All-Purpose Religion Thread

[BOF]

Basically, if you do not believe Christ is God, you are then by definition not a Christian, but you can claim to be one.

Precisely. Which is what I suspect a lot of people do. Which is why I picked up on your use of being a 'nominal' believer. Depending on what you define as being nominal, I don't think you can be nominal if that means not believing in God but merely regarding yourself as Christian at the same time. It's also why I think they say never to talk about religion, money or politics. Because if you actually ask someone about their faith and ask questions of it in the way you would ask questions of anything else in a normal discussion, they will get far more defensive because they often don't even believe in their own dogma. They just don't want to have to say so to you or anyone else. It's quite a remarkable situation.

[legov]

Yep.

Should have cleared the "nominal" part sooner, sorry.

[A.J.Rimmer]

I feel somewhat privileged that I never had 'faith'. My family isn't religious (though would still put CofE on a census, because thats just 'Right'), we didn't do church, and the nonsense spoonfed at school I understood from a very young age were just that, stories.

I used to watch a lot of natural history shows when I was a kid and loved animals, and that I think gave me a grounding in understanding that what was in the Bible was probably wrong, with it's basic teaching of how some species were related and how some species had arisen from others, and how dinosaurs had ruled the earth and gone but left behind clues. By the time I was able to really think about why things why how they were, I understood that science was much more likely to give me answers than a terribly written piece of much translated fiction was.

I got to that level of understanding, that the Bible (and all the others, Qur'an Torah, all the non-Abrahamic ones) was almost certainly wrong and just stories, in primary school. I think thats why I find it quite so galling that grown men and women, who have had as good an education if not better than mine, believe in fairy stories.

But then you have to realise that even just looking at old religious discussions here and elsewhere you find absolutely obscene levels of ignorance, stupidity, wilful obfuscation... I would dearly love a wave of enlightenment to wash over the world.

I've no wish to embarrass you, for my rightist economic leanings are well known, but that is exactly how it was for me... including my old man sending my mother off to have me christened, just so I could write 'C of E' on the forms.

[BOF]

One of the advantages of being an atheist is that you can play the games as and when they suit, because you know there is no consequence or any real meaning to them. Like playing scrabble for example. Over here, education is often better in catholic owned schools and to get into them you must be christened. No problemo. Want to put some water on my child's head? Go ahead. If it gets him better education then have at it. It may be significant to some, but to an atheist, I will play this arbitrary game of wet the baby's head if it improves their future prospects. You can wrap the ritual in as much codswollop and serenity as you want, but the facts don't change. The baby will come out of that building with a cleaner forehead and eligibility to better schools. And there'll probably be a session afterwards too. Bonus.

[rjw63]

[AVFCforever1991]

lol Edited July 25, 2013 by AVFCforever1991

[mjmooney]

I do think a lot of people who would claim to have a religion are now what you'd probably call 'culturally religious'. They don't really do the temple/church/special house for fairy believing thing, ignore a lot of the guidelines, don't really care about it all all that much... but would still have some leaning towards to the culture/traditions of the faith to the point they still consider themselves Christian/Muslim/Sikh/whatever.

I think this is the way forward.

I could quite understand someone being a "secular Christian", for example. Someone whose stance is: "I grew up in a Christian community, I'm comfortable with the cultural norms surrounding it, I like the message of peace that is traditionally associated with Jesus, and I try and live my life by those precepts. But I don't believe that Jesus was God, or the son of God, or even that there IS a God".

Same for secular Jews and secular Muslims. They must exist in some numbers, surely? I can't believe that THAT many people are THAT gullible, to buy into the superstitious magical elements of their religions so unthinkingly.

[Chindie]

I do think a lot of people who would claim to have a religion are now what you'd probably call 'culturally religious'. They don't really do the temple/church/special house for fairy believing thing, ignore a lot of the guidelines, don't really care about it all all that much... but would still have some leaning towards to the culture/traditions of the faith to the point they still consider themselves Christian/Muslim/Sikh/whatever.

I think this is the way forward.

I could quite understand someone being a "secular Christian", for example. Someone whose stance is: "I grew up in a Christian community, I'm comfortable with the cultural norms surrounding it, I like the message of peace that is traditionally associated with Jesus, and I try and live my life by those precepts. But I don't believe that Jesus was God, or the son of God, or even that there IS a God".

Same for secular Jews and secular Muslims. They must exist in some numbers, surely? I can't believe that THAT many people are THAT gullible, to buy into the superstitious magical elements of their religions so unthinkingly.

It can't be a way forward. It somewhat legitimises the faith, says it's alright... but because it has a basis in writings and beliefs that reach far beyond this (demand it even), by allowing the lax end of the spectrum, you encourage the insane end. By allowing for 'secular Christian', you allow for creationist nutters, and worse (far worse across the other faiths). Even encourage it imo.

You have to rank and file remove it. You cannot make sops to it under any circumstances, you can't allow the spectrum of faith to exist if you wish to kill off the bad stuff.

For what it's worth though I do believe most 'religious' people (or perhaps it's better to say 'People who identify with a faith'?) nowadays probably come under this banner. I'd guess taking Brum for example, a vast majority of those 'faithful' people will be 'secularly' or 'culturally' associated with that religion rather than actively living to the book. Obviously that would go up and down - Christianity I'd imagine to have barely any true followers in modern Brum, Islam having more but even then, amongst younger populations, Muslims don't seem to be much more pious than their Christian buddies imo.

[legov]

I can't believe that THAT many people are THAT gullible, to buy into the superstitious magical elements of their religions so unthinkingly.

Galilei, Newton, even Francis Collins...plenty of very smart people have been religious, particularly those who lived before the 20th century.

Point being...yes, it is entirely possible that that many people are that gullible, seeing that religious gullibility is common even among the smartest people the world has ever seen.

[BOF]

I would agree with Chindie there. But it is an enormous task. You are trying to eliminate tradition, eliminate lazy thinking and remove peoples' need for an emotional comfort blanket when they lose a loved one. I'd go as far as to say it's a hopeless task.

[BOF]

particularly those who lived before the 20th century.

Well that's the main jist of the point. Things become outdated. Thinking the world was flat 600 years ago was fine. It's not OK now.

[A.J.Rimmer]

The fact is that the Holocaust was committed by Christians... not a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim in sight.

that's kinda flawed ....

it would be like someone saying that it's a fact that the Ottoman genocide in Armenia was committed by Muslims and there wasn't a Buddhist, Hindu or Christian in sight ...

That's right. The Armenian Genocide WAS committed by muslims... and the only Christians in sight were the poor Armenians they chose to slaughter... surely, this must be regarded as fair comment.

One might however tighten the mathematical set by saying 'Tiurkish muslims'.

Sorry, can't see any problem with that. The truth is the truth.

[mjmooney]

I do think a lot of people who would claim to have a religion are now what you'd probably call 'culturally religious'. They don't really do the temple/church/special house for fairy believing thing, ignore a lot of the guidelines, don't really care about it all all that much... but would still have some leaning towards to the culture/traditions of the faith to the point they still consider themselves Christian/Muslim/Sikh/whatever.

I think this is the way forward.

I could quite understand someone being a "secular Christian", for example. Someone whose stance is: "I grew up in a Christian community, I'm comfortable with the cultural norms surrounding it, I like the message of peace that is traditionally associated with Jesus, and I try and live my life by those precepts. But I don't believe that Jesus was God, or the son of God, or even that there IS a God".

Same for secular Jews and secular Muslims. They must exist in some numbers, surely? I can't believe that THAT many people are THAT gullible, to buy into the superstitious magical elements of their religions so unthinkingly.

It can't be a way forward. It somewhat legitimises the faith, says it's alright... but because it has a basis in writings and beliefs that reach far beyond this (demand it even), by allowing the lax end of the spectrum, you encourage the insane end. By allowing for 'secular Christian', you allow for creationist nutters, and worse (far worse across the other faiths). Even encourage it imo.

You have to rank and file remove it. You cannot make sops to it under any circumstances, you can't allow the spectrum of faith to exist if you wish to kill off the bad stuff.

You're talking about "allowing" or "removing" superstitions. It will never work - it only hardens the martyrdom mentality.

Education and persuasion is the only way forward, and it will be slow.

I don't think the idea of secular Christianity (or any other religion) DOES "allow for creationist nutters". I think it erodes their already fragile credibility. It's a stage on the way out of primitive mumbo jumbo that does not require people to be overtly hostile to the communities they live in.

But I'm not talking about "establishing" such a concept, I'm suggesting that it will probably happen anyway - in some parts of the world much later than others, unfortunately.

[Chindie]

I would agree with Chindie there. But it is an enormous task. You are trying to eliminate tradition, eliminate lazy thinking and remove peoples' need for an emotional comfort blanket when they lose a loved one. I'd go as far as to say it's a hopeless task.

I don't think it's an impossible task. But it'd be an insanely long winded and often unpopular one. You would need to basically target a generation to begin with, and eradicate it in education. Immediately you'd force the effort of passing on 'faith' to outside of school. Given the modern world's requirements, how many people are going to go out of their way to get their kids well taught in the ways of their faith?

You'd be left with the remnants of it's cultural basis - the traditions and the like... but traditions do slowly change as tastes and life change.

This is happening to religion already - churches have to advertise, nobody visits sunday services and most people only marry there because it's pretty (or the done thing... but even that is waning as people are put off by cost, or even just avoiding matrimony).

It's certainly doable in the modern first world. It's away from 'the West' that you would struggle to kill it, but hopefully with other advancements and giving the rest of the world social mobility (trickle down from the West, if you will) it'll wane.

We'll all be long dead before it happens... but it could happen and that would be a good thing. Even if it just makes it harder for our descendants to justify and dress up their hate for one another, it'll have been worth it.

[norton65ca]

MJ, it is only partially gullibility.

In N America, evangelicalism is incredibly entrenched. This variety (and its scary cousin, fundamentalism) is part of the cultural landscape to such an extent that down in the south, EVERYONE in the town one might find oneself in, is a bible believing literalist, and atheism is looked upon with revulsion and horror. What you grow up with determines in many cases what you will end up following. European culture is another world entirely.

As a reasonably well educated 19 year old, the supernatural aspects such as the resurrection for example, the miraculous bits, were actually not that hard to accept for me, and the resurrection was the last bastion to fall, primarily because I was deathly afraid in terms of eternity to reject it until the entire thing had become untenable in the extreme. I did always have a pretty big problem with the Genesis tale and towards the end took it metaphorically, but for quite some time I was creationist, but I had read a lot of their bs propaganda.

It's not as easy to write off as lunacy as you might think, but again, I have a different perspective... The bible belt over here is thickly laid across the land.

as far as "secular" christians go, an evangelical (and there are MILLIONS of them) would say they are no Christian at all.. and a fundie would write them off as hellfodder. Without a belief in the bible as "The word of god", and a fairly literal interpretation which would include the resurrection and ascension of christ in physical real terms, one isn't a christian but is only fooling oneself.

This of course is bollocks, but for almost thirty years, I believed it. I do not consider myself ignorant, during this time I read philosophy and many other subjects extensively, but all the time through a christian lens. It colours everything.

I do find myself shocked at how long it took me to finally reject the faith, but I chalk that down t o a profound unease and fear of an afterlife seperated from god in a hell of some kind. This is powerful stuff and deeply ingrains itself into a person over many years.

Not all christians are ignorant bumkins, even if from the outside that may seem so, instead they are INDOCTRINATED which is another thing entirely. The church and christianity in general is a durable, immensely slick well packaged machine that will outlive you and I. Sad but so.

[AVFCforever1991]

Can you use the Enter button next time?

[mjmooney]

I understand what you say about the Bible belt, norton. I can see that if EVERYBODY around you sticks to the party line, it must be pretty hard to go against it, or even privately doubt it.

Fortunately, communities are not as self-contained and isolated as they once were, even in 'passport-free' America. It'll take time, but that pesky internet will slowly make inroads. I bloody hope so anyway.

[legov]

particularly those who lived before the 20th century.

Well that's the main jist of the point. Things become outdated. Thinking the world was flat 600 years ago was fine. It's not OK now.

Which was why I put in the example of Francis Collins. These days, religiosity rates in scientific and academic communities are of course far, far lower than they were 200 years ago. Nevertheless, religious academics, impressively smart ones, still exist in significant numbers. This shows that even in modern times, religious gullibility can still take hold on some of the smartest people in the world, so one should not be too surprised when the same happens for the average man on the street.

Let's not forget that a lot of us (me included) spent decades believing in religious baloney. Humans are naturally religious fools, I think.

P.S. Big thank you to Mike, this is a fantastic thread Uncle Mooney

[mjmooney]

The very concept of people spending whole 'academic' (sic) careers being 'learned scholars', interpreting scripture is something I find utterly staggering.

[mjmooney]

The thread is lacking in believers though. Those who say we are just preaching to the converted (joke intended) have a point, so far.