Religion v atheism

[Viv]

Is science is proving religious theory to be just airy-fairy superstition, suitable to be believed only by the naive, the gullible, the emotionally needy or immature?

And is atheism just logic and realism? Do you think that a logical person must be an atheist?

If so, do you accept that religion is not a prerequisite in the ability to maintain ethics and morals?

Or can science and religion coexist comfortably because science answers "how", whilst religion answers "why"?

[Gareth]

There are very logical Christians also. I suggest you look at some of the Christian philosophy of C.S Lewis.

[Viv]

There are very logical Christians also. I suggest you look at some of the Christian philosophy of C.S Lewis.

Why don't you summarise...? In the interests of furthering the debate...

[Oregon Elephant]

I disagree, many Athiests are not very logical, and many religious people are logical (I'll refrain from using any words like "most" because I have no numbers). Science hasn't proven to even the tiniest degree that there is no God, nor does it try to.

[ciaranxavier]

I disagree, many Athiests are not very logical, and many religious people are logical (I'll refrain from using any words like "most" because I have no numbers). Science hasn't proven to even the tiniest degree that there is no God, nor does it try to.

and how does religion prove there is a god? its a two sided argument and your argument could be used for either side.

[Oregon Elephant]

and how does religion prove there is a god? its a two sided argument and your argument could be used for either side.

Religion doesn't prove that there is a God, nor does it claim to (some religious people may claim that it does, but the actual religion doesn't claim to). I was addressing the opening question, "Is science is proving religious theory to be just airy-fairy superstition, suitable to be believed only by the naive, the gullible, the emotionally needy or immature?"

[Viv]

Religion doesn't prove that there is a God, nor does it claim to (some religious people may claim that it does, but the actual religion doesn't claim to). I was addressing the opening question, "Is science is proving religious theory to be just airy-fairy superstition, suitable to be believed only by the naive, the gullible, the emotionally needy or immature?"

I understand there are positive aspects to religion. But it is just mythology, isn't it?

And even the positive aspects are outweighed at times by the conflict and division religion causes.

[Gareth]

Why don't you summarise...? In the interests of furthering the debate...

I can't summarise a book when all it's points are valid and decent, you should consult Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis, and Miracles by C.S Lewis before entering into an argument about the Christian faith really. (Oh and you should read the Bible also)

[Gareth]

I understand there are positive aspects to religion. But it is just mythology, isn't it?

And even the positive aspects are outweighed at times by the conflict and division religion causes.

No it's not. Much of what is in Judeo-Christianity is compatible with history.

The positive aspects outweigh the negatives by far I can assure you.

[Enver]

No it's not. Much of what is in Judeo-Christianity is compatible with history.

Including a man rising from the dead?

[Viv]

No it's not. Much of what is in Judeo-Christianity is compatible with history.

The positive aspects outweigh the negatives by far I can assure you.

In which particular respects? Can you assure me with some facts to back your assurances please...:p That is kind of a blanket statement, not easy to debate it.

[Gareth]

I mean the historical Jesus exists in other writings than the Bible. Emperor Xerxes and Darius of the Assyrians, Alexander the Great (he's mentioned in 1st Maccabees), Herod, and then the structure of the traditions in the Bible such as tithing to the Temple are also proved through archaelogy, and practises of the faith in itself. The question is given what facts we do have surrounding the events is it so much more unreasonable that these things should happen. Given that I trust the prophesies and I trust that God had existed, believing in Jesus Christ and the Ressurection does not trouble me much given the fact we do know historically that Jesus existed, and we do know that he had a huge influence on the world.

[Viv]

I mean the historical Jesus exists in other writings than the Bible. Emperor Xerxes and Darius of the Assyrians, Alexander the Great (he's mentioned in 1st Maccabees), Herod, and then the structure of the traditions in the Bible such as tithing to the Temple are also proved through archaelogy, and practises of the faith in itself. The question is given what facts we do have surrounding the events is it so much more unreasonable that these things should happen. Given that I trust the prophesies and I trust that God had existed, believing in Jesus Christ and the Ressurection does not trouble me much given the fact we do know historically that Jesus existed, and we do know that he had a huge influence on the world.

There are many stories passed down through time which involved magical happenings. These people existed in some form, the magic surrounding them does not exist other than in imagination.
Merlin was a wizard and existed...everyone knows it.

[Gareth]

There is a difference between magic and miracles. This is exactly the reason why you should crack into some C.S Lewis particularly his book Miracles.

The field of cosmology is what drives me most to an understanding and to a walk with God. The Earth as it is is so unlikely to have existed in the correct location as it did without a design, and we are too sophisticated to live without a purpose.

I disagree in relation to what you say. The accounts of the Bible come from a wide array of authors which come to a strangely familiar point and prophets who have revealed all a consistent revelation of the Earth and the way by which it operates.

Before the Big Bang, we do not what happened. This leaves room for speculation. Saying there is not a God is also a form of speculation. However the divine revelations that we have and the traditions we have lived under for 2000 years leave significant clues that Christianity spread in a certain ways and much was as described in the Bible.

[Enver]

There is a difference between magic and miracles. This is exactly the reason why you should crack into some C.S Lewis particularly his book Miracles.

The field of cosmology is what drives me most to an understanding and to a walk with God. The Earth as it is is so unlikely to have existed in the correct location as it did without a design, and we are too sophisticated to live without a purpose.

I disagree in relation to what you say. The accounts of the Bible come from a wide array of authors which come to a strangely familiar point and prophets who have revealed all a consistent revelation of the Earth and the way by which it operates.

Before the Big Bang, we do not what happened. This leaves room for speculation. Saying there is not a God is also a form of speculation. However the divine revelations that we have and the traditions we have lived under for 2000 years leave significant clues that Christianity spread in a certain ways and much was as described in the Bible.

How do know that your God exists and other Gods do not?

Do you believe in fairies, unicorns, vampires or zombies (I guess Jesus was a kind of zombie, that's pretty cool)?

[Viv]

There is a difference between magic and miracles. This is exactly the reason why you should crack into some C.S Lewis particularly his book Miracles.

The field of cosmology is what drives me most to an understanding and to a walk with God. The Earth as it is is so unlikely to have existed in the correct location as it did without a design, and we are too sophisticated to live without a purpose.

I disagree in relation to what you say. The accounts of the Bible come from a wide array of authors which come to a strangely familiar point and prophets who have revealed all a consistent revelation of the Earth and the way by which it operates.

Before the Big Bang, we do not what happened. This leaves room for speculation. Saying there is not a God is also a form of speculation. However the divine revelations that we have and the traditions we have lived under for 2000 years leave significant clues that Christianity spread in a certain ways and much was as described in the Bible.

The same people documented that the world was flat. Everyone agreeing does not make a truth, it makes a shared culture and those can be very inaccurate. There are as many texts which say Muhammed is the one...or Budda...or whomever. That is the history according to those cultures and they all agree in that so it must be correct...??

[Viv]

How do know that your God exists and other Gods do not?

Do you believe in fairies, unicorns, vampires or zombies (I guess Jesus was a kind of zombie, that's pretty cool)?

:eek::eek:

:D

[Gareth]

How do know that your God exists and other Gods do not?

Do you believe in fairies, unicorns, vampires or zombies (I guess Jesus was a kind of zombie, that's pretty cool)?

I don't believe in those, as people have born witness of what Jesus Christ did on earth and have recieved what had come from prophets. This is what the Bible is. It came from people who had recieved communication with God. If you wish to see Christ as a zombie that is your choice.

The same people documented that the world was flat. Everyone agreeing does not make a truth, it makes a shared culture and those can be very inaccurate. There are as many texts which say Muhammed is the one...or Budda...or whomever. That is the history according to those cultures and they all agree in that so it must be correct...??

Reference? Isaiah refers to the world as being in a spherical shape. I think it's a bit foolhardy to make claims like this without having read the text itself. It's dangerous to rely on preconceptions like.

We have means of authenticity behind these texts. As for Muhammad I could spend all day discussing the Qur'an, but I do not believe in it given many of the circumstances behind it's revelation. There are key truths in the Qur'an however. The Buddha released key truths but he rejected God.

As for the histories I am referring to they are accepted by most serious scholars. I'm referring to Josephus, Tactius and Pliny the Younger, all outside the Bible and referring to Yeshua ben Nazerat (Jesus of Nazareth). I don't recommend this as it is clearly biased in regards but the Jewish Babylonian Talmud also refers to him.

[Enver]

I don't believe in those, as people have born witness of what Jesus Christ did on earth and have recieved what had come from prophets. This is what the Bible is. It came from people who had recieved communication with God.

There have been far more reported sightings (even just in Ireland) of fairies than there have been of communication with God or Jesus.

[Viv]

[QUOTE=Gareth;3966]
Reference? Isaiah refers to the world as being in a spherical shape. I think it's a bit foolhardy to make claims like this without having read the text itself. It's dangerous to rely on preconceptions like.

I did not mention Isaiah. The point is that people in those days believed many things universally...or as universal as their limited world experience was. That is one example which alongside many others was subsequently disproven. The majority consensus does not endow accuracy.

We have means of authenticity behind these texts. As for Muhammad I could spend all day discussing the Qur'an, but I do not believe in it given many of the circumstances behind it's revelation. There are key truths in the Qur'an however. The Buddha released key truths but he rejected God.

So you believe what your culture has told you.

As for the histories I am referring to they are accepted by most serious scholars. I'm referring to Josephus, Tactius and Pliny the Younger, all outside the Bible and referring to Yeshua ben Nazerat (Jesus of Nazareth). I don't recommend this as it is clearly biased in regards but the Jewish Babylonian Talmud also refers to him.

These people were no doubt scholars in their day, education has progressed hugely since ...because of scientific advances they might form a very different view today. As previously commented, the existence of such a person is not disputed.

[Oregon Elephant]

I understand there are positive aspects to religion. But it is just mythology, isn't it?

Not really, mythology is something that is proven to be false, it isn't flexible enough to make it around science.

And even the positive aspects are outweighed at times by the conflict and division religion causes.

Religion doesn't 'cause' violence and conflict, twisted enterpretations of religion do that.

One can be killed by a fork, but it isn't the fork's fault that it was used to kill someone, it's the fault of the person weilding the fork.

[Viv]

=Oregon Elephant;3978]Not really, mythology is something that is proven to be false, it isn't flexible enough to make it around science.

The point is that science will continue to prove, until there is no question. It is a matter of time and extension of knowledge and that is what is becoming clear. Unlike the second part of that statement, which I do not understand, could you clarify please.

Religion doesn't 'cause' violence and conflict, twisted enterpretations of religion do that.

One can be killed by a fork, but it isn't the fork's fault that it was used to kill someone, it's the fault of the person weilding the fork.

If the fork does not exist, it cannot be twisted or wielded...

[Gareth]

The point is that science will continue to prove, until there is no question. It is a matter of time and extension of knowledge and that is what is becoming clear. Unlike the second part of that statement, which I do not understand, could you clarify please.



If the fork does not exist, it cannot be twisted or wielded...

Some of the worst abuses have also been committed under atheism.

Also race. So if race didn't exist it could not be twisted or wielded? Seriously. Being a Christian is a part of my identity just as much as being white, or being Irish, actually moreso than both of those. A lot of things can be twisted.

[Oregon Elephant]

The point is that science will continue to prove, until there is no question. It is a matter of time and extension of knowledge and that is what is becoming clear. Unlike the second part of that statement, which I do not understand, could you clarify please.

Religion is loose enough that science can't disprove (or prove) the religion, only some aspects of the religion. It's kind of like (very vaugly) saying I have a red dog that is three feet tall at home, and the science can only disprove that it is red and three feet tall, but it can't do anything about the proving or disproving a dog.

If the fork does not exist, it cannot be twisted or wielded...

If the killer can't get a fork, they'll use the butter knife. It doesn't matter what they use, the issue is them, not their weapon of choice.

[Gareth]

I disagree Oregon, a lot of people find that religion and science are compatible.

[Viv]

Oregon Elephant;3991]Religion is loose enough that science can't disprove (or prove) the religion, only some aspects of the religion. It's kind of like (very vaugly) saying I have a red dog that is three feet tall at home, and the science can only disprove that it is red and three feet tall, but it can't do anything about the proving or disproving a dog.

Worse...no idea what you are getting at now...

Reaching though...science I think is not over-interested in disproving religion because as you point out it is obscured. Religion has no rhyme or reason and certainly is unspecific and vague enough to be twisted to suit anyone's needs at any given time. It is constructed for just that purpose, to be all things to all men, that is one reason it has survived for so long, it cannot be pinned down, it is deliberately evasive and vague and when one asks anything difficult one is advised that is when faith comes into play.

Science plays by its own rules. It can be tested and proven, is logical, is verifiable. It does not have intent to deceive, but has the opposite aim.

If the killer can't get a fork, they'll use the butter knife. It doesn't matter what they use, the issue is them, not their weapon of choice.

It is not a reason to support the existence of the weapon. It is a reason to abolish it and find a more intelligent, effective way.

[Gareth]

Science cannot disprove religion, hence why it is not interested in disproving it. All we have either way from agnosticism is speculation and interpretation of our religious documents. I have come to trust them as I myself have felt that God is real, and I have seen Him at work in me. You can choose not to believe that or not, that is how I reached my conclusion. I am a former agnostic may I add.

[Viv]

Science cannot disprove religion, hence why it is not interested in disproving it. All we have either way from agnosticism is speculation and interpretation of our religious documents. I have come to trust them as I myself have felt that God is real, and I have seen Him at work in me. You can choose not to believe that or not, that is how I reached my conclusion. I am a former agnostic may I add.

I do not wish to challenge or attempt to dismember your strongly held beliefs, I respect what you say and also those who are religious. If it works for you, hold it to you.

However, there are many possible explanations for what you describe.

Regarding science, IMO it long ago dismissed religion as unrealistic. There is no requirement to particularly target something which many people cherish and use to hide from reality. It will be continue to be done though. Unavoidable.

[Gareth]

You wouldn't dismember any of my beliefs.

I would like to see any legitimate science paper that has deemed religion as unrealistic. Many Christians today work in science. The most notable being head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins. Theologian and Biologist, Allister McGrath. Why do these people have faith? Francis Collins having converted on a hike, and kneeling and confessing to Jesus Christ His Lord and Saviour right there and then.

Why do these people do this? They are far more qualified to speak of science than you or me!

Hm, as for me, I'd like it if you did come to Christianity, but not out of compulsion, out of free will.

[Enver]

You wouldn't dismember any of my beliefs.

I would like to see any legitimate science paper that has deemed religion as unrealistic. Many Christians today work in science. The most notable being head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins. Theologian and Biologist, Allister McGrath. Why do these people have faith? Francis Collins having converted on a hike, and kneeling and confessing to Jesus Christ His Lord and Saviour right there and then.

Why do these people do this? They are far more qualified to speak of science than you or me!

Hm, as for me, I'd like it if you did come to Christianity, but not out of compulsion, out of free will.

Why hasn't God reached out to me?

I really did think I believed in him for about 10 years of my life.

[Gareth]

The question is why have you not reached out to God. God has been waiting for you your entire life. Before I read the Bible I was as skeptical as you. I also had the same sense of anything goes. Ah what would God care if I got drunk. Of course He cares, He fashioned and created us.

About 10 years of your life?

Hm, I believed in God but I didn't really understand it, and then I fell into doubt during my teenage years. I read the Bible when I was 17, I'm 18 now. It changed my life forever. How can a book change your life? You'd be surprised. I believe God can work for you too. I'm no more special than anyone else, I have sinned, I have appealed to God's mercy and I have been joined to the tree of the nation of Israel through faith in Jesus Christ, but I am no different. I was made righteous through faith, and God did the rest.

The Parable of the Lost Son is useful in this regard. Imagine that you are the younger son of this man. Viv pretend you are a guy and you are this guys younger son :)


Then Jesus* said, ‘There was a man who had two sons. The younger of them said to his father, “Father, give me the share of the property that will belong to me.” So he divided his property between them. A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and travelled to a distant country, and there he squandered his property in dissolute living. When he had spent everything, a severe famine took place throughout that country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs. He would gladly have filled himself with* the pods that the pigs were eating; and no one gave him anything. But when he came to himself he said, “How many of my father’s hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.’ ” So he set off and went to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him. Then the son said to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.”* But the father said to his slaves, “Quickly, bring out a robe—the best one—and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!” And they began to celebrate.

‘Now his elder son was in the field; and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. He called one of the slaves and asked what was going on. He replied, “Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has got him back safe and sound.” Then he became angry and refused to go in. His father came out and began to plead with him. But he answered his father, “Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!” Then the father* said to him, “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.

[Viv]

You wouldn't dismember any of my beliefs.

I would like to see any legitimate science paper that has deemed religion as unrealistic. Many Christians today work in science. The most notable being head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins. Theologian and Biologist, Allister McGrath. Why do these people have faith? Francis Collins having converted on a hike, and kneeling and confessing to Jesus Christ His Lord and Saviour right there and then.

Why do these people do this? They are far more qualified to speak of science than you or me!

Hm, as for me, I'd like it if you did come to Christianity, but not out of compulsion, out of free will.

They do it, I imagine, for a variety of reasons. It is familial, part of their culture, part of their community and it is safe, a support...I am sure many have private views of religion but why not accept it as valid? The alternative is realism and many people simply cannot face the real world without a crutch.

[Gareth]

I don't do it as a part of culture anyway. Religion is irrespective of culture. We are in a search for truth. Truth is not subjective to cultures.

Christianity safe? I really wouldn't regard it as so. The safer option would be agnosticism. However I have enough reason to believe this is true, and I found agnosticism torturous.

God is by no means a crutch. We are told we will have to face persecution right up until the end for the glory of Christ Jesus if neccessary.

[Viv]

The question is why have you not reached out to God. God has been waiting for you your entire life. Before I read the Bible I was as skeptical as you. I also had the same sense of anything goes. Ah what would God care if I got drunk. Of course He cares, He fashioned and created us.

About 10 years of your life?

Hm, I believed in God but I didn't really understand it, and then I fell into doubt during my teenage years. I read the Bible when I was 17, I'm 18 now. It changed my life forever. How can a book change your life? You'd be surprised. I believe God can work for you too. I'm no more special than anyone else, I have sinned, I have appealed to God's mercy and I have been joined to the tree of the nation of Israel through faith in Jesus Christ, but I am no different. I was made righteous through faith, and God did the rest.

The Parable of the Lost Son is useful in this regard. Imagine that you are the younger son of this man. Viv pretend you are a guy and you are this guys younger son :)

:) I don't believe that you are trying to convert me, Gareth. I am a terrible sinner, much worse than you could imagine. A fat calf is not likely to cover it. :D

But it is good of you to try...

I have read the bible from end to end. It is full of interesting stories and ways to deal with life, I do not say it doesn't bring peace and comfort to some people.

But it is a text written by a man. It has no special power.

[Viv]

I don't do it as a part of culture anyway. Religion is irrespective of culture. We are in a search for truth. Truth is not subjective to cultures.

Christianity safe? I really wouldn't regard it as so. The safer option would be agnosticism. However I have enough reason to believe this is true, and I found agnosticism torturous.

God is by no means a crutch. We are told we will have to face persecution right up until the end for the glory of Christ Jesus if neccessary.

It is the easy road in life, it comforts you to know how you should be doing everything, you never have to think. If in doubt, refer to your holy scriptures and the answer will be given.

And it is a comfort to know that death is not the end.

How is agnosticism torturous, in what way?

[Gareth]

We do have to think, we have to think about where we stand in our faith every day. To be honest with you, it's probably been the primary stream of thought in our life. We need to take an adult regard to our faith, and to see it in a realistic context and to build on apologetics. It's rather simple for you to say that we do not have to think.

Death? Why should we fear death? Do we have control over it, regardless of beliefs. That isn't a motivation in my faith. I live my faith for here and now. Hypothetically if there was no afterlife, I'm thankful for what I have with God now. I live for the here and now to tell people of Jesus Christ, not to fear death.

Agnosticism is torturous, as you are deprived of the truth. I personally went through this for ages. One day one thing, one thing the next. You cannot build a spiritual identity in this state.

[Gareth]

I have read the bible from end to end. It is full of interesting stories and ways to deal with life, I do not say it doesn't bring peace and comfort to some people.

But it is a text written by a man. It has no special power.

A man?

Over 30 you mean, who all come to the same conclusion at various different times in history. The complication of the Bible is very interesting.

How do you prove that this is a text written by men? This is belief just as much as the leap of faith we have to make.

[Viv]

That's a step too far Viv. We do have to think, we have to think about where we stand in our faith every day. To be honest with you, it's probably been the primary stream of thought in our life. We need to take an adult regard to our faith, and to see it in a realistic context and to build on apologetics. It's rather simple for you to say that we do not have to think.

Death? Why should we fear death? Do we have control over it, regardless of beliefs. That isn't a motivation in my faith. I live my faith for here and now. Hypothetically if there was no afterlife, I'm thankful for what I have with God now. I live for the here and now to tell people of Jesus Christ, not to fear death.

Agnosticism is torturous, as you are deprived of the truth. I personally went through this for ages. One day one thing, one thing the next. You cannot build a spiritual identity in this state.

Indoctrination is intrinsic to many faiths and occurs before leaving childhood. How hard can it be to know what you're supposed to do, it's ingrained by the church almost from birth...if people have to struggle it's because the rules are unrealistic for humans to live by, not because they don't know how they fit into the guidance.

I do not accept your second point. Many people cling to religion as a comfort in that respect and also as a comfort regarding the loss of loved ones. Death is too big a horror for people to face. If they thought about it honestly, they'd go mad. The church allows an exit route from that.

What is a spiritual identity and why does one need it?

[Gareth]

I disagree, in my turning to faith I rather conciously did so upon finishing the Bible and reading various books of theology. Actually I will bring my discussion to a sermon I heard at my local Anglican church last Sunday, where the pastor was preaching on doubt. He said between the transition from child to adult or adolescense we have to learn to repackage the faith that was passed down to us in a Christian community into tangible terms that we can understand as adults. This stage is going to happen regardless of what was taught to children, also in my faith, I only really believed as I do now as Christianity was made into tangible terms for me to keep the Gospel and for me to set my life goal until I die based around the Gospel and keeping to these Laws in life.

Many people do, however I'm here to be to discuss apologetics in relation to my personal faith. However the mission of Jesus Christ is not something that we sit around and wait for the rapture to happen. We are Christs body on Earth according to Scripture, hence we should be moving to further a peaceful way of life and to leave the earth better than we first came in. This is what I wish to do. Money or material things aside, this is the real purpose of life to promote harmony among others and to bring others among the flock of God's people.

Why does one need a spiritual identity? I'm not speaking for you, I'm speaking for myself, and this is really the only way I can answer this under Christian terms. I need a spiritual identity as this defines who I am inside, before I had a spiritual identity I was lacking in confidence and I was lacking in motivation. I cannot stand still, I search and I search again for the truth, this is why I need a motivation. I do not sit still, I do what I believe is willed of me.

[Viv]

I disagree, in my turning to faith I rather conciously did so upon finishing the Bible and reading various books of theology. Actually I will bring my discussion to a sermon I heard at my local Anglican church last Sunday, where the pastor was preaching on doubt. He said between the transition from child to adult or adolescense we have to learn to repackage the faith that was passed down to us in a Christian community into tangible terms that we can understand as adults. This stage is going to happen regardless of what was taught to children, also in my faith, I only really believed as I do now as Christianity was made into tangible terms for me to keep the Gospel and for me to set my life goal until I die based around the Gospel and keeping to these Laws in life.

Many people do, however I'm here to be to discuss apologetics in relation to my personal faith. However the mission of Jesus Christ is not something that we sit around and wait for the rapture to happen. We are Christs body on Earth according to Scripture, hence we should be moving to further a peaceful way of life and to leave the earth better than we first came in. This is what I wish to do. Money or material things aside, this is the real purpose of life to promote harmony among others and to bring others among the flock of God's people.

Why does one need a spiritual identity? I'm not speaking for you, I'm speaking for myself, and this is really the only way I can answer this under Christian terms. I need a spiritual identity as this defines who I am inside, before I had a spiritual identity I was lacking in confidence and I was lacking in motivation. I cannot stand still, I search and I search again for the truth, this is why I need a motivation. I do not sit still, I do what I believe is willed of me.

I am sure the church does recognise that period as the dangerous one for them and will take appropriate steps to address it as the time most likely to lose members of the congregation. The church has been in business for a very long time and many intelligent and proficient manipulators have passed through its portals, each situation of potential loss and danger to the church will have been detected, analysed and the best possible resolution applied to deflect that loss, in this case a plausible sermon.

Most of us will aspire to leave the world a better place, there are many ways to achieve that and religious fervour might seem like a waste of energy in this respect when there is so much more to do and so many practical ways to apply your effort.

Where is your own will? Why must you expect someone/thing else to tell you how to live?

[Gareth]

I think the Church recognises that it needs to encourage personal exploration of the Bible, and the pastors are willing to facilitate the youth to understand Jesus and what He can do for mankind. Do you really think that all priests are a master conspiracy to decieve people? Many intelligent preachers of divine revelation and Scripture have passed through the Church, that is all they seek to do no more and no less do what is for the benefit of mankind. Thank God for them.

Man can do good outside of religion, but the ultimate good is to bring others to God, and for others to know God as we do.

I don't expect anyone or anything to help me. Why should I expect of God? God has given me this life to do what I wish to do with it. The word "expect" seems to make out that I am in a debt with God. I am by no means in debt to God. I follow how to live, as it is the way I can live free from trouble, and free from many of the things that have defiled God's earth and God's children since their very incarnation and abuse. I will to follow God, that is my part of it. I will to follow God, as if anyone knows how this world works it is Him as He has created it. The happiest life I will ever live is through God, never without, and I want people to discover what I have discovered, but I will never do it through compulsion.

[Viv]

I think the Church recognises that it needs to encourage personal exploration of the Bible, and the pastors are willing to facilitate the youth to understand Jesus and what He can do for mankind. Do you really think that all priests are a master conspiracy to decieve people? Many intelligent preachers of divine revelation and Scripture have passed through the Church, that is all they seek to do no more and no less do what is for the benefit of mankind. Thank God for them.

Man can do good outside of religion, but the ultimate good is to bring others to God, and for others to know God as we do.

I don't expect anyone or anything to help me. Why should I expect of God? God has given me this life to do what I wish to do with it. The word "expect" seems to make out that I am in a debt with God. I am by no means in debt to God. I follow how to live, as it is the way I can live free from trouble, and free from many of the things that have defiled God's earth and God's children since their very incarnation and abuse. I will to follow God, that is my part of it. I will to follow God, as if anyone knows how this world works it is Him as He has created it. The happiest life I will ever live is through God, never without, and I want people to discover what I have discovered, but I will never do it through compulsion.

If you are happy, it is all. I am happy for you.

But yes, I do think they are manipulators...:D...of course they are. In many cases the good of mankind and following the church coincide. Is it coincidence? It is not. The whole thing is constructed that way, it is crowd control. The church is constructed as a method to encourage the populace to behave in a civilised, law-abiding way, to teach them how to obey and therefore be obedient of the ruling class and subject to peer pressures. A biddable working class is worth a great deal to business and those who hold the gold. The doctrines of the church make people more manageable and easier to direct and control.

I do not say that an altruistic religious man does not exist, I am sure they do good work, but the basis is political.

[Gareth]

Crowd control? That's absurd. Do you know 200 million people are risking their lives being Christians? You would think that if Christianity was a crowd control means every state would have accepted it?

Christianity was illegal in Rome, now it's persecuted openly across Asia.

There are Christians in Saudi Arabia preaching who risk death? Surely if you do not believe that this is furthering compassion and well being in the world or that if they think this, why would they go to a country like that?

What a way to manipulate eh?

I don't know any pastor who does their work in the Republic of Ireland for political goals. For a start I'm of a minority population in the State, I don't see how this happens at all.

[Viv]

=Gareth;4061]Crowd control? That's absurd. Do you know 200 million people are risking their lives being Christians? You would think that if Christianity was a crowd control means every state would have accepted it?

That phrase is a manner of speaking. They do accept it...they accept their own individual form of organised religion. Each country has its weapon of choice, all of which achieve the same purpose...control an domesticity of the people.

Christianity was illegal in Rome, now it's persecuted openly across Asia.

There are Christians in Saudi Arabia preaching who risk death? Surely if you do not believe that this is furthering compassion and well being in the world or that if they think this, why would they go to a country like that?

What a way to manipulate eh?

I don't know any pastor who does their work in the Republic of Ireland for political goals. For a start I'm of a minority population in the State, I don't see how this happens at all.

It is very persuasive. Many believe in it. That is why it works.

[Gareth]

I don't see what gain those missionaries themselves would have if they were martyred. You should review the term "manipulate"

influence or control shrewdly or deviously; "He manipulated public opinion in his favor"

There is nothing shrewd or devious about evangelism.


That phrase is a manner of speaking. They do accept it...they accept their own individual form of organised religion. Each country has its weapon of choice, all of which achieve the same purpose...control an domesticity of the people.

"weapon". Really you need to review your vocabulary. If you think that it is a crowd control mechanism I need to see some references to it being used as such.

[Viv]

I don't see what gain those missionaries themselves would have if they were martyred. You should review the term "manipulate"

influence or control shrewdly or deviously; "He manipulated public opinion in his favor"

There is nothing shrewd or devious about evangelism.



"weapon". Really you need to review your vocabulary. If you think that it is a crowd control mechanism I need to see some references to it being used as such.

:rolleyes: The vocabulary is appropriate. For references go to any church and take in a sermon...which will tell you how to live and manipulate you into doing so by the rules of that church, which have been set in accordance with the political aims of the organisation.
Do not attempt to say that churches like the Roman Catholic have not interfered in politics. That is the reason no Catholic is allowed in the UK monarchy. (not saying I agree with that law, btw...)

[Gareth]

:rolleyes: The vocabulary is appropriate. For references go to any church and take in a sermon...which will tell you how to live and manipulate you into doing so by the rules of that church, which have been set in accordance with the political aims of the organisation.
Do not attempt to say that churches like the Roman Catholic have not interfered in politics. That is the reason no Catholic is allowed in the UK monarchy. (not saying I agree with that law, btw...)

A weapon is there to harm. Christianity does not exist to harm.

I'm a regular church attender. I have never heard any sermon telling me or any other parishoner which political stance to take. That is a fact. I speak for the Anglican Communion however. Churches like the RC Church? I'm not a part of said church, but I see them as a part of the people of God. I shall let them defend themselves.

I know what pastors do, I know what they are like. You seem to think that they are orchestrating a mass plan. However these people know what they believe. They have most likely experienced walking with God like any other believer. Religion will never be destroyed. Bear in mind church attendance is voluntary.

I find it curiously funny on this forum to see that the criticism you apply to Christianity is never applied to Judaism or Islam let alone Hinduism, Bah'ai, Sikhism and others.

[An Céachta Dearg]

A weapon is there to harm. Christianity does not exist to harm.

I'm a regular church attender. I have never heard any sermon telling me or any other parishoner which political stance to take. That is a fact. I speak for the Anglican Communion however. Churches like the RC Church? I'm not a part of said church, but I see them as a part of the people of God. I shall let them defend themselves.

I know what pastors do, I know what they are like. You seem to think that they are orchestrating a mass plan. However these people know what they believe. They have most likely experienced walking with God like any other believer. Religion will never be destroyed. Bear in mind church attendance is voluntary.

I find it curiously funny on this forum to see that the criticism you apply to Christianity is never applied to Judaism or Islam let alone Hinduism, Bah'ai, Sikhism and others.

Religion only exists to give people an escape and a feeling that life may get better when they die. In this way it serves only the ruling classes in that it prevents the working classes from revolutionising the system and making matters better and more equal in the main time as they are brainwashed into believing things will be better and equal in the "afterlife".

When populations become more confident in their achievements as a community they abandon religion, look at the former soviet republics the mojaorities there have not returned to their ancetral religions and have stayed true to the princepals of making it better in the mean tme.

Churhc attendance is indeed voluntary and that is why they are declinging at a great rate at the moment.

[Gareth]

See, I don't understand any of these functions of religion. The reason you give isn't the most important reason for my belonging to the Christian faith. Surely if you are trying to explain why I am a Christian or why most people are Christians it should be a bit accurate in comparison to my experiences?

When populations become arrogant in their achievements rather. And yes this is a constant theme in the Bible, the Song of Moses (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Deuteronomy+32:1-43) and other things mentions this.

Arrogance does not mean that people do not need to establish a relationship with God, it means that they think they don't need to.

Church rates are not declining in all churches, it's not a universal trend at all.

[Viv]

Attendance is declining, at least in the UK. I have stats somewhere I will pull and post, but it is significant.

[Viv]

A weapon is there to harm. Christianity does not exist to harm.

I'm a regular church attender. I have never heard any sermon telling me or any other parishoner which political stance to take. That is a fact. I speak for the Anglican Communion however. Churches like the RC Church? I'm not a part of said church, but I see them as a part of the people of God. I shall let them defend themselves.

I know what pastors do, I know what they are like. You seem to think that they are orchestrating a mass plan. However these people know what they believe. They have most likely experienced walking with God like any other believer. Religion will never be destroyed. Bear in mind church attendance is voluntary.

I find it curiously funny on this forum to see that the criticism you apply to Christianity is never applied to Judaism or Islam let alone Hinduism, Bah'ai, Sikhism and others.

Not clear if that last comment is directed at me, but any criticism made is directed at all organised religion, not just Christianity.

How can you say it is not harmful? It is mind control. Removal of free will. If you saw it on Doctor Who, you'd be appalled...of course it is harmful.

The church may not say...vote Labour...but their whole policy dictates how you think and creates a shared culture of emulation, so you are only going to do what that culture suggests. As to the mass plan, it is becoming a circular argument but the policy is decided above the heads of simple priests...they will not be involved in that decision-making process, they will only carry it out and may be unaware of the "mass plan", although I doubt it.

[Gareth]

Throughout the course of my lifetime I have never seen anyone force anyone to join the Christian faith. There is no compulsion in religion.

As for the removal of free will what? I don't quite get that, joining a religion because you believe in it willingly is removing your free will? I don't agree its mind control either, we join the Christian faith as we are willing to live by the example of the Gospels. Nothing more nothing less. I don't see how that is mind control. Mind control generally involves psychologists and drugs, Christianity involves pursuing morals and pursuing a virtuous life for all people. How is that harmful in the slightest?

As for the whole policy, this is done democratically in my church anyway at the General Synod in Dublin every year. I believe the Anglican Church in the UK do it in Westminster. This is how they decide on several topics. The global community come together every 10 years to vote on resolutions of doctrine at the Lambeth Conference. Also members of the Church can also get involved in this process.

As for being decided above the heads of priests, what do you mean that the bishops are pulling a plan above our very noses? All priests attend the General Synod as far as I know. Are you suggesting that bishops and priests don't actually believe in Christianity and are deceiving us all? That claim is absurd and you need to provide something for that.

The facts are you do not know anything about the decision making processes of churches. I'm fed up with people coming with all these preconceptions, if you wish to argue that we are corrupt please look at the way by which we actually operate first.

As for the last comment it's very much true. People apply their criticisms to Christianity even when they are not accurate, however dare not speak of minority religions due to fear of the racism card in many cases.

[Viv]

[QUOTE=Gareth;4126]Throughout the course of my lifetime I have never seen anyone force anyone to join the Christian faith. There is no compulsion in religion.

As for the removal of free will what? I don't quite get that, joining a religion because you believe in it willingly is removing your free will? I don't agree its mind control either, we join the Christian faith as we are willing to live by the example of the Gospels. Nothing more nothing less. I don't see how that is mind control. Mind control generally involves psychologists and drugs, Christianity involves pursuing morals and pursuing a virtuous life for all people. How is that harmful in the slightest?

Sigh...last time. It is not voluntary if you are born into it and indoctrinated from birth as most people are.

The removal of free will is when you are instructed from birth on how to behave in every aspect of your frickin life, before you are even old enough to understand the question far less the instruction, which you are if your family is part of organised religion.

As for the whole policy, this is done democratically in my church anyway at the General Synod in Dublin every year. I believe the Anglican Church in the UK do it in Westminster. This is how they decide on several topics. The global community come together every 10 years to vote on resolutions of doctrine at the Lambeth Conference. Also members of the Church can also get involved in this process.

The key word demonstrating the political aspect is WESTMINSTER.

Seat of government.

As for being decided above the heads of priests, what do you mean that the bishops are pulling a plan above our very noses? All priests attend the General Synod as far as I know. Are you suggesting that bishops and priests don't actually believe in Christianity and are deceiving us all? That claim is absurd and you need to provide something for that.

The facts are you do not know anything about the decision making processes of churches. I'm fed up with people coming with all these preconceptions, if you wish to argue that we are corrupt please look at the way by which we actually operate first. As for the last comment it's very much true. People apply their criticisms to Christianity even when they are not accurate, however dare not speak of minority religions due to fear of the racism card in many cases.

No, you need to prove why the claim is absurd. The bishops and so on believe in church controlling state and in acquisition of power. It is beyond naive to be unaware of this.

On what I know, posters can be left to make their own decision. But I level this at all religion, regardless of ethnicity.

I think I will withdraw, the arguments have been countered and logic does not seem to be accepted. Thank you for the debate though. It was pretty enjoyable.

[Gareth]

Sigh...last time. It is not voluntary if you are born into it and indoctrinated from birth as most people are.

The removal of free will is when you are instructed from birth on how to behave in every aspect of your frickin life, before you are even old enough to understand the question far less the instruction, which you are if your family is part of organised religion.

Parents should legally have the option to teach their child religion. However questioning should always be encouraged, infact it was the questioning that caused me to find faith moreso than the actual teaching I find. Do you realize that bringing a child up without faith is also influencing them towards non-theism in an equal way to teaching them of a given religion in the first place? A lot of things parents do influences their child. The teachings of Christianity are also complementary to the general social ethic of society in most cases, except for the cases by which the State seems to want to constantly push the boundaries in relation to morality. However that is another discussion. This is in relation to Christ and His teachings.

Do you not think that moral instruction by parents is crucial to play a meaningful role within society? Social skills, and general etiquette also get passed down to children. If you are suggesting that a parent cannot teach it's child anything or influence their children towards productive living then society in general would collapse around us due to uneducated kids. Parents also influence their children in relation to a language. I suggest that parents teach their children no language as teaching them English before they are able to understand English is wrong :D. That's basically what you are suggesting in saying that parents shouldn't teach a children a faith that they do not understand as of yet. Do you not see that this logic fails in a number of regards itself.

The key word demonstrating the political aspect is WESTMINSTER.

Seat of government.

It's actually not in the same location. It's in Church House, Westminster. Westminster does include more than the Houses of Parliament you know? It occasionally takes place at the University of York due to the 2nd most important British archbishopric of the Church of England being there.


No, you need to prove why the claim is absurd. The bishops and so on believe in church controlling state and in acquisition of power. It is beyond naive to be unaware of this.

I know exactly the workings of my Church. I can even give you a decent idea of where the funding goes due to the Anglican Church being reasonably open about these things to the Christian believers in their Church. You bring preconceived myths about Christians running a huge conspiracy to the argument, it's rather clear that you actually do not want to know how we actually operate.


On what I know, posters can be left to make their own decision. But I level this at all religion, regardless of ethnicity.

I think I will withdraw, the arguments have been countered and logic does not seem to be accepted. Thank you for the debate though. It was pretty enjoyable.

Logic? You have made baseless assumptions that the priests and the bishops deceive us for the sake of deception. If you make a claim like this you have to back it up. I deal with the facts and the statistics behind the workings of the Church, it seems that you like conspiracy theories far more than anything else.

Ethnicity? Is this a serious claim? There are Christians all over the world, however it seems to me that Christians receive more criticism in Western society due to being of the majority race, thus being the safe option, whereas people hold back on other Dharmic and Eastern Faiths, or the other Abrahamic Faiths that were not commonly associated with our regions in the past. I witness it all the time, however I like a good challenge :)

[Viv]

Parents should legally have the option to teach their child religion. However questioning should always be encouraged, infact it was the questioning that caused me to find faith moreso than the actual teaching I find. Do you realize that bringing a child up without faith is also influencing them towards non-theism in an equal way to teaching them of a given religion in the first place? A lot of things parents do influences their child. The teachings of Christianity are also complementary to the general social ethic of society in most cases, except for the cases by which the State seems to want to constantly push the boundaries in relation to morality. However that is another discussion. This is in relation to Christ and His teachings.

Do you not think that moral instruction by parents is crucial to play a meaningful role within society? Social skills, and general etiquette also get passed down to children. If you are suggesting that a parent cannot teach it's child anything or influence their children towards productive living then society in general would collapse around us due to uneducated kids. Parents also influence their children in relation to a language. I suggest that parents teach their children no language as teaching them English before they are able to understand English is wrong :D. That's basically what you are suggesting in saying that parents shouldn't teach a children a faith that they do not understand as of yet. Do you not see that this logic fails in a number of regards itself.



It's actually not in the same location. It's in Church House, Westminster. Westminster does include more than the Houses of Parliament you know? It occasionally takes place at the University of York due to the 2nd most important British archbishopric of the Church of England being there.



I know exactly the workings of my Church. I can even give you a decent idea of where the funding goes due to the Anglican Church being reasonably open about these things to the Christian believers in their Church. You bring preconceived myths about Christians running a huge conspiracy to the argument, it's rather clear that you actually do not want to know how we actually operate.



Logic? You have made baseless assumptions that the priests and the bishops deceive us for the sake of deception. If you make a claim like this you have to back it up. I deal with the facts and the statistics behind the workings of the Church, it seems that you like conspiracy theories far more than anything else.

Ethnicity? Is this a serious claim? There are Christians all over the world, however it seems to me that Christians receive more criticism in Western society due to being of the majority race, thus being the safe option, whereas people hold back on other Dharmic and Eastern Faiths, or the other Abrahamic Faiths that were not commonly associated with our regions in the past. I witness it all the time, however I like a good challenge :)

THAT...looks like a gauntlet being thrown. :p

[Gareth]

If you refer to it as throwing the gauntlet. I refer to it as defending the faith on earth. Please feel free to ask questions, however making accusations doesn't really establish who is true or false ultimately.

[Viv]

If you refer to it as throwing the gauntlet. I refer to it as defending the faith on earth. Please feel free to ask questions, however making accusations doesn't really establish who is true or false ultimately.

Proposing views which differ from yours but agree with many is not accusation.

[Gareth]

Well you did accuse members of the church of manipulating and carrying out deception intentionally. Which is quite an accusation. It's not really looking to views which are different to mine, it is also blaming the priests of the Church also.

[Viv]

Well you did accuse members of the church of manipulating and carrying out deception intentionally. Which is quite an accusation. It's not really looking to views which are different to mine, it is also blaming the priests of the Church also.

:)....not the first person to express this view...many hold it.

[Gareth]

:)....not the first person to express this view...many hold it.

I haven't asserted anything like this about any non-theist. I'm dealing with what we know, not on hearsay.