Forum menu
I'd hazard there's a simpler explanation than God.
As explanations go, "god" is about the simplest there is. It's one of religion's more mass-appealing concepts, you don't really have to think to hard about it. It's when you rule out god that explanations start getting complicated or difficult (or unknown).
Compare the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang ]Big Bang[/url] theory with "god did it in six days", as a random example.
Perhaps that's why I've always been an atheist; I find the big bang theory much simpler to wrap my head around that "there's an all powerful omnipotent being who made everything and who came to Earth to save us from himself by being killed but then coming back and he's going to come back one day and it must be true because it's in this book".
A friend was once told by Jehovah's Witnesses that the earth was perfectly designed to suit our every need, and we were also designed to fit it.
"Yeah", he said, "otherwise, how would our spectacles fit?"
A fair point, however the original "experience" wasn't actually in a church, and didn't even involve other people so no manipulation was possible.
You allowed your emotional reaction to manipulate you into an incorrect conclusion, based (probably) on the existing acceptance of a false premise.
As my three year old would say 'I'm back! You found me!'
Cougar - it's ok, I can handle you ignoring me *sniff*.
Crankboy, no I didn't get that particular girl, however I did that morning meet a girl with whom I subsequently became great friends and have been married to for the past 10 years.
Mr.W - You seem to be asserting that I manipulate people in order to elicit an emotional response, without me or them realising that's what I'm doing. An interesting proposition and one to which I will genuinely give some serious thought. I hope that you and miketually, as disciples of Derrin,have the same critical approach to his teaching as I do to the Bible, and have considered if and how he may be manipulating you and to what ends.
I hope that you and miketually, as disciples of Derrin,have the same critical approach to his teaching as I do to the Bible, and have considered if and how he may be manipulating you and to what ends.
I think he's pretty open about what he does:
I am often dishonest in my techniques, but always honest about my dishonesty. As I say in each show, 'I mix magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship'. I happily admit cheating, as it's all part of the game. I hope some of the fun for the viewer comes from not knowing what's real and what isn't. I am an entertainer first and foremost, and I am careful not to cross any moral line that would take me into manipulating people's real-life decisions or belief systems.
'I am careful not to cross any moral line that would take me into manipulating people's real-life decisions or belief systems.'
Phew, that's me reassured then.
Phew, that's me reassured then.
Whatever he does, he doesn't have automatic seats in the Lords or a huge say in how policies are implemented, so any harm he can do is limited. Religion on the other hand...
Mike - being a Baptist I believe firmly in the seperation of church and state. That being said, about 3% of the Lords are Anglican Bishops. 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.
As for the harm the media can do and the influence it has, I'd hardly call it limited.
That being said, about 3% of the Lords are Anglican Bishops. 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.
Sorry but that spectacularly misses the point being made. No-one is suggesting that those with religious beliefs should be barred from holding seats in the Lords, or any other political office for that matter. The objection is to those who hold political office for no reason other than their position in a religious orgainisation. That is what many people object to.
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.
I dare say that those concerns are covered by the other people who hold political office for a valid reason whilst also being Religious. I'd never want anyone to hold political office based solely on the fact they are an athiest.
Unfortunately I've never seen an argument proffered by a believer that isn't (IMO!) based on flawed understanding, circular reasoning, insufficient knowledge or a personal standard of evidence.
The thing that many of the atheist contributors on this thread seem to be missing is that reason and evidence might not be all that important to some people. Why not believe? If it makes you feel good then how bad can it be?*
No spiritual element at all to being a human? No ghosts? No unexplicable shivers down the spine? No deeper connection with the universe when out on a bike ride? No unexplained coincedences?
Hmm.. personally I don't need a 'spiritual' connection as you describe. The world as it is is more than wonderful enough. In fact, to me, the fact that there ISN'T a higher power is fulfilling and uplifting. The idea that we are all just cells, neurons, DNA and what not is liberating and joyous.
As for the feelings you get when out riding etc: The fact that you can induce more or less any human feeling as intensely as you like with some simple chemicals tends to remove the need for 'soul' or 'spirit' as an explanation don't you think?
Surely even the most avid atheist must admit there's something more to life than physical sensory environment we inhabit?
You make it sound like the physical sensory environment isn't much of a big thing?
Re the Lords - it's not just the bishops who are there for dodgy reasons is it? The problem isn't with relgion, it's with the Lords!
* 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.
PS kja78 won the thread a few pages ago. Good work 🙂
The thing that many of the atheist contributors on this thread seem to be missing is that reason and evidence might not be all that important to some people. Why not believe? If it makes you feel good then how bad can it be?*
Say that to the kids that died in the US because their parents are religious nutters who don't believe in medicine, just prayer.
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 - MemberAs 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....