[Jackobyte]

*must not click Jedi*

[thisisadamh]

I try to aspire to: Treat Others As You Would Like To Be Treated. I do believe in a hight power too. I am still finding out my beliefs but this is where I stand now. But I will always try and practice Treat Others As You Would Like To Be Treated.

[almostnever]

I voted Jedi.

If we're to put serious labels on it (and I generally dislike labelling things because labels are rarely sufficiently accurate), I'm a secular humanist.

[Agnostic Mantis]

Originally Posted by Pygmalion

To be honest if someone needs a religion to tell them that being nice to other people is a good thing then there's something seriously wrong with them.
No point sugar coating it.

I didn't suggest that you wasn't possible for someone to be a loving, caring or nice person without religion- of course it's possible, I know people who aren't religious and are still great people.

I think that what you're saying is like going "If a child needs a parent to tell them that reading is a good thing, there's something seriously wrong with them." As a child, I think the reinforcement those parables offered influenced me, and had influenced the people around me, in order for me to recognise them as something important I could accept and use.

All I meant was that whatever beliefs I adopt in the future or have previously held, there are some core teachings in religion that at least influence me- maybe they are, as you suggest, common human values anyway- but looking around at the world tells me that being nice and caring about other people isn't always number one on the agenda.

PS. God damn it Pygmalion, you always crop up on contentious issues and make me stay up longer than I want to. You're a menace.

[amacachi]

Originally Posted by KnifeWRENCH

They may be insane to you or to me, but not to the person who believes it. I'm not saying you have to respect anyone's beliefs, I'm just saying be nice and don't throw copies of Dawkins books at them or whatever. If they let you be, leave them be.

So once someone honestly believes something it isn't insane?
And it'd be Hitchens books I'd offer them.

I guess the way I should be saying it is that religious views are not above criticism when they conflict with human rights. But when religious views don't go any further than "Jesus loves me so long as I'm not murdering anyone" then I don't see why anyone would bother going to the trouble of arguing with them over it. Tbh, most "Catholics" today are just decent folk who say prayers every so often and go to mass once a week. They're not marching down the street calling for teh gheys to be shot or for anyone who works on the sabbath to be stoned. So why would anyone bother actively trying to make those people feel bad?

What is militant Atheism though? Writing a book about religion or appearing on a TV debate about it? Arguing against creationists or elements of a church who claim that condoms and anti-retrovirus drugs cause AIDS? I'm verging on strawmanning this but I would love a definition.

[amacachi]

Originally Posted by Agnostic Mantis

All I meant was that whatever beliefs I adopt in the future or have previously held, there are some core teachings in religion that at least influence me- maybe they are, as you suggest, common human values anyway- but looking around at the world tells me that being nice and caring about other people isn't always number one on the agenda.

Trouble with picking values from a huge book is that there's a huge variety of values you could decide on so why limit yourself to just that book?

[Ginja Ninja]

I'm Agnostic,but a bad one at that.I have had all the catholic stuff,but that was just how things went down around here
I've no interest in anyone's beliefs,it's a personal thing it's all the crazy rues that annoy me,but they don't offend me[just to clarify that]
I ,for a number of personal reasons, don't want to believe in a god,if there is he's got some explanations to give me if I ever see him.

I'd somewhat believe in Karma and the over all balance of things[not in a specific religious way] but that's because from a logic point of view that means statistically a life can just be a horrible unrelenting mess and there won't be an upside,which I couldn't have, for a while there I had to believe there would be some good to balance out the rest[and there has been to be fair] just to give hope more than anything.

There may or may not have been a god,just not 4,000 years ago.That we'll never know[not in my lifetime anyway] so it won't really matter to me much.

I do definitely believe in faith,whether it's faith in some higher power,the quality of other people or something else.Human beings just need something to believe in from time to time for a number of reasons.

Tl;DR:its important to have faith,but individual faiths can be quite nutty so just hang loose and roll with it.

-Alan

P.S:The jedi things is part of the last census in the UK as a protest thousands of people were asked to put down jedi as their religion and if I remember right it came out as a larger religion that Judaism[jewish] in the final results.Google it

[KnifeWRENCH]

Originally Posted by amacachi

So once someone honestly believes something it isn't insane?
And it'd be Hitchens books I'd offer them.

Well, since no-one really knows what's out there, no-one can be sure what "insane" means in this context.
And I actually quite like Dawkins, but Hitchens pisses me off enormously. The man is so arrogant.

What is militant Atheism though? Writing a book about religion or appearing on a TV debate about it? Arguing against creationists or elements of a church who claim that condoms and anti-retrovirus drugs cause AIDS? I'm verging on strawmanning this but I would love a definition.

I wouldn't count any of those as being militant, really. I would take militant atheism as meaning "people going actively out of their way to belittle anyone who has religious beliefs", as in not merely disagreeing with religion but being hostile towards it.

And this is what I have a problem with. Feel free to be hostile towards the Pope when he's recommending AIDS over condoms. Or Fred Phelps, or the Ayatollahs who issue fatwas. But why be hostile towards Mary down the road, who doesn't harm a soul but who says prayers to the Virgin Mary for her friends and family every night because she believes that they'll be listened to?

The whole "Religion is silleh and all religious people MUST be made fun of" thing is something I just don't like to see.

[Insect Overlord]

The poll is fundamentally flawed: where is Pastafarianism?!

I used to be fairly religious as a child. I was one of the good readers so I usually got Prayers of the Faithful at masses and stuff. The local church used to get kids to do the Second Reading at mass and I started doing that when I was 11 or 12. We had a world-class Taize choir in the parish as well, and they did a special mass every Saturday evening. All the lights were turned off and there were hundreds of candles and a harpist accompanying all the hymns. It was incredible, I loved it.

But, ironically enough, I was enjoying those masses most just as I was starting to question stuff. Even in the build-up to my Confirmation I didn't believe half the stuff we were supposed to follow. I first felt something was amiss in 4th Class, looking through our RE book. The style of how it was written, the constant repetition, the in-your-face symbolism, it didn't seem right somehow. I kept spotting the same pattern as I got a bit older, right through into secondary school.

By that stage I was getting a bit older, reading bigger books, no longer believing in Santa, etc. I had the vocabulary to question things, even in my own head. That said, after my grandad died, I prayed to him/for him for most of the year. I fell out of that habit by the time I was 14. Stopped going to mass as well, and never really got back into it.

The various scandals and a selection of bizarre rules put me off Catholicism and then Christianity, but I used to think I was "spiritual" for a while anyway. I love music and nature and I enjoy meditating. I like personal development and being introspective. I don't, however, believe in an after-life or (as Knifey so nicely put it) an interventionist God who loves us all. Perhaps Buddhism is what I'm looking for.

[Pygmalion]

Originally Posted by Agnostic Mantis

I think that what you're saying is like going "If a child needs a parent to tell them that reading is a good thing, there's something seriously wrong with them." As a child, I think the reinforcement those parables offered influenced me, and had influenced the people around me, in order for me to recognise them as something important I could accept and use.

Well I don't consider telling a child some parables to be dangerous or anything in itself, parables are a good way to teach certain lessons, whether or not the parables may have some link to a religion.

I enjoyed hearing some parables about Jesus, I also enjoyed some of Aesop's fables, which offer equally good messages in my opinion.
The difference in my opinion is the way they're treated, Aesop's fables are taught as fun stories which demonstrate morality, with no claimed truth or divinity; the parables of Jesus are taught as unquestionable fact as part of religious instruction.

Both are used as moral guidance, and I won't claim either is more or less effective, but the latter is also used to reinforce belief in a particular religion and it's this I have a problem with.
I believe that the same effect can be achieved (and in many cases is achieved) without the religious instruction and claimed knowledge of divinity that accompanies the story.

[amacachi]

Originally Posted by KnifeWRENCH

Well, since no-one really knows what's out there, no-one can be sure what "insane" means in this context.

Gonna have to agree to disagree on this.

And I actually quite like Dawkins, but Hitchens pisses me off enormously. The man is so arrogant.

If I were as right as him about things I'd be pretty arrogant too.

I wouldn't count any of those as being militant, really. I would take militant atheism as meaning "people going actively out of their way to belittle anyone who has religious beliefs", as in not merely disagreeing with religion but being hostile towards it.

Again there are few instances I can think of that tbh, and the historical state examples that some may cite are about power, not belief.

And this is what I have a problem with. Feel free to be hostile towards the Pope when he's recommending AIDS over condoms. Or Fred Phelps, or the Ayatollahs who issue fatwas. But why be hostile towards Mary down the road, who doesn't harm a soul but who says prayers to the Virgin Mary for her friends and family every night because she believes that they'll be listened to?

Again hostility is being mentioned with little example. I know of few people who would challenge an older person about their faith, I know I wouldn't unless they started some BS. If you can come up with an example of someone who hunts down theists to demean them let me know.

The whole "Religion is silleh and all religious people MUST be made fun of" thing is something I just don't like to see.

Better than issuing a fatwa I think.

[ReacherCreature]

Originally Posted by KnifeWRENCH

Which brings me to something Jako8 mentions. The views of the Catholic Church and many other major organised religions on homosexuality, contraception, abortion, euthenasia.....quite frankly, they disgust me. Even civil rights have been quashed by religion; I'm not tarring all Muslims with the same brush because some Muslim countries are comparatively moderate (Turkey and Jordan, for example.) But just look at what people have to go through in Saudi Arabia., under the ever watching eye of the Mutaween (religious police.) It's just.......ugh. Mindboggling.

Like I mentioned before, militant atheism pisses me off. Because I hate to see decent religious people being made fun of for their beliefs. I have no problem with religious people, so long as they don't cram their beliefs down my throat

The views of the Church are views that are literally centuries old. It's an ancient decree by today's standards. What was suitable at the birth of the Catholic Church was widely held, for example, man and woman marrying, no contraception. No homosexuals etc. That was the traditional way of life. What the Catholic Church needs is deep and lasting reform on these issues but of course this is far easier said than done.

Also, what you're saying is self-defeating. Muslims: Sunnis, Shi'ites, Wahhabis etc. are a completely different culture to our own and their cultures are accepted and not thought about fundamentally i.e looking for change. Different ways of life.

For the record I'm a Catholic. In the last few years I've become more closely related to the religion but in the middle, not totally religious or non-religious, in the middle. Studying my course: History, plants a lot of doubt about religion and in the same way can inspire you to think about the whole thing.

[Pigwidgeon]

I was raised Catholic, baptised, communion, confirmation, mass every week like most people here. Neither of my parents are religious themselves, they just brought me and my brother, until we were confirmed, and then left it up to us whether we wanted to go. Naturally, I haven't been to mass bar communions/weddings/christenings/school stuff since my confirmation.

I strongly disagree with a lot of what the Catholic Church stand for, and don't believe in general in a lot of their teachings. I don't plan to get married/have my funeral in a church, nor will I baptise my children. I'll leave it until they're old enough to decide, and let them choose.

I've never been overly religious, as my family in general wasn't. However, it's only in the last two years, that my strong distaste for the Catholic Church has developed. All the stories that emerged from a body that had such power and control in this country sickened me. I felt so strongly about this that I wrote and essay on it in college, which for research I read the majority of the Murphy report. This is not something I would suggest people to do, it's absolutely shocking the lengths that were taken to try and hide the abuse that was going on within the church. After I had completed that, looked at both sides of the Church, I knew I didn't want anything to do with that religion.

However, I have no issue with or would never criticise someone over their choice to be a practising Catholic. My best friend is, goes to mass by choice at least once a week. It's something our opinions hugely differ on, so we rarely talk about it, as when we do it just ends up in a pointless debate going around in circles.

I believe that there's something out there that keeps some form of order in the world, be it a god or what I'm not sure, but I think there's something. I'm a big believer in karma, I believe that in some way everything comes back, and that there are always consequences for our actions. I also quite like the idea of reincarnation. I kind of believe in that, it's a nice idea. I'd personally be interested in looking into Buddhism a bit and finding more out about it. Although for now, I'm just taking bits that I agree with from here and there.

[Agnostic Mantis]

Originally Posted by Pygmalion

Well I don't consider telling a child some parables to be dangerous or anything in itself, parables are a good way to teach certain lessons, whether or not the parables may have some link to a religion.

I enjoyed hearing some parables about Jesus, I also enjoyed some of Aesop's fables, which offer equally good messages in my opinion.
The difference in my opinion is the way they're treated, Aesop's fables are taught as fun stories which demonstrate morality, with no claimed truth or divinity; the parables of Jesus are taught as unquestionable fact as part of religious instruction.

Both are used as moral guidance, and I won't claim either is more or less effective, but the latter is also used to reinforce belief in a particular religion and it's this I have a problem with.
I believe that the same effect can be achieved (and in many cases is achieved) without the religious instruction and claimed knowledge of divinity that accompanies the story.

Well, like I said in my first post, I disagree with a lot of the impositions that the Church makes on people, and of course I don't believe that every child everywhere should be forced to take any religious text, even the beneficial stories or parables within that text, as religious fact.

However, I think that as a young child, adding an (what you and I accept to be now) artificial divinity or importance to a lesson can help reinforce these messages. A structure like the Church can offer that reinforcement, whereas reading Aesop's fables (or teaching Maths or English) to children for a "take it or leave it" fun manner might not have the same impact.

Of course, like a teacher or a parent that's too constrictive in what they teach, the child might grow up, rebel (as you and I have done) and reject a lot of the teachings or boundaries imposed on us by the Church- and we'll see that Aesop's fables are just as relevant as any parable in the Bible. And that is primarily the Church's fault for not healthy striking a balance between leniency and stringency. But, as we know from our school experiences for example, for anyone or anything intent on imparting knowledge successfully, it is a difficult thing to do.

I feel that religion offers a good background, because it is so organised, for children to successfully learn certain lessons about morality. Granted, with it comes a lot of twisted morality which isn't so present in Aesop's work, but maybe that strictness and those rules are needed in order for us to learn as children- as we grow up, and broaden our minds, we can see the importance of living a good life, without someone telling us to- just like we know reading or writing is a good thing to practice, even though a teacher isn't threatening us with write-outs or detention anymore. In that way, we accept certain parables can stand along side something without religious influence/ or added weight to them, like Aesop's fables.

[kev9100]

I used to be very religious when I was little but as I got older I became more and more inclined to agnosticism/atheism. At the moment, I'd probably classify myself as an agnostic who's fairly sure there is no God. I do occasionally worry about it and wonder if I'll see my family/friends when I die but generally I don't think about it. One thing I am sure of is though if there is a God he/she is either incredibly incompetent or ambivelant.