 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Zero
Forum Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | Super Duper Skåne, Sweden |
| Posts: | 93 |
| Occupation: | Feeding horses | | My bikes: | 675 & XL500r ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 01:05 pm |
|
Maybe this will help?
____________________
A Brit living in Sweden, lucky me hey? ‹(•¿•)›
|
gobbag
Forum Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 27th, 2006 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 61 |
| Occupation: | | | My bikes: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 05:00 pm |
|
These debates generally get sidetracked onto whether religion is a good thing or not, whether it's beneficial for individuals and society to have faith, whether organised churches are a force for good or evil, etc. That's a valid debate to have but it does obscure the essential point of whether religion is true: is there some kind of sentient creator or not?
We can't prove whether there is a god or not but although I understand the urge to believe that something as mysterious as the universe must have been made by someone, it's a mistake: trying to explain something as marvellous, mysterious and hard to understand as the universe by saying it was magicked up by something even more marvellous, mysterious and hard to understand is futile and only puts us back to square one. So I'm with Reverend Gixxer and Zero
|
brox2
Forum Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | Paris, France |
| Posts: | 140 |
| Occupation: | | | My bikes: | Bandit 600 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 07:03 pm |
|
Reverend Gixxer wrote: brox2 wrote:
Reverend Gixxer wrote: Religion is a man-made social construct, created to control and subvert. If people want to submit to that control, fine, that's up to them, Just so long as they keep it to themselves.
Ah - you are enlighted too?
Thats exactly what I believe! Of course as man contains God, anything man made is divine by its nature. Lets keep trying to control evil, shall we, and subvert ignorance and stupidity where ever we find it. And you are right. Its very personal. We won't shout about it.
Shall we pray together, Rev? 
Let's not, eh? And consider 'anything man-made' being divine by nature.
Let's park the semantics of 'religion' for a moment and consider what is meant by 'God'. Not the beardy, cloud-squatting chap. But in order to believe in God, presumably you think that there is some sort of omnipotent presence, whatever it is.
If so, should it be 'worshipped'? Praised?
For me the semantics of religion (and failth) is important for this thread, as Eddie Knocker is asking why are some people so against it. My view is they are against it because they misunderstand what religion is.
Gixxer, the question of 'what is God' is something that Taoists will meditate for years on to try and perceive the answer, so I doubt I will be answer it to your satisfaction in a Bike forum thread.
Ominipotent? Maybe.
Worshipped? No.
Praised? OK. Celebrated and Thanked, sure, but its not as if 'he' is sentient being and would be grateful for be thanked.
I was discussing this thread with my Godfather who visited last night. He was a teacher in Africa when my Dad met him. He left the christian church because he had issues around belief, but in the end found a way back and became an anglican minister.
He had a couple of points on this area. What you believe matters, little, what your values are and what you do is what counts. Having Christian values, deciding to work in a certain way is more important than trying to list a load of existential things that may or may not exist.
He and his wife also talked about a local woman in Coventry who works with asylum seekers on a voluntary basis, she goes into schools and speaks, writes letters to the paper and to council and government. No one has asked her to do this, she just thinks she should. She is clear that she does not believe in god but does it because she thinks she should. My God father said that for him, this woman was more religious than many people who turn up to church each week but do nothing.
____________________
Fear lasts a moment. Regret lasts a lifetime.
|
brox2
Forum Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | Paris, France |
| Posts: | 140 |
| Occupation: | | | My bikes: | Bandit 600 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 07:17 pm |
|
gobbag wrote: These debates generally get sidetracked onto whether religion is a good thing or not, whether it's beneficial for individuals and society to have faith, whether organised churches are a force for good or evil, etc. That's a valid debate to have but it does obscure the essential point of whether religion is true: is there some kind of sentient creator or not?
We can't prove whether there is a god or not but although I understand the urge to believe that something as mysterious as the universe must have been made by someone, it's a mistake: trying to explain something as marvellous, mysterious and hard to understand as the universe by saying it was magicked up by something even more marvellous, mysterious and hard to understand is futile and only puts us back to square one. So I'm with Reverend Gixxer and Zero
I am trying to argue that whether a sentient creator is true or not is NOT the essential point of religion, it is about values, actions and results.
This misconception is a key reason why many people say that they are not religious feel they have to choose between 'Science' or 'Religion'. If I had to choose, I would go with Science too.
____________________
Fear lasts a moment. Regret lasts a lifetime.
|
brox2
Forum Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | Paris, France |
| Posts: | 140 |
| Occupation: | | | My bikes: | Bandit 600 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 07:23 pm |
|
RC45er wrote: Faith is to be respected and never questioned but why? Faith means an often irrational belief in something that has no proof and is extremely unlikely to have any truth whatsoever. Even worse, much of it, and all religious faith, is based on tenets from Holy books that are taken as literal and Gospel but are time after time shown to be falsehoods.
Another false belief that leads people to think they are anti religion.
By the way, sorry if I'm spamming this thread a bit. I've really enjoyed a lot of the contributions here. Greenpro in particular, I would be very interested in hearing more your experiences giving the last rites to bikers, but something for another day, I guess.
____________________
Fear lasts a moment. Regret lasts a lifetime.
|
Mav
Forum Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 |
| Location: | En Route To Nowhere |
| Posts: | 11188 |
| Occupation: | Heretic Igniter | | My bikes: | very very black n sexy |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 07:42 pm |
|
RC45er wrote: Mav wrote: I am an agnostic but I envy people with true faith.
Religion is something I enjoy reading about and have some knowledge of but it is all through 3rd parties.
Mav, Steven Dawkins in The God Delusion classes agnosticism as the coward's way out.
Must be true then.
____________________
The first convert of many to the new improved protestant reformation.
Counter steering is the work of the Devil!
|
RC45er
Forum Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 20th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 952 |
| Occupation: | | | My bikes: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 09:38 pm |
|
eddieknocker wrote: RC45er wrote: Faith is to be respected and never questioned but why? Faith means an often irrational belief in something that has no proof and is extremely unlikely to have any truth whatsoever. Even worse, much of it, and all religious faith, is based on tenets from Holy books that are taken as literal and Gospel but are time after time shown to be falsehoods.
point...missed - but you are the sort of person i'm referring to in this thread
What sort of person would that be given, remember, that you don't know me?
|
RC45er
Forum Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 20th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 952 |
| Occupation: | | | My bikes: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 09:41 pm |
|
dooley wrote: RC45er wrote: all religious faith, is based on tenets from Holy books that are taken as literal
hmm
Dooley, would you please stop stalking me? Either say something constructive or say nothing.
I know I'm a celebrity but stalkers are perverts.
|
Polished Arrow
Forum Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 17 |
| Occupation: | | | My bikes: | Falco and R1150R |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 11:33 pm |
|
It is great to see a real debate on this subject, with some thoughtful discussion points going each way. In particular, it's encouraging to see (in the main) people with belief first listening to those without, and then responding; and those without a faith first listening to those with, and then responding. There's room for growth in understanding across the spectrum in a space like this, which is both important and illuminating, as this is not actually a two sided question, but one of many facets, as we see developing here.
I have never found two people's understanding of their belief, or non-belief, to look the same even when they say they believe in the same God, or where both are without faith. All experiences of (or rejections of) the concept of the entity we might call God, are as individual as the people who walk this earth. Recognising that enables us to not make assumptions about where other people are coming from, and so to learn from them, and also to be a bit braver about sharing our own perspectives too.
This thread goes against the popular climate of today in the 'developed' world, which is moving rapidly towards intollerance of any religious viewpoint at all. I see this as particularly problematic in the academic setting, where openness of mind is important if real 'truth' is to ever be revealed, whether it is about creation, evolution, the perfection of a straight line, or the ability vs the ethics of genetic engineering. I seriously believe that accountable debate and thoughtful exchange should include only those willing to enter into discussion with a willingness to listen as well as an inclination to share their opinion. Being unwilling to listen makes the person professing an opinion a fool - as they can never be fully informed.
But does God really exist, or not... that was the opening question, wasn't it, Eddieknocker? Well, as a one person expressed it: 'If you want to walk on water, you've first got to get out of the boat.' Of those who have 'out of the boat' experiences, some step out in faith, and others grasp at it to save themselves from drowning. I am from the latter group, with an experience of relationship that is not explained by hard reason or visible proof to another's eye, but which I use as a compass to help me walk through the challenges of life, and which I would say are to me as concrete as the ground I walk on. I am prepared to put myself on the line for that, and to held accountable to it. First, though, I would ask people to hear my personal take on what my understanding of God is first, before assuming they understand it, or measuring me by it, simply becasue it comes under the wider umbrella of the title 'Christian' which they may assume to understand - either as believers or non-believers.
I have no problem with accepting more than one definition of God, or even more that one name, or book of direction, or inspiration. I am as happy with Yaweh, or Mother, or Creation for names - or others. I remember that in the book I have found useful to help me grow in understanding, and to develop my independent thinking on my faith (The Bible), what might be hard to understand as 'direction' came more often than not from the non-believers and outcasts: magicians, the taxman without integrity, sex workers and simple people, who were in fact more likely to express real truth than the so called wise religious leaders of the time in which the stories are set. Faith in God is not as simple as many believers, or non-believers, would have us believe. It is multi-facted and personal. It is textured and fluid. It is sometimes vivid, and sometimes almost impossibkle to discern..... But it is always there for the taking, which cannot be said of unbelief.
____________________
In a quiver ...
|
eddieknocker
Forum Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | LONDON, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 1345 |
| Occupation: | Tv . | | My bikes: | er6n - best naked 600 ever |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 04:06 am |
|
RC45er wrote: eddieknocker wrote: RC45er wrote: Faith is to be respected and never questioned but why? Faith means an often irrational belief in something that has no proof and is extremely unlikely to have any truth whatsoever. Even worse, much of it, and all religious faith, is based on tenets from Holy books that are taken as literal and Gospel but are time after time shown to be falsehoods.
point...missed - but you are the sort of person i'm referring to in this thread
What sort of person would that be given, remember, that you don't know me?
I'm basing this entirely on the above post. I will highlight. Faith - as i said in my original post and which others more clever than me have agreed is not based in truth, is irrational. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT FOR FUCKS SAKE!!! You also mention faleshoods. How stupid are you to keep banging on with that teenage point of view - "I cant see god so he doesn't exist, there is no proof etc etc"
Jesus christ! (pun intended)
see what time this was written...
Last edited on Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 10:03 am by eddieknocker
____________________
I have reached my personal safety nirvana and can relax....hmmm my boots aren't made of titanium are they??? DAMMIT!!!
|
eddieknocker
Forum Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | LONDON, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 1345 |
| Occupation: | Tv . | | My bikes: | er6n - best naked 600 ever |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 04:12 am |
|
Polished Arrow wrote: It is great to see a real debate on this subject, with some thoughtful discussion points going each way. In particular, it's encouraging to see (in the main) people with belief first listening to those without, and then responding; and those without a faith first listening to those with, and then responding. There's room for growth in understanding across the spectrum in a space like this, which is both important and illuminating, as this is not actually a two sided question, but one of many facets, as we see developing here.
I have never found two people's understanding of their belief, or non-belief, to look the same even when they say they believe in the same God, or where both are without faith. All experiences of (or rejections of) the concept of the entity we might call God, are as individual as the people who walk this earth. Recognising that enables us to not make assumptions about where other people are coming from, and so to learn from them, and also to be a bit braver about sharing our own perspectives too.
This thread goes against the popular climate of today in the 'developed' world, which is moving rapidly towards intollerance of any religious viewpoint at all. I see this as particularly problematic in the academic setting, where openness of mind is important if real 'truth' is to ever be revealed, whether it is about creation, evolution, the perfection of a straight line, or the ability vs the ethics of genetic engineering. I seriously believe that accountable debate and thoughtful exchange should include only those willing to enter into discussion with a willingness to listen as well as an inclination to share their opinion. Being unwilling to listen makes the person professing an opinion a fool - as they can never be fully informed.
But does God really exist, or not... that was the opening question, wasn't it, Eddieknocker? Well, as a one person expressed it: 'If you want to walk on water, you've first got to get out of the boat.' Of those who have 'out of the boat' experiences, some step out in faith, and others grasp at it to save themselves from drowning. I am from the latter group, with an experience of relationship that is not explained by hard reason or visible proof to another's eye, but which I use as a compass to help me walk through the challenges of life, and which I would say are to me as concrete as the ground I walk on. I am prepared to put myself on the line for that, and to held accountable to it. First, though, I would ask people to hear my personal take on what my understanding of God is first, before assuming they understand it, or measuring me by it, simply becasue it comes under the wider umbrella of the title 'Christian' which they may assume to understand - either as believers or non-believers.
I have no problem with accepting more than one definition of God, or even more that one name, or book of direction, or inspiration. I am as happy with Yaweh, or Mother, or Creation for names - or others. I remember that in the book I have found useful to help me grow in understanding, and to develop my independent thinking on my faith (The Bible), what might be hard to understand as 'direction' came more often than not from the non-believers and outcasts: magicians, the taxman without integrity, sex workers and simple people, who were in fact more likely to express real truth than the so called wise religious leaders of the time in which the stories are set. Faith in God is not as simple as many believers, or non-believers, would have us believe. It is multi-facted and personal. It is textured and fluid. It is sometimes vivid, and sometimes almost impossibkle to discern..... But it is always there for the taking, which cannot be said of unbelief.
No it wasn't but i take responsibility for the vagueness of my original post. Its not about whether god exists or not but whether you believe he does which is faith which is a hell of a powerful emotional force.
If i believed that this hp laptop on which i am typing this was responsible for the creation of the universe and that I had to live by its rules i would have faith. That is not logical and is quite patently untrue (?) but again that is faith and that is not such a bad thing to have.
____________________
I have reached my personal safety nirvana and can relax....hmmm my boots aren't made of titanium are they??? DAMMIT!!!
|
chilidawg
Forum Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Texas |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Occupation: | Engineer | | My bikes: | Very old Goldwing |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 04:39 am |
|
My deal is this, if the 10 commandments had never been published, I would still live by them.
I once pissed off some bible belt baptists by telling them that Stonehenge predated Moses and the civilisation that built it probably predated Adam and Eve, did a runner from that place, found out they back their bible up with a gun.
Moral: Don't get too comfy as an agnostic tourist in small town America.
Last edited on Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 04:46 am by chilidawg
____________________
Made in England - Texan by choice
http://www.roughnecksmc.com
|
dooley
Forum Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | London, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4009 |
| Occupation: | 3rd rate shamus | | My bikes: | CBF600CTDi |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 06:55 am |
|
rc45er - i just get drawn to stupid shit people say. i'm sorry if it seems like i'm picking on you in
____________________
"And I wonder how long I'll hang around
Before I go insane
Before I break down
And get gone again"
|
RC45er
Forum Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 20th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 952 |
| Occupation: | | | My bikes: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 09:17 am |
|
eddieknocker wrote: RC45er wrote: eddieknocker wrote: RC45er wrote:
I'm basing this entirely on the above post. I will highlight. Faith - as i said in my original post and which others more clever than me have agreed is not based in truth, is irrational. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT FOR FUCKS SAKE!!! You also mention faleshoods. How stupid are you to keep banging on with that teenage point of view - "I cant see god so he doesn't exist, there is no proof etc etc"
Jesus christ! (pun intended)
Firstly stop getting wound up, remember the white flag analogy.
The Bible was written and edited hundreds of years after the event and contains description of events that clearly didn't happen (including possibly the life and times of Jesus) and yet is taken as gospel by extremist religionists. There isn't really a shred of evidence that God exists and it isn't childish to believe this or that most of what is written in the Bible is fiction. All I can do to anybody who had faith forced on them as children or who have been subsequently brainwashed into it; read the God Delusion which explains the downside far more eloquently than I ever could. Remember it takes an act of blind faith to believe it, not to NOT believe it and it's coorrect to believe that nothing is true unless it is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that it is true. It's not logical to believe something which has has not satisfied this criteria. What I'm stating here are my opinions and I believe that they are more logical than faith. I don't believe that faith is sacrosanct and unchallengeable.
A question? How many believe in the Virgin Birth, the resurrection; or a Divine Jesus who was man/God even the Son of God? I'd guess not even Christian Theologians believe it now.
Can I ask again Eddie, what type of person given that you don't know me? Seriously, I'm very interested.
Last edited on Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 09:25 am by RC45er
|
Reverend Gixxer
Forum Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 09:43 am |
|
brox2 wrote:
I am trying to argue that whether a sentient creator is true or not is NOT the essential point of religion, it is about values, actions and results.
Ah, but you see this is one of my main problems with religion and the religious. "It's not about God," they say, "not about a supreme being in that sense. It's about acting the right way, having a moral compass...
That's like saying "I'm a pacifist, I only joined the army to march with the band."
Religion has a nasty habit of hijacking anything good and disowning anything bad and claiming it as its own. By bending and shaping the definition of religion, it gets applied to all manner of things that are nothing to do with it. It's invidious and quite sinister.
I'm something of a fundamental atheist; does that mean that I can't know how to behave since I have no 'religion'?
|
eddieknocker
Forum Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | LONDON, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 1345 |
| Occupation: | Tv . | | My bikes: | er6n - best naked 600 ever |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 10:01 am |
|
RC45er wrote: eddieknocker wrote: RC45er wrote: eddieknocker wrote: RC45er wrote:
I'm basing this entirely on the above post. I will highlight. Faith - as i said in my original post and which others more clever than me have agreed is not based in truth, is irrational. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT FOR FUCKS SAKE!!! You also mention faleshoods. How stupid are you to keep banging on with that teenage point of view - "I cant see god so he doesn't exist, there is no proof etc etc"
Jesus christ! (pun intended)
Firstly stop getting wound up, remember the white flag analogy.
The Bible was written and edited hundreds of years after the event and contains description of events that clearly didn't happen (including possibly the life and times of Jesus) and yet is taken as gospel by extremist religionists. There isn't really a shred of evidence that God exists and it isn't childish to believe this or that most of what is written in the Bible is fiction. All I can do to anybody who had faith forced on them as children or who have been subsequently brainwashed into it; read the God Delusion which explains the downside far more eloquently than I ever could. Remember it takes an act of blind faith to believe it, not to NOT believe it and it's coorrect to believe that nothing is true unless it is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that it is true. It's not logical to believe something which has has not satisfied this criteria. What I'm stating here are my opinions and I believe that they are more logical than faith. I don't believe that faith is sacrosanct and unchallengeable.
A question? How many believe in the Virgin Birth, the resurrection; or a Divine Jesus who was man/God even the Son of God? I'd guess not even Christian Theologians believe it now.
Can I ask again Eddie, what type of person given that you don't know me? Seriously, I'm very interested.
I'm glad you're interested. But I can't be arsed. You keep using the words "logic" and "proof" so you are still missing my point say maybe we should leave it.
____________________
I have reached my personal safety nirvana and can relax....hmmm my boots aren't made of titanium are they??? DAMMIT!!!
|
Polished Arrow
Forum Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 17 |
| Occupation: | | | My bikes: | Falco and R1150R |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 10:57 am |
|
Reverend Gixxer wrote: brox2 wrote:
I am trying to argue that whether a sentient creator is true or not is NOT the essential point of religion, it is about values, actions and results.
Ah, but you see this is one of my main problems with religion and the religious. "It's not about God," they say, "not about a supreme being in that sense. It's about acting the right way, having a moral compass...
That's like saying "I'm a pacifist, I only joined the army to march with the band."
Religion has a nasty habit of hijacking anything good and disowning anything bad and claiming it as its own. By bending and shaping the definition of religion, it gets applied to all manner of things that are nothing to do with it. It's invidious and quite sinister.
I'm something of a fundamental atheist; does that mean that I can't know how to behave since I have no 'religion'?
Here's what an interesting group of people from 5 different religious beliefs (Agnosticism, Atheism, Christianity, Wicca and Zen Buddhism), working together to understand the role of religion in society, have said. I feel it is a good summary, illustrating that by engaging in constructive dialogue, believers and nonbelievers can see that inherent in all human nature is the tendancy to acts of hypocrisy and selfishness, which are often born out of a lack of understanding, a lack of compassion, and an absence of hope.
'Religion is a unique force in society. It motivates individuals to do both good and evil. Historically, it has promoted: an end to slavery, racial integration, equal rights for women, and equal rights for gays and lesbians. It has motivated individuals to create massive support services for the poor, the sick, the hurting, and the broken. Conversely, it has been used to justify slavery, racial segregation, oppression of women, discrimination against homosexuals, genocides, exterminations of minorities and other horrendous evils.
Religion motivates some to dedicate their lives to help the poor and needy. (e.g. Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa.) It drives others to exterminate as many "heretics" as they can. Over the past two decades we have seen religiously-motivated mass murders and genocides in Bosnia, East Timor, Indonesia, India, Kosovo, the Middle East, Northern Ireland, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tibet, etc.
Religion has the capability to generate unselfish love in some people, and vicious, raw hatred in others.'
(Note: I think it is important to remember that this reflection does not attempt to describe the forces at work in a society where there is an absence of religion. In reality, similar or the same attrocities, and acts of compassion, have been done by poeple without faith too. In other words, taking this quote in isolation does not mean that I am saying only people who are religious are able to exhibit such a wide spectrum of behaviour.)
To chose to describe yourself as a 'Fundamentalist' of any sort is, to my mind at least, to recognise that you are part of a dichotamy - ie acknowledging that the opposite viewpoint to yours is also a valid viewpoint - even if it is one you don't particularly wish to tolerate. So I am grateful for that, because that is going against the current trend: there are many now who do not accept that those professing faith should be permitted to contribute to debate at all.
'Fundamentalism' is about having a take on religion that is rooted in strong core principles, and being rigid in your adherence to those principles - usually to the point of intolerance of any other viewpoints. Of course, it has commonly been tied to conservative Christians, but in more recent times it has been applied to Islamists and now too to atheists and to antitheists. So, your question is an interesting one: "I'm something of a fundamental atheist; does that mean that I can't know how to behave since I have no 'religion'?"
I would have to ask you first whether you agree that you do have a religious belief - your religious belief being that there is no God or divine force of any shape, form or nature. And that if is the case, and being a fundamentalist of that religious belief, how do you identify yourself as a fundamentalist of this belief system? In identifying yourself as such, you must have been able to discern the core principles which go to into the make up of that viewpoint, and I would understand from my own perspective on principles of belief, that these should give quite clear guidelines on 'how to behave'.
So my answer, as a non-fundamentalist Christian with a deep faith based on revelation that i can (if stumblingly) recount, is this: its a question that only you can answer.
But I would be interested to know what your answer is.
Last edited on Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 10:59 am by Polished Arrow
____________________
In a quiver ...
|
gobbag
Forum Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 27th, 2006 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 61 |
| Occupation: | | | My bikes: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 02:46 pm |
|
brox2 wrote: gobbag wrote: These debates generally get sidetracked onto whether religion is a good thing or not, whether it's beneficial for individuals and society to have faith, whether organised churches are a force for good or evil, etc. That's a valid debate to have but it does obscure the essential point of whether religion is true: is there some kind of sentient creator or not?
I am trying to argue that whether a sentient creator is true or not is NOT the essential point of religion, it is about values, actions and results.
This misconception is a key reason why many people say that they are not religious feel they have to choose between 'Science' or 'Religion'. If I had to choose, I would go with Science too.
My copy of Chambers defines religion like this: "belief in, recognition of or an awakened sense of a higher unseen power or powers, with the emotion and morality connected with such" and I'm pretty sure that's how most people use the word. You can, like Humpty Dumpty, state that a word means just what you choose it to mean but I don't think you can argue that its definition ought to different from what it is. On the other hand, if you're making a point that for practical purposes, the truth or falsity of a religion's central tenet is neither here nor there in terms of the effect it has on the real world, I'd have to agree with you
|
greenpro
Forum Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 02:46 pm |
|
Having said I wouldn't get back into this thread, out of sheer curiosity I couldn't resist reading the posts. May I congratulate the contributors on the high standard of observations made. Polished Arrow, your post was one of the best I've ever seen. Anyone seen this before?
One Solitary Life. Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another obscure village. He worked in a carpenter's shop until he was thirty, and then for three years he was an itinerant preacher. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never owned a home. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put his foot inside a big city. He never travelled two hundred miles from the place where he was born. He never did any of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but himself. He had nothing to do with this world except the naked power of his divine manhood. While still a young man the tide of popular opinion turned against him. His friends ran away. One of them denied him. He was turned over to his enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed to a cross between two thieves. His executioners gambled for the only piece of property he had on earth while he was dying and that was his coat. When he was dead he was taken down and laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.
Twenty wide centuries have come and gone and today he is the centrepiece of the human race and the leader of the column of progress. I am well within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that were ever built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has this one divine solitary life.
------------------------------------------------------
Notice anything odd about it? (Apart from, hopefully, it's force). The word God isn't mentioned once.
____________________
There is a principle which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep one in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation.
|
gobbag
Forum Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 27th, 2006 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 61 |
| Occupation: | | | My bikes: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 03:25 pm |
|
I did notice that. However, you twice use the word "divine". If you'll excuse me resorting to Chambers again, divine is defined as "belonging to or proceeding from a god", so in fact you have slipped him in there. I wouldn't deny though (it would hardly be possible) that Jesus has had a big effect on the human race, regardless of his divinity or otherwise
|
Current time is 03:18 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
|
|
|
