Has anyone been on the Alpha Course?

the reality is that if He does then we will only know for sure when we die, and if there's no life after death then we'll never know.

that's one interpretation – or it might be that god/s have just allotted us this span and you vanish utterly. Also the number of people believing a thing doesn't influence its truthfulness, unless, as I have been given to speculate, we are all god, and whatever we happen to believe is actually so.

I had been under the impression the insults were reasonably balanced, but I shall think on modifying my approach in future to what I can plausibly justify.

I suppose what's lurking in my mind is that – were gods to have created us, shouldn't we be grateful for the incontravertably real life we have now rather than ungratefully subsuming it into a mere preparation for some other form of supposedly better life to follow ? Is this that we have so awful, and just a veiled exam for the real thing ? Why not live this life to the best of one's ability and take any subsequent existence as a bonus should it eventuate ?

All the Christian (and Muslim) people I know are quite happy to have their views and beliefs questioned. However they in turn don't tend to descend to the infantile level of some of their abusers.

There's a possibility that they choose to rise above it and there's also the possibility that it's hard to ridicule a rationalist argument even if it's delivered in a childish manner. I've no idea which is more probable BTW.

Went to a heart breaking funeral recently, the bloke who died was a dyed in the wool atheist and his wife was a devout Christian. Both were/are the nicest, kindest people you could hope to meet. They had an agreement that if she died, he'd get to arrange a Humanist funeral, and if he went a Christian one. During the funeral the priest said that because John didn't believe in god, there was no guarantee that he would get to heaven, and Anne would have to come to terms with this.
It just struck me as an awful thing to say at such time, so i'm inclined to think that atheists don't have the monopoly on childishness.

as I have been given to speculate, we are all god

Every man and woman is a star.

that's one interpretation – or it might be that god/s have just allotted us this span and you vanish utterly. Also the number of people believing a thing doesn't influence its truthfulness, unless, as I have been given to speculate, we are all god, and whatever we happen to believe is actually so.

Indeed, that may well be the case. Who knows. It could even be the case that what we think of as "God" is actually the collective conscience of mankind, which would a bit of a turnaround.

Why not live this life to the best of one's ability and take any subsequent existence as a bonus should it eventuate ?

Most religious folk I know do do that. As do many athiests too. The people that don't make the most of this life aren't in either of those camps. They are (I reckon) the ones that spend their lives slumped in front of brainless TV munching junk food and swilling lager. Not that there's anything wrong with doing that every now and again mind you.

It just struck me as an awful thing to say at such time, so i'm inclined to think that atheists don't have the monopoly on childishness.

Very true, they certainly don't. However looking back through this thread it's fair to say that the vast bulk of the childish insults and abuse does come from the athiest camp. Obviously they aren't all like that, but sadly many are.

They are (I reckon) the ones that spend their lives slumped in front of brainless TV munching junk food and swilling lager.

Your prejudice is showing. Had you ever considered that that might be the correct thing to do as this is heaven to a former, now forgotten life in which you did the right thing ? Or perhaps there are an infinite number of stacked heavens, each with different requirements?

Yes. Elvis really is dead. 🙂

kennyp – Member
As regards whether or not God (in any form) exists, the reality is that if He does then we will only know for sure when we die, and if there's no life after death then we'll never know.

On one hand all logical, scientific evidence does back up the athiests' case. On the other hand the fact that billions of people over the millenia have had faith does possibly point to the existence of superior being, and that religion is in essence mankind trying to interpret something he can never fully understand.

But there are a lot of different gods worshipped, so at the End of Times (if you want to believe in that), Christians have got about the same chance of everlasting life as atheists. It would be a bummer to be backing the wrong horse all your life, wouldn't it?

All the Christian (and Muslim) people I know are quite happy to have their views and beliefs questioned. However they in turn don't tend to descend to the infantile level of some of their abusers. I have to admit that seeing the approach taken by the two sides (tolerant understanding versus silly insults) does make me wonder who exactly has the better life. I'd hate to hate like that, if you see what I mean.

I don't think you are really on the fence at all, are you?

If someone does feel offended by anything I have written, I do sincerly apologise. As far as I can see I feel I have raised issues of holes in the current state of knowledge of science while still fully supporting the biological evidence for evolution, as opposed to pointing out anything personally. Anyone who knows me would know I would feel terrible about making a personal comment about someone.

Simon, you may be the Messiah but you are a very naughty boy! 😆

I don't think you are really on the fence at all, are you?

My thoughts exactly or as Bob would say "you just want to be on the side thats winning"?

Going for the 1000 posts are we?

Put a sock in it everyone.

All the Christian (and Muslim) people I know are quite happy to have their views and beliefs questioned. However they in turn don't tend to descend to the infantile level of some of their abusers.

And I'd also ask, am I unusual in that the religion of people who surround me NEVER becomes an issue?

I don't feel the need to question the faith of colleagues, etc. Does it happen a lot in other parts of the country?

But there are a lot of different gods worshipped, so at the End of Times (if you want to believe in that), Christians have got about the same chance of everlasting life as atheists. It would be a bummer to be backing the wrong horse all your life, wouldn't it?

That depends on whether there were any consequences in "backing the wrong horse". Instead, what about the possibility that when you die you end up with the afterlife you believe in? Maybe athiests just vanish, Christians live forever in heaven and Vikings go to Valhalla? Probably not, but we'll never know. And maybe people "back a horse" because they believe it's the right thing to do in this life, rather than planning for the afterlife?

I don't think you are really on the fence at all, are you?

I'm genuinely not sure. There's part of me says that science explains everything, that we get one life and that we're nothing more than a load of molecules that move around and ride bikes. On the other hand…..the fact billions of people believe in "something" (even if they can't agree exactly what) does make me wonder.

don't feel the need to question the faith of colleagues, etc. Does it happen a lot in other parts of the country?

Well it happens a lot on this forum.

lol, kennyp.

My 5 yr old daughter keeps coming home from school telling me about how Jesus is the son of God, etc. (This in a school with 50% Muslim kids).

To keep things balanced I'll gently try and tell her about other faiths, that people do make stories up, some people don't believe in God etc.

My favourite was a discussion about heaven, where I explained that I preferred the Viking heaven where I could just drink beer for eternity. Cue puzzled look on 5yr olds face.

I've been thinking about the 'fairy tale' thing, and realised that in normal life, we are used to people trying to pull the wool over our eyes, usually to gain some advantage, so any statement made to us is filtered for credibility. We're used to politicians lying to us (in fact, that may be their main function), journalists ditto, advertisers hyping their products, con men, shysters etc etc, and we're often understandably scathing about their stories and lies – but suddenly, when it comes to religion, we're supposed to suspend our critical faculties and 'respect' what we would otherwise castigate so as not to cause offense. For me it's just another set of implausible stories and not a special case, and while people are free to adopt them if they wish, it doesn't entitle them different treatment.

…it doesn't entitle them different treatment.

So why are you treating them different then ? ……………Hypocrite.

The OP asked a pretty straightforward question. Your level of input in this 14 page thread has been frankly quite staggering. What other question would you dedicate so much time to answering ?

Would you have had so much input if the guy had asked a straightforward political question ? No.
Would you have had so much input if the guy had asked for cooking suggestions ? No.

But because the guy asked a question concerning 'religion', you've gone completely over the top, prattling on for days. You obviously treat religion quite different to any other subject.

And despite dedicating the last few days of your life to the question, you have had nothing constructive to contribute – have you ever been on an Alpha course ? Were you disappointed ? Well ?

No, despite claiming not to treat people's religious views differently, you obviously do. Hypocrite.

So why are you treating them different then ? ……………Hypocrite.

thanks for pointing that out, I never would have realised 🙂

You obviously treat religion quite different to any other subject.

it may have escaped your notice that religion is an abstract concept, not a person. I'm interested in natural philosophy.

And despite dedicating the last few days of your life to the question, you have had nothing constructive to contribute

constructive ? What are we making ? You're entitled to your opinion of my posts, but I don't see why they would have any more value than anyone else's

No, despite claiming not to treat people's religious views differently, you obviously do. Hypocrite.

well, from where I am it seems to me I'm levelling exactly the same degree of scepticism I do towards crank lengths, hifi cables, nutrition, rights of way, wars, expensive bikes and many other topics I can't remember right now. Perhaps one's philospophy of life, whether involving beings which cannot be directly perceived or not, is more important than some of those other matters and deserves more attention ?

[edit] I apologise for the flippant 'constructing what?' remark. What we're constructing is an argument, and despite many of my points not being addressed, it has helped me to understand my position more clearly as I thought it through. So perhaps this is an online omega class ?

have you ever been on an Alpha course ? Were you disappointed ? Well ?

sorry, I forgot to answer. No, of course not, I prefer to work things out for myself.

well, from where I am it seems to me I'm levelling exactly the same degree of scepticism I do towards…….blah, blah, blah

No you don't. Why don't you show the 'same degree of scepticism' towards people's political views as you do towards their religious views ? You claim to be an 'anarchist', and yet you never have a pop at me politically, despite the fact that an ocean separates us, how come ? Of course if I were to make a comment concerning religion, you would be straight in there.

You clearly go completely over the top when attacking people's religious views, in comparison with how you challenge other views they might hold. Fine. But don't come out with all this "I'm morally superior, holier than thou, I treat people's religious views the same as any other opinion they might have" bullshit. You obviously don't.

Still, if you needed this thread to 'understand your own position more clearly' then that speaks volumes 8)

But don't come out with all this "I'm morally superior, holier than thou, I treat people's religious views the same as any other opinion they might have" bullshit. You obviously don't.

I never claimed superiority, and certainly not holiness, I'm starkly profane. I reiterate that I think I do treat them with the same degree of scepticism, but at the same time, religious opinions seem to diverge most strongly from observable reality*. When people claim to be able to feel a big difference between 170mm and 175mm cranks (though I cannot) at least there is physical thing that can be measured. Whereas the number of gods is anybody's guess as we have no way to tell.

*inasmuch as that means anything

Still, if you needed this thread to 'understand your own position more clearly' then that speaks volumes

it speaks to the fact that my mind is not made up for good and all and I'm willing to consider new possibilities

OK……..

BTW, just for the record, I do not treat people's religion (or lack of religion) the same as any other opinion or view which they might hold (but of course I never claimed that I did) I consider it to be their own personal choice which has nothing to do with me.

For example, if I found myself in the company of a Muslim, I would not challenge their religion (I might ask them plenty of questions though, if they were happy to answer them) But if that individual were to inform me they were of the opinion that David Cameron would make an excellent PM, I might well vigorously challenge them on that. I treat people's personal religious beliefs (or lack of) and life choices, with a respect which I don't necessarily extend to other considerations. Basically, because it has bugger all to do with me.

simon ernie get a room for FFS you two would argue over anything as you have amply demonstarted. Now back on the off topic topic (ignoring SFB v Ernie)

tolerant understanding[religion] versus silly insults[atheists]

You should read the books the tolerant understanding people follow and see what they really say happens to those who dont follow either their God or rules. It does fall somewhat short of tolerance. Try going to church or mosque join in and then confess to being Gay if you want to really feel their love.
There have been some petty insults but it is difficult to not poke fun at people who believe without any tangibile proof whatsoeverin what their book says. Watch wogan interview David Icke to see how people react when the "religion" falls outside cultural norms.

If someone came on here and claimed the earth was flat (or worse that Brant made bad bikes ) they would get a similiar level of ridicule.

Look at the kitten and calm down.

Peoples personal beliefs are fine, don't bother me at all. If you want to believe in God, Allah, Jehovah, Shiva, Ganesha et al or whoever, in private, knock yourself out.

I have a problem when this stuff starts to impinge on the rest of us, like the fact that you can't get any shopping from the supermarket after 4 in the afternoon on a sunday. Or people like Nadine Dorries, and her US Pro-life inspired and funded antics in proposing various amendments on the abortion and embryology bill. Why should religious leaders get on things like Newsnight saying that things like "Stemcell research is bad, mkay", purely on the basis that they are self appointed representatives of some higher being.

Having people trying to save me etc is just as personally annoying as I'm sure atheists/agnostic trying to do the reverse is. And then you get prats like Cormac Murphy-O'Connor saying that, in his opinion, Atheists aren't fully human, which is a bit more worrying than any number of Christopher Hitchens calling the religious credulous fools.

Try going to church or mosque join in and then confess to being Gay

You really don't get it …….. do you ? The bit about about it being none of your business I mean.

Religions can make up any rules they want ………..no matter are absurd or ridiculous. It's their religion.

The Catholic church won't allow women to become priests, which suggests sexual prejudice. But unless you happen to be a female Catholic who wants to be a priest, then it's got **** all to do with you. And even then it would only be between you, and the Catholic church …… no one else.

Quite frankly I can't believe the gall of some people who feel they have a right to tell religions how they should organise. Who feel that they are entitled to have an opinion on things which don't in anyway concern them. Specially when those people are fundamentally opposed to all the beliefs the religion stands for.

My local mosque could pass a rule stating that no man under 5 foot 5, or with ginger hair, is allowed to lead friday prayers. And I could not care less. Why the **** should I ? It's not my religion. They can make up whatever silly rules they want.

khegs – the Dawkinists are really scraping the barrel, trawling through things said by clerics so that they can be used out of context – do they not have anything better to bash religion with ? Sounds like desperation to me.

I guess that if Cormac Murphy-O'Connor had said that to be "fully alive", you needed to be a Christian, then the Dawkinists would have claimed he was saying that atheists were half dead, ffs.

BTW, a quick google suggests that he is not the only Catholic cleric to have said that. Archbishop Nichols (whoever he is) has said :

"There had been moments when I'd come to understand that if we want to be fully alive, fully human, then the best path is to follow the call of the Lord, who is the fullness of humanity, who is our manifesto of what it means to be a human being."

Until I hear a Catholic cleric saying that atheists are sub-human and should be dragged out of their homes and shot, I won't be unduly worried. In the meantime khegs, if you are unhappy with what Catholic bishops are saying, I suggest that you register your disapproval by not attending mass next sunday.

My jaw dropped when I read ernie's piece above – he seems to be saying that religions should be entitled to any form of prejudice and it would be no one else's business ?

I suppose the Catholic church was immune from prosecution for child abuse for a long while, so maybe it's not so outlandish…

he seems to be saying that religions should be entitled to any form of prejudice and it would be no one else's business ?

In a nutshell, yes. Don't like the religion ? Go and find another one……or maybe you could start your own ? 💡

There's no 'immunity from prosecution for child abuse'. You daft dipstick.

Here SFB, do you think the Catholic Church is prejudice against sinners ? I mean, all that stuff telling them about burning in Hell like. Maybe an adulterer could take them to court ? After all, adultery isn't illegal ….. is it ? 😕

Quite frankly I can't believe the gall of some people who feel they have a right to tell religions how they should organise. Who feel that they are entitled to have an opinion on things which don't in anyway concern them.

What, like most church leaders?

khegs – the Dawkinists are really scraping the barrel, trawling through things said by clerics so that they can be used out of context – do they not have anything better to bash religion with ? Sounds like desperation to me.

Sorry, I have been quite polite (I think, you may disagree) thus far, but **** off, this was the, at the time, most senior Catholic cleric in the UK, speaking on the Today programme, which is hardly the most obscure little backwater for comment in the world. Below is a full transcript of what he said, with the question he was answering, to avoid an accusation of bias.

Roger Bolton – a lot of church leaders speaking on national matters sound rather defensive but you’ve gone on the attack because you’ve talked about secularists having an “impoverished understanding of what it is to be human” they might find that quite offensive mightn’t they?

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor – I think what I said was true, of course whether a person is atheist or any other…there is in fact, in my view, something not totally human, if they leave out the transcendent. If they leave out an aspect of what I believe everyone was made for, which is, uh, a search for transcendent meaning, we call it God. Now if you say that has no place, then I feel that it is a diminishment of what it is to be a human, because to be human in the sense I believe humanity is directed because made by God, I think if you leave that out then you are not fully human.

Full transcript of what he said, on the Today program on Radio 4.

Imagine what would have happened if you had substituted Atheists as the subject matter for the ethnic minority of your choice, or Muslims/Hindus/Christians etc.

In the meantime khegs, if you are unhappy with what Catholic bishops are saying, I suggest that you register your disapproval by not attending mass next sunday.

Given that Church organisations campaign against thedistribution of condoms in Africa, and other iniitiatives that are trying to prevent the spread of AIDS, and against stem-cell research which has the potential to substantially materially improve the lives of millions if the advances it promises come to fruition, no, somehow I don't think I'll leave it at avoiding church on a sunday. These people (Christian/Moslem/Jewish/Hindu or whatever) have the potential to affect my life negatively, because of their beliefs, what gives them the **** right?

I prefer to believe what I see than to see what I believe.

Though I do worry about 'religious zealots' trashing the world as they use religion as a vehicle to move the impressionable masses. Poor sods.

Guess the well known phrase or saying…

which is hardly the most obscure little backwater for comment in the world………

There was no mention of "obscure little backwater". There was a mention however, of "scraping the barrel, trawling through things said by clerics". And nothing in your last post suggests otherwise. A quick google appears to show that whilst the quote does not appear to have been widely (if at all) reported by the press, it has sent the Dawkinists on the internet into a lather of indignation.

I have no problem with the quote. So he says that, 'to be fully human you have to be a Christian', so what ? He clearly feels that Atheists don't lead fulfilling lives. Presumably many Atheists think that Christians are wasting their lives. I don't have any problem with that – why should anyone ? I'm not going to comment about what he didn't say btw.

what gives them the **** right?

They have the same right as anyone else. When Muslims/Hindus/Christians/Jewish get two votes in elections, come back and see me ….. and I'll review the situation.

On the Cormac Murphy thing, I definitely rmemeber it being reported in the Grauniad

They have the same right as anyone else. When Muslims/Hindus/Christians/Jewish get two votes in elections, come back and see me ….. and I'll review the situation.

So you aren't bothered about the Catholic church, and other religious organisations, pressuring MPs to take a "pro-life" stance on abortion and to ban stem-cell research, or the fact the the CofE get to have 26 bishops in the House of Lords?

Guess the well known phrase or saying…

Too many cooks spoil the broth?

holier than thou

i found that quite funny (in context)

My local mosque could pass a rule stating that no man under 5 foot 5, or with ginger hair, is allowed to lead friday prayers. And I could not care less. Why the **** should I ? It's not my religion. They can make up whatever silly rules they want.

Quite right Ernie. Though presumably your view would change if you lived in country that wasn't as secular as this?