[Closed] Anyone for another religion thread?

Article that suggests athiests don't know much about what believers believe, but make assumptions instead.

Did you read it?

Some atheists posting here are confirming the survey being reported in the article.

Cougar - Moderator

Point of note here whilst we're discussing not understanding each other: It's not that we believe there is no god, rather that we don't believe that there is a god. Atheism does not require a belief system.

Yep. I think you were agreeing with me/reinforcing my point but I'm not 100% so just to add, that's exactly what I meant.

Malvern Rider - Member

Let me get this right- a 'poll' found that the vast majority of (polled) 'athiests' believe that a vast majority of Christians reject evolution?

And this is the problem. Christianity specifically contradicts evolution. The christian creation myth is disproved by evolution. That's why it was such an incredible hot potato when it was first mooted. Of course, that's old testament and people draw a line between that and new- but it was the word of god.

So if you're a christian, but you disregard [i]one[/i] part of the bible, as many do then- what's making the other bits that you haven't disregarded special? Why should we respect faith-based distaste for homosexuality, for instance, from someone who has other positions that are contrary to that faith.

In some ways I find fundamentalism worthy of respect. Like Rees Mogg's position on abortion- I think it's horribly wrong but he stands by it and he has what to him are good reasons.

NOrthwind

Rees Mogg is still a pick and chose christian. "It is easier for a (rope of) camel (hair) to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to go to heaven"

"I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

"If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest."

In some ways I find fundamentalism worthy of respect. Like Rees Mogg's position on abortion- I think it's horribly wrong but he stands by it and he has what to him are good reasons.

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

reading [i]any[/i] Dawkins turns anybody into a dick TBH, you don't need to be an atheist.

I'm glad to be an agnostic

Holding up Dawkins as a posterboy representative for all Atheists is about as relevant as quoting Leviticus to represent modern Christianity. Ie, not at all, they're both lazy cheap-shot arguments.

I'm glad to be an agnostic

Are you sure?

This latest religion beating thread at least started with some sort of a point.

But really. You don't have to have faith but it's important not to be stupid or hateful isn't it?

Cougar - Leviticus is more than a little odd but the bible is either the word of god or it isn't and the other two quotes are new testament IIRC

Leviticus is fun 'cos its so completely bonkers

Yep suits me sir

Holding up Dawkins as a posterboy representative for all Atheists is about as relevant as quoting Leviticus to represent modern Christianity. Ie, not at all, they're both lazy cheap-shot arguments.

Dawkins is relevant as the religion he attacks is the religion inaccurately imagined by the people surveyed.

This latest religion beating thread at least started with some sort of a point.

To get back to the original point of the thread, I'm an atheist and I think I have a pretty good idea of mainstream UK Anglican beliefs, but I'd agree that many atheists don't.

This latest religion beating thread

Are we reading the same thread?

If anything, it's (at least initially) an atheist-bashing thread. Sure, we've got the usual suspects being inflammatory for the luls, but discussing <> bashing, non?

I think most folk who are atheists actually know a fair bit about religion. I would love to see the methodology as well as Its been commissioned by a religious institution to meet their needs

Its been commissioned by a religious institution to meet their needs

... allegedly.

But yeah, I'd like to see the working also.

No you aren't. You said, "Article that suggests athiests don't know much about what believers believe, but make assumptions instead."

I simply told you what the article suggested. I didn't say that I agreed with it. Very important distinction. I read it, and shared it, because it's relevant to the arguments we have on here. I have no idea what percentage of atheists believe that about Christians - I didn't do the study. I have no idea how well the study was conducted.

But anyway:

A lot of atheists are exactly confirming the findings of the study. That is - you don't really understand what Christians believe.

Christianity specifically contradicts evolution.

No it doesn't. There is no one Christian creed, is there? This is exactly the point. You don't have to treat the bible as literal truth. You just don't. Only a minority of Christians do. We've got the Pope telling us that evolution and the big bang are real - how much more proof do you need that Christianity doesn't contradict evolution?

Rather ironic though that some atheist posters are getting the hump about being told what they believe, whilst simultaneously doing it to Christians 😆

molgrips - Member

We've got the Pope telling us that evolution and the big bang are real - how much more proof do you need that Christianity doesn't contradict evolution?

That's not proof that christianity doesn't contradict evolution- it's proof that many christians are prepared to ignore inconvenient or outmoded parts of their holy text, while simultaneously saying that other things they believe are the word of god and have meaning because it's in the bible. If anything you're just arguing my point.

The other thing about this is that it's a moving target; today's modern christians are very often recognisably different from 1970s modern christians, and 1930s modern christians. My gran considered most of her practitioners to be apostate and wanted them kicked out of the church. In 2050, what other things will have been abandoned as outmoded or no longer relevant? I reckon that the overwhelming majority of popes would consider the current one a heretic.

Molgrips - Christianity states quite clearly that the earth is 4000 yrs old and created in 8 days. Christianity also clearly states the bible is the word of god.

Some "Christians" try to explain the discrepancy between scientific knoledge and the bible as allegory or something similar. Thats dancing around the fact that the bible is bunkum.

Molgrips - Christianity states quite clearly that the earth is 4000 yrs old and created in 8 days. Christianity also clearly states the bible is the word of god.

Firstly, no, it doesn't state the earth is 4,000 years old. That number (actually 6,000) was calculated by someone adding up the ages of all the people listed in the old testament AFAIK. Secondly, where does 'Christianity' clearly state that the bible is the word of God? Since when does Christianity have one single spokesperson?

Pope Francis has said that the big bang and evolution are real. Are you seriously claiming you, an atheist, know more about what Christianity thinks than THE ACTUAL POPE? Think about how ridiculous you are being!

If there's one person who can claim to have authority on Christianity, it's the Pope! I know you can be cocky at times but claiming you know more about Christianity than the Pope takes the biscuit 😆

The survey wasn't about what the Bible says, it was about what atheists think Christians believe.

I know many Christians, including one with a physics PhD. As far as I know, none of them believe that Genesis is anything other than allegory.

Who's the pop?

I believe in God. Just like I believe there are concepts like conscience, intelligence, love, fear, shame etc. They are all in your head and nowhere else. Pretty hard to deny them. So prayer is like talking to yourself and thinking about stuff. A bit like meditation. No wonder it helps.

When you die the lights go out.

So I guess I believe in God but I don't believe in God.

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.

Same here. I'm happy for anyone and happy to know and even be a friend of that someone, if you're living a decent life, as a decent person, in a decent manner. End of.

My own weirdo mysticism is my own lookout, and its entirely personal and subjective, based on my own experiences. You may well have decided that a voice speaking to you from nowhere as you walked along, reassuring you that its all part of some meaningful design and just to be zen about it, leaving you with a sense of calm more profound than anything else you ever experienced, was actually the onset of some kind of mental breakdown- for me, it was an answer to a question I'd been asking 'something' for years.

YMMV. But hey, just dont be a dick, its all anyone can ask of you.

xx

If there's one person who can claim to have authority on Christianity, it's the Pope!

Catholicism maybe, but there are many more flavours of Christianity who think that the Pope ain't all that.

Molgrips - its how its written - god says, the lord said etc. sorry about the 4000 yr thing tho - yo are right on that.

Otherwise this :

That's not proof that christianity doesn't contradict evolution- it's proof that many christians are prepared to ignore inconvenient or outmoded parts of their holy text, while simultaneously saying that other things they believe are the word of god and have meaning because it's in the bible. If anything you're just arguing my point.

I wonder why it is you never hear about atheists slaughtering other atheists for not being the proper sort of atheist.

No, just the wrong sort of [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor ]nationality[/url].

And the wrong sort of [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak ]class[/url].

😀

Incidentally, I should add that I don't actually think atheists kill people any more than religious people kill people. People kill people, and use any excuse they can to do it.

perchypanther - Member
If there's one person who can claim to have authority on Christianity, it's the Pope!
Catholicism maybe, but there are many more flavours of Christianity who think that the Pope ain't all that.

And I would add- its even more complex than that if you're actually a Catholic- which Pope?

The day I walked into the house- I think I was 16- and argued with my 'only RC goes to heaven!' uncle that, as RC, we weren't even the direct descendants of the church of Peter but we were the splitters! was one of the greatest days of my life. As a profound, lifelong Catholic- he didn't even know that. No-one had told him.

Follow your heart and try and commune with whatever is out there, its just words in a book, the real words are written elsewhere.

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

Molgrips - its how its written - god says, the lord said etc.

It says that in the Bible, yes. But if you don't believe everything in the Bible is literal truth, then you don't need to believe it just because it says that....

circular arguement molgrips. If the bible says " god said" and its contradicted by science and you don't believe that bit how can you believe any bit.

Its not a pick and mix.

SaxonRider - Member

I wonder why it is you never hear about atheists slaughtering other atheists for not being the proper sort of atheist.

No, just the wrong sort of nationality.

And the wrong sort of class.

😀

Those atrocities weren't perpetrated because of the absence of a belief in a god, or in the name of atheism. When a christian kills someone it needn't be in the name of god, similarly when an atheist kills someone it's not in the name of the non existence of god. Communism is a belief system that allows you to allign with a group, target another group and if they are successful kill them and take their stuff. In that respect it's like a religion.

If the bible says " god said" and its contradicted by science and you don't believe that bit how can you believe any bit.

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?

You could treat it as what it is, which is a collection of historical writings about religion and events. And you could look for the word of God buried within the words of men. If you wanted to.

If Christians want to do that then they can. It's not up to you to tell Christians how to worship, is it?

Its not a pick and mix.

Yes it is.

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.