Respecting religion???
Discussion
MC Bodge said:
Yes, that was my understanding, but it is one of the seemingly "important" things in the Roman catholic (and other) Christian cults.
("Hail Mary" -what is that all about?)
...a bit like priests not always having been required to be celibate/unmarried.
Ps. Wasn't it Doris Day that Groucho Marx said the he'd known a long time, since before she was a virigin?
I had some aunts who, whenever someone said something against their interpretation of the church's position (which was somewhat different to the official line) would cross themselves and say hail Mary. My brother and a cousin used to play a game as to who could make them say it first.("Hail Mary" -what is that all about?)
...a bit like priests not always having been required to be celibate/unmarried.
Ps. Wasn't it Doris Day that Groucho Marx said the he'd known a long time, since before she was a virigin?
The requirement for vicars to be celibate was brought about to a degree because of the fact that due to their harsh lifestyle they would have a short life expectancy, and would leave behind wives and children to be cared for. Due to their habit of wandering, the villages, which took a role of caring for the local bereaved families, were reluctant to take on additional mouths. One pope of the 11thC had priests' wives sold into slavery and any children were abandoned.
It is very religious as it makes people say: Jesus Christ. Probably something about that in the bible.
And the great Doris Day quote. One of Groucho's greats.
///ajd said:
Do you ever wonder why you believe in one religion but have no apparent interest in any others?
I think it likely that someone existed around 2000 years ago about whom stories were told that developed into the scriptures many years later. I think it unlikely any of the miracles actually occurred - these were probably developed as the stories were passed on that developed into popular and appealing myths, and cast into a religious context.
My certainty in feeling this is based on my experiences, and my perception of the probability that if the miracles had really happened they would have reoccurred at various points since and would happen today. That such things don't occur in this day and age tends to suggest they are just stories. The Loch Ness monster is probably a poor comparison, but the principle is similar; I suspect few now really think such a creature is in any way likely to be real.
Certainty, feeling,perception,probability, experience.I think it likely that someone existed around 2000 years ago about whom stories were told that developed into the scriptures many years later. I think it unlikely any of the miracles actually occurred - these were probably developed as the stories were passed on that developed into popular and appealing myths, and cast into a religious context.
My certainty in feeling this is based on my experiences, and my perception of the probability that if the miracles had really happened they would have reoccurred at various points since and would happen today. That such things don't occur in this day and age tends to suggest they are just stories. The Loch Ness monster is probably a poor comparison, but the principle is similar; I suspect few now really think such a creature is in any way likely to be real.
Edited by ///ajd on Thursday 22 January 22:31
If you read the Bible there are a lot of stories of Jesus' experiences that have no miraculous element to them. The North Koreans say some fantastical stuff about their leader's achievements, whether these are true or not has no bearing on his existence - he is very real and he is, like it or not, an extraordinary figure. Disclaimer - don't think I use the word 'extraordinary' as praise of him.
And back to the Antarctican penguin paradox, if an Antarctican penguin has never seen a man does that mean man does not exist?
And here is where I end today:
In this world, in this universe, we are but a speck of dust in the passage of time and amongst the cosmos.
There is so much we do not know about ourselves, our own planet and we haven't began to start to truly understand the universe around us, let alone out own solar system. In the past century we have made scientific advances that, the day before they occurred, would have been viewed as preposterous by many.
What we cannot be, about so many things, is certain. If we accept the role of probability then we must accept that certainty cannot always be achieved. It is for these reasons that I believe that to be certain about the non-existence of a God is to be irrational. To mock others for saying otherwise is also irrational because it is a statement of certainty without any basis. To mock the actions of someone else, if what they do is damaging, is a different case.
In this world, in this universe, we are but a speck of dust in the passage of time and amongst the cosmos.
There is so much we do not know about ourselves, our own planet and we haven't began to start to truly understand the universe around us, let alone out own solar system. In the past century we have made scientific advances that, the day before they occurred, would have been viewed as preposterous by many.
What we cannot be, about so many things, is certain. If we accept the role of probability then we must accept that certainty cannot always be achieved. It is for these reasons that I believe that to be certain about the non-existence of a God is to be irrational. To mock others for saying otherwise is also irrational because it is a statement of certainty without any basis. To mock the actions of someone else, if what they do is damaging, is a different case.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yeah, that sounds good but relies totally on how you define god and what level of probability you are looking for.Will the sun rise tomorrow morning? You can't be certain, but there is a long pattern of hard evidence which suggests it is pretty darned likely.
Where is the evidence for this god of which you speak? "We don't know where we came from so there must be a god" is obvious nonsense - and I realise that's not what you're saying. However, if you're in a casino and the roulette wheel has come up "red" for 50 throws in a row there's still only a 50/50 chance (approx) of black next time.
People have been looking for evidence of an external god (as opposed to a human artefact) for a very long time and such evidence is notable only by its absence. So to my mind the probability of a god existing seems very small indeed.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yet you are certain that Jesus existed, certain that the bible is an accurate reflection of what he said and did and appear to be certain that God exists, all without any basis. The fact you can't see that means you are either fooling yourself (clearly the most likely option) or you are an idiot (unlikely given your articulation on other threads unrelated to religion).The above quote is simply a God of the gaps argument in fancy clothes, and is essentially meaningless. The level of evidence and probability that God exists is the same as that for the Greek gods, the Norse gods, the Egyptian gods. All could exist, and yet you have clearly decided they do not but your God does, with no rational basis at all.
As I said, if you are happy to say that faith is what drives that decision then fine, but please do not claim that it is the rational decision.
Ajd, yes I do have doubts about certain elements, I don't understand if they are allegorical references, total embellishments or whether my doubts are just of my own limitations of perception. I posted that link because it also seems to show other forum users who can accept Jesus but do have doubts about x, y and z while remaining level headed and at peace with that.
Claudia, I do get your point, all I'd say is we base our own perception on our own very limited existence, I.e. if it doesn't happen to us, in our short timeframe, it doesn't exist, and with nuclear power or DNA for example, the world would never have imagined our understanding of these things to be possible till we started to work on them. Matt, I don't say I am certain! That's the thing. That's part of what i am banging on about really, to be able to believe without certainty. We can't be certain about much really, even within the extents of our own atmosphere, scientists are continually proposing or finding evidence for revision to currently held belief and from time to time they come up with something that appears crazy but it actually works out, and some treat them as heretics until they absolutely prove their case.
Unfortunately I believe that sitting in the middle of the road, being able to say I believe x without worrying if someone else doesn't, sounds a bit wishy-washy but less cause for conflict!
Claudia, I do get your point, all I'd say is we base our own perception on our own very limited existence, I.e. if it doesn't happen to us, in our short timeframe, it doesn't exist, and with nuclear power or DNA for example, the world would never have imagined our understanding of these things to be possible till we started to work on them. Matt, I don't say I am certain! That's the thing. That's part of what i am banging on about really, to be able to believe without certainty. We can't be certain about much really, even within the extents of our own atmosphere, scientists are continually proposing or finding evidence for revision to currently held belief and from time to time they come up with something that appears crazy but it actually works out, and some treat them as heretics until they absolutely prove their case.
Unfortunately I believe that sitting in the middle of the road, being able to say I believe x without worrying if someone else doesn't, sounds a bit wishy-washy but less cause for conflict!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
So you aren't certain about the existence of Jesus, you aren't certain that the Bible is an accurate reflection of what he did or said, you aren't certain about the existence of God but you choose to place the words of Jesus above others, choose to identify as a follower of Christ and call yourself a theist?Is there not the slightest inkling to evaluate why you hold that belief, what caused you to make those decisions?
I have to admit it would drive me potty to think that I had no basis for my belief systems other than some sort of random choice I had made that one person had more value than any other person.
I realised as a young child that the only reason I believed in Jesus and God was because my mother and the catholic school system I was in told me that is what I should do. So I evaluated why I had my belief, established it was on shaky ground, learnt more about other religions, history, sociology, psychology and anthropology and rapidly came to the conclusion that I had no rational reasons to believe that my religion was any more valid than all the others that had been discounted by humanity.
Exactly. My views are very similar.
As an otherwise very intelligent person I know said of her C of E belief/faith:
"Well, of course, it's okay if you don't question it *too* much"....
...well, quite...
I suspect that what we like to think of as "moderates" are the (majority) sort of people who want to believe their religion/cultural history, but (even if it is fairly 'deep-down') know that it is extremely unlikely to be correct, but still associate themselves with it through fear and/or community/peer pressure.
The irrational minority are 'true believers', but even then, they will pick and choose the parts they follow.
As an otherwise very intelligent person I know said of her C of E belief/faith:
"Well, of course, it's okay if you don't question it *too* much"....
...well, quite...
I suspect that what we like to think of as "moderates" are the (majority) sort of people who want to believe their religion/cultural history, but (even if it is fairly 'deep-down') know that it is extremely unlikely to be correct, but still associate themselves with it through fear and/or community/peer pressure.
The irrational minority are 'true believers', but even then, they will pick and choose the parts they follow.
Edited by MC Bodge on Friday 23 January 08:08
I can easily see that it can be a great comfort for anyone to adopt a set of beliefs and choose not to question the underlying validity of those beliefs too closely.
I, for example, choose to believe that Mrs Gaspode loves me. I have some evidence of it: we've been married for 30 years, and she tells me she loves me. But logic dictates that no one in their right mind would put up with such a disaster of a human being as myself. Ergo, she's either bonkers or she has an ulterior motive. Probably best not to worry too much and just go along with the ride.
I, for example, choose to believe that Mrs Gaspode loves me. I have some evidence of it: we've been married for 30 years, and she tells me she loves me. But logic dictates that no one in their right mind would put up with such a disaster of a human being as myself. Ergo, she's either bonkers or she has an ulterior motive. Probably best not to worry too much and just go along with the ride.
Gaspode said:
I can easily see that it can be a great comfort for anyone to adopt a set of beliefs and choose not to question the underlying validity of those beliefs too closely.
I, for example, choose to believe that Mrs Gaspode loves me. I have some evidence of it: we've been married for 30 years, and she tells me she loves me. But logic dictates that no one in their right mind would put up with such a disaster of a human being as myself. Ergo, she's either bonkers or she has an ulterior motive. Probably best not to worry too much and just go along with the ride.
Understood, I just have a vain hope that people will engage in more objective analysis of why they believe and act the way they do, as I think that would bring greater understanding of other people's viewpoints and a wider acceptance of rational thought.I, for example, choose to believe that Mrs Gaspode loves me. I have some evidence of it: we've been married for 30 years, and she tells me she loves me. But logic dictates that no one in their right mind would put up with such a disaster of a human being as myself. Ergo, she's either bonkers or she has an ulterior motive. Probably best not to worry too much and just go along with the ride.
I'm pretty sure that your wife is unlikely to be stoning people who declare they do not 'love Gaspode', or telling others they must 'love Gaspode' to achieve salvation (although that last one sounds like a winner, perhaps you should suggest it to her
).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBCFQtDLPA0
Carl Sagan boils it down so well. His words are the bare faced truth to us.
I remember Hawking once saying that god had to be the laws of the universe that make the pull of gravity the specific measure it is, light travel the speed it does. That's something i'd rather people believed in, it's the pompous way we think that a creator would look like us and be all about us, rather than what allows everything to be.
Carl Sagan boils it down so well. His words are the bare faced truth to us.
I remember Hawking once saying that god had to be the laws of the universe that make the pull of gravity the specific measure it is, light travel the speed it does. That's something i'd rather people believed in, it's the pompous way we think that a creator would look like us and be all about us, rather than what allows everything to be.
MrBrightSi said:
it's the pompous way we think that a creator would look like us and be all about us, rather than what allows everything to be.
Agreed, but this longing for any "creator" is still a nonsense in itself. It runs straight into this problem,- The universe must have had a creator
- The creator was God
- Where did god come from?
- God must have had a creator
MrBrightSi said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBCFQtDLPA0
Carl Sagan boils it down so well. His words are the bare faced truth to us.
I remember Hawking once saying that god had to be the laws of the universe that make the pull of gravity the specific measure it is, light travel the speed it does. That's something i'd rather people believed in, it's the pompous way we think that a creator would look like us and be all about us, rather than what allows everything to be.
I normally think of this when reading these sort of threads. Carl Sagan boils it down so well. His words are the bare faced truth to us.
I remember Hawking once saying that god had to be the laws of the universe that make the pull of gravity the specific measure it is, light travel the speed it does. That's something i'd rather people believed in, it's the pompous way we think that a creator would look like us and be all about us, rather than what allows everything to be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EQDhtVl_50
And here is Feynman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YltEym9H0x4
anonymous said:
[redacted]
There's good evidence that not only did the first three exist but that the deeds attributed to them are real.Debating the existence of Jesus is way more complex. If we're looking for more than 'did a bloke called Jesus live in that area at that time?'. If you want to delve into the historical facts, as a historian not a believer (who will interpret everything as proof), it's clear that much of the documentation is sketchy at best. Much of the mythology that most belief is formed around is significantly post-events to be suspect. Even if Jesus were proven to have existed at that time you're still left with no proof that what he said was different to any of the other people in that time who claimed revelation and were lauded as prophets - his contemporaries.
That's before you start to actually examine the reality of faith in 'the word' and the copious unreconcilable contradictions the bible holds particularly when held up against every day life and the modern interpretation.
Blue Cat said:
I have no problem with someone says "I don't believe in a god because I have no evidence and it does not fit in my world view, however I am prepared to say there is more to the world than we know and I am open minded enough to consider new possibilities."
Do you have the same "openminded" approach to other areas? Are you happy to say "I don't believe in fairies because I have no evidence..." I presume you don't; that when asked if fairies exist you're happy to say "No, they don't".
I suppose what I'm asking is at what level of lack of evidence or logical proof are you prepared to dimiss something as definitely untrue? Teapot orbitting Saturn, that could be true? FSM, that could be true?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff