It's unbelievable and scary, if it wasn't god mentioned but the invisible monkey the police would look into it.

And their is the crux of the problem with religious fundamentlism, all critical thought and reason goes out of the windowand is instead replaced by blind dogmatism.

It is this line of thought which leads to the subjugation of women and provides "justification" for the killing of other humans who do not belong to the same faith or who dare to question it that particular faith.

I've somehow managed to stay out of this debate so far, having lived in the US (Colorado, to be specific, home of the well known pillar of morality Rev. Ted Haggard) this sort of thing has been a fairly frequent bar room conversation for me.

Now, in this case I originally thought kirkstaller was trolling, then I thought he was serious, then back to trolling and now I've come to the sad realisation that he is probably serious after all.




This is the beauty of science, that it can and does change. In fact it constantly wants to change, redefine and improve on its ideas based on new evidence. If the world was happy to take the 'unchanging word' of a god then we would be stuck in the dark ages. Think of all the great things that are now available to you in everyday life that you owe to 'fickle scientists': cars, planes, medicine, the Internet, computers. Not to mention the vast amounts knowledge that the last century alone gave us. We have been enriched as a species by the quest for knowledge and understanding of the world around us. Please don't allow yourself to be satisfied with the 'unchanging word' of some bronze age scribblings. Even the brightest minds in the world really had no idea what was going on back then when compared to what the average person can discover today, if only they have the willingness to open their eyes and look.

Isn't there something in the AUP against this kind of thread?

Is 'Gods unchanging word' the one that has changed on many occasions down the years then? You know... losses and gains in translation, English version being different from other language versions in some respects, all that kind of thing?

More likely men in white coats.

Rugby League family, I need your help. Recently, I've been heavily involved with a campaign called the Coalition For Equal Marriage (C4EM). This campaign seeks to alter the definition of marriage which has held back mankind well since year dot. You will no doubt have heard certain noisy parties in the media declaring their support for an alternative definition of marriage. I respectfully submit that such a reclassification would have a profoundly positive impact on society. If you are interested in hearing more, or if you are willing to help, please visit: c4em.org.uk When you visit the site you can sign the petition and show your support for a new definition of marriage. Thanks

Rugby League family, I need your help. Recently, I've been heavily involved with a campaign called the Coalition For Equal Marriage (C4EM). This campaign seeks to alter the definition of marriage which has held back mankind well since year dot. You will no doubt have heard certain noisy parties in the media declaring their support for an alternative definition of marriage. I respectfully submit that such a reclassification would have a profoundly positive impact on society. If you are interested in hearing more, or if you are willing to help, please visit: c4em.org.uk When you visit the site you can sign the petition and show your support for a new definition of marriage. Thanks

To answer the opening question, 'god' doesn't have a nature because he doesn't exist. Having watched my mother die an awful, drawn out death over almost two years, I can quite happily say that if God exists, he's a complete b*stard, and he can go and move his butt onto a sharp stake in as mysterious a way as he likes. If he's got a problem with that, I dare him to come and see me - he apparently knows where I am at all times, so finding me shouldn't be a problem.

People have choice. People can choose what they want to believe in or not. End of.

Paedophiles believe in "loving" children, should they be allowed to practise their belief without challenge?

Some people choose to believe in some things. Some don't. Rightly, or wrongly in your extreme example.

You chose to post what you post.

See. It's all about choice.

People can "believe" in what they want.

But it shouldn't effect other people.

But people have to accept that if they air unacceptable beliefs in public they will be challenged. That's also all about choice.

[iGenesis[/i says God created everything. Ergo, God created the worm that eats the child's eyeball for food.



Ah, another apologist. It's up to the child gathering water, for instance, to "overcome" having a worm get into its eye and blind it?

Let's go back to the question that neither you nor Kirkstaller want to answer: why would a god create such a thing in the first place?

Imagine the scene: it's heaven; the week of creation. God's musing over what to create next.

'Y'know, I think I could create a worm – but what could it eat? Oh, hang on – how about the eyeballs of the offspring of the people I'm going to create in my own image later in the week? Now that's a pretty cool idea!'

And remember – this is a loving, caring god.



Have a go at Kirkstaller, then. He's the one who doesn't believe that 'good deeds' are required in life, and who has spent countless posts telling others that they're sinners, that they're going to hell, that they haven't done religion 'right' (ie, the way he does it).

Explain to him humility, decency and altruism. And explain to him to concentrate on "goodness" instead of trying to persuade everyone else they should follow his murdering, criminal, evil god – just as long as they do it the way he tells them.

And perhaps if so many people didn't go around worshiping a god that clearly is not good or loving or even basically moral by our evolved, moral standards – indeed, is criminal – then maybe we could "overcome our ills that much more quickly", eh?

When someone told you that - I assume that other people tell you this nonsense and you simply swallow the whole story without question - didn't you stop and wonder why a god would create the whole world to live in with all the infrastructure for a man to survive, food, water etc, and also at the same time provide him with the necessary implements to reproduce himself without restriction ?

With no limit to the number of offspring that every resultant human can have and with no demise of any of those humans, how long would it have taken for this plan of your god to have standing room only on earth with no food, water etc to survive on, not that you'd need food water etc if you can't die.

Is this another case of bad planning, poor quality control, or just sheer, utter bull ?

Yes. In the worm that eats a child's eye.

'But that's okay because daddy god's home is so much nicer that it will make even a blinded child feel it was worth it having their eye eaten out'.

I said it before: you're a sociopath.

Exactly. No other form of stupidity or delusion is given a 'free pass' in the way religion is. All other outlandish statements (on, say, politics, sport, science) are open to be challenged, without anyone questioning our right to challenge them. But when it comes to religion, there are those who think we should all just accept every ridiculous statement and treat the person making the statement with respect.

Quote ="Chief Stinkwort"Rugby League family, I need your help. Recently, I've been heavily involved with a campaign called the Coalition For Equal Marriage (C4EM). This campaign seeks to alter the definition of marriage which has held back mankind well since year dot. You will no doubt have heard certain noisy parties in the media declaring their support for an alternative definition of marriage. I respectfully submit that such a reclassification would have a profoundly positive impact on society. If you are interested in hearing more, or if you are willing to help, please visit: c4em.org.uk When you visit the site you can sign the petition and show your support for a new definition of marriage. Thanks'" Done and posted on Twitter.

Quote ="Chief Stinkwort"Rugby League family, I need your help. Recently, I've been heavily involved with a campaign called the Coalition For Equal Marriage (C4EM). This campaign seeks to alter the definition of marriage which has held back mankind well since year dot. You will no doubt have heard certain noisy parties in the media declaring their support for an alternative definition of marriage. I respectfully submit that such a reclassification would have a profoundly positive impact on society. If you are interested in hearing more, or if you are willing to help, please visit: c4em.org.uk When you visit the site you can sign the petition and show your support for a new definition of marriage. Thanks'" Done and posted on Twitter.

Let's hope you fall down a mineshaft before your unpleasant imaginary friend issues such an order, then.

Its part of the teaching, some may call it brain-washing.

I have Catholic friends who were brought up within strict Catholic environments where they were simply not allowed to question the word of their god or of the priest or indeed of the teachers in their Catholic school - you'd think that education would be the one place where free thinking and analytical questioning would be actively encouraged, but apparently not in a school under religious control - children can be very perceptive and innocently analytical in their questioning of adults, the question of the eye burrowing worm is blatently obvious to a child but such questions display a shocking lack of acceptance of the teachings of their bible and so would be instantly quashed with the catch-all phrase "Ours is not to question why" or "He moves in mysterious ways".

Tell me why I should refuse such an instruction?

I'm talking about some non-religious people who think that religious people shouldn't have their views challenged. They think that religious belief should be respected, purely because it's religion and not some other belief.

Edited for accuracy.

I think there's a real case for reporting Kirkstaller to the police in fact. He's just publicly admitted that if he hears voices in his head telling him to kill people he'd happily oblige. He is clearly a danger to the public and in need of psychiatric help.

Seriously.

Have to accept? Or choose to accept?

Who deems what is acceptable or unacceptable? Morals. Ethics. Law. You can choose whether to adhere to, or indeed have any of these.

With regards the OP. People can chose to follow a religion, or a belief and people can chose not to and as has been exercised, some can challenge someone else's beliefs. We are all free thinking individuals.

Yes. And no.

In the case of Kirkstaller, as far as we know, he became religious in adulthood and through choice: although again on the basis of taking what he has told us at face value, that may have been as a result of the stress of severe illness. But in essence, we're talking about an adult making a choice.

However, when children are indoctrinated from birth, it can be very, very difficult to throw off that indoctrination. It is not simply a matter of 'choice'.

And unlike other childhood beliefs – Father Christmas, Tooth Fairy etc – religious belief is supported by earthly authorities, from what we might view as the slight cultural ones (state church in UK, for instance) to the much more immediate and influential, such as teachers and family.

Yep. If he's not trolling, he's probably mentally ill.