I have absolute proof that there is no God.

[seeker]

I've just seen in our local paper that a little girl who lives in our town has died. She has been the focus of much prayer since she was taken ill last year. Her parents were thoroughly good Christian people who trusted God absolutely.

The is no way that a loving, omnipotent, beneficent God who notes even a sparrow falling would not have answered these people's prayer.

So, if I had even a scintilla of doubt, it is now gone. There is no God.

Yes we can point out the fallacy of the bible and its copying of mythology and it's fallacies to it's core. As you christians are free to do so with astrophysics etc. although funnily enough every time throughout the centuries of advances the christians have tried to hold back those advances. But hey you are fee to follow your myths but NEVER should any law of society be based on woo woo thinking masquerading as science.

The largest proponents of woo woo and their desire to control society are the christians.

I agree that laws of society should not be based on woo woo thinking masquerading as science. Prime candidates are the risible meme idea, and pretty much the whole of evolutionary psychology.

Why because both of these provide amply evidence about how silly religions are.

you don't want to talk about what Jesus said. But I think if you say that you don't want to hear it you are making yourself sound as if you have a closed mind.

Yes, I chose my words poorly there. My mind is fairly closed to anyone who tries to make me believe stuff without evidence. As you know, however, I was talking about the sort of mental contortions required to make the words of Jesus sound relevant and useful in today's society, to make them fit contemporary ideas of morality and to gloss over those of his edicts that nobody wants to observe. I live in a christianity-based culture: of course I have heard them all. It serves no-one to rehash them.

As I've said repeatedly on this thread, I've no problem with taking lessons from mythologies and philosophies. I have issues with your assumption that any kernel of truth about the human condition necessarily contains a relationship between humans and god at its core. This very assumption renders the most worthwhile kind of discussion invalid.

Don't be daft. The fact that evolutionary psychology has been wilfully misinterpreted by racists & sexists doesn't make the concept worthless. If we want to understand ourselves as a species, we have to look at evolution.
Well, most of us do!

If you don't want to hear what Christians might have to say, and if you think that there can't be worthwhile discussion with Christians unless it is wholly on your terms, then your mind is closed. What you want is not a discussion but an agreement.

"As I've said repeatedly on this thread ...." garlic

Are you getting weary garlic? - less than 50 posts to go

• on what I think, looking back on it as a whole, has been a most thought provoking and challenging thread.

My personal thanks to all for your excellent company and erudite edification (or something )

Stop pussy footing around and deflecting niminy and give us one grain of evidence and facts.

If we were to remove the preconceptions that
[a] truths about the human condition necessarily contain a relationship between humans and god/jesus at their core, and
[b] the stories in the bible are essentially true,
you and I would agree on most of the big questions, niminy. Since you are the one attached to irrational preconceptions, I understand that you will disagree with me about their irrationality. It's either stupid or disingenuous to assert that means there can't be worthwhile discussion with Christians unless it is wholly on my terms. You're not stupid so you're being intentionally simplistic.

.

Here's a comparatively harmless example:
"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what
ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body,
what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the
body than raiment?

     "Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they
      reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth
      them. Are ye not much better than they?"

Is Jesus telling you to choose unemployment and wait for everything you need to just be given?

Now look, I went to school, I've been to church, I live in a christianity-based society. I have heard the replies to my question. It's not obstructive of me to say I'm not that keen on hearing it again!

Especially as the discussion goes on for fucking ever ... 2,000 years and counting.

Socrates, by comparison, said:
"He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the wealth of nature."

That clearly means you can be happy without having loads of stuff, as long as you're content with your lot.

Both these imaginary teachers were saying pretty much the same thing, right? Only the Greek didn't tell people not to work and to choose destitution.

Me, I choose science. It tells me what my physical needs actually are, and that I'll be happier bunny if those are met and I take a laid-back attitude towards getting extras. And it can prove its assertions, in detail, while not being afraid to say "Not sure" about the things it's not sure about.

It has been an interesting and entertaining thread, Juggling! Thank you, seeker :)

for letting my weariness show

Wow, sciencelover, that is shocking! Mainly for the awful dilemmas this must have forced upon their congregations - and also that the church appears to be cutting off its own source of income

That verse is usually, afaik, interpreted to mean what Socrates said: don't be greedy. There's more to life than stuff. I've also heard a painfully long sermon about how birds actually do work hard to get the god-given food, so we have to keep working and be thankful for what we get. All fair enough, I guess. Most of the stories can be re-interpreted to suit the times and the will of the pastor - but re-interpretation involves saying, basically, "He didn't mean what he said." I don't think philosophies should tell people what to do but, if they must, I'd prefer them to be unambiguous.

I imagine the teachings of the gospels were intended to be straightforward. Therefore we should be seeing christians agreeing with every adversary, cutting off their own 'sinful' hands, not making any money, washing each other's feet and refusing to call their fathers Father. It just doesn't work.

Using a more up to date and accurate translation:

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, or what you will eat or drink, or about your body, or what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? (Matthew 6:25)

Jesus is telling his disciples that the important things in life are not material. The body is more than the clothes that we wear and the body is more than the food that we eat. He isn't telling them to go naked and stop eating, but to stop worrying about these things, and to move beyond them being the whole aim of life. The next verse, which you quote, amplifies this. And then Jesus goes on to say, 'Can any of you by worrying add one single hour to the span of his life?'.

I do not think we should give up earning a living; I don't think food will simply fall into my lap. I don't take the idea that we should turn our backs on the material world in that simplistic literal way. But I do think that we are too fixated on material goods, and that the pursuit of more and more of them makes us shallow and heartless. And as a terrible worrier, I find the injunction to stop worrying salutary!

I don't think the gospels are at all straightforward. The parables are paradoxical and puzzling. They are absolutely not intended to be interpreted literally (that's because they are parables). People who try to interpret them literally end up with absurdities like the preacher you quote. But then philosophy needs interpreting too. Plato is hard to understand - people study him for years to understand what he is saying. I like science too. I'm married to a scientist. Science can tell us all sorts of amazing things, but there are some questions it just can't answer: what is good and what is bad? Why do I like Mozart better than Robbie Williams? How can I deal with the pain and sadness of human life?

But then, you're not interested in hearing what I have to say, because you've heard it all before.

Take it easy niminy - those verses about not worrying about the 'morrow have always been some of those of which I'm most fond ( this olde stylee language seems a bit catching ! )

I don't think I'm the only one. But then there are many religions and philosophies which urge us to live more in the present

Well hello!

How this thread has meandered since I was here last!

TechnoDad, you asked if I had deliberately chosen to sod orf when I was asked for some 'hard evidence'. The answer is that, like many people I guess, I work for a living, and do a billion other things in my (haha) 'spare time'. One of which is to mess around on MN. If MNing were to become a full time job I'd have to hand in my notice, and live off fresh air.

You asked about Mary IIRC...that was a long time ago now though. Want to go back there, or has the moment pased?

Fill your boots Holo, lets take it all the way to 1000 posts.

If I remember correctly, I was asking for a direct answer (ie without a load of waffle) to the following questions:

1. isn't it more likely that there is a "maid" vs "maiden" translation error, rather than a miracle that Mary became pregnant without having sex (which of the two options is more likely)?

2. considering the answer to question 1 can only be yes (unless you can present hard evidence (without waffle)) do you admit that this undermines one of the main miracle claims within the Christian belief system?

3. If this main miracle is undermined, then justify why this doesn't undermine all the other made up stuff religious text.

4. how can it be justified why ANY religion is taught to children at school (at the tax payer's expense) when it is quite clearly nonsense?

Straight to the point, Techno :)

Most christians seem wilfully unaware that every enduring philosophy says much the same about the nature of a healthy, fulfilling life in a well-functioning society. The vast majority of the irreligious live by the same guiding principles: they are human fundamentals. Thus it is not necessary to believe in a magical volcano god, a non-existent miraculous preacher, a sexist birth lie event or original shame sin. Merely to have a sense of civic responsibility and personal development. This can easily be taught without teaching magic and self-loathing; those are tools of abuse.

Since religions are so deeply woven into our cultures, I guess the basics of them all should be taught in schools as popular mythologies, not facts. The 'human fundamentals' can, and should, be taught without bias or magic.

Interested to read your reply, Holo.

Okay, so...

1. You might not like this answer, since, in order to be true, it has to deal with issues of culture, language, and identity (i.e. in your neat little word, 'waffle'). The Greek word used of Mary in Matthew's Gospel is 'parthenos'. The earliest available evidence of its use is in Homer (probably about 750-650BCE). Lots of scholarship has been done on the Greek ideal of virginity. It's fascinating. Right, that's the Greek word sorted. Now, the Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is 'alma' which means 'young woman' without implying virginity. There is a very well-attested Hebrew word for 'virgin', but it's different. You've probably stopped reading by now as this answer is longer than you hoped for, but hey.

So, translation error? No, because 'alma' sounds nothing like the Hebrew word for 'virgin'. There are places where translations do get a bit mangled, but this isn't one of them. I see it as a Christian appropriation of a Hebrew text and Hebrew prophecy. I could say a lot more about gender identity as understood by differnt cultures, but I am sure you're not intetreted in any of that.

2. Still there? No, it doesn't undermine anything, it opens up a load more questions about the relationship between Hebrew prophecy and Christian identity. But I'm sure you're not interested in any of that stuff! It's quite interesting and thought-provoking, and requires more than one sentence to explain.

3. See above. I'm sure you're not actually interested in how the Bible relates to faith. It's too complex!

4. See above. Why bother with actually thinking about difficult, old, strange cultures and texts when you can cut straight to the chase and say that your real beef is with faith schools?

No, my beef isn't with faith schools as such, it is all schools.

Ah, okay. Well, it's better to be honest about that than to debate the intricacies of 1st century Jewish-Christian idedntities.

"I don't think the gospels are at all straightforward. The parables are paradoxical and puzzling. They are absolutely not intended to be interpreted literally (that's because they are parables). People who try to interpret them literally end up with absurdities like the preacher you quote. But then philosophy needs interpreting too. Plato is hard to understand - people study him for years to understand what he is saying. I like science too. I'm married to a scientist. Science can tell us all sorts of amazing things, but there are some questions it just can't answer: what is good and what is bad? Why do I like Mozart better than Robbie Williams? How can I deal with the pain and sadness of human life?"
Plato is hard to understand, but it can be done. Scripture, in order to retro fit it to religion often has to be interpreted as meaning the exact opposite of what the words say. "Ask and ye shall receive" "Faith can move mountains", for exqmple, can only mean "Ask all you like, it will make no difference to anything" and ""Faith has no impact wt all on the material world"

Holo

When was I not honest. I have stated this already on this thread.

Just because your religion is made up, it doesn't mean you can make up stuff about me too!