[Closed] Anyone for another religion thread?

Sorry, it's not clear to me: are you suggesting that it's propaganda by the Atheists in the study, or the Catholic university who funded it?

I think he's saying, that Athiests spreading it around that Christians all believe in Creationism is war propoganda.

The study just shed light on it (so it wasn't hidden under a Gary Bushell)

demonizing your enemy.

That sort of thing?

so its seems I am to be censored for reversing meftys insult..dishonest

Criminalising them

It's not really "criminalising" someone to say they will go to a place they don't believe in, for not believing something they don't believe though, is it ?

I think he's saying, that Athiests spreading it around that Christians all believe in Creationism is war propoganda.

So atheists think all Christians believe in creationism and Christians think all atheists spend their time spreading propaganda about Christians believing in creationism. I know it's been eleven pages, but war propaganda?

Just to be clear, I never said it was war propoganda.
I was just trying to help cougar understand what EB said. 😉

I was just trying to help cougar understand what EB said.

Just about to edit when I realised that but you've saved me from having to 🙂

so its seems I am to be censored for reversing meftys insult..dishonest

Nowt to do with me, I have only ever reported spam (and I am not sure I have even done that). I think calling people idiots is far less egregious that calling them mentally ill.

It's not really "criminalising" someone to say they will go to a place they don't believe in, for not believing something they don't believe though, is it ?

Granted i dont think I am going to hell, because it does not exist, but they do think this and its not all that nice.

Like suggesting they will burn in the eternity of hell if they disagree and dont do as you say ?
Criminalising them for blaspheming against a god they dont believe in ?
That sort of thing?

Do all christians believe this to be the case Junkyard?

I think he's saying, that Athiests spreading it around that Christians all believe in Creationism is war propoganda.

I'm still not entirely clear where the propaganda actually lies here, TBH.

so its seems I am to be censored for reversing meftys insult..dishonest

That would seem unlikely, I'm sure I remember reading several pages back that religion-bashing is a subject tolerated and encouraged on STW.

That would seem unlikely, mmm dyslexia then?

My point is the religious are not very tolerant of those who disagree...we all go the place reserved for the sinners, infidels and non believers.
Granted i dont think I am going to hell, because it does not exist, but they do think this and its not all that nice.

My mum is an Irish Catholic. She's one of "the religious" you speak of.

She's massively tolerant of those who disagree, in fact she's so tolerant, she often invites me and my brother for dinner. She even lets me bring my Mrs (who I'm not married to) and my little boy (who isn't baptised and was born out of wedlock!)

Also, She doesn't think that You will go to hell.
If fact she thinks you're a nice bloke.

Hope that helps 😉

For Cougar....

Episcopalian churches have a hierarchy of clergy , priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, popes etc. Kinda a top down management structure where rules are set and passed down to the punters at the bottom of the tree. The principal example is the Catholic Church although the Cof E follows a similar type of structure. The Classic organised religion.

Presbyterian churches, like the Church of Scotland, are decentralised. The congregation owns the Church and employs the minister to lead the in worship as an equal. The Administrative roles in each church are carried out by Elders who form a committee, the Kirk Session. each individual Church is responsible for its own affairs but there is a larger group of local churches, the Presbytery who share ideas and occasionally pool resources if required.
Religion by local committee if you like.

It's obviously a lot more complex and nuanced than that but that's the general gist of it.

Whats more interesting, historically speaking is how the west whilst spending several thousand years at war with the middle east managed to adopt not one but three Arab religions.

500 yrs ago Martin Luther pointed out the madness and it remains bonkers now IMO, others obviously disagree.

Just to add to pp's post, the Episcopalian Church in Scotland (and in the US) is a member of the Anglican Communion, so no Pope or Cardinals.

Whats more interesting, historically speaking is how the west whilst spending several thousand years at war with the middle east managed to adopt not one but three Arab religions.

500 yrs ago Martin Luther pointed out the madness and it remains bonkers now IMO, others obviously disagree.

aaaaand..........you stumbled into why a lot of nazis are into celt and nordic mythology.....next up on singletrackworld........Esoteric Nazism.

For Cougar....

That's really helpful, thank you for taking the time to reply.

Am I right in thinking that the Presbyterian approach is similar to Islam, in the UK at least? (Not to be inflammatory, I'm meaning in terms of the decentralised bottom-up approach, from previous discussions about the so-called "Muslim community" I was led to believe that that was broadly how Muslim mosques worked over here?)

Sorry, it's not clear to me: are you suggesting that it's propaganda by the Atheists in the study, or the Catholic university who funded it?

I'm still not entirely clear where the propaganda actually lies here, TBH.

Both. One side has learned from the other.

And they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

500 yrs ago Martin Luther pointed out the madness and it remains bonkers now IMO, others obviously disagree.

Also, Luther was partly responsible from the bout of rampant murderous idiocy in the 20th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism#Debate_on_influence_on_Nazis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_aspects_of_Nazism#Nazism_and_Christianity

Alfred Rosenberg was influential in the development of Positive Christianity. In The Myth of the Twentieth Century, he wrote that:[19]

Saint Paul was responsible for the destruction of the racial values from Greek and Roman culture; the dogma of hell advanced in the Middle Ages destroyed the free Nordic spirit; original sin and grace are Oriental ideas that corrupt the purity and strength of Nordic blood; the Old Testament and the Jewish race are not an exception and one should return to the Nordic peoples' fables and legends;

Sounds a lot like what you were saying.

Are you a Nazi? 😛

I remember once my mum telling me about a conversation she had with a couple who are/were members of the (very) extended family, and who were regular church-goers.
They asked her if my brother and I went to Sunday School/church, and she said no, we were brought up to be able to make our own minds up, to decide for ourselves whether we wanted to believe or not, upon which she got a rather pitying look, and the reply, "oh, I [i]do[/i] feel so sorry for you".
My own, considered response to this, from my adult point of view, is 'patronising bitch!'
It's this sort of attitude that I find deeply insulting, but I would never, ever deny anyone the right to believe in whatever they wish, [i]provided[/i] they allow me the same right.
I'm not an atheist as such, I describe myself as a pantheistic humanist, the [i]only[/i] thing that really offends me is the sort of person who believes, not only in a deity of one flavour or another, but also in their divine right to make it their business to tell everyone else that [i]they[/i] should believe in the self-same being.
Well, no, actually; it sodding well doesn't!

pantheistic humanist

[img] [/img]

Countzeros portrait, after his Pantheistic Humanist sainthood.

religion is supposed to be about god, but it always ends up being about money,

Always? I think you need to pay more attention and stop making huge generalisations.

As for religion being irrational - rationality is a pretty fluid concept. That's why we have rationalise as a verb.

Junkyard's view of the world seems irrationally simplistic to me in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Always? I think you need to pay more attention and stop making huge generalisations.

As for religion being irrational - rationality is a pretty fluid concept. That's why we have rationalise as a verb.

Junkyard's view of the world seems irrationally simplistic to me in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Yeah. I'm slightly amused to be honest - in this thread we have anti-materialism, occult leanings 😆 , Positive Christianity (cutting out all the old testament Jewishy bits) and the "arab religions" dig and quoting of Luther that could be seen as an anti-semitic dig. All we need now is a bit of good old fashioned Israel bashing!

It's like I've drunkenly stumbled into a Munich Beer Hall or Bayreuth Festival circa 1928. 😮 😀

They asked her if my brother and I went to Sunday School/church, and she said no, we were brought up to be able to make our own minds up, to decide for ourselves whether we wanted to believe or not, upon which she got a rather pitying look, and the reply, "oh, I do feel so sorry for you".

I don't think this is a problem with religion per sé, so much as insular life experience.

I once went to a country pub in the middle of nowhere to get some lunch. when faced with a wholly carnivorous menu I questioned the landlady about options. Met with confusion I told her I was vegetarian and she sincerely replied, "oh, I [i]am[/i] sorry" like I'd just told her I had cancer.

As for religion being irrational - rationality is a pretty fluid concept. That's why we have rationalise as a verb.

Well, it's not, is it. It's more of a sliding scale. "Rationality" is pretty well defined.

When we rationalise something we make it more rational rather than redefine what 'rational' means.

thanks Mr degree in Physics 😉 what is this other world I am missing out on that is so complex? The one you dont believe in either 🙄

Do all christians believe this to be the case Junkyard?

religion-bashing is a subject tolerated and encouraged on STW.

TBF if you are going to believe in imaginary friends as an adult then getting the piss ripped out of you seems fair and just. It's no different to an adult thinking fairys or Santa clause is real.

honestly if you use the "you have to believe to belive" lines then again it gets harder to keep a straight face.

Well done you have a religion, please accept that to a lot people it's all made up bollox. Please keep it out of politics, keep it out of business and away from impressionable kids 😉

On top of that perhaps spens a little more time agreeing what you do or don't belive in, which bits you think are true etc.

I genuinely don't know whether to be offended or not at being called dim, stupid, ignorant and insane....Can't be arsed though, because, as I said in my very first post on this thread, there is no wisdom to be found here.

Quite,if a little harsh in the conclusion.

(but still amusing to watch [s]mods[/s] just another forum user justify what gets posted. )

Anyway must "bugger off" to work now. Have a nice day!

Not to be inflammatory, I'm meaning in terms of the decentralised bottom-up approach

I'm pretty sure both Islam and Presbyterianism are are strongly against that kind of thing.

On top of that perhaps spens a little more time agreeing what you do or don't belive in, which bits you think are true etc.

If you're going to claim there's a divine guiding hand "behind" (whatever [i]that[/i] means) everything, you're going to have to come up with something better than "just have faith" to explain away the then evidently sadistic urge to inflict bone cancer in children.

Also - as there is clearly no evidence for the existence of any sort of god (hence the final redoubt of the faith position) , one has to ask, why do the religious, having been presented with this and reduced to the "faith" argument, feel the need to worship a patently non-existent ultimate power anyway?

I don't much see the point.

Junkyard's view of the world seems irrationally simplistic to me in the face of evidence to the contrary.

what evidence is that ?

If that article(remember that?) is to be "believed", it would appear that Atheism is stuck in its own cultural dark age, rigidly believing that in the case of Christianity for instance, Christians have to believe in the bible, the whole bible, and nothing but the bible. Its War propaganda, demonizing your enemy.

Herein lies the fundamental problem with these discussions. If even Christians cannot agree even amongst themselves what is and isn't part of their beliefs (and they really can't) then those of us on the outside can't really be criticised for getting it "wrong".

When we rationalise something we make it more rational rather than redefine what 'rational' means.

No - rationalisation outside of mathematics means coming up with reasons to justify something to yourself.

it would appear that Atheism is stuck in its own cultural dark age

There really isn't an atheist creed though is there? So you can't really talk about Atheism like that.

but the point remains blasphemy was illegal here

So? Society has changed a lot over the years, of course it has. As has its interpretation of Christianity. Not sure of your point. Are you trying to hold modern Christianity responsible for things that happened in the past? Despite the fact they've changed over the years?

what is this other world I am missing out on that is so complex?

The world in which other people can have different points of view.

You are saying that you know intelligent people who believe. So rather than thinking 'hmm, interesting - I wonder what that intelligent person sees in this idea that I don't?' you think 'well they must have a stupid spot in their brain'.

You don't have to believe in an idea to understand its merit. I don't listen to Beethoven, for example, but I can appreciate it's complexity and value. And I don't think less of people who do like it just because I don't.

People probably think I'm mad for going on a 2 hour bike ride in the rain at 9pm. But it means something to me. I don't try and persuade other people that they'd enjoy it, because they won't. But to me it's important.

You're basically thinking you're cleverer than everyone else, aren't you?

The world in which other people can have different points of view.

You are saying that you know intelligent people who believe. So rather than thinking 'hmm, interesting - I wonder what that intelligent person sees in this idea that I don't?' you think 'well they must have a stupid spot in their brain'.

I like all kinds of "credible" (tongue in cheek) music but hey, I also love S-Club. I compartmentalise it in the same way that intelligent people who "believe" can. Except what they're doing isn't quite so ridiculous or embarrassing. 🙂

Atheism is stuck in its own cultural dark age, rigidly believing that in the case of Christianity for instance, Christians have to believe in the bible, the whole bible

That has nothing to do with Atheism. That's just limited perception of the nature of religion. You don't have to profess Atheism to be hitched into this mis-perception. There is a significant tranche of the Christian religion that would claim exactly that as a prerequisite, for instance.

As wearisome as it is to have to continually re-state the case, Atheism is simply the absence of belief in any sort of a god.

Atheists, however, exhibit "non-rigidity" in terms of the question by being perfectly happy to accept rationally-based evidence in the existence of a god if such were produced.

To date, none is available.

People probably think I'm mad for going on a 2 hour bike ride in the rain at 9pm. But it means something to me. I don't try and persuade other people that they'd enjoy it, because they won't. But to me it's important.

that's not the same as telling people not to use condoms or genitally mutilating baby boys as well as being homophobic, sexist or other discrimination hidden behind a wall of religious freedom.

Back into the all opinions are equally valid.

Nope. Not all.

It's about respecting other people's intelligence. He's already acknowledged it in all other areas - so a bit more intelligence is required on his part to understand a different value system.

Just to be clear - this isn't about the origin of the universe. That's a small part. It's about the existence of a benign higher power who cares about us. Now, I'm not getting into that argument myself, but if an intelligent person wants to believe in it then by definition they might have intelligent reasons.

You need to learn a bit more about humanity I think and how we work.

that's not the same as telling people not to use condoms or genitally mutilating baby boys as well as being homophobic, sexist or other discrimination hidden behind a wall of religious freedom.

Nope. But I am not talking about those things (or offering justification for them). I am talking about belief in a benign higher power.

TBF if you are going to believe in imaginary friends as an adult then getting the piss ripped out of you seems fair and just. It's no different to an adult thinking fairys or Santa clause is real.

I haven't followed this entire thread, but I have to say - as one of the contributors that most often tries to assert the reasonableness of faith - that I don't actually think the majority of what is said on religion threads in general is insulting or nasty. Contributions by folk such as Cougar and Drac and miketually and others tend to be sincere and engaging. Heck, even Mr Woppit makes legitimate points!

The quote above, however, is indicative of the sort of juvenile insult that just doesn't help these threads along. There is clearly a substantial number of completely rational and intelligent people who believe in God that don't warrant having 'the piss ripped out of [them]'. By all means, declare that you think belief in God is non-rational, and literally in-credible, but don't be an ass and equate a philosophical/theological proposition with 'fairies or santa claus'.

Just to be clear - this isn't about the origin of the universe. That's a small part. It's about the existence of a benign higher power who cares about us. Now, I'm not getting into that argument myself, but if an intelligent person wants to believe in it then by definition they have intelligent reasons.

[i]I see you edited to add a might there[/i]

We have intelligent people telling us that belief in God is not the same as belief in Santa, but some people don't want to listen to the answer. You are exhibiting the confirmation bias of which you area accusing the religious.

We have intelligent people telling us that belief in God is not the same as belief in Santa, but some people don't want to listen to the answer

... and yet they struggle to explain why that is the case in any sort of meaningful way.