[Misc] Religion - the Church of England - what future?

[Hampden Park]

interesting read.

If you are a member of the 'I believe in God' and a happy clapper sing a longist - fine by me.

If you are a member of the 'There is no God' and not a happy clapper sing a longist - also fine by me.

no need to bitch with each other. get on with life as you see fit.

end of my 10 pennies worth.

 

[FamilyGuy]

In my opinion religion has boiled down to Willie Wagling - "my god is better than your god " - so let's have a fight!

Quite apart from the fact that all religion is based on bunkum and run by people with their own agendas and for their own self-perpetuating, self-serving needs - and closing ranks to protect the guilty within their organisations so that they can continue to do so.

Just my opinions.

 

[sydney]

interesting read.

If you are a member of the 'I believe in God' and a happy clapper sing a longist - fine by me.

If you are a member of the 'There is no God' and not a happy clapper sing a longist - also fine by me.

no need to bitch with each other. get on with life as you see fit.

end of my 10 pennies worth.

if only....!!!

 

[sydney]

Are they lies, because you don't believe it?

look , come on , it's all old bollarks......innit.

 

[Megazone]

interesting read.

If you are a member of the 'I believe in God' and a happy clapper sing a longist - fine by me.

If you are a member of the 'There is no God' and not a happy clapper sing a longist - also fine by me.

no need to bitch with each other. get on with life as you see fit.

end of my 10 pennies worth.

Will you still let us into Heaven?

 

[Hampden Park]

Will you still let us into Heaven?

Couldn't give a shit where you go, you choose.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Are they lies, because you don't believe it?

My definition of a lie is not simply something I don't believe, although many of the things I don't believe often turn out to be lies. The stuff I wrote about Father Christmas is certainly a lie. However I would argue that the firm assertion of something that is unproven (e.g., the existence of god) is.....getting into difficult territory. For me, the assertion that all things are god's will is a lie. Of course I can't prove there might be a creator out there somewhere, but I see no evidence for it. As for a benign saviour figure and a Heaven....I don't believe it, although of course I cannot disprove it.

However I don't buy into an argument (put to me a while ago) that my disbelief in god is my 'belief system'. I always look for the best explanation for things, ideally with proof. Eventually when the best explnation and no other repeatedly explains something, then I am inclined to accept it. So....I just don't consider there is enough proof for me to subscribe to faith as truth. Of course if a person considers that faith does not need proof then I can neither argue with it nor engage with it. Faith means nothing to me as a concept.

As a scientist I operate at the level of hypothesis (a idea I can work with and seek to test). I could present a hypothesis that owing to gravity if I jump out of our top floor window, head first, I will be badly injured and will probably die. I don't feel the need to test it as it is indirectly supported by my previous 60 years' continuous reiterative and unchallenged experience with gravity and its effects. My previous correspondent (who claims that nonbelief in god is a belief system) would argue this is merely my belief. I would counter that with 'so your belief is that I would fly? Why don't you test your hypothsis and jump out of my window head first?'. I think he would have a cocky answer but I am not sure what it might be.

The reason I don't get run over when I cycle every day in London has got to do with my hypotheses about the way the roads work, what traffic signals mean (yes, even me, a cyclist), gravity and a few other things. It is not merely part of a belief system and, once again, I would challenge someone who says it is safe to close their eyes and cycle unscathed across London.

As for comforting a child by telling them their relative is smiling down on them from a better places, as a tactic to make a child feel better, well maybe, but I wouldn't say it myself. If its part of someone's family traditions, and already part of the child's framework of reference, go for it. And of course I wouldn't say harsh brutal things to a bereaved child like those listed in the post to which I responded, either. That's the sort of insouciant stupidity that annoys me (and got me so riled yesterday on this thread). The choice isn't either to be a Christian or an animal.

Even knowingly telling lies to save someone's feelings (especially a child) might sometimes be justifable. I lied to my own mum when she was dying of cancer and asked me if she'd be OK. In that context, knowing my mum, I have no regrets. She died peacefully in her sleep a week later. Anyway, I don't want to argue with you, someone whose thoughtful measured and informed comments are part of my enyoyment of NSC.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

My definition of a lie is not simply something I don't believe, although many of the things I don't believe often turn out to be lies. The stuff I wrote about Father Christmas is certainly a lie. However I would argue that the firm assertion of something that is unproven (e.g., the existence of god) is.....getting into difficult territory. For me, the assertion that all things are god's will is a lie. Of course I can't prove there might be a creator out there somewhere, but I see no evidence for it. As for a benign saviour figure and a Heaven....I don't believe it, although of course I cannot disprove it.

However I don't buy into an argument (put to me a while ago) that my disbelief in god is my 'belief system'. I always look for the best explanation for things, ideally with proof. Eventually when the best explnation and no other repeatedly explains something, then I am inclined to accept it. So....I just don't consider there is enough proof for me to subscribe to faith as truth. Of course if a person considers that faith does not need proof then I can neither argue with it nor engage with it. Faith means nothing to me as a concept.

As a scientist I operate at the level of hypothesis (a idea I can work with and seek to test). I could present a hypothesis that owing to gravity if I jump out of our top floor window, head first, I will be badly injured and will probably die. I don't feel the need to test it as it is indirectly supported by my previous 60 years' continuous reiterative and unchallenged experience with gravity and its effects. My previous correspondent (who claims that nonbelief in god is a belief system) would argue this is merely my belief. I would counter that with 'so your belief is that I would fly? Why don't you test your hypothsis and jump out of my window head first?'. I think he would have a cocky answer but I am not sure what it might be.

The reason I don't get run over when I cycle every day in London has got to do with my hypotheses about the way the roads work, what traffic signals mean (yes, even me, a cyclist), gravity and a few other things. It is not merely part of a belief system and, once again, I would challenge someone who says it is safe to close their eyes and cycle unscathed across London.

As for comforting a child by telling them their relative is smiling down on them from a better places, as a tactic to make a child feel better, well maybe, but I wouldn't say it myself. If its part of someone's family traditions, and already part of the child's framework of reference, go for it. And of course I wouldn't say harsh brutal things to a bereaved child like those listed in the post to which I responded, either. That's the sort of insouciant stupidity that annoys me (and got me so riled yesterday on this thread). The choice isn't either to be a Christian or an animal.

Even knowingly telling lies to save someone's feelings (especially a child) might sometimes be justifable. I lied to my own mum when she was dying of cancer and asked me if she'd be OK. In that context, knowing my mum, I have no regrets. She died peacefully in her sleep a week later. Anyway, I don't want to argue with you, someone whose thoughtful measured and informed comments are part of my enyoyment of NSC.

You mention gravity and yet Isaac Newton was a devout Christian. I know many scientists are committed Christians. One does not oppose the other.

 

[AmexRuislip]

My definition of a lie is not simply something I don't believe, although many of the things I don't believe often turn out to be lies. The stuff I wrote about Father Christmas is certainly a lie. However I would argue that the firm assertion of something that is unproven (e.g., the existence of god) is.....getting into difficult territory. For me, the assertion that all things are god's will is a lie. Of course I can't prove there might be a creator out there somewhere, but I see no evidence for it. As for a benign saviour figure and a Heaven....I don't believe it, although of course I cannot disprove it.

However I don't buy into an argument (put to me a while ago) that my disbelief in god is my 'belief system'. I always look for the best explanation for things, ideally with proof. Eventually when the best explnation and no other repeatedly explains something, then I am inclined to accept it. So....I just don't consider there is enough proof for me to subscribe to faith as truth. Of course if a person considers that faith does not need proof then I can neither argue with it nor engage with it. Faith means nothing to me as a concept.

As a scientist I operate at the level of hypothesis (a idea I can work with and seek to test). I could present a hypothesis that owing to gravity if I jump out of our top floor window, head first, I will be badly injured and will probably die. I don't feel the need to test it as it is indirectly supported by my previous 60 years' continuous reiterative and unchallenged experience with gravity and its effects. My previous correspondent (who claims that nonbelief in god is a belief system) would argue this is merely my belief. I would counter that with 'so your belief is that I would fly? Why don't you test your hypothsis and jump out of my window head first?'. I think he would have a cocky answer but I am not sure what it might be.

The reason I don't get run over when I cycle every day in London has got to do with my hypotheses about the way the roads work, what traffic signals mean (yes, even me, a cyclist), gravity and a few other things. It is not merely part of a belief system and, once again, I would challenge someone who says it is safe to close their eyes and cycle unscathed across London.

As for comforting a child by telling them their relative is smiling down on them from a better places, as a tactic to make a child feel better, well maybe, but I wouldn't say it myself. If its part of someone's family traditions, and already part of the child's framework of reference, go for it. And of course I wouldn't say harsh brutal things to a bereaved child like those listed in the post to which I responded, either. That's the sort of insouciant stupidity that annoys me (and got me so riled yesterday on this thread). The choice isn't either to be a Christian or an animal.

Even knowingly telling lies to save someone's feelings (especially a child) might sometimes be justifable. I lied to my own mum when she was dying of cancer and asked me if she'd be OK. In that context, knowing my mum, I have no regrets. She died peacefully in her sleep a week later. Anyway, I don't want to argue with you, someone whose thoughtful measured and informed comments are part of my enyoyment of NSC.

 

[Hampden Park]

My definition of a lie is not simply something I don't believe, although many of the things I don't believe often turn out to be lies. The stuff I wrote about Father Christmas is certainly a lie. However I would argue that the firm assertion of something that is unproven (e.g., the existence of god) is.....getting into difficult territory. For me, the assertion that all things are god's will is a lie. Of course I can't prove there might be a creator out there somewhere, but I see no evidence for it. As for a benign saviour figure and a Heaven....I don't believe it, although of course I cannot disprove it.

However I don't buy into an argument (put to me a while ago) that my disbelief in god is my 'belief system'. I always look for the best explanation for things, ideally with proof. Eventually when the best explnation and no other repeatedly explains something, then I am inclined to accept it. So....I just don't consider there is enough proof for me to subscribe to faith as truth. Of course if a person considers that faith does not need proof then I can neither argue with it nor engage with it. Faith means nothing to me as a concept.

As a scientist I operate at the level of hypothesis (a idea I can work with and seek to test). I could present a hypothesis that owing to gravity if I jump out of our top floor window, head first, I will be badly injured and will probably die. I don't feel the need to test it as it is indirectly supported by my previous 60 years' continuous reiterative and unchallenged experience with gravity and its effects. My previous correspondent (who claims that nonbelief in god is a belief system) would argue this is merely my belief. I would counter that with 'so your belief is that I would fly? Why don't you test your hypothsis and jump out of my window head first?'. I think he would have a cocky answer but I am not sure what it might be.

The reason I don't get run over when I cycle every day in London has got to do with my hypotheses about the way the roads work, what traffic signals mean (yes, even me, a cyclist), gravity and a few other things. It is not merely part of a belief system and, once again, I would challenge someone who says it is safe to close their eyes and cycle unscathed across London.

As for comforting a child by telling them their relative is smiling down on them from a better places, as a tactic to make a child feel better, well maybe, but I wouldn't say it myself. If its part of someone's family traditions, and already part of the child's framework of reference, go for it. And of course I wouldn't say harsh brutal things to a bereaved child like those listed in the post to which I responded, either. That's the sort of insouciant stupidity that annoys me (and got me so riled yesterday on this thread). The choice isn't either to be a Christian or an animal.

Even knowingly telling lies to save someone's feelings (especially a child) might sometimes be justifable. I lied to my own mum when she was dying of cancer and asked me if she'd be OK. In that context, knowing my mum, I have no regrets. She died peacefully in her sleep a week later. Anyway, I don't want to argue with you, someone whose thoughtful measured and informed comments are part of my enyoyment of NSC.

i have now read that twice. on the second occasion i read it as if it was read to me in a Stephen Hawkins voice, made me smile

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You mention gravity and yet Isaac Newton was a devout Christian. I know many scientists are committed Christians. One does not oppose the other.

This used to be the case. It is increasingly rare now (apart from in the states...). A mate of mine (a well respected professor) was brought up devout, but gave it up after due consideration.....another mate of mine (a cardiac surgeon) is still a devout Catholic who 'believes' the earth was created 6,000 years ago but 'knows' in his work context it wasn't because of all the reiterative issues such as radioactive half ife (count the years backwards) that are part of his job - I find that perverse and inneccessary, but he has faith and I don't. One thing that is for sure is that you can't 'do' science now (I mean chemistry, biology, physiscs) using faith as the basis for decision making....you'd never get any funds or publish any work....

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

i have now read that twice. on the second occasion i read it as if it was read to me in a Stephen Hawkins voice, made me smile

yes it does sound a lot better that way. With Radiohead doing the backing track....

 

[pastafarian]

You mention gravity and yet Isaac Newton was a devout Christian. I know many scientists are committed Christians. One does not oppose the other.

They wont be young earth creationist christian scientists though that you know will they, as their version of pseudo science does oppose multiple fields of actual science..

 

[AmexRuislip]

Religion is a big part of the UK armed forces.
I don't mean in one's personal beliefs, but in the whole ceremonial and pomp displays that occur, whether it's memorial or just parade.
All in all its a belief that can either taken or left.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This used to be the case. It is increasingly rare now (apart from in the states...). A mate of mine (a well respected professor) was brought up devout, but gave it up after due consideration.....another mate of mine (a cardiac surgeon) is still a devout Catholic who 'believes' the earth was created 6,000 years ago but 'knows' in his work context it wasn't because of all the reiterative issues such as radioactive half ife (count the years backwards) that are part of his job - I find that perverse and inneccessary, but he has faith and I don't. One thing that is for sure is that you can't 'do' science now (I mean chemistry, biology, physiscs) using faith as the basis for decision making....you'd never get any funds or publish any work....

Not all Christians believe in a young earth.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Not all Christians believe in a young earth.

No, quite. And Archbiship Jenkins wasn't sure he actually even beleived in God. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ishop-durham-biblical-facts-fire-york-minster

That said, I thought that true faith means accepting the bible (or Quran, etc) as the word of god. Being able to pick and choose seems to defeat the purpose, somewhat, surely? The many branches of Christianity (and Islam) can't all be correct, can they? Its as if a bit of it....some of it...all of it were.....made up

 

[Thunder Bolt]

No, quite. And Archbiship Jenkins wasn't sure he actually even beleived in God. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ishop-durham-biblical-facts-fire-york-minster

That said, I thought that true faith means accepting the bible (or Quran, etc) as the word of god. Being able to pick and choose seems to defeat the purpose, somewhat, surely? The many branches of Christianity (and Islam) can't all be correct, can they? Its as if a bit of it....some of it...all of it were.....made up

The whole of the bible balances out the whole of the bible. God is outside of space and time, so therefore the days weren't necessarily 24 hour days. I do believe the bible is the word of God.

 

[dangull]

I'm still not convinced with the big bang theory, multiverse universes Ect that the Discovery channels broadcast as pretty much a fact.

It seems as absurd to me as some people here describing religion.

 

[Kneon Light]

Am bowing out of this thread as I am fed up with personal abuse and people expecting Christians to prove there is a God. I don't need that in my life write now. Nor do I have time for an in depth debate.
There is very little point arguing if there is a God or not - it cannot be proved

A couple of points first though:
1. Someone said earlier in this thread (apologies cannot remember who or I would quote) that you should be able to mock religion like other things - I didn't get around to replying. Personally I agree that religion should not be above being mocked (or anything else for that matter). But to me there is a time and a place for it. For example politicians are mocked constantly on programmes such as HIGNFY or Mock the Week. I would not expect them to be mocked of appearing on the news. In the same why while I have no problem with religion being mocked on, for example, a tv programme I think it is lacking in respect to do so in a thread such as this when people are trying to give their views.
2. Earlier on I posted the following "If you don't believe that's up to you - I just don't get the animosity toward people that do." - if anyone could explain why me believing in God, trying to lead a good life and doing charity work offends people so much I would love an answer.

Peace to you all whatever you believe - If anyone has any genuine questions about my faith I will answer if I can (and if I have the time)

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm still not convinced with the big bang theory, multiverse universes Ect that the Discovery channels broadcast as pretty much a fact.

It seems as absurd to me as some people here describing religion.

big bang theory has made predictions that have been found to be correct, i.e. cosmic background radiation. its been part refuted, reanalysed and restated to correct errors. its a solid working theory. multiverse isnt a theory, more an interpretation of quantum theory, and certainly not considered a fact. TV and popular science like it because of the implications for parallel universe. i perfer the Copenhagen interpretation with cats in a dead/not-dead state. either way the underlying quantum theory has led to discoveries.

religion on the other hand has led to no discovery or proof of anything.