[Closed] Has anyone been on the Alpha Course?

have you ever been on an Alpha course ? Were you disappointed ? Well ?

sorry, I forgot to answer. No, of course not, I prefer to work things out for myself.

well, from where I am it seems to me I'm levelling exactly the same degree of scepticism I do towards.......blah, blah, blah

No you don't. Why don't you show the 'same degree of scepticism' towards people's political views as you do towards their religious views ? You claim to be an 'anarchist', and yet you never have a pop at me politically, despite the fact that an ocean separates us, how come ? Of course if I were to make a comment concerning religion, you would be straight in there.

You clearly go completely over the top when attacking people's religious views, in comparison with how you challenge other views they might hold. Fine. But don't come out with all this "I'm morally superior, holier than thou, I treat people's religious views the same as any other opinion they might have" bullshit. You obviously don't.

Still, if you needed this thread to 'understand your own position more clearly' then that speaks volumes 8)

But don't come out with all this "I'm morally superior, holier than thou, I treat people's religious views the same as any other opinion they might have" bullshit. You obviously don't.

I never claimed superiority, and certainly not holiness, I'm starkly profane. I reiterate that I think I do treat them with the same degree of scepticism, but at the same time, religious opinions seem to diverge most strongly from observable reality*. When people claim to be able to feel a big difference between 170mm and 175mm cranks (though I cannot) at least there is physical thing that can be measured. Whereas the number of gods is anybody's guess as we have no way to tell.

*inasmuch as that means anything

Still, if you needed this thread to 'understand your own position more clearly' then that speaks volumes

it speaks to the fact that my mind is not made up for good and all and I'm willing to consider new possibilities

OK........

BTW, just for the record, I [u]do not[/u] treat people's religion (or lack of religion) the same as any other opinion or view which they might hold (but of course I never claimed that I did) I consider it to be their own personal choice which has nothing to do with me.

For example, if I found myself in the company of a Muslim, I would not challenge their religion (I might ask them plenty of questions though, if they were happy to answer them) But if that individual were to inform me they were of the opinion that David Cameron would make an excellent PM, I might well vigorously challenge them on that. I treat people's personal religious beliefs (or lack of) and life choices, with a respect which I don't necessarily extend to other considerations. Basically, because it has bugger all to do with me.

simon ernie get a room for FFS you two would argue over anything as you have amply demonstarted. Now back on the off topic topic (ignoring SFB v Ernie)

tolerant understanding[religion] versus silly insults[atheists]

You should read the books the tolerant understanding people follow and see what they really say happens to those who dont follow either their God or rules. It does fall somewhat short of tolerance. Try going to church or mosque join in and then confess to being Gay if you want to really feel their love.
There have been some petty insults but it is difficult to not poke fun at people who believe [b]without any tangibile proof whatsoever[/b]in what their book says. Watch wogan interview David Icke to see how people react when the "religion" falls outside cultural norms.

If someone came on here and claimed the earth was flat (or worse that Brant made bad bikes ) they would get a similiar level of ridicule.

[img] [/img]
Look at the kitten and calm down.

[img] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01478/t8_1478838a.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01478/t8_1478838a.jp g"/> [/img]

Peoples personal beliefs are fine, don't bother me at all. If you want to believe in God, Allah, Jehovah, Shiva, Ganesha et al or whoever, in private, knock yourself out.

I have a problem when this stuff starts to impinge on the rest of us, like the fact that you can't get any shopping from the supermarket after 4 in the afternoon on a sunday. Or people like Nadine Dorries, and her US Pro-life inspired and funded antics in proposing various amendments on the abortion and embryology bill. Why should religious leaders get on things like Newsnight saying that things like "Stemcell research is bad, mkay", purely on the basis that they are self appointed representatives of some higher being.

Having people trying to save me etc is just as personally annoying as I'm sure atheists/agnostic trying to do the reverse is. And then you get prats like Cormac Murphy-O'Connor saying that, in his opinion, Atheists aren't fully human, which is a bit more worrying than any number of Christopher Hitchens calling the religious credulous fools.

Try going to church or mosque join in and then confess to being Gay

You really don't get it ........ do you ? The bit about about it being none of your business I mean.

Religions can make up any rules they want ...........no matter are absurd or ridiculous. It's [i]their[/i] religion.

The Catholic church won't allow women to become priests, which suggests sexual prejudice. But unless you happen to be a female Catholic who wants to be a priest, then it's got **** all to do with you. And even then it would only be between you, and the Catholic church ...... no one else.

Quite frankly I can't believe the gall of some people who feel they have a right to tell religions how they should organise. Who feel that they are entitled to have an opinion on things which don't in anyway concern them. Specially when those people are fundamentally opposed to all the beliefs the religion stands for.

My local mosque could pass a rule stating that no man under 5 foot 5, or with ginger hair, is allowed to lead friday prayers. [u]And I could not care less[/u]. Why the **** should I ? It's not my religion. They can make up whatever silly rules they want.

khegs - the Dawkinists are really scraping the barrel, trawling through things said by clerics so that they can be used out of context - do they not have anything better to bash religion with ? Sounds like desperation to me.

I guess that if Cormac Murphy-O'Connor had said that to be "fully alive", you needed to be a Christian, then the Dawkinists would have claimed he was saying that atheists were half dead, ffs.

BTW, a quick google suggests that he is not the only Catholic cleric to have said that. Archbishop Nichols (whoever he is) has said :

[i]"There had been moments when I'd come to understand that if we want to be fully alive, fully human, then the best path is to follow the call of the Lord, who is the fullness of humanity, who is our manifesto of what it means to be a human being."[/i]

Until I hear a Catholic cleric saying that atheists are sub-human and should be dragged out of their homes and shot, I won't be unduly worried. In the meantime khegs, if you are unhappy with what Catholic bishops are saying, I suggest that you register your disapproval by not attending mass next sunday.

My jaw dropped when I read ernie's piece above - he seems to be saying that religions should be entitled to any form of prejudice and it would be no one else's business ?

I suppose the Catholic church [b]was[/b] immune from prosecution for child abuse for a long while, so maybe it's not so outlandish...

he seems to be saying that religions should be entitled to any form of prejudice and it would be no one else's business ?

In a nutshell, yes. Don't like the religion ? Go and find another one......or maybe you could start your own ? 💡

There's no 'immunity from prosecution for child abuse'. You daft dipstick.

Here SFB, do you think the Catholic Church is prejudice against sinners ? I mean, all that stuff telling them about burning in Hell like. Maybe an adulterer could take them to court ? After all, adultery isn't illegal ..... is it ? 😕

Quite frankly I can't believe the gall of some people who feel they have a right to tell religions how they should organise. Who feel that they are entitled to have an opinion on things which don't in anyway concern them.

What, like most church leaders?

khegs - the Dawkinists are really scraping the barrel, trawling through things said by clerics so that they can be used out of context - do they not have anything better to bash religion with ? Sounds like desperation to me.

Sorry, I have been quite polite (I think, you may disagree) thus far, but **** off, this was the, at the time, most senior Catholic cleric in the UK, speaking on the Today programme, which is hardly the most obscure little backwater for comment in the world. Below is a full transcript of what he said, with the question he was answering, to avoid an accusation of bias.

Roger Bolton – a lot of church leaders speaking on national matters sound rather defensive but you’ve gone on the attack because you’ve talked about secularists having an “impoverished understanding of what it is to be human” they might find that quite offensive mightn’t they?

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor - I think what I said was true, of course whether a person is atheist or any other...there is in fact, in my view, something not totally human, if they leave out the transcendent. If they leave out an aspect of what I believe everyone was made for, which is, uh, a search for transcendent meaning, we call it God. Now if you say that has no place, then I feel that it is a diminishment of what it is to be a human, because to be human in the sense I believe humanity is directed because made by God, I think if you leave that out then you are not fully human.

Full transcript of what he said, on the Today program on Radio 4.

Imagine what would have happened if you had substituted Atheists as the subject matter for the ethnic minority of your choice, or Muslims/Hindus/Christians etc.

In the meantime khegs, if you are unhappy with what Catholic bishops are saying, I suggest that you register your disapproval by not attending mass next sunday.

Given that Church organisations campaign against thedistribution of condoms in Africa, and other iniitiatives that are trying to prevent the spread of AIDS, and against stem-cell research which has the potential to substantially materially improve the lives of millions if the advances it promises come to fruition, no, somehow I don't think I'll leave it at avoiding church on a sunday. These people (Christian/Moslem/Jewish/Hindu or whatever) have the potential to affect my life negatively, because of their beliefs, what gives them the ****ing right?

I prefer to believe what I see than to see what I believe.

Though I do worry about 'religious zealots' trashing the world as they use religion as a vehicle to move the impressionable masses. Poor sods.

[img] [/img]

Guess the well known phrase or saying...

which is hardly the most obscure little backwater for comment in the world.........

There was no mention of "obscure little backwater". There was a mention however, of "scraping the barrel, trawling through things said by clerics". And nothing in your last post suggests otherwise. A quick google appears to show that whilst the quote does not appear to have been widely (if at all) reported by the press, it has sent the Dawkinists on the internet into a lather of indignation.

I have no problem with the quote. So he says that, 'to be fully human you have to be a Christian', so what ? He clearly feels that Atheists don't lead fulfilling lives. Presumably many Atheists think that Christians are wasting their lives. I don't have any problem with that - why should anyone ? I'm not going to comment about what he didn't say btw.

what gives them the **** right?

They have the same right as anyone else. When Muslims/Hindus/Christians/Jewish get two votes in elections, come back and see me ..... and I'll review the situation.

On the Cormac Murphy thing, I definitely rmemeber it being reported in the Grauniad

They have the same right as anyone else. When Muslims/Hindus/Christians/Jewish get two votes in elections, come back and see me ..... and I'll review the situation.

So you aren't bothered about the Catholic church, and other religious organisations, pressuring MPs to take a "pro-life" stance on abortion and to ban stem-cell research, or the fact the the CofE get to have 26 bishops in the House of Lords?

[img] [/img]

Guess the well known phrase or saying...

Too many cooks spoil the broth?

holier than thou

i found that quite funny (in context)

[i]My local mosque could pass a rule stating that no man under 5 foot 5, or with ginger hair, is allowed to lead friday prayers. And I could not care less. Why the **** should I ? It's not my religion. They can make up whatever silly rules they want.[/i]

Quite right Ernie. Though presumably your view would change if you lived in country that wasn't as secular as this?

a question to people 'with' religion;

what other abstract things do you believe in?

nessie/santa clause/fairies at the bottom of the garden?

A question to atheists/agnostics;

how would you treat someone (a friend perhaps) who told you that they ernestly believed, no, KNEW, that there were monsters under the bed?

?

sticks head in to see what fuss is about............

just going to leave without saying out.

do you think the Catholic Church is prejudice against sinners ? I mean, all that stuff telling them about burning in Hell like.

I'm not too well up on their current thinking, but Jesus said "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" and told the parable about the prodigal son so there seems to be some wiggle room...

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor - I think what I said was true, of course whether a person is atheist or any other...there is in fact, in my view, something not totally human, if they leave out the transcendent. If they leave out an aspect of what I believe everyone was made for, which is, uh, a search for transcendent meaning, we call it God. Now if you say that has no place, then I feel that it is a diminishment of what it is to be a human, because to be human in the sense I believe humanity is directed because made by God, I think if you leave that out then you are not fully human.

hmmm, he talks about searching for 'transcendent meaning', and I'm not sure what that means, but then goes on to identify that with God. Now people may choose to spend time looking for the meaning of life if they wish, and I suppose for some that is their way of life, but I don't see what gives him the right to define the parameters for humanity. However we come to be here, we do have a limited choice to decide how we shall live and what we will strive for, and that may or may not include speculation about what happens afterwards, but I would suggest a sensible criterion for humanness is how we treat each other (and for that matter, other creatures) rather than what types of introspection we indulge in. Humans are diverse and I don't think it serves any practical purpose to delimit their membership of the race according to their philosophy (or absense of).

Guess the well known phrase or saying...

Cesare Borgia on a bike?

[img] [/img]

Some interesting stats/thoughts on religion and science: http://davidkeen.blogspot.com/2009/09/faith-and-darwin.html

Religions can make up any rules they want ...........no matter are absurd or ridiculous. It's their religion.

The Catholic church won't allow women to become priests, which suggests sexual prejudice. But unless you happen to be a female Catholic who wants to be a priest, then it's got **** all to do with you. And even then it would only be between you, and the Catholic church ...... no one else.

Who feel that they are entitled to have an opinion on things which don't in anyway concern them

So if it is NOT actually personally happening to me at that moment in time I should have no opinion.
Seems a rather odd position to adopt in life.
Whilst they get to vote and have representation in the house of lords I will maintain that what they do does affect me as they have unelected representatives able to influence the law making process of this country.

Re the accusations that the atheists here are bullying the god-botherers, I'd agree that some of the wording could be toned down a bit to avoid causing offence. However it still remains a fact that if you find something ridiculous, a natural response is to ridicule it. A couple of hundred years ago, if you announced that you didn't believe in God (or even expressed the wrong type of belief) you could be executed for blasphemy. It's not really surprising that Dawkins and others are leading a bit of a backlash.

So you aren't bothered about the Catholic church, and other religious organisations, pressuring MPs to take a "pro-life" stance on abortion and to ban stem-cell research

Not at all. Those with an opposing opinion can do exactly the same.

I think some people need a reality check. According to you khegs, religion has being around for at least 300,000 years, so it isn't suddenly going to disappear. Banning religion is not an option. Even severe persecution is not effective - in fact, more likely to be counter-productive. Removing the need for religion as outlined by Marx, is not feasible under prevailing conditions.

Best then, to get used to it. And not waste your life filled with anger, bitterness, and resentment ...... in what other people believe.

or the fact that the CofE get to have 26 bishops in the House of Lords?

Of course I'm not happy with the fact that the C of E get to have 26 bishops in the House of Lords.
But it is the [i]constitution[/i] which I'm opposed to, not the religion.

Junkyard - if you feel [i]that[/i] unhappy about the plight of gays within the established Christian churches, I suggest you set up your own Church, were gays are welcomed with open arms - I'm sure that gays from all over, will come and join your gay-friendly Church. You are of course completely free to do that ......... that is the beauty of religious freedom.

EDIT : "gay-friendly churches" which gays can freely join, already exist ........... but hey, let's not 'nit-pick', eh ?

Does anyone else think ernie is still posting weak arguments intentionally to undermine the case he purports to be advocating ? I can't help feeling he's laughing his socks off as people attempt to take him at face value 🙂

As far as I can see no one has suggested persecution or banning religions but it seems to me that applying a degree of criticism serves to rein in its irrationality

I'm left wondering who is supposed to be exhibiting "anger, bitterness, and resentment" other than ernie, and I suspect his is feigned.

As far as I can see no one has suggested persecution or banning religions

I was suggesting possible alternatives to tolerating religion - are you too daft to figure that out ? Arguing against religion will not get rid of it or have you not figured that either, after 300,000 years ? Religion fulfils a human need, which as I said, cannot be removed under prevailing conditions. So those are your choices, you either put up with it or, well erm, ......... you put up with it. Arguing, banning, persecution, etc are not options.

No wait ............ you [i]don't[/i] have to put up with it, you can be angry, bitter, and resentful.............. I forgot about [i]that[/i] choice.

Does anyone else think ernie is still posting weak arguments intentionally

Just ignore them then ............. I won't be offended.

I have say, you appear to be putting quite a bit of time and effort arguing against 'weak arguments' ............. just don't do it mate.

Arguing against religion will not get rid of it or have you not figured that either, after 300,000 years ?

I'm not interested in getting rid of it - I was suggesting "curbing irrationality" as a goal. Obviously religion is a solace to some people and I wouldn't seek to deny it them.

I have say, you appear to be putting quite a bit of time and effort arguing against 'weak arguments'

but I [b]like[/b] arguing ernie, so I'll have to take what I get 🙂

more tea vicar?

but I like arguing ernie, so I'll have to take what I get

You mean you can't find anyone with a 'strong' argument to argue against .............. how sad for you simon 😐

.

Milk but no sugar please Mr Nutt.

You mean you can't find anyone with a 'strong' argument to argue against

well, obviously most people have better things to do...

BTW ernie, which brand of religion do you adhere to ? For the record I used to be a Catholic until such time as I was invited to think about the matter

Putting words into my mouth, ernie? 😉

I have never said anything about banning religion, it would be pointless stupid and counterproductive. It seems to provide some people with salace and support and there isn't anything wrong with that.

The role of the Church in public life, that is something that it is possible to try and do something about. Disestablishing the CofE, thats doable, removing public funding from faith schools, doable too, IMO.

Pointing and laughing when religious leaders comment on things they have no competency to comment on, that is my right, just because they are claiming some divine mandate shouldn't make them any more immune from criticism and ridicule than me, Simon, you, Dawkins, Gordon Brown, call me Dave or Ghandi. IMO religious leaders commenting on science is often about as relevant and useful as getting mackerel to comment on pop music.

Angry, bitter and resentful? Not usually, no more than Homeopathy, astrology and other purveyors of woo and pseudo-science annoy me.
On the other hand, if it is something that is causing material harm to people, like Matthias Rath does, or trying to effect [b]my[/b] life because of [b]their[/b] beliefs, then yeah that does make me angry and I will try and do something about it. To pick a trivial example, would you be happy forgoing your bacon sarnie, because pork isn't Kosher and Halal? Assuming you don't abide by those dietary restrictions because of your religion.

I dont belong to C of E or Catholic, Baptist, Methodist .... list goes on
Im not a fan of ritual or organised religion.
The church I go to is totally independant, self governing and is whats known as a free church. Our Minister doesnt wear a silly hat or robe, ummm jeans and shirt most of the time I think. We have a full rock band leading the music (awesome drummer). Out of a city full of large ornate imposing churches with locked doors, ours is open 24 hours a day. We do the most out reach work in our city especially feeding the homeless and running a womens refuge. We are the only church in the whole county which provides care for mentally and physically handicapped children (I run this) I cant go into most churches on a Sunday morning because Christians wouldnt like my sons weird noises interuppting there ceremony! Not very Christian eh? Well not at my church, everyone is welcome (regardless of sexual orientation,colour etc).
We work with the local hospice, support addicts (sex and drug mostly, I was the latter!). Most importantly my church is fun, yes its true. Most Sundays I end up in stitches (our Minister is hilarious).
Thats the other side of church, its not all hard wooden pews and snobby Christians and weird rituals, Im lucky to be 'free' and just get together with 500 people on a Sunday morning and have a great time. As well as work on projects throughout the week together.
Fair enough if you think what I belive is a load of old tosh, just wanted to point out that some churches are not what you expect, dont tar all of us with the same brush.

[img] [/img]
Oh to really wind you up, here I am getting baptised whilst I was out in Germany a couple of years ago. We had friends there who are Humanists (had a humanist wedding etc) they didnt 'argue' with me about my faith, same as I wouldnt give them crap for not 'believing'. We love each other and when you love you respect, end of.

No.

Day 5 on the stw forum......

At the risk of being set upon by more angry "sensitives" (and yes, I know I said I was "outtahere" but forgive me, I was tempted)... I'm glad you're having fun.

However, your beliefs are tosh.

I dont belong to C of E or Catholic, Baptist, Methodist .... list goes on

Ah I see ............... a Heretic then 😯

You're going to go through the gates of Hell and burn for eternity, quicker than the Atheists, LoulaBaby 😐

At least simonfbarnes has some sort of an excuse.

khegs - if the majority of the population feels that bacon sarnies should be banned, then I would be fine with that.
Mind you, my opinion might be coloured by the fact that I don't eat pig 💡

We have a full rock band leading the music (awesome drummer).

God rock never seems to quite get there, it's like non alcoholic beer.

vinnyeh - Member
Day 5 on the stw forum......

Lets Rock ...well sort off

[img] http://thm-a02.yimg.com/image/39025560c5202a28 [/img]

I give up 😥