[Closed] Anyone for another religion thread?

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.