[Closed] Archbishop of Canturbury expresses doubt about the existence of god...

so long as they don't try to foist their beliefs on me, by force or otherwise

Or through advertising?

[quote=Cougar ]

I have no problem with a group of people meeting up every Sunday who can in-turn help people in difficult circumstances.

None probably, given that I have similar views on her existence to you. Would you like to point me at the similar organisations which fulfil the same function but aren't religious though?

I presume you're not suggesting that churches are full of evil people, or inherently evil institutions, so your objection is simply the harmless imaginary person they talk to. A harmless imaginary person who fulfils a useful function for many people despite being imaginary.

I do get the point that it might be better if there were support groups which didn't have a lie as their basis, but let's get back to the real world where churches do provide something good for many people which isn't otherwise available.

No you don't have to have god as a source of morals, comfort etc., but we live in a society where that is largely the case and simply removing god tends to also result in removing the morals...

I sometimes wish I wasn't so rational and hadn't completely lost the religion I was brought up with.

(note, not particularly aimed at you, several people on here saying similar things).

As CountZero says there were religions well before Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. etc. Why are those now discredited but these current beliefs thrive? Maybe it's just a natural progression from many Gods to one? Hopefully that will continue to its natural conclusion.

Would you like to point me at the similar organisations which fulfil the same function but aren't religious though?

Plenty of villages have 'community centre' type arrangements. Regardless, is 'god' the answer when we don't? What's that bringing to the table beyond coercion?

I presume you're not suggesting that churches are full of evil people, or inherently evil institutions

Well, that's two very different questions you've conflated there.

simply removing god tends to also result in removing the morals...

If you can only control the populace with threats of hell and bribes of heaven, the issue here isn't god.

[quote=Cougar ]Plenty of villages have 'community centre' type arrangements.

Do you live in a village? I do, and regularly visit others, and can't think of any sort of "community centre" thing which provides many of the valuable services a church does.

Regardless, is 'god' the answer when we don't? What's that bringing to the table beyond coercion?

When the alternatives are "god" and "nothing" then yes that is the answer. You must have visited some rather strange churches if you think it's about coercion - though as I already pointed out the imaginary person bit is irrelevant.

If you can only control the populace with threats of hell and bribes of heaven, the issue here isn't god.

Well done, you've got it. She is irrelevant.

Actually describes himself strictly as agnostic and specifically says he can't be 100% certain.

plenty of people are fed up with Richard Dawkins because of his complete self-confidence that God does not exist

Thousands of people die horrible deaths every day though murder, war, famine, and disease. Poor Justin must either be blissfully unaware of this

I don't know the context of his comments, but I don't see why you'd assume he's not bothered about anything else just because he was talking about Paris at the time.

aracer - Member

No you don't have to have god as a source of morals, comfort etc., but we live in a society where that is largely the case and simply removing god tends to also result in removing the morals...

What a load of rubbish. Sorry, but you can see every day religious people acting in ways that are contradictory to their own religions never mind anyone else's sense of morals. But suddenly it becomes a problem when they're not religious? Give over.

There a recent study showing that religious types are less moral and generous than non-religious types :

Our findings robustly demonstrate that children from households identifying as either of the two major world religions (Christianity and Islam) were less altruistic than children from non-religious households," state researches involved in the study, "Negative Association Between Religiousness and Children's Altruism Across the World."

Moreover, the negative relation between religiousness and spirituality and altruism changes across age, with those children with longer experience of religion in the household exhibiting the greatest negative relations," adds the study, which involved about 1,200 children, aged between 5 and 12, in the U.S., Canada, China, Jordan, Turkey and South Africa. Roughly a quarter of these children identified themselves as Christian.

The study explained that the sharing of resources was with an anonymous child beneficiary from the same school and similar ethnic group. "Therefore, this result cannot be simply explained by in-group versus out-group biases that are known to change children's cooperative behaviors from an early age, nor by the known fact that religious people tend to be more altruistic toward individuals from their in-group," it argues.

The children were asked to play a game in which they had to decide how many stickers they would share with the peer. They were also asked to judged others' actions.

The study also claimed that religiosity affects children's punitive tendencies when evaluating interpersonal harm. "Interestingly, this result is in sharp contrast with reports that patterns of moral judgments made by subjects with a religious background do not differ from those who are atheists," it said, adding, "Research indicates that religiousness is directly related to increased intolerance for and punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses, including the probability of supporting harsh penalties."

The study concluded with the remark that more generally, their findings "they call into question whether religion is vital for moral development, supporting the idea that secularization of moral discourse will not reduce human kindness — in fact, it will do just the opposite

I don't think anyone has ever said it any better than this:

When the alternatives are "god" and "nothing" then yes that is the answer. You must have visited some rather strange churches if you think it's about coercion

why not nothing ? Why follow a fairy story just because you don't like 'nothing' ?

There may be something that created all this stuff around us, but it sure isn't a god-like entity that requires us all to pray to them, and looks down on us and controls out lives.

(Plus they must be pretty patient if you look at the age of the Universe and this planet compared to the tiny amount of time we have been around - maybe he meant to create the dinosaurs and we are just a product of his experiment all going horribly wrong?)

And if it is a god like entity that controls our lives then I am with Stephen Fry in that he's a d1ck and doesn't deserve any respect anyway.

And organised religion is all about coercion and power and duping all the weak-willed into providing them with 'careers'/wealth/etc.

I have been to churches where the preacher is very skilled with his persuasive manner. There's a guy on the north side of London Bridge who holds up his 'good' book and calls out 'Believe in Jesus' and his projection is so strong even I feel my knees buckling as I approach him. Look what happens in these megachurches in America and the amount of money they raise form gullible people.

In this I am with Derren Brown who despises organised religion, whilst not dismissing religion in itself.

I don't know the context of his comments, but I don't see why you'd assume he's not bothered about anything else just because he was talking about Paris at the time.

My point was that if the horror of many deaths in the same place at the same time is enough to make him doubt the existence of a benevolent god, then he should be similarly exercised about the similar number of violent deaths every single day which just happen to be a little more geographically spread.

My point was that if the horror of many deaths in the same place at the same time is enough to make him doubt the existence of a benevolent god, then he should be similarly exercised about the similar number of violent deaths every single day which just happen to be a little more geographically spread.

And my point was that you can't really conclude that he [i]isn't[/i] similarly exercised about other tragedies based on what he said about Paris.

However, if he 'engages' with god then how can he doubt his existence ?

or does he feel guilty for misleading all his followers into thinking that he is in an enlightened position and therefore can engage with god, a bit like the guilt experienced by that guy Derren Brown was teaching to be an evangelist and go over to the states and fool everyone. The one who could lay hands on people with injuries and who then felt heat where his hands were and then got up 'cured' and went off to play basketball, and similar.

[quote=TurnerGuy ]why not nothing ? Why follow a fairy story just because you don't like 'nothing' ?

Are you completely missing the context of my comment? "Nothing" is no support for people who need a bit of support at a bad time. If a fairy story helps people feel better then I'm all for it.

If a fairy story helps people feel better then I'm all for it.

A bit like in 'Police Squad' when the woman whose husband has just died exclaims 'what am I going to tell the children' and Leslie Nielson and his partner reply with things like 'tell them he threw himself on a grenade and saved his unit' ?

[img] [/img]

I agree with Woppit - people pontificating, pun intended, abut things they know hardly anything about is incredibly dull.

Hold on a second

I agree with Woppit in a religion thread.

God truly works in mysterious ways

😆

The thing that gets on my tits most of all in these forum religion threads is the sheer sub-sixth form predictability of them.

If you all showed a bit more respect to each other, maybe just maybe we wouldn't collectively be in such a bloody mess.

ETA: what Woppit, er, said

The cruel paradox is just how evangelical folk are becoming about atheism ..

It's weird isn't it. I've said this before but I think we need better words for this stuff, this sort of aggressive "you are stupid" atheism is more like anti-theism. Atheism is the absence of belief; some people seem to want to make a faith out of atheism which ironically is exactly what religious people often mistakenly take atheism to be. It's pretty understandable I think; there's a sort of chauvenism to religion that invites strong responses but, we could do better.

I've said this before but I think we need better words for this stuff, this sort of aggressive "you are stupid" atheism

How about "being a dick"?

How about "being a dick"?

(I'd include myself in this category occasionally, but hopefully not too often and only once the thread has already run its course.)

Well said. Because in the strictest sense I am an atheist, yet I'm happy to go to church and almost feel I have more in common with many theists than the fundamentalist atheists (anti-theists, or whatever else you want to call them).

In 20,000 Days On Earth Nick Cave says that God does exist in the world of his songs but not in the actual physical world he lives in. I rather like that take on things.

The intolerance of atheists stems from them being sick and tired of their lives being affected/controlled by people running around with strong beliefs based on fairy tales.

Obviously ISIS and radical Islamists are one example, another is Blair.

Religious people can believe whatever guff they want but keep it to themselves, or gather together and congratulate each other on all having the same interpretation of a fairy tale, but don't get aggressive if someone else doesn't believe that fairy tale or has a different interpretation about it.

And don't force your kids to believe in that fairy tale by indoctrinating them as they grow up, let them make up their own mind when they are old enough to understand that the story might just not be true.

[img] [/img]

fundamentalist atheists (anti-theists, or whatever else you want to call them).

Fundamentalists? Really , can't remember any atheist taking responsibility for none-God related suicide bomb attacks, or starting wars for not believing in the right imaginary friend.

Maybe fundamentalist is a too strong word for it, maybe 'board argumentative atheist' would be better 😆

The intolerance of atheists stems from them being sick and tired of their lives being affected/controlled by people running around with strong beliefs based on fairy tales.

But isn't it simply a fundamental part of being human to have certain beliefs and ways of living that you wish everyone to follow. Isn't it actually impossible to have civilisation without that drive. Even those of us who aren't religious probably think that the world would be better if others adhered to our own moral code. Isn't all of politics largely based on the same drive.

[quote=TurnerGuy ]The intolerance of atheists stems from them being sick and tired of their lives being affected/controlled by people running around with strong beliefs based on fairy tales.

Explain to us just how your life has been affected by people with strong religious beliefs? And no, ISIS et al doesn't count, so long as they're denounced by the vast majority of Muslims, which they are. Like all such "religious" terrorist groups it's about power, not religion and such organisations will always exist even if nobody believes in god.

Religious people can believe whatever guff they want but keep it to themselves, or gather together and congratulate each other on all having the same interpretation of a fairy tale, but don't get aggressive if someone else doesn't believe that fairy tale or has a different interpretation about it.

Yeah, I've noticed how all the religious folk on this thread are getting aggressive about people who don't agree with them.

Come now. Since when was STW representative of normal people or real life?

(-:

Explain to us just how your life has been affected by people with strong religious beliefs?

The head of the CofE is also the head of state. Bishops in the Lords. Compulsory worship in schools. Faith schools. No humanist weddings. The delay in marriage equality. Euthanasia laws. Sunday opening hours.

And no, ISIS et al doesn't count, so long as they're denounced by the vast majority of Muslims, which they are

No, they can't be dismissed - gullible people at the bottom and manipulative, power hungry people at the top - in this case proclaiming an effective religious crusade to enable their gullible following.

Both Blair and Bush dragging into the war driven by their religious beliefs...

back to the op. the archbish saying he has doubts about god seems a good thing for a religious person. I'd like to see some other religious people have doubts just before they kill others and themselves. At least the archbish is thinking and talking. we may not agree with his view but at least he is expressing in a harmless way.