Are you religious?

Discussion in 'The Science Forum' started by edd1989, Feb 23, 2009.

  1. Atheist

  2. Agnostic

  3. Religious (Any religion) with weak religous views and irregular/unlikely visits to place of worship

  4. Religious (Any religion) with strong religious views

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Negligent-Discharge

    Negligent-Discharge LE Book Reviewer

    ....... I dare anyone to read "Evidence Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell . Sure, you'll find loads of web sites having a pop at it, but if you knew yer stuff you'd have to agree.

    Anyway, no-one has answered my bit about never having said "Jesus" or "God" when out of bum-fodder, having to eat a Horror Bag or having someone throw rocks at you and you can't fire yer weapon.
  2. Of course it does, - every cloud has a silver lining :D

    - the same way that the Army ranks provides a structure for brain-dead, easily-controlled drunks who are incapable of running their lives without somebody to give them orders, or the Guards are somewhere for rich families to dump their overly-inbred lesser sons, or management exists to give incompetent psychopaths a career, or aircrew exists as a profession for arrogant, ignorant self-abusers ... from your description, the Navy or Government are obvious alternatives to a religious order :roll:

    Well I obviously did :evil: - you must have had a far more interesting Church upbringing than I did. I'm afraid most of the clergy, and even choirmasters, I've known have been decent, reasonable & heterosexual - maybe that's why I only get excited when sharing the showers with girls (of a legal age!) :twisted:
  3. You're diverging from the point. I'm not talking about belief in the existence of God in the sense of the Abrahamic religions, or the divinity of Jesus. I'm simply addressing Jesus' existence. So the rest of your 'logic' is irrelevant.

    You claimed that it was more likely that Jesus did not exist but was "a gathering together of fables and myths later codified by the Romans to make into a state religion.".

    My replies make the point that:

    - the Pauline epistles were written near the start of the existence of the Christian church and within the lifetime of people who could have known physically known Jesus - much earlier than when "The Romans" got round to formalizing Christianity (I presume you mean Council of Nicea?).
    - Paul claims to have met Peter and James. The further claim in Christianity is that Peter knew Jesus as a Disciple and that James was Jesus' brother.
    - The documentary evidence for Peter, James and the 'other apostles' is also scarce.
    - The documentary evidence for how Christianity initially spread, and who spread it, is also scarce - given the eventual importance of Christianity, using your argument, there ought to be a lot more substantiated information about its origins.

    With further regard to your statement "I'd like a bit more evidence than some bloke said that some other bloke he met in a pub told him that somebody else's brother/cousin (depends on dodgy translation) said...
    I am happy to say that the lack of evidence of the existence of Jesus doesn't not prove his non-existence but its bleeding odd that nobody bothered to record anything at all about this really important bloke."

    There are similar problems of proving the existence of several important 'historical' figures, for example Socrates - he also falls into the "I heard it from a mate" category. As for 'nobody bothered to record anything', you haven't quantified who you count as somebody whose word you would take - I strongly suspect that even if we dug up a letter from Peter you wouldn't accept that. Are you claiming that anybody who existed in Judea in around 30 AD was written about by 'somebody'? If you believe that it's just 'important' or 'influential' people, would you mind pointing me to the documentary proof of their existence? - all of them, that is. I content that there is nothing odd about the lack of documentary evidence proving anybody's existence in first century Judea. If nothing else, survival of such documents is a moot point.
  4. I admit to being melodramatic for the sake of eliciting a rise. :)

    However, the church puts itself up as a pillar of society and respectability and then debates whether or not homosexuals or women can be ordained, which seems to fly in the gface of legislation to protect equality. The catholic church in the US and the ROI has protected criminals and paid off victims. Some mosques foment terrorism and social disorder. And so on...

    My points are that society ought to be be more cynical about organised religion and that the churches must be more transparent, in order to flush out the bad apples.

    Sadly my brushes with the church (fortunately few and far between nowadays) have been less than interesting!
  5. Newbie here to (this part of) the thread but yes, I take the Lord's name in vain, especially when eating field rations, a race between how fast you can finish them before you get sick, and yes, I am atheist, humanist, scientific-materialist and all the rest. Can't say I had the Iraqi-kids-stoning thing yet but should do within 2 years, in Afghanistan, if Chilwell doesn't mind my eyes.

    However, what's your point?

    Yes, religion has had massive influence including everyday vernacular.

    Does it mean I should subvert my whole sense of reality with fairy tales, and lock out reasonable debate, instead saying "God" to every moral and metaphysical quandry?

    Oh God, these rations are sickening... Oops, I should now prostrate myself before an unknowable, unquantifiable, unprovable and completely intellectually useless entity and I should now support institutions and systems based on this?
  6. I think society is already pretty cynical about organized religion. However, I agree that the churches should be more transparent and honest about dealing with their failing. Certainly Christian clergy should remember that they are there to serve and protect the community, not the other way round.

    Well, there's probably one open near you most Sundays - you never know, your luck might be in :D

    I'm quite in favour of women priests - and one of the churches near me has a curate I wouldn't have minded being abused by as teenager.
  7. In which case PM me with the church details and I'm prepared to be open to reversion!!
  8. I think the most wonderful thing about atheism is that you are not obliged to answer for your sins, essentially you can live a life of sin & the only remorse you might have for your actions would be from your own conscience. I certainly indulge in this philosophy to great effect & I daresay if I were to enter the ungodly papal confession box I might never emerge again. I only revert to my native CofE in religious emergencies or to playfully snub the pagan Catholics.

    In short, one might live for the moment, do whatever takes your fancy, live for pleasure & that alone. This being the rule of Thélème- ‘fay çe que vouldras’ & all that & one that I fully embrace! If a disgraceful thought should enter my head then surely it is not my own fault, but that of nature :? If it is natures will & nature is my ruler, then it must be righteous! 8)

  9. Bollox.
  10. I beg to differ. God is not as proscriptive as many would like to think.

    Yes, there is a lot "Don't do" and "Do" but from a Christian perspective Mathew 22:34-40 is the basis for decisions:
    This statement forms part of the liturgy in most Anglican Sunday services. Mark 2:27 is also apposite "And he said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.'"

    If you want an analogy, QRs:

    The first sentence quite clearly states "strictly observed on all occasions". The second and third sentences equally clearly say something different - and I cheerfully confess to having made use of this fact on several occasions.

    And as with most things, there are interpretations of what the Bible actually means and about how best to fulfill "The Spirit" of the Law.

    So, back to the original point, working out what God wants involves a lot more thinking than you claim.
  11. I've noticed this tendency amonst atheists to commit a 'Peter' and deny that their fellows are indeed proper atheists when they end up doing things they don't approve of. Here's a classic example of attempting to push overtly explicity atheist regimes over the barrier into the religious grouping ... "ooh Look! They're worshipping Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot, he/she must be a god therefore their society is religious. They're not Real Atheists."

    Orwell strikes again. :roll:
  12. Not sure that that particular trait is peculiar to atheists!
  13. YesItsMe

    YesItsMe LE Good Egg (charities)

    Of course I'm religious ... let's say as far as I can throw a bible. :D
  14. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer


    As has been discussed earlier on this thread at great length. There is no evidence to suggest the existence of gods or the supernatural. There is however, plenty of evidence to suggest that there are no gods or the supernatural.

    There is no evidence of the existence of Jesus. Given that a lot of what is written about him can actually be attributed to other figures or is contradictory or just plain tosh its not unreasonable to wonder if he ever existed at all.
  15. I have yet to come across any plausible evidence to suggest that there isn't the supernatural or a form of power beyond our finite understanding that we often term God. It would be a stretch of credibility to deny the person of Jesus given what we know.

    As Al Gore said of George Bush; you [may] lack the spirit of enquiry.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.