Forum menu
it could just turn into a atheists-vs-you squabble
One would hope that someone who does this professionally would be well prepared for such an eventuality. (-:
I have a million questions and challenges for you, but have absolutely no intention of meeting up and being filmed.
Am very interested in a priests take on why , when religious people talk of their god, its a god of love, equality, and peace, when all around I see the exact opposite.
Am also intrigued because the majority of truly religious people appear selfless and well intentioned, almost to a fault.
Feel free to PM if you want, I would be happy to help you with your research, if you feel you want it.
I am a Buddhist but I have no problem listening to or trying to understand all other religions.
For the moment I have one more puzzle to solve in life then perhaps I shall have time for other teachings.
Orthodox is much more interesting IMO.
One would hope that someone who does this professionally would be well prepared for such an eventuality.
Yeah, but just listening to someone trying to score "points" by repeating Dawkins arguments verbatim would be very dull. I'm quite interested in why some people believe in a god, why the Orthodox Church instead of (say) the Baptists, etc. I love reading about history, and like it or not Christian belief is an important part of European history.
Orthodox is much more interesting IMO.
Nah, wrist spin has all the magic - googly, flipper etc.
Nah, wrist spin has all the magic – googly, flipper etc.
LOL ...
Seriously, the interpretation of all religious teaching is not that simple to be honest.
I’m quite interested in why some people believe in a god, why the Orthodox Church instead of (say) the Baptists, etc. I love reading about history, and like it or not Christian belief is an important part of European history.
I like all of them but learning them also requires skills.
Despite my trite posts, I am actually quite interested in religion, as an external observer, though.
I've done a bit of listening, reading etc about Sunni vs Shia Islam, Coptic Christianity, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism etc.
I do think it is important to understand the 'textbook' definition of, for example Sunni vs Shia, but also more important to understand how and why those differences have been used and exacerbated by political actors.
I don't know anything about Orthodox Christianity, though. Being glib again, the only thing I see is a tall ascetic looking guy with a massive beard waving a smoky metal thing around...
Damn it, I'm getting curious now, because my own ignorance is annoying me!
when religious people talk of their god, its a god of love, equality, and peace,
or fire and brimstone depending on which bit of their tome they're quoting.
Edit: Othodox is a slightly different translation of the Old Testament which is why I used "Greek texts" in my last post but didn't say "Hebrew texts" because in the Orthodox Bible they aren't.
However, any thread on religion would once include the words “sky fairies” around the third or fourth post. That is no longer always the case.
I don't know. If SaxonRider had announced he was a Scientologist, Mormon, or Jehova's Witness and invited everyone for a chat I imagine there wouldn't be the same level of tolerance.
I do wonder why some religions are considered worthy of respect while others aren't and are generally ridiculed. As far as I can see all religions are grounded in reality to the exact same extent and should be ridiculed equally.
I do think it is important to understand the ‘textbook’ definition of, for example Sunni vs Shia, ...
In Islam the dispute between Sunni vs Shia is the bloodline (need to follow definition of Koran and different interpretation resulted in the split). There are many "textbooks" but understanding the holy Koran is the best for consistency if in doubt. The rest of the information source is merely just source.
I don’t know anything about Orthodox Christianity, ...
With my limited knowledge and relying on the interpretation of some religious scholars, most Orthodox religions have rather similar teachings.
Scientologist, Mormon, or Jehova’s Witness
Those three are very different. In France Scientology is a "secte dangereuse" and banned as such. The other two are churches. I worked for the Mormons on their computer data bases, they get donated phenomenal amounts of money even in the UK, I got the feeling of a cross between the free masons and a religion (pun intended). Jehova's witnesses I've worked with and invite in for tea when they call, "harmless".
Well, I'm definitely going to seek out a 'Beyond Belief' episode on orthodox Christianity now my interest has been piqued.
it could just turn into a atheists-vs-you squabble
I offered to act as a moderator.
I do wonder why some religions are considered worthy of respect while others aren’t and are generally ridiculed.
Then come along and ask the question 🙂
Personally, I believe people are worthy of respect. Some of the things they do are not, however.
I do wonder why some religions are considered worthy of respect while others aren’t and are generally ridiculed
Some were founded for the purpose of making money...
I’d be interested, I’m very much an atheist, but studied Anthropology (a loong time ago) so always had an interest in what makes people ‘tick’!
Would we be submitting questions/ thoughts etc beforehand?
Jehova’s witnesses I’ve worked with and invite in for tea when they call, “harmless”.
In your opinion. In others not so much. The witnesses in particular are possibly what the Scientologists will turn into once they have a few more years under their belt and get proper multi generational devotees.
The mormons have their own set of issues but not as severe as the other two.
As someone who is beyond an atheist (a sort of heathen i guess) i am still interested in what voukd be easily described as the worlds ultimate "long con"
I have a Mormon acquaintance (unless you're in the club you're not really a friend) and have had multiple discussions around religion, Mormonism and other stuff.
In conclusion he and his church are a cult. So its a no from me.
The witnesses in particular are possibly what the Scientologists will turn into once they have a few more years under their belt and get proper multi generational devotees.
The witnesses use pretty much the same Bible as any other Christian religion as the basis for their belief system, that is simply not comparable with the ramblings of Ron Hubbard.
What pisses people off about the Witnesses is that they go out and do what they're supposed to: spread the word. If you know your way around the Bible you can have Mormons tearing their hair out in half an hour (and thrown out the country within a couple of weeks, he and his colleagues perhaps shouldn't have been so adamant they were right on a point of law), the witnesses require more persistance because their lifestyle often conforms pretty well to the Biblical model and for society in general that's not a bad thing.
No offence. All religon is cult based fantasy. Religon is devisive and exclusive, things which in other areas are considered negative and bad. Sensible discussion based on facts (i know thats relative) and tolerance is the only answer to humanities problems. The church of "?" only helps it's own. And tolerance means im happy for you to believe what you want..
However, any thread on religion would once include the words “sky fairies” around the third or fourth post. That is no longer always the case.
Yup, I remember the shocking intolerance towards religion on here and the almost daily rantings on those religion mega-threads. Now these days that intolerance appears to have been redirected towards those with incorrect political views.
There were a couple of stwers who undoubtedly helped to develop greater tolerance and understanding of religion by their remarkable patience, good humour, and willingness to engage and explain.
I can't remember either of their names but one of them was a Baptist minister and the other one a practicing Muslim. The other notable person was of course SaxonRider.
What pisses people off about the Witnesses is that they go out and do what they’re supposed to: spread the word.
Nope its how they treat those who leave the church which, incidentally, isnt dissimilar to the scientologists and various other sects.
On the ramblings issue I do sorta feel sorry for the mormons. Joseph Smith used some ancient papyrus to support his claims confident, not unreasonably, in the knowledge nobody could read hieroglyphs without knowing that in Europe using the Rosetta stone scholars had managed to start understanding it and soon would prove him wrong.
Would we be submitting questions/ thoughts etc beforehand?
Might be a good way of stopping it being a bun fight?
All religon is cult based fantasy
I don't think theology and religion are the same thing. In fact you are doing theology right now 🙂
In Islam the dispute between Sunni vs Shia is the bloodline
Bloodline vs non-bloodline AFAIK. Which means it was essentially a political split from the start. Makes you think.
No offence. All religon is cult based fantasy. Religon is devisive and exclusive, things which in other areas are considered negative and bad. Sensible discussion based on facts (i know thats relative) and tolerance is the only answer to humanities problems. The church of “?” only helps it’s own. And tolerance means im happy for you to believe what you want..
No offence taken, but I have sought to treat precisely such objections in past threads, and it’s why I thought some kind of friendly, beer-based session online would be a good forum for discussion. Trying to deal with everything that could be said while typing with my thumbs on an iPhone just doesn’t feel adequate!
@molgrips. no offence but even the idea that those 2 distinct terms are entertained in the context of things is absurd. each to their own
I wonder if SR is regretting this already yet?
I have a million questions and challenges for you, but have absolutely no intention of meeting up and being filmed.
This might actually raise a good point. It may be prudent to establish ground rules - whilst I think my atheist views are well documented, I don't really want to be party to a 15-to-1 kicking.
Some were founded for the purpose of making money
some....
I do wonder why some religions are considered worthy of respect while others aren’t and are generally ridiculed.
That's funny.
In the last religious discussion on STW I remember - and indeed, most of them - the narrative was that Christianity was the one religion which was still fair game for a dressing-down. I remember comments like "you wouldn't do this with Islam." Fact was, we had more Christians to discuss with than Muslims.
Now seemingly we've gone 180' and it's the only religion that is worthy of respect.
As far as I can see all religions are grounded in reality to the exact same extent and should be ridiculed equally.
Yeah, no, because it's a spectrum. In terms of belief in the ephemeral / spiritual / supernatural / call it what you will, at one end we have Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, at the other we have Branch Davidians and Westboro Baptists. These do not have equivalence.
Again, atheist, so I think it's all man-made stories. But some belief systems are way more deserving of scorn than others.
Firstly no idea at all and I can't see how it would effect your use if the forum at all.
I love the idea of religious beliefs. I'm CE but not properly. I like the idea of support it gives people but am also very wary of the abuse it allows people to get away with.
I am generally ignorant of others faiths although I do find it interesting.
I was genuinely interested and clicked the link to register my thoughts. Saw it was suggesting that it's done for money and immediately thought scam and religion being used for financial gain. This makes me feal very uneasy about it all now and I'm out.
I am a Buddhist but I have no problem listening to or trying to understand all other religions.
For the moment I have one more puzzle to solve in life then perhaps I shall have time for other teachings.
You should definitely sign up for this @chewkw it's one evening online, not a theology degree. I think you'd have a lot to offer the conversation.
I was genuinely interested and clicked the link to register my thoughts. Saw it was suggesting that it’s done for money and immediately thought scam and religion being used for financial gain. This makes me feal very uneasy about it all now and I’m out.
I queried this earlier, you should probably read the first page. I don't think SR is going to be retiring to the Bahamas on £20.
I’m quite interested in why some people believe in a god, why the Orthodox Church instead of (say) the Baptists, etc.
I do wonder why some religions are considered worthy of respect while others aren’t and are generally ridiculed.
If we are doing the questions in advance thing this is an area I would like to explore more.
Why do people who belive in god(s) pick their particular faith? How much of it is cultural influence and what they have grown up with and how much of it is looking at all the belief systems, or even working it out from first principles or having a revelation, and deciding that theirs is most likely to be the 'correct' interpretation of what God is?
Religious people all seem pretty convinced that theirs is right, but no doubt those who believed in Odin or Zeus or Ra or whatever were equally convinced but would now be though of as very odd, why are modern religions considered less weird?
.
I’ve just clicked on the link. As it’s £2 per session, plus potentially more, is this commercial advertising? Can builders, bike mechanics or therapists do the same as a pretence of “involving the STW community? Does it break any forum rules?
Really interested in, and think a fair bit about, this stuff (on a purely personal rather than academic level though). Most people who have discussed this with me would probably describe me as quite a hardcore atheist/humanist as I can be quite blunt in expressing my beliefs (and yes, I'm one of those irritating atheists who insist their's is as much a belief system as anyone's who is religious).
In reality, I'm more aligned with being a godless Taoist than anything else but wouldn't necessarily describe myself as such as that might come off as hypocritical given what I'm about to type. I do think spirituality, faith and belief (of whatever flavour you choose) can be pretty central to being an effective human, but religion can absolutely get in the sea.
The idea of this discussion intrigues me, but [1] any contribution I could make would be based purely on personal experience and opinion (and admittedly very selective reading), and [2] the talk of payment (however tokenistic) doesn't quite sit right.
Saw it was suggesting that it’s done for money and immediately thought scam and religion being used for financial gain. This makes me feal very uneasy about it all now and I’m out.
As it’s £2 per session, plus potentially more, is this commercial advertising?
Thanks to @Cougar for the vote confidence above, but it seems I need to reiterate what I have said elsewhere in the thread: I will be/would be doing this anyway. Money or no money. That link was a poll to see what would garner the most positive response. If 100% of respondents said they wouldn't attend unless it was free, then it would be free. My first interest is in conversation.
That said, there are medical doctors on this forum who kindly give advice when we ask, and when we have had historical/religious discussions on here, I have tried to share things that I know about. If one of those medical doctors ran some kind of online teaching session for us online or in person, would it be unreasonable to ask for a pound or two towards expenses? It would depend, wouldn't it? I mean, if they were only doing their NHS duty, then we might expect them to get paid by some other source; but if they did it just because they had a group of internet friends/colleagues whom they thought might be interested, then maybe a pound or two wouldn't be so unreasonable. So I happen to have an expertise. Even if a person has no religious interest, they might at least appreciate the historical expertise I bring to the table. In which case, is it unreasonable to seek a couple of quid by way of remuneration? If so, let me know by responding with one of the options I included in the survey.
Scam? Good grief. I've never scammed anyone in my life.
EDIT: Just saw @colournoise's post, above. Again, I teach online. I write books. Sometimes I get paid; sometimes I don't. If most people seem happy throwing in a couple of quid, I'll go with that, and be glad that I can put it toward my next mortgage payment. All £20 of it. If not, I'll still run the session, and thoroughly enjoy it. I can't believe that this is being seen as an issue! But I guess it's a learning process for me.
@SaxonRider Just to clarify. No way do I think it's anywhere near a scam. Just sits a bit odd. I possibly have some small equivalent of your theological expertise in an aspect (Art History / Art Criticism Theory) of my field, but if I thought there was any interest in an online STW discussion of the impact of art on culture and society I can't imagine not just doing it for the interest alone. Having said that, I'm lucky enough for that not to be an issue for me right now.
If it's just to cover some costs, then I don't have an issue really (just had an immediate knee jerk image of tables being turned over in the temple - apologies if that's not part of orthodox teachings!). That knee jerk 'religious' reaction that I as an atheist still have is one of the reasons I find this stuff interesting BTW.
You should definitely sign up for this @chewkw it’s one evening online, not a theology degree. I think you’d have a lot to offer the conversation.
I would but my mind now is preoccupied with solving one of my last problem in life. What a life lesson that opens my eyes to see the world differently. 30 years suffering and 20 years to find the problem and now trying to solve it.
To me all religions, if you strip away all the bad interpretations, are teaching roughly the same truth. i.e. the rights are always right and the wrongs are always wrong. However, the corruption to the religions come not from the teaching but the people who interpret them.
Understanding a teaching is nothing without actually practicing it. i.e. conducts but not because someone has longer beard.
The interpretation of the holy books need to be crossed reference with a system of checks and understanding before they can being "preached". The problem is many so called religious leaders are themselves not well verse in cross checking the meaning and interpretation. Worst still when the holy books are being "rewritten" into many editions to suit the audience.
In addition not all religious leaders/gurus are well verse in all aspects of the teachings because it is impossible to understand them all unless you are a saint (even a saint does not understand all). Therefore, some are good at teaching certain aspects of the religion.
For me I am more interested in the interpretation of the teachings with cross reference to present the logic. For example, in Islam the Anti-Christ is "one eye" but that is being literally interpreted as a person with one eye. The sentence can also mean the person who only sees with sinister intention but most conventional religious gurus tend to ignore alternative interpretation apart from few Islamic Scholars who are views and interpretation are not ignored.
It does not matter which religion you have so long as you know the true meaning.
@molgrips. no offence but even the idea that those 2 distinct terms are entertained in the context of things is absurd. each to their own
I don't even know what this means.
As the majority of people in the world are in some way religious it is always good to be open minded about it and have some knowledge about it.
I have never been religious but I am agnostic rather than atheist as the atheist argument is an odd one as most atheists seem to know there aren't gods as much as religious people know there are so both are just beliefs.
I sort of envy religious leaders in the way that they are living their life and the purpose of their lives to do good, help people etc,. in their way but clearly not something for me with no belief in any of it!
The premise does not quite work for me, although it clearly does for others. I'm less interested in an event mc'ed/chaired/curated by a person of faith with the purpose of explaining that faith as I would be in an event where that person put themselves forward as essentially an articulate 'exhibit'. For me the fascinating aspect of religion, especially in the modern world, is not so much what they believe in (I see this as mostly irrelevant) but is how a person with a religious faith came about and maintains it, rejecting more 'suspicious' paths. This will sound very derogatory (it probably is!) but I see a close analogy between that act of 'faith' and how Trump supporters have recently bought into his statements. picking and choosing which tidbits to hang their hats on and which to conveniently brush under the carpet. And further back (and an even more derogatory comparison!) how huge numbers of an otherwise intelligent and educated German population swallowed the direction Hitler took them in, believing what they did. I would have zero interest in an event were a Maga or a Nazi tried to explain what they believe in, but I would be interested in an event where a third party 'unpicked' them to help others come to a better understanding of how they got where they did ideologically. Likewise religion and people of religious faith.
As an atheist I'd be interested to know who's right, the Russian or Ukrainian Orthodox priests, both of whom seem pretty convinced God is on their side.
BBC News - 'I'm shocked by my church leaders in Moscow' - priest in Ukraine
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61109104
Just because it makes me laugh every time I watch it.
If 100% of respondents said they wouldn’t attend unless it was free, then it would be free.
Whilst contributions towards celebrations, feasts and sacrifices are part of Biblical teachings there's the notion that people should contribute according to their means:
Deuteronomy 16:13-17
"13 “You shall keep the Feast of Booths seven days, when you have gathered in the produce from your threshing floor and your winepress. 14 You shall rejoice in your feast, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow who are within your towns. 15 For seven days you shall keep the feast to the Lord your God at the place that the Lord will choose, because the Lord your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you will be altogether joyful.
16 “Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God at the place that he will choose: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Booths. They shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed. 17 Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord your God that he has given you."
Given the financial state of some on here then a 1p minimum would seem reasonable and I'd expect a sheep from Mefty. 😉
If you're in the mood for a theological debate, this is worth your time, when Hitch took time out between chemo sessions to have a chat with Blair:
I'm interested OP in the very significant challenge you would have in characterising these inputs for your book and YouTube channel. I mean, how would you describe STW input, as a source? Definitely not 'the view of mountain biking' or even 'cycling' I guess? The 'view of the internet' seems unlikely (in fairness that would be waaaay weirder). 'Men over 40 who like to be left alone'? I'm just a bit fascinated by how you will present this in your book, seems like a key output of your plan 😀
'SaxonRider's STWeird Weekend'?