[Closed] The First STW Religion Poll

Strange that a "way" which has been constructed by a Super-Intelligent Being actually needs interpretation. You'd think it would be obvious.

Communication Skills not it's forte, presumably.

princehuggy - back in the day, we used to call this a "cop-out".

In fairness, it's the interpretation of what 'God's way' actually is that's a large part of the problem, PP

I assume you're referring to this......

It's men and women that are the problem, not a belief in God. If everyone did it God's way, then there wouldn't be a problem.

...which I didn't say....because I don't believe it's right. It's as proscriptive as all the other bollocks in this thread

If I had said it I would have gone for ...

[b]If everyone did it their own way and respected everyone elses choice to do it their way, then there wouldn't be a problem[/b]

Strange that a "way" which has been constructed by a Super-Intelligent Being actually needs [b]interpretation[/b]. You'd think it would be obvious.

Interpretation is the big issue , God's Word doesn't need it.

If everyone did it their own way and respected everyone else's choice to do it their way, then there wouldn't be a problem

Agreed. That should be the starting point for anyone's belief system anyway.

Strange that a "way" which has been constructed by a Super-Intelligent Being actually needs interpretation. You'd think it would be obvious.

Why would you think that? What makes you think anything an ineffable supreme being does would make any sense to us? No-one's saying what God actually IS, I don't know if organised religion has any thoughts on the topic?

I assume you're referring to this......

It's men and women that are the problem, not a belief in God. If everyone did it God's way, then there wouldn't be a problem

Well no - by 'the problem' I meant the bad things done in the name of religion through the centuries. People thinking that they were doing God's will.

Why would you think that? What makes you think anything an ineffable supreme being does would make any sense to us?

Well if it doesn't, I don't much see the point in such a useless creature. Let alone why anyone should feel like worshipping it.

Strange that a "way" which has been constructed by a Super-Intelligent Being actually needs interpretation. You'd think it would be obvious.

well, part of the Fermi paradox is "how would we know if there are super intelligent species in our universe if we can't speak to them" If the only thing you've got is electromagnetic radiation and they're not listening to that..?

molgrips is on the right track here 🙂

Careful, he likes to play "god's advocate". It doesn't mean he agrees with you.

If everyone did it their own way and respected everyone else's choice to do it their way, then there wouldn't be a problem

I think you're in agreement with most atheists. Now, if you could just convince all organised religion...

😆 very good.

I love a good debate, done it on other forums. You learn a lot about people perceptions and how to deal with ridicule because of your beliefs.

I think you're in agreement with most atheists. Now, if you could just convince all

organised

religion...

I think you'll find that most religion is not organised. To many disagreements to be organised.

princehuggy - Member
very good.

I love a good debate, done it on other forums.

I thought you said it could only be done face to face and forums aren't suitable?

How about dealing with the actual arguments instead?

4, but bordering on both 3 and 5 (if the OP is still interested).

I think you're in agreement with most atheists.

This thread would seem to contradict this statement.

For ease of reference i'll use the "SaxonRider Scale of being a dick about your belief system "

There are 8 pages of atheists telling the god-botherers how wrong they are and demanding evidence. The most widely expressed statement on this thread is about how the 4's will turn into 5+'s if they feel they're being preached at or trying to be "converted".
The majority of preaching I've seen on this thread has come from the 4's and 5's and has been countered by a self professed 3.

I could find only a couple of instances in 8 pages of a 1 or 2 "person of faith" expressing the view that the unbelievers should repent.

My own faith, irrational though it may, works for me and gives me what I need.
I can't be offended by attacks on my beliefs because they're robust enough to withstand the words of random internet forummers.
I have no wish or desire to impose my faith on anyone else.

I'm out.

I don't much see the point in such a useless creature.

Great! Your opinion is noted 🙂

I thought you said it could only be done face to face and forums aren't suitable?

How about dealing with the actual arguments instead?

I can still have my little say, can't I?

3 & 5

I find religions and history fascinating, but, despite knowing that it is a comfort to some I can't understand how anyone could actually believe all that stuff is true.

STW is meant to be like a friendly pub. Ask yourself if you would express the same things in the same way in a friendly pub scenario? Would you expect the scenario to remain friendly if you did?

kimbers - It's about building faith.

When I first started even thinking about getting a new bike, I didn't just go into a shop and buy the most expensive bike or a bike I just liked the look of (although admittedly I did get a 29er coz I liked the size of the wheels 😳 )

You start with the basics and work your way up. You ask important questions and to the right people.

I think you're in agreement with most atheists.

This thread would seem to contradict this statement.

For ease of reference i'll use the "SaxonRider Scale of being a dick about your belief system "

There are 8 pages of atheists telling the god-botherers how wrong they are and demanding evidence. The most widely expressed statement on this thread is about how the 4's will turn into 5+'s if they feel they're being preached at or trying to be "converted".
The majority of preaching I've seen on this thread has come from the 4's and 5's and has been countered by a self professed 3.

You're assuming shouty argumentative forum dwellers are representative of most atheists.

If religion wasn't used as a reason to control the behaviour of others, most people wouldn't care about it.

If it's used as a reason for denying abortions, preventing people marrying, buying things on a Sunday, guaranteeing positions of power, blowing people up, etc. then there's a problem.

I could find only a couple of instances in 8 pages of a 1 or 2 "person of faith" expressing the view that the unbelievers should repent.

On Saturday, a person of faith was telling everyone who walked past him on Milburngate Bridge in Durham to repent.

I could find only a couple of instances in 8 pages of a 1 or 2 "person of faith" expressing the view that the unbelievers should repent

[i]Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.[/i]

I'm not a fan of Christopher Hitchens, but I do think that we are protected by the era in which we live. Expressing the views some on here have; would've been a very short one way trip only a few generations ago. We all need to not forget that.

Why do you assume that the other end of the scale from "practicing religious" is "anti religious"7

Would you assume that someone who does not collect stamps is "anti" stamp collecting?

Is that not a strange assumption to make?

I don't think that's very fair, not least because plenty of people [i]are[/i] anti-religion (our own dear Woppit probably rates about a 14 on the OP's scale). Antiphilatelists on the other hand are comparatively thin on the ground.

It's no different from any other multiple guess questionnaire which asks "1 - strongly agree... 5 - strongly disagree." The OP is asking, "do you like this, do you not care, do you actively dislike it?" Seems a reasonable set of response choices to me, I don't think it says anything negative about the OP's attitudes at all.

Expressing the views some on here have; would've been a very short one way trip only a few generations ago. We all need to not forget that.

Moreover, in some parts of the world it still is.

There are 8 pages of atheists telling the god-botherers how wrong they are and demanding evidence.

If it's used as a reason for denying abortions, preventing people marrying, buying things on a Sunday, guaranteeing positions of power, blowing people up, etc. then there's a problem.

Hah.. one of many many things used to justify bad behaviour; similarly most atheists do not do these bad things.

The behaviour is the problem, not the cover that these people use.

(our own dear Woppit probably rates about a 14 on the OP's scale)

😀

I'm not "shouting", by the way... I'd say exactly the same thing in a pub or anywhere else. You have to imagine a low tone, friendly demeanour and a constant half-smile. The glazed-eye stare of the true believer will be absent, obviously.

Why is it that, after Atheism states it's requirement of evidence and that arguments for the existence of a god that do not proffer it will not succeed, that the religious continue to argue their case without any evidence in the belief that they will convince?

The behaviour is the problem, not the cover that these people use.

Sure, but that behaviour would be so much easier to correct if they didn't Truly Believe that it was god's will and they didn't had an organisation of mates all agreeing with them, n'est-ce pas?

Sure, but that behaviour would be so much easier to correct if they didn't Truly Believe that it was god's will

Dunno about that.

that the religious continue to argue their case

Almost all of them don't. No religious person I've ever known personally has done this, and only maybe one or two people have ever preached directly at me in 22 years of adulthood.

In fact almost all the proselytising I've seen has come from atheists. So maybe it's you that should STFU. Can I make myself a 5 on the atheism scale whilst still being one?

I'm not "shouting", by the way... I'd say exactly the same thing in a pub or anywhere else. You have to imagine a low tone, friendly demeanour and a constant half-smile.

I'm glad you said that, Woppit. It's what I've always assumed about you. [insert 'thumbs up' emoji here]

Some related links:

[url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nonbelievers-outnumber-christians-first-time-8042958 ]The Rev Richard Coles doesn't do a great job of arguing for religion.[/url]

[url= http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/the-bleak-future-for-organised-religion-in-the-uk-in-5-maps-and-charts--Zkxlq_8WmQW ]Lots of graphs[/url]

Some related links:

The Rev Richard Coles doesn't do a great job of arguing for religion.

Lots of graphs

Believe it or not that's one prophecy being fulfilled.

[i]Matthew 24:12 and because of the increasing of lawlessness, the love of the greater number will grow cold.[/i]

It's understandable why less people are believing in God.

Oh, so if I said recumbents are stupid, and anyone who rides one is an idiot, you'd not think anything of it?

They are though, aren't they?

What was the question again? 😕

"In fact almost all the proselytising I've seen has come from atheists."

I'm not talking about proselytising. I'm talking about the hundreds of responses in threads like these, where the religious have sought to convince the atheists that they are wrong.

"So maybe it's you that should STFU."

Excuse me? You seem to suggest that I have demanded that people, er, "STFU", as you put it. I don't recall doing that, can you find a quote to back up your assertion? And any way, that's hardly "friendly pub" talk now, is it. Old chap.

It's understandable why less people are believing in God.

But more people, globally, believe in God than ever before, surely?

There are currently 2 billion Christians, which is considerably more than the number of people living in Christ's time.

In Adam and Eve's time, 100% of the population were Christian. It's tailed off a bit since then.

is that 2 billion, 2 billion that signed up and committed of their own choice after reaching the age of majority in their culture?
or 2 billion that were signed up by their parents?

In Adam and Eve's time, 100% of the population were Christian. It's tailed off a bit since then.

Adam and Eve were Jewish, surely?

is that 2 billion, 2 billion that signed up and committed on reaching the age of majority in their culture?
or 2 billion that were signed up by their parents?

It's the number used by CofE spokespeople to justify their power, I think?

I suspect I am one of those 2 billion, because I was christened and did confirmation too. This makes me inclined to not trust the figure.

Adam and Eve were Jewish, surely?

Artistic licence, ahem. I knew I should've written "believed in god."

Are you fishing Cougar? 😆

Adam and Eve were Jewish. Adam and Steve were fabulous.

A VERY rough tally would look something like this:

1 : 11
2 : 3
2.5 : 1
3 : 15
4 : 33
4.5 : 11
5 : 24

is that 2 billion, 2 billion that signed up and committed of their own choice after reaching the age of majority in their culture?
or 2 billion that were signed up by their parents?

It'd be interesting also to see how many of those were really a 2 or a 3 on the SaxonRider Piousness Scale.

They're kinda the ones I don't really understand, TBH. I mean, surely, if you really believed in a god, like really actually believed, then you'd be doing all you could to get in his / her / its good books. If you're a "non-practising Christian" then aren't you at best really an agnostic?

4

I make that 15% believers (using 1, 2 and 2.5 as believers, 3, 4, 4.5 and 5 as unbelievers), which is about half the pretty consistent 33% for the UK.

Although, that's probably about right, given that STW is skewed towards the young(er), maler portion of the population who are less likely to believe?

Just for the record, Adam and Eve were not Jewish. The people weren't known as Jews until around about the time of Moses.

4

Looks like the STW demographic is skewed towards atheist pro-Europeans.

Anyway - Adam and Eve. The way I see it, if God actually visited I would be inclined to believe in him too. Or I might just see it as a Derren Brown prank.

Just for the record, Adam and Eve were not Jewish.

Were they christians then?

1 : n=11 or 11.22%
2 : n=3 or 3.06%
2.5 : n=1 or 1.11%
3 : n=15 or 15.31%
4 : n=33 or 33.67%
4.5 : n=11 or 11.22%
5 : n=24 or 24.49%

Were they Christians then?

5

princehuggy - hadnt realsied the start of the point was cougar being a cheeky scamp, please disregard

5 for me...

I have beautiful twin girls born through IVF yet in the eyes of certain religions it is totally immoral and we should have just accepted a life without children and "got on with it".

Appreciate that isn't the case with them all and sorry if it makes me sound like a bigot.

I'm talking about the hundreds of responses in threads like these, where the religious have sought to convince the atheists that they are wrong

Where??!!

Piousness

Piety

Are you fishing Cougar?

More trying to demonstrate that 87% of facts can be backed up by statistics.

I have beautiful twin girls born through IVF yet in the eyes of certain religions it is totally immoral and we should have just accepted a life without children and "got on with it".

And the counterpoint there is that many those same people would have you believe that the point of life and union is to reproduce (oft trotted out as an [s]excuse[/s] reason for being against gay marriage). So not only would you be childless but you will have failed as a human being, and I should go and get my marriage annulled also.

It'd be interesting also to see how many of those were really a 2 or a 3 on the SaxonRider[b] Piousness Scale[/b].

ROFL

They're kinda the ones I don't really understand, TBH. I mean, surely, if you really believed in a god, like really actually believed, then you'd be doing all you could to get in his / her / its good books. If you're a "non-practising Christian" then aren't you at best really an agnostic?

Depends on definition of "practising" doesn't it. Not that hard to understand when you think about it.

You don't believe that people "really actually believe(d)" do you, cougs?

Where??!!

Ignore* mol, you are being wound up.

Piety

Ah, STW, native home of the higher-functioning pedant.

I suspect the nice, decent people on this thread would be nice, decent people with or without religion. Likewise the dicks in the wider world would find ways of being dicks with or without it, too. These threads always end up making atheists look a bit mean; but that's because in this environment, the religious are the underdogs. Generally, rational thought and evidence are the weapons of discourse, and they don't have any. So it always seems a bit one sided. This makes claiming sympathy easy for the religious, and makes it easy to paint the atheists, militant or otherwise, as a bit mean. It's a weird reversal of what has historically always been the other way around.

5

Hadn't realised the start of the point was cougar being a cheeky scamp, please disregard.

Where??!!

Ah, STW, native home of the higher-functioning pedant.

4

Depends on definition of "practising" doesn't it. Not that hard to understand when you think about it.

Perhaps. Dunno, I'm not the one defining it.

You don't believe that people "really actually believe(d)" do you, cougs?

I'm sure plenty do. I'm sure plenty others claim to but don't really bother, and still others tick the box that says 'Christian' on the census forms when they have as much [b]piety [/b]as your average shoebox.

What I don't really understand is how folk can believe that there is a god and heaven and hell and all that jazz, and yet not bother to attend mass / worship / pray etc. Aren't they fearful for their soul when they die? What happens when they meet god in the afterlife and have to explain why they believed in him but did nothing about it? At least as an atheist I've got the excuse that I didn't realise; if I was a believer I'd be down at the Church every Sunday with bells on.

Or is it that some folk just don't care about the longer term, like smokers who know they're probably doing to die prematurely of lung cancer but carry on puffing away?

Generally, rational thought and evidence are the weapons of discourse, and they don't have any.

Well they do, it's just a little more abstract than the others are prepared to deal with. Which is fine - there's no need to be a dick about it - this is not a fight you need to win!

Incidentally,

http://the-difference-between.com/piousness/piety

piety (n):
(uncountable) reverence and devotion to God

piousness (n):
The condition of being pious; piety

I'm no nearer, though I appreciate that's probably not the greatest of websites. Would someone like to explain the difference?

You have to be in a state of piousness to have piety *Wibble* 😕

Sorry, I think I've made it worse.

Cougar - trust me... you don't meet anyone, see any bright lights are any of the other bollocks that gets spouted about.

It just hurts.
A LOT!
Then it doesn't.
Then it does again - but thats a whole other thread

What I don't really understand is how folk can believe that there is a god and heaven and hell and all that jazz, and yet not bother to attend mass / worship / pray etc. Aren't they fearful for their soul when they die? What happens when they meet god in the afterlife and have to explain why they believed in him but did nothing about it? At least as an atheist I've got the excuse that I didn't realise; if I was a believer I'd be down at the Church every Sunday with bells on.

Attendance isn't a condition for everlasting life. You just have to believe and ask for forgiveness.

Which makes non-preaching Christians really mean, if you think about it.

Perhaps. Dunno, I'm not the one defining it.

That's odd, you clearly spend a lot of time thinking about this subject and used the term yourself (in its negative form ie non-practising)

I'm sure plenty do.

Of course they do - again not hard to take in, unless you are taking the proverbial

What I don't really understand is how folk can believe that there is a god and heaven and hell and all that jazz, and yet not bother to attend mass / worship etc. Aren't they fearful for their soul when they die? What happens when they meet god in the afterlife and have to explain why they believed in him but did nothing about it? At least as an atheist I've got the excuse that I didn't realise; if I was a believer I'd be down at the Church every Sunday with bells on.

Perhaps they don't enjoy organised worship, the liturgy, the formality of some church services. Ok the RCs make a point about going to mass but others don't eg the Quakers have a faith rooted in Christianity but have a different approach to worship. Not hard to understand, when you take time to think about it 😉

What I don't really understand is how folk can believe that there is a god and heaven and hell and all that jazz, and yet not bother to attend mass / worship / pray etc. Aren't they fearful for their soul when they die?

I think it's because people can have their own interpretations of what they are told. Just like scientists interpret the science differently. Or in fact anyone. You can like a band and go to all their gigs, or you can like a band and listen at home. But you still like the band.

molgrips - Member
I'm talking about the hundreds of responses in threads like these, where the religious have sought to convince the atheists that they are wrong
Where??!!

... In threads like these, many of which you have taken part in over the years.

For instance - the "hole that needed to be filled" argument, as just one example... I assume that you read that one.

Perchypanther said that he personally had a hole that needed to be filled. He said nothing about anyone else. He's not tried to convince you of anything, in fact he's explicitly said otherwise:

I have no wish or desire to impose my faith on anyone else.

"Just like scientists interpret the science differently."

First I've heard of it. Example?

Excuse mol, woppit, he might have been side-tracked by photos of people with their heads up their arses

molgrips - Member
Perchypanther said that he personally had a hole that needed to be filled.

I took that to be his explanation for why he believed that a "god" existed. But without evidence. At least, that's how it read to me. He claimed that the "god" existed because he believed it did.

"Just like scientists interpret the science differently."

First I've heard of it. Example?

Good grief, man, science is a process of disagreement! Do some sodding googling, I'm at work!

I took that to be his explanation for why he believed that a "god" existed. But without evidence. At least, that's how it read to me. He claimed that the "god" existed because he believed it did.

No, he's telling you why he believes in God. He admits it's irrational, it's personal, and explicitly says he's not trying to convert anyone at all.

"teamhurtmore - Member
Excuse mol, woppit, he might have been side-tracked by photos of people with their heads up their arses"

It's easily done.

True - who needs sensible debate, eh?

"Good grief, man, science is a process of disagreement! Do some sodding googling, I'm at work!"

A process at the end of which, is a generally-accepted theory, no? I mean, yes?

Cougar - trust me... you don't meet anyone, see any bright lights are any of the other [i]stuff [/i]that gets spouted about.

It just hurts.
A LOT!
Then it doesn't.

Attendance isn't a condition for everlasting life.

Attendance isn't a condition for everlasting life.

It is actually. Faith without works is dead.

attendance = works?