God does NOT exist! (Part 3)

[flamingjimmy 10]

Homeopathic? I don't understand what you mean.

 

The point is that so long as there has been and so long as there is religion, there will be mysticism. The two are entwined and related. In my view the mystical tradition has merit and is the foundation of religion. Where religion becomes organised and is no longer mystical or a personal religion its meaning drifts from being specifically religious in character and instead becomes an earthly political power structure.

 

 

 

How is it not a defence when the arguments deployed against it don't apply?

 

 

 

Armstrong isn't a Theologian, as well as an author on comaprative religion she is also a campaigner for human rights and positive change for which she received a Technology, Entertainment, Design prize last year.

 

http://www.tedprize.org/karen-armstrong/

 

So your criticisms don't appear to apply to her. Even if they did, your attack is against her intentions not the truth or otherwise of what she says.

 

What may seem like a 'vague and waffly insubstantial god' to you happens to be the sort of God that has inspired people through out the ages to write works that have inspired people on every continent throughout time. Whether they be specifically Brahman, Taoist, Gnostic, Sufi, Buddhist, or Unitararian texts or religious texts that just draw upon mystical traditions.

 

For example, the world would be a much impoverished place without mystical art like that of William Blake.

 

Why call it god though?

 

Why not 'wierd stuff we don't fully understand'?

[Mr Goose 10]

There are complex meanings in these stories and they can mean very different things to different people, they certainly don't require and in my opinion warrant a literal understanding as a description of the nature of God, instead they can be seen quite differently if looked at as being about our relationship with God.

 

Good post Wildcat, but (naturally) I feel I have to express a different take.

 

The "interpretation" of scripture (or other holy text) must be seen as a modern luxury - in the past the literal understanding was generally seen as the only canon. Fundamentalists of today would also say that interprertation based upon "relationship with god" is taking a sushi bar approach to a body of holy writing - take what you want, ignore the inconvienaint bits.

 

My bottom line I suppose is this - if there really was a divine message or meaning in holy works, it would be possible to point to passages that either delivered unknowable truths (for the time) or took us on huge leaps of moral imagination.

 

The trouble is that the works actually show the reverse - they not only contain the "truths" as known to that human society, but they contain mistakes that you could guess would be made by a human writer at the time. For example - the Bible takes a particularly localised view based on a middle east world - picture. All the mistakes - eg the earth being created before the sun, death being a "punishment", the emergence of different languages because of the Tower of Babel, etc etc - are things which were intuiutive explantions at the time

 

What you also get - and this is often very painful for current believers, is that the holy books are just mix n matches of existing or popular relgions at the time of writing - but that is whole new thread.

 

My absolute bottom line is this - if you want to think about morality, what is "good" in life or how to progress the world, you need to keep the self examination and other healthy bits of a modern take on religion, and see them through the lens of Secular Humanism - this is effectively all the good, positive bits, but without the dogma and "us vs them" that a belief in the supernatural fuels.

 

Honk!

[Mr Goose 10]

What may seem like a 'vague and waffly insubstantial god' to you happens to be the sort of God that has inspired people through out the ages to write works that have inspired people on every continent throughout time. Whether they be specifically Brahman, Taoist, Gnostic, Sufi, Buddhist, or Unitararian texts or religious texts that just draw upon mystical traditions.

For example, the world would be a much impoverished place without mystical art like that of William Blake.

 

Good point again - but belief in all sorts of things, belief in nothing and the taking of drugs can also help people create amazing works of art. I tend to think that nomatter if Blake had believed in goblins or nothing at all, the old bi polar chap would still have created some amazing work.

 

There is also the "time" issue to think about... In Blakes time, before the advent of modern science, virtually everybody thought that religions offered the best explanation of reality - and there was also huge social social pressure to be a "believer".

 

I tend to think that many people, including Blake, Keats and Donne, may have been miltant stroppy athiests if born in the 21st century.

 

(PS Keats is still my favourite)

[Grahame 10]

Good post Wildcat, but (naturally) I feel I have to express a different take.

 

The "interpretation" of scripture (or other holy text) must be seen as a modern luxury - in the past the literal understanding was generally seen as the only canon. Fundamentalists of today would also say that interprertation based upon "relationship with god" is taking a sushi bar approach to a body of holy writing - take what you want, ignore the inconvienaint bits.

 

My bottom line I suppose is this - if there really was a divine message or meaning in holy works, it would be possible to point to passages that either delivered unknowable truths (for the time) or took us on huge leaps of moral imagination.

 

The trouble is that the works actually show the reverse - they not only contain the "truths" as known to that human society, but they contain mistakes that you could guess would be made by a human writer at the time. For example - the Bible takes a particularly localised view based on a middle east world - picture. All the mistakes - eg the earth being created before the sun, death being a "punishment", the emergence of different languages because of the Tower of Babel, etc etc - are things which were intuiutive explantions at the time

 

What you also get - and this is often very painful for current believers, is that the holy books are just mix n matches of existing or popular relgions at the time of writing - but that is whole new thread.

 

My absolute bottom line is this - if you want to think about morality, what is "good" in life or how to progress the world, you need to keep the self examination and other healthy bits of a modern take on religion, and see them through the lens of Secular Humanism - this is effectively all the good, positive bits, but without the dogma and "us vs them" that a belief in the supernatural fuels.

 

Honk!

 

There are no inconvenient bits to ignore, the only 'inconvenience' is your lack of knowledge. Also you are wrong about the earth being created before the sun, there was light on day one.

 

"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

 

It is also blatantly obvious your understanding of the Bible is zero.

.

[carosio 185]

Suppose u found a mobile phone in the sand and i told u it has evolved from a

battery to a cover and thus a mobile phone and created itself!

 

would u be willing to accept that theory?

 

If you could show convincingly how it had evolved from a battery to a mobile phone then yes, I would accept that theory, until someone else could disprove it.

[carosio 185]

god does exist!!

 

Which one? Where?

[quisquose 10]

Homeopathic? I don't understand what you mean.

 

She is pushing an idea of god that is so watered down so as to be meaningless. I suspect she is actually an "atheist butter", and loves the idea of belief. She has an unrealistic romantic idea of religion that I find irritating.

 

I think Andrew Marr and the other guests on Start The Week also found her irritating.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00lg31l/Start_the_Week_06_07_2009/

 

The point is that so long as there has been and so long as there is religion, there will be mysticism. The two are entwined and related. In my view the mystical tradition has merit and is the foundation of religion. Where religion becomes organised and is no longer mystical or a personal religion its meaning drifts from being specifically religious in character and instead becomes an earthly political power structure.

 

I can't disagree with you here. As an advocate for a secular society I am more than happy for people to pleasure themselves with a religion of their choice. I have no problem with people having hobbies that encourage social interaction and community, and revolve around fantastical thinking. Fantastical thinking from time to time is good for the brain.

 

 

All I ask is that they don't insist that their fantastical hobbies are real and demand special priviledges.

 

Armstrong isn't a Theologian, as well as an author on comaprative religion she is also a campaigner for human rights and positive change for which she received a Technology, Entertainment, Design prize last year.

 

http://www.tedprize.org/karen-armstrong/

 

So your criticisms don't appear to apply to her. Even if they did, your attack is against her intentions not the truth or otherwise of what she says.

 

Eh? How many more years study of religions and scripture, and how many more books does she need to write to be considered a theologian?

 

Oh, I see what you've done there, you've capitalised the "T" in Theologian.

 

Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure she has referred to herself as a theologian a number of times, on Desert Island Disks from memory. The inside cover of one of her books refers to her as one of the world's "most widely read theologians."

 

What may seem like a 'vague and waffly insubstantial god' to you happens to be the sort of God that has inspired people through out the ages to write works that have inspired people on every continent throughout time. Whether they be specifically Brahman, Taoist, Gnostic, Sufi, Buddhist, or Unitararian texts or religious texts that just draw upon mystical traditions.

 

For example, the world would be a much impoverished place without mystical art like that of William Blake.

 

I can only say that I agree with what Mr Goose has said, but will add the following.

 

If you and Karen Armstrong want to reclassify religion's importance alongside art and music then fine. As a secular advocate I am more than happy for religion to be placed alongside these worthy pursuits. But of course some people don't get art, or music, and they are perfectly entitled to. Unfortunately we aren't allowed to not get religion are we?

 

Also I would like to take issue with some comments that Karen Armstrong has been making regards The Golden Rule. She has said that, "'we need to find a way of implementing the Golden Rule globally" and she thinks religion is the way. I disagree, I think we have the method through secularism, that religion is actually preventing the Golden Rule from being implemented.

[Mr Goose 10]

There are no inconvenient bits to ignore, the only 'inconvenience' is your lack of knowledge. Also you are wrong about the earth being created before the sun, there was light on day one.

 

"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

 

It is also blatantly obvious your understanding of the Bible is zero.

.

 

I'm sorry Grahame, you need to read what you post. You jump in and pronounce like a dogmatic fool. Unlike others who want to discuss and debate, your mind is closed.

 

We were talking about Blake and Keats - are they even on your radar????

 

You seem to be able to ignore all the last 1,500 years of biblical scholars, all from the "other side" (from my perspective) who acknowledge all the mistakes, flaws and contradictions in the bible.

 

All I can say to you really is "thanks" I suppose, I have recieved PM from several people now who have confirmed that, over the last few years, you are the reason why they have chosen to reject christianity and its double talk.

 

Try and think about that from your view point - you, by your fibs, avoidance and mean spiritedness have caused people to turn from your god-jesus, and by your logic and unwholsome beliefs, "burn in hell".

 

Well done Grahame, the National Secular Society should start paying you a commision for each person you turn to athiesm.

 

 

I have PM'd this as well - as I think there are matters not best aired in public

Edited July 8, 2009 by Mr Goose

[Mr Goose 10]

Also I would like to take issue with some comments that Karen Armstrong has been making regards The Golden Rule. She has said that, "'we need to find a way of implementing the Golden Rule globally" and she thinks religion is the way. I disagree, I think we have the method through secularism, that religion is actually preventing the Golden Rule from being implemented.

 

 

Well said

 

The Golden Rule is absolutley not suited for absolutism or "them vs us" of religion - it needs to be seen as an aspiration based upon the idea that we, as humans, are fundementally good - >>given the chance<<, not fundementally flawed, but can be good only because of the divine.

[olorin 10]

There are no inconvenient bits to ignore, the only 'inconvenience' is your lack of knowledge. Also you are wrong about the earth being created before the sun, there was light on day one.

 

"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

 

It is also blatantly obvious your understanding of the Bible is zero.

.

 

Even I know it goes...

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the *Earth*

 

After that - after that..... there was light... showing that if you beleive the Bible God created the Sun *after* the Earth.....

[Wildcat 10]

Well said

 

The Golden Rule is absolutley not suited for absolutism or "them vs us" of religion - it needs to be seen as an aspiration based upon the idea that we, as humans, are fundementally good - >>given the chance<<, not fundementally flawed, but can be good only because of the divine.

 

With her 'Pantheist' type position I don't see why her aspirations should be a surprise, nor a threat. Her view of religion is explicitly about unity and harmony, not conflict or division.

[Wildcat 10]

.......

 

If you and Karen Armstrong want to reclassify religion's importance alongside art and music then fine. As a secular advocate I am more than happy for religion to be placed alongside these worthy pursuits. But of course some people don't get art, or music, and they are perfectly entitled to. Unfortunately we aren't allowed to not get religion are we?

 

.....

 

In what way aren't we allowed to not get religion?

Edited July 9, 2009 by Wildcat