You only see two sides to this, people who are born with religion and indoctrinated and blindly believe or teh supposedly intelligent atheists, who know to question and don't have any proof.
There is another group, those who become more spiritual than religious due to personal experiences and seeking.
You only see two sides to this, people who are born with religion and indoctrinated and blindly believe or teh supposedly intelligent atheists, who know to question and don't have any proof.
There is another group, those who become more spiritual than religious due to personal experiences and seeking.
I was thinking more of the assertions that non-religious people make in respect of religious people ... but there is certainly some truth in what you say. Richard (46), for instance, has often drawn a sharp distinction between 'having faith in' and 'believing in' - the latter only being appropriate for evidence based convictions. Whereas I am quite happy to use the words almost interchangeably.
Tbh as time goes on I find myself using the word less and less, especially to things I have opinions on. It might be because there are times when I think that although people may share the same religion, their beliefs are like snowflakes, no two are identical. So it's become a bland word for me, because it means almost anything.
Then I wonder do I actually hold anything conviction so deeply that I'd be willingly to say "I believe in X"? Then I worry I'm abnormal, because I start to struggle, then I get brain ache and realise that it may not matter at all.
Oh dear, that just triggered a memory. A few weeks back I was shopping in town with my daughter, and there was a group of late teens all dressed the same preaching on megaphones about how Jesus had turned them from a life of partying into the good Christian people that stood before us.
My daughter turned around and asked me "why is it that born agains always tend to be the loudest?". I couldn't help myself and replied, "they're not the loudest, it's just that these ones are American".
Oh dear, that just triggered a memory. A few weeks back I was shopping in town with my daughter, and there was a group of late teens all dressed the same preaching on megaphones about how Jesus had turned them from a life of partying into the good Christian people that stood before us.
My daughter turned around and asked me "why is it that born agains always tend to be the loudest?". I couldn't help myself and replied, "they're not the loudest, it's just that these ones are American".
In the book I was just reading, a daughter phones her mother and says "Mum, good news, I've found Jesus". The mum says "Oh yes, where was he?"
Its a good thing Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever ( Heb 13:8) since science is always changing.
If you esteem an unquestionable certainty then that is fine; obviously you do not reject all scientific change of you would have copied that verse on to a piece of papyrus and given it to a slave to carry it across the Atlantic to me in a reed boat.
I believe mankind is better served by a constant search for truth.
I was thinking more of the assertions that non-religious people make in respect of religious people ... but there is certainly some truth in what you say. Richard (46), for instance, has often drawn a sharp distinction between 'having faith in' and 'believing in' - the latter only being appropriate for evidence based convictions. Whereas I am quite happy to use the words almost interchangeably.
Blimey droogie you have a good memory; I think faith is a specific kind of belief i.e. one held without evidence or even in the face of the evidence esp a religious belief; whereas belief is a much wider or vaguer or generic term.
I would use them interchangeable in some contexts but not all, i.e all faiths are beliefs but I would not describe all beliefs as faiths.
You are very clear Alan. I wish you'd post more often - but I guess you feel you've said it all before.
Thats very kind. Yes, I do feel that we all just repeat ourselves. I guess we have reached fairly settled views on these matters - views that are as much to do with inclination as logic TBH.
But its nice to pop in from time to time to see how folks are doing.
Watched that "Catholics" programme on BBC 4 last night - the perfect antidote to those who believe that believers all believe the same thing.
Blimey droogie you have a good memory; I think faith is a specific kind of belief i.e. one held without evidence or even in the face of the evidence esp a religious belief; whereas belief is a much wider or vaguer or generic term.
I would use them interchangeable in some contexts but not all, i.e all faiths are beliefs but I would not describe all beliefs as faiths.
Well blow me down with a feather:eek:
We are actually in agreement with something. An example might be that I have a Christian Faith, But, I dont follow all Christian beliefs. Sometimes people interchange their expressions without realising, even some Atheists might say "I believe that" and some Christians do it. In reality they really mean "I think that." when referring to a "belief.""
I dont "believe" in anything and everything. I have a faith in God as I understand God through the Gospel.
I noticed some time back that people including myself were referring to themselves as "believers," at least for a while. It was a shock because I had to think hard about how that had happened. On the other hand some Atheists will place us all in the same bracket "it is all superstitious nonsense" or believing in sky fairies. Of course we dont even though people might think otherwise..
We are actually in agreement with something. An example might be that I have a Christian Faith, But, I dont follow all Christian beliefs. Sometimes people interchange their expressions without realising, even some Atheists might say "I believe that" and some Christians do it. In reality they really mean "I think that." when referring to a "belief.""
I dont "believe" in anything and everything. I have a faith in God as I understand God through the Gospel.
I noticed some time back that people including myself were referring to themselves as "believers," at least for a while. It was a shock because I had to think hard about how that had happened. On the other hand some Atheists will place us all in the same bracket "it is all superstitious nonsense" or believing in sky fairies. Of course we dont even though people might think otherwise..
I like this post.
I understand where you're coming from in the sometimes "believe" is used rather than "I think that", because I do it, although now I'm aware I do it, I'm trying to eliminate it.
I try not to lump everybody together (yes i know there was that time, but I was on meds for an illness and a bit rambling, and I got my a*se handed to me for doing it). Maybe there's a breakdown in communication from the start when *some* people just say "I'm a believer" and expect everyone else to know what they mean.
The way science is "figured out" today is not at all the way it was in the last century. If they started from scratch, with no existing paradigms, we would have a different science and still not have arrived at the "truth".
If man had to start from scratch with science, water would still comprise two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule, force would still be equal to an object's mass times its acceleration, objects would still fall to earth with an acceleration of 9.81 meters per second per second.
If religion were started from scratch, would we still have talking snakes and burning bushes?
I'll say what I always say.
Can I believe there was some sort of creator at the beginning of everything? That caused the Big Bang, That created the force of attraction between objects? Most likely yes.
However
Can I believe in talking snakes, Jewish Zombies, burning bushes, 40 days and 40 nights of rain flooding the entire Earth (try living in the UK) and in a God that never answers anyone's prayers and sends more harm than actual good? Definitely not.
In my view, the God told to us in religions cannot possibly exist, but it does not mean that a God did not exist in some form.
I feel far more lectured at and hectored by militant aethiests than by Christians. the whole 'theist' debate, I belive, has stemmed more from the rise of Islam in the West than any really antipathy toward our traditional liberal democratic Christianity. But Christianity has become the whipping boy.
I feel far more lectured at and hectored by militant aethiests than by Christians. the whole 'theist' debate, I belive, has stemmed more from the rise of Islam in the West than any really antipathy toward our traditional lliberal democratic Christianity
"I feel far more lectured at and hectored by militant aethiests"
No, we don't believe. We just like to come on internet forums to see how many posters we can lure into saying 'flying spaghetti monster' or 'sky fairy,' for which we get bonus points.
I feel far more lectured at and hectored by militant aethiests than by Christians. the whole 'theist' debate, I belive, has stemmed more from the rise of Islam in the West than any really antipathy toward our traditional liberal democratic Christianity. But Christianity has become the whipping boy.
I'd say the internet and the rise of accessibility to it is a far more likely cause for the rise in debate.
No, we don't believe. We just like to come on internet forums to see how many posters we can lure into saying 'flying spaghetti monster' or 'sky fairy,' for which we get bonus points.
Making ad hominem attacks rather than debating the points raised?
No, we don't believe. We just like to come on internet forums to see how many posters we can lure into saying 'flying spaghetti monster' or 'sky fairy,' for which we get bonus points.
You get none out of me then.
ETA in fact it's nul point entirely on this thread; except for you and Lizzy who said 'sf' was rude.
Making ad hominem attacks rather than debating the points raised?
I think those words (spaghetti monster and sky fairy) are ad hominum, as they depict a certain kind of 'religious' person, who cannot think clearly. You can add to that, posters who equate the idea of design with Genesis creationists (bound to happen as well).
To me there is a disconnect when I think of the extraordinary complexity of the universe and try to imagine the complexity occurring by accident.
Mmm. not a nul point, Richard, as Pandy was nice enough to slip it in:
I think those words (spaghetti monster and sky fairy) are ad hominum, as they depict a certain kind of 'religious' person, who cannot think clearly. You can add to that, posters who equate the idea of design with Genesis creationists (bound to happen as well).
To me there is a disconnect when I think of the extraordinary complexity of the universe and try to imagine the complexity occurring by accident.
Says the poster who makes up their own religion as it suits :rolleyes:
Yup, but why would quantum physics try to explain love? Why not go to evolutionary biology for that one?
Exactly. I was parodying the OP BG. Why would a religious person attempt to explain science with the Bible? You'd go to a science book surely? (I wasn't meaning to suggest religion explains love btw).
I think those words (spaghetti monster and sky fairy) are ad hominum, as they depict a certain kind of 'religious' person, who cannot think clearly. You can add to that, posters who equate the idea of design with Genesis creationists (bound to happen as well).
To me there is a disconnect when I think of the extraordinary complexity of the universe and try to imagine the complexity occurring by accident.
However if you go down the route of "complex things need a creator" you get an infinite regress..
Comments
There is another group, those who become more spiritual than religious due to personal experiences and seeking.
What about the group that find religion
Tbh as time goes on I find myself using the word less and less, especially to things I have opinions on. It might be because there are times when I think that although people may share the same religion, their beliefs are like snowflakes, no two are identical. So it's become a bland word for me, because it means almost anything.
Then I wonder do I actually hold anything conviction so deeply that I'd be willingly to say "I believe in X"? Then I worry I'm abnormal, because I start to struggle, then I get brain ache and realise that it may not matter at all.
Oh dear, that just triggered a memory. A few weeks back I was shopping in town with my daughter, and there was a group of late teens all dressed the same preaching on megaphones about how Jesus had turned them from a life of partying into the good Christian people that stood before us.
My daughter turned around and asked me "why is it that born agains always tend to be the loudest?". I couldn't help myself and replied, "they're not the loudest, it's just that these ones are American".
In the book I was just reading, a daughter phones her mother and says "Mum, good news, I've found Jesus". The mum says "Oh yes, where was he?"
Yup, but why would quantum physics try to explain love? Why not go to evolutionary biology for that one?
If you esteem an unquestionable certainty then that is fine; obviously you do not reject all scientific change of you would have copied that verse on to a piece of papyrus and given it to a slave to carry it across the Atlantic to me in a reed boat.
I believe mankind is better served by a constant search for truth.
Blimey droogie you have a good memory; I think faith is a specific kind of belief i.e. one held without evidence or even in the face of the evidence esp a religious belief; whereas belief is a much wider or vaguer or generic term.
I would use them interchangeable in some contexts but not all, i.e all faiths are beliefs but I would not describe all beliefs as faiths.
Thats very kind. Yes, I do feel that we all just repeat ourselves. I guess we have reached fairly settled views on these matters - views that are as much to do with inclination as logic TBH.
But its nice to pop in from time to time to see how folks are doing.
Watched that "Catholics" programme on BBC 4 last night - the perfect antidote to those who believe that believers all believe the same thing.
Well blow me down with a feather:eek:
We are actually in agreement with something. An example might be that I have a Christian Faith, But, I dont follow all Christian beliefs. Sometimes people interchange their expressions without realising, even some Atheists might say "I believe that" and some Christians do it. In reality they really mean "I think that." when referring to a "belief.""
I dont "believe" in anything and everything. I have a faith in God as I understand God through the Gospel.
I noticed some time back that people including myself were referring to themselves as "believers," at least for a while. It was a shock because I had to think hard about how that had happened. On the other hand some Atheists will place us all in the same bracket "it is all superstitious nonsense" or believing in sky fairies. Of course we dont even though people might think otherwise..
I like this post.
I understand where you're coming from in the sometimes "believe" is used rather than "I think that", because I do it, although now I'm aware I do it, I'm trying to eliminate it.
I try not to lump everybody together (yes i know there was that time, but I was on meds for an illness and a bit rambling, and I got my a*se handed to me for doing it).
If man had to start from scratch with science, water would still comprise two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule, force would still be equal to an object's mass times its acceleration, objects would still fall to earth with an acceleration of 9.81 meters per second per second.
If religion were started from scratch, would we still have talking snakes and burning bushes?
Can I believe there was some sort of creator at the beginning of everything? That caused the Big Bang, That created the force of attraction between objects? Most likely yes.
However
Can I believe in talking snakes, Jewish Zombies, burning bushes, 40 days and 40 nights of rain flooding the entire Earth (try living in the UK) and in a God that never answers anyone's prayers and sends more harm than actual good? Definitely not.
In my view, the God told to us in religions cannot possibly exist, but it does not mean that a God did not exist in some form.
"I feel far more lectured at and hectored by militant aethiests"
can you give a couple of examples?
I'd say the internet and the rise of accessibility to it is a far more likely cause for the rise in debate.
Making ad hominem attacks rather than debating the points raised?
You get none out of me then.
ETA in fact it's nul point entirely on this thread; except for you and Lizzy who said 'sf' was rude.
I think those words (spaghetti monster and sky fairy) are ad hominum, as they depict a certain kind of 'religious' person, who cannot think clearly. You can add to that, posters who equate the idea of design with Genesis creationists (bound to happen as well).
To me there is a disconnect when I think of the extraordinary complexity of the universe and try to imagine the complexity occurring by accident.
Mmm. not a nul point, Richard, as Pandy was nice enough to slip it in:
Says the poster who makes up their own religion as it suits :rolleyes:
I don't make up my own religion, I say prayers from different religions, two of which I have a cultural heritage in.
Is there a problem with that? Does it make me a 'bad' Christian?
Exactly. I was parodying the OP BG. Why would a religious person attempt to explain science with the Bible? You'd go to a science book surely? (I wasn't meaning to suggest religion explains love btw).
However if you go down the route of "complex things need a creator" you get an infinite regress..
Lol to be fair thats true of all religions - I know of no-one who completely follows their faith, they pick and choose.
Must be difficult for those who try and follow the bible, its a bit too inconsistent!
Personally if I HAD to follow a religion by law I'd choose Buddhist