Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
March Blizzard

Religion - is it actively under attack?

Recommended Posts

And so the question of this thread- "Religion - is it actively under attack" - is answered.No... it is not. In fact, it's being actively used TO attack, and free and fair civilised society is having to defend itself.

 

Glad we got that sorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so the question of this thread- "Religion - is it actively under attack" - is answered.No... it is not. In fact, it's being actively used TO attack, and free and fair civilised society is having to defend itself. Glad we got that sorted.

I would argue the exact opposite - Yes, it absolutely is.Believe it or not, I still agree with your assertion - Religion is actively used to attack, but that's a different topic (although linked).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread just re-asserts my belief that the world would be far better off if religion had never been invented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue the exact opposite - Yes, it absolutely is.

Believe it or not, I still agree with your assertion - Religion is actively used to attack, but that's a different topic (although linked).

 

I do think it's fair to say that there's a group of 'militant' atheists out there who actually are attacking religion... but beyond that, I think most people are reasonably respectful of people's religious beliefs (save for issues of racism and the like). Apart from militant atheists, I would say that in the UK, Christianity has found itself in a highly dominant and highly privileged position in society, and that what we are seeing now is less of an attack and more of a redressing of the balance.

 

As more people lose faith, or do not have it begin with, and they begin to form a coherent voice to argue against religious claims regarding society and even belief as a means of reason itself, it stands to reason that there will be some conflict - but it is no more than the conflict of fair debate... after all - it is no less reasonably to counter claims that a God exists than it is to claim that one exists in the first place. In the mean time, it is also fair to suggest that a secular society should have an areligious base in order that it can be participated in fully by all.

 

Edit: In respect of an above suggestion that the world would be better of had religion not been invented, while I do have some sympathy for that view, I might suggest that it's the flaws in human nature that have proved to be the problem rather than religion in and of itself. That may well be a semantic argument though.

 

Ultimately, we've traveled the road that we've traveled. At some point we might learn not to impose our religious beliefs upon others , though... including our children - that'd be helpful.

Edited by crimsone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think it's fair to say that there's a group of 'militant' atheists out there who actually are attacking religion... but beyond that, I think most people are reasonably respectful of people's religious beliefs (save for issues of racism and the like). Apart from militant atheists, I would say that in the UK, Christianity has found itself in a highly dominant and highly privileged position in society, and that what we are seeing now is less of an attack and more of a redressing of the balance.

 

As more people lose faith, or do not have it begin with, and they begin to form a coherent voice to argue against religious claims regarding society and even belief as a means of reason itself, it stands to reason that there will be some conflict - but it is no more than the conflict of fair debate... after all - it is no less reasonably to counter claims that a God exists than it is to claim that one exists in the first place. In the mean time, it is also fair to suggest that a secular society should have an areligious base in order that it can be participated in fully by all.

 

Yes, there are definitely both ends of the spectrum. My university has an atheist society, the main objective of which seems to be to ridicule and target the religious societies. After an incident at fresher's fayre involving a pineapple they named Muhammad, they have been stripped of their society status. Frankly, I don't think there is any need for religious-based societies, to me it just seems to promote religious segregation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread just re-asserts my belief that the world would be far better off if religion had never been invented.

I expect it has been around ever since early man tried to find an explanation for his surroundings and it started from there - the big problem about it when people take it too seriously is that it divides people at the best and at the worst they want to kill each other which is really the opposite of what most of the great religions teach.

 

People like the Taliban use it to subjugate people so they can hang onto their power - as far as I see they do not have any really interest in the people themselves.

 

I expect we would be better off with worldwide secular governments and education and whatever religion people wish or do not wish to follow should be their own private business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there are definitely both ends of the spectrum. My university has an atheist society, the main objective of which seems to be to ridicule and target the religious societies. After an incident at fresher's fayre involving a pineapple they named Muhammad, they have been stripped of their society status. Frankly, I don't think there is any need for religious-based societies, to me it just seems to promote religious segregation.

The atheists have their own religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did it really?!  Well good luck to those that believe such claptrap.  Keep it to yourselves and stop trying to impose such nonsense on others trying to get on with their own lives in an inclusive community and rejoice in your salvation from your God and meanwhile enjoy being embittered until you die.

Im not preaching though merely expressing a viewpoint, which the last time I checked I was allowed to do. Again I'll pose the question of what is wrong with not condoning something you feel isn't right, not once I've said anything hateful, unlike some of the replies directed at me. So again I'll state I don't approve of homosexuality, , that's not the same as saying hang me high, or beat them up, I'm just stating I don't condone it. Obviously on here that's a big crime as freedom of speech is a one way street, and as long as that street is liberalism freedom of speech will be condoned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there are definitely both ends of the spectrum. My university has an atheist society, the main objective of which seems to be to ridicule and target the religious societies. After an incident at fresher's fayre involving a pineapple they named Muhammad, they have been stripped of their society status. Frankly, I don't think there is any need for religious-based societies, to me it just seems to promote religious segregation.

can you no longer name a pineapple?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread just re-asserts my belief that the world would be far better off if religion had never been invented.

And it reasserts my belief that most people are bigots of anything that doesn't meet the liberal way of thinking, you yourself are a prime example of such. Im not surprised educational standards at universities have declined since I was last there, as now the main thesis seems to be on anti religion and liberalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religions are not doctrines, they're just suggestive blueprints. It is men (usually) that turn them into instruments of violence, hate and prejudice, (like they manage to turn so many other things into as well). Usually little scared men who see threats to their 'manhood' hiding behind every bush. Anyone with any strong sense of self does not see these 'threats to their cherished beliefs' and can see beyond the (man ascribed) dogma and rhetoric. It's man that perverts religions for his own power games, (the same way he manages to pervert so many other things in the same way), and uses religious scripts as another excuse to 'wave his ***** in the air'. It's sad, it's pathetic and it can be utterly destructive. It's not religion that's the problem, it's insecure weak scared little men who need to wrap themselves up in blankets of power to hide their own inadequacies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about religions not being doctrines, but otherwise that post sums up what I'e been trying to put into words for the last half hour exactly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the old testament predates that shugee.

 

To quote RD again.

 

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.â€

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can sport or let's even say football be the same? There are those who eat, live and breathe it and yet others who hate it with a passion..Again it can be used to bring folk together, as a collective to support even promote ones identity - to belong or be part of something bigger - then there's the negative side, used as wedge against any opposition, causing friction and barriers. It has of course been known to descend into violence and anarchy - sometimes the sheer hatred between local factions or teams can be frightening.And considering it's only a game!

I'm not sure entire nations have been slaughtered over football, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure entire nations have been slaughtered over football, though.

You'd be surprised. The origins of most popular sports are colonial. We spread them in order to spread the virtues of fair play, but mostly to showcase our superiority. Sportsmanship is as much about stiff upper lip and accepting your lot with dignity as it is about anything else.

How has religion alone slaughtered entire nations?

If the bible is to be believed, it's done so repeatedly by God's own hands... let alone human ones.That said - there's been many a tale of religious conquest - one example of which would be how the Moors were prettyt much either slaughtered or driven out of what we now call spain in the name of Christian values.I'm not making the case that religion is unredeemably evil here, but likewise, it makes no sense to deny it's evils.

Edited by crimsone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this debate whether religion, Christianity is good or bad is kind of missing the point - as if it was just some kind of lifestyle choice or philosophy. The only thing that matters is whether it's true or not. As CS Lewis said, if Christianity is not true of it's of no importance whatsoever - but if it is true then it's infinitely important, but it cannot be moderately important. Is anyone concerned with truth anymore or just that which suits them or what they think suits society?

Edited by Bobby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this debate about whether religion, Christianity is good or bad or not is kind of missing the point, as if it was just some kind of lifestyle choice or philosophy. The only thing that matters is whether it's true or not. As CS Lewis said, if Christianity is not true of it's of no importance whatsoever but if it is true then it's infinitely important, but it cannot be moderately important. Is anyone concerned with truth anymore or instead just that which suits them or what they think suits society?

There is no definitive truth.If multiple witnesses to the same incident, in the same location, from the same perspective, each give the police a statement, all the statement's will be different. In fact, they check that people haven't planned a story together by looking for those differences. There is no single all encompassing truth that is definitively knowable - even science has to be willing to disprove itself (even in the most longstanding of principles).In the absence of a single knowable definitive truth, the best we can do is ensure that everyone is free to believe as they want, and to be un-impinged by the beliefs of others in so far as our collective moral code (law) allows... and even then, we have to be willing to revise that collective moral code as we learn and develop as a society.

 

One of the great attractions of religious/spiritual belief is that it offers some certain security in the idea of a single definitive truth - but that doesn't make it actually true - it's just an idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no definitive truth.If multiple witnesses to the same incident, in the same location, from the same perspective, each give the police a statement, all the statement's will be different. In fact, they check that people haven't planned a story together by looking for those differences. There is no single all encompassing truth that is definitively knowable - even science has to be willing to disprove itself (even in the most longstanding of principles).In the absence of a single knowable definitive truth, the best we can do is ensure that everyone is free to believe as they want, and to be un-impinged by the beliefs of others in so far as our collective moral code (law) allows... and even then, we have to be willing to revise that collective moral code as we learn and develop as a society.

 

One of the great attractions of religious/spiritual belief is that it offers some certain security in the idea of a single definitive truth - but that doesn't make it actually true - it's just an idea.

 

If God exists then God exists. It's nothing to do with what anyone thinks.

Paris doesn't stop being Paris just because I don't believe in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If God exists then God exists. It's nothing to do with what anyone thinks.

All well and good - but we cannot know, definitively whether God exists or not. There's no meaningful scientific evidence that God exists, and God isn't about to conference call us. As such, we each have our own ideas of whether God exists or not, or somewhere in between, and these ideas are our own personal truths.

 

The problem occurs where a bunch of believers in something or nothing decide that their own personal truth is universal, and insist that others should realise that their God isn't real because there is only one truth.

 

There isn't - there are many truths... and in the full extent of all probabilities, it's likely that none of them are entirely right - if at all. As mere human beings, there are some things that we are simply not equipped to perceive - let alone know and understand.,.. and doubly so at this stage in our development...

 

... and again... going back to 7 people all standing watching the same incident from the same place... They each give a statement which demonstrates that they all saw something different. Which one of them is the one telling the "truth"? After all - it happened exactly as it happened.

Edited by crimsone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All well and good - but we cannot know, definitively whether God exists or not. There's no meaningful scientific evidence that God exists, and God isn't about to conference call us. As such, we each have our own ideas of whether God exists or not, or somewhere in between, and these ideas are our own personal truths.

 

The problem occurs where a bunch of believers in something or nothing decide that their own personal truth is universal, and insist that others should realise that their God isn't real because there is only one truth.

 

There isn't - there are many truths... and in the full extent of all probabilities, it's likely that none of them are entirely right - if at all.

 

We don't find God though, God finds us, that's what Christianity says. Truth isn't discovered but revealed to those it's possible to be revealed to. As CS Lewis put it:

 

When you come to knowing God, the initiative lies on His side. If He does not show Himself, nothing you can do will enable you to find Him. And, in fact, He shows much more of Himself to some people than to others—not because He has favourites, but because it is impossible for Him to show Himself to a man whose whole mind and character are in the wrong condition. Just as sunlight, though it has no favourites, cannot be reflected in a dusty mirror as clearly as a clean one.

 

You can put this another way by saying that while in other sciences the instruments you use are things external to yourself (things like microscopes and telescopes), the instrument through which you see God is your whole self. And if a man's self is not kept clean and bright, his glimpse of God will be blurred—like the Moon seen through a dirty telescope.

 

Look for God all you want through your telescope, plugging numbers into a calculator, analysing radio signals... you won't get anywhere. It also says that our 'heads' aren't the only way to truth, and our 'hearts' can lead us to truths that the head cannot, that's what God wants afterall, our hearts not heads. That's what Christianity says anyway, that's what it is, whether you believe that is another thing altogether.

Edited by Bobby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How has religion alone slaughtered entire nations?

It has been tried - the Holocaust for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't find God though, God finds us, that's what Christianity says. Truth isn't discovered but revealed to those it's possible to be revealed to. As CS Lewis put it:

 

When you come to knowing God, the initiative lies on His side. If He does not show Himself, nothing you can do will enable you to find Him. And, in fact, He shows much more of Himself to some people than to others—not because He has favourites, but because it is impossible for Him to show Himself to a man whose whole mind and character are in the wrong condition. Just as sunlight, though it has no favourites, cannot be reflected in a dusty mirror as clearly as a clean on.

 

You can put this another way by saying that while in other sciences the instruments you use are things external to yourself (things like microscopes and telescopes), the instrument through which you see God is your whole self. And if a man's self is not kept clean and bright, his glimpse of God will be blurred—like the Moon seen through a dirty telescope.

 

Look for God all you want through your telescope, plugging numbers into a calculator, analysing radio signals... you won't get anywhere. It also says that our 'heads' aren't the only way to truth, and our 'hearts' can lead us to truths that the head cannot, that's what God wants afterall, our hearts not heads. That's what Christianity says anyway, that's what it is, whether you believe that is another thing altogether.

Not altogether sure about that Bobby, my own feeling is that one day as man progresses in knowledge, which being forever curious, he will learn as time passes, that the divide between science and religion will narrow and  things will be discovered beyond our current knowledge which are likely to put these things more in perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not altogether sure about that Bobby, my own feeling is that one day as man progresses in knowledge, which being forever curious, he will learn as time passes, that the divide between science and religion will narrow and  things will be discovered beyond our current knowledge which are likely to put these things more in perspective.

 

A man who has God and everything has no more than the man who has God alone, as the saying goes.

 

Sure through science we can discover many wonderful things but they won't lead to any new revelations about the greater truth. Science will never answer for us, 'why?' for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...