[Closed] The second coming

I'll shorten it to 'anyone who believes in religion is an idiot'.

Ok then.

Isaac Newton - Idiot. John Milton - Idiot. Martin Luther King - Idiot. Max Plank - Idiot.

but "unverifiable atheism", that's comedy gold.

Ok then, verify Atheism. Particularly, as a Materialist, can you say how something came from nothing?

Without referring string theory, other dimensions, or the saying "we will work it out eventually". There is no evidence for the first two and the third is a statement of hope - which puts you in exactly the same position as the believer.

As has been pointed out before by the more sensible contributors, neither faith nor complete disbelief can be proven by the evidence.

I would argue conversely that without Christianity, and the civic culture it supported in this country for many hundreds of years, there would not have been a UK in the first place, let alone economic prosperity, religious and political liberty, and the opportunity (not always realised) to discuss whether God exists in the first place

I think you will find that "civic culture" is a result of large number of factors and evidence has shown that religion has stympied culture and social development in the UK as well as other countries. I would argue that we have become more enlightened in spite of religion not as a result of it. The fact that "religion" was prevalent during times of social enlightement doesnt mean enlightenment came about because of it, more in spite of it. The work of atheists needs to continue.

And to claim that religion has somehow given us the opportunity to debate its existence is quite funny given its attempts to silence its critics at every stage through history.

who have happened to read a book

You couldnt make it up!

Ok then.

Isaac Newton - Idiot. John Milton - Idiot. Martin Luther King - Idiot. Max Plank - Idiot.

But the fact that some people believe it doesnt make it any more true in the same way that Richard Dawkins finding god on his death bed reinforces yours or anybody elses argument for it.

You do understand that dont you?

neither faith nor complete disbelief can be proven by the evidence

Do you want me to similarly disprove the existence of the tooth fairy?

And to claim that religion has somehow given us the opportunity to debate its existence is quite funny given its attempts to silence its critics at every stage through history.

There is much in this. I think if you look at all human history, power politics means people try to silence others. And Christianity has for the most part been no different.

But since its founder rejected compulsion and persecution, I would say that this is corrupt Christianity (we live in a fallen world, after all).

There have been countless liberation movements undertook by Christians who actually read the Gospels and understood them. Martin Luther King against racism, Wilberforce against African slavery, John Milton against political Absolutism.

I'll shorten it to 'anyone who [b]believes [/b]in religion is an idiot'.

As in present day not when times and technologies were radically different. Anyway it was a [i]slightly [/i]tongue in cheek comment as a reply to an implied post.

Do you want me to similarly disprove the existence of the tooth fairy?

Zimbo, I wish you would consider your statements before jumping into the fray.

The tooth fairy, I would happily agree, does not exist.

God, on the other hand, is a different matter. There remains the question of how something came from nothing and countless civilisations have found the concept of a divine creator to be the most reasonable explanation.

the Creationists Museum in Kentucky.

Oh, that's beautiful.

Just to say Cougar I have enjoyed your posts on this thread.

Aw bless. Thanks.

I'm fascinated by why Cougar seeks to start a discussion on religion when it is very clear he has made up his mind and will not be convinced otherwise.

I'm not looking to be convinced, nor to convince others. I just find it interesting to discuss topics with people of other viewpoints. Otherwise it'd be a short, dull conversation. "I think this, like this, and want this." - "Hey, so do I!" - "Hm. Nice weather we're having."

Did you have a stab at answering the OP? A few people have, but the posts tended to get lost in the background noise.

Oh, great! Another day, another tedious tail-chasing STW will eat itself thread on religion that goes around and around and around like all the others before it.

Anyone forcing you to read it?

It is a meaningless question unless the inquirer is willing to accept the possibility of a Second Coming.

You seem to have meaningless and hypothetical confused; nonetheless, asking the question requires no acceptance at all, answering it might do though.

can you say how something came from nothing?

Do you actually read any of the answers that people give you when you ask questions? I've told you about six times now, no-one thinks that something came from nothing (other than you, seemingly), this is a straw man.

The "Gospels" and institutional/organised religion are the problem. They are all about bigotry and subjugation. Personal faith, I have no problem with, irrational though it may seem to me.

Zimbo, I wish you would consider your statements before jumping into the fray

More of that comedy gold. You're wasted on here. How did you know I've only just started thinking about religion after I finished today's lunch?

There have been countless liberation movements undertook by Christians who actually read the Gospels and understood them. Martin Luther King against racism, Wilberforce against African slavery,

Yet the first book actively encouraged it and the second did not dismiss it.

I would say that this is corrupt Christianity (we live in a fallen world, after all).

So was King mistaken when he raged against what your text encouraged?

Anyway it was a slightly tongue in cheek comment as a reply to an implied post.

I'd like clarification on what constitutes an implied post. I prefer the explicit post, as its hard to detect someone winking over the internet.

As in present day not when times and technologies were radically different

I agree completely, we live in a very different world where technology and science have revolutionised our understandings. But still, science presupposed that nature's Laws are rational, consistent and discover-able (Newton in particular saw his science as a part of his religious inquiry). I see no difference in the conception of scientific inquiry since science has developed over the last three hundred years, insofar as it still believes in intelligible laws. But the question remains, what created such complex but consistent and beautiful laws in the first place?

Did you have a stab at answering the OP? A few people have, but the posts tended to get lost in the background noise

Sorry Cougar...my original Che Guevara comment attempted to respond to your OP - sorry if I've contributed to the sidetracking. I'll shut up now!

Surfer makes a couple of excellent points about Scripture. It can indeed be read to support slavery and racism. And it has been for many many centuries (the Old Testament in particular).

But the Gospels give a simple and clear message: in your life, do not persecute, do not compel, do not be prejudiced. I would recommend the book of James in particular.

As an anti-formalist religion, Christianity was a reaction against literal interpretation. The bible is a hugely complicated work, hugely contradictory, a mixture of different literary modes and genres. It is not an instruction manual. It is a starting point.

The tooth fairy, I would happily agree, does not exist.

You sound awfully sure. Can you prove that it doesn't?

countless civilisations have found the concept of a divine creator to be the most [s]reasonable[/s] [b]convenient[/b] explanation.

FTFY.

I'd like clarification on what constitutes an implied post.

But the question remains, what created such complex but consistent and beautiful laws in the first place?

It can indeed be read to support slavery

When you say "can be read"

By the miracle of "copy and past" I could give you "chapter and verse" quoting Leviticus, Genesis and Deutoronomy. These are the clear and unambigous lessons the old testament gives us.

The nice bits you mentioned you made up yourself! I would say from the fact that you live in an enlightened society, in spite of religion.

I'm not looking to be convinced, nor to convince others. I just find it interesting to discuss topics with people of other viewpoints. Otherwise it'd be a short, dull conversation. "I think this, like this, and want this." - "Hey, so do I!" - "Hm. Nice weather we're having."

That's not being honest Cougar. You've said many times that you think people who believe in God are simply wrong. Why then would you want to discuss something (which you don't think is true) with people who you know are wrong?

Returning to your original question, it is paradoxical. What would people do if an event happened which by nature can never happen? It makes no logical sense. In that respect it is clearly something other than an attempt to start an open minded discussion. It is Agitation, pure and simple.

I will sign off now (insults welcome - running away etc) but I do have a life independent of Agitation to get back to.

I agree what created your god? And where did all the matter that he created come from?

Last one promise.

Excellent question. The concept of the Christian God is that He is self creating and Eternal (thereby independent of the material Universe).

The concept of the Christian God is that He is self creating and Eternal (thereby independent of the material Universe).

The 'self creating and eternal' is a quick convenient way of getting round the question I suppose, and the 'material Universe' that he is independent of, where did that come from?

Oh great CFH posts about the inanity of posting on an internet thread

awwww ro5ey beat me to it.

🙂 for flashy coz I love him really.

Ask George Michael, he had the answer.

I wonder if there's a patron saint of pointless arguements...

I would argue conversely that without Christianity, and the civic culture it supported in this country for many hundreds of years, there would not have been a UK in the first place, let alone economic prosperity, religious and political liberty, and the opportunity (not always realised) to discuss whether God exists in the first place.

"I wonder if there's a patron saint of pointless arguements..."

We could get TeeJ a little picture of said pointless patron saint or maybe a little medallion on a chain

Why then would you want to discuss something (which you don't think is true) with people who you know are wrong?

Why then would you want to discuss something (which you don't think is true) with people who you know are wrong?

Did I not just explain that in the sentence you quoted?

What would people do if an event happened which by nature can never happen?

Woah, hang on. How long has god been bound by nature? I thought he was omnipotent? You're telling me that a being powerful enough to [i]create the universe[/i] would be unable to send his Earthly son back for a second try? Or another messenger perhaps; the Bible talks about his only son but I don't recall it precluding any daughters.

It is Agitation, pure and simple.

It is not. I don't know how I'm expected to prove that(*) but I stated right at the outset, it was a genuine question.

(* - you can't disprove it though**)

(** - ok, [i]that [/i]was agitation 😀 )

We could get TeeJ a little picture of said pointless patron saint or maybe a little medallion on a chain

... or you could just

No. I don't want to get banned again, or be accused of being nasty.

"or you could just..."

Who to him (teej) or me ?

If its me.... go for it