[Closed] Atheists/Agnostics/Sceptics - Religious questions you want answered

No, that is your belief of religion; with only churches obsessed with medieval dogma as a reference point.

Have you ever approached a priest /imam /rabbi with some evidence that something is wrong? Did they duley rewrite the book in light of the new information?

Because that's how science works, and it's why it's completely incompatible with religion.

😆

mattyfez - Member

Well no, religion has evolved hugely over the centuries.

OK, then other than for a political /social agenda, what makes an old version of a text more or less valid than a newer version?

If it's based on words spoken by a god or gods the literalness or accuracy of them is important. It's not up to men to interpret or edit god.

literalness or accuracy of them is important. It's not up to men to interpret or edit god.

So do as your told and don't ask questions then.

I would ask:

Did you ever try the Buddhist religion?

(Buddhist monks appear to be sooo happy and relaxed...)

I was wondering when Spong might spring.

Apparently the whole "carpenter" thing was a mistranslation. Origin Hebrew or Aramaic or whatever had some word relating to wisdom which was the same as carpenter.

Now if that's not a half-baked little factlet, I don't know what is. Pretty sure there's some truth in it though.

I would ask:

Did you ever try the Buddhist religion?

(Buddhist monks appear to be sooo happy and relaxed...)

Buddhism, in the main (there are exceptions, see the ethnic cleansing in Bhutan for a recent example) is kinda the odd one out in the context of mainstream religion...

... In that it largely focuses on mutual respect for all living things, and the environment we rely upon, (allegedly) but as above, that does not prevent atrocities from occurring.

Apparently the whole "carpenter" thing was a mistranslation. Origin Hebrew or Aramaic or whatever had some word relating to wisdom which was the same as carpenter.

Now if that's not a half-baked little factlet, I don't know what is. Pretty sure there's some truth in it though.

It's a perfect example of 'Chinese whispers'.. It's impossible to avoid when texts are translated and transcribed over centuries and various languages and cultures.
We would be foolish to think any modernised religious text bears much resemblance to the spirit of the originals. Which were probably a load of bollocks anyway.

If I met him/her/it I would ask God who is in charge / creator of the other planets?

Edit - sorry to keen to post - if God is in charge of it all (the universe) are the other planets working out as good as Earth.

mattyfez - Member

It's a perfect example of 'Chinese whispers'.. It's impossible to avoid when texts are translated and transcribed over centuries and various languages and cultures.

And that's why you can't have an English Koran, for example. It's also one of the reasons put forward for why reforming Islam is nigh on impossible.

genesiscore502011 - Member

If I met him I would ask God who is in charge / creator of the other planets?

Thanos obviously.

OK, then other than for a political /social agenda, what makes an old version of a text more or less valid than a newer version?

The Bible, as I understand it, is not the word of God, it's mostly the words of men. But many belive it does *contain* the word of God - somewhere buried in it.

It's a perfect example of 'Chinese whispers'.. It's impossible to avoid when texts are translated and transcribed over centuries and various languages and cultures.

Yeah but some scholars can read the very oldest versions, because they've studied the languages.

Indeed, you can be the wrong type of a religion and still be persecuted for being a non believer of the *real truth.

See shites and sunnies
See catholics and protestants

*may have been made up in order to scare a population away from freedom of thought into conformity, usually for [s]prophet[/s] profit.

Read to the end of [url= https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_276.cfm ]this page.[/url] No idea who the people behind that site are mind.

Read to the end of this page. No idea who the people behind that site are mind.

I read it, I want my 5 minutes of life back that I wasted on it.

One question answered.
[img] [/img]

Well I read it MG but it didn't reveal much. We all know the word of god was relayed by people. But how are we to know which people are to be believed and which are not. ( if any )
Again I'd be interested to hear from SR (as far as his knowlege of christian thinking goes) why some prophets are accepted and others dismissed.

Matty, I used the phrase 'of sorts' to describe science as a religion as it shares many similarities - not so much in the having faith sense (though there is an element of that) but more in the attitudes of the believers in science. It's perhaps a religion for our times? As a example...religion is often cited as a crutch - science can be compared to a crutch too. An aid to help understand the world around us and explain things we really don't understand. Science has rules/laws that seem to stand up to scrutiny with the knowledge we current have but who's to say in the future we wont discover something(s) that makes a mockery of the these laws. Relegating what we call science today to the equivalent of the old testament. Or something so unimaginable to us it spawns a whole new 'religion'.

We all know the word of god was relayed by people.

That's what I was trying to establish, in relation to points like jimjam's:

"If it's based on words spoken by a god or gods the literalness or accuracy of them is important. It's not up to men to interpret or edit god."

It really IS up to us to interpret what the writers of the Bible meant, and even if we want to believe them. Because it's not the direct literal word of God. Although God is quoted sometimes. This is well established and understood, as far as I know, but the angry atheists still want to beat Christians with the 'you can't pick and choose or interpret' stick. Which is wrong - I think.

I still completely disagree with you, science is incompatible with religion.

Science is simply, in the most basic terms possible, what we can observe to be true, and we can repeat the exercise as many times as we like and already know what the outcome will be, it's pure logic.

Religion is based on apparently groundless assumptions and 'faith', whatever that is supposed to mean.

molgrips - Member

It really IS up to us to interpret what the writers of the Bible meant, and even if we want to believe them. Because it's not the direct literal word of God. Although God is quoted sometimes. This is well established and understood, as far as I know, but the angry atheists still want to beat Christians with the 'you can't pick and choose or interpret' stick. Which is wrong - I think.

Er, here's the problem. Religion is only important if it's derived from divine authority. If we "mere" humans can interpret it as we want, then why is it important? Why is relevant? It cannot simultaneously be divine, all knowing and inscrutable, but also open to interpretation by any Tom Dick or Harriet.

It's not beating anyone with a stick, religion can't argue both sides of the debate at once.

@mattyfez:

Yes - to be Buddhist is not equal of being 'good'.

But if somebody needs a religion - maybe a good idea to try Buddhism first?

Maybe not? I don't know. That's the reason for my question!

I still completely disagree with you, science is incompatible with religion.

I'm cool with that. I'm not trying to convince you they are compatible. But the effect they can have on us is similar in many ways.

How does praying help you?

I think I can field this one.

Irrespective of whether god exists or not the act of prayer is a way of focusing your thoughts, of 'pulling your socks up.' You pray, you feel better. In essence it's the placebo effect.

But I think you've fielded it it from a non-religious perspective. So I'd agree with your response, but it's not the response I got from her.

But if somebody needs a religion - maybe a good idea to try Buddhism first?

A religion is only as good as the people who practice it. Therefore no relation is good.They've all got blood on their hands. Any dogma or ideology that preaches you're better off dead than alive is dangerous and that is why religion is the most lethal weapon ever devised by man.

Man has been on the planet for around 200,000 years. For 198,000 we got on perfectly well without religion, managing to kill each other reasonbly efficiently, then 2,000 or so years ago all the worlds religions basically came into being and then we realised we'd just been messing about and the proper massacres began. Things went downhill pretty quickly after that. Religion was basically the worlds first weapon of mass destruction arms race. All trying to out-compete each other. The objective was to win peoples hearts and minds rather than territories.

Religion is based on apparently groundless assumptions and 'faith', whatever that is supposed to mean.

If you don't know what it means, perhaps listen to those who are trying to tell you.

I think science is compatible with Christianity, mostly. Ok, so we know that Genesis is inaccurate, but there's a lot more to Christianity than Genesis. In fact it's a bit of a minor part, as far as I know. Science cannot rule out the existence of a divine creator, and Christianity doesn't really preclude anything scientific, if we choose to interpret the creation story as parable. Which we can do. Because there are no rules telling us not to.

Er, here's the problem. Religion is only important if it's derived from divine authority. If we "mere" humans can interpret it as we want, then why is it important?

But religion is not the Bible. Christianity is not the Bible.

It's not beating anyone with a stick, religion can't argue both sides of the debate at once.

Dunno what you mean - it's not trying to. Most Christians don't think the Bible is the unaltered literal word of God from start to finish, even though it contains some stuff God is alleged to have said. It's just a book about all sorts of different stuff.

Can't make it much clearer.

For 198,000 we got on perfectly well without religion

So religion is only 2,000 years old is it? Better write to Oxford and Cambridge, some historians would love to be corrected 🙂

Religion was basically the worlds first weapon of mass destruction arms race.

Are you making this all up off the top of your head?

Man has been on the planet for around 200,000 years. For 198,000 we got on perfectly well without religion, managing to kill each other reasonbly efficiently, then 2,000 or so years ago all the worlds religions basically came into being and then we realised we'd just been messing about and the proper massacres began. Things went downhill pretty quickly after that. Religion was basically the worlds first weapon of mass destruction arms race. All trying to out-compete each other. The objective was to win peoples hearts and minds rather than territories.

Awesome, generally I've found your contributions on the more technical threads to be knowledgeable and informative.

The above however is inaccurate on so many levels and clearly trolling, please join mattedfuz in the corner.

May I suggest you read, for starters, The Silk Roads by Peter Francopan.

Okay. Since jimjam has suggested that another thread would be inappropriate, and that my response is better contained on here than elsewhere. So here it is.

[b]I have written up a book proposal for a publisher for a work that explains aspects of religious faith generally, and Christianity in particular, on the basis of many of the questions and challenges that have been posed here over the years. In order both to address the question of what sort of market it would address, but also in order to make sure that the right sorts of topic headings were included, I wanted to draw together in one place much of what has been covered by us here before.[/b]

The approach I will be taking is a conciliatory one. Obviously, I do not think that a lot of what gets raised here presents much of a problem from a theological point of view at all - that is, barring the ongoing misundertandings and misconstruals - but I honestly appreciate the fact that it gets raised at all. At their best, the religion threads on here have represented an honest and representative discourse. EDIT: That's not ignoring the inane, and unfounded gibberish some of you spout! 😉

You will, of course, be cited as one of the main reasons for the book! In the meantime, I would welcome your further questions. And if you want to contact me directly, feel free to do so through PMs or email.

I think science is compatible with Christianity, mostly.

It's a binary question, do you belive in hope or do you believe in demonstrable facts.

molgrips - Member

But religion is not the Bible. Christianity is not the Bible.

Well what do you want to do? Discuss every religion on an individual basis? Or do you mean spirituality as opposed to religion. For the purposes of this thread I am using the term religion to mean organised religion, specifically christianity.

Organised religion is just that. Your own personal spirituality can be a pick and mix if you want but you can't be a pick and mix (insert church) and still technically be a member.

I have written up a book proposal for a publisher for a work that explains aspects of religious faith generally, and Christianity in particular, on the basis of many of the questions and challenges that have been posed here over the years.

I don't think you'll get many sales outside your circle. But good luck.

In any case, as far as I understand, there is no quota for threads.

Not as such. But we will delete duplicates, and 27 threads ostensibly discussing the same thing will also get modded. There's an argument for a separate "reply" thread on this, not least because this one will probably boil now until we've banned half the userbase, but multiple "yes but" threads is probably out.

And that's why you can't have an English Koran, for example.

I once believed this to be true also, but I don't think it is.

Science is simply, in the most basic terms possible, what we can observe to be true

The fundamental difference between science and religion is that science goes "prove me wrong" and religion gets defensive and cross when you try.

But I think you've fielded it it from a non-religious perspective. So I'd agree with your response, but it's not the response I got from her.

I did, because obviously that's my frame of reference.

My point was, there's a logical explanation as to how prayer might actually work and be beneficial. Whether the prayee attributes any perceived results to divine intervention, aligning their chi, finding enlightenment, a spot of quiet meditation, ten minutes away from the kids or whatever else they might come up with is neither here nor there.

I find your responses somewhat bizarre, mattyfez.

Do you have any idea what the sales of religious books is like? Furthermore, I am not an inexperienced writer. I work with publishers frequently - primarily academic, but also commercial - and they don't publish what doesn't sell.

In any case, I figure it will be easier to finish another book that is more or less finished, addressing what we talk about on here in a systematic, clear way, than it is to keep trying to steer some of our conversations back into the realm of actuality.

But I'm also wondering: what is "my circle"? Other cyclists?

I have written up a book proposal

Well I reckon I'd read that. Put me down for a Kindle copy.

And that's why you can't have an English Koran, for example.

I once believed this to be true also, but I don't think it is.

Obviously, you can. And there are, but good luck finding any authority worth a damn to acknowledge that it is a) actually the Koran and b) not heresy.

I have written up a book proposal

Sounds like an interesting idea for a book.

There's a gap for a book which is essentially a 'sequel' to Dawkins' God Delusion. Something like "So You're An Atheist But You Don't Want To Be An Arsehole?"

Alom Shaha's book comes close, but is aimed at younger readers.

I have written up a book proposal for a publisher for a work that explains aspects of religious faith generally, and Christianity in particular, on the basis of many of the questions and challenges that have been posed here over the years.

Stealth ad, knew you were up to something 😉
Best of luck with the project though.

Organised religion is just that. Your own personal spirituality can be a pick and mix if you want but you can't be a pick and mix (insert church) and still technically be a member.

Well there are dozens if not hundreds of Christian churches, and even that is really a branch of Judaism, one of I don't know how many. And within each of those churches or sects there is plenty of debate about matters of religion.

So yes, it can totally be up to you to decide what you want to believe. Wasn't this the whole point of the Protestant revolution? Millions of Christians across the world doing exactly what you say they can't do?

molgrips - Member

So yes, it can totally be up to you to decide what you want to believe. Wasn't this the whole point of the Protestant revolution? Millions of Christians across the world doing exactly what you say they can't do?

The reformation was in my understanding an attack on the indulgences of the then pope and catholic church. Martin Luther saw Rome as grossly indulgent and the catholic interpretation of the bible as technically polytheistic, idolatrous and blasphemous.

But that's neither here nor there my point would be that the literalists will always trump the pick and mixers.

couple of points. Buddhism is not a religion. It is a philosophy

Science and Christianity( In fact all the monotheistic religions IIRC) are completely incompatible with science because faith is belief without evidence. Sciences is evidence leading to belief

From my understanding even asking for evidence for your religion is wrong to the religious because then yo are not accepting faith.

Saxonrider - good luck with that but IMO there is a basic fallacy. To those of us that don't believe the whole "faith is belief without evidence" thing just means anything that relies upon faith is nonsense and those of us that are rationalists can never accept this. [b]Nothing [/b]to me is true unless I have seen the evidence, weighted the evidence, looked at the methods to obtain that evidence then poured it thru a sieve of scepticism. Nothing religious can meet that therefore to me it is all false. Every single last bit of it and I simply cannot accept any belief in anything without evidence. Nothing anyone that is religious can alter that. Give me evidence I will accept it. without evidence it is false.

The "pick and mixers" are the established church in the UK, so they're not doing too badly.

Serious question. Please answer non-polemically.

If you could talk to a religious (specifically Christian) know-it-all, and ask anything at all about faith generally, or Christianity in particular, what sorts of things would you ask?

For some of us this is not possible. It is honestly a real struggle to understand why/how religion (of any flavour) is allowable/acceptable. Religion has brought nothing but misery to the world. In any other context, massive self-delusion and fantasy is abhorrent.
Is the universe not mysterious and beautiful enough without having to believe there are faeries at bottom of the garden?

Science and Christianity( In fact all the monotheistic religions IIRC) are completely incompatible with science

Is that a typo? Science is incompatible with science?

The reformation was in my understanding an attack on the indulgences of the then pope and catholic church.

Yes but his basic point was that you don't need a Church to tell you what to believe, you can read the bible yourself and therefore interpret it yourself.

But that's neither here nor there my point would be that the literalists will always trump the pick and mixers.

Who are who then?

The entire Bible is pick and mix to begin with.