Well I have a question then... If the bible is supposed to be 100% true, then how come there are so many things that contradict? Also the church over the years has changed it's mind on so many issues, basically dismissing what was said before to be true or taking it back (for example: taking back that babies who die that are not baptized stay in limbo).

 

So if a divine spirit is meant to be perfect and all mighty then how can you possibly explain all of the faults and defects?

Isaiah 61:Preached to the poor/brokenhearted/captives 1 Matthew 11:5

 

That was my favourite part.

urm, tl;dr :wtf:

I really hope Frodo doesn't need glasses.

 

 

Leviticus 21:16 The LORD spoke to Moses. He said, 17 "Speak to Aaron. Tell him, 'For all time to come, no man in your family line who has any flaws can come near to offer food to me. 18 " 'No man who has any flaws can come near. No man who is blind or disabled can come. No man whose body is scarred or twisted can come. 19 No man whose foot or hand is disabled can come. 20 No man whose back is bent can come. No man who is too short can come. No man who has anything wrong with his eyes can come. No man who has boils or running sores can come. No man whose sex glands are crushed can come. 21 " 'No man in the family line of the priest Aaron who has any flaws can come near me. He can't come to bring the offerings that are made to me with fire. If he has any flaws, he must not come near to offer food to me. 22 He can eat the holy food. He can also eat my very holy food. 23 But because he has a flaw, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar. If he does, he will make my sacred tent "unclean." I am the Lord. I make everything holy.' "

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven?CMP=twt_gu

 

Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven, it's a fairy story'

 

A belief that heaven or an afterlife awaits us is a "fairy story" for people afraid of death, Stephen Hawking has said.

 

In a dismissal that underlines his firm rejection of religious comforts, Britain's most eminent scientist said there was nothing beyond the moment when the brain flickers for the final time.

 

Hawking, who was diagnosed with motor neurone disease at the age of 21, shares his thoughts on death, human purpose and our chance existence in an exclusive interview with the Guardian today.

 

The incurable illness was expected to kill Hawking within a few years of its symptoms arising, an outlook that turned the young scientist to Wagner, but ultimately led him to enjoy life more, he has said, despite the cloud hanging over his future.

 

"I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first," he said.

 

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark," he added.

 

Hawking's latest comments go beyond those laid out in his 2010 book, The Grand Design, in which he asserts there is no need for a creator to explain the existence of the universe.

 

The book provoked a backlash from some religious leaders, including the chief rabbi, Lord Sacks, who accused Hawking of committing an "elementary fallacy" of logic.

 

The 69-year-old physicist fell seriously ill after a lecture tour in the US in 2009 and was taken to Addenbrookes Hospital in an episode that sparked grave concerns for his health. He has since returned to his Cambridge department as director of research.

 

The physicist's remarks draw a stark line between the use of God as a metaphor and the belief in an omniscient creator whose hands guide the workings of the cosmos.

 

In his bestselling 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking drew on the device so beloved of Einstein, when he described what it would mean for scientists to develop a "theory of everything" – a set of equations that described every particle and force in the entire universe. "It would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God," he wrote.

 

The book sold a reported 9 million copies and propelled the physicist to instant stardom. His fame has led to guest roles in The Simpsons, Star Trek: The Next Generation and Red Dwarf. One of his greatest achievements in physics is a theory that describes how black holes emit radiation.

 

In the interview, Hawking rejected the notion of life beyond death and emphasised the need to fulfil our potential on Earth by making good use of our lives. In answer to a question on how we should live, he said, simply: "We should seek the greatest value of our action."

 

In answering another, he wrote of the beauty of science, such as the exquisite double helix of DNA in biology, or the fundamental equations of physics.

 

Hawking responded to questions posed by the Guardian and a reader ahead of a lecture tomorrow at the Google Zeitgeist meeting in London, in which he will address the question: "Why are we here?"

 

In the talk, he will argue that tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life, emerged. "Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in," he said.

 

Hawking suggests that with modern space-based instruments, such as the European Space Agency's Planck mission, it may be possible to spot ancient fingerprints in the light left over from the earliest moments of the universe and work out how our own place in space came to be.

 

His talk will focus on M-theory, a broad mathematical framework that encompasses string theory, which is regarded by many physicists as the best hope yet of developing a theory of everything.

 

M-theory demands a universe with 11 dimensions, including a dimension of time and the three familiar spatial dimensions. The rest are curled up too small for us to see.

 

Evidence in support of M-theory might also come from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Cern, the European particle physics laboratory near Geneva.

 

One possibility predicted by M-theory is supersymmetry, an idea that says fundamental particles have heavy – and as yet undiscovered – twins, with curious names such as selectrons and squarks.

 

Confirmation of supersymmetry would be a shot in the arm for M-theory and help physicists explain how each forces at work in the universe arose from one super-force at the dawn of time.

 

Another potential discovery at the LHC, that of the elusive Higgs boson, which is thought to give mass to elementary particles, might be less welcome to Hawking, who has a long-standing bet that the long-sought entity will never be found at the laboratory.

 

Hawking will join other speakers at the London event, including the chancellor, George Osborne, and the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

I'm just gonna sit here and rock out to some ~*~Jesus music~*~ :|

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8510711/Belief-in-God-is-part-of-human-nature-Oxford-study.html

I'm just gonna keep posting links in this thread, and if anyone wants to discuss go ahead. I think the one in the post above is particularly interesting.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/16/atheism-religion

very interesting articles to read. In some sense the first article sort of reminds me of the idea of Wishful Thinking that we have as a kid in the sense that we often see our parents as indestructible but over time we come to realize they're human and have imperfections as does everyone. It's almost as though it's just that but continued.

 

That second article is also interesting, but I agree that there should be some form of counseling available to atheists, non believers or just people who are uncertain. Once again it seems that there's in fact almost a looking down of people who are that way, or almost as if there's the feeling that since they don't believe in God or religion that they don't need counseling or someone to talk to, which of course is BS.

very interesting articles to read. In some sense the first article sort of reminds me of the idea of Wishful Thinking that we have as a kid in the sense that we often see our parents as indestructible but over time we come to realize they're human and have imperfections as does everyone. It's almost as though it's just that but continued.

 

That second article is also interesting, but I agree that there should be some form of counseling available to atheists, non believers or just people who are uncertain. Once again it seems that there's in fact almost a looking down of people who are that way, or almost as if there's the feeling that since they don't believe in God or religion that they don't need counseling or someone to talk to, which of course is BS.

 

Exactly. From the first article I gathered that it is children's nature to believe in a God, but that you can develop past it in certain areas (like organised religion) and that this is just as natural and for a great deal of people, the only logical progression.

 

As for the second I agree that philosophical thinking and searching within oneself could indeed help, but it just isn't being offered by the looks of things.

I think the study into God and human nature is biased because it's looking at children already believing in God (or if they don't understand, have probably been told that God knows everything and is the creator). These aren't children who have never had the concept of God explained to them or are totally unaware that some people believe in a God), so I don't know how it can be fully legitimate. It only applies to those who already believe in God (and those who have Mothers for that fact).

 

Interesting all the same.

I think it would be really hard to find children who are not aware of a belief in God.

My parents didn't raise me religiously, they never told me there was a God, but I still grew up believing there was one, because as soon as you enter school, you are confronted with religious education ... and that is often very one-sided.

These aren't children who have never had the concept of God explained to them or are totally unaware that some people believe in a God), so I don't know how it can be fully legitimate.[/color] It only applies to those who already believe in God (and those who have Mothers for that fact).

 

Interesting all the same.

 

Yeah I was thinking the same thing when I was reading the article. Nonetheless, it was a rather intriguing article.

 

I don't mean to sound evil, but I more consider it a "coping mechanism" for one's own mortality.

That's not evil at all. It is partly a coping mechanism, but I think once you get older you don't necessarily need it the same (note the necessarily, as nobody knows what happens after death, we can only speculate - have to state the obvious here in case my words get twisted). It's too much to expect a child to understand eternal nothingness, something that to adults is almost inconceivable.

 

And yes, the only way to make a study like that would be to deprive a child of much of what is normal for a child to grow up amongst.

I read those articles in an attempt to join this conversation but it didn't work out too well, welp.

 

someone tell me what we're talking about in a simplified format please :|

Well the first one said that it was human nature for us to believe in a God. Children under five are also more likely to believe in some people having 'superhuman properties' as they aren't aware of certain limitations.

 

This was one of the main things it discovered:

 

Children were asked whether their mother would know the contents of a closed box. Three-year-olds believed that their mother and God would always know the contents, but by the age of four, children start to understand that their mothers were not omniscient.

 

It then goes on to say that people who try to suppress religion won't succeed because our thought is rooted in religious concepts.

 

I disagreed with this to an extent, because whilst children do believe these things, it does not mean adults have to believe them. It helps us understand why many adults do, and I'm not saying they are wrong (though personally I don't believe it - the nature of organised religion is where I take issue, as people know), but they say themselves that children believe that their Mothers are omnipresent until they develop their thinking. It isn't ridiculous to believe that we may one day get to the stage where people develop even further, in the future, and there is a general consensus that there isn't a God as organised religions portray 'him'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The second article was about the American army, where Atheists have requested counselling that isn't based around religion in order to help them on a spiritual level, such as philosophical thinking. Just things to help them organise their thoughts, put things into perspective and deal with the trauma's they may see. This has generally been ridiculed by some of the Chaplains of different faiths.

I think it would be really hard to find children who are not aware of a belief in God.

My parents didn't raise me religiously, they never told me there was a God, but I still grew up believing there was one, because as soon as you enter school, you are confronted with religious education ... and that is often very one-sided.

 

What about public education is religious?

The Pledge of Allegiance here is, and I think they should leave out the "under god" part - that's not part of the original, and we live in a nation of freedom to choose one's beliefs as a principle we uphold. I'll put my faith in reason and enlightenment, our collective knowledge and understanding, and the stories of compassion and justice as guides to light the way to a better world for us all.

We ought not pledge allegiance to a flag, but to our belief in the natural rights of mankind, and to our earth, because there is so much more than just we humans on this planet.:mudkip:

Yeah, I never got the whole pledging your allegiance to a flag thing. Glad we don't do it here. I much prefer your suggestion.

What about public education is religious?

Not every country's public education system is like the U.S.

Ours isn't religious at all either.

In this country the church schools tend to be better. Not because of their ethos, but because of their monopoly and the fact most of them have more money. To get into them you have to go to church, which is what I had to do as a child to get into mine. Whilst the education system itself isn't religious, if you wanted the best for your children many argue you'd be wiser sending them to a church school.

 

If things haven't changed by the time I have children I'll certainly be in a conundrum as to which avenue to go down, though I shall not be taking my children to church unless it is their explicit choice.

In the U.S. the Public Education is very secular. Christian schools are better here, probably because they aren't having propaganda crammed down their throats by the liberals.

In the U.S., Public Education is great because it is free from the dumbing down and misinformation campaigns of so-called "conservative" religious nuts. It deserves better funding; our future depends on rational thinking citizens.

It's the Anti-God left that's dumbing people down, along with trying to convert our children to communism.