Religion, what's the point?

[Eriku]

Well, biologically, there was an Adam and Eve, though Eve was thousands of years before before Adam (I think there may have been multiple Adams actually)

But, basically, one female australopithecine was born with a mutation, and that was the first human.

As for the Bible, the old testament is the Jewish Bible, and I believe that it was agreed thousands of years ago that the stories were allegorical

I’ve heard of mitochondrial eve, but even that doesn’t imply that she was the first of a new kind from which all humans are descended.

Also, correct me if I’m wrong but biology can’t make a hard line in speciation like that. There’s no definite first human, even if we had a complete record.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

I’ve heard of mitochondrial eve, but even that doesn’t imply that she was the first of a new kind from which all humans are descended.

Also, correct me if I’m wrong but biology can’t make a hard line in speciation like that. There’s no definite first human, even if we had a complete record.

To be fair, I was a recalling a stoned conversation from about 20years ago, so you're probably right

 

[Eriku]

To be fair, I was a recalling a stoned conversation from about 20years ago, so you're probably right

 

[Shakesy]

Religion is the most natural rung in the ladder of evolution. It makes absolute sense

 

[Buster15]

I know this wasn't addressed to me or a response to me, hope you don't mind me replying.

What you have said here is the downfall of religion and why I (as a religious person) find certain discussions so hard.

Whether Christian or Muslim ( I am Muslim) it's the deluded that cause problems. They find an issue that they can't get their head around or quite accept so ignore it or try and explain it away without wanting to be questioned on their belief.

Usually the average person is either afraid because they got grilled when asking "someone in authority" as in "your faith is weak" rather than an explanation or it becomes an ego thing. As in can't say I don't know or I will look like a mug. So continuing and looking like a mug anyway.

I came to religion later in life. And it was this nonsense that kept me away. Difference was I was lucky enough to fall in with people who addressed these issues rather than just take them at face value. I've met with theologians who don't accept the biblical verses as written. But know through research that what we read in English wasn't what was said in Aramaic, for example. Unfortunately though you don't see many of these around.

Hey. This is an open forum and I always appreciate any responses. And thank you for your honesty.

 

[Buster15]

Well, biologically, there was an Adam and Eve, though Eve was thousands of years before before Adam (I think there may have been multiple Adams actually)

But, basically, one female australopithecine was born with a mutation, and that was the first human.

As for the Bible, the old testament is the Jewish Bible, and I believe that it was agreed thousands of years ago that the stories were allegorical

No. I don't believe that. The transition from one hominid species to another culminating in homo sapiens was the result of evolution through natural selection with tiny changes over thousands and thousands of years.
There was not just one lineage but many.

 

[Buster15]

Most regular Christians look at the Bible and Jesus as a source of inspiration and strength. They don't really sit and argue on the validity of everything written in the Bible. Except some conservative Americans, and those media and politicians who mix religion and politics to make themselves rich and powerful. They have a need to come up with weird arguments to support every word in the Bible.

Besides religion is a matter of faith. Logic doesn't play much of a role in the whole thing.

Yes. I am sure that is about right. I have a very good Christian Vicar friend who takes that view.

But unfortunately, for me, that was what totally put me off being a believer. Because I had no faith in a belief that is not based on something tangible.
For example, the Bible says that Jesus is the son of God. Moreover, it says that God created Jesus as his only son in his own likeness. So is God a man?

Edit.
When I was a young boy, I was christened and then confirmed and regularly went to church and sunday school.
At no time was it said or accepted that only selected parts of the Bible should be believed.
I do believe that there was a person who is called Jesus.
But I do not believe that there is a God.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

No. I don't believe that. The transition from one hominid species to another culminating in homo sapiens was the result of evolution through natural selection with tiny changes over thousands and thousands of years.
There was not just one lineage but many.

That's why I said australopithecine

 

[Buster15]

That's why I said australopithecine

I realise that. But there is scant evidence of that species. It is just a name given to one of a number of possible species at the beginning of the transition to hominids.

 

[calodo2003]

Folks, we're dangerously close to becoming the RAWK thread when non-RAWK issues are discussed & it takes away from the original intent of that thread.

 

[Buster15]

Folks, we're dangerously close to becoming the RAWK thread when non-RAWK issues are discussed & it takes away from the original intent of that thread.

So what is the original intent. Because as I read it, it is about what is the point of religion. And that is what I have been posting. No?

 

[calodo2003]

So what is the original intent. Because as I read it, it is about what is the point of religion. And that is what I have been posting. No?

This is the RAWK-esque religion thread, a thread to take the piss out of religion. The other thread is perfect for earnest discussion in the vein of what you have been doing.

 

[Carolina Red]

When I was a young boy, I was christened and then confirmed and regularly went to church and sunday school.
At no time was it said or accepted that only selected parts of the Bible should be believed.
I do believe that there was a person who is called Jesus.
But I do not believe that there is a God.

I just sang this in my head to the tune of Black Parade by My Chemical Romance and it almost works

 

[calodo2003]

I just sang this in my head to the tune of Black Parade by My Chemical Romance and it works

 

[calodo2003]

 

[nimic]

This is the RAWK-esque religion thread, a thread to take the piss out of religion. The other thread is perfect for earnest discussion in the vein of what you have been doing.

No it isn't. The other thread specifically says it's not for atheists "to question religion", which can be interpreted as broadly as a modmin wants. This is the CE, no thread is supposed to be a RAWK-esque pisstake. Although the Musk thread is pretty close, but mostly because Musk is such a dumb wanker. Let's encourage serious discussion in this thread too.

 

[calodo2003]

No it isn't. The other thread specifically says it's not for atheists "to question religion", which can be interpreted as broadly as a modmin wants. This is the CE, no thread is supposed to be a RAWK-esque pisstake. Although the Musk thread is pretty close, but mostly because Musk is such a dumb wanker. Let's encourage serious discussion in this thread too.

Never been in the other thread, but have consistently been told that this was not a thread for earnest discussion a la the RAWK thread. If it is in fact not true, then I stand corrected.

Seems like a bit too much 'encouragement of serious discussion' within the two threads especially when one is being specifically exclusionary, but to each their own.

 

[nimic]

Never been in the other thread, but have consistently been told that this was not a thread for earnest discussion a la the RAWK thread. If it is in fact not true, then I stand corrected.

Seems like a bit too much 'encouragement of serious discussion' within the two threads especially when one is being specifically exclusionary, but to each their own.

For all I know that is the way it's intended, but if it is then it's stupid. That means atheists are basically excluded from engaging in serious discussion about religion. I don't see any other threads in the CE where there's an admin disclaimer in the first post (and reminder in the thread title) that a certain group is not allowed to participate.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

I think it's more of an anything goes don't get offended thread. Nothing wrong with asking a question, we've had some comedy replies, with some discussion mixed in

 

[Buster15]

Look guys. I am in my early 70s and have no idea what RAWK even means.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

The thing is, some of the religious types struggle with their religion being questioned, especially by atheists, so let them have there little bubble where God definitely exists, and let the grown ups talk in here.

I'd be happy to debate with a religious guy in here, but they've got to be able to understand not everyone believes in God

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Look guys. I am in my early 70s and have no idea what RAWK even means.

Red and White Kop, Liverpool forum

 

[calodo2003]

For all I know that is the way it's intended, but if it is then it's stupid. That means atheists are basically excluded from engaging in serious discussion about religion. I don't see any other threads in the CE where there's an admin disclaimer in the first post (and reminder in the thread title) that a certain group is not allowed to participate.

I get what you are saying. This thread was always the one where tweets, etc. critical of religion were able to be posted in a 'taking the piss out of religion' fashion, like Right Wing Watch, for example. Each thread was its own safe space, but the atheist caveat does give no real platform for a discussion by an atheist challenging religion. If it has to happen in the 'what's the point?' thread, all good by me & forget my recent posts in order to foster the ability to challenge.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

I don't see why religious people can't enjoy and engage with this thread. Not all religious people are nut jobs

 

[Buster15]

Red and White Kop, Liverpool forum

Understood. Thank you for explaining.

 

[Roane]

The thing is, some of the religious types struggle with their religion being questioned, especially by atheists, so let them have there little bubble where God definitely exists, and let the grown ups talk in here.

I'd be happy to debate with a religious guy in here, but they've got to be able to understand not everyone believes in God

I'd be happy to discuss with you mate. And have any questions asked.

I feel similar to you but opposite way obviously, being religious.

What gets me is you can't have a sensible debate with say am individual like yourself without others joining in with incessant questions demanding answers. It's happened to me on here a few times. Takes away from a 1 2 1 discussion.

I'd love to discuss with likes of Dawkins, Gervais etc. But they won't discuss where they aren't in a safe space. Tbf I've not tried with Gervais but Dawkins goes silent and walks away.

 

[2cents]

For all I know that is the way it's intended, but if it is then it's stupid. That means atheists are basically excluded from engaging in serious discussion about religion. I don't see any other threads in the CE where there's an admin disclaimer in the first post (and reminder in the thread title) that a certain group is not allowed to participate.

I’m the top poster in the other thread but not religious/(possibly atheist). From my perspective I appreciated having a thread about religion that wasn’t bogged down by the - in my opinion - uninteresting question of whether or not there is a god. I tend to understand “religion” (however we understand the term) as one of the fundamental human experiences, and as a consequence I take it quite seriously, whatever excesses we have taken it to.

 

[The Corinthian]

Look guys. I am in my early 70s and have no idea what RAWK even means.

Real Atheists Without Knowledge

 

[calodo2003]

Real Atheists Without Knowledge

Well done.

 

[Carolina Red]

Never been in the other thread, but have consistently been told that this was not a thread for earnest discussion a la the RAWK thread. If it is in fact not true, then I stand corrected.

Seems like a bit too much 'encouragement of serious discussion' within the two threads especially when one is being specifically exclusionary, but to each their own.

I think it’s more of a “if you’re religious and post in here defending your faith, don’t come in with the expectation that your faith won’t be questioned / poked fun at by non-believers”

 

[Buster15]

Real Atheists Without Knowledge

It gets better every time.

 

[Gehrman]

I'd be happy to discuss with you mate. And have any questions asked.

I feel similar to you but opposite way obviously, being religious.

What gets me is you can't have a sensible debate with say am individual like yourself without others joining in with incessant questions demanding answers. It's happened to me on here a few times. Takes away from a 1 2 1 discussion.

I'd love to discuss with likes of Dawkins, Gervais etc. But they won't discuss where they aren't in a safe space. Tbf I've not tried with Gervais but Dawkins goes silent and walks away.

Have you been having discussions with Richard Dawkins who slithers away from your cutting edge arguments? Where is this Richard? Is he in the room with us right now?

 

[Moby]

Have you been having discussions with Richard Dawkins who slithers away from your cutting edge arguments? Where is this Richard? Is he in the room with us right now?

Won't be the first time for them to be talking to an imaginary friend.

 

[do.ob]

I'd be happy to discuss with you mate. And have any questions asked.

I feel similar to you but opposite way obviously, being religious.

What gets me is you can't have a sensible debate with say am individual like yourself without others joining in with incessant questions demanding answers. It's happened to me on here a few times. Takes away from a 1 2 1 discussion.

I'd love to discuss with likes of Dawkins, Gervais etc. But they won't discuss where they aren't in a safe space. Tbf I've not tried with Gervais but Dawkins goes silent and walks away.

I can totally see how they are speechless against arguments like this:

Having seen some of the narrations, they have chains from multiple sources, with names and ages and family/background of individuals, and backgrounds of their families too.

Make of that what you wish

 

[Gehrman]

Won't be the first time for them to be talking to an imaginary friend.

Ive tried to engage with Gervais and Dawkins on twitter, but they won't engage no matter how many times i spam my argument. Personally i think ive won the debate that never happened.

 

[Moby]

I can totally see how they are speechless against arguments like this:

Having seen some of the narrations, they have chains from multiple sources, with names and ages and family/background of individuals, and backgrounds of their families too.

Make of that what you wish

Exactly.

"I can't believe people haven't bothered to spend time debating with me when I've been wasting their time with hard hitting evidence such as word of mouth from hundreds of years ago. Must mean I am right. "

 

[Moby]

Ive tried to engage with Gervais and Dawkins on twitter, but they won't engage no matter how many times i spam my argument. Personally i think ive won the debate that never happened.

Sounds legit to me.

 

[Salt Bailly]

Ive tried to engage with Gervais and Dawkins on twitter, but they won't engage no matter how many times i spam my argument. Personally i think ive won the debate that never happened.

You need to pay for your blue tick so you get noticed.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

I'd be happy to discuss with you mate. And have any questions asked.

I feel similar to you but opposite way obviously, being religious.

What gets me is you can't have a sensible debate with say am individual like yourself without others joining in with incessant questions demanding answers. It's happened to me on here a few times. Takes away from a 1 2 1 discussion.

I'd love to discuss with likes of Dawkins, Gervais etc. But they won't discuss where they aren't in a safe space. Tbf I've not tried with Gervais but Dawkins goes silent and walks away.

Cool. So if there's an infinite number of dimensions, how can there be a final all seeing all knowing God?

 

[Roane]

Have you been having discussions with Richard Dawkins who slithers away from your cutting edge arguments? Where is this Richard? Is he in the room with us right now?

Probably hiding.

Besides he accepts intelligent design nowadays