The First STW Religion Poll

religion is an irrational (in the strictest, non offensive sense) belief

To be fair I think shagging another bloke is irrational. I wouldn’t do it. No offence intended.

How many quotes do you want

None.

Quotes mean nothing without context. By which I mean the interpretation provided by centuries of study.

The Bible is not the whole of Christianity. You are lamentably poor at this…

To be fair I think shagging another bloke is irrational.

😆 Well I suppose that would very much depend on what you were hoping to achieve by it!

I guess some people choose to be religious. For others, they don’t have the choice

This is true – I could be killed for being an atheist in a number of countries. But someone brought up in, say, Saudi Arabia could move to the UK and become atheist. They couldn’t change their sexual orientation. The lack of choice is an external construct imposed by religious authorities, not something intrinsic to that person.

5.

For those that get offeneded by non beleivers criticisms of their religion, does that not mean you lack faith?For if your faith is true then it doesn’t matter what anyone says you will ascend to heaven and they will face purgatory or hell so there is no reason for taking offence whatsoever, you may as be offended by the sound of a dog yapping for all the difference it will make your afterlife. The fact you feel offence means you are either unsure of your belief and you need the reassurance of all around you to confirm your lifestyle bias, or you are a zealot.

The Bible is not the whole of Christianity. You are lamentably poor at this…

To be fair though, it’s kind of a fact that Christianity kinda, you know, wouldn’t exist without the bible. And the years of ‘study’ that you allude to really just boil down to layer upon layer of opinion on top of a foundation of sand. There can be no logical outcome when the very basis is a story without evidence.

4. With egg fried rice.

To be fair though, it’s kind of a fact that Christianity kinda, you know, wouldn’t exist without the bible.

Disagree. I think it did, at first, didn’t it? It’s not as if someone sat down and wrote it then circulated it attracting believers? Or are you confusing it with the Book of Mormon…?

4, my MIL is a Jehova’s Witness, lovely woman.

Unless we’re talking about religious schools, when I’m a 5. I even start swearing about it.

5.

I guess some people choose to be religious. For others, they don’t have the choice

This is true…

I see both your points, but respectfully disagree. Religious belief is forced upon many people in this world, and it’s entirely understandable for the people in these situations to go along with it, and just ‘believe’. However, history is littered with the bodies of people who chose not to conform to the status quo; to their great detriment most often. So the choice IS there, as unpalatable as it may be.

5.

What follows is an opinion. It’s not aimed at anyone in particular or intended to be offensive but I’m sure it will be taken that way by some.

I find the concept of religion utterly ludicrous, and I can’t comprehend that any intelligent adult would entertain what seems so obvious to me to be rubbish. I’m also of the opinion that religion is far more of a force for bad than good in the world, regardless of whether it’s “true” or not. Although it’s probably fair to say that in the absence of religion humanity would just have figured out some other way to justify being shits to each other.

I fully support people’s right to a religion, you can believe what you want. But don’t ask me to respect your beliefs, because I think they’re nonsense. Just because you think it’s important it doesn’t mean it should be elevated to some special status ahead of what other people believe in. I can respect a person but not a belief.

Putting religion in the same category as being being gay or black is patently ridiculous

Yet we have discrimination laws in this country that pretty much do that.

I am also pretty sure that the question as to whether one is born gay is not settled, there are some studies that suggest there may be a gay gene but they are not conclusive. The good thing is that whether it is the case or not, you are protected by the law.

To be fair though, it’s kind of a fact that Christianity kinda, you know, wouldn’t exist without the bible.

Not true. The bible as we know it was not compiled until the fourth century. Apostolic tradition was the primary authority for the first 300 years.

I can’t comprehend that any intelligent adult would entertain what seems so obvious to me to be rubbish

Their failing or yours?

Semantics. I also can’t comprehend why some people like to have sex with horses. Is that their failing or mine? Or should I just respect their beliefs…

This is fun, but I get the sense that my proposed ‘number option system’ has failed. 😛

yep. It lasted a good few pages though so well done. It’s so difficult not to get drawn in

Yet we have discrimination laws in this country that pretty much do that.

What else would you expect in a country that still has automatic places for clerics in government.

Seriously though; if you think about it, that’s more to do with historic inertia and the difficulty in arguing against a law that protects any group of people from abuse, than any kind of logic whatsoever. I’d rather they replaced ‘religious’ with ginger’ in that specific piece of legistlation; at least that would be protecting people who had no choice in their genetics.

Semantics

Hardly. The rhetorical form ‘I can’t understand why anyone would do X’ is another way of saying ‘X is stupid’. Where as the actual enquiring version is a genuine question and a wish to learn.

I also can’t comprehend why some people like to have sex with horses members of their own sex. Is that their failing or mine? Or should I just respect their beliefs

Yes.

In other words, don’t judge what you don’t understand.

This is fun, but I get the sense that my proposed ‘number option system’ has failed.

You’ve still got time to compile the results before they delete the thread. Not much, though.

How many quotes do you want
None.

They do say ignorance is bliss dont they

Quotes mean nothing without context.

yes without the context of its an abomination kill them its quite hard to say probably means respect gay people equally as you would anyone else…its so hard to tell as , lets be honest , its a pretty ambiguous quote.

i am genuinely just laughing at you saying that. Its not even clutching at straws its just daft 😆

As i said you do a terrible terrible job on these threads as you just dont understand the subject you just wish we were all nicer – just say that please.

By which I mean the interpretation provided by centuries of study.

Its millennia and dont forget the two minutes by you – remind us of your credentials again wont you – it must have come up a lot in your physics degree and IT career 😉

Still you lecture us on the good book eh

Priceless.

He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, is a fool—shun him!

Seriously though; if you think about it, that’s more to do with historic inertia and the difficulty in arguing against a law that protects any group of people from abuse, than any kind of logic whatsoever.

Not at all, why would a country with an established church wish to protect other religions? We do though.

Actually there should be a (lost count) 9.

9. Don’t be a dick

The rhetorical form ‘I can’t understand why anyone would do X’ is another way of saying ‘X is stupid

No, it really isn’t. I can not understand something, nucleur physics for example, without thinking it’s stupid. I don’t think nucleur physics is stupid but I’m not about to try and build a reactor.

“Just because” and “you wouldn’t understand” don’t wash with me. Like I said, believe what you like but religious beliefs shouldn’t get any kind of special treatment over other irrational beliefs. I knew someone once who thought that all leather was made from monkeys hands and faces. Was I wrong to take the piss out of her or should I have respected what she “knew” to be true?

Sway between 4 and 5.

Pantheistic humanist, so I guess 4.

Not at all, why would a country with an established church wish to protect other religions? We do though.

So as not to look complete and utter hypocrites? Seriously; that’s a side effect of having a working justice system, surely. I’m sure I KNOW there are MANY Christian types who would really rather not afford Islam (for example) the same protections afforded to CofE, but they have to be, because, equality. Infact, I’m comfortable with saying that it’s a crying shame that we have religiously funded Catholic schools in this country, because it means any nutter can open a school and base it on religious grounds. And there’s been some pretty dodgy religious schools around my neck of the woods recently. Couldn’t have happened if this country had the balls to kick all religion out of schools.

The rhetorical form ‘I can’t understand why anyone would do X’ is another way of saying ‘X is stupid
No, it really isn’t. I can not understand something, nucleur physics for example, without thinking it’s stupid. I don’t think nucleur physics is stupid but I’m not about to try and build a reactor.

The RHETORICAL form.

You wouldn’t use that when talking about nuclear physics. You’re telling me you’re honestly unaware that there are two ways to say ‘I have no idea why…’ that mean two different things?

Still you lecture us on the good book eh

Ah no, no I’m not.

I am, however simply telling us to be nice to each other. That is exactly what I am doing.

You’re just assuming he meant the rhetorical form, though. Leaping to take offence where there wasn’t any, perhaps?

You’re just assuming he meant the rhetorical form

No, I was pointing out the difference. You’re assuming *I* was using the rhetorical form in my own post 🙂

Touché 🙂

My opinion, remember? You can talk about the rhetorical form if you like. I’m talking about what I wrote and what I meant, which was literally that I can’t understand why someone who has been faced with the same reality I have can come to believe there is a god. I can see why people might want to believe it, but not why that desire can cause them to abandon rational thought.

But you make a good point in that in my head, I was saying that in a very reasonable thought provoking tone of voice with associated body language…

I can see why people might want to believe it, but not why that desire can cause them to abandon rational thought.

Do you want to know why? Did you ask them?

Seriously; that’s a side effect of having a working justice system

It is in an Act of Parliament, that is the legislature not the justice system, but the enshrinement of these rights in legislation is a relatively modern concept so can hardly be described as historical inertia.

I don’t really care whether something is a choice or genetic, historical or whatever, as I have no need to offend people because of their race, sexuality or religion. It is only people who sadly have such a need that require specious arguments to give them covering fire.

The people I don’t understand (in the non rhetorical meaning of the phrase) are religious scientists. Scientists know about the scientific method, theories, standards of proof, double-blind trials etc. I don’t understand how someone can be rigorously scientific in one area, then throw that away when it comes to religion.

I’ve tried to explain how that might work before, you (collectively) have not really got my point 🙂

Is this a “you just don’t really understand it” thing?

as I have no need to offend people because of their race, sexuality or religion.

But you’re perfectly happy to offend people not in those ‘protected’ groups? Because the drawing of comparisons between genetics and belief offends me, (in a purely academic manner). It is comparing apples and oranges, regardless of legistlation.

The historical inertia that I refer to is the respect afforded to the religious institutions, just because we always have done, rather than because of any actual logic. See; tax breaks, special dispensations in law, etc.

Disagreement is a fundamental part of academic life, if you find that offensive, I suggest you will be disappointed and upset if you follow such a path.

I don’t understand how someone can be rigorously scientific in one area, then throw that away when it comes to religion.

Different epistemological categories entirely.