Richard Dawkins sums up religion

Castiel said:
It is the same God...attributing different actions to an individual doesn't follow that the individual is therefore different for each action.

They are not even different interpretations of God, they are different interpretations of what scripture say about God.

There is an intrinsic difference.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. What if one contradicts the other?
 
Castiel said:
They are all simply different interpretations of Scripture..not different Gods. The God remains the same throughout the Abrahamic Faiths, not only Christian Denominations, but also the Jewish and Islamic schools. These examples are simply things attributed to the same God by different interpretative manifestations by the respective school or denomination.
Click to expand...

Ok then if the Creator who caused the Big Bang is the same as the ape-like being who created the Earth 6000 years ago, i state that he is also a stapler. Different interpretations, not different Gods, right?
 
koolpc said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
Show me any evidence that we were created in a day...

As you very well know, there is no scientific evidence. For me, which you all find very hard to comprehend, it all comes downt to faith and a strong belief in God. Scripture is very important. The word of God is very important. There would be no such thing as belief in God if you didn't, as a Christian, believe in the 'word' of God.

I am not looking for scientific proof or evidence. I don't need that for beliefs or faith. Some call it blind faith. Well, that's what a true Christian is meant to have. Utter faith in God. Unquestionable faith in God. One could never do this if one didn't believe in God.
Click to expand...

That is fine and if I may summarise your post, your point is you believe in god and the bible as a matter of faith without scientific evidence/proof. In response I would argue that there is no point in you reviewing any scientific proof for evolution as you are analysing it with a strong bias and therefore, not applying any scientific method. In other words you are looking for reinforcement of your ideas rather than truth.

No where really to go with this argument now I think. On a topic that could be of interest (not that I know anything about it), how can you trust scripture and know that it is the word of god. Surely this has passed through the hands of men and one thing that we can all agree on is that men make mistakes/are corrupt/have there own motivations.
 
Last edited:
Zethor said:
Ok then if the Creator who caused the Big Bang is the same as the ape-like being who created the Earth 6000 years ago, i state that he is also a stapler. Different interpretations, not different Gods, right?
Click to expand...

You can nstate whatever you want..although most interpretations have extensive theological basis behind them. Reductio ad absurdum arguments do not really impact on anything I have said. :)
 
So, Dawkins is in town tonight and a few in the office are going down to listen.

I'm tempted, should be interesting.
 
Castiel said:
It is the same God...attributing different actions to an individual doesn't follow that the individual is therefore different for each action. For example the conversation Spudbynight and I had on the actions and words of Pope Francis...I interpret his actions and words one way, Spudbynight interprets those same actions and words differently..does that mean there are two individual Pope Francis'?

They are not even different interpretations of God, they are different interpretations of what scripture say about God.

There is an intrinsic difference.
Click to expand...

Good attempt but I'm afraid you don't pass. Pope Francis' words and actions are known to be real so even if their interpretations vary, there's no doubt he is unique. Unfortunately, God is an abstract idea and saying all different ideas on a subject are actually the same idea is a mountain of a contradiction.
 
Castiel said:
Which is precisely what I said....it was the Violation of the Eucharist which led to the Excommunication rather than his views on the role of women or homosexuality that you initially suggested.
Click to expand...

No, Reynolds was charged with three offences. He was excommunicated on the basis of all three offences. The fact that one of those offences carries an automatic excommunication doesn't invalidate the other two offences.

Castiel said:
I did not even suggest the Pope ignored or intended to ignore Doctrine...but promote a more liberal interpretation of that Doctrine, this I think is clear in the evidence I presented.
Click to expand...

We may be squabbling over semantics here. Pope Francis hasn't proposed any sort of liberal interpretation of doctrine - what he has proposed is a different type of pastoral care.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
One thing that I really can't comprehend in this thread is the number of religious people asking for evidence and not supplying their own.
Click to expand...

IF 'IF' God exists, it will be in a form we are yet to comprehend. Much like aliens.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. God could have kick started the universe, our sun, planet etc etc and let nature take its course.
In that scenario, everyone in this thread is correct.
 
Zethor said:
The first question is serious, here are some examples of Christian Gods:
- the one who literally caused the Great Flood and wiped off every species on the planet, minus what was on the Ark;
- the one who caused the Big Bang and let the laws of physics handle the rest (First Cause);
- the one who created man in his image (aka Yeti/Big Foot/the missing Great Ape?).

Shall I go on?

Each Christian has their own idea of God that differs by the extent of their magical abilities. The God of the Young Earth Creationists is not the same as the God of a person who believes in the First Cause. In other words, most people (including Christians) believe in a personal Creator that has cherry picked qualities (according to their personal views), rather than having certain fixed qualities. This implies there are in fact numerous Gods, probably as many as there are people.

My second question refers to the position taken by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica, namely, that Atheism is the greatest of all sins. I was wondering if you agree.
Click to expand...

Castiel has answered the first question pretty much as I would have done.

As for your second question; it isn't something that can be answered in a soundbite. Your approach to the first question leads me to believe you are not really interested in my opinion but rather want to prove yourself right in the eyes of others. Please feel free to convince me otherwise.
 
Zatoichi.uK said:
How do you feel about the idea that God created man with a mind, reason, thoughts and inquisition, only to forgo their use?
Click to expand...

But thats where you are wrong as man has free will! Whatever path man chooses in life is through his own will. But, i am sure that God does nudge some people in some directions and maybe hopes that some will choose the 'right' path. God doesnt interfere with mans free will. We get to choose, be it right or wrong!
 
Zethor said:
IT IS something that can be answered in a soundbite. Genocide is infinitely worse than Atheism, along with plenty of other things. Baffling answer.
Click to expand...

If your level of thought on this is so one dimensional then probably best I didn't waste my time with an answer.
 
Jack Bauer said:
That is fine and if I may summarise your post, your point is you believe in god and the bible as a matter of faith without scientific evidence/proof. In response I would argue that there is no point in you reviewing any scientific proof for evolution as you are analysing it with a strong bias and therefore, not applying any scientific method. In other words you are looking for reinforcement of your ideas rather than truth.

No where really to go with this argument now I think. On a topic that could be of interest (not that I know anything about it), how can you trust scripture and know that it is the word of god. Surely this has passed through the hands of men and one thing that we can all agree on is that men make mistakes/are corrupt/have there own motivations.
Click to expand...

Lots of facts in the bible regarding history, dates, names etc.

Now, regarding scripture, in the Catholic Church a lot of it has to do with 'tradition'. Handed down from the first Bishop of the Church. Core beliefs that have not changed. Its not like other christian denominations that split from the 'true' church who change things to suit themselves.

Also, remember that the Holy Spirit, as i believe, and which is a strong statement in the catholic church, is within those that have carried this tradition down through the ages. Its not about picking up a bible and interpreting it yourself without any background knowledge. To interpret the bible on your own can be very dangerous. Myself, i use a Catholic study bible which is very good at explaining certain chapters etc.
 
koolpc said:
Lots of facts in the bible regarding history, dates, names etc.

Now, regarding scripture, in the Catholic Church a lot of it has to do with 'tradition'. Handed down from the first Bishop of the Church. Core beliefs that have not changed. Its not like other christian denominations that split from the 'true' church who change things to suit themselves.

Also, remember that the Holy Spirit, as i believe, and which is a strong statement in the catholic church, is within those that have carried this tradition down through the ages. Its not about picking up a bible and interpreting it yourself without any background knowledge. To interpret the bible on your own can be very dangerous. Myself, i use a Catholic study bible which is very good at explaining certain chapters etc.
Click to expand...

In the Catholic Church there is 'Tradition' and 'tradition'.

'tradition' is simply things which are part of Catholic custom. An example of this might be priestly celibacy. This isn't a part of Church teaching and has been changed in the past.

'Tradition' with a capital 'T' refers to the deposit of faith. The Church did not come from the Bible. The Bible came from the Church. The Bible itself didn't come into being until the 4th century. Before then the faith was based primarily on oral tradition. 'Tradition' - that is formal Church teaching outside of sacred scripture is given an equal weighting to scripture itself.
 
Zethor said:
Good attempt but I'm afraid you don't pass. Pope Francis' words and actions are known to be real so even if their interpretations vary, there's no doubt he is unique. Unfortunately, God is an abstract idea and saying all different ideas on a subject are actually the same idea is a mountain of a contradiction.
Click to expand...

You're probably not qualified to judge whether I pass or not. However, the Christian 'abstract idea' comes from the same Source...The Scriptures..therefore the various interpretations of the nature of God are based on that same premise a single basis of the Biblical God.

God as an broader (extra Biblical) abstract idea has a range of definitions across different religions and you would reasonably conclude that would constitute as different Gods...however the Abrahamic God is a single intrinsic entity and so while interpretations of the nature of that entity may vary and even contradict each other it does not imply that each is based on a different God or that there are multiple Christian Gods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom