Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Izzy]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Not gonna lie, I didn’t even read the post, I just went for the cheap gag. 

That's my M.O. 

[Izzy]

1 minute ago, the fox said:

What kind of proof would be sufficient?

Don't take the bait brother. Forgive them, for they know not what they speak 

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, the fox said:

Out of curiosity, What kind of proof would you consider sufficient?

A holy handjob would convince me.

[Benguin]

3 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

I'm very unknowledgeable on the Bible.  Does Christ acknowledge stuff in the old testament.

Absolutely, most notably claiming to fulfill Isiah. 

[Benguin]

4 hours ago, The Bear said:

Probably a mix of the first two. In my eyes, if he even existed which isn't in any way evident, he was probably a clever con man and founder of a successful cult. Successfully convincing people of ridiculous theories without evidence is still in force today, just look at Scientology. Or politics! 

 

And you keep saying words like evidence and fact in regards to Jesus and what he supposedly did. It's all human written anecdotes. And the plural of anecdote isn't evidence. 

 

Every religion around the world has similar stories and themes about their creators, flood myths, resurrection, etc. I put it down to human nature and the need to feel as though something else has absolute power over our lives giving them some kind of meaning. 

It depends what you mean by fact. 

 

That jesus existed, was.crucified, was buried in the tomb of Joseph of arimethea, his tomb was discovered empty and several individuals and groups claimed to see the risen christ is historically factuall. That is to say when historians examine this they conclude these things happened. 

 

If you are stating fact as have I got a blood sample of Jesus etc, then we are on different pages as to what fact is. 

 

If your version of fact is the latter then you would need to disregard almost all of history I'm afraid. 

[the fox]

..

Edited 19 July 2020 by the fox

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Izzy said:

Hey, I just ripped it off some article on the internet. I'm O.K. being called gullible for believing. I've been called a lot worse on here  

 

3 hours ago, Izzy said:

Don't take the bait brother. Forgive them, for they know not what they speak 

I'm sorry mate, you're clearly a good person and you do a lot to help people on here (esp in the depression thread)...but on this particular matter there seems to be a lot of deflection rather than answering points going on and it appears to be a mite disingenuous.

 

Of course, you don't have to answer the points presented and you might feel that if you do there would be no answer that would take the conversation where you don't want it to go anyway, but speaking personally I would be keen on hearing how one reconciles the belief in an interventionist Abrahamic deity with the scientific evidence we have available to us (which quite often conflict with each other).

 

If it's just a matter of believing because it makes one feel better, then that's entirely understandable - as I've said before, it's only when certain religious beliefs are allowed to be used to craft political policy (which sadly happens in more places than not around the world) that the problem arises IMO. Having policy crafted by a document written hundreds of years ago and believed to be infallible and unchangeable isn't a good way to set policy in a very dynamic world = and the US uses the Constitution to similar effect and that clearly has flaws in execution, too.

 

 

3 hours ago, the fox said:

Out of curiosity, What kind of proof would you consider sufficient?

Can't speak for the OP, but as someone with a bit of experience in the field I would suggest empirical, observed and recorded evidence of a deity doing something that a human clearly could not.

 

Of course, that might be something of a stretch.

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Benguin said:

It depends what you mean by fact. 

 

That jesus existed, was.crucified, was buried in the tomb of Joseph of arimethea, his tomb was discovered empty and several individuals and groups claimed to see the risen christ is historically factuall. That is to say when historians examine this they conclude these things happened. 

 

If you are stating fact as have I got a blood sample of Jesus etc, then we are on different pages as to what fact is. 

 

If your version of fact is the latter then you would need to disregard almost all of history I'm afraid. 

TBH you're on to something here, mon ami.

 

When it comes to historical records and information, quite often we have no way of independently verifying what one person or another may have written about events.

 

So yes, while not disregarding what we know, we do have to accept that at the very least it might not be 100% true/accurate and be ready to change worldviews accordingly.

[worthosoriginals]

6 hours ago, the fox said:

Out of curiosity, What kind of proof would you consider sufficient?

A physical appearance would be a start, rather than very old books talking about an invisible man in the sky. 

[murphy]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

... speaking personally I would be keen on hearing how one reconciles the belief in an interventionist Abrahamic deity with the scientific evidence we have available to us (which quite often conflict with each other)....

Just wanted to pick up on this point of being an interventionist God.  The bible is full of interventions of course, from plagues of locusts to pillars of salt, but I thought that as a rule, God was non-interventionist and that is kind of the point?   To let life play out so that we can be judged by our actions.

 

I've often heard the non-interventionalism wheeled out as to why he didn't strike down Hitler or why he didn't stop a child dying from cancer etc.

 

 

Edited 19 July 2020 by murphy

[Webbo]

I don't believe in God but I'd hate to be called an atheist, such arrogance and snobbery. The idea that not believing in God means you're not gullible, you don't suffer from ignorance and prejudice is clearly bollox as just reading these arguments prove. 

[Dahnsouff]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I don't believe in God but I'd hate to be called an atheist, such arrogance and snobbery. The idea that not believing in God means you're not gullible, you don't suffer from ignorance and prejudice is clearly bollox as just reading these arguments prove. 

It’s the opposite side of the coin, so just an atheist is conceited in their certainty, the same must hold true of anyone of unshakeable faith surely?

Also not religious in the slightest, tending on certainty but not fully there, so would say a lily liveried agnostic instead.

[Izzy]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry mate, you're clearly a good person and you do a lot to help people on here (esp in the depression thread)...but on this particular matter there seems to be a lot of deflection rather than answering points going on and it appears to be a mite disingenuous.

I can't speak for Benguin or The Fox but I'm certainly not trying to be disingenuous here. I've never claimed to be an expert on religion or the bible and my faith is very personal to me. I'm certainly not pretending to know less about this than I really do and the truth is, I don't need any 'evidence' to make me believe. 

 

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Of course, you don't have to answer the points presented and you might feel that if you do there would be no answer that would take the conversation where you don't want it to go anyway, but speaking personally I would be keen on hearing how one reconciles the belief in an interventionist Abrahamic deity with the scientific evidence we have available to us (which quite often conflict with each other).

I've said dozens of times on here that you're way more intelligent than me Mac. I'll let Benguin and The Fox attempt to explain the evidence if they so wish, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove anything to posters who call Jesus a con man, clown, fairy tale, or any other insult. I'm not selling anything here. If people don't want to believe then that's their choice and I'll just default to having a laugh and a joke about it because I'm not clever enough to get into a scientific debate with you. Sorry.

 

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

If it's just a matter of believing because it makes one feel better, then that's entirely understandable - as I've said before, it's only when certain religious beliefs are allowed to be used to craft political policy (which sadly happens in more places than not around the world) that the problem arises IMO. Having policy crafted by a document written hundreds of years ago and believed to be infallible and unchangeable isn't a good way to set policy in a very dynamic world = and the US uses the Constitution to similar effect and that clearly has flaws in execution, too.

Way above my pay grade mate and not something we're going to fix on a football forum. How religion plays out in the big world of politics is out of my control so I'm not trying to address the bigger picture. Religion matters to me at a local level, with my family, congregation and friends at my village church. A group of kind, generous, loving people who try to do good for their community. 

 

Sorry if all this sounds like a 'cop out' but I'm at peace with my beliefs and reasons. If others find their peace in putting religion down, mocking it, or taking the piss, then that's their prerogative. I'll just watch them burn in hell while I chill in heaven (sorry, another joke. I can't help it )

[murphy]

11 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I can't speak for Benguin or The Fox but I'm certainly not trying to be disingenuous here. I've never claimed to be an expert on religion or the bible and my faith is very personal to me. I'm certainly not pretending to know less about this than I really do and the truth is, I don't need any 'evidence' to make me believe. 

 

I've said dozens of times on here that you're way more intelligent than me Mac. I'll let Benguin and The Fox attempt to explain the evidence if they so wish, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove anything to posters who call Jesus a con man, clown, fairy tale, or any other insult. I'm not selling anything here. If people don't want to believe then that's their choice and I'll just default to having a laugh and a joke about it because I'm not clever enough to get into a scientific debate with you. Sorry.

 

Way above my pay grade mate and not something we're going to fix on a football forum. How religion plays out in the big world of politics is out of my control so I'm not trying to address the bigger picture. Religion matters to me at a local level, with my family, congregation and friends at my village church. A group of kind, generous, loving people who try to do good for their community. 

 

Sorry if all this sounds like a 'cop out' but I'm at peace with my beliefs and reasons. If others find their peace in putting religion down, mocking it, or taking the piss, then that's their prerogative. I'll just watch them burn in hell while I chill in heaven (sorry, another joke. I can't help it )

 

I've said it before in this thread, but I do envy people of faith.  You seem like you've got it sussed.  Even if you're wrong, it will give you purpose and comfort in this life and if you're right you'll hit the jackpot in the next life.  I would class myself as technically agnostic but about 90% against.  You can't make yourself believe.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, murphy said:

Just wanted to pick up on this point of being an interventionist God.  The bible is full of interventions of course, from plagues of locusts to pillars of salt, but I thought that as a rule, God was non-interventionist and that is kind of the point?   To let life play out so that we can be judged by our actions.

 

I've often heard the non-interventionalism wheeled out as to why he didn't strike down Hitler or why he didn't stop a child dying from cancer etc.

 

 

That's one of the things that is difficult to reconcile between the Old and New Testaments, if I remember right.

 

When I say "interventionist", it's thinking of folks who might say to someone who is sick, "I'll pray for God to make it better" or somesuch. The sentiment is nice but there's no empirical evidence it would actually work.

 

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

I don't believe in God but I'd hate to be called an atheist, such arrogance and snobbery. The idea that not believing in God means you're not gullible, you don't suffer from ignorance and prejudice is clearly bollox as just reading these arguments prove. 

I think being certain either way is arrogant tbh, given that humans are fallible. That's why I tend to hold to my particular brand of agnosticism.

 

41 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I can't speak for Benguin or The Fox but I'm certainly not trying to be disingenuous here. I've never claimed to be an expert on religion or the bible and my faith is very personal to me. I'm certainly not pretending to know less about this than I really do and the truth is, I don't need any 'evidence' to make me believe. 

 

I've said dozens of times on here that you're way more intelligent than me Mac. I'll let Benguin and The Fox attempt to explain the evidence if they so wish, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove anything to posters who call Jesus a con man, clown, fairy tale, or any other insult. I'm not selling anything here. If people don't want to believe then that's their choice and I'll just default to having a laugh and a joke about it because I'm not clever enough to get into a scientific debate with you. Sorry.

 

Way above my pay grade mate and not something we're going to fix on a football forum. How religion plays out in the big world of politics is out of my control so I'm not trying to address the bigger picture. Religion matters to me at a local level, with my family, congregation and friends at my village church. A group of kind, generous, loving people who try to do good for their community. 

 

Sorry if all this sounds like a 'cop out' but I'm at peace with my beliefs and reasons. If others find their peace in putting religion down, mocking it, or taking the piss, then that's their prerogative. I'll just watch them burn in hell while I chill in heaven (sorry, another joke. I can't help it )

Thank you for both the candor and politeness of your reply - I tried not to be acerbic in my initial points and was worried that I might have been so.

 

Religion and belief can clearly be used as a tool to make lives better in a variety of ways, it's just a shame about the other stuff, really - perhaps there isn't much that can be done by one person about it and it really is out of our control but I feel that I can't stand by and let it happen without saying something either. You are of course as welcome to your own worldview as mine and I can understand you not wanting to get into the details if you don't feel that you can.

 

And remember, folks: Hell has all the best musicians - all Heaven has got is Elgar and Liszt.

 

27 minutes ago, murphy said:

 

I've said it before in this thread, but I do envy people of faith.  You seem like you've got it sussed.  Even if you're wrong, it will give you purpose and comfort in this life and if you're right you'll hit the jackpot in the next life.  I would class myself as technically agnostic but about 90% against.  You can't make yourself believe.

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

 

Marcus Aurelius had it right all that time ago, IMO.

[Dahnsouff]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think being certain either way is arrogant tbh, given that humans are fallible. That's why I tend to hold to my particular brand of agnosticism.

This is the issue with religion for me. Dogma. Humans ruin religion, not old books.

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

It’s the opposite side of the coin, so just an atheist is conceited in their certainty, the same must hold true of anyone of unshakeable faith surely?

Also not religious in the slightest, tending on certainty but not fully there, so would say a lily liveried agnostic instead.

The thing is, I never see posts from religious people saying "you must be a bit thick if you don't believe in God". 

[The Bear]

12 hours ago, the fox said:

 

Never mind... 

Edited 19 July 2020 by The Bear

[The Bear]

Any way. Let's forget religion and talk about something much more interesting, like aliens!

 

Are we really alone in the universe? Have we ever been visited? Did they build the pyramids? Was Jesus an alien visitor and his miracles just advanced technology? 

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The thing is, I never see posts from religious people saying "you must be a bit thick if you don't believe in God". 

Interesting.

 

21 hours ago, Benguin said:

 

3. Objective moral values and duties are baseless without a moral law giver. To deny God is to deny that objective moral values and duties exist. One has to place themselves in a position that murdering and raping babies, though harmful to our survival is not objectively immoral. 

4. Without belief in God, absolute truths and logic external to our own minds cannot be expressed or observed by us. One has to surrender knowledge to have an athiestic worldview and any knowledge is based purely on one's own ability to reason which of course they are not able to prove the reliability of. 

5. Without God, all meaning one claims life has is illusory. If we are atoms in motion then love, morals and meanings are an effect of this and thus have no transcendent meaning. 

 

I would say the inference of lesser intelligence as well as immorality if one doesn't believe in God is rather obvious there.

[Dahnsouff]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The thing is, I never see posts from religious people saying "you must be a bit thick if you don't believe in God". 

Fair point, but I do not watch much religious TV. Admittedly some of the evolutionist can seek to belittle religion where it’s value should not be downplayed. Standard science vs faith stuff, no answers science can provide will convince those of faith, and theological arguments will not sway those of a scientific bent.  People hold different opinions.  

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Any way. Let's forget religion and talk about something much more interesting, like aliens!

 

Are we really alone in the universe? Have we ever been visited? Did they build the pyramids? Was Jesus an alien visitor and his miracles just advanced technology? 

Dinosaurs came in spaceships. Fact.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Fair point, but I do not watch much religious TV. Admittedly some of the evolutionist can seek to belittle religion where it’s value should not be downplayed. Standard science vs faith stuff, no answers science can provide will convince those of faith, and theological arguments will not sway those of a scientific bent.  People hold different opinions.  

I agree with that. I just wish people could accept that you can sincerely hold the opposite view with being stupid or have an ulterior motive. 

[The Bear]

Must have had long steering columns so their little arms could reach.

[murphy]

6 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Any way. Let's forget religion and talk about something much more interesting, like aliens!

 

Are we really alone in the universe? Have we ever been visited? Did they build the pyramids? Was Jesus an alien visitor and his miracles just advanced technology? 

Probably not.

 

probably not.

 

Nah.

 

No.

 

It would be interesting if they found evidence of microbial life on mars or Europa or something, how religion would reconcile that?