Tim - religion may be pointless to you, but to some people it's a great comfort. The point I'm trying to make, I suppose, is that people should be entitled to their own views, and none of us have the right, regardless of our own belief systems, to criticise or belittle them for it.
I agree. Its why I dont feel organised religion is in any way moral - stem cell testing is a good example of imposing a 'belief' (something intangible) on other peoples lifes.
I dont understand irrationality, basically. We are all irrational at certain times, but organised and enforced irrationality, to use perhaps an appropriate term, 'beggars belief'.
Furthermore, something in your quote is interesting - "people should be entitled to their own views". Does this not mean that children should NOT be taken to church before they are old enough to make their own mind up. Say at the age of 16? How many people have a belief in god because thats all they have even been told- not by any personal decision.
I suppose, is that people should be entitled to their own views, and none of us have the right, regardless of our own belief systems, to criticise or belittle them for it.
Well if only religion could actually stick to that statement. It seems that a large portion of religion is about labelling non believers as unholy sinners, it largely excludes homosexuals and prevents women from becoming leaders, one thing it certainly is not, is all encompassing in welcoming one and all equally under the eyes of god.
You just need to become a Catholic, Graham.
There's a Catholic church across the road from me. You'd think they'd have some kind of rule about poaching from territorial waters.
GrahamS as before, do you think this is ok?
As a soundbite on its own? Perhaps a little dodgy. In the context of the rest of his rant? Yep sorry but I think it is okay.
They state that they are nothing to do with it... any more than the should be required to speak out against the EDL
You brought up the EDL so let's take that as an example: The EDL tries to claim that its racist bollocks represents the views of "White England" (whatever that is).
This nonsense is best fought by people from "White England" very vocally saying [i]"You don't represent me"[/i], openly demonstrating against the EDL, roundly condemning them publicly in the press and privately among friends.
And this is generally what happens (see the recent "racist on a tram" video discussed here and on the news, or the various anti-racist stuff in football). As a result the EDL have far less power than they might and are exposed as the extremist nutters they are.
What I don't see from any of the world's religions is the same approach to standing up to the nutters that claim to represent them.
And that was what Marcus Brigstocke (+ Cougar and me) was saying.
What I don't see from any of the world's religions is the same approach to standing up to the nutters that claim to represent them.
To be fair, we have a very westernised view of the world - Anti EDL riots arent exactly front page news in the UK, so why would we neccessarily hear about a any anti Al-Queda protest in ****stan (for example)?
Tim: agreed, and that goes to Junkyard's point that it may be these things are happening and we just don't hear about them because we don't move in the right circles or read the right news.
But it is the point mcboo, surely? I feel I have a choice in the way I live my life. I was brought up as a catholic by fairly traditional Irish parents, and as a child, never really questioned my religion. As I grew older, I was able to see that not all aspects of catholicism 'fitted in' with the way I wanted to live my life, and that certain aspects of it were totally alien to me. I realise that my continuing belief in God, whilst disregarding some aspects of the catholic faith, may be seen as 'cherry picking', but I'm a complicated person at the best of times, and as I've already tried saying, my religion is only one aspect of my life.
They state that they are nothing to do with it.
Terrorists are blowing people up in the name of Islam. The 'mainstream' Muslim community might very well be nothing to do with them, but given that these extremists rightly or wrongly claim to represent the mainstream you'd think that the mainstream might have something more to say about it? Even a bit of positive PR reinforcing the distinction would help, otherwise it just gives the likes of the EDL more ammunition.
They should not be required to speak out against it any more than the should be required to speak out against the EDL or the actions of the Christian right in America.
"Required," maybe not. Does that mean it's a bad idea? Should we all just ignore world atrocities unless they're our fault?
Why because they are the same colour?
Yes, of course, that's exactly what I was getting at. 🙄
Folks seem to fail to understand that the Militant Islamists / Muslims have as little to do with the majority of Muslims as they have to do with any other section of society you wish to identify.
And assuming that to be true, what are this silent majority doing to improve their image?
and if black people kept their heads down and kept to themselves they would get less abuse?
I'm not sure where that's come from, given that I was saying pretty much exactly the opposite. Is this just a cheap trolling attempt?
---
They do this in th mosques and the islamic schools rather than throught the media...it is hardly surprsing that we dont knwo what they do as we dont go to mosques.
Which is great. And if that sort of work was publicised more, perhaps there'd be a more harmonious relationship between the different demographics.
---
I dont know the purpose of religion, I never have. Just seems to be a human construct.
Personal religion is an attempt to explain the unexplained. Organised religion is (generally) an effective means of controlling the masses. IMHO, etc.
Anyway...to get back to the original question...
If someone is an atheist, they are generally going to be a rationalist. It might not cause anger, but its incredibly frustrating to see an evidence based decision ignored in favour of something else because of a belief. And doubly so when its a decision that can affect other people, not just the decision maker.
Be that because of religion, alternative medicine (homeopathy especially!), ghosts, feng shui...whatever really
The point I'm trying to make, I suppose, is that people should be entitled to their own views, and none of us have the right, regardless of our own belief systems, to criticise or belittle them for it.
So I'm not allowed to criticise people for having homophobic, racist, sexist or even liking Babylon 5 (pervert)? Sorry, no but I absolutely do have that right and religious views are not a sacred cow that is beyond criticism or ridicule esepcially where they driectly impact me. Equally you have the right to mock/criticise/belittle my beliefs.
In the UK as in many, many countries, no one has the right to not be offended.
Even a bit of positive PR reinforcing the distinction would help, otherwise it just gives the likes of the EDL more ammunition.
Yes I can just see the Daily Mail headlines now when Imams want to go to every school in the country to explain Islam to children and why its really rather nice.
Here is our pamphlet.
Muslims : why we are not all Bombers a message of hope
I suspect the EDL and others would just call it another example of Islamification.
They cannot really win IMHO
Do you really think the press would fairly represent this or just tell us ehnw a nutter with 30 followers does something nuttty?
Fair enough, I suppose I'm 'cherry picking' again. I'm generally one of the first people on here to pull people up about racism or homophobia, so perhaps my assertion that people dont have the right to criticise or belittle other peoples belief systems may be skewed. I dont see religion as a sacred cow, and the comment I was responding to was 'religion is pointless'.
But it is the point mcboo, surely? I feel I have a choice in the way I live my life
Well I think you do. Unfortunatly the Vatican most certainly does not think you have a choice, none.
I'm not in the bath today, I'm having a quick pint at the Christmas markets in that Manchester, keep up the good work chaps...
but given that these extremists rightly or wrongly claim to represent the mainstream you'd think that the mainstream might have something more to say about it?
The extremists do not claim to represent the majority. They know the majority do not support them. So, they do not claim to represent you either, why do you have different expectations of Muslims than you do of Christians or atheists?
"Required," maybe not. Does that mean it's a bad idea? Should we all just ignore world atrocities unless they're our fault
No, but we shouldn't expect certain groups to do more than others
And assuming that to be true, what are this silent majority doing to improve their image?
It's not their image! It's the image other people have of them, because they are culpably ignorant.
[i]and if black people kept their heads down and kept to themselves they would get less abuse?[/i]
I'm not sure where that's come from, given that I was saying pretty much exactly the opposite. Is this just a cheap trolling attempt?
This come from you expecting people to behave in a way which fits with your (or the general public's) perception of them if they want to avoid criticism. See below.
I think perhaps the Muslim community could make more of an effort to be seen to be doing something to root out these criminals and prevent terrorist activities. I think perhaps other people would be less quick to judge and generalise if they did.
There is a difference between debating and criticising and belittling others. I think we should respect that difference.
JY - perhaps the PR offensive is for the older generation. In my youth, RE O Level (!!) was essentially a study of the Synoptic Gospels. Today the GCSE is an exercise (1) in comparative religion and (2) taking any of the major religions and addressing the key questions of life etc, form that chosen perspective.
Hopefully that provides people with knowledge [b]and[/b] tolerance.
And that, mcboo, is why I 'cherry pick' which aspects of it work for me - an open forum's not really the best place to discuss it, but certain elements and events of my life dont really fit in with the vatican's views. Ah well, you cant always please the bloke with the daft hat, but I think I can live with it. 😉
GrahamS as before, do you think this is ok?
As a soundbite on its own? Perhaps a little dodgy. In the context of the rest of his rant? Yep sorry but I think it is okay.
Why would you listen beyond that?
I did, to see if he in anyway apologise for it, justified it or showed its ironic intent. He didn't.
How do you think it is justified?
What I don't see from any of the world's religions is the same approach to standing up to the nutters that claim to represent them.And that was what Marcus Brigstocke (+ Cougar and me) was saying.
No, Marcus Brigstocke was saying that because they didn't stand up to the 'nutters', then they were as bad as them. He told Muslims to stop blowing stuff up!
A great thread this and one that has come timely for me. Strangely enough I was wondering, while I sat in church on Sunday morn (rather than being at an XC running race that literally started at the top of my road) when STW might have a religion thread. Low and behold one is delivered to me the very next time I logged on…. It’s as if by divine intervention !!
And that’s what I’m trying to get out of this discussion… because in my first steps into religion I can’t get my head around God and Jesus as actual begins.
It’s as if I am caught somewhere between atheists and theists.
To me, at the moment, God is a state of mind.
When you look out at the top of the mountain, you’ve just ridden up, and you take in the view and everything is good in your world at that precise moment… to me that’s God. When you’re handed your new born child and you are the happiest you can be … to me that’s God.
And these two examples aren’t God to me because God created them (the landscape, your child).... I don’t think He did…. It’s the state of mind that you are in. God might be the smile wiped all over your faces at the end of a fantastic bit of singletrack.
So starting to go to church has just made me more aware of when I am basically happy and at peace, with lots of love thrown in there. Church, to me, has put another name to those feelings… God. Church is making it possible to know God and therefore to know happiness/peace/love and to seek it out…. At this point I would like to remind you that I’m the very essex boy city trader you all love to hate… not some limp wristed leftie hippy type….
So what’s my point… Atheists… I think you may be missing out on something if you are hung up on God as a begin that’s all powerful… of coarse there’s is no such ACTUAL begin…. But… what about if we all could find happiness/peace/love…. now that would be powerful force.
Theists am I barking up the wrong tree? Are these the ramblings of someone with a very limited knowledge of what’s it all about. Am I basically a city monkey with no real idea?
Sorry if that just bored you all (guess I’m just trying to gather my own feelings on the matter) but thought it might add a different slant on the debate.
It's not their image! It's the image other people have of them, because they are culpably ignorant.
This reminds me of the 'cycle vs car' argument. Being right does you no good when you're under someone's wheels. The image other people have of them is wrong due to ignorance, sure, ok. But why wouldn't they want to change that?
If they don't care what the great unwashed think of them then fair enough, but that does then render the whole 'tarring with the same brush' argument somewhat moot if they really don't care either way.
Low and behold one is delivered to me the very next time I logged on…. It’s as if by divine intervention !!
(-:
It's actually just the law of probability. We have one every couple of weeks.
...But they're generally more shouty and bad tempered than this 🙂
Atheists… I think you may be missing out on something if you are hung up on God as a begin that’s all powerful
[i]When you look out at the top of the mountain, you’ve just ridden up, and you take in the view and everything is good in your world at that precise moment… to me that’s Nature. When you’re handed your new born child and you are the happiest you can be … to me that’s Nature.[/i]
Same things, with word substition 🙂
Nature....created by.....?
You obviously DONT feel that humans needed religion to explain why. therefore I assume you have an alternative viewpoint on the matter?
Ok, gravity works by thousand on invisible strings on springs much like velcro which pulls everything towards each other. Gamma-Ray bursts are caused by leakage from an anti-universe which exists just behind ours
Those are my viewpoints, you don't agree what's your alternative
*nods quietly and politely in agreement with Tim's post*
Nature....created by.....?
Why would you assume that there needs to be a creator?
The image other people have of them is wrong due to ignorance, sure, ok. But why wouldn't they want to change that?If they don't care what the great unwashed think of them then fair enough, but that does then render the whole 'tarring with the same brush' argument somewhat moot if they really don't care either way.
They have tried, but after a while it becomes clear that there are some prejudices which they cannot be understood and addressed. You're a smart bloke Cougar, yet you seem to hold some of these 'they are all the same' type views. What can be done to overcome this?
I think you may be missing out on something if you are hung up on God as a begin that’s all powerful… of coarse there’s is no such ACTUAL begin…
It sounds like you're a Christian who doesn't believe in god?! If you cross out "god" in your post and replace with, I don't know, "contentment" or "happiness" or "fulfilment" or "well-being", it still scans sensibly, so I don't really understand where the church comes in.
Eg,
To me, at the moment, [s]God[/s] [b]happiness[/b] is a state of mind.When you look out at the top of the mountain, you’ve just ridden up, and you take in the view and everything is good in your world at that precise moment… to me that’s [s]God[/s] [b]happiness[/b]. When you’re handed your new born child and you are the happiest you can be … to me that’s [s]God[/s] [b]happiness[/b].
And these two examples aren’t [s]God[/s] [b]happiness[/b] to me because [s]God[/s] [b]happiness[/b] created them (the landscape, your child).... I don’t think It did…. It’s the state of mind that you are in. [s]God[/s] [b]happiness[/b] might be the smile wiped all over your faces at the end of a fantastic bit of singletrack.
Without a creator, how does anything exist? I am just interested in who/what may have created Nature?
Nature....created by.....?
God....created by.....?
Without a creator, how does anything exist? I am just interested in who/what may have created Nature?
Without a creator, how does God exist? I am just interested in who/what may have created God?
Cougar - maybe there are synonymous?
Could God be an internal not an external factor (need a better word, but that will do)?
Without a creator, how does God exist? I am just interested in who/what may have created God?
Indeed!!! And those poor 15/16 yrs olds writing essays on the subject. Must ask one of them as they all get A*s these days, so they must have the answers for us old 'uns!
Anyway, tonight, once the kids are bathed and in bed, I shall be having a cheeky jamesons, watching crappy sci-fi (warehouse 13) and trying to put my hand up the wife's jumper. Praise god and sonny jesus!
Without a creator, how does anything exist?
Here's the honest answer, I don't know. Just because I don't know isn't in any way reason to believe that there is some sort of creator. It may make you feel better for a time but that doesn't make it any more true. In fact inserting "god" into the gaps in our knowledge just creates a god of the gaps (or turtles all the way down to extend what Cougar has said) which is probably the worst thing that you can do as when knowledge fills in those gaps "god" becomes irrelvant.
The extremists do not claim to represent the majority. They know the majority do not support them.
They say that they do what they do "in the name of Islam" and "Muslim brotherhood" and they are very vocal about that.
Like the EDL example, this claim isn't true, but unlike the EDL example we don't see the rest of the Muslim community publicly and vocally telling them to do one.
Why would you listen beyond that?
Because I didn't find it that offensive and I was interested in what he had to say?
Also I'm not in the habit of knee-jerk censorship of views that I don't 100% agree with. Sometimes it is better to listen.
How do you think it is justified?
He very clearly explained that he [u]does not[/u] believe that the majority of Muslims support bombings, or that the majority of Christians support persecution, or that the majority of Jews support the extreme military moves of Israel.
He told Muslims to stop blowing stuff up!
Yes he did. And some Muslims [i]have[/i] been blowing stuff up so it seems like a pretty fair request.
Obviously it was hyperbole, for the sake of comedy, grabbing attention and getting his point across. I think he then qualified and explained that point very well.
GF - perhaps neither science/knowledge or theology give us the answer?
Without a creator, how does God exist? I am just interested in who/what may have created God?
In the Christian tradition, God is considered to have existed eternally - "there is not a time when he was not" I think is the way at least one of the early creeds phrases it.
Of course, nowadays that leads to all sorts of debate about time, eternity and causality, which could presumably sustain this discussion for another 16 pages 🙂
I am an agnostic, dyslexic insomniac.
I lie awake at night wondering if there is a dog.
😀 😀
They have tried, but after a while it becomes clear that there are some prejudices which they cannot be understood and addressed. You're a smart bloke Cougar, yet you seem to hold some of these 'they are all the same' type views. What can be done to overcome this?
I'm not really talking about "all." I'm allergic to rash generalisations, they make me itch.
When the radio (say) needs a comment from a group about a subject, they don't go round each individual member, they go to an appointed spokesperson who is authorised to speak on their behalf. If that speaker isn't representative then any misconceptions aren't the fault of the listener.
I live in an area which has a large Asian community, and most of my neighbours are Asian. I've witnessed some horrible racism from both "sides" back in the 80s and 90s, and I'm happy to say that, IME, most of it has been stamped out now. Point is, race relation issues are forefront here, I'm not just speaking from behind my copy of the Daily Mail in Tunbridge Wells.
I'm quite happy to believe that the community is largely misunderstood, I simply think they could do a bit more to improve their image. Maybe they have tried and given up as you suggest; what I'm saying is, if they tried again they might find a different attitude to the one they were met with twenty years ago.
Are we discounting aliens?
GF - perhaps neither science/knowledge or theology give us the answer?
Even if you accept that, it is still no reason to invent "god". Your arguments are fallacious as they start with the assumption that something must have created everything and use the fact that we exist to illustrate that fact. At no point do you seek to verify your original assumption.
In the Christian tradition, God is considered to have existed eternally
If it's acceptable that god has existed eternally, why isn't it equally acceptable that the universe has? If that's a plausible explanation, why do we need to add a creator?
I have to say, barnsleymitch, that your whiskey and wifes jumper intentions do more to establish you as a good guy than any amount of theology... 🙂
Without a creator, how does anything exist? I am just interested in who/what may have created Nature?
Difficult question. Maybe too difficult to answer, so let's be lazy and invent some bloke with a beard and call him God.
Oh.. what can we do now. Let's build up a huge amount of dogma and some crazy rules. Then we can go and kill people that don't agree with everything we think.
Now we've created a religion. Aren't we enlightened..?