Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Great AH Census of Religion

Options
1…111213141517»

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,090 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    'I just think that atheism is non-sensical and illogical in comparison to Christianity.'


    oh dear


  • Options
    #483
    Dublin_Gunner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    Jakkass wrote: »

    If Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and Chrisitanity aren't religions what are? Or are you referring to denominations?


    'Religions' are just ideologies on how certain groups of people, mostly geographically separated, chose to follow their 'god'.

    Its no different than choosing to follow a diet, or a particular lifestyle IMO.

    I agree that religion is separate from 'god', whatever one believes god to be.

    I don't believe in god being a 'higher power' or 'higher being' or any sentient entity of any description whatsoever.

    'God' in my belief of the word is the meaning, reason, explanation, understanding and interaction of EVERYTHING.

    I suppose I'm agnostic. Though I don't really fit agnostic or atheist. I'm not sure myself.

    The closest I can think of what I believe to be 'god' would be whats being searched for in CERN, and other theoretical physics labs etc.

    Maybe 'religion' or what others chose to imagine as their 'god' are just a different way of explaining, or understanding the same things a science.

    Maybe religion and science have ALWAYS tried to explain the same things, maybe religious orders have been very defensive when someone doesn;t agree with or believe their explanation of everything, whereas science tries to prove it - and religions (particularly christianity based) have never liked to be proven wrong (historically).

    So here's how I view it. Religion explains, (though however unrealistically) things we don't yet understand. Science explains things that we now DO understand, and endeavours to explain things that we don't yet. Until we do understand things, people will always have their 'religion' or 'god'.

    For the scientists, they have theories - and thats how I view things.

    Hope that all made sense - it did to me (sort of!).


  • Options
    #484
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »
    I just can't get my head around this. I mean I can tell that you're a logical thinker from your posts here and in other threads, but I can't see how logical thinking can be the basis of someone's faith.

    I find it reasonable to think that there is an underlying cause, and purpose to this existence rather than believing that there is neither. That's a huge part of it really.

    I will admit clearly that there is a part based on experience, and of course partly it is emotive given that it is described as a relationship.

    People may claim that none of their decisions are based on experience, or emotion, but in reality they play quite a bit of a role in everyday decision making. In addition to logic and reason though.


  • Options
    #485
    Deus Ex Machina
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,556 ✭✭✭Deus Ex Machina


    Jakkass wrote: »
    .

    People may claim that none of their decisions are based on experience, or emotion, but in reality they play quite a bit of a role in everyday decision making. In addition to logic and reason though.

    I think that is a straw man argument, I don't think people claim that none of their decisions are based on experience or emotion, what they will claim is that certain questions require the application of logic, and thus it is applied. You can consider all the emotional angles of an issue or question to the nth degree, but logic is clear and objective, if you violate it you have chosen to do so.


  • Options
    #486
    Charlie3dan
    Registered Users Posts: 661 ✭✭✭Charlie3dan


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I believe in God as Creator, and I believe that Jesus Christ came to die for our sins, to bring us back to Him. I believe that the Holy Spirit is with us, and guides us in this current existence. I believe that Jesus will return, and I believe that He will judge both the living and the dead.

    I pretty much hold to all the main tenets of Christian faith, which have mostly arisen out of a good bit of reading and research. It's been an interesting and exciting process.
    .
    So can we go ahead and call that a yes?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    All in reality that differs between you and I and this applies for the other atheists on this forum, is that I acknowledge God's existence as being a key part of reality. I'll admit that this affects my life to a large degree, but at the end of the day I am a human like you, or people of any other degree of conviction.
    .
    I would say whether you accept the existence of god or not is pretty immaterial. What differs between you and I, and others believers on this forum, is that I don't subscribe to religion which in my opinion counts for alot.


    Jakkass wrote: »
    How do you explain incredibly intelligent people who happen to believe in Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other faith? I would put it down to the fact that intelligence is something that anyone can have irrespective of faith.
    .

    You can be intelligent with a hint of delusion but to me that's still not intelligent enough.
    seamus clarified this above, but here you go again as he said it quite well
    Perhaps it wasn't well said, but the spirit of his comment was such that he feels that someone of a very strong religious belief will be quite evangelistic or otherwise not on the same plane as him and therefore speaking to that person for any length of time would be a boring/disturbing/frustrating/farcical (delete as appropriate) conversation because the entire time would be spent with God references everywhere.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    You do realise that the RCC isn't the only church in Ireland?
    .

    Bejaysus I do. Replace "the church" with any religion that happens to be prevelent in any country and it still applies.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    The evidence seems to suggest that a large number of believers who take their faith seriously are actually quite intelligent.

    Far too general to argue with.
    Even if it weren't, you're still trying to disagree with me rather than actualy defending your position.
    Anyway, I've responded to this above.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Charlie3dan wrote: »
    I would say whether you accept the existence of god or not is pretty immaterial. What differs between you and I, and others believers on this forum, is that I don't subscribe to religion which in my opinion counts for alot.

    If my beliefs encourage me to be considerate of those around me, to seek to live an informed ethical existence, with the hope of leaving a better world behind me, I fail to see what the negative is.
    Charlie3dan wrote: »
    IYou can be intelligent with a hint of delusion but to me that's still not intelligent enough.
    seamus clarified this above, but here you go again as he said it quite well

    I think seamus' view is reasonable. He personally didn't make much notice of your claim of all people who subscribe to their belief system as being ignorant. I think seamus' view is reasonable, in that I don't think anyone would want to hear someone ramble on about something they don't care much or aren't interested in hearing.
    Charlie3dan wrote: »
    IBejaysus I do. Replace the church with any religion that happens to be prevelent in any country.

    OK you said this:
    We've accepted the power of the church in this country blinding for far too long and even now atheism is seen by some as akin to Devil worship.

    I personally don't believe that my church has any power over me. Rather God has power over me.

    The purpose that the church serves for me is a place where I can go and 1) worship God, 2) listen to teaching based on the Biblical text, 3) form community with other Christians.

    I can equally, go home and read the Bible on my own. I can think critically about what the minister has said in church and work out for myself if it is Biblical. If I have questions, I can go up and ask him on any given Sunday and he can show me the justification for why he has preached X about Scripture Y.

    Nobody should go to church unquestioning IMO.

    I don't know, you might think that constitutes the church having power over me.


  • Options
    #488
    Charlie3dan
    Registered Users Posts: 661 ✭✭✭Charlie3dan


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If my beliefs encourage me to be considerate of those around me, to seek to live an informed ethical existence, with the hope of leaving a better world behind me, I fail to see what the negative is. .

    Nothing negative in that and you know well that's not what I would take issue with. furthermore, none of those things depends on religion.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think seamus' view is reasonable. He personally didn't make much notice of your claim of all people who subscribe to their belief system as being ignorant. I think seamus' view is reasonable, in that I don't think anyone would want to hear someone ramble on about something they don't care much or aren't interested in hearing.
    Ignorant wasn't a word I used, you're really trying to beat this issue over the head and make it seem like I'm calling everyone with a modicum of belief an idiot. I'm not...
    Seamus was able to discern what I meant. I don't think strong followers walk around dragging their knuckles OK. But if you have questioned religion and somehow found it to be true and worthwhile and defend it then your application of logic and reason is not even in the same realm as my application of logic and reason and I have no desire to talk to you for any length of time and I will be so bold as to refer to you as my defininition of an idiot.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I personally don't believe that my church has any power over me. Rather God has power over me.
    The purpose that the church serves for me is a place where I can go and 1) worship God, 2) listen to teaching based on the Biblical text, 3) form community with other Christians.
    I can equally, go home and read the Bible on my own. I can think critically about what the minister has said in church and work out for myself if it is Biblical. If I have questions, I can go up and ask him on any given Sunday and he can show me the justification for why he has preached X about Scripture Y.
    Nobody should go to church unquestioning IMO.

    I don't know, you might think that constitutes the church having power over me.

    Again, that's not what I'm refferring to. I'm talking about religion having power in terms of our laws regarding stem cell research, abortion, gay marrige, contraception etc etc etc and the list goes on.
    This also applies in not exactly the same but similar ways in other countries.

    You are right no one should go to church unquestioning and if you thoroughly question religion I don't see how you can remain part of it.


  • Options
    #489
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Charlie3dan wrote: »
    You are right no one should go to church unquestioning and if you thoroughly question religion I don't see how you can remain part of it.

    Unless it holds up to scrutiny, that is.
    Again, that's not what I'm refferring to. I'm talking about religion having power in terms of our laws regarding stem cell research, abortion, gay marrige, contraception etc etc etc and the list goes on.

    One could disagree with all of those irrespective of belief system:
    1. Stem Cell Research - This is disingenuous. The people who disagree with stem cell research, only disagree with the use of embryos in stem cell research. The reality scientifically is that adult stem cells can perform the same function as embryonic stem cells. If adult stem cells can perform the same function, what is the point in using embryonic stem cells. Pluripotent stem cell research can provide exactly the same result. Major breakthroughs were made in this in Japan and in the USA circa 2007.

    2. Abortion - It is obvious how anyone could find this wrong, irrespective of religious belief.

    3. Gay marriage - Again this can be argued against irrespective of religious belief.

    4. Contraceptives - I personally don't understand the grounds of opposition here even from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint.


  • Options
    #490
    Dublin_Gunner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    And yet another thread descends into Jakkass V Someone else.......


  • Options
    #491
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Dublin_Gunner wrote: »
    And yet another thread descends into Jakkass V Someone else.......

    You're a touch late, it descended into this a long long time ago :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    Charlie3dan
    Registered Users Posts: 661 ✭✭✭Charlie3dan


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Unless it holds up to scrutiny, that is.

    One could disagree with all of those irrespective of belief system:
    1. Stem Cell Research - This is disingenuous. The people who disagree with stem cell research, only disagree with the use of embryos in stem cell research. The reality scientifically is that adult stem cells can perform the same function as embryonic stem cells. If adult stem cells can perform the same function, what is the point in using embryonic stem cells. Pluripotent stem cell research can provide exactly the same result. Major breakthroughs were made in this in Japan and in the USA circa 2007.

    2. Abortion - It is obvious how anyone could find this wrong, irrespective of religious belief.

    3. Gay marriage - Again this can be argued against irrespective of religious belief.

    4. Contraceptives - I personally don't understand the grounds of opposition here even from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint.

    Yes these are complex issues than can be argued regardless of religious belief and if that's the case, valid arguements are welcomed.
    However, taking a position because it supports the views of an outdated book that's dubious in origin, effing mental and that's what I disagree with.

    Religion has affected these issues over the years and to lesser extent it continues to. Anything that effects these issues on reasonable grounds is welcomed. Anything that effects these issues because of religious views is idiocy.

    Apologies to everyone for Hi-jacking the thread. This is the very reason i don't contribute all that often.

    Also Jackass, you've contributed nothing to the arguement. You've just repeatedly argued semantics and tried to twist what's being said. Other posters have also called you up on it.


  • Options
    #493
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Charlie3dan wrote: »
    Yes these are complex issues than can be argued regardless of religious belief and if that's the case, valid arguements are welcomed. However, taking a position because it supports the views of an outdated book that's dubious in origin, effing mental and that's what I disagree with.

    What do you know about the origins of the Biblical text that leads you to think it is dubious?
    Charlie3dan wrote: »
    Also Jackass, you've contributed nothing to the arguement. You've just repeatedly argued semantics and tried to twist what's being said. Other posters have also called you up on it.

    Not at all, I just read your posts.


  • Options
    #494
    Charlie3dan
    Registered Users Posts: 661 ✭✭✭Charlie3dan


    Jakkass wrote: »
    What do you know about the origins of the Biblical text that leads you to think it is dubious?
    As little as you do.


  • Options
    #495
    storm2811
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,183 ✭✭✭storm2811


    Charlie3dan wrote: »
    As little as you do.


    I wouldn't say that,he really knows his bible.:pac:


  • Options
    #496
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    storm2811 wrote: »
    I wouldn't say that,he really knows his bible.:pac:

    I know a bit. I have much still to learn.

    What is frustrating is when people make claims about what people believe without actually knowing what they believe.

    Research done on Biblical literacy in Ireland both Northern Ireland and Republic show that as both societies are secularising, people are becoming more Biblically illiterate. In more cases than not, it isn't because people have intellectual issues with the Bible, but because they don't care, and they actually don't know all that much about it.

    Boards.ie is different in sections. On the Atheism and Agnosticism forum, people are much more learned about the Bible and about Christian tradition than on other parts.


  • Options
    #497
    sheesh
    Registered Users Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭sheesh


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    :confused::confused:

    yeah I know I could have put it a bit more forcefully :o

    I was furious at the outright coverup as outlined in the government report on Child sex abuse in the dublin diocese. the coverup seemed to me to be perpetrated by the bishops. I figured that the bishop made the call that nothing be done about the abuse.

    I figured the bishop made the call to either protect the church or his own career (i.e. wants to make Archbishop or cardinal one day) and let the rape of children be hidden.


  • Options
    #498
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,465 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Unless it holds up to scrutiny, that is.



    One could disagree with all of those irrespective of belief system:
    1. Stem Cell Research - This is disingenuous. The people who disagree with stem cell research, only disagree with the use of embryos in stem cell research. The reality scientifically is that adult stem cells can perform the same function as embryonic stem cells. If adult stem cells can perform the same function, what is the point in using embryonic stem cells. Pluripotent stem cell research can provide exactly the same result. Major breakthroughs were made in this in Japan and in the USA circa 2007.

    2. Abortion - It is obvious how anyone could find this wrong, irrespective of religious belief.

    3. Gay marriage - Again this can be argued against irrespective of religious belief.

    4. Contraceptives - I personally don't understand the grounds of opposition here even from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint.

    Don't talk waffle, these 3 are directly linked to the religious view of sanctity of life. The first 2 are basically the same issue.


  • Options
    #499
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    You can be a non-believer, and still be pro-life. I've come across some cases, even on Boards.


  • Options
    #500
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,465 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You can be a non-believer, and still be pro-life. I've come across some cases, even on Boards.

    I've never met anyone who was not religious and fully knew science that opposed abortion.

    Are you a Roman Catholic, correct me if I'm wrong, and you don't understand your faiths displease at birth control?


  • Options
    #501
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Are you a Roman Catholic, correct me if I'm wrong, and you don't understand your faiths displease at birth control?

    I'm not a Roman Catholic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,465 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm not a Roman Catholic.

    What religion are you?

    For 1 of the Abrahamic madness' views with regards contraception see here:

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


  • Options
    #503
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ush1 wrote: »
    What religion are you?

    I'd always identify myself as Christian first, but I'm Anglican by denomination. I'd be quite Reformed in how I think.
    Ush1 wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae

    That's the RCC. The Biblical basis for prohibiting contraceptives is limited at best.


  • Options
    #504
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,465 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The Biblical basis for anything is limited at best.

    FYP :D


  • Options
    #505
    g5fd6ow0hseima
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,787 ✭✭✭g5fd6ow0hseima


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Research done on Biblical literacy in Ireland both Northern Ireland and Republic show that as both societies are secularising, people are becoming more Biblically illiterate.

    It just shows how the importance / prevalence of religion dwindles once it is no longer aggressively forced upon the populace.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    In more cases than not, it isn't because people have intellectual issues with the Bible, but because they don't care, and they actually don't know all that much about it.

    Of course, and thats because one has to get past the idea of believing in the idea of an all-creating higher power first. Never mind the idea of a certain religious texts which are purported to be the word of god. How can one study or evaluate the bible if one cannot fathom the very basis of christianity - the idea of that particular text being the word of an all creating god?


  • Options
    #506
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    Ush1 wrote: »
    I've never met anyone who was not religious and fully knew science that opposed abortion.

    I'm pretty much a de facto atheist and I'm not really in favour of abortion but I still think its a womans place to decide. So yes there are agnostics and atheists out there who aren't in favour of abortion. Religion has nothing to do with my views.


Advertisement