Like i said in my earlier post it seems many faithful folk still have a problem accepting human beings should still have the freedom and rights to also be questioning the existence of Gods. I say Gods in the plural sense because the fact is humans have more than one idea of a God, and some faithful folks maybe don’t realize in fact atheists just happen to disbelieve in the existence of one more God than a Christian already does.Christians will already disbelieve in the existence of the Hindu God Shiva the destroyer, for instance .So should Hindu folks be feeling angry about this, like Christians tend to often seem to get angry when ever Atheists question and disbelieve in the existence of the Christian God ?. There seems to me to be some very one-sided bigoted rules that exist around matters of faith , while it’s quite ok for Christians to totally deny the existence of the Hindu God Shiva the destroyer , for some reason it seem its not even thought fair in the eyes of the Christian, that Atheists should have “freedom” and the “right” to question the existence of Jehovah .And then these same people will also wonder how it might be that abusive controlling cults like the Exclusive Brethren come into existence, is there really such a huge jump from A to B ?.
This post relates to a thread posted in the coffee shop on Peebs Net site called God Religion and Man in which i started to become involved in the discussion by posting as the guest poster named ExEB . See the thread here that was posted by a P Murry : http://peebs.net/Community/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=10628
P Murry posts : God either exists or God does not exist. If he does exist, would he have created a world where there are many religions with fundamentally differing beliefs. If the answer to this is no, then does this mean that religion is a creation of man? If religion is a creation of man, where does God fit in?
If he did not intend there to be so many religions and man has corrupted his original plan, then why has he not done anything about it? And what was his original plan?
If the answer is yes, and God does allow a world with such different religions, one must wonder why and for what reason. And which of all the religions reflect his intentions?
Or is religion just an invention of man? Discuss.
So naturally this is a type discussion P Murry posted some non believers will actually find a little interesting ,because it’s a subject they may often think about .Not all atheists/agnostics are so very likely for instance, to go finding a discussion of the early life of freaky old Darby so very captivating , in fact the only thing captivating some atheists might feel about matters of freaky old Darby, is the fact he was an overpowering religious old tyrant git, that very likely started this particular group headed off down the road towards later becoming CAPTIVES of an abusive religious cult. And to be honest speaking for myself that part isn’t something that interests me, even if some Christians on this site might find this subject somewhat intriguing.
So naturally looking back at this site i used to be a member of, it was P Murrys thread which attracted my attention as somewhere i as an atheist might feel like participating in posting a comment on , even if now i would be posting as a guest commenter.
The first reply was to the effect that the person thought religion was basically invented by men as a way to control women and lessor men .Which i personally feel most likely isn’t so very far wrong.The second reply talks about religion being kind of like a type of reasoning of man and states some christians see Christ represented in many religions ,yet im left wondering how does that match with the idea supposedly that the only way to heaven is through Christ, so how does that happen if in other religions he’s not even known.
In the 5th reply P Murry states his reason for the discussion is basically that he feels dismayed at what happens in the name of religion , which i totally agree with.He goes on to say Surely it cannot be part of a divine plan! , and again i find myself totally agreeing.In the 8th reply Iain writes up an interesting post describing among other things that,Quote I suggest that is inherent in every human being – the ‘sensus deitatis’ and the ‘semen religionis’ – not to have it would make us less than human, and if people want to choose a word other than ‘religion’ that is neither here nor there, but the fact remains, and impacts any answer to the question ‘Is religion just an invention of man?’.
sensus deitatis I’m left question since when did i ever see baby’s clasping their hands together in prayer in an inherent type way ? .To me it seems religion/faith is something that’s taught.Hunger is something id kind of agree is inherent in humans and so is a need of some sleep.But religion/faith?,no i think that’s taught.
So anyways, by now im hooked on this discussion, and my first post is the 10th reply in which i explain in my normal rather awkward way basically that i think the reason so many humans have religion/faith is ancient man (without modern knowledge) used it as a kind of way to try to understand.And im trying to explain that what seems inherent is only inherent in the sense ALL early man had no better way to try to understand so they came up with the idea of God which then resulted in faith/religion .Looking back now maybe it was my reply might have seemed a little blunt or something , but i certainly didn’t feel they were anymore blunt and to the point than anyone elses where.For instance Iain stated he felt faith was inherent , i stated i felt it was inherent in the sense searching for these type answers was naturally inherent to all early man who were trying to make head or tail of much happening around them.And i suggested maybe this situation included the wise men Plato, Socrates and Aristotle. Admittedly maybe there is an emotional note in my posts but that’s natural after all im somebody who happens to feel i have been detrimentally effected by the promotion of faith.And that Iian might feel different about faith than i do,surely doesn’t mean i need to have to feel the same way.On the very interesting 11th reply the poster mentions the “God gene” and among many other interesting things that they feel there are quite a few reasons to think of the Bible more as an excuse for bad behavior than the actual root cause of it . Yet im still left thinking either way if the bible has been written in such a way it can easily be used as an excuse for bad behaviour,something still seems a little wrong.
I post another reply on the 13th wondering if this God gene exists, why this great yearning doesn’t seem to affect people in places like Sweden where faith has become of little value.
The 15th reply is a funny little number about the student Albert Einstein and the professor ,which happens to be one of those false story’s send out in emails and what not. And i posted the 16th reply that showed some information backed up by a few people suggesting it really was a hoax.Which funny enough didn’t seem to get posted until long after the 17th reply had already stated the Einstein- professor story was just a haox .Guess by then it was deemed ok to post my reply as the the 17th reply had already broken the sad news,even if the poster Georges honesty about his thoughts that the story was made up by and written by the same sort of people who wrote the Bible only seemed to tend to upset the 19th poster .What was so wrong with Georges thoughts ?, could it not actually be a big possibility that much written within the bible might be also actually be a matter of deceit?. This very indignant 19th poster says In the same way that the case for belief cannot be made with any seriousness with a tale like that, so the case for the Bible cannot be dismissed with a one-liner.
But hold on here a moment, who actually said anything about Georges statement/opinion being said as supposedly being enough to dismiss the bible ?.George just made a statement of his opinion and when you actually consider the amount of times faithful folks are caught out being fully prepared to make up real fibs to try fooling and deceiving people …Is Georges opinion/observation really so easily dismissed by the 19th posters one-liner either? .I don’t think so . Faithful folks might then point to history that matches things referred to in the bible or places mentioned that actually do happen to exist . But still if the exclusive brethrens ministry happens to be proved to match actual events and places in history , does this then also simply prove Bruce Hales is the MOG (Man of God) which his worshiping EB followers happen to think he is ?. No i don’t think it actually does.
The 20th reply on the next page was Doug who stated part of his opinion as being What it seems to me is that christians and believers give God way to much credit than he’s due.
To which the 21st posters reply is Doug, although I personally agree with you in principle, I think that you and I should cut some slack to those who apparently need an external deity. In this difficult world it does provide some comfort to many.
WTF ?? .What about faithful cutting an atheist some freaking slack for a change in one thread on the site to have to room to join in some discussion and air their personal thoughts , do anyone ever bother to ask faithful to cut them atheists some slack ,and please stop suggesting stupid stuff that hasn’t yet been actually proved …Stuff such as Jesus love us or God will provide for us and take care of our needs … I mean this may sound really great to a believer but i know it often sounds lots like a bullshit kick in the teeth to me, when if in actual fact it’s actually crap ! it a false promotion that in fact has led to my whole family been ripped apart and any normal life we might have had but for the presence and promotion of faith has been wasted ….. How many Christians this 21st poster is so worried about cutting slack to …Ever even bother to think of considering cutting a non believer a little slack for a change? … Next to none . Specially next to none who are of the ex eb breed , sitting there suggesting maybe the Exclusive Brethren might need to learn some more open type attitudes . As ive said elsewhere already, i suggest bigotry is attached to faith and religion cult in general, it’s not just attached to the exclusive brethren cult . Dont try telling me its an invention of the exclusive brethren .
And this is where i replied again with a post that was obviously denied by moderators .
My reply that the Peeb Net mods refused to allow was as follows.
Around the time Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 14:30:48 +1200
>Doug, although I personally agree with you in principle, I think that you and I should cut some slack to those who apparently need an external deity. In this difficult world it does provide some comfort to many.
Is it not cutting slack, that in turn has in effect enabled the exclusive brethren to become what they have.Does a difficult world and the the comfort of many, negate the serious abuse that certain people then need to suffer for many other peoples right to feel such comfort.It is also by [color=#FF0000]faith[/color], that many people in this world happen to feel quite comfortable in the exclusive brethrens right to their freedom of faith.Faith imposes a suggestion that its wrong to question peoples rights to practice beliefs.And so certain people must pay the price for this type of thinking.Which they have.
Why don’t we see change?.Simply because we have been taught to cut people slack for their faith.You cannot expect people to live by a certain type of rule and then expect it will ever be so likely to work both ways.Not without having lots of [color=#FF0000]faith[/color] in something that’s long proved its surely not working.
It is [b]the cutting of slack [/b]to matters of faith that has then enabled popes to cover up sexual abuse.It is this [b]cutting of slack to matter of faith [/b]that allows continued freedom for certain children in Africa to be accused and convicted as witches and have acid poured over their face.
But as you rightly say [color=#FF0000]faith[/color] is still a comfort for many
Basically meaning if we are cutting faithful folks slack for their right to faith , why the hell do we even have Peebs Net ? .Shouldnt the slack be extended to them too ? . Where does the buck stop ?. Where do we draw the line in the sand ? .Why is it the exclusive brethren that’s at fault here , didnt other faithful folks cut them exclusive brethren the slack in the first place that then allowed the exclusive brethren the freedom and rights to become who they became in the first place ?. Why should non believers have to shut up and cut faithful people slack ,and then be made to suffer for it ? .What type of fair deal is this ?.
And then the 22nd post was another post by Iain where he stated
I don’t know enough about them to argue their case in detail, but that does seem a very patronising 21st century view of some of the giants on whose shoulders we stand. Believers have always understood the distinction between first and second causes – e.g. they understood the act of procreation but also believed it was God who gave life as per the story of Samuel’s birth in 1 Samuel 1. So being able to explain the immediate cause, or the cause behind the cause, does not remove in any sense the reality that God is there. To quote the Westminster Confession (1643)
I see, so me having a personal opinion about ancient people like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle , and feeling that the lack of modern technology and science might have effected their ability to understand many things at that time …is patronising is it ? . If i make a statement of an honest opinion of mine ,i can only have meant it in a offensively condescending manner … It could never likely be just my simple honest opinion … Because im a non believer right ?.
Sheeze ??%$#&?? … Crrrrumba ..Holy guacamole !!
So i posted another reply to Iian which so happens also got refused by the Peeb Net moderators .
It went like this.
Iain said..”I don’t know enough about them to argue their case in detail, but that does seem a very patronising 21st century view of some of the giants on whose shoulders we stand. Believers have always understood the distinction between first and second causes – e.g. they understood the act of procreation but also believed it was God who gave life as per the story of Samuel’s birth in 1 Samuel 1. So being able to explain the immediate cause, or the cause behind the cause, does not remove in any sense the reality that God is there. “
Sorry if that sounded [b]patronising[/b] to you Iain ,im not sure if i should take you own reply as maybe sounding a little patronising towards me.But to be honest im really not to bothered by it either way, as i do have much worse matters to worry me.
I meant no offence and was only stating the fact many things in old times were maybe not fully understood.Thats honestly all it was actually about.
Iain said ..”Believers have always understood the distinction between first and second causes – e.g. they understood the act of procreation but also believed it was God who gave life as per the story of Samuel’s birth in 1 Samuel 1.”
Well ok …But please where in the bible was there information to explain how earthquakes occurred .What happened out at sea to cause tsunami to occur?.What caused the droughts and floods that are connected to weather patterns etc?.
Maybe if you had not been so quick to judge my thoughts as simply being intended as patronising you might have understood i was just making the simple observation, that back in the days of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle many things were still not understood.
I think maybe you would even somewhat agree ? ,people not understanding movement of tectonic plates or that earthquakes at sea were being involved in the formation of tsunami,[b]could tend [/b]to make many more people in days of old start to wonder if maybe the God or even Gods were possibly being involved in taking their anger out on certain people.
Iain said..”Believers have always understood the distinction between first and second causes ”
Is this very correct ? .If so please point me to the scripture that totally explained tectonic plate movement .Scripture that explained tsunami .Scripture that explained weather patterns and how they sometimes brought floods and sometimes brought droughts etc.
Because as far as i know many people back in times of old sometimes felt that maybe these things happened entirely due to peoples sinning.Which is why some faithful people today even with regards to people killed in earthquakes that happen such as the Haiti earthquake, suggest its got lots to do with Gods anger.
Iain said …”So being able to explain the immediate cause, or the cause behind the cause, does not remove in any sense the reality that God is there”
But where did i say that it did that?.I merely pointed out people of old lacked in much knowledge that we now do actually have.
But i suggest what you wrote could also just as easily be written to say ..So being able to explain the immediate cause, or the cause behind the cause, does not [b]impose[/b] in any sense the reality that God is there.
Iain said..”Why then are so many modern scientists devout believers? See for example “The Language of God” by Dr Francis Collins, previously head of the human genome project. In fact, the more we learn, the bigger God seems to get. There is more to Christian or religious belief than science, but if I were arguing purely on rationalist grounds, some of the strongest evidences for God are provided by modern science.”
Why is always such a big question to answer.But for good starters we have not proved God doesnt actually exist .Or for that matter even that Gods (as in more than one) dont exist.
I might ask you ..Why then are so many modern EB, still EB?. One good answer is faith has always been a strong influence.Fear has also always been a strong influence,and specially when connected to any matters of superstition or the unknown.
But i agree with you many scientists do still have faith.And as i best understand at the moment,this has much to do with their thoughts and observations that to them with what they see, in their opinion seems to still suggest something that still points towards some sort of intelligent design.
It can also sometimes possibly be connected to whats known as well .For instance it’s also long been [b]known[/b] that faith is also a great way to have some supernatural forceful control over [b]many people[/b], and some control without need of guns or policemen .As another interesting thought exercise, even if just so happens Bruce Hales doesn’t actually believe in the existence of God, would it actually be such a really wise move for him to even let on that he didn’t believe in God?.If for certain reasons maybe it wouldn’t be such a wise move for Bruce Hales, then why do you suppose maybe there isn’t also some personal reasons why some scientists also might not be being quite so honest.
Yes i agree Iain there are still many scientists who suggest they do still have faith and im very sure many still do so for very honest reasons, and i also say rightly so, because we still don’t know for sure.However im not so sure it can be said this group of faithful scientists is becoming more and more in numbers?, and maybe the same could be said rightly so .Because even with some things still looking like a matter of some sort of intelligent design,many other matters still remain looking like some very unintelligent design .Such as why create a human being capable of being fooled by a talking snake,and then punish the being?.Or whats the use of a kiwi with wings it don’t ever use?.And why go to so much effort to create an earth that wont actually continue to survive, because the suns likely to burn out?.And just why does this God leave or faith to faith, in effect putting us in very grave danger of nasty people like witch killers and exclusive Brethren, and yet still be thought a loving God ? .And why do animals need to suffer and strive to survive while trying to escape the teeth of ferocious animals like lions,did they too allow themselves to get fooled by the talking snake?.
Would you still say the “design” part of our universe, is still [b]all[/b] sounding/seeming so very like intelligent design Iain ?.
Iain said…”Regarding every tribe in every corner of the world showing some evidence of the numinous, the fact that you have to search the globe to find an exception rather proves the rule.”
I suggest the only real connection that can honestly be drawn from this type of scientific observation, is that all humans happen to have a mind that is pretty much the [b]same type[/b] of mind. That then thinks much the [b]same type of thoughts [/b]and so naturally is likely to wonder,even about such [b]same things [/b]as how the universe might have begun, and where we might have come from etc.
This type of claim you made could also be stated as ” every tribe in every corner of the world showing some evidence of ” some fear of the dark suggests all tribes have some fear of the dark .Does this scientific type observation then prove that the dark itself actually has anything within it that we humans should actually fear?.Or does it more likely suggest all humans have a brain that so happens [b]thinks very much the same way[/b], and so [b]doesnt even change just because so happens its in a very different country.[/b] The brain stays the same,its only ever the country that changes.
Iain said..”Sorry the above is a bit disjointed, but I felt it only right to make some response to ExEB’s questions. If there are any points I should have answered but overlooked I am sorry, but I think this posting is long enough for just now. I will be happy to attempt to answer any questions – although I may decline to answer any ‘red herrings’ about heaven or hell.”
Oh maybe we [b]all[/b] have a few of these “red herrings” we have to answer sometimes Iain .I didn’t make a reply to your personal translation of the heaven and hell issues or say anymore about the harm done by religion either.I wouldnt worry too much, maybe everyone is guilty of some disjointed posts..
Thanks for the continued discussion.
So there you are, that post was also refused by Peebs Net moderator ,i personally don’t think it was too very far out of line ,basically i was mostly explaining my reasons and trying to express i never meant to offend anyone and was just stating my own opinion . Sorry about the (b) s in brackets etc ,but that’s just the bold thingy and just showing you was a copy i kept of my original post.
As predictable the poster Doug later replied … Im sorry Eric, I thought this was just a discussion about God, religion and man and I was just adding my two cents worth. I doubt any christians will feel the need to be cut any slack from me as I was not attacking anyone.
The thread went on to talk about religion and war and a number of other issues .. But this post of mine is now to long already .
My main point is, it soon seems to become so obvious lots of faithful folks just don’t seem to like non believers discussing a faithful persons rights to freedom of religion and faith of what are yet unproven Gods . It seems to me they also want these freedoms and rights to also overrule the freedoms and rights of non believers (who also often happen to be effect by said faiths whether they enjoy it or not) to even be allowed to question these beliefs. Ive noticed this dislike of freedom and rights of non believers who question matters of faith is infact quite widespread in faith circles that spread right across the internet .It seems to be a common thing.
And these same faithful folks on Peebs net feel its all fair game for them to question the faith and beliefs of the Exclusive Brethren as well as many other faiths and cults as they see fit.
My point is, who is it that gets the right to choose where the lines are to be drawn in the sand. To me it doesnt really honestly seem there is the same rules actually being used for everyone. If its ok that faithful question other faiths then it should also be fine that non faithful also may be free to have a right to question matters of faith.