Are you religious?

[Davidc]

I do not hope for the survival of my world view over another's. I am aware that I am neither clever enough, nor wise enough to be qualified to judge what is 'THE TRUTH'. I don't pretend to own 'THE TRUTH' nor am I aware of any belief systems (including sciences, I use the plural as science is not a homogeneous belief structure but many many theories often in direct opposition to each other) worth their salt that do not change and revise their truths over time, including what is therefore taught in education and what is considered rational evidence at any given chronological date in any given location dependent upon which school of truth is in power.
Look at the history of science and it's many revisions and remakes.
Would that make the accepted education and rationality of any given period applicable across the ages?
If I was to say this belief or that belief (including disbelief) was ultimately right or wrong I would by inference claim I had the immutable, intranscient truth. This would be in direct opposition to my education and all rational evidence. It would also suggest that all beliefs and theories in opposition to it are worthless and not to be regarded. In short the death of rational, scientific investigation and plain human expession.
I do not want everyone to believe what I believe, to deduce what I deduce, to consider rational and irrational what I consider the same!
We need difference to challenge, to widen the parameters, to push the envelope and to look at all angles , something that it is very difficult for us to do as individuals caught up in the limiting importance of what we consider to be 'TRUTHS'.
Maybe they are truths but not exclusive, nor immutable nor intranscient truths, just OUR TRUTHS.
I don't consider anyone's belief to be an infection just as I do not consider anyone's disbelief to be an infection. I consider them necessary mutable, transcient stages of experience that we as mutable, transcient humans feel the need to name.

Sorry for babbling

You clearly do not know what science is or how it works.

I don't have time to give an explanation but if you look up "Scientific Method" you'll soon find out.

 

[Davidc]

[QUOTE 2369647, member: 45"]There's no need. I'm not here to convince you of anything any more than you're genuinely interested in understanding.[/quote]
I have a total understanding of religion - it's a falsehood. There's little else needs to be understood. For a logical proof of this you could try Bertrand Russell's "Why I'm Not A Christian" as an introductory text. There are more recent mathematical proofs, but they are heavy going. Richard Dawkins has written extensively on this in an easily readable form as well.

 

[Rev]

I am sorry but I am fully aware of 'scientific method'. I do know sciences and I am fairly conversant with how many of the accepted mainstream ones work. There is no need to be high handed, insulting or arrogant as I have neither taken that tack nor that tone with you.
I am fairly reasonably educated (beyond degree) and would hope for the same courtesy I offer you to be returned. The fact that it has not and you have been highly judgemental, definitively arrogant, unquestionably rude and frankly confrontational would suggest that your Atheism (of which you are so proud) has done you few favours.

 

[Rev]

I have a total understanding of religion - it's a falsehood. There's little else needs to be understood. For a logical proof of this you could try Bertrand Russell's "Why I'm Not A Christian" as an introductory text. There are more recent mathematical proofs, but they are heavy going. Richard Dawkins has written extensively on this in an easily readable form as well.

Claiming you have a full understanding of religion is plainly ridiculous, come on please.
I am sure you are aware of the refutations including later recapitulations of Russell?
As for Dawkins writing on religion and faith etc he is neither taken seriously in the academic nor the faith arenas. Just reading something as simple as McGrath's refutation of his diatribe in the god delusion....he destroys him. Dawkins good at biology crap at religion. It's like saying have you seen Hawkings teaching kung Fu.

 

[Rev]

You clearly do not know what religion is or how it works.

I don't have time to give an explanation but if you practice "humility and compassion" you'll soon find out.

 

[Monsieur Remings]

If God, or the Goddess exists, then they do so as a force and in no other manifestation as far as I'm concerned. The closest I have ever come to any religion would be the Old Religion but insofar as believing that a Horned God actually exists anymore than the Christian God, is my own departure point.

The 'God Particle' brings up some interesting ideas, of which a saving grace for those who believe in a God might be the possibility that God could be understood as the divine spark that created that first potential for life in the universe. Equally the majority of those physicists who aren't religious and do not choose to see God as this divine spark see this force in purely physical terms, as I do. Both, IMO, represent forces however and stand a long way away from some human-conceived creator.They stand even further from the God portrayed in the Bible or the Qur'an.

It is this human-centric angle that puts to bed, for me at least, any God figure as we are shown him (or her) by any institutional religion. It is inconceivable to me that the universe was borne of a creator borne of human imagination and whilst creation theories contain some beautiful allegory and moral teaching, they are again IMO, no representation of the truth.

On the other hand if people choose to understand their own religion/spirituality as a moral code then this can be a good thing as well as a very bad thing. In troubled times 'the word of God' can mean anything that the exploiters of any religion can want it to mean and is merely another false flag to hide ourselves under against 'them' - whomever they may be. In more stable conditions all of the major world religions can impart upon reasonable people a degree of peace, unity even, but we only have to look across the globe to find the divisiveness inherent in all of the major religions and the incompatibility between men when dogma exceeds the value of compassion, as it has quite clearly done so over thousands of years.

But I would consider myself a spiritual person but as I believe nature herself to be the greatest arbiter, so too I choose to understand much of human nature as repressed, partly by religion. An understanding of ourselves, unshackled, could do a lot to undo the damage done to ourselves and would perhaps bring down the barriers that stand as an impediment to our freedom and life journeys.

(It says a lot when a religious man of the status of John Milton in his epic Paradise Lost, does more to countenance both the need for, and the reason behind the character he, along with the writers of the Bible, choose to call Satan, without ever knowing he had done such a service to this character. There is an incredible insight in this poem however - the temptation of Eve to eat of the forbidden tree and the serpent's role in provoking her desire. Perhaps, on the other hand, the Garden of Eden could have remained redundant, uninhabited by humans but alone inhabited by a master race of two people - Eve and Adam. Either her 'transgression' led to humankind, or the fall of humankind as some see it... or... the birth of our own nature, detached from some moral 'superior' somewhere in the sky, led alone by nature, unashamed and in all its glory and dirt).

 

[Aperitif]

It's very interesting how lots of posters make a point of saying how they don't care what others believe or respect others beliefs with a BUT a great big BUT. They then go on to denigrate, dismiss or devalue the others beliefs with innuendo, inference, sardonicism etc I am at a little of a loss why it should matter what another believes? When I make friends with someone, when I laugh with someone, when I share something with someone I don't ask them their beliefs. Beliefs do not make a person good or bad, it is their actions that do that!

I respect your view and other comments here, Rev, but the posters here volunteer the information. They choose to share experiences and feelings. If humour can be found, or a post invites a further question - well, that's part of the game of believing in life as one sees it too.
In Numbnuts instance, I read the post and thought "He's pissed himself!" et seq. C.P was spot on for my 'preferred religion'.
Anyway, all urologists have to put up with the odd roaming catheter...

Beliefs do not make a person good or bad, it is their actions that do that!

Correct!

 

[avalon]

My point is that the suggestion that religion has anything to do with love is false.

I don't have the time to get into a long argument on here at present, and it's rather pointless, so I'll conclude by saying that I have been delighted to see how many posters on this thread state that they are non-religious. If that were to be repeated in the general population I'm sure we would be headed for a better, happier, more moral, more equitable society.

Even though you appear to show hatred towards people with religious beliefs I'm sure all of us here still love you, even with our lack of morals.

 

[Aperitif]

Today's Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/mar/19/iraq-10-years-football-trainer-video

 

[Thomk]

I am sorry but I am fully aware of 'scientific method'. I do know sciences and I am fairly conversant with how many of the accepted mainstream ones work. There is no need to be high handed, insulting or arrogant as I have neither taken that tack nor that tone with you.
I am fairly reasonably educated (beyond degree) and would hope for the same courtesy I offer you to be returned. The fact that it has not and you have been highly judgemental, definitively arrogant, unquestionably rude and frankly confrontational would suggest that your Atheism (of which you are so proud) has done you few favours.

It doesn't make sense to attribute personality traits to the non belief in something that does not exist. You could just as easily claim that this apparent pedantry of mine is due to my non belief in Thor.

 

[Thomk]

Even though you appear to show hatred towards people with religious beliefs I'm sure all of us here still love you, even with our lack of morals.

Hatred?

 

[Thomk]

Claiming you have a full understanding of religion is plainly ridiculous, come on please.
I am sure you are aware of the refutations including later recapitulations of Russell?
As for Dawkins writing on religion and faith etc he is neither taken seriously in the academic nor the faith arenas. Just reading something as simple as McGrath's refutation of his diatribe in the god delusion....he destroys him. Dawkins good at biology crap at religion. It's like saying have you seen Hawkings teaching kung Fu.

I've listened to and read McGrath but haven't noticed this destruction. Is there a specific link you have handy which you would be willing to share?

 

[Dave Davenport]

Why are the believers bothered what anyone thinks or says about them or their beliefs, as long as it's not inciting or condoning actually harming them. After all, all of us non believers are going to rot in hell for eternity whilst they're enjoying eternal happiness, aren't we?

 

[Dave Davenport]

Right, I'm off to observe my mid-week religious ritual, the Wednesday Wheelers club run, communion will involve both tea & cake.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Much of religion (see Old Testament) is to do with encouraging members of one tribe to be as beastly as possible (genocide being one form) to people in other tribes.

I doubt that life has ever been all sweetness and light, or ever will be. I am however certain that it contains much more sweetness and much more light in the complete absence of religion and religious faith.

You seem to be proposing the idea that humanity must have been less beastly to one another before the point, presumably in pre-history, that organised religion came into being? On what basis?

Now not being a Jew I can't speak for Judaism nor its holy books nor of the understanding of contemporary Jews as to the meaning and applicability of these books to modern life. But I have a certain understanding of Christianity and the New Testament.

Can you show me where in the New Testament there is encouragement for members of one tribe to be as beastly as possible (genocide being one form) to people in other tribes?