[Closed] Anyone for another religion thread?

According to a separate survey by the Scientific and Medical Network (SMN) – a group devoted to marrying evidence-based science and spiritual practice

Why dont they call themselves The scientific and Medical [i]spiritual[/i] network? It's almost like they are trying to appear more credible by downplaying the spiritual side.

No - but I can call them out as hypocrites when they say " this bit is the bit I have to obey but this bit is just an allegory so I can ignore it"

By ignoring one bit you remove ANY grounds for claiming any of it to be anything but nonsense

tj, at every Mass or Liturgy, the Church reads a few passages from the Bible. In the Latin tradition, the reads end with the phrase, 'The Word of the Lord.'

Any one of those readings could contain some of the most difficult passages in the whole compilation.

You can rest assured, however, that the Church does NOT mean - in any literal way - that God spoke those words and we just have to read them.

'The Word of the Lord' means that we read the text as if it has some meaning for us, and then use our critical faculties to understand what it means. And as I have said before, sometimes that may be something historical or purely spiritual, or moral, or poetic... There really are any number of exegetical paths one can go down in interpreting the Biblical text.

And they are almost never literal.

No - but I can call them out as hypocrites when they say " this bit is the bit I have to obey but this bit is just an allegory so I can ignore it"

Why not?

Anyone with an ounce of knowledge knows that all the different bits have hugely different origins. You do know it's not one single book, don't you?

What's been happening for the last two thousand years is that people have been combing the book to find answers to their questions. The various books were written by different people, and they reflect their points of view. You may not share them, but that's ok - not everyone at the time did. And not all the authors shared each others views.

And also listen to SaxonRider. He DEFINITELY knows more than you do about this.

Yeah right -

If any one part of it is inconvenient and can be discarded then this throws out any chance of any of it having value.

People can claim its pick and mix. But if they can discard inconvenient bits then any claim they have of value in any of it is utter nonsense

But then - when did anyone professing a religion have any faculty for logical thinking. the very basic concepts of any religion are irrational

when did anyone professing a religion have any faculty for logical thinking.

Urgh.

CFH - by definition its irrational. Faith is belief without evidence. rational thought requires evidence to reach conclusions

I teach physics.

I'm about to teach the ideal gas laws. None of the gases behave according to these laws.

I'll shortly be teaching Newton's law of gravitation. Scientists used to think that this was true, but now we know that it isn't although it does tell us something.

See also: interpreting the Bible.

Urgh +2

Telling too

I'm a ciderist, I go to the local once a week and the offy every so often. My choice of religion gives me well being and ..................

Religion is for the weak.

tj, on the last religion thread, I posted a composite of photos of people, such as Georges LeMaître, who were explicitly religious, yet contributed significantly to the realm of science and philosophy. Indeed, LeMaître, who first proposed the Big Bang, and was a close friend of Einstein, also happened to be a Jesuit priest.

And the list of such figures is as long as your arm.

It is fair to say that some people 'get' the nature of faith and that some people don't. But it is not fair to suggest that people of faith are irrational.

Exactly, relijuice texts cannot be interpreted because of their true meaning. It's a complete leap of faith; every word is code for something that cannot be understood so you need the faith first then the information begins to transfer across but the words are the transportation device rather than the [i]real[/i] info. It's the most complex game of 'trust fall' you will ever play but very special when you get the information sent through

Thank goodness both mini THMs had decent RE at school (and afterwards)

I simply told you what the article suggested.

No you didn't, you spun it (whether accidentally or intentionally I don't know).

You don't have to treat the bible as literal truth. You just don't.

This may be true today, but it's modern-day revisionism to make allowances for advances in science. For a long old while it was absolutely the literal truth - the word of god - and only now are we going "yeah, it's allegorical and always was, honest." Galileo spent his final years under house arrest for positing that we live in a heliocentric galaxy, in defiance of the Bible.

And as others have said, surely any part of it being allegorical brings the rest of it into question. Are we expected to believe that the disproven bits are allegory and the rest is still fact? That's problematic.

Look at G'Kar for an example of how the words get warped. Coffee stains....

Actual 😆 thanks for that.

What's been happening for the last two thousand years is that people have been combing the book to find answers to their questions.

Well, that's not true either, the book isn't 2,000 years old. The earliest New Testament texts were written a few hundred years after the year dot. The King James English translation Bible is only about 400 years old (around the same time we were persecuting Galileo, give or take, my History isn't great).

when did anyone professing a religion have any faculty for logical thinking

Well, I used to think the same way, but I've grown since so I'm going to argue with you here.

I've spoken about this before but, I use to work with a polymath. He was genuinely one of the most brilliant minds I've ever encountered, in terms of both intelligence and raw knowledge. As a random example, he took it upon himself recently to learn Russian; not because he was going to visit the country or had Russian friends, or indeed had any rational reason to do it at all, he just thought it'd be an interesting project. Russian.

He was also a church-going Christian. I couldn't rationalise this with the guy I knew so I questioned it one day, and we subsequently lost an afternoon to intelligent and respectful discussion. (STW could learn something here...)

The TL;DR was that he compartmentalised it, filed it in a box marked "other" where regular physical laws didn't apply. The same thing that he did with subatomic physics. Hard to argue with that if I'm honest.

Saxonrider - its not meant to be insulting but faith is belief without evidence or proof and this is irrational. Thats the simple meaning of the words.

Yes people can compartmentalise and be rational in some areas of thought but not in others. I have a very good friend who believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Otherwise rational, on this batshit crazy.

TJ - you are making a monumental arse out of yourself. You are expounding your own personal view on a subject about which you know little, and being very abrasive in the process. A little humility would help the situation.

This may be true today, but it's modern-day revisionism to make allowances for advances in science. For a long old while it was absolutely the literal truth

Not true. I recently read a good article about this to which I can no longer find a link. But do some googling on the history of biblical literalism.

Yes people can compartmentalise and be rational in some areas of thought but not in others

So can you.

Tell me about your favourite band?

When was the last time you went to a service and they discussed the physical process behind the creation of the earth?

Not true. I recently read a good article about this to which I can no longer find a link. But do some googling on the history of biblical literalism.

If you can't find it knowing what it is then I surely can't. But if you do find it then please let me know, sincerely, I'd like to read it.

Considering Augustine, one of the most important Christian thinkers, who lived in the 4th Century argued against interpreting Genesis as the literal truth - it is safe to say this is complete bollocks and illustrative of the veracity of the survey's findings.

So said one person 1600 years ago, so it must be totally representative of the faith as a whole over a couple of millenia.

The point is, it's vague and open to interpretation (and exponentially so when it's a foreign language translation of the original texts), and that's the problem. Tell me, why was Galileo under house arrest if the Bible wasn't supposed to be interpreted as the literal truth?

Moreover, what else can we file under the same banner? Is Jesus supposed to be interpreted as the literal truth or is he allegorical also?

When was the last time you went to a service and they discussed the physical process behind the creation of the earth?

What do you think the answer to that might be if you asked it of people going to mass in the 1600s? Do you think it'd be the same as it is today?

You are expounding your own personal view on a subject about which you know little, and being very abrasive in the process.

I think perhaps the latter is true but not necessarily the former?

It is fair to say that some people 'get' the nature of faith and that some people don't. But it is not fair to suggest that people of faith are irrational.

But the actual ancient texts imply that it is fair so who are you to judge?

It really isn't complicated..
Faith is the key to unlocking the info, without it absolute gibberish

Buddhists, Sikhs, Jainists, Muslims, Pastafarians, etc. All OK.

Christians - Evil.

Welcome to TJWorld.

Look at the dictionary definitions of "rational" and "faith"
MOlgrips - its not me that is throwing around insults and attacking people personally. Religion is a very divisive topic. and actually I have a fiar knowledge of quite a few religiuons. I don't discriminate between them or on the grounds of religion.

Mefty - as I have said numerous times and shown I am not a bigot. Thats an unpleasant slur.

I have a prized possession that is a plant given to me by a nun I worked with - that was the only thing she had to give me - a cutting from the plant on her windowsill - she had taken a vow of poverty. I trqsure it because I know what it meant to her.

I have employed devout muslims where I had to make adjustments to their jobs beacuse of their views

I recently took a patient to a RC funeral because it was important to her
I have on many occasions taken patients to church because its important to them. Thats not in my job description

CFH - nope - I consider all religions to be equal. I don't discriminate on grounds of them or between them. find any post where I have. As everyone who attempts to show the irrationality of religion I am now on the receiving end of false and nasty personal attacks.

I should have known better than to join in I suppose.

In summary;

Lots of my friends are religious. They're not capable of rational thought, though.

nasty personal attacks.

Nope. Please report any that have occurred, however.

MOlgrips - its not me that is throwing around insults and attacking people personally.

You are being rather unpleasant though, even if you don't mean to be.

You don't know as much about religion as you think you do, you are demonstrating that very effectively.

Dictionary definitions

Faith: Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Religious conviction is irrational ie not in accordence with logic or reason.

Edit - that is not an insult BTW - people take it as such but its a statement of fact. MY dislike of carbon fibre is irrational. My fear of flying is irrational. My desire to debate on here is irrational 😉

So said one person 1600 years ago, so it must be totally representative of the faith as a whole over a couple of millenia

By saying this you are again illustrating your complete ignorance, Augustine is probably the most important thinker of the early Christian Church. His teachings have been followed for centuries.

Tell me, why was Galileo under house arrest if the Bible wasn't supposed to be interpreted as the literal truth?

Galileo is quite a complex story but is essentially political. The wiki article gives a reasonable account, but there are plenty of books that cover it too. I would have to dredge my memory for them, because I last consulted them when I did a talk at school.

TJ - I fear the pot plant is a mere fig leaf.

So said one person 1600 years ago,

And many others. To be fair, it's just you saying the opposite now, but without a lifetime of scholarship to back you up 🙂

What do you think the answer to that might be if you asked it of people going to mass in the 1600s?

The same. From what I know of genesis, it doesn't attempt to tell you how it was actually done. Given that most people we pretty aware of what it took to make things, it seems obvious to me that genesis exists simply to illustrate that good was behind it all and is very powerful. It's not a factual account of what happened because it doesn't even attempt to explain how it actually happened.

Oh, and TJ, calling people irrational is likely to be viewed as negative, regardless of how you mean it. Likewise calling people fat is likely to upset people even if it is true. We call it being polite.

Please let's not let this be all about TJ- love ya man but you can't be trusted around a religion thread

molgrips - Member

Easily. You can believe that the stories are allegory if you like. Why shouldn't you? Who says you have to take it all literally?

Just to reiterate, the question is that if you don't take it all literally, why is any of it to be taken literally? If you're happy to disregard chunks, what makes the bits you like of any more value than just doing what you like, because you like it, like I do? At what point do you follow so little of a faith that you're not following it at all? I've never murdered anyone, I live a broadly christian life without faith- can I claim to be a christian and say that all the god and jesus stuff is allegorical?

Why is that important? Because religion has an effect on the nonreligious. We are expected to respect it above other non faith based opinions, to give it special consideration, to allow it to impact on life and laws. We're told we live in a christian country.

I like to think of religion as having nothing to do with god,,,religion is just the method with which people worship..there must be loads of people that believe in god but don't consider themselves religious.

perchypanther - Member
I'm a Christian. I go to church. It makes me happy. It works for me.
I have no interest whatsoever in trying to convince anyone else that it's what they should do.
I don't give a monkeys hump what anyone else chooses to believe. That's their business.

It's not about who's right or wrong. It's about what works for the individual.
I'm done with this thread now because not one single person will gain any wisdom from it.

This should have been the end of the thread.

I'm not religious, I don't go to church (or a mosque or a synagogue), it works for me.

YMMV

Yawn...is that it ..the end of the thread ?
Thank God for that ...

Several more comments have been made showing the survey that started the thread to be true: there are a lot of atheists who know nothing about modern Christianity in the UK.

It appears that we can close the thread.

😀
It's modern society in a nutshell, instead of overthinking things we all need a little bit of faith

From the article:

According to the research, nearly two-thirds of Britons – as well as nearly three-quarters of atheists – think Christians have to accept the assertion in Genesis that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh

So, in a nutshell - most Britons think that Christians believe the Bible.

Mileages vary. The end.

Mmmm coffee. Today (as a secular humanist) I'm going to Fight back the intolerance and smile beatifically at those groups who I suspect hate me, yet don't know me. Because internet..

I teach physics.

I'm about to teach the ideal gas laws. None of the gases behave according to these laws.

I'll shortly be teaching Newton's law of gravitation. Scientists used to think that this was true, but now we know that it isn't although it does tell us something.

Well I hope you will be telling your students this and explaining why these are still being taught in school the way they are? Indeed as they were to me.

Assuming you are (as I was in school 30 years ago) then you are exercising something that religion and religious people will never admit - that Science isn't complete and not fully understood and that it is open to changing if new evidence comes to light, not interpretation at all. Science thrives and moves forward any people questioning it and challenging the established understanding and it is the fundamental basis of science. This is the biggest difference between science and religion.

Some people believe in a god or gods, some others don't and some are open to the possibility of a god or gods existing. I'm in group two and don't care what others believe. As long as you're not being a dick about it, crack on!

[img] [/img]
[url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/156204930@N03/37298641595/ ]Screenshot_20170918-072216[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/156204930@N03/ ]Neil Hodgson[/url] - [url= https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dariogf.flickr2BBcode_lite ]Flickr2BBcode LITE[/url]

The idea that religion doesn't change through new thinking and interpretations is just not true

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

For Christianity, that's sort of the whole point of the New Testament.

According to the research, nearly two-thirds of Britons – as well as nearly three-quarters of atheists – think Christians have to accept the assertion in Genesis that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh

Actually, those figures suggest that a huge chunk of British theists think Christians have to accept the assertion in Genesis that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh.

Isn't it time for an anti-religion sticky?

Its one of the few topics where abuse is tolerated, even encouraged, so rather than multiple threads, we could just have one sticky rant thread.

Much simpler.

Have you tried abusive posts?

Just jumped in to see if all the usual apologist twiffle is still running. Yep.

Haven't read the whole thread.

Any evidence for a god yet?

The search for a universal truth goes on..

The amount of bullshitting they have to do, for not killing homosexuals is hilarious.

https://bible.org/article/taking-bible-literally

Tony Blair would be proud of all the bluster in that article.

Oh, and TJ, calling people irrational is likely to be viewed as negative, regardless of how you mean it. Likewise calling people fat is likely to upset people even if it is true. We call it being polite.

Why is that important? Because religion has an effect on the nonreligious. We are expected to respect it above other non faith based opinions, to give it special consideration, to allow it to impact on life and laws. We're told we live in a christian country.

PS remember that wnhen those who are arguing for tolerance were in charge that they killed or imprisoned folk for blaspheming and denying god so forgive me for refusing a lecture on tolerance from them and their kind. Atheists dont treat them how they once treated us in the name of "the god of love"

For Christianity, that's sort of the whole point of the New Testament.

Too many 'militant' atheists have read a bit too much Dawkins, which seems to turn them into dicks.

the reason aetheists get angry is that they have to put up with their lives being affected so much by religion - terrorism, wars, and in some countries someone without any belief is worse than a terrorist FFS.

Religious peope complaining about angry aetheists is pretty similar to car drivers complaining about militant/angry bike riders, who haver to put up with cars cutting them up and threateningtheir lives all the time.

the search for a universal truth goes on

Oh there are many. Such as the moment you discover that you really like someone then your tongue-brain interface suffers a critical malfunction.

[img] [/img]

Language is difficult. Using a word with pejorative connotations is inflammatory and unhelpful.
'Irrational', while it can probably be defended on a purely logical basis, is insulting and in the context of its original use in this thread probably deliberately so.
'Non-rational' is less insulting and probably more accurate. Like the polymath who said he coped with the contradictions by compartmentalising his religion and his science. Religious belief is not based on rationality, it exists alongside rationality. In some people, generally the most educated such as the scientists who are also religious, this works well enough. When your life is dominated by the non-rational compartment, as happens with fundamentalists of any religion, the results are often less than positive for society as a whole.
Perhaps because the news, where it talks about religious people at all, is dominated by fundamentalists such as Islamist Jihadists and Southern US Christians, the survey showed that many non-religious people think that all religious people are fundamentalists.

Religious peope complaining about angry aetheists (sic) is pretty similar to car drivers complaining about militant/angry bike riders, who haver to put up with cars cutting them up and threateningtheir lives all the time.

Those bloody Go-Pros shine the light of [s]science[/s] scrutiny where they're not welcome.

Any evidence for a god yet?

There is very clear evidence tbh but you choose not to see it, stop being narrow minded and the murky water will clear quickly

Any evidence for a god yet?

Nope, there is, however, an overwhelming body of evidence that people are sometimes dicks.

But I know you're gonna forgive them 😀 People have been acting like dicks way before anyone understood the truth, perhaps there is a link.. open your mind and the answers will come

https://giphy.com/gifs/the-simpsons-awkward-bart-simpson-11gC4odpiRKuha

Too many 'militant' atheists have read a bit too much Dawkins, which seems to turn them into dicks.

the reason aetheists get angry is that they have to put up with their lives being affected so much by religion - terrorism, wars, and in some countries someone without any belief is worse than a terrorist FFS.

You can be against religion-based terrorism, religious privilege and blasphemy laws whilst simultaneously not being a dick on the internet.

Same with militant cyclists - I have a bike cam but I don't act like a dick to everyone who drives a car.

Language is difficult. Using a word with pejorative connotations is inflammatory and unhelpful.
'Irrational', while it can probably be defended on a purely logical basis, is insulting and in the context of its original use in this thread probably deliberately so.

Not deliberately so. I was using the words in their literal sense but I accept [i]once again[/i] that it was poor communication from me and that the effect taken was not what what I intended and for that I both accept the blame and apologise.

theocb - Member
Any evidence for a god yet?
There is very clear evidence tbh but you choose not to see it, stop being narrow minded and the murky water will clear quickly

Excellent!

Care to share it?

Excellent!

Care to share it?

yes, I too would like to see that very clear evidence.

I have a bike cam but I don't act like a dick to everyone who drives a car.

Its not helpful to any meaningful debate as you would then just defend being a militant cyclist rather than be able to explain why its needed to improve road safety etc.
Ditto here we discuss what is a militant atheist rather than the reason for them

Personally, I'm happy to suspend discussion whilst I await (with baited breath) theocb's final and clinching clear evidence for the existence of a god.

A historic moment indeed. ..

...anyway the links are all over the place in that Guardian article linked in the OP. The YouGov poll (it's usually a good idea to look at what journos are interpreting) link goes straight to researchers' mugshots, the link to the researchers goes to comments on the article. This doesn't inspire much confidence in the content and conclusions of the piece, which also don't square with my anecdotal experience (the latter being that most religious folk don't discount scientific theories on religious grounds).

So, helmet cams - what would jesus do?

So, helmet cams - what would jesus do?

Post videos on YouTube of the righteous smiting of internet dicks ?

I'd watch that.

Its not helpful to any meaningful debate as you would then just defend being a militant cyclist rather than be able to explain why its needed to improve road safety etc.
Ditto here we discuss what is a militant atheist rather than the reason for them

Equally, the tone adopted by some on religious threads results in the thread being about the tone adopted by some of the participants rather than on anything meaningful.

Just popping out for a ride into the as-yet unexplored Guadolfeo valley.

Really looking forward to theocb's next post.

Unless I come across a god whilst out, in which case I may get to the Nobel prize before him...

Unless I come across a god whilst out, in which case I may get to the Nobel prize before him...

If you come across a beardy guy in sandals wearing a helmet cam, i'd give him a wide berth if i were you.

why is any of it to be taken literally?

Good question. Lots of things have value that are not literal truth. People spend a lot of time studying literature or even film. The things in American Beauty did not happen, but there is good meaning in it.

How can a fact be impolite?

Because that's how people are.

Fiction can indeed be useful Molly, who has disputed this?

The problem is , unlike American Beauty, they dont think its fiction.
FWIW the parable of the sower is amongst my favourite works of fiction ever and the NT is, in general, a great read. Its not true but yes its decent fiction you can learn from

Pretty sure the religious claim a little more for Jesus mind.

the tone adopted by some on religious threads results in the thread being about the tone adopted by some of the participants rather than on anything meaningful.

Aye its definitely their fault they get name called just like its your fault for carrying the camera 😉

The religious never get called militant [ or intolerant] despite them all believing the only way to save my soul and avoid an eternity in hell is to follow the word of the book that even they dont believe all of

I am not sure that is really any less militant or any more tolerant of others views

I always like basing things on my interpretation of "what would jesus do"
But the fact I, as a non religious person, have my interpretation which differs from many Christians interpretation is a problem in itself. In as much as my interpretation would have jesus as a much more accepting and tolerant person than a lot of Christians seem to be.

What would be causing that to happen ?

The religious never get called militant [ or intolerant] despite them all believing the only way to save my soul and avoid an eternity in hell is to follow the word of the book that even they dont believe all of

"The religious" don't all believe that hell exists, let along that the only way to avoid it is to believe every word in the Bible.

The religious aren't a homogeneous group.

How can a fact be impolite?
Because that's how people are.

I have no idea what you even mean there

The religious never get called militant

Of course they do. Some of them. I cringe at the words 'them/they', even though I just used one. That's the thing with 'groups', unless they are an actual group/org with a mission-statement and/or common MO (ie Westboro Baptists) then any debate directed at 'atheists' or 'the religious' is nonsensically generalising, to the very detriment of meaningful discussion. Debate about [s]cyclists[/s] [s]immigrants[/s] [s]transgender people[/s] [s] atheists [/s] [s] the religious [/s] non-existent 'groups' would be better addressed to existing organisations. Or else just address the individual. That we do not customarily do these things is the failing of all debate, especially the internet. We're most all guily of glib generalising. Wait.. argh.

I always like basing things on my interpretation of "what would jesus do"
But the fact I, as a non religious person, have my interpretation which differs from many Christians interpretation is a problem in itself. In as much as my interpretation would have jesus as a much more accepting and tolerant person than a lot of Christians seem to be.

What would be causing that to happen ?

The Christians you see in the media (the guy from Christian Voice, the parents who took their kids out of that school, the ones outside abortion clinics aren't representative of most Christians. This skews our perceptions of what Christians think or believe.

They're the GoPro wielding fixie riders looking for trouble on the roads of the religious world. Most Christians are riding a bike with a basket on the front.

I struggle to resolve how 'liberal' religious people can ignore some of the literal bits of these religious 'word of god/gods prophets' texts, saying that they don't apply nowadays.

Bits like all the violent statements in the Quran and other texts, or all the homophobic stuff in the bible.

If they were the authorative 'word of god' and they haven't since been corrected by god or another (proven) prophet, then they still hold and are not open to some liberal interpretation, surely.

(I will one day phone in to Maajid Nawaz's excellent radio show for his view...)

I struggle to resolve how 'liberal' religious people can ignore some of the literal bits of these religious 'word of god/gods prophets' texts, saying that they don't apply nowadays.

Because the Bible is a collection of different texts, written by different people for differing purposes and in differing contexts. All of this is taken into account when interpreting what the text means.

all the homophobic stuff in the bible

Where's that then? IIRC, there's one reference in an epistle and it's specifically about same-sex prostitution.

If they were the authorative 'word of god' and they haven't since been corrected by god or another (proven) prophet, then they still hold and are not open to some liberal interpretation, surely.

Because, as above, the Bible [i]isn't[/i] considered to be the authoritative word of God, by many Christians. Which brings us neatly back the the poll in the article linked in the OP.