Archbishop of Canterbury doubts the presence of God!

[Mull]

If the congregations doing the praying in the study were not told what to pray for and given certain specific words to include then the experiment would be unscientific and no valid conclusions could be drawn.

I do find it ironic (although it is almost certainly only coincidence) that in the study, the patients who knew they were being prayed for suffered significantly more post op complications than those who didn't know if they were being prayed for or not. If this coincidence had been the other way around and those that knew they were being prayed for suffered less post op complications, you can bet your butt that people of faith would declare this as conclusive proof that prayer can work miracles. This is the frustrating thing. Religion believes that it is immune from all scientific reasoning, unless they believe that it comes out in support of their cause. Then of course it is perfectly legitimate. Scientists are happy to dismiss anomalies that support their hypothesis if they cannot be proven to be an irrefutable fact.

 

The reason I reject the concept of faith when it comes to religious belief, and why I don't accept that it can't be challenged is that it is, by definition, an acknowledgement that all rational and reasonable thought has failed. If rational thought and the unequivocal evidence of fact has demonstrated the whole concept of religion to be a nonsense, to say that "well I'm going to believe in it anyway, It makes sense to me" is surely delusional and needs to be justified.

 

I can completely understand that a fear that death is the end, and that there is no divine purpose to life is a scary prospect for people. Maybe this is the true reason why people cling to the idea of a creator who bestows life after death. But surely it is better to accept the enormous weight of evidence suggesting that this is all we've got and live this life to the full, than live a blinkered life, unable to truly understand the wonder of what is around us, (meanwhile in a lot of cases denying our children the opportunity to do the same,) for fear that a fictional supernatural being that is supposedly Love incarnate will send us to an eternity of unimaginable suffering in Hell if we choose to disregard all available evidence and believe in him unconditionally.

 

You say that you are not a Christian Mull. Do you follow a different faith, or are you just really argumentative?

 

Not a practising Christian I should have said.

Argumentative? Me?... Can't argue with that I'm afraid!👍

[scotspine1]

Yeah, to be honest at this point I dunno if this thread is really helping anyone. At least it got us talking about something deeper than logs for a change. These things are so complex and unfathomable that one would need the processing power of a god to figure it out.......we all just stumbling around in our own minds.

 

Part and parcel of the human condition I suppose!

 

Religion is an interesting subject though isn't it........

 

Shia Iran has just sentenced two poets to 9-11 years imprisonment and 99 lashes for 'shaking hands with the opposite sex'.

 

Two Poets Sentenced to Flogging and Nine and Eleven Years in Prison : International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran

 

Saudi Arabia has just sentenced a poet to death for writing 'atheistic poems'.

 

Saudi Arabia sentences Palestinian poet to death after appeal against 800 lashes | Write Out Loud

 

This is Islam in 2015

 

 

 

.

Edited November 25, 2015 by scotspine1

[Mull]

forgot all about this thread, where were were we? ah yes......

 

 

 

 

 

I think Niall Ferguson makes my general point here -

 

 

I think maybe You make Niall Fergusons point!

[the village idiot]

Nowt wrong with your posts Hairy chest! It's getting your point across that matters and you do that very well:001_smile:

 

Take no notice of my poncey writing style. It's a relic from studying English Literature at school. I was always getting told off for making my science write ups too wordy!

 

I am very self conscious myself of coming across as a pretentious, condescending prat, but I too blunder on regardless! It is an important topic to debate, although as Mull pointed out early on, it is almost certainly doomed to fail.

 

I don't agree with everything you say in your post, but I'll have a watch of the video when I get back to the yurt and let you know what I think.

 

Hi Hairy Chest,

 

I have watched the Patrick Moore video and he does put forward a very compelling argument. As you quite rightly point out though a quick Google search will throw up equally compelling arguments of the other side of the coin.

 

Regrettably for Patrick Moore, a quick Google search also reveals that his claim to be a founding member of Greenpeace is bogus and that since leaving that organisation his public speaking career has been bankrolled by large logging companies, large mining companies, the nuclear industry and Monsanto.

 

That is not to say that what he says should be discounted, just that it should be viewed with some suspicion.

This may be a bit unfair, but here is a video of Mr Moore demonstrating his inability to back up his own convictions.

 

 

As with all these debates, be it on the existence of God or the evidence for human induced climate change it is necessary to start inquiry with a totally open mind and then look at the evidence and take a stance, rather than taking a stance and then look for evidence to support it.

 

The way I look at the climate change issue is that the thousands of scientists, who after their research are very concerned about this issue, have nothing to gain from imploring us to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Not burning fossil fuels will be a huge pain in the arse for all of us, the climate change supporting scientists included.

 

If the research showed there was nothing to worry about, there is no way in the world that the leaders of the developed and developing world would ever in a million years agree to meet up to bash out a proposal that will mean ordering their voting populations to do things that will put them off 're-electing those same leaders. There's got to something seriously wrong to get them to do that!

 

I will stop rabbiting on now, as this is really a topic for another thread.

 

Right, back to the Christian bashing:001_smile:

[Haironyourchest]

Well good man to sit through that. I owe you 45 minutes of youtube time.

 

Yeah, I think he's a bit of a gobshite really....but I'm not shooting the messenger. Ok he wasn't a founding member but he was with Greenpeace since the early days. As for the open mind thing, I think its a wonderful idea, but in reality we cannot practice it. For the simple reason that we would then spend all our time looking objectively at ALL the arguments, and all the origins and sources of the data to support those arguments. It just aint possible. At some point one has got to take a position, not necessarily for life and death (like a religious conviction) but just in order to function. Or take no position at all and be boring.

 

I am waiting with interest to hear what transpires at this big summit. As for politicians and scientists having nothing to gain by pushing an unpopular agenda, well, I can't really argue with you there. In any event, we cannot possibly stop using fossil fuels, not in a month of sundays - just check out the figures - there's Nothing with a capital N that remotely approaches hydrocarbon as a fuel source for the world. It just ain't gonna happen. Not unless we can get moving on Thorium based nuclear power in a big way.

 

Now, as you say, back to the Christian Bashing!!

[Yournamehere]

Religion is an interesting subject though isn't it........

 

Shia Iran has just sentenced two poets to 9-11 years imprisonment and 99 lashes for 'shaking hands with the opposite sex'.

 

Two Poets Sentenced to Flogging and Nine and Eleven Years in Prison : International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran

 

Saudi Arabia has just sentenced a poet to death for writing 'atheistic poems'.

 

Saudi Arabia sentences Palestinian poet to death after appeal against 800 lashes | Write Out Loud

 

This is Islam in 2015

 

 

 

.

 

And when England and Scotland and France and Italy and Spain were run by religious bigots the result was very similar.

 

This is Religion: always.

[Haironyourchest]

Pretty much. In non-relegious civilisations like the USSR and Red China they just replaced God with the Beloved Leader/s = same deal. If the world was run by women we wouldn't have any of this nonsense.....

[scotspine1]

And when England and Scotland and France and Italy and Spain were run by religious bigots the result was very similar.

 

This is Religion: always.

 

So it's fine for Islamists to act like that now in the name of religion because fundamentalist Christians did it 500 years ago? If you follow you're logic the rest of the world must wait 500 years for an Islamic reformation followed by another few hundred years of enlightenment and at that point, only then can are we allowed to make judgements on Sharia Law?

 

I'm sure the people sentenced to death in Iran and Saudi Arabia would find your words, "This is Religion" very comforting.

[Mull]

The word irrational gets lots of usage regarding religion, is sitting at home of an evening, arguing with total strangers(mostly), about something that can't be changed by this method of interaction ( keyboard warriors) rational?

[TIMON]

Hi Hairy Chest,

 

 

 

I have watched the Patrick Moore video and he does put forward a very compelling argument. As you quite rightly point out though a quick Google search will throw up equally compelling arguments of the other side of the coin.

 

 

 

Regrettably for Patrick Moore, a quick Google search also reveals that his claim to be a founding member of Greenpeace is bogus and that since leaving that organisation his public speaking career has been bankrolled by large logging companies, large mining companies, the nuclear industry and Monsanto.

 

 

 

That is not to say that what he says should be discounted, just that it should be viewed with some suspicion.

 

This may be a bit unfair, but here is a video of Mr Moore demonstrating his inability to back up his own convictions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As with all these debates, be it on the existence of God or the evidence for human induced climate change it is necessary to start inquiry with a totally open mind and then look at the evidence and take a stance, rather than taking a stance and then look for evidence to support it.

 

 

 

The way I look at the climate change issue is that the thousands of scientists, who after their research are very concerned about this issue, have nothing to gain from imploring us to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Not burning fossil fuels will be a huge pain in the arse for all of us, the climate change supporting scientists included.

 

 

 

If the research showed there was nothing to worry about, there is no way in the world that the leaders of the developed and developing world would ever in a million years agree to meet up to bash out a proposal that will mean ordering their voting populations to do things that will put them off 're-electing those same leaders. There's got to something seriously wrong to get them to do that!

 

 

 

I will stop rabbiting on now, as this is really a topic for another thread.

 

 

 

Right, back to the Christian bashing:001_smile:

 

 

I'm up for some Monsanto bashing.