Will religion, in Ireland, die out?

Kivaro

dr.bollocko wrote: »

As soon as you begin to accept how arbitrary the concepts of any of the major religions are it becomes increasingly difficult to tolerate communications with those who do hold such beliefs.

I don't think that they are arbitrary at all (at all). All of the major religions are based on the same underlying fear-mongering and fables from days of olde.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Analogous to this is the problem of it being impossible to talk about atheism as an atheist without sounding arrogant.

The problem here is that we are so sure that we are right that we can hardly contain ourselves, hence the perceived arrogance.

Splendour

recylingbin wrote: »

I don't know anyone my age, or younger, who goes to mass. Apart from weddings, funerals, christenings and, maybe, christmas day.
Do you think participation in religion will shrink to levels of 15% or under when our parents generation die out?

Depends how you define religion. If you mean people having their kids christened/confirmed/make communion because of superstitious reasons then no, I don't think religion will shrink much at all.

I would love to hope so. I really would. It's possible it will decline... it seems to be going that way, but I don't think we'll ever be rid of religion - humans that is.

unfortunately.

Kanoe

didnt read all 14 pages but if history is anything to go by religions never die, they just get substituted, by another version of events.

They make up eternal punishments for disobeying their commands - fear has sustained them well.

The Shtig

I'm a teen and recently i started questioning my faith. I have no belief in the catholic church's teachings and find it disgraceful that they have anything to do the schools.

I did pray before and it helped me through some tough times but I guess that's all in my mind and i can do that without prayer.

What mostly made me turn away from religion is the problems it creates. Just look at the North 30-20 years ago. Also one night I was watching a video on liveleak of a few Taliban shooting down a helicopter and them all chanting 'Allah Akbar' over and over and i said to myself what brainwashed people! then i kinda looked at myself...

I do believe in some kind of after life. Near death experiences show this for me and i started reading a book on them and many of the people interviewed said they were in a new dimension with a greater power but not in a religous way. This gave me a lot of hope as i wondered was this all there is to life.

Just because someone does believe in certain beliefs doesn't give you the power to go bashing them saying they're wrong. I find it quite ignorant since we don't know who definately is right. I find people also feel they are far more intelligent than others for being a atheist and put believers down.

I'm not entirely sure what i class myself. I don't believe in any religion but i believe there is some kind of afterlife. Is that a Atheist or what? :L guess it doesn't matter what it's called really.

The Shtig

Deleted User wrote: »

They make up eternal punishments for disobeying their commands - fear has sustained them well.

I agree and this was what made me guilty for not believing in the catholic church. I thought to myself "**** what if it is true and i go to hell!"

starbelgrade

The Shtig wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what i class myself. I don't believe in any religion but i believe there is some kind of afterlife. Is that a Atheist or what? :L guess it doesn't matter what it's called really.

You would be roughly defined as being agnostic. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine, as opposed to an athiest who entirely denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Herbal Deity

starbelgrade wrote: »

You would be roughly defined as being agnostic. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine, as opposed to an athiest who entirely denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

It's not as simple as that at all. Many atheists are also agnostic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

It's important to remember that while the word sometimes has other connotations, Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. Not denial, or active disbelief, or anti-theism, just a lack of belief, the same way most people have a lack of belief towards fairies etc.

philologos

The Shtig wrote: »

I'm a teen and recently i started questioning my faith. I have no belief in the catholic church's teachings and find it disgraceful that they have anything to do the schools.

I did pray before and it helped me through some tough times but I guess that's all in my mind and i can do that without prayer.

What mostly made me turn away from religion is the problems it creates. Just look at the North 30-20 years ago. Also one night I was watching a video on liveleak of a few Taliban shooting down a helicopter and them all chanting 'Allah Akbar' over and over and i said to myself what brainwashed people! then i kinda looked at myself...

I do believe in some kind of after life. Near death experiences show this for me and i started reading a book on them and many of the people interviewed said they were in a new dimension with a greater power but not in a religous way. This gave me a lot of hope as i wondered was this all there is to life.

Just because someone does believe in certain beliefs doesn't give you the power to go bashing them saying they're wrong. I find it quite ignorant since we don't know who definately is right. I find people also feel they are far more intelligent than others for being a atheist and put believers down.

I'm not entirely sure what i class myself. I don't believe in any religion but i believe there is some kind of afterlife. Is that a Atheist or what? :L guess it doesn't matter what it's called really.

I find it very interesting that you conflate Roman Catholicism with faith in general. Just because one has found one faith lacking doesn't of necessity mean that there aren't any better out there.

I used to be in a very similar position to you a few years ago in fact.

Perhaps, just because people such as the Taliban, IRA etc (although I do believe the Northern Irish conflict was much more about politics than religion), doesn't discredit that God is out there. Rather it confirms what we already know about history, whether people are religious or irreligious they are capable of carrying out the worst crimes possibly against one another. This doesn't mean that God cannot or does not exist.

If one is being told to believe out of fear of other people. That isn't acceptable at all. What value is faith if it doesn't have any meaning to you, or if it isn't real?

Keep thinking, and whatever you do, don't close your mind to the possibilities that are really out there.

starbelgrade

Herbal Deity wrote: »

It's not as simple as that at all. Many atheists are also agnostic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

They would be agnostic atheists. There are also agnostic theists, but as the guy answered a simple question, I gave him a simple answer. .

The Shtig

Herbal Deity wrote: »

It's not as simple as that at all. Many atheists are also agnostic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

It's important to remember that while the word sometimes has other connotations, Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. Not denial, or active disbelief, or anti-theism, just a lack of belief, the same way most people have a lack of belief towards fairies etc.

Yeah kinda sounds like me. I believe that when i die something will happen and I possibly will meet deceased relatives or loved ones on the way and will see flash backs of my life on the way through a tunnel. This is a near death experience and not fully what will happen in the 'afterlife' I guess. I'm basing this on peoples experiences with NDEs where they see a light or end of a tunnel and feel if they enter it they can't turn back.

Maybe there's nothing at the otherside of life maybe that's when we completely shut down. Whatever does happen i will eventually find out. Actually kinda exciting.

Dave!

The Shtig wrote: »

Yeah kinda sounds like me. I believe that when i die something will happen and I possibly will meet deceased relatives or loved ones on the way and will see flash backs of my life on the way through a tunnel. This is a near death experience and not fully what will happen in the 'afterlife' I guess. I'm basing this on peoples experiences with NDEs where they see a light or end of a tunnel and feel if they enter it they can't turn back.

Maybe there's nothing at the otherside of life maybe that's when we completely shut down. Whatever does happen i will eventually find out. Actually kinda exciting.

Interesting post earlier about losing your faith

Regarding near death experiences, there's no need to introduce any kind of supernatural dimension or afterlife to account for these. So people see white light, why does that have to be anything other than what happens when your brain is traumatised/oxygen deprived/on drugs? Any time NDEs are looked at in any detail, it turns out that there's nothing magical happening at all.

Here's an interesting blog post on it:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4802

And if you feel like reading any more, check out this and this rather cumbersome analysis.

The Shtig

Jakkass wrote: »

I find it very interesting that you conflate Roman Catholicism with faith in general. Just because one has found one faith lacking doesn't of necessity mean that there aren't any better out there.

I used to be in a very similar position to you a few years ago in fact.

Perhaps, just because people such as the Taliban, IRA etc (although I do believe the Northern Irish conflict was much more about politics than religion), doesn't discredit that God is out there. Rather it confirms what we already know about history, whether people are religious or irreligious they are capable of carrying out the worst crimes possibly against one another. This doesn't mean that God cannot or does not exist.

If one is being told to believe out of fear of other people. That isn't acceptable at all. What value is faith if it doesn't have any meaning to you, or if it isn't real?

Keep thinking, and whatever you do, don't close your mind to the possibilities that are really out there.

I see what you mean how these things are not all because of religion but humans themselves. I don't know much about the different religions, politics etc. sorry if my post is silly

It's a confusing time and can be a bit scary but it is also interesting wondering about it. Unfortunately I have a hard time making decisions myself.

Min

Religion will be around as long as there is humans with a sense for the supernatural, the only sure thing is that everyone who posted here whether theist, agnostic or atheist will eventually die out.

The Shtig

Dave! wrote: »

Interesting post earlier about losing your faith

Regarding near death experiences, there's no need to introduce any kind of supernatural dimension or afterlife to account for these. So people see white light, why does that have to be anything other than what happens when your brain is traumatised/oxygen deprived/on drugs? Any time NDEs are looked at in any detail, it turns out that there's nothing magical happening at all.

Here's an interesting blog post on it:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4802

And if you feel like readinganyone it was all in my mind any more, check out this and this rather cumbersome analysis.

I thought of that, maybe it's just like a dream or hallucination. Would be nice if it wasn't though.

Thanks for the links will ahve a look at them.

starbelgrade

The Shtig wrote: »

I see what you mean how these things are not all because of religion but humans themselves. I don't know much about the different religions, politics etc. sorry if my post is silly

It's a confusing time and can be a bit scary but it is also interesting wondering about it. Unfortunately I have a hard time making decisions myself.

Nothing silly about your post or thoughts whatsoever - you're right to question things. It may be confusing now, but don't let that worry you - the more you read up & think about these matters, the more informed you will become towards coming to your own conclusions.

You might also find that you will come to the same conclusions by not reading up or thinking about it & letting your gut feeling take over!

On the question of wars & conflicts - they are of course created by people, but so also are all religions.

dvpower

Joey the lips wrote: »

How did you come to that opinion....?

The common age of baptism.

Den_M

Will religion, in Ireland, die out?

She studied scripture at St. Martins college. That's where I, caught her eye.

dr.bollocko

orourkeda wrote: »

While you may consider it arbitrary to believe in the major concepts of a major religion atheists are not and cannot be in a position to know any better than those who practice or believe in religion.

Yeah they can be. Cos they don't claim to have all the answers but are still asking the questions. As opposed to christians who have had the answers for 100s of years until slowly slowly they are eroded by science and hopefully, finally it will be apathy that does it permanently.

g5fd6ow0hseima

What i've often wondered about is the lack of effort on behalf of out parents to force the catholic faith upon us. I say this in relation to what I percieve as a type of parentally-forced adherance to faith which is common among muslim immigrants in Western Europe, but perhaps that's more identity driven. For example, the last section of this article sheds some light on what im referring to:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8673213.stm

Do any of you feel that your parents attempted to force religion down your throat? Why is it dying so rapidly?

Also, come to think of it, did any of your houses have a bible in it?

smokingman

I suppose the question needs to be asked; what would Ireland be like if religions died out.

Well, first off, there'd be a lot more cool nightclubs made out of the abandoned churches. Can you imagine a cathedral version?

Seriously though. The removal of specific religious teachings in our schools would be the first to go. I believe we should teach kids about religion but ALL religions to encorage understanding, not just specific ones.

The influence of the bishops on our society would disappear and honestly, they're doing a good enough job of turning people away on their own so I won't go further on that one.

There'd be no-one to turn up at Knock to see shysters like Coleman who pretend to be visited by x, y or z.

Government would have no reason to give special treatment to any religions, leveling the playing field for charities that are not affiliated with them.

....any other ideas anyone? What would it really be like?

ScumLord

Jakkass wrote: »

What makes you think its science vs religion all the time. Many of us, myself included think that science is a field that we should look at enthusiastically as to how the universe was formed, and how we are the way we are. There isn't a competition for me, both are describing different aspects of the same thing, our existence.



Dropping the ancient dogma, I assume you mean, just doing away with the Bible? - I personally think its one of the greatest strengths of Christianity that they rely heavily on it, and on past encounters that people have had wiuth God.

I don't see why it has to conflict either. Indeed, I don't believe it does!

Not so much doing away with the bible but taking it off it's pedestal so people can stop claiming it's the word of God, even though we know it was written by men way after the fact.

It is of course one of the most important books in human history, simply because history revolved around it and other holy books for so long. It's not got any facts in it though it's just an interesting incite into how people perceived the world in ancient times. But once someone says don't listen to the scientist that spent months/years testing and developing a correct way of doing something because this 2000 year old book says it should be done this other way, I would class that person as a certified idiot and a danger to the world at large if people where to actually listen to them.

I also have no problem with people wanting to live they're life to the power of Jesus or any of the other so called profits as long as they keep it personal. It's admirable to live your life to a high standard but I don't think 90% of Christians actually take on the message of Jesus and just seem to use him as an excuse to do exactly the opposite of what he intended. That being bring misery, suffering, hatred and misinformation into the world. But it's probably mostly the fundamentalist American Christians that are at fault for that.

philologos

The Shtig wrote: »

It's a confusing time and can be a bit scary but it is also interesting wondering about it. Unfortunately I have a hard time making decisions myself.

I know how you feel. Where I was was quite confusing, and quite scary also. Trying to determine where you stand on certain issues is something you'll probably be trying to establish into your twenties. If I may quote a favourite philosopher of mine:

Rene Descartes wrote:

SEVERAL years have now elapsed since I first became aware that I had accepted, even from my youth, many false opinions for true, and that consequently what I afterward based on such principles was highly doubtful; and from that time I was convinced of the necessity of undertaking once in my life to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted, and of commencing anew the work of building from the foundation, if I desired to establish a firm and abiding superstructure in the sciences.

It appears that many people have been where you and I have been.

I'm going to be one of the few to tell you, that finding higher truth to your existence isn't hopeless. There is something that binds everything together. I am also going to be one of the few to tell you not to give up. Just because something may seem difficult to understand right now doesn't mean that it may not become clearer as you get older.

Being biased, I would urge you to do what Rene Descartes said to do. Discard what one had learned originally, expose yourself to the Biblical text again, and see if you see Christianity differently. Don't think about what humans have done, but think about who God is said to be, and how this could possibly matter. It is far more important to understand the big picture, than get into small denominational tit for tats. Don't neglect atheist arguments either, they have very much helped me in the time I have posted on boards to be a better Christian. (I doubt they were made for that mind )

Of course if you have any more questions, please bring them up in the Christianity forum. People will always be willing to chat them through.

I'd also really urge you to check out some of the arguments in Philosophy of Religion, that both atheists and theists make.

Keep thinking, never give up, don't change your beliefs just because other people happen to disagree with you.

philologos

ScumLord wrote: »

Not so much doing away with the bible but taking it off it's pedestal so people can stop claiming it's the word of God, even though we know it was written by men way after the fact.

The Bible is on a pedestal for a reason. It can change lives, and it tells an amazing overriding story. There is no way that any Christian would ever consider discarding it. It is on a pedestal, because Christians do believe that God inspired it, and that He speaks through it. If there weren't any tangible reason to hold it as such, people wouldn't.

ScumLord wrote: »

But once someone says don't listen to the scientist that spent months/years testing and developing a correct way of doing something because this 2000 year old book says it should be done this other way, I would class that person as a certified idiot and a danger to the world at large if people where to actually listen to them.

You're dividing the scientist and the Christian. You do realise that many scientists in Ireland are Christians? Some times if things are fundamentally unethical, there needs to be safeguards in place. For example, abortion (especially if abortion is permitted because a child won't be the right gender as in Sweden), designer genes, embryonic stem cell research (when adult stem cells can do the same thing - look up pluripotent stem cells for more information), end of life medical practices (and yes, there are also doctors who are Christians campaigning in this area)

If carrying out certain scientific practices could be harmful to society at large, people need to stand up for what is right rather than just bowing down to whatever something says. The same would be true of religious leaders, clerics, bad philosophy and so on.

ScumLord wrote: »

I also have no problem with people wanting to live they're life to the power of Jesus or any of the other so called profits as long as they keep it personal. It's admirable to live your life to a high standard but I don't think 90% of Christians actually take on the message of Jesus and just seem to use him as an excuse to do exactly the opposite of what he intended. That being bring misery, suffering, hatred and misinformation into the world. But it's probably mostly the fundamentalist American Christians that are at fault for that.

Faith is never a private matter, and it won't ever be. My Christianity is a part of who I am, and I don't see any reason I should hide it just because it might tick you and a few other atheists off.

I do agree that Christians need to stand up more when they know that the Gospel is being misrepresented, but I totally disagree that Christianity should be kept private. If Christianity is the prime means to salvation, and truth in life, it would be immoral for people to remain silent about it.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Jakkass wrote: »

The Bible is on a pedestal for a reason. It can change lives, and it tells an amazing overriding story. There is no way that any Christian would ever consider discarding it. It is on a pedestal, because Christians do believe that God inspired it, and that He speaks through it. If there weren't any tangible reason to hold it as such, people wouldn't.

I dont believe there are, well beyond that so many people worshipped it over the centuries. I guess with salience comes legitimacy.

Jakkass wrote: »

You're dividing the scientist and the Christian. You do realise that many scientists in Ireland are Christians? Some times if things are fundamentally unethical, there needs to be safeguards in place. For example, abortion (especially if abortion is permitted because a child won't be the right gender as in Sweden), designer genes, embryonic stem cell research (when adult stem cells can do the same thing - look up pluripotent stem cells for more information), end of life medical practices (and yes, there are also doctors who are Christians campaigning in this area)

Abortion is entirely subjective and another topic, but regards euthanasia, are you telling me that I cant terminate my life? It's nice to see that some doctors fail to let archaic thinking get in the way of compassion.

Jakkass wrote: »

If carrying out certain scientific practices could be harmful to society at large, people need to stand up for what is right rather than just bowing down to whatever something says. The same would be true of religious leaders, clerics, bad philosophy and so on.

I dont understand this. Should we oppose theocratic thinking or what?

Jakkass wrote: »

Faith is never a private matter, and it won't ever be. My Christianity is a part of who I am, and I don't see any reason I should hide it just because it might tick you and a few other atheists off.

I wouldnt feel the need to show it though.

Jakkass wrote: »

If Christianity is the prime means to salvation, and truth in life, it would be immoral for people to remain silent about it.

Maybe it is for you, but here we see that in order for religion to become salient, it needs to be preached. One cannot independently arrive at Christianity, which is one of the things which influenced me when I was younger.

philologos

Lylah Elegant Visitor wrote: »

I dont believe there are, well beyond that so many people worshipped it over the centuries. I guess with salience comes legitimacy.

I don't think it is a numbers game that would inform me that there is a legitimate reason for believing in the Biblical text as the inspired word of God. It is through establishing a continuous chain in the Biblical narrative, and a chain that seems to respond to real truth in individuals lives as well. If the Biblical text was just full of isolated passages with no overriding unity, then there would be a huge problem with regarding it to be God's inspired word to mankind, and indeed, if it didn't seem coherent with truth this would also be problematic.

Lylah Elegant Visitor wrote: »

Abortion is entirely subjective and another topic, but regards euthanasia, are you telling me that I cant terminate my life? It's nice to see that some doctors fail to let archaic thinking get in the way of compassion.

Subjective in what sense? - I guess if I regarded morality to be man made I would be inclined to agree that it would be subjective. However, naturally I don't.

Perhaps the reason why doctors are interested in providing pallative care to alleviate pain rather than euthanasia, is because they find that it is hardly archaic at all. Indeed, if it were archaic it would have very little practical use. However, if you look around the world today, the Gospel has more pragmatic use, and practical activity than ever before.

Lylah Elegant Visitor wrote: »

I dont understand this. Should we oppose theocratic thinking or what?

What do you regard as theocratic? - I don't think there is anything wrong with people objecting morally and suggesting that we should be interested in the common good as well and to make sure that our science doesn't turn against this as it has in the past. An example of this would be eugenics in the Nazi regime. Its our responsibility to care about this, because if it doesn't we could be making big mistakes.

Lylah Elegant Visitor wrote: »

I wouldnt feel the need to show it though.

I'm not so sure. You seem quite happy to show your current disposition on boards

Lylah Elegant Visitor wrote: »

Maybe it is for you, but here we see that in order for religion to become salient, it needs to be preached. One cannot independently arrive at Christianity, which is one of the things which influenced me when I was younger.

It was mostly through reading the Bible for myself out of curiosity, that I became interested. It probably differs from person to person though.

ScumLord

Jakkass wrote: »

You're dividing the scientist and the Christian. You do realise that many scientists in Ireland are Christians? Some times if things are fundamentally unethical, there needs to be safeguards in place. For example, abortion (especially if abortion is permitted because a child won't be the right gender as in Sweden), designer genes, embryonic stem cell research (when adult stem cells can do the same thing - look up pluripotent stem cells for more information), end of life medical practices (and yes, there are also doctors who are Christians campaigning in this area)

I really don't think we should be turning to the bible to deal with these modern problems. It's like turning to the bible to try and fix a software error within windows, pointless and futile. As far as I'm concerned.

If carrying out certain scientific practices could be harmful to society at large, people need to stand up for what is right rather than just bowing down to whatever something says.

Yes we should think rationally and logically based on current data. I'm not just talking about technical data but all the data we've collected from psychiatrists to engineers.

Faith is never a private matter, and it won't ever be.

Why not? It's your right to express your opinion and of course you'll be influenced by the bible but I don't want to hear the input of some person that could have been stone mad for all we know on something that would have had him crying about black magic.

I do agree that Christians need to stand up more when they know that the Gospel is being misrepresented, but I totally disagree that Christianity should be kept private. If Christianity is the prime means to salvation, and truth in life, it would be immoral for people to remain silent about it.

It isn't the prime means to salvation, that's kind of dogma is what I really dislike about the Christian and other major religions, it's either our way or you've pissed off god and we look down our noses at you and secretly despise you.

Dave!

Jakkass wrote: »

However, if you look around the world today, the Gospel has more pragmatic use, and practical activity than ever before.

...so long as you throw out all the impractical and immoral nonsense that clutters it up, and just leave the good bits.

Just like any other book really It contains nothing that couldn't have just been written by a human with no godly influence

philologos

ScumLord wrote: »

I really don't think we should be turning to the bible to deal with these modern problems. It's like turning to the bible to try and fix a software error within windows, pointless and futile. As far as I'm concerned.

Your point would be valid if the Bible has an incompatibility with societal and moral issues. The problem for most sceptics is, that it isn't incompatible, and that it does have things to say about such matters and that Christians will be more inclined to that viewpoint than not.

ScumLord wrote: »

Yes we should think rationally and logically based on current data. I'm not just talking about technical data but all the data we've collected from psychiatrists to engineers.

This really doesn't convince me of your viewpoint. Talking to Christians as if they are devoid of logic or reason isn't going to bring them any further to actually agreeing with what you're saying. They are just words to throw into an argument to make it slightly more plausible on the surface.

To me Christianity is not the anti-thesis of logic or reason. In fact it can have both reasonable and logical applications in resolving moral issues that individuals may have.

ScumLord wrote: »

Why not? It's your right to express your opinion and of course you'll be influenced by the bible but I don't want to hear the input of some person that could have been stone mad for all we know on something that would have had him crying about black magic.

Its my right to express my opinion both publically and privately. My faith isn't something to be hidden, and I won't ever be hiding it, particularly when I believe that it has the power to change the world.

Indeed, why would I hide my opinion about the most important subject to be talked about, and its implications?

ScumLord wrote: »

It isn't the prime means to salvation, that's kind of dogma is what I really dislike about the Christian and other major religions, it's either our way or you've pissed off god and we look down our noses at you and secretly despise you.

That's a rather dishonest presentation of my position. I don't look down at you or any other non-believer. If I did, I wouldn't tell anyone about it at all, I would act as a Pharisee and regard people as unclean.

However, people generally tell other people about Christianity, or are willing to answer questions that people might have precisely because they do care, and that they want the very best possible for others.

Is it really looking down and despising to let people in on the best news that they could possibly know? - I would argue very clearly that it is the single most compassionate thing you can do for someone. This world, and this existence will be temporary, however, what people come to believe in this world secures their eternal destiny.

rainbow kirby

Jakkass wrote: »

This world, and this existence will be temporary, however, what people come to believe in this world secures their eternal destiny.

They're still going to end up six feet under in a box, regardless of whether they come to believe in somebody's invisible friend or not.

ScumLord

Jakkass wrote: »

Your point would be valid if the Bible has an incompatibility with societal and moral issues. The problem for most sceptics is, that it isn't incompatible, and that it does have things to say about such matters and that Christians will be more inclined to that viewpoint than not.

It does have things to say, we've all heard it and I don't think it's valid.

This really doesn't convince me of your viewpoint. Talking to Christians as if they are devoid of logic or reason isn't going to bring them any further to actually agreeing with what you're saying. They are just words to throw into an argument to make it slightly more plausible on the surface.

Sorry, your not devoid of logic but the bible is. Or at the very least it's logic is outdated and not based on the most current knowledge which kind of makes it illogical in my book. I'm not saying what it's saying should be completely ignored because it is human knowledge that came out of something but it's value isn't that great anymore.

Its my right to express my opinion both publically and privately. My faith isn't something to be hidden, and I won't ever be hiding it, particularly when I believe that it has the power to change the world.

Indeed, why would I hide my opinion about the most important subject to be talked about, and its implications?

It is your right but it's falling on deaf ears, I've heard the message, contemplated it and found it to have little value anymore.

That's a rather dishonest presentation of my position. I don't look down at you or any other non-believer. If I did, I wouldn't tell anyone about it at all, I would act as a Pharisee and regard people as unclean.

However, people generally tell other people about Christianity, or are willing to answer questions that people might have precisely because they do care, and that they want the very best possible for others.

Is it really looking down and despising to let people in on the best news that they could possibly know? - I would argue very clearly that it is the single most compassionate thing you can do for someone. This world, and this existence will be temporary, however, what people come to believe in this world secures their eternal destiny.

But what does the bible tell you to think of me? It's not saying nice things about a heretic like me is it? It's actively telling you to ignore or attack any decent from it's message, or am I wrong? As far as I'm concerned the bible is attacking me so I'm just doing the same to it.

philologos

ScumLord wrote: »

It does have things to say, we've all heard it and I don't think it's valid.

So, because you think it is, I should make my faith private or silent in my life just to placate your position?

ScumLord wrote: »

Sorry, your not devoid of logic but the bible is. Or at the very least it's logic is outdated and not based on the most current knowledge which kind of makes it illogical in my book. I'm not saying what it's saying should be completely ignored because it is human knowledge that came out of something but it's value isn't that great anymore.

Again, if this book is "outdated" why is it still influencing people in their day to day situations, and in charitable initiatives and so on. All driven very much by Christianity.

Its very easy to claim something is "outdated" its always much more difficult to demonstrate that this is true.

ScumLord wrote: »

It is your right but it's falling on deaf ears, I've heard the message, contemplated it and found it to have little value anymore

So, isn't the happy medium, to allow people to express themselves freely, and you to ignore it if you don't want to hear it.

ScumLord wrote: »

But what does the bible tell you to think of me? It's not saying nice things about a heretic like me is it? It's actively telling you to ignore or attack any decent from it's message, or am I wrong? As far as I'm concerned the bible is attacking me so I'm just doing the same to it.

The Biblical text says that we are both created in God's image with huge potential. It also says that God cares for His creation, and that He has our best interests at heart. It tells me also not to revile others, to go further than others would in being there for others, and to try and put others first in situations when I wouldn't ordinarily do so.

I think you're making gratuitous assumptions about what I believe about you, just to placate your own argument. That's not very honest of you is it?

ScumLord

Jakkass wrote: »

So, because you think it is, I should make my faith private or silent in my life just to placate your position?



Again, if this book is "outdated" why is it still influencing people in their day to day situations, and in charitable initiatives and so on. All driven very much by Christianity.

Its very easy to claim something is "outdated" its always much more difficult to demonstrate that this is true.



So, isn't the happy medium, to allow people to express themselves freely, and you to ignore it if you don't want to hear it.



The Biblical text says that we are both created in God's image with huge potential. It also says that God cares for His creation, and that He has our best interests at heart. It tells me also not to revile others, to go further than others would in being there for others, and to try and put others first in situations when I wouldn't ordinarily do so.

I think you're making gratuitous assumptions about what I believe about you, just to placate your own argument. That's not very honest of you is it?

I don't think that of you Jakkass but I think your in a minority of rational thinking Christians. If they could all be more like you I wouldn't have as much of a problem, but from what I've seen Christians tend to rely completely on the bible for their opinions and be very dismissive to say the least of anything that goes against what the bible says. If the bible wasn't used to breed hatred I wouldn't be so against it.

Handsome Bob

Barring no massive disaster over the next few decades, I can see religion eventually becoming irrelevant. It will not die out, but it will lose its place within Irish society. Again though, this is assuming that no disaster that strikes fear into people occurs. A recession allegedly led to an increase in church attendance, I'd shudder to think what a bigger (and more perilous) threat would lead to.

AshaD

Religion will never die out totally. Alot of people need it in their lives.
In my opinion religion is just the cause of conflicts and violence all over the world. I dont understand how people that are religious can justify these actions. Christianity will never die out in Ireland. Communions, Conformations, Weddings and other church celebrations are too much of a socail occassion here. Its influence in schools is just crazy and it will cause a socail divide between kids that are of different cultures and different beliefs. Its just insane.

philologos

AshaD wrote: »

In my opinion religion is just the cause of conflicts and violence all over the world. I dont understand how people that are religious can justify these actions.

People are the cause of these actions. Most atrocities in the last century, have been the result of causes which did not consider religion.

I don't see why believers need to justify these actions, just in the same way that I don't see why non-believers need to justify the actions of other non-believers who have killed.

Handsome Bob

Why should someone have to defend the actions of someone else? Why would someone insist that a person defends the actions of someone else? That's just ****ing stupid.

recylingbin

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Why should someone have to defend the actions of someone else? Why would someone insist that a person defends the actions of someone else? That's just ****ing stupid.

what about solicitors?

Handsome Bob

recylingbin wrote: »

what about solicitors?

That's their job, it's not the job of the religious to defend someone who has nothing to do with them or what they believe.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think it is a numbers game that would inform me that there is a legitimate reason for believing in the Biblical text as the inspired word of God. It is through establishing a continuous chain in the Biblical narrative, and a chain that seems to respond to real truth in individuals lives as well. If the Biblical text was just full of isolated passages with no overriding unity, then there would be a huge problem with regarding it to be God's inspired word to mankind, and indeed, if it didn't seem coherent with truth this would also be problematic.

So because it's well written, thats reason enough to believe that some book written over two thousand years ago is the word of God?

Jakkass wrote: »

Subjective in what sense? - I guess if I regarded morality to be man made I would be inclined to agree that it would be subjective. However, naturally I don't.

But surely you will agree with me that man is more than capable in establishing his own morals. Or do you feel he is unable to do so without being religious?

Jakkass wrote: »

Perhaps the reason why doctors are interested in providing pallative care to alleviate pain rather than euthanasia, is because they find that it is hardly archaic at all. Indeed, if it were archaic it would have very little practical use. However, if you look around the world today, the Gospel has more pragmatic use, and practical activity than ever before.

I was referring to those doctors who supported euthanasia.

I fail to see how religion has any relevance in todays world. When I think of religion, I just see negative issues, such as identity clashes, sectarianism etc... The most healthy societies in this world are secular ones. Religious societies tend to be home to the following - repressed homosexuality, intolerance, discrimination, violence etc.

Jakkass wrote: »

What do you regard as theocratic? - I don't think there is anything wrong with people objecting morally and suggesting that we should be interested in the common good as well and to make sure that our science doesn't turn against this as it has in the past. An example of this would be eugenics in the Nazi regime. Its our responsibility to care about this, because if it doesn't we could be making big mistakes.

Hang on, are you trying to say that further research into stem cells will culminate in a Nazi-like eugenics movement?

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not so sure. You seem quite happy to show your current disposition on boards

I just ran through this thread, and seen your post which had me baffled due to the claim that the bible has something to offer in today's world

Jakkass wrote: »

It was mostly through reading the Bible for myself out of curiosity, that I became interested. It probably differs from person to person though.

Of course.

philologos

Lylah Elegant Visitor wrote: »

So because it's well written, thats reason enough to believe that some book written over two thousand years ago is the word of God?

If it were just in the pages, it wouldn't be enough.

Lylah Elegant Visitor wrote: »

But surely you will agree with me that man is more than capable in establishing his own morals. Or do you feel he is unable to do so without being religious?

I'm sure man can derive his own morality. Indeed, I have argued in the past that atheists can be moral, but they are moral in the same way as everyone else is moral. They derive their morality from moral absolutes which ultimately are derived from their conscience, which in turn is given by God. Morality need not be learned by the pages of the Bible. However, the moral standard that exists and is binding on us is still very much God's.

Most moral action, whether people are willing to admit it or not are based on universal principles of right or wrong. People don't dispute one another because they are subjectively wrong, rather they dispute one another because one believes that one has universally wronged the other. We cannot rebuke, unless we have a coherent universal standard to rebuke the other by. It makes very little sense that morality on a practical level can be relative.

If the evidence didn't suggest to me that humans on a day to day basis behave based on universal principles. I would have no problem accepting subjective morality. However, it is unworkable in moral disputes, and it is impractical.

Lylah Elegant Visitor wrote: »

I fail to see how religion has any relevance in todays world. When I think of religion, I just see negative issues, such as identity clashes, sectarianism etc... The most healthy societies in this world are secular ones. Religious societies tend to be home to the following - repressed homosexuality, intolerance, discrimination, violence etc.

You're abusing the term "secular" here. Secular just means that Government is run without favouritism to religion. It doesn't mean that religion isn't active within those countries. For example the US is a secular state, but Christianity and other faiths are still very much active within it.

Although I am curious to find out why you don't think religion holds any impact in the world today, especially given that the Western legal system (that of justice, and rehabilitation - mercy) arose out of a Judeo-Christian value system.

Lylah Elegant Visitor wrote: »

Hang on, are you trying to say that further research into stem cells will culminate in a Nazi-like eugenics movement?

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that research can be abused for negative aims, and that we do need to ensure moral and ethical standards within science, and medicine.

Lylah Elegant Visitor wrote: »

I just ran through this thread, and seen your post which had me baffled due to the claim that the bible has something to offer in today's world

Indeed, I can't see how one cannot look to its pages, particularly the example of Jesus and not admire it.

Unfortunately, it is the individual Christians who make the worst case for Christianity. Heck, I'm sure I'm guilty to my own fair share, but I can only try to be the best person I can be learning more about my faith on a daily basis and trying to act better as time goes on.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Jakkass wrote: »

Most moral action, whether people are willing to admit it or not are based on universal principles of right or wrong. People don't dispute one another because they are subjectively wrong, rather they dispute one another because one believes that one has universally wronged the other. We cannot rebuke, unless we have a coherent universal standard to rebuke the other by. It makes very little sense that morality on a practical level can be relative.

If the evidence didn't suggest to me that humans on a day to day basis behave based on universal principles. I would have no problem accepting subjective morality. However, it is unworkable in moral disputes, and it is impractical.

So man didnt naturally come to foster moral norms as means of ruling themselves through an evolutionary process? They were bestowed upon them by god?

Jakkass wrote: »

You're abusing the term "secular" here. Secular just means that Government is run without favouritism to religion. It doesn't mean that religion isn't active within those countries. For example the US is a secular state, but Christianity and other faiths are still very much active within it.

Well I used the term secular to describe societies in which there is very little, if any, visible presence of religion. Perhaps this is not the correct term as the example of the US shows. Being a secular society, it's one in which religion does play a very important role. But look at it, its possibly the most homophobic and racist country in the devleoped world.

Take countries like the Nordic States or the Benelux countries - all states in which the importance of religion has receeded in recent decades, and they're amongst the more enviable societies in the world. But then again, Switzerland permits Euthanasia - which is possibly barbaric in your opinion.

Jakkass wrote: »

Although I am curious to find out why you don't think religion holds any impact in the world today, especially given that the Western legal system (that of justice, and rehabilitation - mercy) arose out of a Judeo-Christian value system.

Of course our legal system evolved from Judeo-Christian thought, but that's along the lines of asking what relevance the ape has in todays world, given that we evolved from that. Humans are constantly evolving, whereas religion is stagnant, sometimes attempting to play catch-up. For the bible to hold relevance in todays world, we would require the human race to become stagnant, or even regressive. The thought that the human race should be influenced, or even governed, in some form or other on the basis of the bible is a scary one. All I can say is i'm glad I didnt grow up on this island fifty years ago.

Jakkass wrote: »

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that research can be abused for negative aims, and that we do need to ensure moral and ethical standards within science, and medicine.

Everything on this planet can be abused for negative aims, but why mention nazi eugenics and mention stem cell research in the same breath? Why did you say that?

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, I can't see how one cannot look to its pages, particularly the example of Jesus and not admire it.

Unfortunately, it is the individual Christians who make the worst case for Christianity. Heck, I'm sure I'm guilty to my own fair share, but I can only try to be the best person I can be learning more about my faith on a daily basis and trying to act better as time goes on.

If you need a 2000 year old text to tell you how to live your life, fair enough.

Mike 1972

Lylah Elegant Visitor wrote: »

So because it's well written, thats reason enough to believe that some book written over two thousand years ago is the word of God? .

Its actually not particularly well written.

Packed with thousands of contradictions, Irrelevencies and vauge passages open to multiple interpretation.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Apologies if it sounds like im expressing this view, but I was just referring to Jakkass who attributes his beliefs to the clear, coherent words of the bible

fontanalis

Was Joe Colemans freak show on today?

coc.k_sh!t_

The-Rigger wrote: »

Maybe it will be viewed the same way as many people nowadays would view our ancestors who used to worship the sun, hilarious.

Though, comparatively I think worshipping the sun at least has some degree sort of merit and logic.

here here. now i'm not a neo pagan or anything (but i know a few) but certainly the old celtic pagan religions made much much more sense than anything that ever came down from the pulpit or the vatican.

Worshipping the sun, moon and earth and the elements and all that certainly had merit far in excess of all the seemingly arbitrary christian bunkum. These were all powerful elements that make life possible - earth -sun-water. Particularly the sun deserves much praise -if there is any god of us it is the sun, without it ther would be nothing but dust and gas and empty space. all the astromomy and aligments the pagan religions have have far more basis and in and can get along well with modern science. Same cannot be said of the "established" religions, which are complete scutter from page one.

nothing wrong with praising the existence of the sun and water, you're not conflicting with the facts of science by doing it. Compare that with 7 day creation stories, please. How can anyone delude themselves that much, it must be hard.

Glenster

Religion will survive in Ireland for the forseeable. And here's why.

Those leper Internet Warriors you hear going on about atheism all the time are, without exception, losers. Tragic, tragic losers. (I'm talking about you neckbeard)

Tragic losers dont breed.

And if we've learned nothing else from Charles Darwin (And we havent) if you dont breed you dont pass on your traits

ipso facto atheism will die out in the next fifty years.

greenpilot

philologos wrote: »

It's interesting, as most Christians (around my age for the most part, but quite a few older than I as well) I have encountered seem to be middle class.

Likewise, I wouldn't even be so certain about the USA in that respect.

dvpower: So I assume that most people who convert to faiths, just secretly have Christian parents somewhere too?

I'm referring to those who come to believe in Christianity in regions where it isn't as prevalent as it is here. In fact it is funny that the region of the world where there is a net decline, is probably the region where most people have Christian parents to begin with!

Philo,

I think now with over 17,000 posts on boards, you may need to spend less time on Boards, and quite a bit more researching the historical and factual origins of both the bible and the beginnings of the RC Church so that you may, like many of us who actually research the stuff in order to make an informed descision, come to a logical conclusion as to whether the wool as been pulled over our collective eyes ever since Constantine and the Council. Most, not all, but most of the folks who mumble their answers to the priest every Sunday havent the foggiest notion as to the Origins of the Church, and how the Bible as we know it came into being, nor do they care, but I can safely predict that in not more than two generations, Religion in Ireland is going to be a whole different landscape indeed.

philologos

I've done a lot of research into my position already, and I will continue to do more over the coming years. I reject the assumption that because I am a Christian that I haven't done research into my position.

As for the RCC, I am of a different denomination, and as a result I'm not a member of that church.

This zombie thread is like going back in a time machine though, so kudos :pac: