What religion means to you

[jboyler]

I was browsing through Fark recently. It's sometimes amusing, but mostly it just gets me irritated with the stupid **** people do. Anyway, I came across this article:

http://sptimes.com/2005/10/09/Columns/C ... tml#church

Most of it is run of the mill. It talks about letting religious officials run divorce courts blah blah blah injustice blah blah seperation of church and state. All well and good. But this made me look twice:

Since 1991, Ontario has given religious tribunals the authority to render judgments for their own community, as long as it was voluntary, as a way to promote multiculturalism and inclusion. It was a process rarely invoked beyond the area's small Hasidic community. But last month, all religious arbitrations in Ontario were suspended after a Muslim group asked that divorce and child custody issues for local Muslims be referred to a sharia court.

When the Muslim clerics came knocking, many Islamic women in Canada reacted strongly, fearing the inequality of their religion and its courts. Their opposition helped persuade Premier Dalton McGuinty to halt the practice of domestic religious tribunals altogether.

So how can you willingly be part of a religion that you fear?

I understand that most modern day churches include a teaching on how you're supposed to fear the Lord and all that, but it seems to me that that's a pretty crappy way to live. Now in this case, we're talking about Islam and in most of the Middle East piety is not optional. But this woman is in Canada.

What good is it to be a member of a religion and say, "I believe in such-and-such a God and I follow such-and-such a teaching, except for the part that makes me an involuntary slave and second class citizen and subjects me to one of the most brutal and bafflingly twisted legal systems on Earth."

So the question is: At what point do you get to draw the line between what you believe and what you don't? And what's the point of saying you believe, and then disbelieving the parts that aren't convenient for you? And how can you say you have faith in a religion when your fellow practitioners are trying to ruin your life?

-J


Oh, yeah... and if you want to see exploding water in zero gravity, check this out. It's really frikkin cool.

http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/balloon/blob.htm

[Kaylee]

I have a really hard time respecting Islamic women with their full-body dress.

"We're rebelling against a culture which objectifies women by giving up our equality and living as second class citizens! That'll show you!"

Right.

That's like me objecting to the horrific butchering of the word 'camp' in the media by throwing myself back in the closet.

I fully appreciate there are many Islamic females who don't do the whole body dress and believing every word of the Koran bit because they realise its mostly garbage and only some bits are worth listening to. Good for them I say.

The big problem with most of our religions is they have their foundations rooted in about 2000BC and are deeply fixated with highlighting differences between people of different cultures and beliefs. TBH I actually have a lot more time for ol' Jesus than I did- not the whole son of god crap but as a bloke who imo came along, looked at the Old Testament and decided people couldn't live by 2000BC values and updated it for the times.

Why on earth don't we do that again? Keep the old peace, love, understanding and concentrating on our similarities instead of our differences bits and just lose the rest of it?

That way you get the nice historical mythology, you get your afterlife and father-like God figure to turn to in times of need (which imo is a form of meditation) *and* everyone gets to live in harmony.

{Already knows that the answer is some Christians/Muslims already think that and there is just a bunch of all of them who generally use it as an excuse to justify their own prejudices, fears and political aims}

[Best First]

The big problem with most of our religions is they have their foundations rooted in about 2000BC and are deeply fixated with highlighting differences between people of different cultures and beliefs.

aka the prejudices of the times.

Or they were later updated with teh prejudices of the times e.g a lot of shiah law.

The ideas that religions are coherent idoelogies provided by divine beings is (sorry) frickin luaghable and the evidence for that is everywhere.

Why on earth don't we do that again? Keep the old peace, love, understanding and concentrating on our similarities instead of our differences bits and just lose the rest of it?

why can't we have this based on rational discourse rather than enforced by a made up bloke though?

[Kaylee]

Funny you should mention that- I was just reading The Times and found this! Very interesting Ol' Robert Winston believes we have a genetic predisposition to believing in 'higher powers' greater than ourselves

[Metal Vendetta]

why can't we have this based on rational discourse rather than enforced by a made up bloke though?

Because rational people seem to be few and far between? When the president of the USA tells us he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan because God told him to, and he's still allowed to remain in office, you know that rationality is not an especially useful trait these days...

[edit]

Funny you should mention that- I was just reading The Times and found this! Very interesting Ol' Robert Winston believes we have a genetic predisposition to believing in 'higher powers' greater than ourselves

Interesting! I'm not sure there's a God gene, as my understanding of religion is in terms of mimetics, ideas that are passed down the generations, though it may be that certain receptors in the brain crave a "divine" guidance - for example look at how people who get off drug addictions seem to get religion easier than others.

[Kaylee]

why can't we have this based on rational discourse rather than enforced by a made up bloke though?

Because rational people seem to be few and far between? When the president of the USA tells us he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan because God told him to, and he's still allowed to remain in office, you know that rationality is not an especially useful trait these days...

Even the Christian Right-Wing have sheepishly turned away at Bush's little outburst there; whether they agree with him or not they're smart enough to see it just makes him sound like a lunatic.

Of course its entirely academic as he's in his last term and power is already seeping away from him to his proposed successors.

[Obfleur]

"Yo, it's god. Could you please invade Afghanistan and kill a bunch of people?
Great. See you later dude

Oh, by the way; don't have sex before you marry.".

[Kaylee]

"Yo, it's god. Could you please invade Afghanistan and kill a bunch of people?
Great. See you later dude".

haha reminds me of a little comic in the paper the other day- God sitting on his cloud with a phone being handed him by Gabriel and God saying "If that's George again tell him I'm out!"

[Impactor returns 2.0]

The sky is falling!

I think perhaps in the past we used religon to explain where limited science couldnt explain things - but nowadays science can explain or at least have a bloody good theroy on why things happen/how they work. I dont belive its natural unless you cant be assed to learn, to belive in a higher power to answer your problems..

[Nebbie]

It's possible to believe in science and God.

I believe God created the universe, yet I also think that it happened by evolution. Who says 7 days doesn't equal out to 7 billion years?

For me, science gives a greater appreciation for the divine. Take my anatomy class for instance. The human body is a pretty amazing thing, and it gets even more interesting when you learn about what we're made of and what all that stuff does and how well our bodies are made. Whether you believe we were made by God or by evolution or both, it's still a great achievement. In fact, all life is.

[Denyer]

Funny you should mention that- I was just reading The Times and found this! Very interesting Ol' Robert Winston believes we have a genetic predisposition to believing in 'higher powers' greater than ourselves

I skipped reading the article... I wouldn't say it's genetic, as such, except as a factor of biology. We automatically draw cause-effect links.

Belief isn't surprising—people aren't keen on the idea that what makes them 'them' will stop at some point. When things aren't going well, the idea that they will is something to cling to. And it doesn't take long to realise the power of validating actions against people you don't like with unseen support.

What good is it to be a member of a religion and say, "I believe in such-and-such a God and I follow such-and-such a teaching, except for the part that makes me an involuntary slave and second class citizen and subjects me to one of the most brutal and bafflingly twisted legal systems on Earth."

People still try to salvage the label of 'Christian' from its history... other religions aren't much different.

[sprunkner]

At what point do you get to draw the line between what you believe and what you don't? And what's the point of saying you believe, and then disbelieving the parts that aren't convenient for you?
Oh, yeah... and if you want to see exploding water in zero gravity, check this out. It's really frikkin cool.

http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/balloon/blob.htm

It is really freaking cool.

I'm not sure I ever needed a God gene to convince me that I was awesome... I tend towards that line of thought already.

But J's question remains. Hmm... You draw the line where your conscience tells you it's wrong. If there is a God, then he gave you that conscience for a reason. Religion is subject to abuse by men, whether it comes from God or not. If there is a God, then He has proved over and over that He won't stop very bad things from happening, whether they're done in His name or not.

It seems silly to question why people will refuse to accept certain parts of religions. Everyone is different, and with something that is supposed to be as broad and all-inclusive as religion, people are going to accept it in different ways. Especially if your conscience rings when someone abuses their authority.

Besides, dogma and law make up very little of any religious person's life. Doing good is what matters. Those religions that tend to focus on dogma and law tend to shrink rapidly (think of Orthodox Judaism). Whether you're doing it for Allah, Buddha, Jesus or me (the church of Sprunk awaits faithful converts), you should help others.

[Best First]

It's possible to believe in science and God.

ugh. i hate this one. Sorry, rational and irrational are mutually exclusive. Science does not point to any divine plan whatsoever.

And all this, oh, if you take the Adam and Eve bit to mean, er, something different, then its all cool. please.

Whether you believe we were made by God or by evolution or both, it's still a great achievement. In fact, all life is.

...how?

if you don't believe in a divine force the notion of achievement goes out the window, and if you do believe in God then he is all pwoerful so big deal.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Cant agree more.

I wonder if steven Hawkings with his appreciation of how the universe works belives in a higher creation method... or perhaps he thinks it all explains itself nicely because he has a greater understanding of it all.

[Best First]

perhaps he just accepts that there are thinsg we don't currently know and doesn't insist on filling the gaps with mumbo-jumbo.

[Nebbie]

*shrugs* It works for me. Whatever works for you is between you and whatever you do (or don't) believe in.

I am not a stupid person. Ask Karly. I really hate implications that I am simply because I choose to believe in something greater than myself. If you choose not to, then great for you.

[Best First]

*shrugs* It works for me. Whatever works for you is between you and whatever you do (or don't) believe in.

and as the massive campaigns for ignorance and hate across the world continue to progress on the basis that 'it works for them'' ill just stand by and watch, eh?

if faith was entirely private, it would be that simple, but it seldom if ever is.

I am not a stupid person. Ask Karly. I really hate implications that I am simply because I choose to believe in something greater than myself

why do you hate implications that because you believe in something with no rational basis whatsovere that your logic is questionable?

[Kaylee]

and as the massive campaigns for ignorance and hate across the world continue to progress on the basis that 'it works for them'' ill just stand by and watch, eh?

if faith was entirely private, it would be that simple, but it seldom if ever is.

Her normally private belief does not necessarily have any relation on what other people decide to do with theirs so imo it's not very fair to hit her with that stick.

Or to look on it another way it actually is, however it implies we should all be thoroughly told off for our little misdoings (a lot of which are of I think immediately more measureable impact than subscribing to a religion): I can be blamed for damaging the environment by propping up a pollutive nation through living and working here, or can be blamed for the continuing awful problems in Africa because I pay tax to a nation which funds its leaders taking their holidays in Zimbabwe and allows its major businesses to continue to exploit the nation through various nefarious business practices. In the end we all play some small role in dreadful wrongs around the world.

In the final analysis I am responsible in such ways and many many more. We all cause damage, I don't think Nebbie is any more harmful than I or you are just because she chooses to believe a particular myth necessarily or that religion can be singled out as the single worst thing on earth.

Those with a mind to will always find reasons to convince themselves what they are doing is right regardless of religion. Case in point: the Prof. Smooth maxim of "Lets shoot everyone who believes in a religion" is imo a delusion regarding the nature of the issue by thinking religion is an illness rather than a symptom. Or to look at it another way, such an opinion implies a convinction that what is believed is right (with no rational basis I might add, unless some massive study or statistical analysis has passed me by) and that those who think otherwise are *all* bad with no exception. Although we may tolerate some of them as friends, they are still believed to be bad. Sounds vaguely familiar to some of my personal experiences at least and points to a root cause I feel.

Basically I'm not convinced one person's personal mythology is necessarily worse than anything the rest of us do.

why do you hate implications that because you believe in something with no rational basis whatsovere that your logic is questionable?

We all believe in the illogical imo so I suppose we are all questionable as logical beings. Hardly a news flash though.

EDITTED for repeating 'in the end' like some sort of broken cliche dictionary...

[Best First]

Basically I'm not convinced one person's personal mythology is necessarily worse than anything the rest of us do.

great, lets just not deal with or discuss any of it then shall we?

why do you hate implications that because you believe in something with no rational basis whatsovere that your logic is questionable?

We all believe in the illogical imo so I suppose we are all questionable as logical beings. Hardly a news flash though.

and repeat.

If people want to post their thoughts and personal philosophies with regard to this matter people are entitled to challenge them - it doesn't neccessarily imply picking on that person (so if we could skip the stick melodrama that would be great), its an exploration of themes, unless you think Nebbie is the only person who thinks God and Science can merrily co-exist or that she is the only person who then gets frusrtated when some people think this is daft and hence question it (its clear from my language that i don't think she is). I would have thought a more interesting and purposeful discussion culd be found down this route than "oh, but we are all a bit illogical" or "oh, but we all make negative contributions in some ways".

Or maybe i could pipe up in Jetfire's defence in the AIDs topic and say nebulous things like "ah, but we all invest into things with too little evidence some times don't we?"? etc etc.

So....why do you hate implications that because you believe in something with no rational basis whatsoever that your logic is questionable? Serioulsy? What is the basis for offence?

[Metal Vendetta]

As an aside, at least trying to explain my position on this sort of thing, I went to Catholic school, then CofE school, I got high marks in RE, I attended Youth Fellowship, bible study and theology classes. I reckon I'm as well-versed as most lay Christians, if not more. I spent a long time learning about Christianity and I'm not at all convinced by any of it. I disagree with it fundamentally in many important areas.

When I encounter someone who tells me they are a Christian, my first reaction is usually disappointment. Just a kind of sad disappointment, really. It probably means I won't be friends with them. Not in all cases, but 9 out of 10. And I think it's a shame and I shake my head and I move on. There's no point trying to convert them to my point of view and I wouldn't really want to anyway, and they will sooner or later get pissed off with my complete lack of respect for their religion, as many posters here have done. And I get pissed off if they say "God bless you" and stuff like that, I find it insulting and demeaning ("my invisible friend likes you") and so forth.

So yeah, I don't always assume religious people are stupid, but I'm much less likely to talk to them or try to make friends with them. I do have religious friends but they're in a huge minority.

[Kaylee]

One or two questions on that...

Basically I'm not convinced one person's personal mythology is necessarily worse than anything the rest of us do.

great, lets just not deal with or discuss any of it then shall we?

Because a general opinion of equavalence of issues infers nobody can discuss anything?

why do you hate implications that because you believe in something with no rational basis whatsovere that your logic is questionable?

We all believe in the illogical imo so I suppose we are all questionable as logical beings. Hardly a news flash though.

If people want to post their thoughts and personal philosophies with regard to this matter people are entitled to challenge them

Challenging beliefs means equating a single persons opinions with 'massive campaigns for ignorance and hate'? I can obviously understand how an attitude of "I'm right and you're wrong" is directly attributable to such outcomes but a person's inividual belief in a 'first cause' style deity is a bit of a push for me personally.

- it doesn't neccessarily imply picking on that person (so if we could skip the stick melodrama that would be great),

Melodrama being making someone out to be ranting when they calmly wrote what they thought on an issue? Obviously I've misworded something but i did reread what I wrote a couple of times before posting it and it sounded quite calm and reasoned to me. Primarily because that was how I felt when I wrote it and generally how I feel now.

its an exploration of themes, unless you think Nebbie is the only person who thinks God and Science can merrily co-exist or that she is the only person who then gets frusrtated when some people think this is daft and hence question it (its clear from my language that i don't think she is).

Yes... my drive is more that we don't tend to explore these issues anymore, we just start topics which essentially say religion is dumb and has elements which are hugely harmful. I didn't really see much discussion until I posted. I suppose that constitutes a theme though.

As an aside to my 'melodrama', nebbie didn't sound especially frustrated?

I would have thought a more interesting and purposeful discussion culd be found down this route than "oh, but we are all a bit illogical" or "oh, but we all make negative contributions in some ways".

Or maybe i could pipe up in Jetfire's defence in the AIDs topic and say nebulous things like "ah, but we all invest into things with too little evidence some times don't we?"? etc etc.

Nobody is stopping you and its a perfectly valid argument imo: allow me to elaborate it: the frog may have some as yet unseen property that will lead to a full cure for HIV and hence is worth the time and resources to investigate. I don't believe that would be a worthwhile use of resources due to its unlikelyhood imo but that doesn't stop it being a valid point.

I'm sorry for standing in the way of your intelligent discussion.

So....why do you hate implications that because you believe in something with no rational basis whatsoever that your logic is questionable? Serioulsy? What is the basis for offence?

Where is the evidence for offence? I'm entitled to express and explain my opinions as well as you are? Last time I checked, I wasn't quite so offensive about it either, TBH.

Obviously I've done something to upset you so whatever that is I appologise.

[Best First]

One or two questions on that...

Basically I'm not convinced one person's personal mythology is necessarily worse than anything the rest of us do.

great, lets just not deal with or discuss any of it then shall we?

Because a general opinion of equavalence of issues infers nobody can discuss anything?

the way you wrote it... yes? Or were your inane observations intended to prompt... what exactly?

We all believe in the illogical imo so I suppose we are all questionable as logical beings. Hardly a news flash though.

If people want to post their thoughts and personal philosophies with regard to this matter people are entitled to challenge them

Challenging beliefs means equating a single persons opinions with 'massive campaigns for ignorance and hate'?

ah, the 'words in mouth' tactic, i like this one, its a bit of an old school classic. Keep it Compton mofo.

- it doesn't necessarily imply picking on that person (so if we could skip the stick melodrama that would be great),

Melodrama being making someone out to be ranting when they calmly wrote what they thought on an issue?[/quote]

repetitive use though. hmm, maybe something different next time?

Obviously I've misworded something but i did reread what I wrote a couple of times before posting it and it sounded quite calm and reasoned to me. Primarily because that was how I felt when I wrote it and generally how I feel now.

jolly good.

its an exploration of themes, unless you think Nebbie is the only person who thinks God and Science can merrily co-exist or that she is the only person who then gets frusrtated when some people think this is daft and hence question it (its clear from my language that i don't think she is).

Yes... my drive is more that we don't tend to explore these issues anymore[/quote]

so it would seem when you pounce on people for asking questions that you happen to not like.

we just start topics which essentially say religion is dumb and has elements which are hugely harmful.

still waiting for an effective refute on that one.

I didn't really see much discussion until I posted.

its good that you are here to save us then.

As an aside to my 'melodrama', nebbie didn't sound especially frustrated?

"I am not a stupid person. I hate..."

sounds what? pleased? And again, a more general question as pointed out. Why are people’s rights to have irrational religious beliefs defended whereas other irrational beliefs, say racism are not?

I would have thought a more interesting and purposeful discussion could be found down this route than "oh, but we are all a bit illogical" or "oh, but we all make negative contributions in some ways".

Or maybe i could pipe up in Jetfire's defence in the AIDs topic and say nebulous things like "ah, but we all invest into things with too little evidence some times don't we?"? etc etc.

Nobody is stopping you and its a perfectly valid argument imo: [/quote]

its not an argument at all - its just saying 'calm down and leave them alone'.

I'm sorry for standing in the way of your intelligent discussion.

evidently.

So....why do you hate implications that because you believe in something with no rational basis whatsoever that your logic is questionable? Seriously? What is the basis for offence?

Where is the evidence for offence? I'm entitled to express and explain my opinions as well as you are?

and to have them challenged, last i checked. Plus if you can't explain it, i.e. 'its just what i believe', why shouldn't people point out that as arguments go, that's actually rather rubbish in terms of debating the point? And therefore something of a brick wall in terms of evolving ideas?

Last time I checked, I wasn't quite so offensive about it either, TBH.

ooh, good one.

maybe I’m just more direct about my insults mate. Possibly a subjective matter tho, eh?

Obviously I've done something to upset you so whatever that is I appologise.

yes, i'm horribly upset. thanks for the sincere apology though, it sits well at the foot of that post.

Christ.

My two points, which seem to have been lost along the way;

"its what i believe" as an effective refute is a horribly dangerous notion

and

if you are going to believe in something that based on all available empirical evidence is daft some people will think you are a bit stupid in some way, this doen't mean you as a whole, just an aspect of your outlook. Given that what you believe based on all available empirical evidence is daft and you are incapabel of explaining it to them in rational terms don't be suprised.

If anything i don't see it as stupid (her words) more some kind of weird blindspot. i'm sure there are religous types who see it exactly the same way but in the opposite direction. Either way its patronising but at least on the agnostic/athiest side you can back it up with reason.

and a third one, for good measure, if you are testy about your faith being criticised don't bring it up in a discussion forum. Or do, and learn to live with the questions.

cheers.

[Kaylee]

maybe I’m just more direct about my insults mate. Possibly a subjective matter tho, eh?

Paul, why would I insult you after all this time? Why would you want to insult me?

[Best First]

maybe I’m just more direct about my insults mate. Possibly a subjective matter tho, eh?

Paul, why would I insult you after all this time? Why would you want to insult me?

er...

People's manners are sometimes offensive to others. Me, i'm quick to criticise and horribly sarcastic as well as sometimes patronising*, as are you sometimes on the last point. Some people just find this funny, others hate it. meh.

I don't actively want to isnult you, but if you write something that i think i a bit stupid i will not neccessarily point this out in the fluffiest way because that's not how i tend to do things. Equally when you disagree there is a good chnace you will try and be a bit clever as its part of who you are.

maybe i'm just generally offensive.

good t-shirt slogan actually.

so after all this time we have a good t-shirt slogan.

i'm also quite flippant.

*but in my defence always, always right, like Jesus, but with beter facial hair, i.e non

[Kaylee]

I don't mean to be patronising or horrid I'm very sorry. I don't want to fight.

[Best First]

I don't mean to be patronising or horrid I'm very sorry. I don't want to fight.

It's just a disagreement Karl. no biggie.

don't see any horrid anywhere either.

[Kaylee]

I don't mean to be patronising or horrid I'm very sorry. I don't want to fight.

It's just a disagreement Karl. no biggie.

don't see any horrid anywhere either.

I've got a huge lot of time and respect for you, i don't think you're horrid either.

[Best First]

I've got a huge lot of time and respect for you, i don't think you're horrid either.

i'm sure i am sometimes...

[Denyer]

It's possible to believe in science and God.

Whilst it's possible to believe in scientific findings (i.e. without investigation or inquiry into process, evidence and analysis for yourself), science proceeds from skepticism rather than belief. "We think this could have happened" rather than "this is what happened".

Why are people’s rights to have irrational religious beliefs defended whereas other irrational beliefs, say racism are not?

"It's what I believe" is only of relevance when setting policy that applies to or impacts upon others. Racism has a clear negative impact, believing that fairies live at the bottom of the garden doesn't. When those beliefs extend to hate speech or incitement to violence, fine, put the boot in.

[Best First]

impacts upon others

i think that can be defined in terms a bit broader than setting policy...