[Closed] The First STW Religion Poll

Thing is, if you stick to Gods view (which never changes)

slowoldman - Member

I'm absolutely sure I have never done anyone any harm. I have no desire to. I'm your actual mild mannered man.

slowoldman - Member
I'm absolutely sure I have never done anyone any harm. I have no desire to. I'm your actual mild mannered man.

Good old Slowoldman chap. Well done! Yes, you are indeed.

In that case you might be going to a nice place in future. 😛

Just keep shouting "STW! STW!" in the after world (in future so not now) see how many responses you get. 😀

14 pages! crikey Moses!
fwiw I'ma 5 - but with a bit of 3 because I am interested.
But, each to their own so I'm going with a 4 unless someone gets hurt...
Oh no - back to a 5. 🙂

"Do you [s]lot[/s] have Asperger's Syndrome or something?"- yep. 🙂

I refer you to the point i made some time ago and also Dunning Kruger

I'm not too stupid to understand what you are saying. I just don't agree with you. There is a difference 🙂

Please highlight the great theologian thinkers who demand a re write.

Uhh.. I didn't mean it quite as literally as that. There'd be no point in re-writing a historical document, it's not really possible. In order to do that you'd have to erase the old version. However you can write new things without deleting the old ones. New writing like, I dunno, Martin Luther's theses? Enough of a famous theological thinker for you?

Uhh.. I didn't mean it quite as literally as that. There'd be no point in re-writing a historical document, it's not really possible. In order to do that you'd have to erase the old version. However you can write new things without deleting the old ones. New writing like, I dunno, Martin Luther's theses? Enough of a famous theological thinker for you?

There are newer edits of the bible - [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible ]Thomas Jefferson created his own edit of the Bible[/url] (literally cutting and pasting) without any mentions of miracles, the supernatural, or the resurrection.

There have also been attempts to create an atheist bible, taking writings from various humanist/atheist philosophers and combining them into one book. Hitchens' "[url= https://www.amazon.co.uk/Portable-Atheist-Essential-Readings-Non-Believer/dp/0306816083 ]The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-Believer[/url]" is one I've read.

For anyone with teenagers, I'd recommend Alom Shaha's [url= https://www.amazon.co.uk/Young-Atheists-Handbook-Lessons-without/dp/184954722X ]Young Atheist's Handbook[/url], which is less likely to make your kid into an insufferable prick than reading something by Dawkins or Hitchins.

I'd be up for a theology/shed building ride and beers. In theory at least, practicalities may scupper it for me

I'd be up for a theology/shed building

I like where you're going with this.
>>

In the beginning was the yard. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the shedbuilder.

And the shedbuilder said, "let there be light," and nipped out to buy a box of 60W bulbs from Wilkinson's.

And the shedbuilder saw the light, and saw that it'd do he supposed.

And the shedbuilder thought he'd have got more done in the first day.

And the shedbuilder said, "let there be a firmament."

And the shedbuilder made the firmament, and divided the hardcore below from the concrete above, and it was so.

And the shedbuilder called the firmament a rude word, for the shedbuilder was a bit puffed out. And the evening was the second day.

I'd agree with Tyson.

I agree with Richard, despite the barbed eloquence (which I actually quite enjoy).

Possibly no surprise...

Sorry, I've been away for a few hours. I'll try and catch up.

Mr Woppit - Do tell.

I'm trying to live by God's standards, not mans.

Hell is not the same across all Christian denominations.

So True.

Unlike the Quran (as far as I know anyway).

In what way? As far as I'm aware, the Quran also has many authors that add to it over time and some still do. The first being Mohammed

LD - 1 although don't like to call it religion/religious.

I'm the same.

slowoldman - Are you sure? Have asked him? Sounds a bit intransigent to me.

His Word hasn't changed since it was first written.

I've prayed to Him and asked these questions. The answers are in the Bible and history. The British Museum do a fascinating Bible tour, backing up a lot of what's in there.

One of the things I've never been able to get my heard round with religion is the idea that you can pick and choose which bits to believe and follow. Surely in my head, if you believe then you believe it all? So, in my head at least, you can't rewrite the bible for modern values as by doing so you're saying the original is not fact. And so, by extension, if it's not fact you're basing your beliefs on a work of fiction which is at best, a bit odd.

In an odd way, the ultra religious people I have more respect for, they've said they believe and they follow everything as opposed to discarding the bits that don't fit for them. The idea it can be changed to fit a modern world is a very strange concept for me.

Lunge - the CoE seem to really struggle with this. More orthodox religions less so and then they get flak for maintaining positions on issues that have changed in the public eye homsexuality, role of woman, abortion etc. Can't win.

I disagree with the pick and chose bit. I think that is a great strategy especially across religions. I find guidance with regard peace and happiness and the meaning of life in all of them. It's a pity to be restricted to one version and that's before you get into the wider aspects of architecture, music, poetry, art, philosophy/ethics etc

Surely in my head, if you believe then you believe it all?

....or you believe that it's a highly modified and edited collection of allegorical tales collected over two millenia which is open to interpretation and , if viewed through the prism of historical context, provides someone who inexplicably believes in a higher power, with a basic set of guidance notes about how not be a dick and how to try and fix it if you are?

If you're a Calvinist Presbyterian, we're generally pretty cool about lots of shit* and rarely burn heretics at the stake.

*except Popes and that. Not cool.

Lunge - the CoE seem to really struggle with this. More orthodox religions less so and then they get flak for maintaining positions on issues that have changed in the public eye homsexuality, role of woman, abortion etc. Can't win.

or you believe that it's a highly modified and edited collection of allegorical tales collected over two millenia which is open to interpretation and , if viewed through the prism of historical context, provides someone who inexplicably believes in a higher power, with a basic set of guidance notes about how not be a dick and how to try and fix it if you are?

However, if that is what people choose to believe then good luck to them, I don't want to knock them, I just can't understand it myself.

can't pick the fact from the fiction.

In my view,* it's neither fact nor fiction.

It's guidance. You may choose to be guided... or not.
It's the choice of the individual.

*(other views are available and will, no doubt be expressed in short order)

all this "well there are various versions I just pick and choose the bits that work for me/my church/what gets more punters and money in" just irritates the fluff out of me.

sorry its guilt by association, if you are part of the club, you cant then say decide that the bit over there murders doctors which work in abortion clinics is not part of you and your system.

It would be like someone in ISIS saying " well I like the black uniforms and basic principles of a sharia state the bits about not being a dick if I can ignore the other stuff, but like that murdering, torturing, beheading bit....well that's just interpretation and that, i'm like the pacifist bit...but still ISIS...yeah baby"

I think religion is great, but I prefer my fiction with a bit more magic in it, ala Scott Bakker.

Lunge, I'm pretty much in the same place.

We've already established (for some value of "established") on this thread that the Bible is in fact allegorical and not meant to be taken literally. Which is a bit of a retcon IMHO, but lets roll with it. So given that, I don't really understand how it can justifiably be used to back up contentious world views.

I mean, if you're against same-sex marriage because you find the idea of bumming to be a bit icky then fair enough; if you're against it because Adam and Eve, every sperm is sacred, make babies and all that jazz then really you're on pretty shaky ground because as we've said, [i]it's not supposed to be taken literally.[/i]

So then we're into the realms of, it's all allegorical, apart from the bits an individual chooses to take literally. It's a quandary, isn't it.

I don't see why they're trying to win though. If your religion says, for arguments sake, homosexuality is bad, then that's what it says and that can't be changed without saying that what you said before was incorrect.

I agree. While I disagree with many aspects of RC teaching I do respect that they are more consistent than the CoE which seems too desperate to move with the times. Much easier IMO to understand what the RC stands for than the CoE.

So then we're into the realms of, it's all allegorical, apart from the bits an individual chooses to take literally. It's a quandary, isn't it.

THM, yes, 100% agree.

To try to understand the RC faith I enjoyed

[i]WE BELIEVE[/i] Monsignor AN Gilbey - a simple commentary on the Catechisms, with the wonderfully emotive conclusion that

[b]The gift to believe[/b] in the Divine reality which is incarnate in these accidentals is one which God alone can give

Beautifully written book which I oddly first read in India in 1994 and still have in my bookcase now.

5 Utterly detest all aspects of religion.

And I understand that too, but I struggle with the idea you can base your life and beliefs on something that has had so many changes, translation, updates and corrections that you can't pick the fact from the fiction.

It is important to appreciate there are plenty of instances of conflict within "codes", for want of a better word, there are conflicts within the law, accounting standards, etc etc. However, we appear to be comfortable to rely on experts who help us resolve these conflicts and generally develop our thinking over time as we learn more.

So now it seems that cherry picking bits of the bible is recognised as being OK from a "religious" standpoint.

This is an interesting development.

Question: from whence comes the guidance as to what are bits that are OK to pick?

My reply would be that the guide is from advances made by secular culture. For instance - it's not OK to kill someone because you don't like the way they have sex.

As the gaps get smaller, religion continues to be dragged kicking and screaming behind the ethical advances made by non-religious developments.

Also, this makes the different "books" of the bible no more or less important than any other book, magazine, article or the like as being something from which to pick up useful philosophical points.

The gift to believe in the Divine reality which is incarnate in these accidentals is one which God alone can give

I understand, THM, that you find this beautiful and so on, but to me, it's essentially meaningless.

Like saying "I got a present from the invisible penguin that lives on the moon to enable me to visualise the essential teapotness of chocolate ..."

No offense.

Question: from whence comes the guidance as to what are bits that are OK to pick?

Jesus, in the first instance.

I struggle with the idea you can base your life and beliefs on something that has had so many changes, translation, updates and corrections that you can't pick the fact from the fiction

In my experience, some/most people base their interpretation of the text on their beliefs, not the other way round.

... I struggle with the idea you can base your life... on something that has had so many changes, translation, updates and corrections that you can't pick the fact from the fiction

we're talking about science, right?

(not that long ago, plate tectonics wasn't even a thing, for example)

Utterly detest all aspects of religion.

What, even the peace and love?

None taken Woppit, although I note that you are disagreeing with something that I didn't say. But not for the first time....Are you Ernie in disguise?

Jesus, in the first instance.

We know what bits to believe in the Bible, because it says so in the Bible?

I think I've missed something here somewhere.

... I struggle with the idea you can base your life... on something that has had so many changes, translation, updates and corrections that you can't pick the fact from the fiction

we're talking about science, right?

(not that long ago, plate tectonics wasn't even a thing, for example)

Damn, I based my opinion of gay marriage on plate tectonics.

Jesus, in the first instance.

We know what bits to believe in the Bible, because it says so in the Bible?

I think I've missed something here somewhere.

Jesus is here now, in the form of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides people in their interpretations.

Jesus is here now, in the form of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides people in their interpretations.

I wasn't being that sophisticated - the simple point I was alluding to is that Jesus's teachings as documented in the New Testament inform our analysis of the Old Testament. Hence why I continually stress bracketing the two Testaments together is overly simplistic.

teamhurtmore - Member
None taken Woppit, although I note that you are disagreeing with something that I didn't say. But not for the first time....Are you Ernie in disguise?

Let's not start that again, I'll never hear the end of it.

Jesus is here now, in the form of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides people in their interpretations.

So you say.

4
No problem with stuff like 'though shalt not steal' - but then it doesn't take a God to state 'guidance like' that.
Obviously no time for 'I'll cut your head off in the name of my God' guff.
The world was a better place when ancient folk were all worshipping sun Gods etc...more in tune with their environment (says the hippy).

Spiritual, but not religious. I am interested in some of the ideas and philosophies from Buddhism and Taoism, but cannot stand the religious parts of either.

I'd say 4 or a 5, if I have to chose.

Organised religion IMO is just a means of controlling people and amassing money and power.

I've met lovely Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus etc. The sad thing is modern religions are typically so far removed from the original ideas of the founders it is laughable. Rather than uniting people they tend to divide.

Religion to me is just like Chinese whispers, by the time it reaches the end of the line, it is completely different from what those at the beginning were whispering.

Damn, I based my opinion of gay marriage on plate tectonics.

The earth moved for you?

3.

but only because when i ejaculate i use the jesus h christ, other holy words, **** in HELL a lot and find it odd as it's the only time I ever
use them!

OK, so... Given it is accepted that the Bible is the work of a large number of contributors, who say it is the word of God?

Well this debate is interesting, but it has quite clearly been done quite a lot over the centuries. I'm sure SaxonRider, if he survived his hockey match, will be able to provide more background, but this is basically what caused the Reformation. As I understand it, originally the Pope decided what Western Christianity was all about, and was the ultimate referee. So there was only one version in the West. Then Mr Luther asked why we needed a middle man, and we should all be able to talk to God ourselves, read the bible for ourselves and come to our own conclusions.

A lot of people agreed, and they thought God would be ok with this, so that's why we have protestants. So that answers the question I think - yes, you can pick and choose, but (again as I understand it) you have to be able to give a good account of yourself in the end. The ultimate test is did you do good? If you pick and choose parts of the bible to suit your own selfish ends, then that's bad, mkay, so you're in trouble. If you can justify whatever you did, then you should be ok.

I find this fascinating, because these kind of protestant ideas are quite closely aligned with the way secular society conducts itself in this country all over the place - especially on this thread.

Organised religion IMO is just a means of controlling people

So I couldn't vote as I have a similar PoV as Kudos100 - in all these polls there is an implied suggestion that you can only be spiritual/religious if you subscribe to an organised faith that is one of the big 5 religions otherwise you must be an atheist.
Additionally all discussion (on here) basically assumes an Abrahamic (Judaism, Christian, Islam) view of God.

Additionally all discussion (on here) basically assumes an Abrahamic (Judaism, Christian, Islam) view of God.

I don't suppose anyone would complain if you added a bit of information about other types of religious belief - the blood drinking wrathful deities of Buddhism, for example, or elephant-headed Ganesh from Hinduism. They certainly sound more entertaining than talking shrubbery.

mogrim - Member

Additionally all discussion (on here) basically assumes an Abrahamic (Judaism, Christian, Islam) view of God.

I don't suppose anyone would complain if you added a bit of information about other types of religious belief - the blood drinking wrathful deities of Buddhism, for example, or elephant-headed Ganesh from Hinduism. They certainly sound more entertaining than talking shrubbery.

There is nothing wrong with deities striking down on the wicked ones. The deities are NOT evil but merely doing their jobs. We have no problem with ALL of them even the guardian of the underworld (not the movie). You the wicked ones? In that case have fear ... very very fearful. 😛

If I may digress for a moment...

WTF are you talking about?

WTF are you talking about?

I think we've moved on from Abrahamic religions to Buddhism.

For anyone with teenagers, I'd [i]...(anything)...[/i], which is [b]less likely to make your kid into an insufferable prick than reading something by Dawkins or Hitchins[/b].

I only got here from a comment on another thread. Not certain, but I feel that my soul hasn't been at all cleansed by reading AT(^)S

Put me down as doubting there's a god or a higher purpose, accepting that anyone's allowed to believe in any gods they like, disapproving of "the management" of any religion and having no time whatsoever for proselytisers toward either side in this debate (see Dawkins^). People as "clever" as that should know better than to be so bloody condescending.

We're a tribal bunch by nature and if it wasn't religion it'd just be something else to align with IMO

mogrim - Member

WTF are you talking about?

I think we've moved on from Abrahamic religions to Buddhism.

I am responding on behalf of [b]ALL[/b] religions with deities so whoever or whatever faith you are.

in all these polls there is an implied suggestion that you can only be spiritual/religious if you subscribe to an organised faith that is one of the big 5 religions otherwise you must be an atheist.

Which is an interesting point in itself. Can one be a spiritual atheist? I can't immediately think of a compelling reason why not.

In fact if you think about it, it's arguably a more plausible explanation for "god." The theists have troubles, so they sit and pray, and feel better. They go away feeling that god has listened, that he / she / it has helped. But really, they've had "someone to talk to" which we all know can be beneficial (and whilst some of us choose to talk to a spouse or a mate down the pub rather than an invisible friend, the outcome is broadly the same), and at the same time they've given themselves a talking to and perhaps thrashed out a problem in the process.

So here we have a "god" which is, depending on your point of view, either an internal spiritual strength outside of external factors, or a pretty effective demonstration of the placebo effect. In essence you've pulled your socks up, you've got something to believe which might actually prove beneficial for no other reason than [i]because[/i] you believe it. And then of course we've got positive reinforcement, your prayers are answered, your faith strengthened.

It's kinda the same principle as homeopathy. It's simple to say "homeopathy doesn't work" but that's fallacious; rather, homeopathy doesn't work [i]beyond placebo.[/i] And as placebos go it can be rather effective.

So whether you're praying to god, indulging in a spot of Buddhist meditation, hugging a tree, yogic flying, having your chakra realigned, or going for a bike ride to clear your thoughts, ultimately we're all doing the same thing in all but name.

Funny things, people.

I find there can be just as much dogma in atheism, as in organised religion, which is part of the reason I am not a fan of either.

Can one be a spiritual atheist?

Surely paganism is that?

I think your post generally though Cougar is one of the more common explanations for the existence of different religions. As in, they are all manifestations of the same thing - whatever that is.

Foxmulderitis?

I find there can be just as much dogma in atheism, as in organised religion, which is part of the reason I am a fan of neither.

The you've fundamentally misunderstood one of those two terms.

Dogma is belief without question. Atheism is questioning everything. The two couldn't be further apart.

I find there can be just as much dogma in atheism, as in organised religion, which is part of the reason I am not a fan of either.

An atheist is someone without the belief in the existence of a deity. That's all.

There's no dogma.

Atheism is questioning everything.

An atheist could believe in astrology and guardian angels.

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

Without whom (IMHO) this culturally popular debate would not be happening.

The God Delusion
God Is Not Great

Plus massive presence on social media.

All excellent.

An atheist is someone without the belief in the existence of a deity. That's all.

There's no dogma.

Isn't it strange how this needs constantly repeating, sometimes again and again to the same people...

An atheist could believe in astrology and guardian angels.

Indeed. Even in god.

All you have to do is produce evidence. To date, nada.

The you've fundamentally misunderstood one of those two terms.

Dogma is belief without question. Atheism is questioning everything. The two couldn't be further apart.

Perhaps dogma is the wrong word, although I suppose it depends of what definition of dogma is being used.

I know a number of atheists who are black and white in their thinking, intolerant of other peoples views, arrogant and actually don't bother to question everything. What does this remind me of? Religious extremism.

The definition of atheism and what actually passes as atheism can be quite different.

That's not atheists, that's people generally.

I think some "dogma" exists. This only because of what I read in an article when that atheist worship organisation started, the one linked on one of the threads. The journalist asked what the attitude of the local church was - if I recall correctly - they said quizzical interest. They then went onto say they had received criticism from fellow atheists who said they were doing it all wrong!

An atheist could believe in astrology and guardian angels.

Indeed. Even in god.

All you have to do is produce evidence. To date, nada.

Once you believe in a god, you cease to be an atheist.

Atheism is questioning everything.

I know a number of atheists who are black and white in their thinking, intolerant of other peoples views, arrogant and actually don't bother to question everything. What does this remind me of? Religious extremism.

The definition of atheism and what actually passes as atheism can be quite different.

Atheism the not believing in the existence of god, no more no less. Questioning everything or intolerance or arrogance or posting on this kind of thread are optional.

Without whom (IMHO) this culturally popular debate would not be happening.

Hahaha.. it was going on long before Dawkins was born!

Dogma for atheists would appear to be the insistence that religion only exists as a means to explain the existence of the universe, in opposition to science.

Once [s]you believe in[/s]there's evidence a god, [s]you cease to be an atheist[/s] atheism becomes redundant.

Richard was once asked - "What if you died and met god?"

He replied - "Well I'm sure we could sit down and have a nice interesting conversation about where the god fits into our understanding of a quantum universe, and then I could just move on to the next thing of interest..."

Rather than "Oooh god, you are so big, we're really impressed down here" or anything of that nature.

Dogma is belief without question. Atheism is questioning everything. The two couldn't be further apart.

You may say that's semantics but then the whole of this thread is pretty much based on exactly that

Hahaha.. it was going on long before Dawkins was born!

Yes, I am aware of that. Thanks for stating the obvious.

My point is that the sudden explosion of the argument into the mass culture is arguably traceable back to "The God Delusion" as the trigger for the sudden widespread interest/participation in the argument, as opposed to it's previous fringe status.

Don't quite understand what the "hahaha" is about. Perhaps you're attempting condescension.

Simply saying "prove it" is being an arse rather than being inquisitive

Saying "what is your evidence" is a perfectly reasonable response to the suggestion that there is a super-intelligent but invisible being that created everything and continues to control everything, that we cannot detect.

It's just asking a simple question, not (as far as I can tell) being an arse.

atheism is the staunch belief that there is no god and is not inquiring

There's nothing staunch about it.

It is simply the absence of belief; it says nothing about the strength of the lack of belief, or the effort going into changing that belief.

miketually, as I said, I believe you are describing agnosticism and that atheism is the [u]belief[/u] that there is no god

scaredypants, it is semantics, and many words have two similar meanings:

atheist

Noun

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

[url] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheist [/url]

agnostic

Noun

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Going back for a moment to 'atheism' - Merriam-Webster also give the archaic definition:

Definition of atheism
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Although theist vs atheist discourse and debate is inherently fraught with many problems - I do find that not having singular, agreed-upon definitions to be one of the most needless stumbling blocks. Humans eh?!

That's my point - though, which of those implies an inquiring approach, particularly when further down its page is the following:

"This word was actually invented by a specific person and then successfully entered the language. It was coined by the Victorian biologist Thomas Huxley (1825–95) to describe his own beliefs: he did not believe in God but did not think one could say for sure that God did not exist"

?

Saying "what is your evidence" is a perfectly reasonable response to the suggestion that there is a super-intelligent but invisible being that created everything and continues to control everything, that we cannot detect

So what if the person says "I [i]believe [/i]there is a being etc etc"? How do you respond then?

That's my point - though, which of those implies an inquiring approach...

Not sure that the current dictionary definition of 'atheism' is (or indeed should be) so narrow that it concern itself with how either 1. Non-belief or 2. Disbelief is arrived at by any given atheist? Surely that varies from individual to individual? An atheist could be characteristically enquiring or, on the other hand, completely not. The only defining commonality of atheism is the not believing in deities thing.

Likewise, the archaic terms 'ungodly' and 'wicked' are not now such useful (or honest?) descriptors in a secular society.

I'm an agnostic/atheistic Humanist (cumbersome, yet accurate) and like to think I have a (often ridiculously) enquiring mind. In fact up until 30+ (as a self-described 'Pagan') I believed in many curious things which further enquiry lead me to doubt and ultimately discard. I find the Universe/existence massively mysterious and wonderous, and seem not to shut the door on ongoing enquiry, even if it means I have to reconsider my currently held beliefs about what is and what is not human invention.

So what if the person says "I believe there is a being etc etc"? How do you respond then?

Saying "what is your evidence" is a perfectly reasonable response to the suggestion that there is a super-intelligent but invisible being that created everything and continues to control everything, that we cannot detect.

It's just asking a simple question, not (as far as I can tell) being an arse.

THIS

Is the answer give it a special position in society and then teach it to all children whilst insisting that anyone who objects is intolerant and militant?

WTF are you on about?

You think I'm saying anyone who is atheist is intolerant and militant?

It's just asking a simple question, not (as far as I can tell) being an arse.

There's nothing wrong with that question. However insinuating someone is stupid because they don't have any evidence, that's not nice.