Are you religious?

[bigpod]

Guess as I'm an ordained minister I'd better declare for the Christians.

But how do I votee in the poll?

[bigpod]

Sorry - suddeenly found out how - must have been a message from God

[desert_lighthouse]

I agree with Dawkins that there is probably (if not certainly) no god in the personal, individual prayer answering sense.

However this doesn’t really blow the whole religion thing out of the water. Dawkins is making the same mistake as the loony creationists by treating the bible as literal truth. It’s not. A completely literal interpretation of the bible is actually a relatively new idea (the reformation) and there are plenty of medieval scholars who question the genesis story for example. Even the early Christians (such as Origen of Alexandria in the 3rd century) didn’t take all of it literally, but included allegorical and analogical interpretations. Even Darwin said in the Origin of species that his work should not conflict with religious thought.

As the poet laureate Andrew motion said, without a good working knowledge of the bible (an “essential piece of cultural luggage”), one can’t fully appreciate the art and literature of the past 1000 years. I’m not particularly Christian, but I am the product of and live in a culture that has been shaped by 1500 years of Christianity. I don’t think we should ridicule the whole the whole of the Christian tradition based on the antics of a few creationist/evangelical fcukwits.

Don't forget that the influence is not just one-way, the cultures of peoples converted by a religion, also change- however subtly- the religion itself.

Also one of the arguments by religious people that annoys me the most is the one that says that their religion e.g. the ten commandments, is the source and only reason for people behaving morally. No it's your culture that you grew up in that instilled the values and morals you live your life by, not the direction you aim your prayers in!

I quite agree. The culture of this country has changed the CofE massively. Compared to the catholics, the Church of england allows abortion, contraception, female ordination and homosexuality (unofficially). The reason williams can't be more official about homosexuality is a cultural one rather than doctrinal. The culture in this country and america accepts homosexuality, but the culture in africa doesn't. As head of the anglican communion, williams has to stirke a balance between the liberals over here and in the US, and the conservatives in africa (a simplification I know, but the african bishops have to compete with the imams for attendance and are seen as weak if their religion permits homosexuality).

Dawkins writes a very interesting chapter in the god delusion (Ch. 6 I think) about how morals and altruism could have formed in a primitive group. However I think that it is erroneus, even a little disengenuous of the humanists to believe that they can create out of thin air an ideal set of moral codes through pure human reasoning without any influence of the culture in which it was thought. Though the human rights act is accepted in Europe, I can't really see it working in asia for example.

Christianity is just a story through which we can find some meaning in our lives. So's Star Wars. The difference is 2000 years of entrenchment and scholarship.

[spuddles]

I agree with Dawkins that there is probably (if not certainly) no god in the personal, individual prayer answering sense.

However this doesn’t really blow the whole religion thing out of the water. Dawkins is making the same mistake as the loony creationists by treating the bible as literal truth. It’s not. A completely literal interpretation of the bible is actually a relatively new idea (the reformation) and there are plenty of medieval scholars who question the genesis story for example. Even the early Christians (such as Origen of Alexandria in the 3rd century) didn’t take all of it literally, but included allegorical and analogical interpretations. Even Darwin said in the Origin of species that his work should not conflict with religious thought.

As the poet laureate Andrew motion said, without a good working knowledge of the bible (an “essential piece of cultural luggage”), one can’t fully appreciate the art and literature of the past 1000 years. I’m not particularly Christian, but I am the product of and live in a culture that has been shaped by 1500 years of Christianity. I don’t think we should ridicule the whole the whole of the Christian tradition based on the antics of a few creationist/evangelical fcukwits.

Don't forget that the influence is not just one-way, the cultures of peoples converted by a religion, also change- however subtly- the religion itself.

Also one of the arguments by religious people that annoys me the most is the one that says that their religion e.g. the ten commandments, is the source and only reason for people behaving morally. No it's your culture that you grew up in that instilled the values and morals you live your life by, not the direction you aim your prayers in!

I quite agree. The culture of this country has changed the CofE massively. Compared to the catholics, the Church of england allows abortion, contraception, female ordination and homosexuality (unofficially). The reason williams can't be more official about homosexuality is a cultural one rather than doctrinal. The culture in this country and america accepts homosexuality, but the culture in africa doesn't. As head of the anglican communion, williams has to stirke a balance between the liberals over here and in the US, and the conservatives in africa (a simplification I know, but the african bishops have to compete with the imams for attendance and are seen as weak if their religion permits homosexuality).

Dawkins writes a very interesting chapter in the god delusion (Ch. 6 I think) about how morals and altruism could have formed in a primitive group. However I think that it is erroneus, even a little disengenuous of the humanists to believe that they can create out of thin air an ideal set of moral codes through pure human reasoning without any influence of the culture in which it was thought. Though the human rights act is accepted in Europe, I can't really see it working in asia for example.

Christianity is just a story through which we can find some meaning in our lives. So's Star Wars. The difference is 2000 years of entrenchment and scholarship.

Aren't all holy books just misinterpreted or miss-translated history books?
I have reached an age now where I am questioning the indoctrination I recieved as a child and young adult. I'm pretty sure that when I'm dead I won't be back, yet I have had experience first hand of what I can only describe as spiritual events. I know what I saw and I know what I felt.

I have a family member who is so fundamentally religious that she is
intent on disconnecting from any one who does not agree with her literal interpretation of right and wrong.

Aren't the ten commandments taught as rules for life in any religeon? My interpretation of them is Have time for yourself , respect for others, and do what your culture has taught you to be the right thing.

[Stinkerson]

I find this whole "The bible isn't to be taken literally" an absolute back pedal from all believers.

As soon as science disproves another of the bibles fairy tales religious people will always say that it's how you interpret the bible an not the actual text itself.

What lengths will science have to go to for major religions to come forward and say "OK, maybe we were a bit wrong"?

I recently watched the Christianity: A History programme which focused on a Creationist Museum in the bible belt of America that now states that religion and science can live together as it tries to pimp the lie that 'Humans and dinosaurs co-habited the planet at the same time in peace' Despite the facts given forth from scientific research that prove dinosaurs and humans could not have co-existed!

Just another way in which religion tries to alter it's lies in order to provide the ignorant masses with their 'Emotional Crutch'

I am an Atheist by the way.

[wompingwillow]

Then bring back the teaching of Christianity into ALL schools, after all WE are a Christian Country aren't we?

To teach if nothing else MORALS

No, I dont think we are anymore.

Charlie if you think Chiristianity and the Bible teach morals I would strongly recommend Richard Dawkins God Delusion and even happy to pass on my copy to you when I've finished it

[Carcass]

I hate Dawkins. Ever since he wrote that bloody book, every imbecile in the country is suddenly a philosopher.

[KevinB]

But on a related note, I read awhile back that supernatural beliefs may be hardwired into us from birth - not that it makes the existence of God any more or less likely - but perhaps does serve some evolutionary purpose.

Not hardwired into me since birth, as far back as I can remember I've never thought of myself as anything but a pointless talking monkey.

But having asked other atheists if they're the same, it seems I'm in the minority. As I'm much better looking and more intelligent than everyone else, I can only assume you're right about evolution and I'm the next step along the way. IMHO, of course.

I have met a few like you who never have had any beliefs - but I agree it is not the norm. Maybe when early man became conscious of his own mortality is when the 'hardwiring' began, as even Neanderthal graves were found to have 'religious' objects in them.

[Civi_Git]

I have met a few like you who never have had any beliefs - but I agree it is not the norm. Maybe when early man became conscious of his own mortality is when the 'hardwiring' began, as even Neanderthal graves were found to have 'religious' objects in them.

Its an easy way to explain to Mr Cavemans kids why hes not waking up and where hes went too.

Ever think that people they cared about are just afforded things of sentimental value to mark thier passing when they were buried? Wouldnt religious ideas and ceremony evolve in much the same fashion as proper functional societies evolved from nomadic hunter gatherer tribes?

People do irrational things when loved ones die, because a death is so hard to come to terms with. Were early rites/ceremonies just expanded and built upon as a means of justifying otherwise illogical actions ("This was Uggs favorite spear , lets stick it in there with him incase he needs it") until you end up smothering someone in gold and burning them on a longboat?

Eventually the ceremony and ritual just becomes more fancy and branches out into other aspects of peoples lives as new social challenges appear. Onwards and onwards as it becomes a convenient means to control ever larger groups of people.

[TIGER-MONKEY]

There are some very good people who are religious.
There are some very good people who are non-religious

There are some totally evil people who are religious
There are some totally evil people who are non-religious

There are some complete hypocrites who are religious.
There are some complete hypocrites who are non-religious.

However, it appears to me there are by far more religious people trying to force their views on how things are / should be on others than the other way round. For example I have never heard anyone who is non-religious demanding that people stop believing. On the other hand everyday we hear of the religious ones demanding that people conform to their point of view, often on pain of death.

The we have the IRA / SF scum like KevinB who claim to be Roman Catholic, yet are willing to engage im mass murder.