I'd really like to know people's views on religion in society today, i.e. do we need it? And how many people are Christians (and by that I mean people who follow the Bible and go to church regularly).

It would be good to have a big thread, as it'll help with my A-Level R.E.!

To start you off, my views:

As an atheist, and a strong believer in the 'God of the Gaps' theory I think religion is not necessarily a bad thing, as it teaches people good values and morals, but that the concept of God is unbelievable and an illogical, unreasonable idea. I have many theories to back up my views, for example the most commonly known, the pain and suffering argument. I'll add some more at a later date.

:D

Originally posted by noseyrosie
the most commonly known, the pain and suffering argument.
What makes you think that a 'god' would necessarily be a good god? A god might enjoy watching pain and suffering being inflicted on beings in the same way that some humans do...

I don't understand why you think that the existence of a god could be an illogical idea. We have no clue what lies outside of the universe, so it is neither logical nor illogical to fantasise about what could exist beyond our own intelligence.

As for wether we need religion, I agree with you that it does give people morality. It can also be misused. But abolishing religion couldn't and shouldn't be done.

I'm a bit of a skeptic where God is concerned... Sometimes I think there IS a God, sometimes I paranoidly think he's out to get me, other times I just assume he doesn't exist.

This could develop into a long, long thread...
Here's my views FWIW.
I'm a "devout" atheist, a Darwinist, if you like. The reason we're here ? Well that's down to a few chemicals that make up the DNA in us. Nothing more, nothing less.
Religion developed over thousands of years because Homo Sapien became clever enough to realise that he would face death one day, the one thing that distinguishes us from the animals. Religion in its many guises gives us hope, knowing that there is something on the other side. I too don't believe that religion in itself is evil, but some of its followers sure have a case to answer, as history has proved over the last few thousand years.

Col S

"Yes - we are all individuals"
Life Of Brian

would love to help ya but i am well sick of answering that question for my own RE homework soz!!!

I don't know what label I get given. I am a witch and most people call me pagan because of my reverence for nature. However I do not worship diety as most pagans do. I just cannot get my head round this worshipping an omnipotent being - just won't work in my head.

Never been into the other religions, studied them at school and couldn't see the point.

With regard to your point about suffering and god - may want to look into the old pagan gods as many are viewed as being the cause of the suffering aswell as the ease of it!

Most people are familiar with the Roman and Greek Pantheons but you also have the norse and followers of Asatru -
You live, you fight and if you are really lucky you will die in battle and go to Valhalla and possibly fight with Odin in the last battle of Ragnarok. If you are not so lucky you will end up with the goddess hel where all the reprebates and weaklings end up!

Moon

I'm a non-believer as well. Humanists don't need a God to develop moral values
From the little I know there's nothing to take exception to regarding what Jesus or Mohammed have to say but they were products of their times and had to be infuenced by the world and time in which they lived.
Most religions become corrupted by their followers.

Historically, we have the disgusting behaviour of The Crusaders, Inquisition and witch burning from a Christianity corrupted and deviating from it's early teachings. To bring us up to date we have Blair and Bush making a big deal out of their Christian values and yet their hands are soaked in blood as they go about their own present day Crusade)

Early Islam was enlightened in Art and Science and tolerance towards other religions but now some followers thinks it's God's will to crash airliners into cities (not without provocation: see above) and stone women to death for adultery.

I'm sure many Japanese soldiers, 1939-1946, were deeply religious as well.

The arrogance of the Israelis and their brutal occupation of Palestinian lands seems to be founded more on racial sureriority than their protested fears. If you are brought up being told that you are one of God's chosen people, what sort of effects may that result in?

Pagans who worship trees, the moon etc have more to commend them (as long as they don't feel the need for a blood sacrifice for a good harvest!) They seem to appreciate the environment and the natural world about them, even if they don't realise that stone circles have nothing to do with Druids!

Is the carnage and destruction brought about by religion worth the plus points?
Stonehenge, The Pryramids of Egypt and Mexico, the great European Cathedrals, The Alhambra, the various great Mosques of the Middle East, the temples of India, Thailand, Cambodia?

Of course the blood-letting practiced by the Aztecs was part of a religious service, their architecture and art was directly linked to mass murder. Their gods were as real to them as anyone else's may be today.

On balance we would be better with no religions, even allowing for the atheistic example of the Khmer Rouge
(I think Stalin was secretly religious, rather than atheist)

Pagans who worship trees, the moon etc have more to commend them (as long as they don't feel the need for a blood sacrifice for a good harvest!)They seem to appreciate the environment and the natural world about them, even if they don't realise that stone circles have nothing to do with Druids!

Gawds that has spoiled my weekend activities - do you know how difficult it is to find a 'virgin' sacrifice in Sheffield nowadays ;)

Moon

Originally posted by Cols
This could develop into a long, long thread...
Here's my views FWIW.
I'm a "devout" atheist, a Darwinist, if you like. The reason we're here ? Well that's down to a few chemicals that make up the DNA in us. Nothing more, nothing less.
Religion developed over thousands of years because Homo Sapien became clever enough to realise that he would face death one day, the one thing that distinguishes us from the animals. Religion in its many guises gives us hope, knowing that there is something on the other side. I too don't believe that religion in itself is evil, but some of its followers sure have a case to answer, as history has proved over the last few thousand years.

Col S

"Yes - we are all individuals"
Life Of Brian

You've basically outlined my view there! We should get on like a house on fire :D

Here's an amusing conversation my Friend (who's in my RS class) had with an Old School Buddy:

F:So yeah, it's normally me and <noseyrosie> against the rest of the class, because they're all Christians.
OSB: Well that's not very fair
F:I know.
OSB: I mean, did you give them a chance or did you just tear their argument to pieces straight away?

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
I don't know what label I get given. I am a witch and most people call me pagan because of my reverence for nature. However I do not worship diety as most pagans do. I just cannot get my head round this worshipping an omnipotent being - just won't work in my head.

Never been into the other religions, studied them at school and couldn't see the point.

With regard to your point about suffering and god - may want to look into the old pagan gods as many are viewed as being the cause of the suffering aswell as the ease of it!

Most people are familiar with the Roman and Greek Pantheons but you also have the norse and followers of Asatru -
You live, you fight and if you are really lucky you will die in battle and go to Valhalla and possibly fight with Odin in the last battle of Ragnarok. If you are not so lucky you will end up with the goddess hel where all the reprebates and weaklings end up!

Moon

Modern monotheism is regarded as a more advanced form of religion (not by me, although I can see the logic here) because having a group of gods with different powers means that they can't all do everything, in which case they're not omnipotent, which a God has to be. Surely the definition of a gos is that they are all powerful, which is why these polytheistic religions are not so widespread.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
how many people are Christians (and by that I mean people who [try to] follow the Bible and go to church regularly).

I fit that definition.
Well, I mostly believe anyway - strong faith is very hard...

Why should a god have to be omnipotent though? I'm sure even gods have their limitations.

N.B. Nothing of what I have said on this thread necessarilly reflects my beliefs on this matter, I'm merely expressing other view-points.

Being brought up in a Church going Christian household I have mixed views. I find too many aspects of religion contradict themselves.

One in particular that really gets me is this.

My brother is gay. Took my mum along time to come to terms with it. She now says it's ok to be gay as long as you don't practice (ie have a sexual relationship with someone the same sex)

So what happened to love one another? What happened to god forming us in his/her own image? If that's correct then surely s/he is bi-sexual.

I just think there are too many outdated notions within religion. Having said that, I would never mock anyone for their beliefs and acknowledge that many find great comfort in religion.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
I'd really like to know people's views on religion in society today, i.e. do we need it? And how many people are Christians (and by that I mean people who follow the Bible and go to church regularly).

It would be good to have a big thread, as it'll help with my A-Level R.E.!

To start you off, my views:

As an atheist, and a strong believer in the 'God of the Gaps' theory I think religion is not necessarily a bad thing, as it teaches people good values and morals, but that the concept of God is unbelievable and an illogical, unreasonable idea. I have many theories to back up my views, for example the most commonly known, the pain and suffering argument. I'll add some more at a later date.

:D


If the concept of a God is illogical and unbeleivable, where do you think the Universe came from? and please don't say "It just happened" because that would be even more illogical and unbeleivable!

Just to really throw a spanner in the works! I'm a pantheist - I believe that all religions are simply culturally appropriate ways of looking at something that doesnt really fit into the human imagination. Unfortunately as with all cultural constructs (talking about theism here rather than religion) it becomes more a matter of secular power and control than spiritual enlightenment which is why groups like the gnostics were wiped out by the fluffy forgiving christian church!

Any chance you wordy types can post up a list of all these tags and labels and a short explanation - like Agnostic and pantheist and stuff.
I know they are easier than going thru your entire belief structure, but I just don't understand what they are and other may be thick and blonde too :loopy:

Moon

Originally posted by evildrneil
Just to really throw a spanner in the works! I'm a pantheist - I believe that all religions are simply culturally appropriate ways of looking at something that doesnt really fit into the human imagination. Unfortunately as with all cultural constructs (talking about theism here rather than religion) it becomes more a matter of secular power and control than spiritual enlightenment which is why groups like the gnostics were wiped out by the fluffy forgiving christian church!

Very very well said Neil ... agree with your points.

Although ... I wouldn't call myself anything ... or attach any label to myself ... to what I am.

I need no words to define myself ...

Is there a name for people who choose not to use any word / label to identify themselves ...

Originally posted by Sidla
I don't understand why you think that the existence of a god could be an illogical idea. We have no clue what lies outside of the universe, so it is neither logical nor illogical to fantasise about what could exist beyond our own intelligence.

Ahem...

I believe the existence of a God (using Christianity as an example) to be irrational and illogical because we live in a society based on proving things, rather than disproving them, e.g. in law you are 'Innocent until proven guilty', or the 'burden of proof'. As we haven't sufficient proof for the existence of God, why should we believe that there is one, after all, do we believe in fairies? No. Why? Because there are no photos or other empirical evidence of them.

Originally posted by halevan
If the concept of a God is illogical and unbeleivable, where do you think the Universe came from? and please don't say "It just happened" because that would be even more illogical and unbeleivable!

Well, to be honest, I would like to see my self as a person who is rational and logical, therefore I would take the current most widely accepted explanation, that the universe was contained in a very small space and a huge force caused it to expand into the galaxies etc.

I found this website (yes it's biased, but it's funny): http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Reasons for the existence of God:
51: ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS
(1) Ask Atheists what caused the Big Bang.
(2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this.
(3) Continue process until the Atheist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions.
(4) You win!
(5) Therefore, God exists.

Originally posted by Jamie
Very very well said Neil ... agree with your points.

Although ... I wouldn't call myself anything ... or attach any label to myself ... to what I am.

I need no words to define myself ...

Is there a name for people who choose not to use any word / label to identify themselves ...

Awkward?

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Awkward?

... for who !?

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
Any chance you wordy types can post up a list of all these tags and labels and a short explanation - like Agnostic and pantheist and stuff.
I know they are easier than going thru your entire belief structure, but I just don't understand what they are and other may be thick and blonde too :loopy:

Moon

Sorry for YET ANOTHER post,
Atheism: no belief in the supernatural
Theism: belief of some sort in the supernatural (be that a god or otherwise)
Agnosticism: wusses who 'can't decide' ;)
Monotheism: religions with one god
Polytheism: " " " several gods

Hi NoseyRosie.

I just have two quick opinions neither of which answer your question, sorry.

The first is simply that I think you will find a very precise, limited question to be much more fruitful on a forum board than large sweeping topics (not that they aren't important). It's just too hard to discuss something this large and volatile. Whole forests have really, not just rhetorically, been milled in the last millennia in this discussion. So for example you may find taking a point like Sidla's "Does the metaphysical have to be logical" and discussing that much more rewarding.

My second thought is that I want to commend you for your interest in Religious Education (is this compulsary in the UK?). Along with that I want to encourage you to remain open and respectful towards those who differ in their beliefs.

:thumbsup:

p.s. You need to read some Kant and then catch up on the next 200 years of debate ;)

I'm an aetheist and a scientist at heart. There is no proof to suggest the existance of a god or higher power of any kind. Until someone can show me some proof I will not believe that one exists.

I can't answer the question as to what came 'before' the big bang, or how it happened. Fortunately no-one ever claimed that we had all the answers yet. The scientific method is to form hypothesis' which fit the available data and then try to disprove them. If they cannot be disproved, and can make predictions which can later be verified experimentaly then the hypothesis can get upgraded to theory.

Morallity can exist without the benefit of religion, it's a social construct. I have some morals despite having no religous background and minimal religous education.

I've also found over the years that arguing with someone who has 'faith' is pointless. You cannot change their view, they cannot change yours. Better to agree to disagree and drop the subject.

Have there been any studies on the general 'religousness' of the population over time. I believe that the number of church goers in the UK has been declining steadily for the last 100 years, but does anyone have access to hard figures?

The way I see it though, just saying "I won't believe until I see proof" is a very closed minded way of looking at things. To quote the bible itself:
John 29 vs. 29
"You only believe because you have seen; blessed are those who have not seen, yet have believed."

People refused to believe the world was round until they saw proof, and they refused to believe in evolution until they saw strong evidence. To say you don't believe in something until you see proof makes you just as closed minded as the people back then.

Personally I think religion is the cause of many of the world's problems at the moment, in fact it has been for a while and so no, I don't think we need it in society. Obviously with this view you'll realise that I am not religious - I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution and that we're just a bunch of chemicals. Of course then there's the dinosaurs which are conveniantly left out of religious texts............

Originally posted by Sidla
People refused to believe the world was round until they saw proof, and they refused to believe in evolution until they saw strong evidence. To say you don't believe in something until you see proof makes you just as closed minded as the people back then.

Well if evolution exists the Bible is wrong...

I would have said following everything the bible says is extremely closed minded.

Originally posted by jackthedog
I would have said following everything the bible says is extremely closed minded.

Especially being that the English version bears virtually sod all resemblance to the original......

And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation - did he hell 'cos Noah didn't speak English...

Originally posted by Sidla
People refused to believe the world was round until they saw proof, and they refused to believe in evolution until they saw strong evidence.

You say this as though these things are universally accepted truths. Not everyone believes the world is round and not every one believes in evolution either.

Originally posted by Sidla
To say you don't believe in something until you see proof makes you just as closed minded as the people back then.

So can we assume you also believe in say...faires, goblins and pixies, the Loch Ness monster, and UFOs?

Nomme

Originally posted by Sidla
The way I see it though, just saying "I won't believe until I see proof" is a very closed minded way of looking at things. To quote the bible itself:


People refused to believe the world was round until they saw proof, and they refused to believe in evolution until they saw strong evidence. To say you don't believe in something until you see proof makes you just as closed minded as the people back then.

So you'll be a believer in fairies, ghosts, ufo's and that i am the ultimate ruler of the universe?

If you say no, you can't justify it by simply not having seen any proof.

Without an objective view on the world, you have to accept any old tripe that someone cares to make up. The only way to filter what we choose to believe is by experience.

you'll also note that there was no evidence to prove that the earth was flat, so i would have believed neither hypothesis until it was proven.

After reading these last bit of posts I want to ammend this note:

p.s. You need to read some Kant and then catch up on the next 200 years of debate ;)

That is now addressed to the other posters too...except maybe Jamie and evildrneil.

Originally posted by Jamie
... for who !?

I was joking :D

Originally posted by genesiscouch


p.s. You need to read some Kant and then catch up on the next 200 years of debate ;)

Well at the moment we're studying Kant, and other deontological philosophers, also John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism, and Benthamism(his 100 year old body is preserved in the entrance to Uuniversity College London in a cupboard btw, weird!), as well as studying different approaches to religious texts, e.g. liberal, traditional and fundamentalist.
Also origins of the universe and different religious and scientific theories, miracles, religious experience (both of which have, far from proving to me that God exists, have made me even more sure of my atheism).

To be honest Kant's ideas of universalisability seem flawed and can not be properly applied in many situations, for example, if someone says it is wrong to steal money from a shop, which part of the rule is universalisable? Is it that stealing is always wrong, or is it that you should never steal money? Or is it that stealing from independent businesses is wrong? Etc.

The Utilitarian (teleological) view seems more logical, but often very harsh. Anyway this is all far too taxing for me...although it is being very helpful in helping me revise for my RS exams!

Oh, and RS is compulsory up to the age of 16 (i.e. to GCSE level) as I am doing RS A-level, it is optional, and only 11 people are in my class.

PS -

Utilitarianism - http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/u1/utilitar.asp
Teleological - http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=405707
Bentham - http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/calculus.html

Deontological - http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=387850
Kant - http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/bioethics/ethicaltheory/kant.html

Originally posted by genesiscouch
After reading these last bit of posts I want to ammend this note:



That is now addressed to the other posters too...except maybe Jamie and evildrneil.

No offence but I've got better things to do :)

(looks like nested quotes aren't working to well n all)

I never said wether the bible is or is not correct. It would also be fairly closed minded of me to dismiss the possibility that fairies/ufos/pixies exist, but since they don't affect my life a great deal I tend not to worry about it.

Nosey Rosie - I wasn't thinking of Kantian ethics, rather of his epistemology. I'm not saying I agree with it either, I'm just saying that he sparked a dialogue that we have reacted with and against. In the last 200 years we have also had a lot of other epistemological arguments which haven't come from Kant also. Either way I simply thought that your basis for judging the validity of various religious positions was uhm well...dated.

And yes fnkysknky me too, so I'm off. :)

Originally posted by noseyrosie
I was joking :D

OK ... so was I then rosie :p

Actually ... I thought I made quite a valid point though.

People are forever saying 'I am a <this> or a <that>' .. and putting themselves in to one catagory or another ...

Not making the decision to label yourself .. is I think .. just as valid as any other perspective.

Maybe even more so ... ?

It's as if when a person says 'I am a <whatever>' ... the <whatever> is not what they are ... only the role they are playing (or perspective they have) in this game called life.

Originally posted by Jamie
People are forever saying 'I am a <this> or a <that>' .. and putting themselves in to one catagory or another ...

Not making the decision to label yourself .. is I think .. just as valid as any other perspective.


Ah... so you are in the unlabeled category then.

Eh?

Nomme

how long has RE been a compulsory GCSE level subject? It wasn't when I was a lad :-), nor when my younger syblings left school.

Interesting. it seems to be compulsory these days, but not necessarily examined, and it may be taught along with Social Studies and other wishywashy subjects.

Originally posted by Sidla
I never said wether the bible is or is not correct. It would also be fairly closed minded of me to dismiss the possibility that fairies/ufos/pixies exist, but since they don't affect my life a great deal I tend not to worry about it.

maybe by neglecting the fairies you are damning your eternal soul and your eternal watsit to everlasting damnation.
I know this because the fairies are my slaves. You should start worshipping them now. All you have to do is build a big stone house for them (with a belfry, they like bells). Donate 35% of your income to them (via me, cheque or standing order is fine), and give up every Sunday morning to show them the proper respect in their big stone house.
In return they will give you a book filled with strange stories, some of which I can relate to modern life for you in such a way as to provide moral and social guidance.

You do know about your eternal watsit don't you. It's something we can't see, detect with any scientific instrument and basically have no proof that it exists. If I were you I would spread the word, otherwise many people might damn their watsits along with their souls.

Anyway, I guess you'll have to take all that on faith as I can offer no proof. So when should I expect the first cheque?

Originally posted by nomme
Ah... so you are in the unlabeled category then.

Eh?

Nomme

LOL ... could be .......

Actually tho Nomme ... I am only in the unlabeled catagory when I'm not being in any of the others.

;-)

It could be said that religion causes a lot of the worlds problems, but I believe that it's more to do with not accepting other peoples views. I think/hope that the majority of people these days, can accept that others have different beliefs without feeling the need to prove them wrong. Narrow mindedness is what causes wars in the name of religion. Believing that you are right, others are wrong, and enforcing that belief.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Modern monotheism is regarded as a more advanced form of religion (not by me, although I can see the logic here) because having a group of gods with different powers means that they can't all do everything, in which case they're not omnipotent, which a God has to be. Surely the definition of a gos is that they are all powerful, which is why these polytheistic religions are not so widespread.

Actually the view by pagans is that they are capable of doing everything. Just because they happen to have a speciality doesn't mean they are incapable of not doing one thing or the other.
I think the reason for these polytheistic religions not being widespead is more down to ignorace and mis-information that the ability or inability of the dieties or followers.

Moon

Is there a central governing body for pagans Moon ?

Do they have like open days where you can go along and see what they get up too etc ?

Originally posted by Cyclone
Anyway, I guess you'll have to take all that on faith as I can offer no proof. So when should I expect the first cheque?
It's in the post as I type ;)

Originally posted by Jamie
Is there a central governing body for pagans Moon ?

Do they have like open days where you can go along and see what they get up too etc ?

There is the pagan federation, the pagan association, Children of Artemis, Order of Ovates Bards and Druids, Isle of Avalon Foundation to name but a few. The Children of Artemis have events in various places in the British Isles and the Pagan federation hold regional and national conferences throughout the year.
There is also the witchcraft musuem in Cornwall and the Museum of pagan heritage.

No one organistion or group will give you a true picture of the pagan community but they can show you part of it.

Moon

isn't monotheism generally regarded as more advanced because history seems to indicate that people started of by worshipping objects, ie funny rocks, or big trees. Then moved on to a pantheon of gods, all with 'specialities', then developed a belief system with just 1 one god who did everything. Then finally grew up and realised that they were alone in a dark and hostile universe with no supreme being looking out for them.

E-hehehehe....

Try these beauties for size:

Micah 3:2-3

2 Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones; 3 Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the cauldron.

Psalms 137:9

9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Hosea 13:16

16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Isaiah 13:15-18

15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. 16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. 17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it. 18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

Deuteronomy 23:1-2

1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. 2 A ******* shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

And people think this stuff is suitable for children?! And for an example of the...erm...variations of opinion in the 'good book' why not try:

Galatians

6:2
Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
6:5
For every man shall bear his own burden.

why did you quote me to post that?

noseyrosie -

Insert random biblical quotes

Ok. Listen as I say this slowly...Put down the keyboard...step away from the computer...

That post was about as nuanced, reflective and thoughtful as Jerry Falwell.

Put down the keyboard?

Oh, I see, you're assuming that she's using one of those new-fangled miniature hand-held keyboards developed by NASA.

The only thing that religion will cause is misery and upset. People are so protective of their beliefs that all common sense leaves them and they would smite thie own brother if it meant their beliefs were in tact.

Beliefs in whatever form they come, belief in god, belief in no god all the same and can and will result in the above.

So I guess in that we are destined to ever walk in circles chasing our tails for answers that are simply beyond us.

Moon

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
The only thing that religion will cause is misery and upset. People are so protective of their beliefs that all common sense leaves them and they would smite thie own brother if it meant their beliefs were in tact.



I agree 100%. You've only got to look at the middle east to see proof of that.

Originally posted by mojoworking
I agree 100%. You've only got to look at the middle east to see proof of that.

You don't really need to look as far as that do you now Mojo? Not when over the borders we have protestants and catholics demolishing each others shrines to the same diety?

Moon

I liked that Moon Maiden.

I suppose that's what makes religion so fascinating. On one hand we know, historically, that it has continuously brought death, segregation, destruction, war, suffering and misery, setting brother against sister and father against son. Yet on the other hand we see the works of art, literature and music, social structure and peace. These are examples of supposing a cause and effect relationship. However, beyond that we can see even today the people who find some kind of inner meaning through religion, something that satisfies their, for lack of better word (and this isn't science obviously) spirits. I'm thinking of things like the black gospel churches, sufism, voodoo, and other mystical sects.

It seems that the one thing we can be sure that religion brings is misery and happiness.

As for why so many continue to pursue it...I don't know. I don't mean that in a dismissive way, I simply don't know. As you say we run in circles chasing our tails for answers that are beyond us. The thing is it seems we have created and framed those answers ourselves and have set them beyond us. It's the questions we spend our lives chasing.

I guess Cyclone (may I?) would say that it's when we put these answers and questions away...when we say to ourselves honestly that we are alone in a big dark empty universe, it is then that we are true to ourselves and fully become human. And so again, maybe we aren't chasing our tails, but we are a very still dog laying on a very cold hearth, as writers from Kafka to Camus have shown. The outsider may be more miserable than the idiot. One who is true may be more miserable than one who is delusional.

Perhaps this is the curse of being fully human.

simialr to what i said before, its not religion that causes the problem, it's people not accepting other peoples views. Even if they blame religion, it's still people that cause trouble.
it annoys me really, that people hide behind their faith to justify their wars.

Originally posted by Andy78
simialr to what i said before, its not religion that causes the problem, it's people not accepting other peoples views. Even if they blame religion, it's still people that cause trouble.
it annoys me really, that people hide behind their faith to justify their wars.

Using that excuse is like the pro-gun lobby claiming that "guns don't kill people - people kill people"

Of course it's religion that causes the trouble, because people and religion are inseparable.

When you get the heads of religions preaching hatred against other religions (and non-believers), then it's plain that religion AND people are the problem.

I don't want to stir up the PC crowd again (plus we've already covered this topic in great depth), but you've only got witness Captain Hook and his mates in action to see religion stirring up hatred

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
The only thing that religion will cause is misery and upset. People are so protective of their beliefs that all common sense leaves them and they would smite thie own brother if it meant their beliefs were in tact.

Beliefs in whatever form they come, belief in god, belief in no god all the same and can and will result in the above.

So I guess in that we are destined to ever walk in circles chasing our tails for answers that are simply beyond us.

Moon

I don't think you'd get many non-believers smiting anyone who did believe.
I'd like to think that we're more likely to shake our heads in disbelief at their delusions and then carry on with life.
The difference behind the two beliefs being that one is supported by faith and the other by thought.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I don't think you'd get many non-believers smiting anyone who did believe.
I'd like to think that we're more likely to shake our heads in disbelief at their delusions and then carry on with life.
The difference behind the two beliefs being that one is supported by faith and the other by thought.

I think 'non-believers' could mean one of 2 things ...

1) Those who believe there is no 'god'.

2) Those who do not engage in the activity of believing (in anything).

There is a difference ...

I think there is also a big difference between ...

1) Believing in what you know from personal experiece (usually comes from within you) ... this is more like remembering past experieince than it is believing.

2) Absorbing the beliefs of the culture / people around you ... without having had the experience of the thing you're believing in directly for yourself.

People are forever making things more complicated than they they actually are ... not that I would ever do that :p

Originally posted by Cyclone
why did you quote me to post that?

You know...I'm not too sure...I was probably going to write something else...

Originally posted by genesiscouch
noseyrosie -



Ok. Listen as I say this slowly...Put down the keyboard...step away from the computer...

That post was about as nuanced, reflective and thoughtful as Jerry Falwell.

I don't respond well to being patronised, and I don't see any call for it. I think it was perfectly obvious what I was trying to get across (albeit in a slightly sarcastic way), which, if you didn't understand, was that people are basing their whole lives and bringing their children up on stories about child abuse, homophobia, devils, talking animals and plants, men that come back to life, cannibalism, etc.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Using that excuse is like the pro-gun lobby claiming that "guns don't kill people - people kill people"

Of course it's religion that causes the trouble, because people and religion are inseparable.

When you get the heads of religions preaching hatred against other religions (and non-believers), then it's plain that religion AND people are the problem.

I don't want to stir up the PC crowd again (plus we've already covered this topic in great depth), but you've only got witness Captain Hook and his mates in action to see religion stirring up hatred
Surely what you're doing is just stiring up hatred towards people who are religious though?

Religion is fine, it's people who can't think rationally that are the problems. Not everyone who is religious cannot see reason.

the fact that they follow a religion based on faith means they already gave up on critical and rational thought for that whole section of their life.

noseyrosie. I think it was a joke rather than a patronising reply. I laughed anyway.

Originally posted by Cyclone
the fact that they follow a religion based on faith means they already gave up on critical and rational thought for that whole section of their life.
No it doesn't.

Originally posted by Sidla
Surely what you're doing is just stiring up hatred towards people who are religious though?


How so?

Because you're implying that people who are religious crave the death and destruction af anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Originally posted by Sidla
Because you're implying that people who are religious crave the death and destruction af anyone who doesn't agree with them.

But that's patently true in a great many cases

It's patently true in a very few cases. Hardly a good broad analogy though.

Sidla - it does in my opinion. And there's no point arguing about it, as no rational argument can make a difference to a non-rational belief. Even to the point of them claiming that it is perfectly rational, if it were anything other than religion people could be sectioned for it.

WARNING - LONG POST!

Apologies for this long post, but I think these lyrics by that great iconoclast Frank Zappa sum the situation up pretty well. This is from a song titled Dumb All Over recorded in 1981. It's a kind of early rap over a heavy rock backing. Some of the lyrics are written in the vernacular, but it's not too hard to figure them out:

Whoever we are
Wherever we're from
We shoulda noticed by now
Our behaviour is dumb
And if our chances
Expect to improve
It's gonna take a lot more
Than tryin' to remove
The other race
Or the other whatever
From the face
Of the planet altogether

They call it THE EARTH
Which is a dumb kinda name
But they named it right
'Cause we behave the same . . .
We are dumb all over
Dumb all over,
Yes we are
Dumb all over,
Near 'n far
Dumb all over,
Black 'n white
People, we is not wrapped tight

Nurds on the left
Nurds on the right
Religious fanatics
On the air every night
Sayin' the Bible
Tells the story
'N makes the details
Sound real gory
'Bout what to do
If the geeks over there
Don't believe in the book
We got over here

You can't run a race
Without no feet
'N pretty soon
There won't be no street
For dummies to jog on
Or doggies to dog on
Religious fanatics
Can make it be all gone
(I mean it won't blow up
'N disappear
It'll just look ugly
For a thousand years . . . )

You can't run a country
By a book of religion
Not by a heap
Or a lump or a smidgeon
Of foolish rules
Of ancient date
Designed to make
You all feel great
While you fold, spindle
And mutilate
Those unbelievers
From a neighboring state

TO ARMS! TO ARMS!
Hooray! That's great
Two legs ain't bad
Unless there's a crate
They ship the parts
To mama in
For souvenirs: two ears (Get Down!)
Not his, not hers (but what the hey?)
The Good Book says:
"It gotta be that way!"
But their book says:
"REVENGE THE CRUSADES . . .
With whips 'n chains
'N hand grenades . . . "
TWO ARMS? TWO ARMS?
Have another and another
Our God says:
"There ain't no other!"
Our God says
"It's all okay!"
Our God says
"This is the way!"

It says in the book:
"Burn 'n destroy . . .
'N repent, 'n redeem
'N revenge, 'n deploy
'N rumble thee forth
To the land of the unbelieving scum on the other side
'Cause they don't go for what's in the book
'N that makes 'em BAD
So verily we must choppeth them up
And stompeth them down
Or rent a nice French bomb
To poof them out of existence
While leaving their real estate just where we need it
To use again
For temples in which to praise
OUR GOD
("Cause he can really take care of business!")

And when his humble TV servant
With humble white hair
And humble glasses
And a nice brown suit
And maybe a blonde wife who takes phone calls
Tells us our God says
It's okay to do this stuff
Then we gotta do it,
'Cause if we don't do it,
We ain't gwine up to hebbin!
(Depending on which book you're using at the time . . . Can't use theirs . . . it don't work . . . it's all lies . . . Gotta use mine . . . )
Ain't that right?
That's what they say
Every night . . .
Every day . . .
Hey, we can't really be dumb
If we're just following God's Orders
Hey, Let's get serious . . .
God knows what he's doin' . . .
He wrote this book here
An' the book says:
"He made us all to be just like Him," so . . .
If we're dumb . . .
Then God is dumb . . .
(An' maybe even a little ugly on the side)

Originally posted by Cyclone
Sidla - it does in my opinion. And there's no point arguing about it, as no rational argument can make a difference to a non-rational belief. Even to the point of them claiming that it is perfectly rational, if it were anything other than religion people could be sectioned for it.
Well in my opinion if you can't rationalise things there's no point believing in them.

As someone else said on another thread, the problems occur when people start questioning the beliefs of others.

faith is the believe in the absense of evidence. that is not rational.

Not really. What's the point in believeing in something if there's no evidence of its existance?

there is no point. so how do you square that with a believe in god (not you personally, just a generic religous but claiming to be rational person)?

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that there may be a god. I've never seen any evidence that there isn't one.

Originally posted by Sidla
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that there may be a god. I've never seen any evidence that there isn't one.


Theres plenty of evidence to suggest that the Bible is a load of rubbish - age of planet, evolution, dinosaurs, etc.

Yep, which is why most Christans take no notice of those parts. That doesn't prove that there is no god though.

Originally posted by Sidla
Yep, which is why most Christans take no notice of those parts. That doesn't prove that there is no god though.

So it's "selective belief" now, is it?

Doesn't such an admission undermine your argument somewhat?

not a scientist by nature then?

You can never prove a negative. I can't offer proof for their being no god, no fairies, nor that i am not the ultimate ruler of the universe.

I can say that there is no evidence to support any of those things. A lack of any evidence for something, especially when it seems that so many people would like to find and provide that evidence is generally a good indication that it doesn't exist.

What is this 'plenty' of evidence then?

Originally posted by mojoworking
So it's "selective belief" now, is it?

Doesn't such an admission undermine your argument somewhat?
Not really, since I believe most of the bible to be symbolic in nature.

Regarding "plenty of evidence" I am refering to the bible, koran etc.

that isn't evidence.

it's a bunch of stories, most of which are believed to have been penned in the early part of the 1st millenium (for the bible anyway), i've no idea to the origin of other works of religous fiction.

Originally posted by Sidla
Not really, since I believe most of the bible to be symbolic in nature.

Regarding "plenty of evidence" I am refering to the bible, koran etc.

If most of the bible is purely "symbolic in nature", then how can it be regarded as "evidence"

I must use that defence in court next time I'm done for speeding!

Hmmmm good point. Sidla, can you prove that Santa Claus DOES NOT exist? What - you can't? Well, in that case we shall all assume that he exists.

I used to believe in God when I was at primary school, but when I started learning about astronomy, I began to question it.

Years on I am nonethewiser and have gave up caring; I don't need religion and take each day as it comes.

Flog....meet Dead Horse.

Originally posted by Cyclone
that isn't evidence.

it's a bunch of stories, most of which are believed to have been penned in the early part of the 1st millenium (for the bible anyway), i've no idea to the origin of other works of religous fiction.
The old testament is symbolic in nature. The gospels are the only part of the bible Ihave respect for.

But anyway, this is all hearsay. I accept that there are people who blindly follow their faith, and in my opinion this is wrong.

Originally posted by genesiscouch
Flog....meet Dead Horse.
no sorry, you've missed dead horse - this is the grease spot where it used to be.....

And don't forget that the grease spot and the horse never really existed in the first place.

They were simply invented to make us feel less guilty about our sinful, miserable lives and to provide us with an emotional crutch while we were doing the flogging. They also create an illusion that there may be something to look forward to after the flogging is over

But if anyone else tries to flog their horse in a way not prescribed or approved by the creators of our horse, then we'll get most upset and claim that ours was the first and best horse anyway and that their horse is merely an impostor.

i wonder if they didn't mean this thread, although it could equally apply to religion itself.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
no sorry, you've missed dead horse - this is the grease spot where it used to be.....

LMAO

Maybe it's not so much a question of

'do you believe in god?' ... as

"what do u believe <god> to be?'

to me ... <god> ... is a place holder for the totality of everything and nothing ... and the word 'god' had no importance at all (well ... only in that it helps to comunicate the notion).

to me ... <god> is not some omnipotent being ... seperate to me ... and i think this *seperate being* notion is what causes some confusion ... that <god> is seperate to you.

*slips on grease spot*

I always though Eric Clapton was God!

(esoteric joke for the oldies)

Originally posted by t020
Theres plenty of evidence to suggest that the Bible is a load of rubbish - age of planet, evolution, dinosaurs, etc.

These are a test by God to see if you believe him or the devil!

Moon

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
These are a test by God to see if you believe him or the devil!

Moon

i so hope you are joking.

what you haven't heard that one Cyclone?

Moon

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
These are a test by God to see if you believe him or the devil!

Moon

There is an actual professor of paleantology who is a christian fundamentalist who uses this premise to explain dinosaurs.:loopy: :loopy:

He lectures at an American university, of course.

There are many people who believe that in this country too. I personally think they're wackos. There's not even many clergy who believe that these days.

.Originally posted by Sidla
there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there may be a god. I've never seen any evidence that there isn't one.

As I believe I've already said, our society is based on proving, not disproving. As in law. It's called the burden of proof.

Originally posted by Sidla
Yep, which is why most Christans take no notice of those parts. That doesn't prove that there is no god though.

If you think parts of the Bible are flawed/fictional, who's to say the rest isn't, wouldn't God, in his absolute perfection, only be able to inspire/write something flawless and perfect, so why the need for four gospels?

Well the only reason I have respect for the gospels is because they're the only parts of the bible that don't claim to have been written in the name of God. (With the possible exception of John's gospel, (which is often the most trusted and relied upon) which does claim to come from God's word). It should also be noted that there are other 'gospels' that didn't make it into the bible such as the works of Thomas. I've never read it, but maybe the Christians of the day didn't agree with some of the things he had to say. (As I say, I've not read it so I'm only speculating.)