Are Religious People Nutters?

[Buzzer]

the flaw in this logic is that you cannot prove god exists, you must rely on faith and believe. however, i can say there is no evidence of god therefore it is most probably one does not exist.

So by that theory up until 1921 neutrons did not exist. Up until 1492 America did not exist. For a few thousand years Tutankhamen's tomb did exist then it didn't and then it did again. Lack of evidence is no basis for saying something does not exist.

 

[Buzzer]

firstly, there is no meaning to life. this is a hard concept to accept, because it would be much nicer for us all to have a purpose. this is one of the reasons man invented god. god gives us purpose. the meaning to life is to enjoy yourself, make friends, fall in love, have children, etc. if you cannot derive meaning from this, i pity you.

my morals are derived mostly from the 'nurture' i have been exposed to. they are instilled in me by my friends, my family, the society in which i live. it can be argued that some are inherent, or intuitive. so some morals, i may have been born with. i certainly do not know how to be 'good' by reading it in a book. and if this is your motive for altruism, it denigrates your actions.

Disagree here, TiD. There's quite clearly for SOME people a very clear meaning to life. Some people genuinely feel driven to do something as their destiny.

The vast majority of us blunder through life, picking up moral baggage and discarding some , acquiring others as we get older and reflect more on our experiences but once again SOME people have a Paulian conversion, a true epiphany and give up one way of life for another. Often it's religion that drives them to change and they can find what most people would accept as good morals by following the teachings of the Koran, Bible, Talmud..whatever.

Don't diss it, just because it's not your bag. I'd much rather have a reformed wrong 'un than a perpetual recidivist as a neighbour even if I thought that the book he got his moral code from was a fairy story.

 

[Cian]

So by that theory up until 1921 neutrons did not exist. Up until 1492 America did not exist. For a few thousand years Tutankhamen's tomb did exist then it didn't and then it did again. Lack of evidence is no basis for saying something does not exist.

2000 years of failing to discover evidence when you've got 3/4 of the world insisting something exists is quite a long time, though.

 

[Trufflehound]

Verbal: Keaton always said, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." Well I believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze.

Well I believe in Keyser Soze, and the only things that scare me are the Bee Gees.

:shudder:

 

[Rusthall Seagull]

you need to speak to some anthropolgists then, because you got a false impression of ancient and prehistoric people. or just compare and contrast Greek, Roman and Egyptian morallty to the monotheistic relgions. by your arguement, chimps and gorillas have a more sophisticated moral code and structred society than prehistoric man. where there is murder etc, it is between families or tribes fighting over resources... sound familiar?

yep, so I have.....


Blow to head, not arrow, killed Otzi the iceman
Rossella Lorenzi
Discovery News
Friday, 31 August 2007



Ötzi may have died after a whack on the head, possibly after being hit with a stone, or after falling backwards onto a rock. Blood loss from the arrow wound may have only made him lose consciousness (Image: Reuters)
A final blow to the head, not an arrow wound, killed Ötzi, the 5000 year old iceman found in the Italian alps, says a new study on the world's oldest and best-preserved mummy.

The study re-examines forensic data, CT scans, and focuses on the unnatural position in which the mummy was found.

It was presented at the Institute for Mummies and the Iceman, a new research centre that was opened in July at the European Academy in Bolzano, Italy.

"The iceman's body doesn't only feature the already known arrowhead wound on the shoulder and wounds on the hand. There is also a traumatic cerebral lesion caused by a frontal attack," the academy says.

The stone arrowhead was found in Ötzi's left shoulder in 2001 and was thought to have caused the prehistoric man's death, fatally severing his left subclavian artery.

Now a team of researchers, which include prehistory professor Andreas Lippert from the University of Vienna, radiologists Drs Paul Gostner and Patrizia Pernter from the Bolzano Regional Hospital, and Dr Eduard Egarter Vigl, Ötzi's official caretaker at the South Tyrol Archaeological Museum in Bolzano, have reopened the debate.

They believe that blood loss from the arrow wound would have first made Ötzi lose consciousness.

According to the researchers, death came later, from a violent blow to the head. Either the man's killer gave Ötzi the final whack, possibly by hitting him with a stone, or he could have fallen over backwards and hit his head on a rock.

Whatever the scenario, "death was caused by a cerebral trauma", the researchers conclude.

Bizarre posture

Egarter and colleagues believe they have also solved another long-standing mystery: Ötzi's unnatural posture in death.

When the iceman was found by accident in 1991 in a melting glacier in the Ötztal Alps, hence the Ötzi name, his frozen body was face down, with the left arm bent across the chest.

It was thought that the position of the left arm was due to Ötzi's effort to stop the haemorrhage or the acute pain.

But now the discovery of the head trauma paints a new picture of Ötzi's final hours.

There is no more doubt that the iceman died after a violent encounter with his assailants, some of whose blood was found on his cloak and weapons.

But the theory of a solitary death from blood loss, hunger, cold and weakness seems no longer tenable.

On the contrary, the iceman died with his killer standing over him.

"The body's unnatural position suggests that, in the effort to pull out the arrow shaft, the aggressor turned over Ötzi onto his stomach before rigor mortis set in," the researchers say.

 

[Buzzer]

2000 years of failing to discover evidence when you've got 3/4 of the world insisting something exists is quite a long time, though.

Is it? Maybe the limitations on our ability to grasp the concept of God / Infinity/ Whatever is the thing that's failing.

There really are some things - not just religion - that are beyond our ken and so an inability to prove something that feels right to some people can't just be dismissed as nonsense. Just a thought.

 

[Lokki 7]

Often it's religion that drives them to change and they can find what most people would accept as good morals by following the teachings of the Koran, Bible, Talmud..whatever.

Don't diss it, just because it's not your bag. I'd much rather have a reformed wrong 'un than a perpetual recidivist as a neighbour even if I thought that the book he got his moral code from was a fairy story.

What if those morals learned from an ancient book cause you to fly a plane into a tower of the world trade centre in New York? Just because it's religion, doesn't make it right or moral. Plenty of examples in the bible of what I would consider to be immoral behaviour.

 

[beorhthelm]

yep, so I have.....

and? your point is? one prehistoric death from violent causes for reasons unknown. I didnt say there was peace and harmony before the advent of organised relegion, im saying it was little to no different afterwards. Open the paper and see what we do in a nice moral world today. meanwhile most of us live in relative harmony with each other, just as they did 2000, 4000 6000 years ago. We are a social species and you can not build strong social structures without mutual support for common goals and interestes. Morality does not come from religion, religion has codified morality.

 

[Buzzer]

What if those morals learned from an ancient book cause you to fly a plane into a tower of the world trade centre in New York? Just because it's religion, doesn't make it right or moral. Plenty of examples in the bible of what I would consider to be immoral behaviour.

completely agree with you. That's why I said about what most people would consider good morals. My point was that I don't care if someone believes in the Bible IF it makes them a "good" person. That's all.

 

[Lokki 7]

completely agree with you. That's why I said about what most people would consider good morals. My point was that I don't care if someone believes in the Bible IF it makes them a "good" person. That's all.

No true, and I wasn't having a go at you (even though you called me a **** on another thread ). Just those who associate religon with 'good' moral behaviour.

 

[beorhthelm]

So by that theory up until 1921 neutrons did not exist. Up until 1492 America did not exist. For a few thousand years Tutankhamen's tomb did exist then it didn't and then it did again. Lack of evidence is no basis for saying something does not exist.

hmm, i appear to have put that badly, though i did qualify it as improbable not impossible. theres a theory of knowledge that deals with this point. but lack of evidence is a pretty good basis to start from when arguing the existance or non existance of somthing. otherwise we might as well say there really are fairies at the bottom of the garden: we cant prove there isnt, so we shouldn't say the fellow who claims to talk to them is a bit mad?

 

[Buzzer]

hmm, i appear to have put that badly, though i did qualify it as improbable not impossible. theres a theory of knowledge that deals with this point. but lack of evidence is a pretty good basis to start from when arguing the existance or non existance of somthing. otherwise we might as well say there really are fairies at the bottom of the garden: cant prove there isnt, therefore there is?

Is this a good time to point out for the amateur philosphers out there the famous Bertrand Russell/Ludwig Wittgenstein conversation about hippotami in the room?

 

[Rusthall Seagull]

What if those morals learned from an ancient book cause you to fly a plane into a tower of the world trade centre in New York? Just because it's religion, doesn't make it right or moral. Plenty of examples in the bible of what I would consider to be immoral behaviour.

what if those morals are used by millions of peope to live in an organised, law abiding way ? Any large scale ideal i.e communism, buddhism etc have parts to them to which the more extreme factions of a society attach themselves.

It seems to me that for all of the people that slate religion, there has ,as yet, been no better way found of organising a mass. Death within such a huge world population is to be expected and without playing down the horror of the WTC - what kind of catastrophes would there be without religion ?

 

[Buzzer]

No true, and I wasn't having a go at you (even though you called me a **** on another thread ). Just those who associate religon with 'good' moral behaviour.

I wondered if you'd spotted that "city type" comment! - I think your comnments on there were flying over the other bloke's head!

 

[Lokki 7]

I wondered if you'd spotted that "city type" comment! - I think your comnments on there were flying over the other bloke's head!

His comments certainly put a smile on my face. Yours just made me .

 

[Buzzer]

His comments certainly put a smile on my face. Yours just made me .

Just 'cause I've got your number. Bloody Patrick Bateman clone. You're all AMORAL anyway, you city boys.

 

[Lokki 7]

Any large scale ideal i.e communism, buddhism etc have parts to them to which the more extreme factions of a society attach themselves.

Yes, I live in constant fear of the BUDDHIST fundamentalists. You twonk.

 

[Rusthall Seagull]

Yes, I live in constant fear of the BUDDHIST fundamentalists. You twonk.

do you live in fear of Muslim fundamentalists ? Twonky ?

 

[e77]

Yes, I live in constant fear of the BUDDHIST fundamentalists. You twonk.

You do get hard line Buddhists in Sri Lanka, who complain about Norway's involvement in the peace process there!

 

[Lokki 7]

do you live in fear of Muslim fundamentalists ? Twonky ?

I think that in order to sustain an intelligent argument you generally need to have a point.