The plain truth

[ToRmAtO]

There is no proof that there is a god.

There is no proof that there was a son of god.

Religion has always been about controlling weak-minded people.

[Royal24s]

Allow me to apologize for activating Godwin's law.

I would like to ask you royals, what exactly is this truth?

It is simply that which is true.

Perhaps that might sound obvious, but it's sometimes not as easy as one might think to discern it from that which is untrue.

In reality we all know far less for ourselves than we imagine , and almost all that we know is because we have been told it.

Once we believe it, we tend to own it and after that defend it against all challenge and question. This is perhaps the essence of a religious belief and we see it everywhere, even here, in many forms - not just that which calls itself religion ,but also that which calls itself politics or rationality or anything else. In reality though , these alternatives are a form of religion, except that they are often informed from a different source.

I've often said that Hillman's socialism and belief system is a religion to him, which I stand by, although it's only fair to point out in his absence from this conversation that he denies this idea strenuously .

Now, and without going too deeply into philosophy , some have claimed that if someone believes something then it becomes a reality, or truth to that person. I reject this whole theory , which is prevalent currently, because in fact there is only one versions of the truth and all the others are actually just mistakes or lies, irrespective of how strongly any individual believes them.

It is said that the devils greatest lie is that he does not exist . Conversely, some would claim that God's greatest lie is that He does.
Well then , we can see that if we were to believe the first we would perhaps be convinced that denials of God come only from our own brilliant logic and deduction and therefore not at all suspicious that they could harm us. If we were to believe the second, then that would substantiate the conclusions which the first led to.

It's hard to express this principle without delving into complicated and very long winded stuff, but bearing in mind my assertion that only one version of the truth , and noting the fact that almost everything we know has come to us from other sources and not from our own internal calculations and considerations , I suggest that we can ultimately boil it down to two original sources and two versions of the ultimate truth.

All we have to do is to choose which we believe.

[Royal24s]

There is no proof that there is a god.

There is no proof that there was a son of god.

Religion has always been about controlling weak-minded people.

Well now , there is no proof to the contrary is there ?
If I were to list religious people down the ages it would be a very long list indeed and would certainly disprove your assertion that it indicates a weak mind.

According to Thomas Aquinas it is perfectly possible to prove the existence of God, but most people lack the intellectual capacity to understand that process , which he sets out in the Summa Theologica. He goes on to suggest that it is therefore necessary for these people to have Faith, which will protect them from the false logic which will otherwise confound and destroy them.

You know , we are discussing the most complex question in the universe here, and I would therefore suggest that the answer is unlikely to be as simple as the quick strap line you've trotted out there. In any case, your quick summary of theology and philosophy certainly poses a lot more questions than it answers.

[Zambo]

Religion has always been about controlling weak-minded people.

Does that just go for religion, or anything that people believe in that they can't prove. What about man made global warming for example. Are all those who believe in that weak minded?

[Ralph]

There is no proof that there is a god.

There is no proof that there was a son of god.

Religion has always been about controlling weak-minded people.

Well now , there is no proof to the contrary is there ?
If I were to list religious people down the ages it would be a very long list indeed and would certainly disprove your assertion that it indicates a weak mind.

According to Thomas Aquinas it is perfectly possible to prove the existence of God, but most people lack the intellectual capacity to understand that process , which he sets out in the Summa Theologica. He goes on to suggest that it is therefore necessary for these people to have Faith, which will protect them from the false logic which will otherwise confound and destroy them.

You know , we are discussing the most complex question in the universe here, and I would therefore suggest that the answer is unlikely to be as simple as the quick strap line you've trotted out there. In any case, your quick summary of theology and philosophy certainly poses a lot more questions than it answers.

How convenient.

[subsub]

There is no proof that there is a god.

There is no proof that there was a son of god.

Religion has always been about controlling weak-minded people.

Spot on.
Biggest cause of war and death. Always has been, always will be.

[Royal24s]

It's really very predictable and terribly sad that we can predict who's going to say stuff like that according to the views they generally post.

This kind of gels very much with my earlier post in my opinion.

We're kind of going off topic though. What about the link I posted ?

[Jon Gout]

I don't think people are interested in what the Catholics in that link have to say because Catholics are racist paedophiles. They should sort those problems out before criticising anyone else.

[ToRmAtO]

Religion has always been about controlling weak-minded people.

Does that just go for religion, or anything that people believe in that they can't prove. What about man made global warming for example. Are all those who believe in that weak minded?

There is far more chance in proving or disproving global warming than the existence of any religious deity.

[Zambo]

I don't think people are interested in what the Catholics in that link have to say because Catholics are racist paedophiles. They should sort those problems out before criticising anyone else.

What every single one?

Can we credibly bracket whole groups like that. I think it's a bit daft personally.

If someone said all Muslims were terrorists for example, it would of course be ridiculous, but dummies, toys and all sorts would be flying everywhere. I think the left footers deserve a bit better..

[Zambo]

Religion has always been about controlling weak-minded people.

Does that just go for religion, or anything that people believe in that they can't prove. What about man made global warming for example. Are all those who believe in that weak minded?

There is far more chance in proving or disproving global warming than the existence of any religious deity.

It was a just an example where a belief cannot be proven. Personally I don't think people should be branded weak minded for something they believe in by others who don't.

[Jon Gout]

I don't think people are interested in what the Catholics in that link have to say because Catholics are racist paedophiles. They should sort those problems out before criticising anyone else.

What every single one?

Can we credibly bracket whole groups like that. I think it's a bit daft personally.

If someone said all Muslims were terrorists for example, it would of course be ridiculous, but dummies, toys and all sorts would be flying everywhere. I think the left footers deserve a bit better..

I agree, it is a bit daft. That's why I made the tongue-in-cheek post, to highlight the hypocrisy, since "Labour is a racist party" gets thrown around a lot here and I don't think I've ever seen you pick up on it once. Strange that. It's clear that some members of Labour are racist and that the party hasn't done anywhere near enough to stamp it out, investigate and pubish accordingly. But then, Catholicism has historically promoted anti-semitism and spent centuries (and still does to this day) enabling and covering up widespread child abuse. Are the statements then really that different then? I don't think so. Certainly not different enough that one should be picked up on and the other not.

[Zambo]

Yep pigeonholing whole groups is crazy, and it only leads to resentment and all sorts of problems.

[Royal24s]

Until the world is perfect, individuals will do all sorts of stuff wrong, whether they be Catholics or members of particular political parties , and there's an increasing tendency to find one and use it to discredit whatever organisation they can be identified with as an alterntative to addressing the issues.

[Roy Twing]

I don't think people are interested in what the Catholics in that link have to say because Catholics are racist paedophiles. They should sort those problems out before criticising anyone else.

What every single one?

Can we credibly bracket whole groups like that. I think it's a bit daft personally.

If someone said all Muslims were terrorists for example, it would of course be ridiculous, but dummies, toys and all sorts would be flying everywhere. I think the left footers deserve a bit better..

I agree, it is a bit daft. That's why I made the tongue-in-cheek post, to highlight the hypocrisy, since "Labour is a racist party" gets thrown around a lot here and I don't think I've ever seen you pick up on it once. Strange that. It's clear that some members of Labour are racist and that the party hasn't done anywhere near enough to stamp it out, investigate and pubish accordingly. But then, Catholicism has historically promoted anti-semitism and spent centuries (and still does to this day) enabling and covering up widespread child abuse. Are the statements then really that different then? I don't think so. Certainly not different enough that one should be picked up on and the other not.

Precisely the same accusations were made (and still are) about the brexit party, and farage's previous party even more so, - I assume you're just as willing to defend them as labour?