Forum menu
but the very agressive posting of those who are anti-religious or agressive athiests.
That is rather subjective, you could just say over sensitive believers. After all I started posting that I could fly and offered no proof for it and expected everyone to just accept it as fact, I would probably get shot down in flames on STW.
and the avoidance of doubt, I can't fly. Although I haven't tried recently, so technically it's just a hypothesis at this stage...
I think it comes down to the issue of "faith". Those who have it don't question that it's enough. Those who don't feel it's an inadequate basis for a belief.
agressive athiests
This group are just as bad at the religious in that both groups firmly believe their view to be the only valid point.
Part of the problem with discussing religion is that we are bundling a lot of things into one pot and mixing them up eg. Faith, god, religion, organised religion, church. To a lot of folks they are the one thing but they really aren't as eg. It isnt really necessary to believe in God to go to church and get benefit frrom it.
It can make the discussion difficult
TBH, I don't think the anti-religionists really care what you get up to in your own (or your Gods) house if it wasn't for the impact on them.
Surely not all those against religion are so unconcerned about the well-being of others?
I'm not sure I'd fit the term 'anti-religionist' so well or so broadly. Could be described as agnostic/atheist. Though I am actively opposed to such cultic behaviour that impacts vulnerable/out-groups/religious minorities that naturally arise because of dominant religions/cults. This includes what brainwashing from birth. I also realise that similar if not identical issues arise within politics or peer-bullying. Religiosity does seem (proportionally) to inspire enormous denial on a grand scale. I don't feel smug but incredibly fortunate that my parents made a conscious pre-natal decision to let 'decide for himself'. Why I was 'Christened' is a bit of an odd one. We are merely 'funerals and weddings' churchgoers as a family.
Anyhow, I do really care what 'they' get up to in their 'back yards', whether that is murdering homosexuals, 'apostates', burning people alive, etc. Or maiming and ostracizing tiny children for the belief that they are 'witches'. The level of (encouraged) ignorance that allows people to perform such horrific, murderous, barbaric acts in the belief that they are doing 'good' leaves me literally speechless.
(Extreme examples)
Who's having the difficulty?
I do really care what they get up to in their 'back yards', whether that is murdering homosexuals, 'apostates' etc. Or maiming and ostracizing tiny children for the belief that they are 'witches'.
Or running the largest organised Paedophile ring in the world (aka The Catholic Church)....
I've often wondered why it's such a conscientious topic for some? They seem to get so worked up so quickly for some reason.
Could be described as agnostic/atheist
Two entirely different things.
To a lot of folks they are the one thing but they really aren't as eg. It isnt really necessary to believe in God to go to church and get benefit frrom it.
indeed. And the conversation quickly turns adversarial - you are either for 'science' or 'religion' and have to pick one side or the other.
When obviously the reality is that for most religious Brits, you don't need to reject science, and obviously there are plenty of top scientists who also believe in (a) God.
It's kind of ironic, because if someone lumps cyclists all together in the manner that people here do to 'religious people' or 'atheists' or even 'vegans', the outrage bus is along in pretty short order 🙂
eg. It isnt really necessary to believe in God to go to church and get benefit frrom it.
https://www.sundayassembly.com/story
Never been, but it looks like church without the "worship" bit.
@stoatsbrother: If I was a medical doctor of some sort, and there was a discussion around medicine taking place in which many ideas and opinions were being bandied about by people who were not of a medical background, I would hope that I might be able to shed some accurate and helpful light on proceedings.
I would not expect to be listened to in every instance, nor would I think that everyone should capitulate to me and what I was saying. But you can imagine, I hope, how frustrating it would be to encounter a statement or a series of statements that could stand with some correction but with limited possibilities to do much about it. This would be especially so if people could potentially go away with some idea about health which they were basing upon the uncorrected statement.
Changing the type of discussion could potentially mitigate such misconstruals/misunderstandings, as could being aware of the hazards of the discussions as they stood.
That's all I was hoping for in the original post.
Sorry if I sound 'pleading'.
or running the largest organised Paedophile ring in the world (aka The Catholic Church)....
funny how those criticising faith and beliefs often cite their own faith or beliefs as criticisms
OP I thought it was appropriate & funny 🙂 given that cycling, to some, is almost a religion or cyclists can be fanatical about it.
In the same way that some people 'believe' in science despite the fact that reasonable scientists realise that as far as the universe (& heck deep oceans & the more complex interactions of our own biology)is concerned like we know nothing.
The real issue, to my mind, in the modern world is not so much religion as fanatacism which IMO is the resort of people who are (or feel) threatened by rapid change (e.g. the digital revolution, climate change).
Unfortunately this stops everyone else looking at & fixing the issues caused by rapid change.
two entirely different things
Conflicting? I get this occasionally. I have no current belief in any deity. In fact all 'deities' so far claimed are (to the best of my knowledge) evidently fictitious/derivative with lineage traceable to earlier mythos. Hence 'atheist'. I am also fiercely against specific theologies yet the term 'anti-theist' sounds very personal, as if I am against all religious individuals rather than against inherently bigoted mumbo-jumbo. I am open to evidence. I also think certain claims are 'unprovable.' I do find it weird that one even requires a category for *not* being a theist. Similar to being identified as 'afairyist'. 'adragonist. 'aleprechaunist'. Etc.
Lazy Wikipedia quote:
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.
I can't think of anything connected to religion (barring the usual WoS OO pish) that has ever had an impact upon my life or that of my family.
I can - but this is in Spain. The Catholic Church is quite active in politics, fighting to limit access to abortion (or even banning it altogether) and funding pro-Church candidates, while enjoying state subsidies, freedom from property taxes (and not just on their churches), and having their teachers in every school. This has a direct impact on me, and could possibly have an impact on my daughters in the future.
I don't think SaxonRider is special pleading. What Saxon Rider is often trying to do is correct people's misunderstandings. It is not uncommon for people to say something like I hate religion because of this premise. Saxon Rider will respond by explaining how the premise is wrong because it doesn't feature in teachings and therefore it is unsafe foundation upon which to base one's view. He is not arguing or, indeed trying to ram religion down your throat, he is just correcting factual errors.
OP,
Relax, chill coz people come in all sorts so just take them as they are as part of amusement.
Whatever they believe, they still believe in something even when they believe in "nothing".
I like it when people say "I believe in nothing". 😛
Chill and let the heated discussion continues ... I like that.
What impact is that?Genuine question, especially in Scotland where, for example, you can get married to anybody by anybody (with a licence), anywhere you choose.
TBH I can't think of anything connected to religion (barring the usual WoS OO pish) that has ever had an impact upon my life or that of my family.
My two daughters are primary 4 and primary 2. In each of their classes there are a number of muslim children. So far as I know neither they nor any of the other non-muslim kids in their classes haver every been invited to a birthday party or play day with any of the muslim kids (the converse is not the case).
Last week my eldest daughter had a class trip to the Glasgow Central Mosque. She had to cover her head, arms and legs to go on the trip, as did all other girls in her class.
I consider both of these examples demonstrate a negative affect on those involved and society in general. So far as I can tell, both are a direct impact of religion.
In Canada, where there is no religion in schools, people tend to discuss it (if, indeed, they discuss it at all!) in a very different way.
I am not sure it's specifically because of school teaching. There is an old saying never to discuss politics or religion - because there will always be an argument. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that a fairly long history of religious dissent in a country with an established church could lead to resentment and arguments.
I agree with mefty's comments. A lot of people brought up atheist seem to have a pretty sparse knowledge of the history of religion, the contents of the bible, and the views of any particular church either historically or today. Consequently they are arguing from false assumptions. Anyone who has studied these things extensively would be quite rightly annoyed.
It'd be like going on say, pistonheads, and listening to them talking about how all cyclists are self-important militant greenies who think themselves superior to all car owners, and not being listened to when you try to disagree.
you could just say over sensitive believers. After all I started posting that I could fly and offered no proof for it and expected everyone to just accept it as fact, I would probably get shot down in flames on STW.
Surely if that happened, you would have proved you could fly?
Its all about this....
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/23/no-religion-outnumber-christians-england-wales-study
The proportion of the population who identify as having no religion – referred to as “nones” – reached 48.5% in 2014, almost double the figure of 25% in the 2011 census.
you can bet your best bible that its the younger generation that are moving away from religion, this trend will only continue to grow
fanatical distortions of religion via ISIS, probably helping to move people away from it too
its also evidenced in the move toward equality for homosexuals etc,
this kind of discussion will only become 'harder' for the believers as we move further into our Post- Religious western civilisation
talking about how all cyclists are self-important militant greenies who think themselves superior to all car owners
well actually...... 😉
A lot of people brought up atheist seem to have a pretty sparse knowledge of the history of religion, the contents of the bible, and the views of any particular church either historically or today.
It is exacerbated by a media with a predilection for reporting controversy so only focus on proceedings of the General Synod and Archbishop's Council when they are dealing with equality issues.
agree with mefty's comments. A lot of people brought up atheist seem to have a pretty sparse knowledge of the history of religion, the contents of the bible, and the views of any particular church either historically or today. Consequently they are arguing from false assumptions.
This is a very fair point, and I think we [i]all[/i] should understand more about world history, world religions, world politics and world philosophies.
But it does cut two ways. I am still struggling to understand how someone on the other thread, avowedly Christian, seemed to have no knowledge that hell actually had been depicted, preached and painted as a rather hot place with fires, outside the conversations of Atheists...
A lot of people brought up atheist seem to have a pretty sparse knowledge of the history of religion, the contents of the bible, and the views of any particular church either historically or today. Consequently they are arguing from false assumptions. Anyone who has studied these things extensively would be quite rightly annoyed.
Without evidence, it's just talk.
it's just talk
Of course.
But some of it is actual factual history, and things that people have actually said.
But there is evidence of belief.
... belief that the world is flat for instance...
Belief is not evidence
A genuine question for Woppit in particular and all the other Faithless Militant in general....
Religion aside for a moment, has there never been a time in your life when you've believed something to be true, in the pit of your stomach without empirical, demonstrable truth that it actually is?
Something that, [b]you[/b] know to be right , which others around you may find irrational or even a little odd.
A strongly held conviction based on feelings or instinct rather than provable facts?
About anything?*
Not a trick question, or an attempt to lure you into any kind of verbal trap.
Just wonder if you live your whole lives demanding substantiating data for everything in your life. It must be exhausting.
*For me it's Football. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I can't see any merit or entertainment in the game of Football. It does absolutely nothing for me. I've tried to like it, I really have. I coach a boys team twice a week and hold a coaching qualification and my boys love it. Still don't get it.
Use of words like "pleading" are passive agressive, designed to undermine the poster. This leads onto use of words like "fantasy" "fairy tales" or "lies". Its all intimidation. What annoys me the most is how controlling the agressively athiest posters are, they display no tolerance or belief in liberty as they wish to force their views and lifestyles on others. We are forunate to live in a liberal and free country where religion or no religion plays a central role, lets keep it that way.
Belief is not evidence
It is evidence for the existence of belief.
Use of words like "pleading" are passive agressive, designed to undermine the poster. This leads onto use of words like "fantasy" "fairy tales" or "lies". Its all intimidation.
Agree, and better put than I could manage all this time.
has there never been a time in your life when you've believed something to be true, in the pit of your stomach without empirical, demonstrable truth that it actually is?
I know it wasn't addressed to me but to answer anyway - no. I'm just not wired up that way. Is it exhausting? No, not really.
What's far more difficult to deal with is the concept of death 🙁
I would suggest that the biggest reason why these discussions fly off into meaninglessness and confusion is that no-one actually defines what we mean by god in the first place.
For example,
a)a personal god who speaks to you, is different from
b) a "deist" god who is removed from everyday life, and is different again from
c) a general respect or reverence for nature.
Any argument against any of these (or any number of subdivisions) is met with "thats not what I think god is" and a quick maneouver of the goalposts to new ground.
Its like arguing over whether an animal exists, with somone who won't be specific about whether it lives on land or sea, whether it has 2 or 4 or no legs and finally whether they are real physical animals with fur and hooves, or just tricks of the light seen from the corner of your eye, or just thoughts in your head.
Stop moving the goalposts or discussion is pointless.
If you think your "god is ineffable and unknowable" then take him away and keep him with your unicorn.
If you think he has an opinion about how I or others should live our lives or be legally sanctioned for doing things privately with other consenting adults, then bring some evidence or shut up.
As an example, based on my own personal experience, some christians will, in one breath, claim that god constantly and willingly interferes in the physical world (e.g. by saving you a parking space in a big city, as a result of prayer), but then, in the next, claim he is "ineffable" and "moves in mysterious ways" when he fails to act on his foreknowledge of child rape or starvation.
I find that weird.
Make your choice.
Edit: PerchyP .. I have beleived as you describe, and I do understand the strength of it. But I started noticing the cracks and eventually developed the strength to say "its all rubbish" (which is actually really hard when you think GOD HIMSELF is watching your thoughts, and might take it personally). I managed to get around the self correcting mechanism (A.K.A. "I believe, help my unbelief") an suddenly everything made sense.
Not in the "I'll find out someday" sense, but in the "wow, if god doesn't exist its a helluva lot easier to explain pretty much everything about the world"
some christians will, in one breath, claim that god constantly and willingly interferes in the physical world (e.g. by saving you a parking space in a big city, as a result of prayer), but then, in the next, claim he is "ineffable" and "moves in mysterious ways" when he fails to act on his foreknowledge of child rape or starvation.
That, to me, is poor thinking. Poor thinkers exist on both sides of the debate, definitely not a symptom of religion.
As regards the WoS OO pish - Hee Haw to do with actual religion. Everything to do with bigoted tribalism.
Our church has hundreds of members, none of whom are in the OO. Other local churches report the same phenomenon. Funny eh?
Sorry, bad choice of words, I do realise it's bigotry hiding behind religion, apologies for the (justifiable) offence caused!
apologies for the (justifiable) offence caused!
None taken. Double oppression for you on Sunday though 😉
Religion aside for a moment, has there never been a time in your life when you've believed something to be true, in the pit of your stomach without empirical, demonstrable truth that it actually is?
Isn't there a subtle yet defining difference here between 'true' or 'factual'?
I broadly share your general non-enjoyment of watching football. Yet I'm fairly certain that I also understand why other people enjoy it. Same goes for cricket (in a diminishing way, I have to try harder to understand why!)
However, both cricket and football do not require an enormous effort to verify as factual. Yet if someone claimed (quite literally) - 'It's true, Manchester United are favoured by God' - it seems reasonable that they shoulder the burden to provide the empirical/demonstrable truth of this 'deity', first and foremost - if they wish to be believed. Rather than I simply believe that it is 'true' because the team's performance was good over a season. Extraordinary claims, and all that...
molgrips
That, to me, is poor thinking. Poor thinkers exist on both sides of the debate, definitely not a symptom of religion.
I agree, but I spent a long time looking for the best thinkers on the side of religion (assuming they must exist somewhere) and honestly I haven't seen much of any interest (except for those deists whose god is so distant they may as well not exist).
However, both cricket and football do not require an enormous effort to verify as factual. If someone said to me - 'It's true, Manchester United are favoured by God' - I would require them to provide the empirical/demonstrable truth of this 'deity' first and foremost. Rather than simply believing that it is 'true' because the team's performance was good over a season. Extraordinary claims, and all that...
what about e.g. 'this relationship is definitely the right one for me' or 'XYZ is a nasty piece of work'?
And as it happens, go onto any newspaper or sports site and you'll find plenty of atheists saying 'It's true, Manchester United are favoured by referees/the FA/etc' without a shred of empirical/demonstrable truth... 😉
If someone said to me - 'It's true, Manchester United are favoured by God' - I would require them to provide the empirical/demonstrable truth of this 'deity' first and foremost
Dragging religion back into it. Naughty 😉
The question I was asking , to use your example, would be if someone believed that Manchester United were the greatest team in the world despite not having won the Premiership or the FA Cup or any European competitions.
The persons conviction regarding Man Utd would likely be unshaken despite a lack of evidence to support it.
Neither true nor factual but believed nonetheless.
Something that, you know to be right , which others around you may find irrational or even a little odd.
A strongly held conviction based on feelings or instinct rather than provable facts?
no, anything I hold to strongly without evidence I'm happy to admit is completely illogical and is pure emotional response and as such I have no expectation or right to think that anyone else would either give a monkeys or make allowance for it.
... belief that the world is flat for instance...
You see, [b]Stoatsbrother[/b], you have suggested EXACTLY the sort of inaccuracy I am talking about: these things that get set forward as facts, when in truth they are nothing of the sort.
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth ]The myth of the flat earth[/url]
If we just asked each other questions instead of asserting presuppositions, we would end up in a better place. How can that be controversial?!?
no, anything I hold to strongly without evidence I'm happy to admit is completely illogical and is pure emotional response and as such I have no expectation or right to think that anyone else would either give a monkeys or make allowance for it.
So, as long as you admit it's an irrational belief, you should be left in peace to get on with it without any one questioning it?
For me it's Football. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I can't see any merit or entertainment in the game of Football. It does absolutely nothing for me. I've tried to like it, I really have. I coach a boys team twice a week and hold a coaching qualification and my boys love it. Still don't get it.
Fine, but there's no argument about it's existence. Everybody can see the evidence.