[Closed] I suppose it'll be the atheists next, then...

PS: no he didn't!

Yes, GF you missed my point that I also object to it, however the 3% or whatever is of the population who are Anglican probably don't.

Some Anglicans object to the Bishops gaining automatic access to the Lords, Giles Fraser is one high profile example; secularism isn't solely the preserve of atheists or non-Anglicans.

As for the harm the media can do and the influence it has, I'd hardly call it limited.

That's the media as a whole, not Derren Brown. The media is also regulated, to a degree, while religion is not.

* note I am not including murdering, going to war, being homophibic etc etc when I say 'believe' here. Those things are all bad of course; belief as a personal thing is different to trying to impose it on others, as we all understand.

If religion only did the good bits, there'd be no need for this discussion. If an individual wishes to believe something irrational and without evidence base, they're free to do so and I don't think any secularist would object, or try to stop them. If, however, they then want to change the way science is taught in school, vote on marriage equality, or blow themselves up, then I think the rest of us have a right to say something.

PS kja78 won the thread a few pages ago.

Only God can decide this.

First rule of sprinting molgrips, dont celebrate the win until you're actually over the line...

Depending which figures you believe, somewhere between 1% and 4% of the population consider themselves Anglican,and the Anglicans claim that about 50% of the population have been baptised into the CofE so it hardly seems like disproportional representation.

My wife denied being an Anglican yesterday.

She's a member of the PCC of our local CofE church, where she previously worked as parish secretary. She previously worked for a Christian charity set up by an ordained CofE minister, who was a Dean or Canon or something at Durham cathedral at the time. She's taken a year-long undergraduate level theology course, run by the Durham CofE diocese and aimed at those considering ordination. She's currently the chaplain of a CofE primary school.

But she's not an Anglican 🙂

Say that to the kids that died in the US because their parents are religious nutters who don't believe in medicine, just prayer.

One dodgy interpretation of the bible doesn't invalidate all others.

If religion only did the good bits, there'd be no need for this discussion.

I know a lot of religious people who don't do anything bad. Are they not allowed to believe in God because of what some other entirely unrelated people do?

Giles Fraser is one high profile example

I often wonder what is more important to Giles Fraser, being a Guardian columnist and media commentator, or being a priest.

As an Anglican I am unsurprisingly pretty comfortable with Lords Spiritual, I think it is important that there are representatives of all walks of life in our second chamber and would also support other religions/churches have equivalent right of representation as well as many other organisations. It is important where the main chamber is elected by first past the post that there is a place for minority views to be expressed in the revising chamber. In fact their method of appointment has much to commend it, other than the five automatic places, the remainder of the seats go to the most senior diocesan bishops and only for their period of office. So they are only a member when they are still active and when they become "clapped out", they lose their seat - such a system of retirement should perhaps be more widespread in the Lords.

I know a lot of religious people who don't do anything bad. Are they not allowed to believe in God because of what some other entirely unrelated people do?

Can you point to where someone says that people are "not allowed to believe in God" as I seem to have missed it. (BTW there are more religions that than Christianity and some may have many gods).

I'm split on the Lords. On the one hand it is severely undemocratic, but on the other I think it does a good job on the whole. I'm no expert but they seem to be a bit better than the Commons...?

Can you point to where someone says that people are "not allowed to believe in God" as I seem to have missed it.

Well given how scathing some folk are on the thread I would assume they don't approve..?

Look, all I am arguing for on this and the other threads is for people to play nice. And for some people to understand that they are judging people by their own standards and that not everyone shares those. And not sharing your standards doesn't necessarily constitute being wrong.

mefty - Member

As an Anglican I am unsurprisingly pretty comfortable with Lords Spiritual, I think it is important that there are representatives of all walks of life in our second chamber

To be fair though they represent only 60% of Christians, let alone all religions.

I know a lot of religious people who don't do anything bad. Are they not allowed to believe in God because of what some other entirely unrelated people do?

The rest of the paragraph you partially quoted says exactly that:

If an individual wishes to believe something irrational and without evidence base, [b]they're free to do so and I don't think any secularist would object, or try to stop them.[/b] If, however, they then want to change the way science is taught in school, vote on marriage equality, or blow themselves up, then I think the rest of us have a right to say something.

People are perfectly free to believe whatever they wish, provided they don't then inflict that belief upon anyone unwilling.

Look, all I am arguing for on this and the other threads is for people to play nice.

I think playing nice would include not making up sensationalist nonsense like claiming people have said others shouldn't be allowed to believe in god.

Well given how scathing some folk are on the thread I would assume they don't approve..?

The views that people hold can be questioned and queried, surely?

I think playing nice would include not making up sensationalist nonsense like claiming people have said others shouldn't be allowed to believe in god.

That's not what I meant of course, that would be entirely ridiculous.

I was trying to point out that those who hold moderate religious beliefs do not deserve to be vilified.

The questioning and querying is fine - see Cougar and kja78. The vilification is not.

If an individual wishes to believe something irrational and without evidence base, they're free to do so and I don't think any secularist would object, or try to stop them.

So why do so much of this thread seem to be just that, then? Or am I mis-reading it?

And it's easy to argue that religious beleif is rational. It gives happiness, therefore people do it. Seems perfectly rational to me!

So why do so much of this thread seem to be just that, then? Or am I mis-reading it?

Yes. Yes, you are.

And it's easy to argue that religious beleif is rational. It gives happiness, therefore people do it. Seems perfectly rational to me!

Off you go then. In your own time. BTW so do narcotics but I don't think that's rational.

So why do so much of this thread seem to be just that, then? Or am I mis-reading it?

I think you must be misreading it. Barring one or two individuals, who are the online atheist versions of the religious guy I see shouting on the high street on weekends, I think religion threads on here are broadly civilised.

And it's easy to argue that religious beleif is rational. It gives happiness, therefore people do it. Seems perfectly rational to me!

Personal happiness is the main driver for having religion belief? I'm sure anyone religious would disagree.

Was there not talk of a 'god shaped hole' earlier? Is that not about happiness and fulfilment?

Was there not talk of a 'god shaped hole' earlier? Is that not about happiness and fulfilment?

Some of the people at my local church are spectacularly miserable. If they'd be even less happy without the religion, it's no wonder they keep going!

Alain de Botton has written recently on using the positive aspects of religion, in a secular manner and the Sunday Service movement is doing similar. Could the "God shaped hole" be filled by joining a club, singing and dancing and meeting other people? If it's filled purely by God, there's no need to attend church.

I just noticed that the speeding motorists thread has more replies that this one. Obviously a more contentious issue than religion 🙂

Obviously not a guaranteed method for happiness.

Obviously not a guaranteed method for happiness.

I know several clergy who have suffered from depression, and Justin Welby's (Christian) daughter wrote about her own mental health problems.

Ah well it's clearly all bollocks then. Proved.

I'm not saying that unhappy Christians proves there's no God; I'm saying that it shows perhaps people don't turn to religion to feel happy. Saying that they do is quite insulting to them.

Some of the people at my local church are spectacularly miserable.

Genuine lol!

'Oh, Reverend KJA78, why don't people your age come to our church?'

'Something to do perhaps with seeing you lot every Sunday, dressed like you've been to a funeral, coming out of a building surrounded by dead people, with a look on your faces as if you've just spent the last hour watching me kick a puppy.'*

*may not actually have been quite the answer I gave to the question.

I'm saying that it shows perhaps people don't turn to religion to feel happy.

Just because some people in a church don't look happy? What a daft thing to say!

dressed like you've been to a funeral, coming out of a building surrounded by dead people, with a look on your faces as if you've just spent the last hour watching me kick a puppy.'*

You'd think that religious people would be happy at funerals. After all, the deceased have gone forward to meet their god.

Haven't they?

Ah well it's clearly all bollocks then. Proved.

Why do you keep posting such blatant straw man arguments? It achieves absolutely nothing except to degrade the level of debate.

Genuine lol!

'Oh, Reverend KJA78, why don't people your age come to our church?'

'Something to do perhaps with seeing you lot every Sunday, dressed like you've been to a funeral, coming out of a building surrounded by dead people, with a look on your faces as if you've just spent the last hour watching me kick a puppy.'*

*may not actually have been quite the answer I gave to the question.

I like listening to the dull monotone of the recitation of the second eucharistic prayer. The disjoint between what is being said and the vocal/facial expressions of those saying it is brilliant:

[b]President [/b]The Lord is here.
[b]All [/b]His Spirit is with us.

[b]President [/b]Lift up your hearts.
[b]All [/b]We lift them to the Lord.

[b]President [/b]Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
[b]All [/b]It is right to give him thanks and praise.

[b]President[/b]
It is indeed right,
it is our duty and our joy,
at all times and in all places
to give you thanks and praise,
holy Father, heavenly King,
almighty and eternal God,
through Jesus Christ your only Son our Lord.

If I believed that the spirit of the all powerful creator was in me, and that he loved me so much he sacrificed himself for me, I'd be a bit more bloody cheerful about it 🙂

Look, all I am arguing for on this and the other threads is for people to play nice.

What a daft thing to say!

*ahem*

kja78 - I'd be interested in reading the essay you sent to Cougar previously, if that's ok? My email is in my profile.

If I could have genuine peace of mind that I'm told can come with religious belief, I'd love it.
Even if it meant I was believing something made up, as long as I was happy, fulfilled and was looking forward to everlasting bliss, it wouldn't matter.

A bit like Cypher asking to be plugged back into the Matrix.
A bit trite, but you get the idea.

I'm not saying you can't be happy without religion but it seems to offer a deeper peace.
The tricky bit is tricking myself into believing....

I'd prefer to be Neo myself. You get super powers in the Matrix and you look like Keanu Reeves, albeit pretending to be a block of wood.

And you big coats. And guns. Lots of guns. 😀

Oh yeah, forgot about the coats. Good point.
I just want a long coat and cool glasses... But I'd rather stay out of Zion - too crowded!

If I could have genuine peace of mind that I'm told can come with religious belief, I'd love it.
Even if it meant I was believing something made up, as long as I was happy, fulfilled and was looking forward to everlasting bliss, it wouldn't matter.

I'm not saying you can't be happy without religion but it seems to offer a deeper peace.
The tricky bit is tricking myself into believing....

It's your world FeeFoo! It's your life, your experience, your reality! No one else's! That's the beauty of it! And no one can diss you otherwise, because it's yours! You have the freedom to make your own reality and your own rules (obviously, maintaining social morality etc etc) 😀

You don't have to subscribe to any doctrine, pick and mix if you want to. Personally speaking, my view of the numerous and various religious doctrine's is that they were created as a form of being able to control the masses. Some myth's, some historical records, and lots of good life guidance that some became metaphorical; told by people who would help their personal cause for a meal, money or a roof over their head for the night if their story was more fantastical than the last.

The belief I hold has certainly given me a much greater sense of peace, joy and love than before I allowed myself to be open minded, less rigid and dogmatic in my views and make my own reality. It's very liberating! 😀

Read and learn, find out which philosophies resonate with you. What have you to lose? And everything to gain! 😀

What have you to lose? And everything to gain!

I saw mention of research earlier today showing that people who are "spiritual but not religious" have more mental health issues than those who are either religious or have no faith.

You can learn contentment while remaining rational. Have a look at some of the wiring on mindfulness and simplicity available online. Or read the writings of the stoics.

Sorry, to be clear, I'm generally as happy as the next person.
I'm just greedy for more! 🙂

Well there are plenty of narrow minded simpletons out there, so give them a cause like religion......

Absolutely Miketually. Each to their own. Be free to create yours as you are / have.

As it happens, the three words I try to live by: mindfulness, acceptance and attitude.

EDIT: my partner is a psychologist and I've seen how many of these bits of research can be assembled. As had been said many times over in this thread and beyond, don't believe everything you read, 😉 😀

mike - essay sent. Interstingly the local CofE vicar, who I get on with very well, doesn't consider himself to be an Anglican.

Oh yeah, you need to update your blog. October 2013? Tsk

Thanks for the email; I look forward to reading the essay.

I have been very bad at updating my blog. I must do something about it 🙂

'Oh, Reverend KJA78, why don't people your age come to our church?'

'Something to do perhaps with seeing you lot every Sunday, dressed like you've been to a funeral, coming out of a building surrounded by dead people, with a look on your faces as if you've just spent the last hour watching me kick a puppy.'*

*may not actually have been quite the answer I gave to the question.

Kja78 I'll come to your sermons if you promise to kick puppies and cats.

KJA78, could I have a copy too please.

I have recently been doing some work with a local church. When I first saw some of the congregation I thought they appeared distant and glum. After a little time it occurred to me that I had been told that some members were coping with recent bereavement or serious illnesses. I changed my opinion of why some might be going. Finding a safe place to deal with such hard subjects can be difficult enough but also other members were offering comfort and support too. So going to church or seeing a church congregation integrating appeared to have little to do with self requests for help of things from their God.
I may have been naive but it has been a bit of a pleasant surprise.

Roper - no prob. I think one of the strengths of having so many different churches and denominations is that one church doesn't have to try to be all things to all people. There are those churches, like the one you describe, which are 'hospitals for the soul'. People go to receive the spiritual care that professionals; NHS, Social Services whatever, don't have the time or the resources to give.

Personally, I seem to pick up all the misfits! Those that don't really fit in anywhere else, either in society or church. I think my very real and honest approach to faith and life, whilst it can be off-putting to older more traditional Christians, is attractive to those who are struggling and who need more than pious platitudes.

There are sadly those churches, like the one where I was asked the above question, where they really just don't have a clue about what's going on around them and they become cliquey social clubs.

crankboy - you could try kicking my dog, but you'd probably end up missing a toe or two.

Personally, I seem to pick up all the misfits!

You're that vicar in that sitcom aren't you?

You'd think that religious people would be happy at funerals. After all, the deceased have gone forward to meet their god.

Perfectly possible to be sad that someone is no longer with you, even if they have gone to a better place. Of course it begs the question how can the dead person be in eternal bliss if they are no longer with their loved ones..? Unless they are on heroin maybe.

Why do you keep posting such blatant straw man arguments? It achieves absolutely nothing except to degrade the level of debate.

Ok fair point, although it's not a straw man, it's just be being sarcastic because of exasperation. My point is that exposting some flaws in a concept does not necessarily invalidate the entire concept.

Look, all I am arguing for on this and the other threads is for people to play nice.
What a daft thing to say!

Playing nice means being civil and not personally insulting. I simply said that particular comment was daft. I did not say or insinuate that the poster was stupid or mentally feeble in any way.

I say daft things all the time and you are welcome to cordially point them out - you're not welcome to be unpleasant about it or denigrate me.

The belief I hold has certainly given me a much greater sense of peace, joy and love than before I allowed myself to be open minded, less rigid and dogmatic in my views and make my own reality. It's very liberating!

Good post.

I saw mention of research earlier today showing that people who are "spiritual but not religious" have more mental health issues than those who are either religious or have no faith.

Correlation, not causal link. Interesting nevertheless, you really should read The Believing Brain I think you would find it interesting.

I think one of the strengths of having so many different churches and denominations

... is to highlight the risibility of all these different versions of what is supposed to be a set of rules and requirements from the same god thing.

No wonder it's withering on the branch. Even the Council of Ex Muslims finds it's membership burgeoning these days.

Perfectly possible to be sad that someone is no longer with you, even if they have gone to a better place. Of course it begs the question how can the dead person be in eternal bliss if they are no longer with their loved ones..?

As I understand Christianity, dead people don't go to heaven they remain dead until the second coming, at which point they will rise from the grave to be judged. Only Jesus went to heaven (and Mary, according to Catholic dogma).

Most of what people generally think of as Christian beliefs are more of a mish-mash of cultural ideas, rather than what's actually in the bible.

Correlation, not causal link.

Many Christians I know, other than those who are Christians because their parents were Christians because their parents were Christians, have some sort of trauma earlier in their life and so have gone looking for help or solace. It's difficult to separate out cause and effect.

Interesting nevertheless, you really should read The Believing Brain I think you would find it interesting.

I'll have a look.

It feels like the time has come, at least for now in this thread, to just say...

Yeah. Whatever.

different versions of what is supposed to be a set of rules and requirements from the same god thing

It's interesting to see how the rules have been interpreted in different ways.

Even going back a few thousand years, Jewish rules on what evidence was required to prove offences that holy law called for the death penalty were made so tight as to make it all but impossible for someone to be put to death:

To really understand Jewish law one must not only read the Torah but consult the Talmud, an elaboration and interpretation by rabbinical scholars of the laws and commandments of the Torah.

The rabbis who wrote the Talmud created such a forest of barriers to actually using the death penalty that in practical terms it was almost impossible to punish anyone by death.

Oi, Woppit, what are you trying to achieve anyway?

It feels like the time has come, at least for now in this thread, to just say...

Yeah. Whatever.

Just when I thought we were starting to become a little more open minded and accepting of others… 😉

Just when I thought we were starting to become a little more open minded and accepting of others…

I suspect that's [i]why[/i] he thinks it's time.

Oi, Woppit, what are you trying to achieve anyway?

Not open minded acceptance?

😀

I admire the attitude of the current younger generation in the USA, that bastion of superstitious gibberish of the above kind, whose attitude to religion is, apparently - indifference.

So, yeah. Whatever.

Bye then, Mr Woppit.

slackalice - I liked your post and wanted to say so earlier but thought you wouldn't come back to this thread. I'm glad you've returned so you can read this 🙂

Thank you scuzz 😀

My 'soul' searching started nearly 10 years ago and it's been an interesting and involving one! I'm gladdened to hear you could relate. I endeavour not to evangelise, as I believe we all find our own way. If you'd like to 'discuss' more, my PM is in my profile.

Oi, Woppit, what are you trying to achieve anyway?

It LOOKS like he's just being an arsehole, which is why I get annoyed with him.

"Looks like", eh?

How so?

Oi Molgrips:

I say daft things all the time and you are welcome to cordially point them out - you're not welcome to be unpleasant about it or denigrate me.

Followed by:

It LOOKS like he's just being an arsehole, which is why I get annoyed with him.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

"Looks like", eh?

How so?

Your choice of language. Just earlier in the page you referred to religions as risible.

AdamW, if I were being an arsehole I'd have said 'Woppit is an arsehole' not 'it looks like he is being one'. The latter is intended to be a description of what I've read during this thread, not a personal insult which would imply an intrinsic character judgement. I even highlighted that I was simply commenting on my reading of it.

I can't figure out what his aim is either. I can't see what point he is trying to make, it just looks like he's trying to annoy people. Which is arsehole behaviour isn't it? If he has a serious point that I've missed I apologise.

[url= http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=splitting+hairs ]a description of what I've read during this thread, not a personal insult[/url]

I don't think it's splitting hairs at all. I act like an idiot from time to time, and I'll admit it, but I don't want to be considered an idiot full-time.

Mol, relax and step away. You (more than anyone) know what religion threads on here are like and how things are permitted on this topic that would not be permitted on others. That's STW and that's life. Just don't stress about it. Does it matter what Mr W's motives are? His views here are well known too. His welcome to them as we all are.

Breath, relax and walk away.

I'm not stressed, but it's a good point - what is Woppit's actual motive? What does he want? Does he want the religious to abandon their faith and 'see the light'? It'd be ironic, wouldn't it? 🙂

if I were being an arsehole I'd have said 'Woppit is an arsehole' not 'it looks like he is being one'.

So we're ok to say that religionists [i]look like [/i]they're being deluded nutters devoid of logic, critical thinking and common sense, so log as we don't say they actually are?

Well thank christ we've cleared that up, perhaps now you can stop telling us to be nice to each other when we already are being and we can get on with having a discussion.

Most of you are being nice yes, but some aren't.

And this is why god gave us "report post" buttons.

(-:

.....and why mods (even in their non mod capacity) can happily get away with mild piss taking like "thank Christ" and "why god" etc........

Good job folk have a SOH when it comes to religion even though it's not required with other subjects on here. 😉

Molgrips, call the occasional lack of niceness a kind of payback...

[i]Let me tell you something: for hundreds of thousands of years, this kind of discussion would have been impossible to have, or those like us would have been having it at the risk of our lives. Religion now comes to us in this smiley-face, ingratiating way — because it’s had to give so much more ground and because we know so much more. But you’ve got no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong, and when it really did believe that it had god on its side.[/i]

Hitchens, of course.

...and try this on.

[i]The first thing people “offended” by atheist rhetoric should understand is that religion is indeed a sensitive topic, but it shouldn’t be. Claims about the universe like “God exists” and “God cares about me” are hypotheses about the world, and are therefore subject to criticism in the free marketplace of ideas. As we see every single day, there are people who go batshit crazy at the idea that their religious assumptions can be ridiculed or criticized, and they confuse criticism with personal attack. And it surprises me to see “concern trolls” act as if this is a problem with atheists/atheism, and not a problem with religion.[/i]

From; http://inspirationalfreethought.wordpress.com/tag/christopher-hitchens/

Haven't wasted my time reading this thread, but +1 Mr Woppit anyway!

And this is why god gave us "report post" buttons.

(-:

Not for Christians, they turn the other cheek.

EDIT: Crikey - do use you that approach for Germans too?

and why mods (even in their non mod capacity) can happily get away with mild piss taking like "thank Christ" and "why god" etc...

Whilst I take your point, I think that's a little unfair. I don't deny "mild piss taking," but I'm an equal opportunities piss-taker; either anything is fair game for a bit of friendly teasing, or nothing is. Any middle ground is just discrimination or censorship.

Unless you're arguing that religion deserves special exception of course, in which case I may have to get in touch with my inner woppit.

(-:

Crikey - do use you that approach for Germans too?

I am German.

Molgrips, call the occasional lack of niceness a kind of payback...

How does that work then? You can't blame someone for something someone else did hundreds of years ago, can you?

Original sin?

Touche.

One of the things that this thread has really highlighted to me is that it's not only Christians who allow their Socio-Cultural expectations to influence their understanding of the Bible/faith, but non-Christians do it as well. Several posters have made comments which show that they are mentally adding to what the Bible says.

For example, Jesus said that remarrying after divorce is adultery. The automatic assumption, because of our cultural conditioning, is that therefore he thinks it ought to be forbidden and punished. Whereas he said nothing of the sort, and a more rounded reading of the Gospels enables us to understand that God is a God of redemption and restoration who doesn't hold our past against us, in fact quite the opposite, he enables us to move on despite our past.

Mr. W's comment is another example

is supposed to be a set of rules and requirements from the same god thing.

Our culture is set up in such a way that we think we require rules. In fact, whilst many Christians fall into the same trap as Mr W has, the Christian faith, as difficult and as strange as it may sound, is about an individual's personal relationship with God. Churches, or 'The Church' is a family of individuals all of whom, hopefully, know God personally.

Which is why it is perfectly legitimate, as hard as it may be to comprehend, for different Christians to have different views about certain things. For example, I was able to justify serving in the British Army as a Christian prior to Iraq and Afghanistan. Other Christians are devout pacifists and others would have no problem with Iraq and Afghanistan. All of these views are, in my view, perfectly valid and legitimate. I know that might be very tough for individuals who like everyone to be of the same opinion as them. As a sort of metaphor for what I mean, I have three sisters and a brother; all five of us relate to our parents differently, according to our personalities and situations, and our parents relate differently to us. In the same way different Christians relate differently to the same God.

Kja78 purely out of a desire to troll and a certainty that you will reply intelligently the original post was about the religious support and sponsership of what are termed anti gay laws. I know you are a babtist so I assume that unlike the Anglicans you do not have to speak with one eye on appeasing Africa, what is your view on the church and "the friends of Dorothy"?

the Christian faith, as difficult and as strange as it may sound, is about an individual's personal relationship with God

Only if you are a protestant, surely? Wasn't that Luther's point?

I agree with your overall point though - a lot of arguing from ignorance on the religion threads. It's almost like people who don't speak French discussing Balzac in French.

the Christian faith, as difficult and as strange as it may sound, is about an individual's personal relationship with God

Meh.

Sounds a lot like the English (rather than Anglican...) version of Christianity. Tea, cake, not getting too excited about things, not keen on gays, but as long as they're polite and don't hold hands in public...

English Western Christianity is great. Non confrontational, charitable and so on, but when it comes to the tricky stuff, the 'let's tell the other people who consider themselves Christians that women can actually do the same jobs as men, gay people are just like us' stuff, it seems to be rather less than great.

The separation of the 'organised' church and people's personal belief is smashing, but is also an abrogation of responsibility if prejudice and sexism within the whole organisation is not addressed.