[Closed] Anyone for another religion thread?

Sorry, but that's not true- atheism isn't belief, it's the absence of belief.

(some crusading atheists really do seem to have atheism as a religion, I always think they're not truly atheists at all but antitheists, they believe so strongly in their disbelief)

I don't think that is really true. Human life has no function so could been seen as pointless so we all look for some point to life otherwise we would not do stuff. Our morals and beliefs/motivations are at their base full of contradictions and inconsistencies. Some people might be atheists but live their lives with some belief that certain behaviors are the right thing to do.

Im failing to see how you can take comfort in the death of others

Pretty sure everyone knows that's not what I meant.

What I meant was that it's a more comforting thought that someone you have loved and lost continues to exist in some form rather than having permenantly ceased to exist.

"hodgynd" that was a very very genuine reply. Who is goody two shoes??? 🙂 I think your question could have been expanded as everybody wants to think that their life is/was some how worth it. Pointing a finger at religious people is a bit short sighted when all motivations basically are made up/created by us.

Growing up as a catholic, older catholics dealing with the death of a close one were evenly split between:

"It made me lose my faith"
"If it weren't for my faith, I don't know how I'd have got through it."
"It was a great test of my faith, but God likes to test us doesn't he?"

(And of course plenty of nuance in between.)

If I'm honest, for me, because I only remember feeling affection for one grandparent (one I never knew and the other two lived in Manchester for most of my childhood - so I didn't really know them - although apparently as a 5 or 6 year old when we visited, I had a great relationship and mutual fondness with my maternal granddad), the thought that granny Darcy had gone to heaven after a horrible battle with a brain tumour [i][b]was[/b][/i] very comforting and I can understand coming up with something else mythical - "she/he's always with us" type thing for a young child who doesn't quite get the concept of death yet for the loss of a close one.

I've often thought that to have faith must be a great thing - to know when bad things happen that there's an underlying reason (even knowing that you don't understand it) must be a great comfort when times are hard, there's been a time or two where I'd wished I had faith. Lot of respect for those of genuine faith, and within the limited experience of one person's life, those I've come across have always been in the upper echelons of the most kindly, patient and giving people I know. Make of that what you will.

Death being absolute is very comforting to me. It means I don't have to worry about hell (or heavan which sounds worse) coming back as a bed bug or any other such horror.

Correct thread now, Darcy. 8)

Perchy
I'm also pretty sure that as a stand alone line( and taken out of context) folks can also see it wasn't meant in the way you have interpreted it.

It just shows though ..genuine confusion in the space of few minutes ..we only see what we want to see..

Sorry, but that's not true- atheism isn't belief, it's the absence of belief.
(some crusading atheists really do seem to have atheism as a religion, I always think they're not truly atheists at all but antitheists, they believe so strongly in their disbelief)

I don't think that is really true. Human life has no function so could been seen as pointless so we all look for some point to life otherwise we would not do stuff. Our morals and beliefs/motivations are at their base full of contradictions and inconsistencies. Some people might be atheists but live their lives with some belief that certain behaviors are the right thing to do.

Being atheist means not believing in god(s). It does not mean anything else (such as believing human life has no function).

I think in the US and especially in those areas where the overwhelming majority are religious, there is more of an atheist identity which is about people needing to feel some support for their views (note not 'beliefs'). And some religious folk size on this 'identity' to say look they're just like us (but with the wrong beliefs). Well, psychologically they may be in that we're all human, and they may even be part of a small 'p' political movement. But that does not make atheism a belief system.

I don't know if atheism even needs a word. I'm atapdancinspidersatthebottomofmygardenist too I guess, I don't think about these things that often.

Speaking as someone who once had a close working relationship with a very creative and intelligent person who was diagnosed as having a "schizo-affective disorder" and claimed in all seriousness that the voice in his head was "from hell, baby" but refused his medication and eventually threw himself under a train, if I ever met this "Chief Excorcist" I'd feel strongly impelled to punch the * straight in the face.

Woppit, if you're still reading this thread, what I am about to say is not in any way meant to convince you of the idea of an exorcist, but I do want you to know that

a) I, personally, agree with you, insofar as your late colleague lost his life because of a mental illness, and it is both insulting and a load of b***s to suggest that it was something like possession.

b) The Church, however, does not equate mental illness with possession. It is true that it probably did at one time - long before any of us knew what mental illness was. Today, however, before the idea of exorcism would even be raised, the Church would ask for a full, independent, physical and psychiatric evaluation, alongside looking into a person's social history, etc.

c) In other words, it's not like there are priests out there - appointed by the Vatican or otherwise - running around declaring people to be possessed and 'casting out devils'.

Now remember: I am not saying any of this to 'convince' you of anything. I just wanted to clarify a few things before you punched out the Vatican's Chief Exorcist (although you may want to do so for other reasons).

why is this still going? get outside and forget this BS.

GEDA - Member

I don't think that is really true. Human life has no function so could been seen as pointless so we all look for some point to life otherwise we would not do stuff. Our morals and beliefs/motivations are at their base full of contradictions and inconsistencies. Some people might be atheists but live their lives with some belief that certain behaviors are the right thing to do.

Yep, but that's not just atheism. Atheism is just the bit about not believing in any gods, everything else is other things you do at the same time. Atheists don't lack a moral (or immoral) code or an ethos or an inspiration any more than the religious get all of theirs from their faith (or for that matter, that all of theirs is compatible with their faith)

why is this still going? get outside and forget this BS.

it's not like there are priests out there - appointed by the Vatican or otherwise - running around declaring people to be possessed and 'casting out devils'.

I saw exorcisms at a Christian festival, Spring Harvest, in the 1990s.

The other day I saw a young girl coming down the staircase at the station with a croped white top on - that certainly made me think that there must be a god after all...

The other day I saw a young girl coming down the staircase at the station with a croped white top on - that certainly made me think that there must be a god after all...

hallelujah!

I saw exorcisms at a Christian festival, Spring Harvest, in the 1990s.

I assume they were Pentecostals or some such group?

No mainline Christian Church would seriously countenance random (or even not-so-random) exorcisms.

I would say that an atheist is of the understanding that they have broken free of the need to lead their life based on irrational "religious" beliefs be that a god or energy force for example.

My point being that all human beliefs/thoughts/worlds we create for our selves are at their basis full of contradictions and inconsistencies and irrational. There is no rationality to life. Maybe that is why it is so much fun.

I saw exorcisms at a Christian festival, Spring Harvest, in the 1990s.
I assume they were Pentecostals or some such group?

No mainline Christian Church would seriously countenance random (or even not-so-random) exorcisms.

I think it was the same people who organise http://www.springharvest.org/about/ , so fairly mainstream.

GEDA..
I'm not pointing a finger at anyone ..I asked a fairly genuine question which wasn't answered by yourself ..instead you chose to re-write some of my own observations ..
To clarify ..the actual question was " As you get older do you worry more about death ..or is this something you are looking forward to?
If you feel uncomfortable answering that ..no problem ..I just didn't really appreciate the smart arsed reply .

[img] [/img]

To clarify ..the actual question was " As you get older do you worry about death ..or is this something you are looking forward to?
If you feel uncomfortable answering that ..no problem ..I just didn't really appreciate the smart arsed reply .

I would say that an atheist is of the understanding that they have broken free of the need to lead their life based on irrational "religious" beliefs be that a god or energy force for example.

you can say that all you want but I've not broken free of anything. I just don't believe in the existence of god(s). We are not born into this world believing in a god or needing to believe. Atheism is such a simple concept to understand yet you seem to **** that up for some reason.

As you get older do you worry about death ..or is this something you are looking forward to?

I don't worry about it at all but it is also not something I look forward to.

Dying isn't a problem, it is usually the last few years before dying that can be grim but I have a plan to cut that bit short which interestingly many religions wouldn't allow/agree with...

We are not born into this world needing to believe

Maybe some people are. If they have a specific personality disorder which leads them to needing to believe. This disorder gets passed on genetically.

Take 10 new borns to an island and see which half starts making up gods and stuff as they grow up. Can also see which are racist, which are homophobic etc,.
Great experiment (maybe not for the kids involved though!)

Call god what you want but it is just one way for us to organise purpose into an otherwise irrational and cosmically pointless lives. Purpose is good it makes us happy and do things. It is just my opinion that calling oneself an atheist is pretty pointless as one still has the same kind of opinions about what is right or wrong that are based on human creativity.

calling oneself an atheist is pretty pointless

OK... You stop the sky fairy nonsense and we will drop the name... Oh hang on....

Maybe some people are. If they have a specific personality [s]disorder[/s] which leads them to needing to believe.

Why is it a disorder? Very very arrogant of you to assume anyone who doesn't agree with you on a topic is mentally deficient.

Call god what you want but it is just one way for us to organise purpose into an otherwise irrational and cosmically pointless lives. 

500 posts....Moley must be rubbing his hands together with glee!

What's next I wonder...must be time for a new Brexit thread?

GEDA - Member
Call god what you want but it is just one way for us to organise purpose into an otherwise irrational and cosmically pointless lives

Purpose is good it makes us happy and do things.

What I meant was that it's a more comforting thought that someone you have loved and lost continues to exist in some form rather than having permenantly ceased to exist.

I asked a question concerning this earlier but you probably missed it. So, that being the case - your belief in an existence after what we are now - would the whole thing be less attractive without that notion...?

Worth repeating this.

People seem to have missed it.

A genuine equestion for the "how can you believe in imaginary sky fairy" types.

Is it OK to believe in an actual, historically documented human being who had some nice things to say about how they thought people should behave to live a good life?

You don't need to believe that they were possessed of any mystical powers or anything.

Only that they were real people, who must have been considered pretty hot shit by their contemporaries to be remmembered after all this time, who dispensed real lessons which might still resonate with people hundred or even thousands of years later?

nealglover - Member
Worth repeating this.

People seem to have missed it.

your belief in an existence after what we are now - would the whole thing be less attractive without that notion...?

It would be no more or less attractive. It's not like buying a car where you have a tick list of features that might be deal breakers.

If it had, I would have gone for a more exotic, sexy reincarnation based religion.

It was the furthest thing from my contemplation when I first walked through the doors of a church.

People buy a certain type of dwelling, transport vehicle, food as they have a set of ideas in their head that this is good and will lead to a better life etc even if it is not a conscious decision.

These ideas are not based on any great truth or rationality anymore than religion is. They are based on the imaginative creativity of our human minds to create a purposeful life. It is a huge strength for us as a species that we have that creativity to create other worlds in our heads.

What's your thought on my reply? All those people from history remembered, quoted, revered, hated, loved and influential

The point is, did you believe in them?

They were all undoubtedly real people and they had something to say.

So, according to almost all historians, were Confucius, Buddha and Jesus Christ?

Are we allowed to believe in them as human beings with a message to tell?

Not imaginary, not fairies. Real people.

[img] [/img]
Sorry Perchy, this is the only image popping in to my head there 🙂

Are we allowed to believe in them as human beings with a message to tell?

Not imaginary, not fairies. Real people.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2017/09/just-6-percent-of-british-adults-are-practising-christians-survey-finds

Good people generally live by rule 1 don't be a dick, that is fine.

The issue with that is defining what constitutes being a dick.

So, according to almost all historians, were Confucius, Buddha and Jesus Christ?

no direct evidence of Budda, evidence of someone called Jesus is hearsay as is the evidence of Confucius.

We are not born into this world believing in a god

There's some fascinating fiction on this subject. Children isolated from the world to see if they have an innate knowledge of God.

Jill Patton Walsh's [i]Knowledge of Angels[/i] is a tough read but a good start. I'd also (once again) recommend CS Lewis' books - the ones that don't have lions.

The issue with that is defining what constitutes being a dick.

I think it was the same people who organise http://www.springharvest.org/about/ , so fairly mainstream.

Just checked, and they're definitely of the Pentecostal persuasion. In the world of Evangelicalism, it can be hard to discern who is mainstream and who is not, but these folk definitely do not represent mainstream Christianity.

By mainstream, I mean, in no particular order:

Catholic
Orthodox
Anglican
Lutheran
Presbyterian
Methodist
United Reformed

The list isn't exhaustive, but by and large these bodies would all be represented at the World Council of Churches.

(Many) Evangelical (though not all) and Pentecostal churches are not 'mainline', and are generally accountable only to themselves. In other words, what they do, say, and believe can be quite arbitrary.

like?

Eyebrows

DNA lengthening

no direct evidence of Budda, evidence of someone called Jesus is hearsay as is the evidence of Confucius.

Really? what do you mean by 'direct' evidence? and where do you get that Confucius is hearsay? What do you mean by that?

All of what we know about historical figures is seen through the prism of historical documents not fact. They have lived their lives, written things or been written about for example and then maybe someone has written about that. It becomes no different to a story after the initial actions of those people. If they were real people or events becomes irrelevant after that point.

warmongering

That's difficult to define too

I'll kick off with Racist, homophobic, sexist and warmongering then we can kick on with the really bad stuff

As I keep pointing out - Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. Those things you posted aren't very objective.

[quoteThe issue with that is defining what constitutes being a dick.

And where should we look for guidance on this?

no direct evidence of Budda, evidence of someone called Jesus is hearsay as is the evidence of Confucius.

poah, where on earth do you get your 'facts' from?

Evidence for the existence of Jesus is textual and residually archaeological in the same way that evidence for Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars is textual and residually archaeological.

Most academics would accept this, regardless of faith persuasion.

And where should we look for guidance on this?

Good question. If it were easy, I imagine we'd have had it sorted by now 🙂

poah, where on earth do you get your 'facts' from?

"yeah, but sky fairies"

Fun

Eyebrows

DNA lengthening

what about fun, eyebrowns and DNA lengthening?

Really? what do you mean by 'direct' evidence? and where do you get that Confucius is hearsay? What do you mean by that

seriously?

Nealglover I ignored it the first time you posted it (athiests rule one) but, go on, what is the actual documented recorded evidence for jesus outside of the new testament ? is there even a record of Nazareth existing in 4 BCE ?or of Herod's slaughter of the innocents?

poah, where on earth do you get your 'facts' from?

Evidence for the existence of Jesus is textual and residually archaeological in the same way that evidence for Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars is textual and residually archaeological.

Most academics would accept this, regardless of faith persuasion.

evidence for Jesus is written after the fact by other people (jews and Christians).

Julius Caesar has direct evidence for his existence

what is the actual documented recorded evidence for jesus outside of the new testament ? is there even a record of Nazareth existing in 4 BCE ?or of Herod's slaughter of the innocents?

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died ]Take a read through this[/url].

So archeological evidence is nil ( not actually a surprise that one) and the first reference written almost 100years after his death.

That doesn't sound awfully convincing if I'm honest.

Evidence for the existence of Jesus is textual and residually archaeological

@gonefishin: Well, I'm sorry to say that that's how a great deal of historical evidence from antiquity and late antiquity is, so I guess it's back to the drawing board for a lot of what we believe to be true about the past.

And to be clear, I said 'residually archaeological'. What this means is that other archaeological evidence sets the figure in question into context, and contributes to the primary premise - in this case, that the person Jesus actually existed.

Have you got any good factual evidence about the universe came about? I mean pre Big bang, pre False Vacuum (Not that I really understood it when I read about it)?

I know I am here but how the heck did it get here? If we create a virtual environment containing an intelligent consciousness that only knows and can only know the virtual environment it exists in would it have the same questions?

If you go back in history the belief in a supreme being is quite a new and recent development. People used to believe in inanimate objects rather than gods or supreme beings, such as worshiping the sun, fire, the moon etc. so there is no evidence that someone born into isolation would dream up the idea of a supreme being over just, through ignorance and lack of education about the motion of the solar system, be thankful to the sun for coming up every day worrying that one day fearful that one day it wont rise.

Religions are built on what stories people choose to believe and what they choose not to believe for no sensible reason or logic. You can believe if you want that there was a jolly nice chap around 2000 years ago that said some nice things....apparently. There is evidence that Jesus existed, although there is no evidence other than legend, folklore and stories passed down the generations that he was anything other than a nice chap who said some nice things.

But there is other folklore, legends and stories passed down through the generations that suggest he was born of a mother who like a bit of slap and tickle behind her husbands back with the odd Roman soldier and had a talent for telling tall stories and people believing her, and who himself was partial to partying all night with flowing red wine and the odd lady of the night. However these legends and folklore some people choose to dismiss with a nonchalant wave of their hand are just as relevant and likely to be true, and hey presto, a religion is born on the strength of that filtering and picking and choosing of who we put on pedestals and who we demonise.

But there is other folklore, legends and stories passed down through the generations that suggest he was born of a mother who like a bit of slap and tickle behind her husbands back with the odd Roman soldier and had a talent for telling tall stories and people believing her, and who himself was partial to partying all night with flowing red wine and the odd lady of the night.

Is there? Got a link?

 

so Tacitus born 50 something CE and Josephus (controversial that one) writing in is it 98CE not in any way contemporary accounts.

Ceasar's Gallic wars are a) a first hand account b)confirmed by contemporaries eg Cicero c) the fact of a Gallic Campaign is clear from the archaeology d) as a book the Gallic Wars is probably factually inaccurate.

Take a read through this.

yes, but we've seen Life of Brian and know how these stories can get out of hand.

Someone like Derrin Brown could easily pass himself off as the Messiah, or even just a very naughty boy, if he were in those times.

Did anyone see the series where he was training someone to be an evangelist - and the episode where he lay hands on a young man who was sitting out of a basketball game his friends were playing because he had had a dodgy knee for years, after an accident?

They told him he might feel some heat around his knee during the laying of hands, and he did, and after the healing he was bouncing around proclaiming that his knee didn't hurt anymore, and went off to play some basketball.

Sounds like a miracle to me...

I know I am here but how the heck did it get here? If we create a virtual environment containing an intelligent consciousness that only knows and can only know the virtual environment it exists in would it have the same questions?

those questions don't give credence to a god, just to our lack of knowledge at this point.

Have you got any good factual evidence about the universe came about? I mean pre Big bang, pre False Vacuum (Not that I really understood it when I read about it)?

nope but that doesn't mean a god made it, it means we don't know. to say god exists because we don't know is argumentum ad ignorantiam, a logical fallacy.

So....

Not allowed to believe in God because skyfairies
Not allowed to believe in the Man Jesus because archeology and Derren Brown.

Can I believe in Guru Nanak? His existence has never been disputed to the best of my , albeit limted, knowledge.

Would it be cool with the atheist kids if I were to become a Sikh instead?

What about L. Ron Hubbard? Pretty sure he was real. I've seen documentaries with him in it on the telly and everything.
Should I abandon the apparently sham teachings of a guy who may not have even existed and become a Scientologist instead?

Is there a Church of Elvis?

Should I abandon the apparently sham teachings of a guy who may not have even existed and become a Scientologist instead?

Nah just worship the great strawman.

Fast moving thread, this.

I think it's problematic to assert that Jesus as depicted in the Bible definitely did or didn't exist. The earliest written records about him were, to the best of my knowledge and please correct me if I'm wrong, written decades or even centuries after his death.

I think it's plausible that he did exist in some form, maybe a bloke who went around doing nice things. Perhaps with a neat sideline in early street magic. But historians of the day wouldn't be able to look him up on Wikipedia, they'd almost certainly have relied of word-of-mouth accounts. And what do we do when we tell a tale? We embellish it a little. Over centuries it's not a great leap to end up at the feeding of the 5,000 when he had a couple of mates around and thought to bring a packed lunch. This is how legends are born.

Also, it could well be that once word got around, people started attributing other people's actions to him. See a bloke helping someone up off the floor? Ah, must be that Jesus fella.

By way of comparison, look at Robin Hood. A millennia on, similar sort of timescales, we all know the legends and there's some evidence as to who he might have been, and yet [i]we don't actually know for certain that he was real.[/i] If we can't be certain about someone in the Middle Ages, how can we hope to be certain about someone from the year dot?

nope but that doesn't mean a god made it, it means we don't know.

Moreover, "god did it" doesn't answer the question, it just displaces it. Where did god come from? Did his god create him? Like your artificial universe scenario, is it gods all the way up?

What if [i]we're[/i] that artificial universe?

please correct me if I'm wrong, written decades or even centuries after his death.

Read the linked article, earliest within 25 years, gospels all written within decades.

Not allowed to believe in God because skyfairies
Not allowed to believe in the Man Jesus because archeology and Derren Brown.

You're allowed to believe in what you like. we live in relatively enlightened times.

nope but that doesn't mean a god made it

It also doesn't mean a god didn't make it. This is the whole point.

to say god exists because we don't know is argumentum ad ignorantiam, a logical fallacy

I don't think that's what's being said. From what I can tell, the considered argument is "We don't know that God exists, but [i]I believe[/i] He does"

I think it's problematic to assert that Jesus as depicted in the Bible definitely did or didn't exist.

Doesn't actually matter though does it.

Jesus, whether historically verifiable or not, is attributed as having said some things which many people, myself included, think were quite groovy and choose to try and emulate as much as we can.

It doesn't actually matter if he was real, if God is real, if Jonah really survived for 3 days in the belly of a great fish.

To me, these bits are just the colourful backstory to the bits that really matter.

It also doesn't mean a god didn't make it. This is the whole point.

you just proved my point lol we know god doesn't exist therefore he could not have made the universe.

Not allowed to believe in God
Not allowed to believe in the Man Jesus

believe what ever you want just don't try and tell me its true with no evidence or force those beliefs on other people (not specifically you) If you can show me hard facts that god exists then I will believe it.

just don't try and tell me its true with no evidence or force those beliefs on other people

The entire thread has not been about that. Why bring it up? Just a general whinge? I hate middle-lane hoggers too.

Doesn't actually matter though does it.

Well, no, I was just making conversation.

The entire thread has not been about that. Why bring it up?

seriously? I was replying to perchypanther's post. I know it was hard to see that what with me replying to a quote.

So was PP telling you to believe in God or telling you God exists?

Nah, i was telling him that I believe in some historians, both secular and religious, who believe in the existence of a man who is believed to have said some stuff that I believe in.

It's belief all the way down. 😉

I've never asked anyone else to believe anything.

we know god doesn't exist therefore he could not have made the universe