You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
This might be a bit of a big question for this time on a Sunday morning, but it's just something I was thinking about...
Plenty of people "believe" in science...the big bang theory, evolution, the fact there can't really be a physical God somewhere, you can't feed 5000 with a bit of a fish and a loaf of bread... but then the idealogy of religion can be quite appealing right?
If you get rid of the God bit, most of Christianity is about living life by morals that I would hope most people would anyway (I picked Christianity for the question as some other religions seem to be a bit more involved!). Many people find comfort in religion...could you get the same comfort if you don't think there is a God?
Opinions?
The simple answer is no.
Christianity is about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ who Christians believe is the son of God. No God = no Jesus = no Christian. Yes, you can live by the same morals, but that wouldn't make you a Christian on its own.
Likewise with Buddhism (or any other religion), I could try to live following Buddhist teachings, but that in itself would be enough to call myself Buddhist.
The less simple answer is yes: [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism ]Christian atheism is an ideology in which the belief in the God of Christianity is rejected or absent but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed.[/url]
No.
Christ - gods son.
Moral teachings aren't christianity
"believe" in science
Does not compute. Science is not a belief system. [url= http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080903004655AATSDay ]Clicky[/url]
It seems what you are talking about is being a good person. You don't need to join a cult to do that. In fact isn't it better to do good because you think it is the right thing to do and because it is the way you would want other people to treat you, rather than because ( to use the cult in your example ) you think that there is a zombie flying carpenter who lives on a cloud who will let you be tortured for all eternity if you displease him ?
As you commented, you don't have to be a Christian (or a Muslim, or belong to any religion) to be a moral person, but it is impossible to be a Christian if you don't believe in God. If you're agnostic, you could learn a bit more about Christianity and see if that changes your mind. If you attend a church service or read about Christianity you will find that it is centred on faith in God, and I guess that could either turn you off or switch you on to religion!
I think some people like to say they are Christian even though they have no idea about God, Jesus or the bible. I wonder if they do this as a result of the bible saying all non believers will suffer in hell for eternity when they die and that God will show mercy on them at the pearly gates.
There appears to be a divide here!
cranberry - Member
"believe" in science
Does not compute. Science is not a belief system. ClickyIt seems what you are talking about is being a good person. You don't need to join a cult to do that.
I know science isn't a belief system, hence the quotation marks - I needed a better word! It's not just about being a good person, people often turn to their religion in times of trouble, even if they forget it the rest of the time!
cranberry- Christians don't strive to be good because they fear God. Christianity is about loving God, and helps you to be a moral person, though as I said above it's not the only way. May I suggest you demonstrate some understanding about what you're discussing instead of throwing in silly, childish comments?
That would mean you'd go to hell for sure. Seems even dumber than believing in god.
Don't confuse science with religion.
On a related note I am surprised when I meet monarchists who profess not to believe in god. I find this very confusing.
If you get rid of the God bit, most of Christianity is about living life by morals that I would hope most people would anyway (I picked Christianity for the question as some other religions seem to be a bit more involved!). Many people find comfort in religion...could you get the same comfort if you don't think there is a God?
They'd probably be better of with something like Buddhism, which I guess is a bit more like spiritual philosophy, rather than deity worship.
Many people find comfort in religion...could you get the same comfort if you don't think there is a God?
Totally. I've friends who are life long church-goers, and active in their church, but have no belief in a tangible god or afterlife. Its a life they enjoy. I'm an un-christened, unbaptised atheist but on the rare occasions I go to church services with other people I'm impressed by a community of people who take time each week to be thoughtful and caring together.
I don't want to join in but I'm actually proud that these people exist. I don't want to join a church but I'm glad there are churches and church-goers and congregations, and now that the social imperative to attend churches is waning we're left with a smaller body of church-goers who are really good at it.
There are functions that congregations perform in society that nobody else either does or notice gets done. Its utterly essential, IMO, and its something I'm incredibly grateful to the church community for.
I'm off out on my bike now, but I have 3 more thoughts:
Christianity does not teach that you go to hell if you sin. The concept of 'hell' is simply absence from the love of God.
A few people may only turn to religion in hard times, but for most Christians their faith is ever-present.
Why are some atheists so determined to criticise religion? why not live and let live?
You don't need to be a Christian to follow a moral code, and an atheist should have no problem following one. You only need to compare religions and cultures across the world to realise that while some of the details vary, almost every human culture has chosen to live by roughly the same rules. They aren't exclusive to Christianity, humans have evolved with these rules and values in order to live together in groups and gain the benefits that it brings.
On a related note I am surprised when I meet monarchists who profess not to believe in god. I find this very confusing
Divine right went during the civil war. If you'd paid attention in history classes you wouldn't have been confused all this time.
Why are some atheists so determined to criticise religion? why not live and let live?
You mean like letting anyone marry anyone else?
I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason that I would personally criticise them is that the theisms I've experienced are too fundamentally illogical (in that even the internal logic doesn't stand up to scrutiny), and I have deep concerns about living in a world governed by people who don't realise, or choose not to acknowlege this.
That said desim, i.e the belief in one or more gods seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's once humans start ascribing belief systems to that god that the reason seems to leave.
Becky, took a couple of readings to get exactly what your questions are, but the answers (if I understand correctly) are quite simple. *
1. Yes, people find some aspects of religion appealing while rejecting other parts (or interpretations) of it.
2. You can find religious comfort without believing in a God - Buddhism
3. Morals are not exclusive to religion, but religion may be one way to understanding them and living a moral life ie one source of guidance towards happiness
IMO, of course!
* edit, in case this sounds rude. I think the questions you ask in OP are different to the title of the thread. The answer to the latter is no, citing the Apostles Creed.
No
from crusades and jihads to homophobia and creationism, religions just seem a bastion of ignorance in the modern world
best avoid them imho
Is the Pope a catholic?
Christians don't strive to be good because they fear God.
Vickypea - you seem to be projecting your own flavour of Christianity onto all Christians. Some do think that sinners are sent to hell and that people should fear God, and some don't.
Nope
It is however perfectly possible to believe there was some fella, prone to telling folk some stuff. That other people then believed for whatever reason was the son of some god.
Kona, seems like Vicky is presenting the orthodox view ie, hell is simply the separation from God. I would suggest the your second group are more the category of those who put their own flavour on things
Christianity does not get to own morality. I have issue with this principle.
Science additionally is the process of disproving variables to eliminate errors. it is not the blind agreement with theories of physics, chemistry and biology. The scientific community is built upon people disagreeing with each other to whittle down to as valid, reliable and repeatable a conclusion as possible. We are not a unified group, it's full of ongoing debate and argument; which is good. Wars are not started in the name of science due to the lack of moral validation to do so.
To believe in science predominantly simply means you don't like things to be made up and you like proven evidence. It does not mean we all agree on the same popular ideas.
Why are some atheists so determined to criticise religion? why not live and let live?
Atheism (the opposite of theism, the belief in a god) is not just shrugging about religion but actively disagreeing with it.
I believe in 2 main rules; do unto others as you would have done unto you (either branded as the Golden Rule from Christianity, or in a simpler form; empathy). I also believe that you you should be free to do what you want, as long as it does not restrict someone (and to some extent some[i]thing[/i]'s) ability to do the same.
In short; be nice, cause no unnecessary harm. I also choose not to eat animals (see point 2) and try to live modestly in a sustainable way.
Religion has served as a means of offering social control, explanation and comfort to humans in difficult times. People have the burning "why?" question for any and everything and I feel religion can neatly extinguish this, leading to a lack of discovery. Children are incredible bundles of physical and mental potential, ready to experience as much as they can. This recedes as they find out there are ways and reasons to do things that are commonly agreed. I'm heading off on a tangent, for more see the vid at the end. The crux is that curiosity and exploration is integral to good things happening and the closing of this door is dangerous. Religion is not the only way the door gets nudged shut but it can be a big part of the process for some.
It has been interpreted as a means of giving some people the right to oppress and destroy in the name of a greater cause.
It's no coincidence that sexism and religion are so strongly linked. God is viewed as male, as is Jesus. Eve was the bi-product of the first and perfect man (she was a spare rib, right?). She was also the cause for being booted out of the garden for eating healthily. Males are treated as forgiveable, females are punished disproportionately.
I key difference between the perspective of many religions and the scientific community is the starting point. Religion centres existence as stemming from the human experience, that we are the purpose of the physical world and all exists for our usage while in this plane. Science as a whole places us quite late in the game as a wonderful accident in an ongoing transformation of matter and energy (the same thing) that alters states through time. Consciousness is the bi-product of our physical development to enable us to have more control in the meeting of our physiological needs.
I'm not even starting on the vengeful acts of an all-loving superdaddy in the sky. I'd rather not believe in a neglectful all present sky wizard who has an ultimate purpose for all actions. His interventions in biblical times pale in comparison to the political events of the past century. You also can't have a chosen people within a single group of God's children. This paradox has been the cause of an incomprehensible amount of violence and death.
Religion has helped communities unite and work together, however I think in an age where information is abundant we no longer need to fill the gap.
Imagine if churches/mosques/synagogues etc were education centres and people actively wanted to learn something on a weekly basis, like a free university without a moral agenda?
from crusades and jihads to homophobia and creationism, religions just seem a bastion of ignorance in the modern worldbest avoid them imho
To be fair, Europe owes a significant debt to a certain religious society for handing down huge quantities of knowledge lost since Antiquity.
Many people find comfort in religion...could you get the same comfort if you don't think there is a God?
anything is possible for humans but I assume the comfort comes from knowing there is a creator with a plan who loves us all and we will all live for ever in their kingdom with our dearly departed loved ones. I di have a non believing mate who likes the sense of community church gives him.
If you just try and live your life by their moral code - IMHO Its not that great in a ll respects see women and homosexuals- then I am not sure what comfort you would get tbh
Christians don't strive to be good because they fear God
Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord -God kills a hell of a lot of people in the bible for not doing as god says and for not living your life by gods code there is a punishment.
Christianity does not teach that you go to hell if you sin. The concept of 'hell' is simply absence from the love of God.
right so if I sin and you dont then we both get good outcomes then?
The Rich Man and Lazarus
19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
Yes it does not mention hell at all- your statement is a contradiction you get punished if you dont love god - that punishment is hell
Why are some atheists so determined to criticise religion? why not live and let live?
Really this one again- like we are the baddies and you just want to live your life unhindered by us forcing you to do as we say - its a distortion of reality to even suggest this.
1. Why tell us whether homosexuals can marry- live and let live
2. Why demand we have to have a daily act of religious worship in schools daily that is christian in nature- live and let live
3. Power in the House of Lords
You dont want live and let live you want a special exalted place in society where you can instil your moral code on me/everyone even though I dont agree with it and have done for centuries to the extent that it was an offence to simply say I did not believe in god.
I think there are several aspects to
Firstly, religious belief is not required for morality in any means. Religion sets a moral framework if you are a believer, but so does society and individual belief. Whatever people like to think, the morality of our society is based on christian principles revised over time for more progressive and/or practical thinking. And the morality of religion can be out of step with modern thinking - CofE thinks homosexuality is immoral, a sin, but I have a feeling your average younger CoE believer does not share these views.
Secondly, mystcism is the core of christianity, death and rebirth, Jesus as the son of god, judgement and afterlife. I think non-christians (I'm an atheist) forget this as it is so far outwith our experience and understanding of life.
Finally, I do know people who don't really buy into the full on mysticism side of religion but do go to church becuase they get comfort from the community, ritual and tradition. It is part of their identity.
I've thought about this a lot, and I do understand much about the spiritual/mystical aspects of religion, Christianity in particular, perhaps more than a lot of believers in an academic sense, but I still don't get it. Ultimately I'm happy with my lack of faith, and there are some real negative and un-progessive aspects to christianity (and frightened people who use these as a way of trying to hold back society), but it is arguable that religion does provide benefits of comfort and stability to those who believe.
Anyway just my tuppenneth's worth
Just to clarify something on Buddhism.
Buddhism is not a religion as the Buddha was not a God and he just suggested things. There are the precepts, similar to the 10 commandments, but you do not have to follow them and you do not sin if you break one. There is no concept of sin or evil, there is no god, just human behaviour.
The Buddhas last words were supposedly, be a lamp unto yourselves. i.e find out for yourself.
Some schools of Buddhism do have forms of Gods, like Tibetan Buddhism, but these tend to be cultural or historical aspects brought to Buddhism rather than necessary to be Buddhist. Also it is possible to be Christian, Jew atheist etcetera and also be a Buddhist.
Isn't Christianity just jewish budhism?
RE morality argument its quite simple
1. God choose morals on a whim and you just follow them blindly - would anyone argue this?
2. God chose morals for a reason and anyone can see the reasons and follow a similar moral code
Neither atheism or faith somehow gives you a magnificent moral code
FWIW the capacity of some christians to forgive is absolutely amazing and beyond anything I would be capable of so it i snot like eiether code is bad either.
Bhuddism is not a religion, becuase no God? Semantics?
It's an ancient set of moral precepts and rituals based in mystcism with a concept of heaven. Monks, nuns, temples. Religion, no?
The former Episcopal Bishop of Edinburgh Richard Holloway
rather than because ( to use the cult in your example ) you think that there is a zombie flying carpenter who lives on a cloud who will let you be tortured for all eternity if you displease him ?
It's really clever what you did there.
Using terms like "flying zombie that lives on a cloud" etc.
very clever and very original.
A really refreshing approach to religious debate 🙄
IMO you can be a 'christian' which is about morals and how you act to others and not believe in God, but not a 'Christian', which is about believing in God from a bible perspective.
Buddhism is not a religion as the Buddha was not a God and he just suggested things. There are the precepts, similar to the 10 commandments, but you do not have to follow them and you do not sin if you break one
Well you dont have to follow the 10 commandments to claim you are a christian but in reality you do. You dont sin but you are not helping yourself achieve nirvana by ignoring the path and the instructions- it is not as dogmatic as abrahamic faiths which i assume is your point.
It is clearly a religion though not a western one.
There is no concept of sin or evil
Karma - It may not be called good and bad but it is basically good and bad.
I have some opinions, but I'm avoiding the naughty step because I'm notorious for, well - having them, apparently.
Carry on.
You can believe in that there was a dude called Jesus Christ without believing in god, sure. However, have you considered the fact that we have contemporary health safety and ethics professionals? (some of whom don't unexplainedly talk to the sky. )
The definition of religion is to follow or belive in a supernatural god or gods (or there abouts) so Buddhism is not a religion. There are no gods to follow.
Junkyard, I think you might be confusing a few words there.
There is good and bad in Buddhism but no sin or evil. Sin and evil tend to be judgments, often with the power to punish by a god. In Buddhism there is no one to judge or punish in this way.
Karma is not a person or supernatural being who can punish, blame or judge.
The basics of Buddhism is to accept there is pain and suffering, then to try a reduce it. If you cause pain and suffering you will also experience it, Karma (a very basic description).
It's an ancient set of moral precepts and rituals based in mysticism with a concept of heaven. Monks, nuns, temples. Religion, no?
Buddhism is more philosophy at its basic level. Cultures have added their own bits to suit, their own cultural understandings, like my Tibetan example, which can then lead it to a more Supernatural slant. Buddhism as a philosophy is forever changing and so is quite adaptable to cultures but the basic principles are not religious or necessarily ancient.
[quote="HermanShake"]
<sensible stuff>
Needs a like or +1 button.
In part, the point I was making is that it is semantics whether buddhism religion or not. There are strong elements of mystcism, karma, death an rebirth that are inherent in buddhism, and to me it is mysticism underpinning a philosophy that makes it a religion. Understandably, I can see why bhuddists would want to distance themselves from what the west interprets as religion - ie Abrahamic, as it is very different. But it is all semantics.
Tbh I have a feeling that buddha would not care about labels and be more interested form.
I've wondered this for a while.
It's been posited here before by Ro5ey and others that one of the primary things they get out of 'religion' is a sense of community. To my mind, that should still be achievable without all this messy 'god' business. Essentially, you cross out "church" and write "community centre" or "social club."
Indeed, it's been done. There's an atheist "church" sprung up in, I think London, which is doing all the things that churches traditionally do, getting people together and socialising as a community, without all the insincere praising and joyless hallelujahing.
If the question is "can you be a christian but not believe in god" the answer is seemingly no; but if we rephrase this as "can you live a lifestyle with christian values but not believe in god" the answer is yes, of course you can. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on moral code, despite what some of its flock would have you believe.
Atheism (the opposite of theism, the belief in a god) is not just shrugging about religion but actively disagreeing with it.
Whilst that's probably true for me and many others, I'd argue that it's not true for everyone. It's perfectly possible to be atheist and just not give a toss. You don't have to be an active atheist to be an atheist.
Seems and odd question. Why would you want to?
IMO you can be a 'christian' which is about morals and how you act to others and not believe in God, but not a 'Christian', which is about believing in God from a bible perspective.
I don't think this is right. Labelling a certain set of morals as 'christian' is unfair, when those morals existed before Christianity, exist outside Christianity and could well exist after Christianity. It implies some sort of ownership over those morals, as though other beliefs didn't also come up with them, and didn't or don't follow them. That in itself seems quite un-Christian.
Roper, I would disagree with our definition of your religion. You are simply defining a theist religion. Buddhism is a non-theist religion. Having said that, it doesn't matter as the separation between religion and, say, philosophy post-dates Buddhism and is irrelevant to them/their religion anyway!
Just got in from a dog walk and tried Ro5ey's contemplation exercise - felt quite close to Buddhism in many ways. Very relaxing walk!
olddog, very early aspects of Buddhism were written over 2500 years ago in a very religious area. It is normal that some of the early followers there, adapted their understanding of it with their own culture. Sometimes for their own survival. This has been true when it travelled to China, Japan, Vietnam and more recently through North America Australia and Europe. Buddhism in modern Japan or North America is very different to Buddhism in Tibet or Sri Lanka, though the basic philosophy is the same.
As far as I know you can not be a Christian and a Muslim, for example but you can be a Christian and Buddhist or Muslim and Buddhist. You can be an atheist or Agnostic or Jedi and Buddhist as well.
How much emphasis there is on "mystcism" depends on which school you are looking at.
That in itself seems quite un-Christian.
Just by using that phrase, you are suggesting that there are a defined set of "characteristics" or "values" of being Christian.
Which is exactly what you were saying they shouldn't be able claim in the previous part of the post.
I think that a smallush subset of Quakers are non-theists, which would be an interesting view to get.
On morality, I think it is hard to deny that UK society morals (and their formal sibling, law) are based on a view of Christianity. It was the predominant moral force in society until late in c20. Progressive thinking is now un picking some of the madder bits eg the progressive changes around homosexuality decriminalisation, equal age of concept, marriage.
I do think that as the need for mysticism for an explanation of nature diminishes and progression of morality beyond the drag of 2000 year old belief systems will progressively weaken power in the established churches - maybe it is the beginning of the end of big religion as we know it?
Neal - glad it wasn't just me who spotted that!
There does not seem to be any harm in identifying particular morals as being Christian. The harm comes when you try to claim that they are exclusive to Christianity or any religion, surely?
There does not seem to be any harm in identifying particular morals as being Christian. The harm comes when you try to claim that they are exclusive to Christianity or any religion, surely?
Bingo. These traits we call morality existed before Christianity, like all religions they assimilate what exists to become part of the woodwork, so to speak.
Neal - glad it wasn't just me who spotted that!
It was in there very deliberately. What you didn't spot was that it was a bit of a dig at what Christians perceive their own morals to be. I guess it should really have read 'un-modern-CofE-interpretation-Christian'.
Just by using that phrase, you are suggesting that there are a defined set of "characteristics" or "values" of being Christian.
Which is exactly what you were saying they shouldn't be able claim in the previous part of the post.
Yes, there are a set of morals you have to follow to be a Christian, along with believing in God/Christ etc. However, following those morals is not exclusive to Christianity and doesn't make you Christian.
I have some opinions, but I'm avoiding the naughty step because I'm notorious for, well - having them, apparently.
Apparently - you still have doubts about whether your views are on the entrenched end of the scale.
The definition of religion is to follow or belive in a supernatural god or gods (or there abouts) so Buddhism is not a religion. There are no gods to follow.
Well there is a guy called Buddha who achieved enlightmenment and left some insturctions as to how you can escape the cycle of life and death and achieve nirvana. You can call it what you want but it is more than a philosophy even if you do consider it to be less than than a religion as it is about salvation of my eternal soul
Junkyard, I think you might be confusing a few words there.
There is good and bad in Buddhism but no sin or evil.
Are we not juts splitting hairs now - I assume sin and evil is bad - it tells me not to do things like say cause suffering but its not about right or worng _ FWIW I do get your broader point but I think you are misrepresenting it [ as am I as it is a [ from a western perspective] a confusing message]
Sin and evil tend to be judgments, often with the power to punish by a god. In Buddhism there is no one to judge or punish in this way.
Karma is not a person or supernatural being who can punish, blame or judge.
So I can ignore then as it does not "punish me"? It does the same as a god so I dont understand how you say it does not "judge" me. If it/something did not judge me I would not be trapped in reincarnation
The basics of Buddhism is to accept there is pain and suffering, then to try a reduce it. If you cause pain and suffering you will also experience it, Karma (a very basic description).
lets stick to simple here as it is immensely complicated and I am no expert.
It's an ancient set of moral precepts and rituals based in mysticism with a concept of heaven. Monks, nuns, temples. Religion, no?
Not getting your point it has all of those as does Abrahamic faiths but still you dont class it as a religion
TBH anything that claims to offer me salvation is a religion and it clearly offers me a path to this.
FWIW It is clearly more philosophical than any other religion and far more flexible than others. I do reallyvalue it and of all the religiosn I dabbled in and explored it is the only one I carry with me.
It is a religion nonetheless though it has differences from others
Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.
Wiki which i think is a fair description
OED is far narrower
noun
[mass noun]
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:
ideas about the relationship between science and religion
[count noun] a particular system of faith and worship:
the world’s great religions
[count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:
consumerism is the new religion
It probably does not meet this standard
I am not sure you need gods to be religious you need to have salvation and it does offer that.
My experience of buddhism is through cycling in Sikkim. The guide was a buddist, we talked a lot about buddhism and visited lots of important sites. (btw Sikkim is a great place for a cycling holiday as long as you like hills).
I did some further reading when I came back as well. The buddhism I experienced did have the outward form of other religion - prayer, temple, icon, text, mysticism - what are prayer flags if not a belief that the writtem word so presented has a mystical impact? I understand the underpinning philosophy is around thought rather than blind faith, however if through thought and contemplation the conclusion is different to that presented by buddha then is one still a buddhist? I do like buddhism as a thought concept and my understanding aligns with chunjs of it, but equally does with bits of teachings of Christ, or Marx fir that matter. But is belief in a set of core principles is reqd to be acbuddhist? No?
Also, the modern form of ancient religion is probably little like the intended . I'm pretty sure christ didn't envisage huge golden palaces headed by old celibate men in silk handing down unquestionable law in the name of god.
I'm not sure christian or muslim faith makes room for buddhism - they have a jealous god
Pleader, spotted the dig, just ignored it.
JY, perhaps they should take Buddhism out of the GSCE RE syllabus!! 😉
Junkyard - I was pointing out that I thought it was a religion because it was mystical, temples, monks, heaven etc...and to say it isn't because of non-abrahamic form was semantics [edit]
I think it got lost in the quotation
Yes if we are going to force folk to study it lets just tell them about the one true god as it is written in scripture 😉
Sorry oldog my error for being confused , forgive me 8)
Sorry JY, my typo, my question wasn't meant to be directed at you!
Junkyard, ...as a non-theist, I forgive you... but if you need redemption you'll have go elsewhere 😉
I think it is hard to deny that UK society morals (and their formal sibling, law) are based on a view of Christianity.
Or possibly that the UK version of Christianity is based on a view of social morals. Or bit of both.
Or a roman view of christianity filtered through the needs of the english/british ruling class perhaps. But anyway I think that whatever the starting point, society drives ahead of religion now in setting it's own morality and religion trails behind or risks becoming less and less relevant.
Christianity does not teach that you go to hell if you sin.
I suggest you need to read the bibles again.
Why are some atheists so determined to criticise religion? why not live and let live?
Because religious beliefs are responsible for mutilation of children's genitals (even to this days by some Christians), the subjugation of women, and homophobia (to name but a few). And of course because, in stark contrasts to the speil, Christianity has and is often and far apart from what is morally right as is it possible to be.
Tolerance is a crime when applied to evil.
Because religious beliefs are responsible for mutilation of children's genitals (even to this days by some Christians), the subjugation of women, and homophobia (to name but a few).
Absolutely completely incorrect.
People are responsible for those things. Sometimes the reasons for them get wrapped up in religious beliefs. But to imply that they would not exist without religion is total bollocks I'm afraid.
But to imply that they would not exist without religion is total bollocks I'm afraid.
Yes but it really wouldn't be STW if Tucker didn't bring up [b]exactly the same point[/b] at every (semi relevant) opportunity would it.
to imply that they would not exist without religion is total bollocks I'm afraid.
It's a good thing s/he didn't say that then. The word that would need to be in there for your point to make sense would be "solely".
"I am responsible for chopping onions. If I did not exist, onions would not get chopped".
People are responsible for those things. Sometimes the reasons for them get wrapped up in religious beliefs. But to imply that they would not exist without religion is total bollocks I'm afraid.
Or a slightly different take -
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil, that takes religion. "
[url] http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm [/url]
Good/bad relative terms based on prevailing morality. You will not find many people who think slavery is not a terrible thing, but it was normal part of lots of societies through history, did they consider themselves evil?
Doesn't take religion to drive society to do what we see as "bad" - mass murder and re-education camps in the name of peoples communist revolution?
My morality, shaped by my experience, leads me to believe these things are wrong. In 100 or 1000 years what will the prevailing morality find shockingly terrible about our current society?
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil, that takes religion
What, like in say, WWII?
I hate that quote - it's stupid, glib, smart arsed and just wrong.
It's a good thing s/he didn't say that then.
It certainly reads like it:
Because religious beliefs are responsible for...
"Responsible" in this case meaning 'the cause of'
To answer the OP, organised religion is about abiding by the rules that suit your lifestyle whilst getting self righteous about those that make different choices. So yeah, no need to actually believe in anything so long as you make people feel bad about thinking differently. If you can cream some money out of the whole thing then you get to become a religious leader. Win.
But to imply that they would not exist without religion is total bollocks I'm afraid.
The implication is yours. These things would still exist, sure, but they'd arguably be encouraged a whole lot less. The point you're picking up on was badly phrased perhaps, but something can be responsible for "some" events without being responsible for "all" of them.
Religion teaches people how to live their lives; it's kind of it's raison d'etre. If you look to your religion for guidance on how to behave and, perhaps, how to think, and your religion tells you that (for instance) women are second-class citizens or masturbation is evil and dirty, then it's fair to say that religion is 'responsible' for that, in those cases.
I'm sure that without religion, things like circumcision would still exist. Aside from religion, other reasons cited include "we want him to look like his dad / lik everyone else," "we've always done it this way," and various misguided beliefs that it's cleaner or prevents disease. But ceremonial surgical operations by religious leaders (who aren't surgeons) would obviously decline, which would be no bad thing.
I'm sure that without religion, things like circumcision would still exist.
I'm not so sure.
The major players in the child genital mutilation stakes are Jews (religion), Muslims (religion), certain parts of Africa (from the Christian Missionaries - religion), and the US (deeply religious in places). Now, although the Catholic church recently denounced child genital mutilation as not part of Christianity, many in the US disagree:
"Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Biblical circumcision begins with Abraham. No American government should restrict this historic tradition. Essential religious liberties are at stake."
The US don't all do it for religions reasons.
Also female genital mutilation is traditional in undeveloped tribes in Africa afaik. Not influenced by religion. Along with the neck, lip and ear stuff some tribes do.
If you look to your religion for guidance on how to behave and, perhaps, how to think, and your religion tells you that (for instance) women are second-class citizens or masturbation is evil and dirty, then it's fair to say that religion is 'responsible' for that, in those cases
Hmm. Not entirely. If women are looked down on in a given society, then that society codifies its culture into a religion (like Judaism for instance) then the religion is merely mirroring culture, not the other way round. Therefore people would be responsible, not religion. I think it'll turn out to be pretty difficult to separate the two. Especially with attitudes towards sexuality or women.
Does circumcision predate Abrahamic religions?
The US don't all do it for religions reasons.
No, in a lot of cases it's habit; see my earlier post.
If women are looked down on in a given society, then that society codifies its culture into a religion (like Judaism for instance) then the religion is merely mirroring culture, not the other way round.
Assuming that to be true, it's still an obstruction to change. Look at the same-sex marriage debate right now; who are the most vocal anti- group?
no
Because religious beliefs are responsible for mutilation of children's genitals (even to this days by some Christians), the subjugation of women, and homophobia (to name but a few).
Absolutely completely incorrect.
Its not absolutely incorrect unless you want top argue religion does not support circumscion, poor treatment of women - at least in the being a minister stakes and has a fairly low vioew of homosexuals
There is no implication there that it onloy hap[pens becaus eof them
Hitler was bad man who encouraged folk to do bad things does not suggest that all bad things would have stopped had Hitler not lived
I admire your defence of religion [ well sometimes] but dont just do it blindly. Like everything it has done some bad things , often due to what it says in their religious texy
People are responsible for those things.
People following a book are responsible.
Islamic terrorists commit terrorism in the name of religion. It is not reflective of their religion but it is impossible to argue their faith plays no part in their actions. Saying this does not mean I think terrorism would end but for religion or that only the religious can be terrorists.
TuckerUK- I have read the Bible and studied Orthodox Christianity, which does not teach that you go to hell if you sin. In any case, the concept of 'hell' is simply the absence of God, not some eternal fiery furnace.
So I can sin relentlessly and it has no impact on my ooutcome re heaven or hell - awesome I might sign up to this version.
I quoted the Bible to you but you believe as you wish
Everyone will exist eternally either in heaven or hell (Daniel 12:2,3; Matthew 25:46; John 5:28; Revelation 20:14,15).
(3) Hell is conscious torment.
Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”
(4) Hell is eternal and irreversible.
Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”
Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death, the lake of fire”
Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”
Hell in the Bible is a place of future punishment and the final destination for unbelievers. It is described in Scripture using various terms such as eternal fire, outer darkness, a place of weeping and torment, the lake of fire, the second death, unquenchable fire. The most terrifying reality of hell is that it will be a place of complete, unending separation from God.
http://christianity.about.com/od/whatdoesthebiblesay/a/Hell-In-The-Bible.htm
loads more biblical quotes such as
Matthew 25:46
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (NIV)
so it is a punishment not just the absence of
ok, well I don't have much to write everything I would like to, and explain myself fully. I am talking about Orthodox Christianity, which follows the apostolic tradition from the beginning of Christianity.
Orthodox teaching certainly does NOT suggest you can just sin with impunity and all will be well. We are expected to make regular confessions, and are encouraged to examine our conscience, truly repent, and strive to be better in future. Orthodoxy considers the worst outcome for a Christian to be denied the glory of God, and this is a torment worse than any actual, "material" fire. The Bible uses a lot of imagery and allegory, and we Orthodox don't pick and choose what to take literally; the teachings have been handed down with tradition over the centuries.
I hope that is a little clearer?