GOD: How much do you believe in him?

[DTES]

I have only just seen bothered to look at this thread as I knew it would deteriate quickly. Suggest everyone starts being sensible before it is deleted. Fine to have the discussion, but there is no need to abuse each other and call other NSC users names. Stop it or I or another moderator will delete the thread.

With all due respect, there are plenty of users here having a perfectly mature debate; to delete the thread would not be fair on them. If someone went in with a vicious challenge on the pitch, the ref may well send them off; he wouldn't postpone the match.

Deleting abusive posts would be perfectly fair and I would have no issue with it.

 

[HovaGirl]

Hang on, how can they not all be wrong?
Obviously they can't all be right because they contradict each other. But that doesn't mean they can't all be wrong.

I doubt there are 42 million Christians in the UK either.

According to the 2001 census, 42 million people classed themselves as Christian. As to faiths not being wrong, they're not wrong to the people who believe in them. (I repeat, I'm not religious myself.)

 

[Giraffe]

With all due respect, there are plenty of users here having a perfectly mature debate; to delete the thread would not be fair on them. If someone went in with a vicious challenge on the pitch, the ref may well send them off; he wouldn't postpone the match.

Deleting abusive posts would be perfectly fair and I would have no issue with it.

You have a fair point. And if controlled the thread will stay.

But individuals being abused won't be tolerated. Bans will be issued.

 

[DTES]

Proof of the Existence of God

In a court of law the strongest proof that something happened or existed is a witness statement. Seeing is believing. You cannot compare something seen to something heard.

Any historical fact is proven by those who witnessed and recorded the event. It follows that the more witnesses to that event, the more bona fide the fact.

Ask anyone who went to Sunday school, or even not, how many plagues there were in Egypt when the Israelites were lead out of bondage to the promised land, by Moses and their answer would be 10. If anyone suggested there were 11 they would immediately be contradicted, not just by the historical detail, as presented in the Torah. We would have remembered if there were 11 plagues, but no there were 10!

In fact, had there been 'Chinese whispers', a distortion of the story over generations, we would have ended up with different versions of the story. All agree, however, that the Jews left Egypt and 49 days later, stood before Mount Sinai and heard the 10 Commandments from God.

This is known, not just because a book (The Torah) tells us so, but simply by tradition - by the fact that generation after generation have transmitted this story and that it is based on the actual experience of an entire nation. It therefore remains an undisputed historical fact.

At Sinai, 600,000 men between the ages of 20 and 60, plus women and children (and men under the age of 20 and over the age of 60) - a total of approximately three million people - heard the Ten Commandments from God himself.

This event recorded in the Torah, is at the same time, a witnessed event of history and therefore an undisputed historical fact. To discredit it is highly unscientific.

And what happens in a court of law when witnesses each have directly contradicting testimonies? The analogy can be continued by introducing a second witness who testifies as to the literal truth of the Sikh holy book. Or that of Hinduism. Or... [repeat ad nauseum].

How does that work?

 

[DerbyGull]

I have only just seen bothered to look at this thread as I knew it would deteriate quickly.

Suggest everyone starts being sensible before it is deleted. Fine to have the discussion, but there is no need to abuse each other and call other NSC users names.

Stop it or I or another moderator will delete the thread.

There's only one person constantly coming out with expletives so far

 

[DTES]

As to faiths not being wrong, they're not wrong to the people who believe in them.

I'm confused as to what you mean here. I realise that we (either NSC or the world as a whole) are never going to agree on whether a god exists or not. However, irrespective of whether we know which it is, it does have to be one of those options. Either there is a god, or there is not. If there is not, all faiths are wrong.

 

[piersa]

Apart from being driven around in a cart being homophobic, just what is his job?

Another aspect of the pope's job is promoting the spread of aids. his appraisal should go well.

 

[One Love]

Did you say it? Maybe not. Is it common Christian teaching that Jesus died for our sins? Yes. Which was my point.

You don't believe the common teaching that he sacrificed himself for us, in order that we may be forgiven?

I don't believe everything in the Bible.

I do believe in an all-loving Source that forgives everything.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Proof of the Existence of God

In a court of law the strongest proof that something happened or existed is a witness statement. Seeing is believing. You cannot compare something seen to something heard.

Any historical fact is proven by those who witnessed and recorded the event. It follows that the more witnesses to that event, the more bona fide the fact.

Ask anyone who went to Sunday school, or even not, how many plagues there were in Egypt when the Israelites were lead out of bondage to the promised land, by Moses and their answer would be 10. If anyone suggested there were 11 they would immediately be contradicted, not just by the historical detail, as presented in the Torah. We would have remembered if there were 11 plagues, but no there were 10!

In fact, had there been 'Chinese whispers', a distortion of the story over generations, we would have ended up with different versions of the story. All agree, however, that the Jews left Egypt and 49 days later, stood before Mount Sinai and heard the 10 Commandments from God.

This is known, not just because a book (The Torah) tells us so, but simply by tradition - by the fact that generation after generation have transmitted this story and that it is based on the actual experience of an entire nation. It therefore remains an undisputed historical fact.

At Sinai, 600,000 men between the ages of 20 and 60, plus women and children (and men under the age of 20 and over the age of 60) - a total of approximately three million people - heard the Ten Commandments from God himself.

This event recorded in the Torah, is at the same time, a witnessed event of history and therefore an undisputed historical fact. To discredit it is highly unscientific.

Those 3 million people would also bare witness that the earth was flat.

 

[DerbyGull]

I don't believe everything in the Bible.

I do believe in an all-loving Source that forgives everything.

Which is the way it should be.

 

[Silent Bob]

In a court of law the strongest proof that something happened or existed is a witness statement. Seeing is believing. You cannot compare something seen to something heard.

Any historical fact is proven by those who witnessed and recorded the event. It follows that the more witnesses to that event, the more bona fide the fact.

Ask anyone who went to Sunday school, or even not, how many plagues there were in Egypt when the Israelites were lead out of bondage to the promised land, by Moses and their answer would be 10. If anyone suggested there were 11 they would immediately be contradicted, not just by the historical detail, as presented in the Torah. We would have remembered if there were 11 plagues, but no there were 10!

In fact, had there been 'Chinese whispers', a distortion of the story over generations, we would have ended up with different versions of the story. All agree, however, that the Jews left Egypt and 49 days later, stood before Mount Sinai and heard the 10 Commandments from God.

This is known, not just because a book (The Torah) tells us so, but simply by tradition - by the fact that generation after generation have transmitted this story and that it is based on the actual experience of an entire nation. It therefore remains an undisputed historical fact.

At Sinai, 600,000 men between the ages of 20 and 60, plus women and children (and men under the age of 20 and over the age of 60) - a total of approximately three million people - heard the Ten Commandments from God himself.

This event recorded in the Torah, is at the same time, a witnessed event of history and therefore an undisputed historical fact. To discredit it is highly unscientific.

What is unscientific is claiming that one account of an event which claims however many witnesses equals that many witnesses. Somehow I don't think you'd get away with that one in your court of law.

According to the 2001 census, 42 million people classed themselves as Christian. As to faiths not being wrong, they're not wrong to the people who believe in them. (I repeat, I'm not religious myself.)

But you said they can't all be right.
Never mind.

I know at least one person who ticked the christian box on that census, despite never going to church and not even believing in god. Seems totally bizarre to me but it's apparently fairly common. Also I know a lot of people who are obviously not religious but have the wishy washy desire to believe in 'something' and I would guess people like that did the same thing. It's hard to believe that there are that many christians in the country given how few people ever attend church.

 

[DTES]

I don't believe everything in the Bible.

I do believe in an all-loving Source that forgives everything.

Fair enough.

Slightly different question then, but why do you define that "Source" to be the Christian God if you don't believe the word of the Bible? You may as well say it's either a completely different god unique to you, or decide to define it as one of the gods of a different faith? There must be a different faith that is closer to your description of the "Source" than the christian description is?

 

[piersa]

That's a truly appalling thing to say. It reveals you know nothing about either child abuse or religious faith.

Only appalling because it is stunningly accurate. if you believe children are not rail roaded into religion, you are in cuckoo land. I was, but luckily thought my way out of it.

 

[HovaGirl]

You're not his mum are you?

Sorry, if someone says they children are lucky if they die, no matter what his beleifs are, yes, I'd say that makes him a [unt.

Don't forget, this person also stated in this thread, he as only just started reading the bible. He hasn't even finished reading it yet, and he making statements like that.

Its probably also best not to tell me what you do, without knowing that I do.

If someone/anyone believe people starving to death is a good thing, in any way shape or form, then I will slate them.

Ok

I don't think the poster is saying he approves of death by starvation. He is saying they are born to a society where that is so common, that it might be better if they were never born at all, or died before they can face such an awful death. At least, that is how I interpret what he is saying.

 

[One Love]

Fair enough.

Slightly different question then, but why do you define that "Source" to be the Christian God if you don't believe the word of the Bible? You may as well say it's either a completely different god unique to you, or decide to define it as one of the gods of a different faith? There must be a different faith that is closer to your description of the "Source" than the christian description is?

I don't define the "Source" to be the Christian God.

I suppose if you wanted a "description", then Tibetan Buddhism but I prefer to live life letting my experiences unfold rather than following any set of principles etc

 

[NMH]

No, they're not. I read your post to mean that all money is used to study "mainstream" medicine - so I refuted it with evidence that it isn't.

So to be clear, your argument is what? That some money goes on mainstream medicine and some goes on herbal? Fine - I agree. Not sure how that proves anything, other than "the money is on both sides so doesn't play a part", which was my point. Efficacy decides it. Which is exactly what I said.



I am arguing that if they had access to modern, western medicine, but no other aspects of their lives were changed, their life expectancy would be increased. This is all.



Ok.



Well I am glad you've found something that works - I do hope you wouldn't assume otherwise. However this point actually covers both parts of the debate.

We've established now that money goes into investigating herbal remedies - yet still no-one has been able to prove under reasonable, standard, experimental conditions that echinacea works. A study like this should be simple to do. Take 100 people with your symptoms, give 50 echinacea and 50 a placebo, but don't tell them which they have. If the 50 with echinacea improve significantly better than the 50 with a placebo, you have evidence it works. Nobody has been able to do this.

What does this say to you, honestly? And secondly, if money has been pumped in and no-one has been able to prove it (here using 'it' to mean any treatment that this applies to, not just echinacea), do you honestly believe that the NHS should use public funds to provide it?



You know as well as I do that this was a deliberately ridiculous example to show the complete logical fallacy of the argument "I did A then B happened therefore A caused B". It's nonsense.

What I've been pointing out, is that when you go to a local social doctor's surgery, they aren't telling you to use ANY herbal cures, they will prescribe engineered drugs that are only available through a prescription. When a herbal remedy, or available assistant non-prescription treatment may be efficacious they can only say "there aren't studies to prove it will work". That's part of the point.

That American Indians, and other native cultures are known to have comparatively shortened lifespans is of course down to their lack of contact with modern medicine - what they know about the ancient remedies might be brilliant, and putting dock leaves on stings or chanting incantations with burning sticks might have some good effect - but it's not enough to save them from regular maladies they will get 'in the wilds'. That for sure. That's an alternative way of looking at their culture vs ours - they are the other extreme. No money is spent on medicine there, and the result is that they mostly are old-aged by 40!

What your suggestion about herb/placebo suggests, is that more attention could be applied by science, to holistic remedies. If no tests are done, then nothing is found to suggest something can work. Simple fact that you agree with, and so I don't know quite why it's "nonsense" to realize when something does work "A caused B to happen", and it's worth looking into. If glucosamine and condroitin, or shark cartilage were found to assist greatly in the healing from a hip replacement for instance, then it's not ridiculous at all.

 

[HovaGirl]

I agree it does not hurt a child to be told about God. I do, however, believe that it does hurt a child to teach them that a god (any god) is a matter of fact, and to hide from them that it is perfectly fine, reasonable and even common to believe otherwise. In terms of "mental" harm, teaching a young child as a matter of fact that they (or their friends/family) will spend an eternity in torture & agony is pretty damn cruel. In terms of physical harm, I believe that permanent acts such as (but not specifically limited to) circumcision on a child at a young age, just because a parent happens to believe their god wants it, is indeed child abuse.

Maybe the wording is wrong. Odd. From here: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_stuart_mill.html I have the correct wording, so who knows?

There does seem to be two versions around, but the quote I found says it is part of a letter he wrote.

As to your first para, I agree entirely. I'm not of the fire and brimstone school of RE. I was brought up in terror as a Catholic, hence I abandoned all religion. C of E is much more human!

 

[One Love]

That doesn't mean I dismiss the Christian God. I believe there are many paths to the top of the mountain.

 

[El Presidente]

Proof of the Existence of God

In a court of law the strongest proof that something happened or existed is a witness statement. Seeing is believing. You cannot compare something seen to something heard.

Any historical fact is proven by those who witnessed and recorded the event. It follows that the more witnesses to that event, the more bona fide the fact.

Ask anyone who went to Sunday school, or even not, how many plagues there were in Egypt when the Israelites were lead out of bondage to the promised land, by Moses and their answer would be 10. If anyone suggested there were 11 they would immediately be contradicted, not just by the historical detail, as presented in the Torah. We would have remembered if there were 11 plagues, but no there were 10!

In fact, had there been 'Chinese whispers', a distortion of the story over generations, we would have ended up with different versions of the story. All agree, however, that the Jews left Egypt and 49 days later, stood before Mount Sinai and heard the 10 Commandments from God.

This is known, not just because a book (The Torah) tells us so, but simply by tradition - by the fact that generation after generation have transmitted this story and that it is based on the actual experience of an entire nation. It therefore remains an undisputed historical fact.

At Sinai, 600,000 men between the ages of 20 and 60, plus women and children (and men under the age of 20 and over the age of 60) - a total of approximately three million people - heard the Ten Commandments from God himself.

This event recorded in the Torah, is at the same time, a witnessed event of history and therefore an undisputed historical fact. To discredit it is highly unscientific.

Nonsense, surely if it had been witnessed by three million someone would have put it up on Youtube by now?

 

[DerbyGull]

And only one person coming out with evil misguided comments.... creep arse!

I can tell you're deeply unhappy in your life.