Archbishop of Canterbury playing politics AGAIN
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
Derek Smith said:
So they make up their own religion?
Yeah, I can see that I suppose. Indeed, most people make up their own religion. They might go to the nearest convenience church but they do not follow all the rules, such as birth control, loving they neighbour, thwoing their daughters to the mob to make things more pleasant. I mean, we're all guilty of such things some times in our lives.
Without structure though there is no religion as such. It's just a warm glow. People believe in fairies (there was a meeting advertised down my way for instructions on fiaries and it was sold out, no wonder I'm moving) but it is not a religion.
All religions are man made but not all beliefs are religions if they are just unformed wooly-minded ramblings.
If you want to put it that way. Personal beliefs are exactly that, personal.Yeah, I can see that I suppose. Indeed, most people make up their own religion. They might go to the nearest convenience church but they do not follow all the rules, such as birth control, loving they neighbour, thwoing their daughters to the mob to make things more pleasant. I mean, we're all guilty of such things some times in our lives.
Without structure though there is no religion as such. It's just a warm glow. People believe in fairies (there was a meeting advertised down my way for instructions on fiaries and it was sold out, no wonder I'm moving) but it is not a religion.
All religions are man made but not all beliefs are religions if they are just unformed wooly-minded ramblings.
The one thing I will never do is denigrate or insult people for holding particular beliefs - even if I don't hold those beliefs myself.
turbobloke said:
Eric Mc said:
I just don't like using what I consider to be abusive terms. Others have no problem - obviously, but it's not my style and I don't like it.
It's a personal choice, but hypocritical/incompetent/mendacious public figures are fair game particularly when they are in one of the categories that regularly lectures us about how to conduct ourselves. As such a whiskery old socialist in a frock is definitely fair game.You don't have to respect what someone says and believes or even the person themselves to have a civilised discussion. Civility is the key.
On PH it seems too often that merely having a differing viewpoint makes one an idiot and a knave in the eyes of many who can't find it within themselves to merely disagree but will go on an all-out attack. Try posting the position held by the UN IPCC (so not exactly a minority loony position) on the climate change thread and see what happens.
On PH it seems too often that merely having a differing viewpoint makes one an idiot and a knave in the eyes of many who can't find it within themselves to merely disagree but will go on an all-out attack. Try posting the position held by the UN IPCC (so not exactly a minority loony position) on the climate change thread and see what happens.
rohrl said:
On PH it seems too often that merely having a differing viewpoint makes one an idiot and a knave in the eyes of many who can't find it within themselves to merely disagree but will go on an all-out attack. Try posting the position held by the UN IPCC (so not exactly a minority loony position) on the climate change thread and see what happens.
Your choice is fine but omits a key point, in that where you have directed folks is the n'th thread in which n-1 other threads had much worse abuse and vilification aimed at people who disagree with the UN IPCC position. However two wrongs don't make a right and what would more likely be the source of any comments you may dislike is the usual lack of any direct observational data or similar credible evidence backing up the UN IPCC position. The UN IPCC don't have any, as you should know and would find out if you survived a trawl through those n-1 threads. You would need to go to website feedback for more debate, but the current situation, to quote a phrase used on this thread recently, is positively civilised in comparison.As this is the most costly and dangerous myth to be perpetrated on the public ever, we need to generate interest so thanks for the plug.
Eric Mc said:
Careful now.
It's OK the post was civilised 
fluffnik said:
Eric Mc said:
It is possible to have "faith" without allying oneself to an earthly institution.
Yes, but faith in supernatural entities/forces in the absence of evidence suggests a lack of critical thought...turbobloke said:
fluffnik said:
Eric Mc said:
It is possible to have "faith" without allying oneself to an earthly institution.
Yes, but faith in supernatural entities/forces in the absence of evidence suggests a lack of critical thought...I personally have no faith, but I can see why some do.
Ayahuasca said:
turbobloke said:
fluffnik said:
Eric Mc said:
It is possible to have "faith" without allying oneself to an earthly institution.
Yes, but faith in supernatural entities/forces in the absence of evidence suggests a lack of critical thought...I personally have no faith, but I can see why some do.
Correctly distinguishing faith from the rational side of life remains important in many ways.
bigbubba said:
Faith (the word) is not linked to religion, that is the common mistake.
I have great faith in some people yet I am an atheist.
I think you're misusing the word "faith", as we all do to some extent. You say you have great faith in some people, but what you really mean is that you have expectations of future behaviour/achievments based on EVIDENCE of what you KNOW about them. That isn't really faith, because faith is belief in something without evidence.I have great faith in some people yet I am an atheist.
Of course they might not perform as you expect, as sometimes we can misinterpret evidence. Then we say we've lost faith in them, but what we really mean is that new evidence leads us to reach a different conclusion of their future conduct.
Personally, I live my life on the following maxim:
A thimble full of evidence is worth more than an ocean of faith.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
A thimble full of evidence is worth more than an ocean of faith.
Not necessarily - take the story of the mother who lifts a car off her child http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1190759/Mi...When she heaved on the car she would have had no rational basis for believing she could lift it.
But she had 'faith' that she could.
Somehow her 'faith' allowed her to find 'superhuman ability' that obviously cannot have been superhuman at all.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I think you're misusing the word "faith"
No I am not, you are. That was my point, thank you.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith
Ayahuasca said:
Not necessarily - take the story of the mother who lifts a car off her child http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1190759/Mi...
When she heaved on the car she would have had no rational basis for believing she could lift it.
But she had 'faith' that she could.
Somehow her 'faith' allowed her to find 'superhuman ability' that obviously cannot have been superhuman at all.
For 'faith', read 'adrenaline'?When she heaved on the car she would have had no rational basis for believing she could lift it.
But she had 'faith' that she could.
Somehow her 'faith' allowed her to find 'superhuman ability' that obviously cannot have been superhuman at all.
otolith said:
Ayahuasca said:
Not necessarily - take the story of the mother who lifts a car off her child http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1190759/Mi...
When she heaved on the car she would have had no rational basis for believing she could lift it.
But she had 'faith' that she could.
Somehow her 'faith' allowed her to find 'superhuman ability' that obviously cannot have been superhuman at all.
For 'faith', read 'adrenaline'?When she heaved on the car she would have had no rational basis for believing she could lift it.
But she had 'faith' that she could.
Somehow her 'faith' allowed her to find 'superhuman ability' that obviously cannot have been superhuman at all.
Eric Mc said:
Derek Smith said:
So they make up their own religion?
Yeah, I can see that I suppose. Indeed, most people make up their own religion. They might go to the nearest convenience church but they do not follow all the rules, such as birth control, loving they neighbour, thwoing their daughters to the mob to make things more pleasant. I mean, we're all guilty of such things some times in our lives.
Without structure though there is no religion as such. It's just a warm glow. People believe in fairies (there was a meeting advertised down my way for instructions on fiaries and it was sold out, no wonder I'm moving) but it is not a religion.
All religions are man made but not all beliefs are religions if they are just unformed wooly-minded ramblings.
If you want to put it that way. Personal beliefs are exactly that, personal.Yeah, I can see that I suppose. Indeed, most people make up their own religion. They might go to the nearest convenience church but they do not follow all the rules, such as birth control, loving they neighbour, thwoing their daughters to the mob to make things more pleasant. I mean, we're all guilty of such things some times in our lives.
Without structure though there is no religion as such. It's just a warm glow. People believe in fairies (there was a meeting advertised down my way for instructions on fiaries and it was sold out, no wonder I'm moving) but it is not a religion.
All religions are man made but not all beliefs are religions if they are just unformed wooly-minded ramblings.
The one thing I will never do is denigrate or insult people for holding particular beliefs - even if I don't hold those beliefs myself.
Someone having a religious belief is not an insult to me. However, on a discussion about religion it is pointless not saying things you believe just so as not to make someone feel insulted.
I've studied religion, and quite closely. I think everyone should in the same way I think everyone should see Venice out of season. It is eye-opening. The most startling thing, at least initially, was that in discussion with the religious my knowledge of their religion was normally much greater. Tha majority of western catholics (most catholics do not appear to know that the religion was split with two popes, who disagreed but both are unchallengeable in their beliefs) who quote hail Mary and such have no idea when it was 'of faith'. Nor do they know the biblical support for it, or lack of.
One thing is that the catholic religion, like numerous others, is elitist. I am, as an unbeliever, inferior to them. Insulting? However, if I suggest I have a feeling of superiority over those who were brought up in a religion but have never challenged their beliefs then this can be considered an offence if I verbalise it.
I do not think that I should be silent on my unbelief. Churches are not on their belief. They ring bells to broadcast it. I don't take this as an affront so why should they take my bewilderment of their faith as an insult?
I hope Jesus lived and it is not all made up because he sounds like a real cool guy. I don't believe he was/is the son of a god - at least any more than anyone else - and I don't think he did either otherwise he'd have mentioned it. I don't think it is wrong to point out that Jesus was Jewish and his intent would appear to have been to modify the Jewish religion slightly and had no intent to create a new one. I also know everything he said about homosexuals, but then so does everyone who has never studied the bible.
I also know the origins of the christian religion. A considerable number of its myths were taken from other religions, some of which were far eastern, which predated it by many years, centuries in some cases, including most of those that are the basis of the christianity. I also know of the first council of Nicea. Having read up on such things, is it wrong, or even just insulting, to point this out?
Christianity was an invention, a concoction of a pagan Roman emperor who discarded gospels if they looked like causing problems for his empire. It was an intent to head off religious problems and to unify. Which it was quite successful at. If I point this out, is it insulting to those who believe otherwise? Is it wrong to do so or should I allow disinformation?
I am irritated by the catholic religion. I don't believe most of those in charge believe in what they preach. The history of the church is one of horror. In its methods it is harming sections of the population of the world for no reason. It seems it is alright for middle classes in the USA and Europe to use condoms to limit childbirth without sanction but not for the ignorant in Africa to protect themselves from a plague. Irritated is not the word. I think anyone who supports this action, which borders of genocide, has a right not to be insulted. They should be denigrated.
I seem to remember from a previous post that this does not include you, Eric.
If you did feel insulted by anything I posted, Eric, I'm sorry you feel that way. I thought I knew a bit about you from your postings and I did not intend any slight.
rohrl said:
Try posting the position held by the UN IPCC (so not exactly a minority loony position) on the climate change thread and see what happens.
Ah, the current "religion", or so it appears to me, in that tithing is fundamental to the belief system.If I have enough to be able to pay, I am forgiven, sorta indulgence of my behaviour?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff