Are you religious?

[An Ankoù]

I think the scientific method would be to read Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, etc (no need to rehash their arguments, just read the books - read, summarize their arguments and then refute if you can); It really boils down to - what created the universe? a God; who created this "God"? gosh, let me get all mystical, circles of life etc. If you really think that when you die you have more continued existence than a squashed dog in the road, I have a gold brick to sell you.

Know both Dawkins (who's argues his case like an evangelical fundmentalist- don't think much of Dawkins) and Russell (whom I admire and respect) like the back of my hand. Granted it's a good start, but at the end of the day, what you're proposing is philosphy of science and theology, not science per se.
And you bandy words on the afterlife with the servant of Death?

I'll take two, thanks.

 

[Oneflewover]

If you really think that when you die you have more continued existence than a squashed dog in the road, I have a gold brick to sell you.

Ha! I agree completely. Utter arrogance to think that we might have any more right to continued existence than any other organism on this rock.

 

[MrRook]

Yeah, me too. It's a beer forum, not a theology university. But there are some deep thinkers on this thread. Kudos to them but I have just unfollowed.

Beer is proof that god loves us. Utter tosh but makes me smile.

The actual quote mentions alcohol in general, not beer specifically.

 

[Hoppyland]

As a slight break from the "science/theology" trend of this thread, something else does strike me as very interesting. I am surprised that respondents to the "poll" are over 60% atheist, some 16% Christian ( but not practising), and not much else. Is this representative of society as a whole? It doesn't feel this way to me (although my experience of society is hardly mainstream, living in a remote location 4 miles from a small Scottish village)
But I'm especially surprised that only 7% describe themselves as agnostic. I always feel that "agnostic" should logically be the default mindset. Really, perhaps it should be my own standpoint. But, I feel that these are slippery terms. What is an "atheist"? I signed the poll as an "atheist", because I do not believe that there is a god. But I'm particularly thinking about the "Gods" of organised religion, and I have no belief in any of these. But.... does the term "atheist" mean:
A. That I don't believe in any specifically-defined god. Or, does it mean that
B. That I don't believe that an actual entity, however ill-defined or nebulous, that might have influenced the creation of our universe or other "supernatural" acts, really exists.
I guess that when it comes to it, I am totally "atheistic" about any "god" that is well-described through "scriptures" (or the equivalent in other religions than Christianity), and therefore fitting into any well-defined human belief system.
But, I am completely "agnostic" as to how the universe came into being. At present, we are a massive, massive distance from comprehending this. Quite likely, we never will. But, as a human being, I feel happier if we keep pecking away at it. We should try to understand everything as best we can, and my belief is that only the scientific method of creating hypotheses, and then testing them, can progress this.
Jeez. that was indeed a "slight break".....

 

[simon12]

I would define atheist as I believe there is no god/gods based on what I have seen or experienced and agnostic as I don't believe in a god/gods based on what I have seen or experienced ie one is a belief the other is a lack of for some its a fine line but for say Dawkins he said that if he heard the voice of god in a way not scientifically possible or even if the stars aligned in in a way saying it was god he would still think it was more likely a hallucination or advanced aliens.

 

[Rodcx500z]

Putting it bluntly I find it hard to answer all these questions, what do I really believe, we cannot be the only one's in the universe, the bible was started by a very clever person and was prob the first sect, what I do know and is fact is religion is accountable for all the trouble and strife in this world we live in, people killing people because of what they believe in, if I ever meet this god I will be asking him or her some serious questions

 

[Dutto]

I'm pretty sure that the old saying "There are no atheist in a lifeboat!" is still valid.

It's my opinion that only when people feel secure in their lives that they become "atheists", but at the first sign of danger 99% of them immediately resort to prayer!

An old priest once told me, "You can't fall out with God!" and he was right!

 

[simon12]

what I do know and is fact is religion is accountable for all the trouble and strife in this world we live in, people killing people because of what they believe in

Sorry I hear this alot and it really annoys me and maybe it shouldn't as you not talking about the exact religion I follow but there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus or the new testament that could justify hurting anyone yet alone killing them. Just to say I strongly believe in Sola scriptura (by scripture alone) the basis for the reformation and that any church based on this could only have a positive impact on the world. But you are correct when it comes to a Christianity that has a pope with divine authority and have a large influence over kings and a church thats corrupt then it does influence wars etc but to say ALL trouble and strife in the world is about religion is just false as secular societies and governments don't have a better record in any way.

 

[Linalmeemow]

I'm pretty sure that the old saying "There are no atheist in a lifeboat!" is still valid.

It's my opinion that only when people feel secure in their lives that they become "atheists", but at the first sign of danger 99% of them immediately resort to prayer!

An old priest once told me, "You can't fall out with God!" and he was right!

This is nonsense.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

This is nonsense.

269 posts and the key is now in the padlock!

.

 

[Linalmeemow]

269 posts and the key is now in the padlock!

.

You don't think that stating that 99% of atheists aren't actually atheist is a nonsensical thing to say?

 

[Gulpitdarn]

This is nonsense.

As a motorcyclist, and knowing full well the risks, my thoughts have always been that if I should be in an accident and I over hear the paramedics say "He ain't gonna make it" then I KNOW I'll be in prayer like you would not believe.... So I make my peace and have faith in God now and not leave it till the last minuet, I might not even get that chance!

 

[simon12]

You don't think that stating that 99% of atheists aren't actually atheist is a nonsensical thing to say?

Thats not what you quoted he said when they are in danger and its pointless to just say nonsense without a reason. I suggest you should have just said you disagree or said something like just because someone may pray when out of other options doesn't really mean there not atheist just that with no other option they try something over nothing even if they have no belief not just saying someone else's opinion in nonsensical without reason.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

You don't think that stating that 99% of atheists aren't actually atheist is a nonsensical thing to say?

Simon beat me to it, if you want to take part in the debate do so posting "Nonsence" with no reason adds nothing and is likely to receive a negative response in return which we don't want.

 

[An Ankoù]

Before Chippy turns the key in the padlock:

Just to say I strongly believe in Sola scriptura (by scripture alone) the basis for the reformation and that any church based on this could only have a positive impact on the world.

What about the other solae of Protestantism? I thought sola fide was Luther's primary principle. And, (comma inserted to pisss off Rees-Mogg) we have the "sola gratia" of the Predestinarians, especially of Calvinist persuasion. And,, (ditto) why must a church based in the principle of sola scruptura have a positive impact? There are some horrendous teachings and examples in the Bible, including the N. T. that wouldn't have a positive impact if imposed today.

what I do know and is fact is religion is accountable for all the trouble and strife in this world we live in,

No it isn't. Some horrendous things have been done in the name of religion and continue to be done, but the invasion and liberation of Kuwait and then the various Gulf Wars were not in the name of religion they were about greed and oil. The last economic recession wasn't about religion. The trouble and strife in Iran today is all about one man's hubris, and couple of cases of piracy. The Windrush affair isn't about religion unless racism, xenophobia and exploitation are aspects of religion. The election of ******* to the position of PM isn't about religion it's about crass stupidity and a bunch of greedy rich guys wanting to continue to be able to hide their money away from the tax man. Yes, I think the state of the planet and climate change started with a naive understanding of scripture, but now, again, it's just about greed.
And,,, quote from Wikipedia on agnosticism: Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."
So if this is true, then we're all banging our gums together for nothing and,,,,, we'd be better employed downing pints.

 

[simon12]

Before Chippy turns the key in the padlock:
What about the other solae of Protestantism? I thought sola fide was Luther's primary principle. And, (comma inserted to pisss off Rees-Mogg) we have the "sola gratia" of the Predestinarians, especially of Calvinist persuasion. And,, (ditto) why must a church based in the principle of sola scruptura have a positive impact? .

I think sola fide seems to be backed up by scripture as is sola gratia in Ephesians 2:8 ie salvation comes only from grace by faith
[QUOTE=" There are come horrendous teachings and examples in the Bible, including the N. T. that wouldn't have a positive impact if imposed today..[/QUOTE]
Examples please, but sorry may not be able to reply until Monday if the thread isn't closed by then.

 

[Rodcx500z]

I have no more comments, if I say what I really feel I would get banned I don't want to be banned I only just got here and I like it

 

[Zephyr259]

For those who identify as Christian, (or anyone else) here are a few simple questions about the fundamentals of that religion.

1 What was Christ's given name?
2 What language did he speak?
3 How many years after his death, was the first gospel (Matthew) written?
4 And finally, how many years after was his death was the fourth (John) written?

I doubt anyone can get all 4 correct (approximately) without Googling.

Not googling and stopped reading at this point to see how I could do. Sorry it's going to be massively against the current flwo of the conversation. :-)

1 - Jesus is the obvious answer but it could be Jeshua as I've seen that version, or Emmanuel as in some parts of the Bible.
2 - Aramaic (I'll confess to using google to remember what the language was called, but googled it in a round about way, not "what did jesus speak").
3 - 10 - 20 years, but Mark could have been as close as 3 - 5 years from research I've read.
4 - about 50 years, seem to recall it was about the 80's AD and the crucifiction was around 33 AD.

How did I do?

 

[An Ankoù]

I think sola fide seems to be backed up by scripture as is sola gratia in Ephesians 2:8 ie salvation comes only from grace by faith
[QUOTE=" There are come horrendous teachings and examples in the Bible, including the N. T. that wouldn't have a positive impact if imposed today..
Examples please, but sorry may not be able to reply until Monday if the thread isn't closed by then.

No, no, no, Simon. I'm not getting involved in a chapter and verse tennis match, particularly when my interpretation is as valid as yours (according to your rules, not mine, which seems to put an end to discussion) and especially when I asked you to say how the regime you propose would be beneficial. Let's leave it then until we can dispute face to face over a horn or two of mead in the halls of Valhalla. But, just to give you a clue where I'm coming from, I thing the verse "Go forth and multiply, have dominion over nature and subdue it." is directly responsible for the mess we're in now. As for Jesus, this is the guy who urged his followers to ignore filial duty and "let the dead bury their own dead" the guy who caused a perfectly good fig tree to be destroyed because it wasn't bearing fruit as it wasn't the season. What a flidd! We need to look at the deeds and words of Jesus with new eyes. So this sort of stuff would certainly inprove our lives?
Right I'm with Rodcx500z. I, too, have no more comments. I just hope I haven't piissed him off with mine.
Beer calls.

 

[Gulpitdarn]

How did I do?

Actually it doe's not matter a jot how you did, it is what is in the heart that matters.