Research on Belief in God

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Re: Re:

Really? Man is a coward and can't accept his own mortality. Furthermore there are some cowards who capitalize on this weakness and, as Hugh has pointed out, seek to exploit it to the maximum for personal gain. The nascence of religious systems are borne out here: control and illusion works for the useful idiots who are most suseptable to superstition.

Repeating Hugh's claim doesn't really constitute an argument in its favour. I know what you and Hugh are claiming, I just don't see how on earth it's true.

I guess this idea boils down to Marx's statement that religion is 'Opium des Volkes'. But yeah ironically enough, Marx's own philosophy has been (ab)used all over the world throughout the 20th century to oppress the masses he wanted to free and religion has been one of the forces opposing totalitarian Marxist/Socialist regimes everywhere.

It's interesting that you mention Martin Luther King. I recently read a book by Christopher Lasch called "The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics". I already recommended it to our friend BigMac but perhaps he's still too young for it now (or not ) but I'd sure advise it to you too (it's more important than Khomiakov ).

Thanks for the tip! I'm quite busy with exams and stuff these weeks, but I'll take a look at it later.

 

[frenchfry]

Re: Re:

Really? Man is a coward and can't accept his own mortality. Furthermore there are some cowards who capitalize on this weakness and, as Hugh has pointed out, seek to exploit it to the maximum for personal gain. The nascence of religious systems are borne out here: control and illusion works for the useful idiots who are most suseptable to superstition.

Repeating Hugh's claim doesn't really constitute an argument in its favour. I know what you and Hugh are claiming, I just don't see how on earth it's true.

I guess this idea boils down to Marx's statement that religion is 'Opium des Volkes'. But yeah ironically enough, Marx's own philosophy has been (ab)used all over the world throughout the 20th century to oppress the masses he wanted to free and religion has been one of the forces opposing totalitarian Marxist/Socialist regimes everywhere.

It's interesting that you mention Martin Luther King. I recently read a book by Christopher Lasch called "The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics". I already recommended it to our friend BigMac but perhaps he's still too young for it now (or not ) but I'd sure advise it to you too (it's more important than Khomiakov ).

Thanks for the tip! I'm quite busy with exams and stuff these weeks, but I'll take a look at it later.

I am no specialist on the matter, but I always had the impression that "religion" has a tendancy to jump into whichever bed is the most convenient and profitable. Were you being ironic (thus the happy face)?

I placed "religion" in quotes because I have trouble understanding where real religion stops and where those profiting from religion begin.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Re: Re:

I am no specialist on the matter, but I always had the impression that "religion" has a tendancy to jump into whichever bed is the most convenient and profitable. Were you being ironic (thus the happy face)?

I placed "religion" in quotes because I have trouble understanding where real religion stops and where those profiting from religion begin.

Well, I don't think all the Christians who were killed, put in prison camps, put in mental hospitals and so forth because of their faith in the USSR and China and other such countries considered it the most convenient and profitable for them.

 

[frenchfry]

Re: Re:

I am no specialist on the matter, but I always had the impression that "religion" has a tendancy to jump into whichever bed is the most convenient and profitable. Were you being ironic (thus the happy face)?

I placed "religion" in quotes because I have trouble understanding where real religion stops and where those profiting from religion begin.

Well, I don't think all the Christians who were killed, put in prison camps, put in mental hospitals and so forth because of their faith in the USSR and China and other such countries considered it the most convenient and profitable for them.

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

I am no specialist on the matter, but I always had the impression that "religion" has a tendancy to jump into whichever bed is the most convenient and profitable. Were you being ironic (thus the happy face)?

I placed "religion" in quotes because I have trouble understanding where real religion stops and where those profiting from religion begin.

Well, I don't think all the Christians who were killed, put in prison camps, put in mental hospitals and so forth because of their faith in the USSR and China and other such countries considered it the most convenient and profitable for them.

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

No doubt.

Maybe the Chi Com's and Comie's just believed in the supreme dictator? Makes sense.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Re: Re:

Repeating Hugh's claim doesn't really constitute an argument in its favour. I know what you and Hugh are claiming, I just don't see how on earth it's true.

I guess this idea boils down to Marx's statement that religion is 'Opium des Volkes'. But yeah ironically enough, Marx's own philosophy has been (ab)used all over the world throughout the 20th century to oppress the masses he wanted to free and religion has been one of the forces opposing totalitarian Marxist/Socialist regimes everywhere.

It's interesting that you mention Martin Luther King. I recently read a book by Christopher Lasch called "The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics". I already recommended it to our friend BigMac but perhaps he's still too young for it now (or not ) but I'd sure advise it to you too (it's more important than Khomiakov ).

Thanks for the tip! I'm quite busy with exams and stuff these weeks, but I'll take a look at it later.

If religion has opposed Socialism it has done it for it's own reasons and not for the "good of mankind". As for controlling the poor one has to look no farther than the Catholic nations in South America where dirt poor peasants put their last pesos in the gold gilded collection plates.
Just because you guys say something is not so doesn't make it that way.

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

Repeating Hugh's claim doesn't really constitute an argument in its favour. I know what you and Hugh are claiming, I just don't see how on earth it's true.

I guess this idea boils down to Marx's statement that religion is 'Opium des Volkes'. But yeah ironically enough, Marx's own philosophy has been (ab)used all over the world throughout the 20th century to oppress the masses he wanted to free and religion has been one of the forces opposing totalitarian Marxist/Socialist regimes everywhere.

It's interesting that you mention Martin Luther King. I recently read a book by Christopher Lasch called "The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics". I already recommended it to our friend BigMac but perhaps he's still too young for it now (or not ) but I'd sure advise it to you too (it's more important than Khomiakov ).

Thanks for the tip! I'm quite busy with exams and stuff these weeks, but I'll take a look at it later.

If religion has opposed Socialism it has done it for it's own reasons and not for the "good of mankind". As for controlling the poor one has to look no farther than the Catholic nations in South America where dirt poor peasants put their last pesos in the gold gilded collection plates.
Just because you guys say something is not so doesn't make it that way.

I think most (I hope all) Christians would agree with you in saying this is wrong.

 

[Echoes]

Re: God and Religion

That wouldn't be my reaction. I've learnt with the years to never trust an atheist on face value whatever he says and need to check everything. They are champions at re-writing history. Just look at the Galileo affair, the Hitler Pope Myth, etc. Plus, the few posts above about the fight against the Commies, their negationism. And that particular post is too vague, there are no sources, no exact dates, no country, nothing. Probably entirely made up.

I'm quite busy with exams and stuff these weeks

Good luck, mate. Though I have no doubt about your success.

Exams are more important than replying to atheist crap on CN.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Re: Re:

As for controlling the poor one has to look no farther than the Catholic nations in South America where dirt poor peasants put their last pesos in the gold gilded collection plates.
Just because you guys say something is not so doesn't make it that way.

As I've said, you need more than to give an example where religion is (ab)used to oppress the poor to make your case that religion fundamentally a tool to oppress the weak and the poor. Just giving an example where it's abused to get money from the poor doesn't really prove your case. Unless you're just trying to argue that it's possible to abuse religion to oppress the poor, but in that case I don't think you'll find anybody disagreeing with you. Even the ideals of the Enlightenment have been (ab)used in the French Revolution to justify a horrible totalitarian regime. The poor have even been oppressed in the name of socialism. Though I don't like the Enlightenment or Socialism, it would be silly to accuse them of the atrocities that have been committed in their name, unless I can show clearly how the Enlightenment ideals of the French Revolution and how Marxism lead to all the wrongs that have been committed in their names.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re: God and Religion

I would love to discuss on this forum but the comments are just so long that I don't have the patience for reading them
So I keep it short: There is not god, bye

 

[TheGreenMonkey]

Re: God and Religion

I would love to discuss on this forum but the comments are just so long that I don't have the patience for reading them
So I keep it short: There is not god, bye

I will keep it short: You are wrong.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: God and Religion

I would love to discuss on this forum but the comments are just so long that I don't have the patience for reading them
So I keep it short: There is not god, bye

I will keep it short: You are wrong.

This is correct, it should be no instead of not.

 

[Christian]

Re: God and Religion

I would love to discuss on this forum but the comments are just so long that I don't have the patience for reading them
So I keep it short: There is not god, bye

"Amen", brother!

 

[Tank Engine]

Re: God and Religion

I'm not an expert in this area so I don't understand all of it. Would you mind critiquing this article when you have time? It's kinda long.... http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Let's start with the basis of carbon dating, without any great detail. Cosmic radiation creates carbon 14 in the atmosphere via the decomposition of standard nitrogen 14. This carbon rapidly oxidises and is ingested by plant life via photosynthesis. Plant eaters ingest carbon from plants, which is passed onto carnivores. Both types of animal exhale carbon. The creation and radioactive decay of carbon 14 plus its cycle leads to an equilibrium level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere, land plants and animals in the food chains above them. Once an animal dies, then radioactive decay means that the level of carbon 14 as a proportion of total carbon falls and can be used as a basis for dating. Carbon 14 has a relatively short half life and so is only reliable for dating up to 50 000 years.

In aqueous environments the level of carbon 14 is lower than in the atmosphere. Thus carbon dating will give excessive ages for seals (diet based on fish) and snail shells (they are formed from carbon ingested underwater). These are two of Kent Hovind's favourite examples of carbon dating not working.

As Merckx Index stated the description of dating and (at least some) problems related to it is reasonable. A lot of the rest is pointing out various anomalies in measurements. One regards dating volcanic flows, which I have argued results from impurities resulting from the eruption of molten rock. Quoting such results as evidence for a young earth seems rather disingenuous.

As an applied mathematician, I don't know about the particular examples given, but such methods are by nature not exact due to impurities (e.g. groundwater) and if used regularly, spurious results will occur. However, these examples of anomalies seem to be extrapolated into being general. If they were the rule, it would be a waste of our limited grant resources.

From the page you quoted http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

1. However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being “that old.” A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies “confirmed” this date. Such is the dating game.
Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a “fact.”

Compare this to the following quotes from the same page. Firstly, regarding carbon 14 dating

2. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.

Secondly, more general methods

3. This contrasts with an age of 1550-1650 Ma based on other isotope ratios,[21] and ages of 275, 61, 0,0,and 0 Ma for thorium/lead (232Th/208Pb) ratios in five uraninite grains. The latter figures are significant because thorium-derived dates should be the more reliable, since thorium is less mobile than the uranium minerals that are the parents of the lead isotopes in lead-lead system.[22] The “zero” ages in this case are consistent with the Bible.

Also,

4.Creationists ultimately date the Earth historically using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which bears the evidence within it that it is the Word of God, and therefore totally reliable and error-free.

So who's massaging the data?

Having said that, the claim “No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C”, grabbed my attention as being an argument FOR a young earth rather than an argument simply against the age of 4.6 billion years. Here's a discussion from some „old earth christians”

http://www.oldearth.org/bookreview/tnb/thousands_not_billions_3.htm

From this site, it seems that there are carbon bearing rocks, which are devoid of carbon 14, which contradicts the young earth hypothesis (given that Ken Ham's theory of natural laws changing does not hold, as I've previously argued, since these laws are fine tuned for life on earth, and vice versa).

As for the assumption of the biblical flood, that's another (huge) barrel of fish.

 

[rhubroma]

Thousands of years ago a book was written by primitives to tell us all how it will work out. There is no need consequently to bother much with everything else.

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

Repeating Hugh's claim doesn't really constitute an argument in its favour. I know what you and Hugh are claiming, I just don't see how on earth it's true.

I guess this idea boils down to Marx's statement that religion is 'Opium des Volkes'. But yeah ironically enough, Marx's own philosophy has been (ab)used all over the world throughout the 20th century to oppress the masses he wanted to free and religion has been one of the forces opposing totalitarian Marxist/Socialist regimes everywhere.

It's interesting that you mention Martin Luther King. I recently read a book by Christopher Lasch called "The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics". I already recommended it to our friend BigMac but perhaps he's still too young for it now (or not ) but I'd sure advise it to you too (it's more important than Khomiakov ).

Thanks for the tip! I'm quite busy with exams and stuff these weeks, but I'll take a look at it later.

If religion has opposed Socialism it has done it for it's own reasons and not for the "good of mankind". As for controlling the poor one has to look no farther than the Catholic nations in South America where dirt poor peasants put their last pesos in the gold gilded collection plates.
Just because you guys say something is not so doesn't make it that way.

I think most (I hope all) Christians would agree with you in saying this is wrong.

Just emancipate them with the bible and freedom. They won't need to put their last pesos, "all she had", on the plate, because the kingdom is here an now.

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

Repeating Hugh's claim doesn't really constitute an argument in its favour. I know what you and Hugh are claiming, I just don't see how on earth it's true.

I guess this idea boils down to Marx's statement that religion is 'Opium des Volkes'. But yeah ironically enough, Marx's own philosophy has been (ab)used all over the world throughout the 20th century to oppress the masses he wanted to free and religion has been one of the forces opposing totalitarian Marxist/Socialist regimes everywhere.

It's interesting that you mention Martin Luther King. I recently read a book by Christopher Lasch called "The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics". I already recommended it to our friend BigMac but perhaps he's still too young for it now (or not ) but I'd sure advise it to you too (it's more important than Khomiakov ).

Thanks for the tip! I'm quite busy with exams and stuff these weeks, but I'll take a look at it later.

If religion has opposed Socialism it has done it for it's own reasons and not for the "good of mankind". As for controlling the poor one has to look no farther than the Catholic nations in South America where dirt poor peasants put their last pesos in the gold gilded collection plates.
Just because you guys say something is not so doesn't make it that way.

I think most (I hope all) Christians would agree with you in saying this is wrong.

Just emancipate them with the bible and freedom. They won't need to put their last pesos, "all she had", on the plate, because the kingdom is here an now.

What does this even mean?

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

Repeating Hugh's claim doesn't really constitute an argument in its favour. I know what you and Hugh are claiming, I just don't see how on earth it's true.

I guess this idea boils down to Marx's statement that religion is 'Opium des Volkes'. But yeah ironically enough, Marx's own philosophy has been (ab)used all over the world throughout the 20th century to oppress the masses he wanted to free and religion has been one of the forces opposing totalitarian Marxist/Socialist regimes everywhere.

It's interesting that you mention Martin Luther King. I recently read a book by Christopher Lasch called "The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics". I already recommended it to our friend BigMac but perhaps he's still too young for it now (or not ) but I'd sure advise it to you too (it's more important than Khomiakov ).

Thanks for the tip! I'm quite busy with exams and stuff these weeks, but I'll take a look at it later.

If religion has opposed Socialism it has done it for it's own reasons and not for the "good of mankind". As for controlling the poor one has to look no farther than the Catholic nations in South America where dirt poor peasants put their last pesos in the gold gilded collection plates.
Just because you guys say something is not so doesn't make it that way.[/quote]

I think most (I hope all) Christians would agree with you in saying this is wrong.[/quote]

Just emancipate them with the bible and freedom. They won't need to put their last pesos, "all she had", on the plate, because the kingdom is here an now.[/quote]

What does this even mean?[/quote]

Figure it out for yourself. But, you know, the parable about the poor lady and the self-righteous rich giving to charity.

Look what is even more perverse than the Catholic Church as regards South America is a hegmonic US corporate capitalism and the absolute chaos and pilaging work it has rought in that hemisphere. But hey, as I said, just emancipate people's consciences with the bible and freedom and they won't need to worry about any of this, not least of all the by-now global order of wealth acquisition on the one hand, and the dissemination of abject poverty on the other it has caused. In this sense a certain current fetish for beheading certainly is here to stay as a result, at least for the foreseeable future. Mine was just a tacit acknowledgement of this in another thread.

Surly you've been listening to Pope Francis lately chap, no?

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

Figure it out for yourself. But, you know, the parable about the poor lady and the self-righteous rich giving to charity.

Look what is even more perverse than the Catholic Church as regards South America is a hegmonic US corporate capitalism and the absolute chaos and pilaging work it has rought in that hemisphere. But hey, as I said, just emancipate people's consciences with the bible and freedom and they won't need to worry about any of this, not least of all the by-now global order of wealth acquisition on the one hand, and the dissemination of abject poverty on the other it has caused. In this sense a certain current fetish for beheading certainly is here to stay as a result, at least for the foreseeable future. Mine was just a tacit acknowledgement of this in another thread.

Surly you've been listening to Pope Francis lately chap, no?

You have no clue what the bible or the gospel is about evidently. Your post doesn't even make any sort of sense. And no I don't listen to the pope. I prefer to listen to solid biblical pastors.

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

Figure it out for yourself. But, you know, the parable about the poor lady and the self-righteous rich giving to charity.

Look what is even more perverse than the Catholic Church as regards South America is a hegmonic US corporate capitalism and the absolute chaos and pilaging work it has rought in that hemisphere. But hey, as I said, just emancipate people's consciences with the bible and freedom and they won't need to worry about any of this, not least of all the by-now global order of wealth acquisition on the one hand, and the dissemination of abject poverty on the other it has caused. In this sense a certain current fetish for beheading certainly is here to stay as a result, at least for the foreseeable future. Mine was just a tacit acknowledgement of this in another thread.

Surly you've been listening to Pope Francis lately chap, no?

You have no clue what the bible or the gospel is about evidently. Your post doesn't even make any sort of sense. And no I don't listen to the pope. I prefer to listen to solid biblical pastors.

Nevermind, though, what your solid biblical pastors are working with. Think about it, hmmm.

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

Figure it out for yourself. But, you know, the parable about the poor lady and the self-righteous rich giving to charity.

Look what is even more perverse than the Catholic Church as regards South America is a hegmonic US corporate capitalism and the absolute chaos and pilaging work it has rought in that hemisphere. But hey, as I said, just emancipate people's consciences with the bible and freedom and they won't need to worry about any of this, not least of all the by-now global order of wealth acquisition on the one hand, and the dissemination of abject poverty on the other it has caused. In this sense a certain current fetish for beheading certainly is here to stay as a result, at least for the foreseeable future. Mine was just a tacit acknowledgement of this in another thread.

Surly you've been listening to Pope Francis lately chap, no?

You have no clue what the bible or the gospel is about evidently. Your post doesn't even make any sort of sense. And no I don't listen to the pope. I prefer to listen to solid biblical pastors.

Nevermind, though, what your solid biblical pastors are working with. Think about it, hmmm.

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

Figure it out for yourself. But, you know, the parable about the poor lady and the self-righteous rich giving to charity.

Look what is even more perverse than the Catholic Church as regards South America is a hegmonic US corporate capitalism and the absolute chaos and pilaging work it has rought in that hemisphere. But hey, as I said, just emancipate people's consciences with the bible and freedom and they won't need to worry about any of this, not least of all the by-now global order of wealth acquisition on the one hand, and the dissemination of abject poverty on the other it has caused. In this sense a certain current fetish for beheading certainly is here to stay as a result, at least for the foreseeable future. Mine was just a tacit acknowledgement of this in another thread.

Surly you've been listening to Pope Francis lately chap, no?

You have no clue what the bible or the gospel is about evidently. Your post doesn't even make any sort of sense. And no I don't listen to the pope. I prefer to listen to solid biblical pastors.

Nevermind, though, what your solid biblical pastors are working with. Think about it, hmmm.

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

In other words, the product of a long series of ecumenical councils. The very product you guys work with, but of divine origin there is absolutely nothing.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Re: Re:

Figure it out for yourself. But, you know, the parable about the poor lady and the self-righteous rich giving to charity.

Look what is even more perverse than the Catholic Church as regards South America is a hegmonic US corporate capitalism and the absolute chaos and pilaging work it has rought in that hemisphere. But hey, as I said, just emancipate people's consciences with the bible and freedom and they won't need to worry about any of this, not least of all the by-now global order of wealth acquisition on the one hand, and the dissemination of abject poverty on the other it has caused. In this sense a certain current fetish for beheading certainly is here to stay as a result, at least for the foreseeable future. Mine was just a tacit acknowledgement of this in another thread.

Surly you've been listening to Pope Francis lately chap, no?

I'm still not entirely sure what you mean, but if you're saying that religion causes these poor people and others not to care about their miserable circumstances you're clearly wrong. I posted this article already, but I'll just keep on posting this article I guess; it shows the systematic contribution of missionaries to the development of the nations where they work.

http://www.academia.edu/2128659/The_Missionary_Roots_of_Liberal_Democracy

You can keep on saying, Christianity helps suppressing the poor and oppressed and name a few examples where that appears to be the case and I can keep on claiming that on the contrary Christianity has time and again helped the poor and promoted social justice and name a few examples of where that appears to be the case, but the above article provides a bit more substantial and systematic evidence and should be taken more serious than biased anti-Christian babble a la Marx and it should also be taken more serious than my biased pro Christian ranting.

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

Figure it out for yourself. But, you know, the parable about the poor lady and the self-righteous rich giving to charity.

Look what is even more perverse than the Catholic Church as regards South America is a hegmonic US corporate capitalism and the absolute chaos and pilaging work it has rought in that hemisphere. But hey, as I said, just emancipate people's consciences with the bible and freedom and they won't need to worry about any of this, not least of all the by-now global order of wealth acquisition on the one hand, and the dissemination of abject poverty on the other it has caused. In this sense a certain current fetish for beheading certainly is here to stay as a result, at least for the foreseeable future. Mine was just a tacit acknowledgement of this in another thread.

Surly you've been listening to Pope Francis lately chap, no?

You have no clue what the bible or the gospel is about evidently. Your post doesn't even make any sort of sense. And no I don't listen to the pope. I prefer to listen to solid biblical pastors.

Nevermind, though, what your solid biblical pastors are working with. Think about it, hmmm.

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

In other words, the product of a long series of ecumenical councils. The very product you guys work with, but of divine origin there is absolutely nothing.

2 Pe 1:20-21
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

In other words, the product of a long series of ecumenical councils. The very product you guys work with, but of divine origin there is absolutely nothing.

2 Pe 1:20-21
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

What is the logic in qouting scripture in this context?? If one believes that the bible is completely inspired by God and infallible, it adds nothing. If one believes that it was written by men seeking to convince people that their theology was the right path, it adds nothing.