Frank's cousin Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 (edited) Why are you talking about people who have been indoctrinated into a faith? What relevance does that have to what I was saying? You stated you admired those with faith - fair enough, but I was merely suggesting that many of those that have do so because it was 'indoctrinated' as children - which I find difficult to admire Edited 21 August, 2012 by Frank's cousin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Would also add to that point about Christian values - so called because Jesus preached them (as a Jew) - what many forget is that thsoe values were already evident in many in his society - not all for sure, but there would have been many that showed kindness, compassion, integrity, honesty etc - these values were not invented by religion but by a necesssity to order society - Jesus a philospher from Galilee merely preached them... yet now the two have become synonomous - and to me that is wrong. I wont deny that some religeons do a good job of teaching these values, but you dont need christianity to teach them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 1. Scientific 'beliefs' do not evolve - Science is not about beliefs - its about tested hypotheses and when a hypothesis has been tested so many times independently and found to give consistent results it becomes a theory - other hypotheses may come to replace it - as you say oits always about moving FORWARD not being stick at any one point - How many religeons can say the same? None, unless you invent a new one like say Scientology? 2. Creepy when someone is telling you how to ediucate your kids? give over - the Government does that all the time with the national curriculum... This point was about how its important to teach children all aspects not just one side. 3. Chrsitian values - its only christians that have claimed ownership of 'values' in this way - the values you mean, of kindness, honesty, graft, charity etc the good things are not exclusive to christians - but to any decent human being - relgions have 'adopted these values because to those old philosophers they were the right way to ensure a civilised and ordered society - I find it a bit insulting when Christians claim ownership of simply good values that they did not invent.... You say that Scientific beliefs do not evolve and thenm explain the process by which they do. I probably worded that poorly but I find it creepy when people want to undermine what is being taught in the homes at school at an early age. It is normally ideologically driven. Children can make up their own minds when they are older. You are insulted very easily. They are termed Christian values because they are based on the teachings of Jesus - it is historical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 You stated you admired those with faith - fair enough' date=' but I was merely suggesting that many of those that have do so because it was 'indoctrinated' as children - which I find difficult to admire[/quote'] I wasn't referring to people who bad been indoctrinated. I think its pretty unfair to label those with strong faith as indoctrinated as if they have been incapable of making the choice for themselves. Again its an example of putting down this with faith and belittling them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 (edited) Who cares about the word Christian? You could call it good values for all I care. Fact is that Christian values are IMO a good thing. Of course they aren't owned by Christianity but it is the values taught by Christianity. Does that sound better? Edited 21 August, 2012 by hypochondriac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Thats a point where imho some organised religions cross the line. Franks Cousin has already mentioned the stifling oppression of catholicism, and obviously the bandwagon jumping of radical islam resulting in terrorist attacks supposedly justified by the koran, or someone's interpretation of it. You could also argue that the crusades were not dissimilar, looting and colonisation carried out under the flag of a religion that was diametrically opposed to such things. The one that I detest more than any other is the jehovahs witness cult. A good friend of mine, probably the most placid, unflappable guy I ever met, was deeply upset by a "friend" of his explaining to him the way things "are" according to that religion (and I use the term loosely.) Being the sort of bloke he his, he listened patiently without telling his friend to stfu, then said "well thats all very interesting, but its really not the way I see things and its not for me." At which point his "friend" informed him that although he had previously had an excuse because of his ignorance, he had now been told the real truth and had no option but to join the cult. If he didn't, he will be punished and condemned to the fiery pits of hell, etc etc. My mate was upset enough to phone me at 3am, he was in such a state that I ended up driving over there to calm him down. Utter c*nts. Scotty I am not talking about the merits of the instituitions, faith is generally quite a personal thing. I have limited respect for the Church as a whole just a lot of the individuals in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Scotty I am not talking about the merits of the instituitions, faith is generally quite a personal thing. I have limited respect for the Church as a whole just a lot of the individuals in it. I very much agree with you there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dellboypete Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Bearing in mind all of the above I suspect that I am an agnostic atheist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Scotty I am not talking about the merits of the instituitions, faith is generally quite a personal thing. I have limited respect for the Church as a whole just a lot of the individuals in it. I realise that Sergei, just making the point that its the few fringe-element extremists who cause most of the problems that this thread was started with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Bearing in mind all of the above I suspect that I am an agnostic atheist Have you considered joining my own "havent got a clue-ist" group? I reckon that could take off, might start a facebook page or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 You say that Scientific beliefs do not evolve and thenm explain the process by which they do. I probably worded that poorly but I find it creepy when people want to undermine what is being taught in the homes at school at an early age. It is normally ideologically driven. Children can make up their own minds when they are older. You are insulted very easily. They are termed Christian values because they are based on the teachings of Jesus - it is historical. Couple of points - Science does shift as you say, but the point was made to illustrate that science is open to chnage based on new ideas and evidence - something that cant be said about religion. What is taught in schools is determined by law in this country - at home by parents - and whilst it is their right, they will naturally follow their own 'ideolgy' - that was the issue, young children dont get a choice, but its a lottery of life, be they Jewis, Islamic, Christian or atheist parents - My daughter is taught religion in school and they still have a 'Christian' approach - so she gets that from school, I talk about the alternative view - as she gets older she will have a change to form her own opinion, but for the time being she gets a balanced view. A single view especially when heavily reinforced as in some overtly religious families, is IMHO not fair on thhe child. The values thing IS important because the implication is that without 'christian' teaching, the values would not be taught. Again my point is that you do NOT need one to get the other. Hypo. Please not I doid not say ALL those with faith have been 'indoctrinated' - but that many with faith have it because it was taught as the only 'true' way as kids. I am sorry but I dont buy this constant 'Belittling, or putting dow' someones faith - that seems the standard rhetoric which is designed to appeal to a sense of injustice or emotive way of saying its wrong to question those with faith somehow. I odnt beive it is - any more so than those with faith want to demonstrate tehir concern for my godlessness or convert me to the way of X Y or Z Yes I am questioning those with faith - I want to understand what it is that drives their need for it - whether its fromm childhood or 'new found' - We live in a society where such philosophical debate should be encouraged, not considered wrong - and any faith that struggles when challenged is no real faith anyway. Dawkins has engaged in rigorous debate with religious thinkers in a respectful way to understand these issues etc. cant see anything wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 I don't think its wrong to question people but I do believe that as long as someone isn't hurting anyone or breaking the law then they can do whatever they like. If someone has a deeply help faith then frankly I couldn't give a toss where they got it from or why they believe it. If it is making their lives better and those of the people around them then best of luck to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Couple of points - Science does shift as you say, but the point was made to illustrate that science is open to chnage based on new ideas and evidence - something that cant be said about religion. What is taught in schools is determined by law in this country - at home by parents - and whilst it is their right, they will naturally follow their own 'ideolgy' - that was the issue, young children dont get a choice, but its a lottery of life, be they Jewis, Islamic, Christian or atheist parents - My daughter is taught religion in school and they still have a 'Christian' approach - so she gets that from school, I talk about the alternative view - as she gets older she will have a change to form her own opinion, but for the time being she gets a balanced view. A single view especially when heavily reinforced as in some overtly religious families, is IMHO not fair on thhe child. The values thing IS important because the implication is that without 'christian' teaching, the values would not be taught. Again my point is that you do NOT need one to get the other. Hypo. Please not I doid not say ALL those with faith have been 'indoctrinated' - but that many with faith have it because it was taught as the only 'true' way as kids. I am sorry but I dont buy this constant 'Belittling, or putting dow' someones faith - that seems the standard rhetoric which is designed to appeal to a sense of injustice or emotive way of saying its wrong to question those with faith somehow. I odnt beive it is - any more so than those with faith want to demonstrate tehir concern for my godlessness or convert me to the way of X Y or Z Yes I am questioning those with faith - I want to understand what it is that drives their need for it - whether its fromm childhood or 'new found' - We live in a society where such philosophical debate should be encouraged, not considered wrong - and any faith that struggles when challenged is no real faith anyway. Dawkins has engaged in rigorous debate with religious thinkers in a respectful way to understand these issues etc. cant see anything wrong with that? Of course religion changes because it is based on how people interpret the teachings and that changes. It is why you end up with those that have a radical interpretation of the teachings. The trouble with your view on the teaching of Christianity is that you assume that in our society people are unable to make up their own minds; we live in a free society where information is everywhere. You are exposing your inner prejudices; who cares what they are called? They are called Christian values because it was Christians that first promoted and marketed them. If you are that keen on understanding faith may I suggest that a football forum is not the most appropriate medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Of course religion changes because it is based on how people interpret the teachings and that changes. It is why you end up with those that have a radical interpretation of the teachings. True, but you make the point best yourself, its the radicalisation that we see rather than a shift that better reflects the evolution of society/civilization etc... best illustrated by death penalties and condoms.... The trouble with your view on the teaching of Christianity is that you assume that in our society people are unable to make up their own minds; we live in a free society where information is everywhere. I thought we were talking about all societies not just ours or christianity - we may well have a free society but others dont. Yes we are free to amke up our own minds, but surely if we accept this as a virtue why deny it to young children? At what age do they get the chance to amke up their own minds?... and can it really be a free choice if they have been brought up in an environment where the doctrine is at the haert of daily life? You are exposing your inner prejudices; who cares what they are called? They are called Christian values because it was Christians that first promoted and marketed them. Prejudices? not really - and I would suggest that these values were promoted and marketed long before Christianity, by Buddists, Jews (to some extent) and many of the Eastern philosophies If you are that keen on understanding faith may I suggest that a football forum is not the most appropriate medium. True, but the thread is here and lets be honest, its as good a medium as any - so far everyone has contributed fairly, and with respect so not sure why we cant? I think the questions are always going to stimulate a dbate, and find it refreshing that the opinionson this thread are passionate and given with good grace and respect - I respect yours and those of the others - if nothing else it restores my 'faith' in that fact that there are some fans on this board prepared to enage on these sort of things and not just worry about Ramirez (although I keep having to jump on that thread in case we get an update! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Of course religion changes because it is based on how people interpret the teachings and that changes. It is why you end up with those that have a radical interpretation of the teachings. The trouble with your view on the teaching of Christianity is that you assume that in our society people are unable to make up their own minds; we live in a free society where information is everywhere. You are exposing your inner prejudices; who cares what they are called? They are called Christian values because it was Christians that first promoted and marketed them. If you are that keen on understanding faith may I suggest that a football forum is not the most appropriate medium. Precisely. Plenty of people are Christians without subscribing to the idiocy of an institution called the church. Just as many people are Muslim without going on a prayer mat five times a day and going to a temple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Precisely. Plenty of people are Christians without subscribing to the idiocy of an institution called the church. Just as many people are Muslim without going on a prayer mat five times a day and going to a temple. Uhm... not so sure about this, can you really say you are a 'x' if you dont practice the church or Prayer hing - or is it merely a remnant of how we have been brought up, a reluctance to let go completely of the doctrine? Kind of hedging your bets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 (edited) "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people." Karl Marx - Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right Edited 21 August, 2012 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Uhm... not so sure about this' date=' can you really say you are a 'x' if you dont practice the church or Prayer hing - or is it merely a remnant of how we have been brought up, a reluctance to let go completely of the doctrine? Kind of hedging your bets?[/quote'] Yes. I think you are unaware of the different types of faith. Plenty of people practice Christian teaching through their daily lives without going to church. Going to church or looking to the church as an institution for guidance is not a requirement for being a Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 (edited) You have quite an antiquated view of religion. Its mostly Catholicism that gets dictated to by their church institution. Essentially a church is just a group of people who worship god getting together. Edited 21 August, 2012 by hypochondriac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 you have quite an antiquated view of religion. its mostly catholicism that gets dictated to by their church institution. Essentially a church is just a group of people who worship god getting together. orly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 orly? In my experience yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 In my experience yes. so a fact of your experience rather than a study of all religions and which religion "dictates" the most to its followers. fair enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 so a fact of your experience rather than a study of all religions and which religion "dictates" the most to its followers. fair enough Of course its an opinion from my experience. I didn't imagine you would assume it was an absolute fact unless you were incredibly dim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Of course its an opinion from my experience. I didn't imagine you would assume it was an absolute fact unless you were incredibly dim. Say I was incredibly dim, what would really help was that when you post a fact could you highlight that this is based on your experience and may or may not be relevant to the real world. That would really help, ta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Of course its an opinion from my experience. I didn't imagine you would assume it was an absolute fact unless you were incredibly dim. I hope you don't mind me saying hypochondriac but you have a very unusual debating style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Yes. I think you are unaware of the different types of faith. Plenty of people practice Christian teaching through their daily lives without going to church. Going to church or looking to the church as an institution for guidance is not a requirement for being a Christian. Sorry Hypo... we need to clear this up to avoid confusion/misinterpretation etc - which usually leads to us all falling out Think you need to be mopre specific about whether practicing 'christian teaching' includes a strong faith or not - I am sure there are plenty of folk who say they are Christians in attitude and value, but no longer when pushed believe in God Many still call themselves christian yet have not faith... which is odd but a legacy of our past Others have Faith/belief in a devine being, yet worship at no church - is that waht you are saying? If so fair enough as most of the institutional communal worship stuff is enough to try the patience of a saint (see what I did there) Seriously, first up need to differentiate between follows of a faith and followers of a religion - afterall Jews, Christians (all 20,000 branches included), and Muslims all believe in the same god so in theory have faith in the same god, but obviously belong to very different 'organizations' So are you a christian believer in God, or merely a non-believer who practices christian values - in whcich case you could in tehory call yourself a Christian (following teh principles of JC's teachings, but not believe in god? Guess that's what most would call Humanist! Now I is confused Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 I hope you don't mind me saying hypochondriac but you have a very unusual debating style. Not at all. I just didn't appreciate notnowcato's tone, especially as he has had numerous run ins with me in the past. I considered it pretty pathetic to pick up on that comment when it was obvious that it was my opinion. It wasn't even a particularly important point in the context of my entire reply. Back to the thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Not at all. I just didn't appreciate notnowcato's tone, especially as he has had numerous run ins with me in the past. I considered it pretty pathetic to pick up on that comment when it was obvious that it was my opinion. It wasn't even a particularly important point in the context of my entire reply. Back to the thread... Stop picking on my dimness. I've shown you how you can help but you seem unable to lower yourself to my level. For clarity, I respectfully ask that when you post a fact could you highlight that this is based on your experience and may or may not be relevant to the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Sorry Hypo... we need to clear this up to avoid confusion/misinterpretation etc - which usually leads to us all falling out Think you need to be mopre specific about whether practicing 'christian teaching' includes a strong faith or not - I am sure there are plenty of folk who say they are Christians in attitude and value, but no longer when pushed believe in God Many still call themselves christian yet have not faith... which is odd but a legacy of our past Others have Faith/belief in a devine being, yet worship at no church - is that waht you are saying? If so fair enough as most of the institutional communal worship stuff is enough to try the patience of a saint (see what I did there) Seriously, first up need to differentiate between follows of a faith and followers of a religion - afterall Jews, Christians (all 20,000 branches included), and Muslims all believe in the same god so in theory have faith in the same god, but obviously belong to very different 'organizations' So are you a christian believer in God, or merely a non-believer who practices christian values - in whcich case you could in tehory call yourself a Christian (following teh principles of JC's teachings, but not believe in god? Guess that's what most would call Humanist! Now I is confused I can't speak for others but certainly my experience is that to be a Christian you do have to believe in God. I strongly contest that you have to engage in any traditional rituals in order to be a christian though. My understanding is that being a Christian means believing in God and living your life by following Christian values but all the other stuff to my mind is optional. My father has in the past attended the Community church in Southampton- a "church" pretty far removed from my idea of a church at any rate. I don't know about now but when I attended in the past there was no symbolism as such. There were songs sure but it was up to the individual how much they participated or not (which IMO is how it should be!). I respect the faith my father has though I do not share it to the same degree precisely because the last thing he ever does is ram it down people's throats. His belief is that he shows people he is a Christian through the way he lives his life so there is never any need to go out of his way to mention it. I think there would be some disagreements about your statement that religions believe in the same God. My experience is that believers of religions believe in one God but that it is not necessarily the same. In regards to your last point, I would say that the belief in God is pretty fundamental to being a Christian (though of course it is entirely possible to live by the teachings of Christianity though not believe in God.) Thanks for the interesting conversation, I of course can't even begin to know any of the answers but that's how I see it (just to make it blindingly obvious to notnowcato.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Stop picking on my dimness. I've shown you how you can help but you seem unable to lower yourself to my level. For clarity, I respectfully ask that when you post a fact could you highlight that this is based on your experience and may or may not be relevant to the real world. Lets get back on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 I think there would be some disagreements about your statement that religions believe in the same God. My experience is that believers of religions believe in one God but that it is not necessarily the same. In regards to your last point, I would say that the belief in God is pretty fundamental to being a Christian (though of course it is entirely possible to live by the teachings of Christianity though not believe in God.) Thanks for the interesting conversation, I of course can't even begin to know any of the answers but that's how I see it (just to make it blindingly obvious to notnowcato.) Was talking speifically about the Islamic, Christian and Jewish version - who all do worship the same God...yet he seems to now have several 'personalities' as a result of these divergent faiths - which of course is one of my biggest questions: All those of faith believe their way is the right way - that its deeply personal and defines who they are - which is a fair enough statement - however, when you consider that the vast majority of those with faith dont find it later in lfe (although admitedly some do) but have it 'installed' as they grow up, the type of faith they have is not dictated to by anything otherthan where their birth occured and to what their parents believe - born in India, mostly Hindu or Seikh, Israel, Jewish, Chriatian or Muslim, Iran, Muslim etc - Now given that most faith suggest they are right etc...although more recently some have become more 'blurred' on this issue, the reality is they cant all be right - If the Christian view is the right one, then thay implies that the Jews got it wrong and missed their messiah - if tehy are right then it undermines the very pillar of christianity and of course both of these would consider Hindus as worshipping a 'false god' ? Its the paradox that if you believe in one, you cant believe in the others and whilst they all say they respect each other (mostly), can you really respect other religions if your faith demands they dont exist? I think its human nature to want to believe in something. With our brains being what they are we simply dont like to accept that there is no 'Purpose' to it all. Yet for me the 'purpose' is how we feel about the great things we can do, in our 3 score and 10, watch children grow up, the acts of kindness, the amazing art, music etc we can create - all of which leaves a legacy and is remembered after we are long gone - to me that does not seem like a purposeless existance and I do not need any devine being to make complete etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Was talking speifically about the Islamic, Christian and Jewish version - who all do worship the same God...yet he seems to now have several 'personalities' as a result of these divergent faiths - which of course is one of my biggest questions: All those of faith believe their way is the right way - that its deeply personal and defines who they are - which is a fair enough statement - however, when you consider that the vast majority of those with faith dont find it later in lfe (although admitedly some do) but have it 'installed' as they grow up, the type of faith they have is not dictated to by anything otherthan where their birth occured and to what their parents believe - born in India, mostly Hindu or Seikh, Israel, Jewish, Chriatian or Muslim, Iran, Muslim etc - Now given that most faith suggest they are right etc...although more recently some have become more 'blurred' on this issue, the reality is they cant all be right - If the Christian view is the right one, then thay implies that the Jews got it wrong and missed their messiah - if tehy are right then it undermines the very pillar of christianity and of course both of these would consider Hindus as worshipping a 'false god' ? Its the paradox that if you believe in one, you cant believe in the others and whilst they all say they respect each other (mostly), can you really respect other religions if your faith demands they dont exist? I think its human nature to want to believe in something. With our brains being what they are we simply dont like to accept that there is no 'Purpose' to it all. Yet for me the 'purpose' is how we feel about the great things we can do, in our 3 score and 10, watch children grow up, the acts of kindness, the amazing art, music etc we can create - all of which leaves a legacy and is remembered after we are long gone - to me that does not seem like a purposeless existance and I do not need any devine being to make complete etc. I think even people who belong to those religions would argue with you about that. If you don't view God as a "person" then there are clear distinct differences between the God in Islam and the God in Christianity for example in my experience (though I'm not going into them here!) Not really getting into the viability of religions since to a large extent I agree with many of your points. My argument was that christianity and Islam exists outside of the mainstream church organisations. I know because my girlfriend comes from a Muslim family and my father is a Christian so I have first hand experience! I do think you can respect others to believe what they want though I take your point about the paradox. I am pleased that you have found your own belief system that works for you. My primary problem is with those who seek to belittle others for believing in something which they do not. I was just saying that personally I support anyone that finds a belief that makes them happier, improves their life and hopefully the lives of those they come into contact with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 I agree with Hypo. All atheists should be very respectful to believers and not belittle them even though they are a bit primative. In return all believers should refrain from preaching their belief and other interjections in general life such as law making, schooling, public policy and suicide bombings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 "Science asks questions which may never be answered; religion gives answers that can never be questioned". I honestly don't know who that quote is attributed to (something tells me it might have been Carl Sagan) but I came across it recently and thought it pertinent to the debate. I have to say I have thoroughly enjoyed catching up on this thread today and reading some excellent posts put forward - mostly - in a way respectful of others' opinions, as it should be. And that, I believe, is where religion often goes wrong and causes unnecessary division, when people of faith (theist or otherwise) attempt to impose their doctrine onto others who hold differing views. It all comes down to tolerance, which is so often lacking in religious history. Those on here who claim that atheism is as much a belief system as any theistic religion may have a certain point, but I would have to largely disagree. While it is true that claiming "I believe there is no God/god(s)" is as much a statement faith in one's own opinion as those who claim that there is, it can hardly be labelled a belief system because there is no specific framework that comes with it. To call oneself a Christian/Muslim/Sikh/Jew/Hindu (etc...) one must accept certain rituals and adhere to specific values that go with it, whereby atheism refers specifically to the rejection of not only a belief in a deity but also of religious observances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 I agree with Hypo. All atheists should be very respectful to believers and not belittle them even though they are a bit primative. In return all believers should refrain from preaching their belief and other interjections in general life such as law making, schooling, public policy and suicide bombings. Why have you adopted that tone and pretended I have said something that I did not say? I suspect you may just be trying to get a reaction but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt at reply politely anyway. FWIW I agree that religious people should not ram religion down other people's throats. If you read some of my other posts I already said what I respected about my father was that he was a Christian but didn't do anything like that. Fanatical Christians who judge others and ram their religion down other people's throats are completely wrong. Equally IMO are those who belittle or insult those who choose to have religious beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Why have you adopted that tone and pretended I have said something that I did not say? I suspect you may just be trying to get a reaction but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt at reply politely anyway. FWIW I agree that religious people should not ram religion down other people's throats. If you read some of my other posts I already said what I respected about my father was that he was a Christian but didn't do anything like that. Fanatical Christians who judge others and ram their religion down other people's throats are completely wrong. Equally IMO are those who belittle or insult those who choose to have religious beliefs. Hypo, you are in danger of doing an Alps there mate - I know the tone was a bit more 'robust' than others but sarcasm can be a useful if rather blunt tool. There are thos ewho will make a case for religion/belief systems and faith that we currently have being teh ones that 'survived' afterall going back, the only reason why we dont still have a sun worshiping religion etc is because the Egyptian civilisation and those of the aztecs etc died out and their gods went with them - I guess (and I am no anthropologist) there are perhaps 100's not 1000's of gods and systems that have disappeared as a result of the civilisations that practiced them having gone - so one could argue that thos ewho do still place a lot of faith in one are relics - if there were not so far many I cant blame the 'ramming down your throught' brigade since its part of the doctrine to spread the word - but I guess it also means there is justification for those speaking out against it... if we are offering a platform, it should be available to both sides? And despite being laced with cynicism, that last point is well made - do we feel that its right that things like honour killings and female circumcision, justified and ingrained in law of certain states are justifiable on cultural and religeous grounds - let alone the fanatical behaviour of some. Or how about parents of JW kids who refuse them blood transfusions that could save their lives? Thankfully, the law allows doctors of the under 16s to ignore this stupidity, unless they are classified as Gullick competent and make their own choice... which is even more disturbing if they chose no blood.... but thats another issue Of course the majority of believers are normal rational people and many do a lot of good things within their community - but these are simply good people and I am sure the vast majority of those folk would still do the same thigs even if they had not belief in God - I give time and money to charity, help neighbours out etc, yet not because I have been told its good by god, but because its good full stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Hypo, you are in danger of doing an Alps there mate - I know the tone was a bit more 'robust' than others but sarcasm can be a useful if rather blunt tool. There are thos ewho will make a case for religion/belief systems and faith that we currently have being teh ones that 'survived' afterall going back, the only reason why we dont still have a sun worshiping religion etc is because the Egyptian civilisation and those of the aztecs etc died out and their gods went with them - I guess (and I am no anthropologist) there are perhaps 100's not 1000's of gods and systems that have disappeared as a result of the civilisations that practiced them having gone - so one could argue that thos ewho do still place a lot of faith in one are relics - if there were not so far many I cant blame the 'ramming down your throught' brigade since its part of the doctrine to spread the word - but I guess it also means there is justification for those speaking out against it... if we are offering a platform, it should be available to both sides? And despite being laced with cynicism, that last point is well made - do we feel that its right that things like honour killings and female circumcision, justified and ingrained in law of certain states are justifiable on cultural and religeous grounds - let alone the fanatical behaviour of some. Or how about parents of JW kids who refuse them blood transfusions that could save their lives? Thankfully, the law allows doctors of the under 16s to ignore this stupidity, unless they are classified as Gullick competent and make their own choice... which is even more disturbing if they chose no blood.... but thats another issue Of course the majority of believers are normal rational people and many do a lot of good things within their community - but these are simply good people and I am sure the vast majority of those folk would still do the same thigs even if they had not belief in God - I give time and money to charity, help neighbours out etc, yet not because I have been told its good by god, but because its good full stop. My ire directing at anothersaintinsouthsea is because I believe he is in danger of misrepresenting my words. I agree with questioning religious beliefs that are harmful to others I agree that whilst religious people can spread their belief where appropriate (just as atheists hav the right to spread their 'belief') that does not give them license to be overly judgemental or preach at others where it is unwanted. My view has been consistent over this issue- people should be able to believe what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Clearly the things you have listed do terrible harm. Practices like female circumcision are wrong regardless of whether religion is used to justify it or not. Same with refusing blood transfusions but if they are an adult then that is their choice. Different story for under age though as you allude to. With your final point I also agree. I'm not actually arguing with you. A belief in God is clearly not essential in order to be a good person but some people choose to be a good person and believe in God. Good for them is my response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 be careful here guys, threads on this sort of thing never last long.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 be careful here guys, threads on this sort of thing never last long.... It's mostly just myself and FC agreeing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 It's mostly just myself and FC agreeing... wasn't aiming it at you, just this type of thread in general never goes well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 wasn't aiming it at you, just this type of thread in general never goes well Point taken mate. Lets hope it stays sensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 the only reason why we dont still have a sun worshiping religion etc is because the Egyptian civilisation and those of the aztecs etc died out and their gods went with them The spiritual beliefs of the Aztecs, along with the Incas and the Mayans, died out thanks to a concerted effort from the Catholic Church to destroy any and all references to them. It is a shameful episode in human history that so little remains for us to study of a rich and advanced culture thanks to the insistence of The Vatican that all cultures should be forced to accept their own doctrine or be killed. The same thing happened to Paganism when Christianity was brought to Europe. I guess (and I am no anthropologist) there are perhaps 100's not 1000's of gods and systems that have disappeared as a result of the civilisations that practiced them having gone - so one could argue that thos ewho do still place a lot of faith in one are relics - if there were not so far many . Indeed. Christianity itself was just one of many religions being followed in the middle east during and after the time of Christ. Most of them died out, but Christianity only went on to become as prevalent as it did thanks to the Romans seizing upon it and using it as a tool to expand their empire. Quite ironic really, given that it was the Romans who supposedly* executed Jesus in the first place. *That's if he even existed, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Was talking speifically about the Islamic, Christian and Jewish version - who all do worship the same God...yet he seems to now have several 'personalities' as a result of these divergent faiths - which of course is one of my biggest questions: All those of faith believe their way is the right way - that its deeply personal and defines who they are - which is a fair enough statement - however, when you consider that the vast majority of those with faith dont find it later in lfe (although admitedly some do) but have it 'installed' as they grow up, the type of faith they have is not dictated to by anything otherthan where their birth occured and to what their parents believe - born in India, mostly Hindu or Seikh, Israel, Jewish, Chriatian or Muslim, Iran, Muslim etc - Now given that most faith suggest they are right etc...although more recently some have become more 'blurred' on this issue, the reality is they cant all be right - If the Christian view is the right one, then thay implies that the Jews got it wrong and missed their messiah - if tehy are right then it undermines the very pillar of christianity and of course both of these would consider Hindus as worshipping a 'false god' ? Its the paradox that if you believe in one, you cant believe in the others and whilst they all say they respect each other (mostly), can you really respect other religions if your faith demands they dont exist? I think its human nature to want to believe in something. With our brains being what they are we simply dont like to accept that there is no 'Purpose' to it all. Yet for me the 'purpose' is how we feel about the great things we can do, in our 3 score and 10, watch children grow up, the acts of kindness, the amazing art, music etc we can create - all of which leaves a legacy and is remembered after we are long gone - to me that does not seem like a purposeless existance and I do not need any devine being to make complete etc. One of the best posts I've ever read on here Frank. I find myself in complete agreement with you when you write that a life free of organised religion does not necessarily equate to a life bereft of any deep meaning - as you so elegantly argue we must find meaning elsewhere. I think it our nature that modern man still seeks to find a form of meaning in life in much the same measure that our pre historic ancestors surely did, only in what we might now call the dawn of the 'Post belief' era we must each struggle alone to find our own path towards 'salvation' without having the answers laid before us like a set of instructions. I wonder if, like me, you sometimes listen to sublime religious music such as a JS Bach cantata, or contemplate something as profoundly beautiful as a Raphael's 'Madonna of the Meadow' and still experience the awesome power of religion, a power that rationalism and scientific knowledge cannot quite dispel? We may one day soon rid ourselves of outdated notions like Heaven and Hell and the idea of a all-powerful God watching over us. Something tells me however that our underlying need for faith in something is a part of our nature humanity might find hard to dispense with. Indeed, why would we want to ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 One of the best posts I've ever read on here Frank. I find myself in complete agreement with you when you write that a life free of organised religion does not necessarily equate to a life bereft of any deep meaning - as you so elegantly argue we must find meaning elsewhere. I think it our nature that modern man still seeks to find a form of meaning in life in much the same measure that our pre historic ancestors surely did, only in what we might now call the dawn of the 'Post belief' era we must each struggle alone to find our own path towards 'salvation' without having the answers laid before us like a set of instructions. I wonder if, like me, you sometimes listen to sublime religious music such as a JS Bach cantata, or contemplate something as profoundly beautiful as a Raphael's 'Madonna of the Meadow' and still experience the awesome power of religion, a power that rationalism and scientific knowledge cannot quite dispel? We may one day soon rid ourselves of outdated notions like Heaven and Hell and the idea of a all-powerful God watching over us. Something tells me however that our underlying need for faith in something is a part of our nature humanity might find hard to dispense with. Indeed, why would we want to ? That is a great quetsion, and I am not sure I have the intellect to do justice to an answer! One of Dawkins better books (IMHO) is 'Unweaving the Rainbow' in which he writes the defence against those who believe science in its attempts to explain everything, destroys the power and mysticism of beauty and art etc - His main thrust is that science in offering explanation provides even greater wonder at the the beauty of it all - for example does knowing how the translucent shimmering of a butterflys wing is creted, rmove any of its innate beauty? no, when you understand the complexities of the biochemistry involved, the evolution of it, the evolutionary pressures and natural selection that led to it you cant help but feel even greater wonder. Same with music, whether you understand how a brain creates or receives and interprets does not devalue the art, merely makes you think how amazing we actually are... and so I come...finally to your question... ... I dont want to say anything that could be interpreted as a spoiler... because how you respond to the emotive power of this music is part of the wonder that is the evolved human being - that you are able to lose yourself in it and have it provide such depth of feeling is a remarkable thing - and the scientific explanation should NOT detract form that - to me as a scientist the explanation actually makes it even more amazing. I dont think I am alone in hypothsizing that the human mind has evolved to be extremely receptive and demanding of a 'spiritual' leadership - and therefore it would be a natural logical step for this need to be triggered by the exceptional high art that you describe - written as it was by those in which these emotions were core during composition - so its natural that what inspired and was felt by the composer triggers the same response in others - something deeply moving that we dont necessari;ly want to explain away, or that we can. Yes I am moved by certian pieces and awestruck by them, (sorry, sruggling to express what I mean her in words - see intellect comment above;)) but not sure I experience the power of religion - more a sense of wonder that a) I am capbale of responding in such an emotional way and b) that another human being was able to stir such emotion through music or other art - in a way science takes no part and does not need to in these circumstances - maybe its just that me witnessing the fact that humans are capable of such things is 'relgion' enough? who knows sorry if I lack the prose to express this. For all our scientifc understanding, teh reamarkable thing is there is more we cant not explain than we know - and our curious brain does not like 'holes' or gaps in knowledge - it is constantly trying to fill these gaps from birth to death with hard wired thoughts, memories and knowledge, so I will happily hypothesise as others have done that this lack of understanding makes us susceptable to the spiritual need - for all the chaos this can cause and the fact it leaves us open to exploitation, it also enables us to experience the awesome emotive or spiritual elements you speak of - and that cant be a bad thing. NB. The above is not fact but a hypothesis based on the the science we do know - so it has a solid foundation, but we are at the end of my knowledge on this subject. As I said - thing is we are amazing - the fact that a human child is capable of genuinely being happier GIVING a present than receiving one is a remarkable aspect ouf our evolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Dear me, an SWF religion thread that had all the hallmarks of becoming the usual poxy slanging match becomes genuinely interesting!! I suppose one of the new mods will flex their muscles before long.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Dear me, an SWF religion thread that had all the hallmarks of becoming the usual poxy slanging match becomes genuinely interesting!! I suppose one of the new mods will flex their muscles before long.... Dont worry Scotty, there is still time for it to decend into teh depths of farce, just that all the usual suspect are currently occupied with Ramirez, Lowe and Wigan attendance - if they sot this, I'm done for... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 be careful here guys, threads on this sort of thing never last long.... are you kidding? threads like these have lasted for thousands of years. these boys have been smoking something fine too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 are you kidding? threads like these have lasted for thousands of years. these boys have been smoking something fine too. Well I Laughed:lol: Was getting a bit heavy there, but makes a change form the usual guff on here - and ramirez was doing my head in, was being trounced on the Lowe thread, so thought it might be interesting to go for a nice uncontrovercial topic like religion! TBF good points made, interesting opinion etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 21 August, 2012 Share Posted 21 August, 2012 Dear me, an SWF religion thread that had all the hallmarks of becoming the usual poxy slanging match becomes genuinely interesting!! It's because dune has been banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now