[Closed] A nice chat about faith?

I don't mind religion as much as the people, conversely it's the people who go to church I don't like.

Most of them are tosspots who I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.

It is round here.... 8)

I've always been agnostic, believing in something But certainly not a Christian God

I think you need to look up 'agnostic'.

Try not to behead anyone. And no rucksacks full of explosives. Especially on public transport.

No offence intended.

I don't have any faith that this will be a "nice chat". 😀

Religion it's like a penis, do what you want in private but don't go shoving it onto other people....

I've met a whole heap of great people who hold all of those values but are atheists.

I've met a bunch of people who are not the sort that I would want to spend any time with and are not nice people some are religious some are atheists.

[img] [/img]

To sum it up though (Dawkins (mis)quote)
Good people do good things for good reasons
Bad people do bad things for bad reasons
Religion can make good people do bad things for what they think are good reasons.

Faith shouldn't be a dirty word.

But neither should atheism. We're not all Dicky Dawkins tha knows.

I know some lovely people of 'faith' in fact a good friend is a lady vicar. But also some right twonks, a couple of whom hide behind there alleged religions as an excuse for some outright bad behaviour.

On the other hand I know some really mellow and charitable atheists, who in most societies would be pegged as 'religious' because of what they get up to, but they just love humanity.
I also know some right pricks who are atheists. One especially who's views have really wound me right up recently!

So, in conclusion, it takes all sorts 😆

To sum it up though (Dawkins (mis)quote)

Sometimes attributed to Steven Weinberg but there are much older versions that say much the same thing.

The most common factor in all the best & most respected people I know are involved in divinity;

You are skewing the possibility of meeting an individual you respect through by going to a church, where as meeting people outside of church you are interacting with the entire population. In addition to this you are meeting people in different environments and situations which will again effect how you interact and judge them.

I think there are plenty of thoughtful, morally philosophical atheists (and religion in its essence in a mixture of moral philosophy with some baggage and constraints of tradition and a added hierarchical structure of whatever tha said religion is) but you you are less likely to come across these morally philosophical atheist unless you are involved in some sort of meeting or group that they attend. Hope that make sense!

The most common factor in all the [s]best & most respected[/s] dullest people I know are involved in divinity

FTFY

Seriously though projection isn't all ways a negative, no matter what Freud says.

All sounds a bit suspicious.. Lured in with the nicely nicely approach and BAM!
Singing happy clappy songs in sandles, socks and beard before you knows it.

Atheists are just as stupid as Theists, logically in the face of all the evidence, there can only be agnosticism.

^^ Wat!!

Yes, they are nice people ...

I used to see this nice looking lady handing out leaflet in GeordieLand with a smile, while I was tempted to stop to chat, I thought the public would refer me as a dirty old man if I stop to chat to her.

There was also an old gentleman standing opposite her doing the same thing. I thought to myself how sad to see an old man out in the cold to hand out leaflet ...

Was tempted to tell both of them to save themselves rather than trying in vain to persuade others. [u]There is no wrong in not trying to save the ZMs.
[/u]
I think next time I will stop to chat to her ... I did give her a polite smile though.

😛

Atheists are just as stupid as Theists, logically in the face of all the evidence, there can only be agnosticism.

Not really. An atheist is someone who takes their cues from science. Now any scientist will tell you that they will change there views based on the current and most valid data. So they are willing to change their viewpoint based on evidence. So if there were any evidence produced that there was a God, or life after death, or anything remotely provable to religion then that would mean they would change their views based on that.

However, a theist bases their views purely on faith. No proof needed. So will not generally change their views whatever the evidence (or lack of)

I definitely believe it's true that church organisations seem to feature lots of [i]pleasant people in jumpers[/i].

These people exist in plenty of secular places too though. Go looking at any community group, youth organisation, charitable causes, model railway enthusiasts, etc and you'll find them in droves.

I think churches are just a common focal point that many people see.

Plus of course huge aspects of our society are (historically) built around the church as a community hub. So they often still attract the community-minded people.

Even these days I find that living in a small village we regularly use the local church halls for birthdays and events, despite being godless heathens ourselves.

We have three old women living over the back from us, in their 80's I'd imagine. All three are members of the brethren church, wearing their cute wee hats, nice wee floral dresses and handbags, how quaint.

Three more bitter, nasty, evil ****s you will never meet in your life. I'm out.

To the OP: Are you an agnostic theist then? Its an unusual but not entirely illogical stance. Some might argue that all theists are agnostic but its not the tack most people of faith take.

I chat to atheists too, that's what they have professed to be, but they can be rather inconsistent in their logic at times. 😀

Nobeerinthefridge - Member
Three more bitter, nasty, evil **** you will never meet in your life. I'm out.

I see you have met the devils in disguised then ... 😯

Atheists are just as stupid as Theists, logically in the face of all the evidence, there can only be agnosticism.

Does a shouty agnostic still win a fiver?

Our religious education teacher was the spawn of satan. He wouldn't think twice of throwing the board duster at your head or slap you hard across your face.
That shaped my vision of faith.
If believing in some stupid book gives you some kind of inner mumbo jumbo, good for you. I for one really couldn't care less.
I go to church for weddings and funerals as a mark of respect for loved ones but don't get this god stuff.

I'm a insomniac,agnostic,dyslexic.
INSERT PUNCHLINE HERE.

All the best RE teachers I know are either atheists or agnostics. A person of any faith actually makes a really bad religious teacher - well unless they are teaching only one religion, which doesn't happen in UK state schools, but may do in some faith schools.
Modern RE in schools comes under the heading of Philosophy and Ethics, but is often pigeonholed as 'religious education' which puts a lot of kids off something that should be a much broader forum for discussing ideas and cultures.

My wife's an RE teacher - can you tell 😉

Spin - Member
To the OP: Are you an agnostic theist then?

If that can be reduced to "I believe there could be a God, maybe, I'm fine believing there is & I'm certain there's something" them yes. As much as I would be fine believing in unicorns, minitaurs and ghosts if it helped me with life.

ajantom - Member
Atheists are just as stupid as Theists, logically in the face of all the evidence, there can only be agnosticism.
Not really. An atheist is someone who takes their cues from science. Now any scientist will tell you that they will change there views based on the current and most valid data. So they are willing to change their viewpoint based on evidence. So if there were any evidence produced that there was a God, or life after death, or anything remotely provable to religion then that would mean they would change their views based on that.

In that case your just a plain old theist.

^+1 Derek. I absolutely believe that if you believe in any intangible force to guide your actions-luck, fate, karma - you may as well believe in a God or a dolphin or whatever.

I am fine with theist.

I would be fine believing in unicorns

That depends on how you define god. You can define god however you want. one way would be anything we can't explain. Anything and everything outside of this universe. A bearded being in this universe. All of the universe. Many of which can be just analogies but I believe that these analogies have been take too literally which has resulted in the proposition of a "god being" used in many faiths.

Would that be the same scientists that talk of the God Particle in their search for some higgs boson or dark matter or whatever = they don't know = they can only be agnostic as well

I don't know any scientists who call it the 'God Particle' - think that was some throwaway comment that one made, the press picked up on it, and now they're all embarrassed by the term.

They don't know, because they haven't found the proof yet. But their current theories will change based on what they find or don't find. You know, actual proof due to experimentation.

Well I suppose you might equate the Higgs Boson with agnosticism since there is a hypothesis to support its existence - ergo it may or may not exist.

In the case of God, where no evidence at all exists, I remain an atheist.

I would admit that most of the religious people I've met have been perfectly pleasant, but then so have most of the atheists too. I tend to avoid arseholes so don't get any insight into their faith or lack thereof.

ajantom - Member
Would that be the same scientists that talk of the God Particle in their search for some higgs boson or dark matter or whatever = they don't know = they can only be agnostic as well
I don't know any scientists who call it the 'God Particle' - think that was some throwaway comment that one made, the press picked up on it, and now they're all embarrassed by the term.

They don't know, because they haven't found the proof yet. But their current theories will change based on what they find or don't find. You know, actual proof due to experimentation.

So that conclusive experiment, it can only be by bringing back somebody from the dead.

Which anecdotally has occurred, but not under 'scientific conditions' so have alleged incidents of re incarnations, examples of regressive hypnosis etc some of those were carried out under pseudo scientific conditions. Yet still they do not, nor cannot ever know conclusively.

Therefore - we can only content ourselves with being Agnostic and seekers of the truth.

Atheists have already made up their mind so have no need to try, Theists have also faith in their belief.

Which re affirms my contention that Agnosticism can be the only way for the thinking man/woman/child.

Not a good analogy as we can and now do know about the Higgs. Agnosticism doesn't mean we dont know about god it means we can't know.

a·the·ist
??TH??st/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

ag·nos·tic
a??nästik/
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

It is possible to have no belief in something but accept if credible evidence is presented that it exists it exists. An atheist can have an open mind, agnostic is fence sitting despite there being a much stronger burden of proof to the case of no god.

Anyway on the OP there is not that much correlation that good people are religious and bad people are not.

[b]dereknightrider[/b]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

I've never met a dodgy Quaker.
Very much like a polite, English form of Buddhism.

All good sorts, do a good quiz night.

I have never met a Quaker.

However, I do like Quaker oats ... yes, yes, I know I know someone is going to accuse me of something now ...

😮

I definitely believe it's true that church organisations [b]seem to feature lots of pleasant people in jumpers.[/b]

It's the pleasant ones you have to look out for. Those are the ones who burn crosses on peoples lawns, hang black people, lynch gay people or gas Jews for the lolz.

They are pleasant because they would rather follow social convention or herd mentality, which leads to the above. They aren't actually nice people, they just seem it on the surface.

GrahamS - Member
dereknightrider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
br />

Ah, but they [i]might[/i] have a teapot on the International Spacestation. 😉

It's the pleasant ones you have to look out for.

Some people are genuinely pleasant and nice, of faith and of no faith other are outwardly pleasant but judgmental and horrid in reality but I don't think you can tell that because they look pleasant and are of faith that they are nasty.

Ah, but they might have a teapot on the International Spacestation.

Some people are genuinely pleasant and nice, of faith and of no faith other are outwardly pleasant but judgmental and horrid in reality but I don't think you can tell that because they look pleasant and are of faith that they are nasty.

10 quid says that there will be more UKIP voters found in any given church on a Sunday in comparison the normal population, at a statistically significant level.

Unless it's a church full of Nigerian immigrants etc.

Buohahahahah.

Anglicans are the group most likely to vote UKIP; this is clearly a demographic where Farage's party is badly hurting the Conservatives. 18.3% of Anglicans plan to vote for UKIP at the next general election.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2014/10/new-data-revealed-on-2015-voting-intentions-of-non-believers

I rest my case, if I walk into an Anglican church I can automatically assume that 1 in 5 of them is a ****.