Yeah, but . . . . .

Day One – Night and Day
Day Two – Sky and Sea
Day Three – Land and Vegetation
Day Four – Stars, Sun and Moon
Day Five – Sea creatures including fish and Birds
Day Six – Animals and Mankind

No wonder He was knackered by Sunday and needed a day off!

So plants were around for at least 3 days before man. What is really surprising is that He managed to create plants before the Sun and therefore photosynthesis. God is truly great!

Oh . . . and light before the stars!

In reply to Hugh J:


That was the vicars answer to all my questions while he tried to confirm me. He failed and my parents weren't impressed, an embarrassment for picking holes in religion apparently.

In reply to summo:


Hmmmm . . . I hope that is all he tried to confirm!

In reply to Hugh J:


Oh yes!!

In reply to summo:

Talking of fossils ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38800987

It seems some humans haven't evolved as much as they may think

In reply to Hugh J:
Couple of corrections...
Day one is light and not-light (rather than night and day), and light being around before stars is defo in agreement with big bang theory etc. (but that's all really a by-the-way).
The other thing that I really must insist on is that God's day off was Saturday, not Sunday. It's our book so we should know

In reply to Michael Hood:

OK, fair cop.

But land and vegetation before the Stars, the Sun and the Moon? And birds before animals? OK, I know, fossils were put there by God to test our faith.

youtube.com/watch?v=xvKnY594Syw&

"I believe God created me in one day."
"Yeah, looks like he rushed it!"

In reply to Michael Hood:

Steve Jones "Almost like a whale"
Richard Corfield " Architects of Infinity"
Also anything by Richard Fortey

In reply to Duncan Bourne:




This is a marvelously uninformed view, it's at points like this we should realise that these cheap schoolboy tricks from Mohammad still fool people (who consider themselves somehow modern and sophisticated) today, let alone the illiterate peasant sand farmers of 1400 years ago.

The whole point of the crime of Shirk is to demonstrate that the Christians are not only theologically wrong, they are morally wrong. So morally wrong that even Allah the Most Merciful cannot show them mercy.

If you want to inspire hatred against a group there is no better stick to beat them with than the notion that they are an offence to eternal morality.

This is shown on that edifice to Islamic Supremacy, the Dome on the Rock in Jerusalem:

"In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God.
He is One. He has no associate. Muḥammad is the Messenger of God."

Associate is also translated as Partner but it is only Christianity that offers associates via the Trinity.

It's Mo's version of God Hates Fags but should be treated with even more contempt. It one part of the explanation of the hatred of muslims towards the non-muslim.

Of course, as you say it is a Core Belief of muslims around the world.

In reply to winhill:


Really? I copied and pasted it off an Islamic website. I could have used any number of others. I could have used books from my own library but then I would have had to scan or write by hand.
You quite rightly point out that there are Islamic texts that are used to justify violence, apostasy is a crime in many Islamic countries. To some these are core beliefs to other Muslims they are aberrations. Which is partly why the biggest number of Islamic attacks are against other Muslims.

My point is not to show that Muslims are all sweetness and light but demonstrate that a religion will do what you want it to do.

In reply to winhill:

Oh the irony

In reply to Lenin:

Looks as if this thread has been moved to Off Belay....probably because it was (until a couple of posts ago) such a good natured and interesting debate. The personal slanging stuff has gone now, so hopefully we can keep it civilised?

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I'm an atheist (which i guess is kind of obvious from my postings above) and yet i too can see the truth in this. if Islam was truly the religion of violence some try to make it out to be, there's over 1 billion people on the planet who identify themselves as Muslim... if it was that violent most of us would already be dead by now.

i have never held Catholics accountable for what the IRA did (or Protestant for the UDF's actions). to hold for example my pal from Indonesia responsible for what some manic in Syria does, is simply ludicrous just because they follow the same religion.

(edited for spelling)

In reply to winhill:

The crime of Shirk is a response from the early days of Islam when various other gods and goddesses were worshipped. Essentially a pagan tradition. Shirk arose from a response to other Muslims who wanted to worship their goddess alongside Allah which, understandably, Mohammed was against.

To be clear, Islam teaches that if a Muslim commits shirk, he can still repent, in essence becoming a Muslim for a second time, and thus perhaps be saved. However, unlike other sins, a soul dying in a state of shirk is doomed to hellfire, no exceptions.

So what does any of this have to do with Christianity? Of course, Christians also believe that God has no partners. Yet our job here is delve deeper, so consider the core of what it requires to be saved. In John 3:18 Jesus tells us that we must believe in His name, the only begotten Son of God. We must confess Jesus (Matthew 10:32), and we must truly believe He died and rose again (Romans 10:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:2-4). We also must come to Him in order to receive this life (John 5:40; John 10:9: Acts 2:21). By doing this, from the Muslim point of view, Christians have committed shirk, the unforgivable sin. Believing that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh is exactly the most abominable thought a Muslim could ever have.

Note the connection between how Christians find salvation and the unforgivable sin in Islam. They are one in the same. In other words, the road to true reconciliation with God is that which is portrayed as the worst possible avenue of action a Muslim could take. The simplicity of this reversal is fiendishly constructed. The pathway to true light and forgiveness is marked in Islam as being the only route never to take. There could not be a more antithetical relationship in how each religion depicts the incarnation of Jesus.
http://unravelingislam.com/blog/?p=178

(i)- Shirk by Association - As Muslims we believe that it is Allah alone who Controls and Sustains the universe. Those who commit shirk by association believe that Allah is the Creator, but other parts of the creation also play a role in the running of the world. A classic example of this is the Christian concept of Trinity. Christians believe that God (Allah) alone does not regulate the affairs of mankind. They believe that the other two parts of the Trinity, Jesus (as) and the Holy spirit, also play a part in worldly affairs e.g Jesus pronounces judgement on the world and the holy spirit helps Christians through their daily lives. Qualities such as these should only belong to Allah. The Hindus also commit this kind of shirk, with them having hundreds of different Gods for different aspects of their lives.

Unfortunately some Muslims have also fallen prey to this shirk. There are many from the Indian subcontinent who often call out for help upon saints and holy men who have passed away. One of the main saints whom they invoke is 'Abdul-Qadir al-Jeelanee'[3] whom they call 'AI-Ghawth-e-Azam' (the greatest source of help).
http://www.khayma.com/librarians/call2islaam/articles/shirk_the_ultimate_cr...

I will give you Shirk as a core tenet but I will say that the interpretation of it affects how it is played out in real life. It is a god send (sic) for extremists and people who like to oppress or make land grabs on their neigbours property.
However it is also a core tenet that only Allah can punish the crime "Do Muslim fathers and imams think themselves powerful enough to judge their sons to hell? They take the place of God when they think such things; this is shirk, associating something other than God with God; in this case oneself. This is the only truly unforgivble sin in Islam. The biggest sin is not the murder of the apostate but thinking oneself to be God, judge over faith" from Learning from Islam.
Now this is what one calls an essential get out clause. Much along the lines of Christians no longer stoning adulterers or burning witches. Basically you can not function in a multicultural world if you continually go around killing those who disagree with you, you can not negociate with other nations, etc. etc. The Murgals ruled India as a minority Muslem hierarchy for centurys but made no attempt to slay all the Hindus or even pull down their temples. It wouldn't have been practical. So what do you do? You fudge it. You say yes this is the ultimate crime but it is up to Allah to do something about it. You can still issue punishment for Muslims who crack but convienantly ignore other groups. You can think it but not act upon it.

I personally love the contradiction that the single main article of faith for Christians is the ultimate crime in Islam. An all powerful God that essentially sets up a fight between his two largest factions sums up the ridiculousness of religon and belief for me.
However as I said at the start bad as shirk is from an outsiders point of view it does not make Islam wholly bad. It must make all those interfaith meetings a bit awkward though

In reply to Hugh J:

... and on the fourteenth day of creation god decided to smoke all the marijuana he had created, just to test the first batch...

Eddie Izzard explaining Dinosaurs:

youtube.com/watch?v=rs_pnCsLciQ&

CB

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


Islam doesn't acknowledge the crucifiction & resurrection of Jesus so in a Christian's eyes the Muslim faith is not true to God

In your opinion you may make them the same God but I think a Christian and a Muslim would suggest the other of not worshipping the true God. That is different to the same God with two or more groups of followers

In reply to Loughan:

But even Christianity is split with catholic and protestant thinking being so varied over things like forgiveness, women, marriage, lgbt, fiddling with kids.... the Christian God must schizophrenic at the best of times.

In reply to summo:

Well, he's three things for a start isn't he? Schizophrenic doesn't START to cover it.

In reply to Lenin:

People try to make sense of the Universe, and of themselves, in ways that fit in with their particular thinking styles. Science supplants belief - and vice versa - depending on whether it is easier to use either metaphor or fact to achieve such understandings. God is a metaphor for nature and the universe, and is encased in belief. Science is fact, and is encased in rationality. Both are natural and instinctual ways in which the brain attempts to intuit its surroundings.

I use metaphor myself in an often vain attempt to explain the hitherto inexplicable, which perhaps otherwise cannot be rationalised and be made certain. Similarly, poetry, art and music can give shape, texture and colour to what would otherwise be invisible, yet very present. So it is with religion, which developed as a set of metaphors and mythologies in the absence of science and certainty.

Now that science has explained so many things, there is less need for the metaphor of God and the associated dogma of the ingrained belief systems that go with it - yet such belief doggedly remains. Religious belief, without the real need for it, has to go somewhere. What used to coexist with peace, love and forgiveness has now found a new home in politics. The use of religion now as a lever for political ends, has corrupted and poisoned its underlying philosophy. The atrocities we see in the mainstream media committed in the name of religion, is really the politically intoxicated stupor of an entity developed at conception for the common good.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: That of course is one of the main stumbling blocks when Christianity is viewed from Judaism which states that God is one, which means that God is unique and indivisible. The Muslim view of God is definitely closer to the Jewish view than the Christian view.

In reply to AllanMac:
I think religion has been in politics for quite a while now, look at the power of the early/medieval church. And where do you get these ideas about peace, love and forgiveness from? Religion has been committing atrocities for always.

In reply to AllanMac:
Some good philosophical points there Allan, but I agree with Michael that politics has been in religion since the early days. Some of the teachings of Christ (depending on which Gospel you read) certainly contain peace, love and forgiveness. I couldn't say the teachings of Mohammed are the same, though some of the teachings of Jesus weren't that loving either. The teachings of Mohammed (let's not forget, a 7th century warlord) could be seen as political machinations for sure. Kill the infidel, hellfire for the infidel and apostates, etc.

But you are right that Christianity and Judaism have been somewhat surplanted or modified by scientific advancements, in fact they have been almost battered in to submission by secularism, to an extent that fundamental beliefs have to had to be modified to suit these advancements. This has taken centuries of pressure from Gallileo through to Stephen Hawking. Islam is just starting that journey. As Jon Stewart points out, there are now many moderate or rather secular Mulsims, especially in the West now. But, it will be a very long processs before they truly modify their religion to the extent Christianity and Judaism have. Unfortunately, and it is a big problem, when we had 14th century ideology, we had 14th centry weapons, whereas the Muslim extremists have 14th Century ideology and 21st century weapons.

However, the greatest crime of Islam, in my opinion, was almost totally due to one man. Muhammad al-Ghazali. He was an 11th century Muslim philosopher, considered the second most influential Muslim after The Prophet Mohammed. He decreed that science and mathematics were the work of Satan, which in one foul swoop ended centruries of Arabic mathmatical advancements, which included the concept of zero, algebra and navigational techniques. (It is no coincidence we have arabaic numerals and two-thirds of the stars have arabic names). In fact whilst Western Europe was wallowing in religious dogmatism, the Islamic world was the centre of global culture. Who knows where the Human Race would have been if these advancements had been continued unchecked by al-Ghazali? Perhaps we would have had space exploration, computers and the internet, when we in Western Europe were burning people for heresy?

One thing I have to pick you up on is this statement:


Science is our best current interpretation of the evidence we perceive. But you are right to say (as cannot be said about religion - hence "Faith") that is encased in rationality.

Edited from some glaring typos. I'm not the best when I'm in full flow!

In reply to Loughan:

And of course that has been the basis of religious wars down through the centuries. There are roughly speaking 2.1 billion Christians in the world (or at least people who identify themselves as Christian) and 1.3 billion Muslims (ditto).
You say I make them the same God but the point is ...according to both religions there is only ONE God. So one group is clearly not doing what god wants but God is seemingly quite happy with this? Now at this point the common get out is "freewill" "God gives us the choice to follow the true way or get side lined by Satan". Now fair enough if we are talking about Satanists (who incidently have core beliefs about enjoying ones self). But the two biggest religions on the planet adherents of which both absolutely believe that they are following faithfully the True word of God? So how do you choose? Who is right? What criteria can possibly be used to distinguish who is on the right path? May be, just may be, both are wrong. For me it makes far more sense to accept that God is a concept of human imagination than an omnipotent, all knowing being that cannot give out clear guidelines to his/her/its worshippers. May be God doesn't want to but then that is surely at odds with the idea of a loving God? The devout Christian and Muslim in their heart acknowledges the Truth of God and venerates his Holy word in the Q'ran and the Bible but they are at odds with each other at the most fundamental level. It would be understandable if there was a book saying this is Gods law and you could choose to believe or not believe but to have two books both making the same claim with impunity? Around the civilised world there are inter-faith groups that seek common ground to unite people of differing faiths all of whom ignore the elephant in the room that their differences are deeply ingrained. The Muslims got it right when they said "there is no God" but then went on to say "..but Allah" and blew it.

In reply to summo
That is dependent on the human interpretation & approach to God not God himself

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
For Christianity there is one God but three parts; God (father), Jesus (son) as God made man/word and the Holy Spirit as God to live in you. They act in accordance not in a split personality which i think you're refering to by the schizophrenia condition

In reply to Lenin:

I grew up with a Catholic Mum and an atheist/lapsed Buddhist Dad, though towards the end my Mum seemed to change her mind perhaps, and what eventually made me turn away from religion in my early teenage way was wondering why miracles only ever happened 2000 years ago, like the voices from the heavens and burning bushes, and partings of seas and things. I'd walk out of church after hearing about dramatic things happening a long time ago, and think 'Why have I never seen anything like that?', and wondered how the people in church murmuring their prayers had more knowledge or evidence of religions being true than was present to me with my own eyes and ears, and thought that they possibly couldn't have if they didn't see any miracles either.

Religious people say that if one believes in God, only then is one able to feel his presence and that their religion is true, which at the nub of it, almost can seem to me to be imposing a belief onto others, in saying that one has to belief in something which is said to be true, compared to science, which is observing the world around us using clever machinery, and using knowledge from other people's work to develop theories which seem plausible, based on the best of our knowledge and (often) knowledge of mathematics. That science is always open to change if something new comes along, sets it apart from religion, I think.

I don't have a problem with people gaining comfort from religion, because as an ex Catholic I experienced the security of it (as well as the guilt which can come from Catholicism), but do you see what I mean about religion seeming to require people to believe - in a way that science doesn't?

If I heard a booming voice while seeing a burning bush or something like that, I'd be going back to church as fast as anything*.

* I think I'll always have a childlike sense of 'having been had' to do with miracles, though, so religion is something which I just don't think about much, it's something other people follow. If people are happily religious and not harming anybody else, I'm pleased for them.

In reply to Loughan:
Oh for Goodness sake, the Trinity was invented by clerics - was it at the Synod Of Whitby? - I can't even be bothered to Google it - to reconcile various different strands of belief and thought and unify them.

So you had one faction saying 'there is just one God', another faction saying 'Hang on, mate, Jesus was God as well you know, must have been, so that makes two', and a third wittering on about ineffable substance, nothing like man at all.

So after a few too many meads somebody comes up with the bright idea, 'why don't we just clump them 'em together? Of course it doesn't make sense - that's another point in it's favour. We can just tell the peasants that it's all beyond imagining, you just have to believe. Hic!'

And that, my friend, is almost certainly a more accurate account of how the trinity came about than anything you are likely to read in a book of theology.

In reply to Loughan:
>> But even Christianity is split with catholic and protestant thinking being so varied over things like forgiveness, women, marriage, lgbt, fiddling with kids....

>That is dependent on the human interpretation & approach to God not God himself

But then it is ALL the human interpretation of God as God says nothing about his nature or the nature of belief as it pertains to him, nor about the laws that encompass that belief.


>For Christianity there is one God but three parts; God (father), Jesus (son) as God made man/word and the Holy Spirit as God to live in you. They act in accordance not in a split personality which i think you're refering to by the schizophrenia condition

For Christianity, but not Islam. I know we have been over this but bear with me. Muslims acknowledge Jesus as a prophet of God and acknowledge the Bible as part of the body of works ascribed to God (though they may well quibble about parts of Genesis about God resting etc.) but maintain that Mohemmed was the later "last" prophet of God. That there is no God but Allah and he is undivided. That is not human interpretation but (allegedly) a direct dictation of `God, not open for discussion. The Christians however maintain as an article of faith that God is three in one. Father, Son and Holy Ghost and further more Jesus said "No one comes to the father except by me". Again not human interpretation but a direct statement from God. Now clearly both can not be right. So a human decision must be made Christianity or Islam (I shall leave out Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, Shinto etc. etc. just to keep it simple). But how that choice is supposed to be made isn't clear. I am reminded of the words of Aleister Crowley " I had a dream in which God and the Devil fought for my soul. They fought all night but in the end God won. Now I am left with only one question. Which of the twain was God?"

In reply to Loughan:


So when Jesus "ascended in to heaven and sat at the righthand of the father", what was going on? Sitting next to yourself sounds most peculiar. How would the conversation go?

In reply to Timmd:


But any scientist would say that in the face of incontrovertable truth. "Faith" would no longer be required!

All sounds a bit Joseph Heller to me!

In reply to MG:


"Oh for Me's sake, not you again?"

In reply to Hugh J:

'Can't quite put my finger on it, but someone's missing...'

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

"Nah, He's here in spirit."

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


False dichotomy. Even if you accept both cannot be right, both may well be wrong, which given all available evidence seems the most plausible, and is hence the only rational choice.

CB

In reply to MG:

"No way dad! I never want to see a another cross again. I'm not going back until they start wearing fishes again!"


(Thanks Bill Hicks!)

In reply to cb294:

Bang on the nail

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Here you go.

The Council of Nicea took place in AD 325 by order of the Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine. Nicea was located in Asia Minor, east of Constantinople. At the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine presided over a group of church bishops and other leaders with the purpose of defining the nature of God for all of Christianity and eliminating confusion, controversy, and contention within the church. The Council of Nicea overwhelmingly affirmed the deity and eternality of Jesus Christ and defined the relationship between the Father and the Son as “of one substance.” It also affirmed the Trinity—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were listed as three co-equal and co-eternal Persons.

Constantine, who claimed conversion to Christianity, called for a meeting of bishops to be held in Nicea to resolve some escalating controversies among the church leadership. The issues being debated included the nature of Jesus Christ, the proper date to celebrate Easter, and other matters. The failing Roman Empire, now under Constantine’s rule, could not withstand the division caused by years of hard-fought, “out of hand” arguing over doctrinal differences. The emperor saw the quarrels within the church not only as a threat to Christianity but as a threat to society as well. Therefore, at the Council of Nicea, Constantine encouraged the church leaders to settle their internal disagreements and become Christlike agents who could bring new life to a troubled empire. Constantine felt “called” to use his authority to help bring about unity, peace, and love within the church.

The main theological issue had always been about Christ. Since the end of the apostolic age, Christians had begun debating these questions: Who is the Christ? Is He more divine than human or more human than divine? Was Jesus created or begotten? Being the Son of God, is He co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, or is He lower in status than the Father? Is the Father the one true God, or are the Father, Son, and Spirit the one true God?

A priest named Arius presented his argument that Jesus Christ was not an eternal being, that He was created at a certain point in time by the Father. Bishops such as Alexander and the deacon Athanasius argued the opposite position: that Jesus Christ is eternal, just like the Father is. It was an argument pitting trinitarianism against monarchianism.

Constantine prodded the 300 bishops in the council make a decision by majority vote defining who Jesus Christ is. The statement of doctrine they produced was one that all of Christianity would follow and obey, called the “Nicene Creed.” This creed was upheld by the church and enforced by the Emperor. The bishops at Nicea voted to make the full deity of Christ the accepted position of the church. The Council of Nicea upheld the doctrine of Christ’s true divinity, rejecting Arius’s heresy. The council did not invent this doctrine. Rather, it only recognized what the Bible already taught.

The New Testament teaches that Jesus the Messiah should be worshipped, which is to say He is co-equal with God. The New Testament forbids the worship of angels (Colossians 2:18; Revelation 22:8, 9) but commands worship of Jesus. The apostle Paul tells us that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9; 1:19). Paul declares Jesus as Lord and the One to whom a person must pray for salvation (Romans 10:9-13; cf. Joel 2:32). “Jesus is God overall” (Romans 9:5) and our God and Savior (Titus 2:13). Faith in Jesus’ deity is basic to Paul’s theology.

John’s Gospel declares Jesus to be the divine, eternal Logos, the agent of creation and source of life and light (John 1:1-5,9); "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6); our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1-2); the Sovereign (Revelation 1:5); and the Son of God from the beginning to the end (Revelation 22:13). The author of Hebrews reveals the deity of Jesus through His perfection as the most high priest (Hebrews 1; Hebrews 7:1-3). The divine-human Savior is the Christian’s object of faith, hope, and love.

The Council of Nicea did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Rather, the Council of Nicea affirmed the apostles’ teaching of who Christ is—the one true God and the Second Person of the Trinity, with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

https://www.gotquestions.org/council-of-Nicea.html

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

One thing I've noticed in many debates on religion is that atheists and agnostics seem to be more well-read about the various religions than many who profess faith.

When I was going through my own "searching for truth" phase I read the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, an English translation of the Q'ran and various other religious texts. Most people I know who've settled on agnosticism or atheism also seem to have read a lot around the main religions. Even now I sometimes find myself discussing things with supposedly devout Christians who seem to know the Bible less well than I do myself.

In reply to Rob Naylor:


The also seem have a moral structure that follows the teachings of Christ more closely than Christians do, the main being the importance of The Golden Rule and are on the whole more charitable, kind and accepting. This has been confirmed by in-depth polling of atheist and Christians in the US. Needless to say, there have been many religious people who have been truly altruistic to their fellow mankind, but I sometimes wonder if they have been drawn to their religion because of the type of person they are, rather than be that type of person because of their religion.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Also useful:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008jglt

The 'In Our Time' podcasts are very good for this sort of thing.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

That account is incredibly one sided. To say that the council (actually, the councils of both Nicaea and a few decades later Constantinople) confirmed the established teachings is misleading, as there was a true debate, after all, and the canon was not yet fully set (that was an outcome of establishing the doctrine, rather than its cause!).

As usual, one should ask who benefited from either of the possible outcomes (i.e., the doctrinal confirmation of arianism or trinitarianism), and for that one must see which groups were Arians (at least in their majority)*, and whether the Emperor profited from obtaining a theological stick and a free rein for their persecution, and whether the trinitarians benefitted from becoming the official doctrine.

Seems to me one of the very best examples for the political instrumentalization of a theological issue!

CB

* Answer: Ostrogoths, Vandals, Suebes, Burgundians, Langobards, and whole lot of other largely Germanic tribes trying to kick the chair out from underneath first the Western and then also the Eastern Roman emperors......

In reply to Lenin:

Stephen Fry says it better than anyone I can think of youtube.com/watch?v=1SJ6AV31MxA&

In reply to krikoman:


Here's the whole debate:

youtube.com/watch?v=dBSH2oWVGEs&

In the red corner, Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens.
In the blue corner, Ann Widdicombe and Archbishop Onaiyekan.

Stephen Fry makes some excellent points and there's some quality "Hitchslapping" to savour too !
For the other side . . . . errrrrr . . . . . . I'm sure those so inclined will find something to cheer on.

In reply to cb294:

Just to add to my post: Any guesses what happened after trinitarianism won in the council, but arianist warlords won in the field?

After toppling the Western Roman Empire several of these groups tried to forge an empire of their own, eventually resulting in the Frankish empire that reached is full power only under Charlemagne a few hundred years later. But of course his Merowingian precursors did not insist on the trinitarian majority of ex-Romans to convert, too much hassle. Rather, they converted to trinitarianism, making them much more palatable to their new subjects.

The church annals claiming that Childerich the First was a heathen before seeing the light and asking for a Roman baptism is a neat, early example of fake news: All evidence points at him being an arianic "heretic", but admitting that would have put a blemish on his legitimacy. So the records were altered just a bit, and they did not even need the internet for that!

CB

In reply to cb294:

What! Religious records altered to suit a purpose?

Outrageous!

Who could have imagined such a thing happening?

In reply to Hugh J:

I think it's about time we had these videos from The Beatch himself again

youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc&

youtube.com/watch?v=gW7607YiBso&

In reply to Hugh J:

Yeah, and as usual I forgot to actually make the point I was aiming for: There is no such thing as actual, divine principles in religion, and never was. It all boils down to power games and political expediency when these principles are set down. I am sure one can find equivalent examples also in Islam or any other religion, the events leading to the Sunni/Shia split being the most obvious one.

So the only sensible way forward, if you do not want to discard your faith entirely, is to treat these religious principles with the same flexibility and pick and choose (as fortunately all save the nutters do).

CB

In reply to Hugh J:

Lest we forget..

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/jan/11/salman-rushdie-satanic-verses

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I can't believe I haven't got round to reading that yet. It's about time I did. Thanks for reminding me.

In reply to Hugh J:


It's not that great really. Without the controversy it would be largely forgotten.

In reply to DaveHK:
Indeed. If you get past the first few pages you should get a life instead.

In reply to DaveHK:


Oh, that's disappointing. Any idea what "Mightnight's Children" is like?

In reply to Hugh J:

Beyond the first few pages, thankfully I shall never know.

In reply to Hugh J:

I thought Midnight's Children was better but now you ask I can't really remember much about it which probably tells you something. A friend said it was his favourite novel and I read it on his recommendation which is always dangerous.

It is magic realism which tends to divide people. Personally I need to be in the mood for magic realism and it needs to be well done or it just pisses me off.

In reply to Hugh J:
I haven't read Satanic verses but Midnight's children is one of my favourite books. As an allegory for the partition of India it is superb

Magical realisim in a novel doesn't faze me