Social Religion, Politics and absolutely nothing to do with footy

[Turbocat]

And for all the these writings over many millennia, how many of them contain a scrap of evidence to suggest the existence of a deity? Of course, none! Science won't prove the existence of something that can't be proven, which is why my default position regarding religion and life in general has always been that it's incumbent upon those of whom present a new idea or theory to prove its existence or at least its validity, not the other way around. Unfortunately, Christianity has been around for over 2000 years, so we can hardly question those of whom "presented" Christianity right here and now.

I delved into "Theology and associated fields" only as deeply as I needed to in order to ascertain that none of it provides even a skerrick of evidence to prove that the claims, musings or any other texts contained in any such literature has been proven as fact by adopting scientific methods. Which is why it is my opinion that all that religion does is promote an insular, intolerant and self-righteous mentality. People don't need religion to derive their morality from, nor do they need to devote themselves to a deity fashioned by someone throughout a period in history which just so happened to suit their agenda at the time.

You talk about "billions of lives transformed"; What about the billions of lives lost in the most callous and brutal ways imaginable? All for what? All for a god that we can't even prove exists. If religion helps people live a more fulfilled life, fine. But it doesn't mean that it's correct. Most religious people are peaceful people, but it's not through religion which we derive our core morality from, so those same poeple would be good people with or without the delusion of a false purpose. My biggest issue with religion is the platform it provides for psychopaths with grandiose agendas to carry out mass genocide in the name of a higher being.

Double Ouch..

( But I have to say there would be some on here that would say ...Adelaide city of churches...and your line about insular resides side by side)


By the way ... can someone tell me which God is going to supply our next Flag...thats the OP isn't it.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Double Ouch..

( But I have to say there would be some on here that would say ...Adelaide city of churches...and your line about insular resides side by side)


By the way ... can someone tell me which God is going to supply our next Flag...thats the OP isn't it.

There is only one true God, triune in nature. The rest are idols.

So that would be the God of the bible for the next flag.

Better start praying - and hoping it's according to His will of course.

 

[Lana]

Double Ouch..

( But I have to say there would be some on here that would say ...Adelaide city of churches...and your line about insular resides side by side)


By the way ... can someone tell me which God is going to supply our next Flag...thats the OP isn't it.

We are the Cats, so look towards Egypt. I'd start with Ra, since it's daytime grandfinal.

 

[CharacterFirst]

We are the Cats, so look towards Egypt. I'd start with Ra, since it's daytime grandfinal.

Actually. The whole clubs ethos is built on a Christian program called Character First.

You can thank Frank for that (not that he's a Xian, but he has Catholic roots).

 

[Baby Duck]

Always found it interesting that atheists demand empirical evidence for a deity they already acknowledge is non-material. Nothing short of God Himself manifesting in front of them will change their mind.

 

[Turbocat]

There is only one true God, triune in nature. The rest are idols.

So that would be the God of the bible for the next flag.

Better start praying - and hoping it's according to His will of course.

You don't rely on a bit selective editing do you ..The bible yeah right.... If its been written by "man" ...guess who made it up?.....and who says its a him. Rather sexist isn't that?

 

[Turbocat]

We are the Cats, so look towards Egypt. I'd start with Ra, since it's daytime grandfinal.

Do I have to join the Masons for that...they are big on the eye aren't they?

 

[manboob]

 

[Partridge]

If your argument relies on discrediting scientific evidence, which basically means empirical evidence, then you haven't a leg to stand on.

Maybe it's better you don't sign off by advising people to go read the bible. It's a bit provocative, obviously.

It's not a useless exercise though. If it is an inspired book, surely it must be read in full. The one thing you quickly learn (and not directed at you CF), is that few who proclaim it have actually done that.

 

[Partridge]

And for all the these writings over many millennia, how many of them contain a scrap of evidence to suggest the existence of a deity? Of course, none! Science won't prove the existence of something that can't be proven, which is why my default position regarding religion and life in general has always been that it's incumbent upon those of whom present a new idea or theory to prove its existence or at least its validity, not the other way around. Unfortunately, Christianity has been around for over 2000 years, so we can hardly question those of whom "presented" Christianity right here and now.

I delved into "Theology and associated fields" only as deeply as I needed to in order to ascertain that none of it provides even a skerrick of evidence to prove that the claims, musings or any other texts contained in any such literature has been proven as fact by adopting scientific methods. Which is why it is my opinion that all that religion does is promote an insular, intolerant and self-righteous mentality. People don't need religion to derive their morality from, nor do they need to devote themselves to a deity fashioned by someone throughout a period in history which just so happened to suit their agenda at the time.

You talk about "billions of lives transformed"; What about the billions of lives lost in the most callous and brutal ways imaginable? All for what? All for a god that we can't even prove exists. If religion helps people live a more fulfilled life, fine. But it doesn't mean that it's correct. Most religious people are peaceful people, but it's not through religion which we derive our core morality from, so those same poeple would be good people with or without the delusion of a false purpose. My biggest issue with religion is the platform it provides for psychopaths with grandiose agendas to carry out mass genocide in the name of a higher being.

There's my nomination for post of the year. That's worthy of Paine, Ingersoll, Mencken, or Hitchens. Brilliant.

 

[Lana]

It's not a useless exercise though. If it is an inspired book, surely it must be read in full. The one thing you quickly learn (and not directed at you CF), is that few who proclaim it have actually done that.

There are a lot of inspired books out there, more than a person could read in a life time if they were so inclined.

 

[Strangled Cat]

You can PM each other if so inclined. But these kind of discussions generally end with the two parties resenting each other.

In most cases, yes. But I already knew CharacterFirst's views on the world well before this discussion. My views on him haven't and won't change because nothing he said was anything other than completely predictable. I respect the man despite our differing views on this topic, and that will not change.

 

[Strangled Cat]

Mate.

I like you. I sympathise with you living with an Adelaide supporter (), and love your passion for the Cats.

Scientific evidence isn't the only form of evidence That sort of thinking is called Scientism - its a discredited position according to all sides of such debates. Historical/legal/testimony are three other types of evidence, just off the top of my head. I genuinely don't want to sound patronising.

As I said, people think they know so much more than they do.

Let me encourage you to delve deeper. Start with Mark's gospel.

Over and out.

CharacterFirst.

Living with an Adelaide supporter is nearly as tough as living with a devout Catholic. In fact, I know first hand just how tough it is living with both. The latter describes my mother and the former describes my wife.

 

[Strangled Cat]

I think you may have misunderstood the point re scientism.

There should be nothing provocative about encouraging someone to read the bible. Its the most widely read and printed book in history. Tops the best sellers every year.

I agree. You certainly weren't trying to be provocative. But just like Jehova's Witnesses who door knock on Sunday mornings, they too can grate on the wrong kind of person. You know... the kind of person who takes their very initiative as something like a provocation. But unlike those of whom retaliate in an agressive manner, I'm a lot more likely to respond in a passive-agressive fashion. And by that, I'll agree that the bible is the best selling (fiction) book of all time.

 

[Strangled Cat]

Double Ouch..

( But I have to say there would be some on here that would say ...Adelaide city of churches...and your line about insular resides side by side)


By the way ... can someone tell me which God is going to supply our next Flag...thats the OP isn't it.

It's funny, I believe that I used the term insular in its correct and intended context. Any reference to the Adelaide BigFooty board's thread containing insular individuals has always been debatable.

 

[Strangled Cat]

Always found it interesting that atheists demand empirical evidence for a deity they already acknowledge is non-material. Nothing short of God Himself manifesting in front of them will change their mind.

If I believe in the flying spaghetti monster, and I have no evidence to prove its existence, I have as much of a claim on having a religion as you do.

On a side note - I find it fascinating that you should use the term himself when referring to god.

 

[manboob]

On a side note - I find it fascinating that you should use the term himself when referring to god.

Come on don't start that up in here. It's bad enough as it is.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Come on don't start that up in here. It's bad enough as it is.

Yeah, don't make it worse by getting the feminists involved

 

[Strangled Cat]

Come on don't start that up in here. It's bad enough as it is.

A mod noted a different poster who said the same prior to me "starting that up", so it kind of set the tone.

 

[Strangled Cat]

I'm well aware of Stephen Fry's work, and I am a big fan!

 

[manboob]

 

[Strangled Cat]

(Mods: feel free to move to another thread as appropriate)

My bet is yet more deities will be slayed as science discovers more. Every discovery of the last 400 years has exploded the claims by various tribal myths, with luck the species will eventually realise we don't need an imaginary friend to keep us safe at night.

 

[Partridge]

If I believe in the flying spaghetti monster, and I have no evidence to prove its existence, I have as much of a claim on having a religion as you do.

Precisely. Much like Russell's Flying Teapot - there's no way to see it, but I know, I just know, that it's there.

Am I entitled to believe in the teapot? Absolutely. Should I demand respect and reverence for the teapot? Absolutely not.

 

[Baby Duck]

On a side note - I find it fascinating that you should use the term himself when referring to god.

I'm not taking that bait. It's always a trivial discussion IMO.

 

[Strangled Cat]

I'm not taking that bait. It's always a trivial discussion IMO.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But I believe that is highlights an underlying flaw in the whole premise of a god.