Interesting thread. I am a humanist - which basically is an atheist with ethics as opposed to the caricature of atheists popular in the American media. I used to go to church a bit as a teenager, off my own bat as well as parents were classic CofE - put it on forms but never went or thought about it much. Nice people, but I couldn't sustain the faith idea and stopped going. By the time I was 18/19 I was full on atheist and have been ever since. I am probably less hostile to organised religion that I used to be, mainly because I don't think it is as much of a threat in this country and I would also pay tribute to the many good things that people do motivated by their faith (e.g. the Jimmy Mizen Foundation). I would like to see the country properly secular and things like the act of worship in schools and faith schools dropped. But I also think there shouldn't be discrimination against people for their religious beliefs, nor should any one group be privileged. As an example, the ruling against the air stewardess wearing a cross was daft unless all jewelry is banned at work, but the registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships was right to lose - it was her job after all. If I lived in America or somewhere equally intolerant of non-belief (like the Arab countries), I would hope that I would act on it and I would certainly be a lot more militant about it. A lot of the criticism people like Dawkins and Hitchens get is for their confrontational style - I'm not a fan but then I live here - I think they are mainly addressing an American situation. If I was the only non-believer in town I'd want someone scoring some hard points against the people attacking me. They also spend a lot of time addressing the Biblical literalism/ Bishop Ussher interpretations that are the basis of much of the more militant faithful (and this sort of creationism has also been absorbed by Muslims). A very good mate of mine who has just died was a devout Christian. He had 2 science degrees and had no trouble reconciling his faith with science. After a couple of years of most of our social group taking the piss out of his beliefs, most of us just stopped because neither he nor we were going to shift. It's funny on one level as most Christians I know think my beliefs (that there is no God, that when you die that's it,you survive only in other people's memories) are far too hard. They're not comforting at all, but the alternative sounds so unlikely. After all, the one thing that must unite all Charlton fans is that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. They also often make assumptions that I have no morals; but I do. As I am English, they are based on Christianity, but I'm pretty sure all religions have a variant on the golden rule.
Interesting thread. I am a humanist - which basically is an atheist with ethics as opposed to the caricature of atheists popular in the American media. I used to go to church a bit as a teenager, off my own bat as well as parents were classic CofE - put it on forms but never went or thought about it much. Nice people, but I couldn't sustain the faith idea and stopped going. By the time I was 18/19 I was full on atheist and have been ever since. I am probably less hostile to organised religion that I used to be, mainly because I don't think it is as much of a threat in this country and I would also pay tribute to the many good things that people do motivated by their faith (e.g. the Jimmy Mizen Foundation). I would like to see the country properly secular and things like the act of worship in schools and faith schools dropped. But I also think there shouldn't be discrimination against people for their religious beliefs, nor should any one group be privileged. As an example, the ruling against the air stewardess wearing a cross was daft unless all jewelry is banned at work, but the registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships was right to lose - it was her job after all. If I lived in America or somewhere equally intolerant of non-belief (like the Arab countries), I would hope that I would act on it and I would certainly be a lot more militant about it. A lot of the criticism people like Dawkins and Hitchens get is for their confrontational style - I'm not a fan but then I live here - I think they are mainly addressing an American situation. If I was the only non-believer in town I'd want someone scoring some hard points against the people attacking me. They also spend a lot of time addressing the Biblical literalism/ Bishop Ussher interpretations that are the basis of much of the more militant faithful (and this sort of creationism has also been absorbed by Muslims). A very good mate of mine who has just died was a devout Christian. He had 2 science degrees and had no trouble reconciling his faith with science. After a couple of years of most of our social group taking the piss out of his beliefs, most of us just stopped because neither he nor we were going to shift. It's funny on one level as most Christians I know think my beliefs (that there is no God, that when you die that's it,you survive only in other people's memories) are far too hard. They're not comforting at all, but the alternative sounds so unlikely. After all, the one thing that must unite all Charlton fans is that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. They also often make assumptions that I have no morals; but I do. As I am English, they are based on Christianity, but I'm pretty sure all religions have a variant on the golden rule.
Don't you think English people had morals before Christianity then?
Interesting thread. I am a humanist - which basically is an atheist with ethics as opposed to the caricature of atheists popular in the American media. I used to go to church a bit as a teenager, off my own bat as well as parents were classic CofE - put it on forms but never went or thought about it much. Nice people, but I couldn't sustain the faith idea and stopped going. By the time I was 18/19 I was full on atheist and have been ever since. I am probably less hostile to organised religion that I used to be, mainly because I don't think it is as much of a threat in this country and I would also pay tribute to the many good things that people do motivated by their faith (e.g. the Jimmy Mizen Foundation). I would like to see the country properly secular and things like the act of worship in schools and faith schools dropped. But I also think there shouldn't be discrimination against people for their religious beliefs, nor should any one group be privileged. As an example, the ruling against the air stewardess wearing a cross was daft unless all jewelry is banned at work, but the registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships was right to lose - it was her job after all. If I lived in America or somewhere equally intolerant of non-belief (like the Arab countries), I would hope that I would act on it and I would certainly be a lot more militant about it. A lot of the criticism people like Dawkins and Hitchens get is for their confrontational style - I'm not a fan but then I live here - I think they are mainly addressing an American situation. If I was the only non-believer in town I'd want someone scoring some hard points against the people attacking me. They also spend a lot of time addressing the Biblical literalism/ Bishop Ussher interpretations that are the basis of much of the more militant faithful (and this sort of creationism has also been absorbed by Muslims). A very good mate of mine who has just died was a devout Christian. He had 2 science degrees and had no trouble reconciling his faith with science. After a couple of years of most of our social group taking the piss out of his beliefs, most of us just stopped because neither he nor we were going to shift. It's funny on one level as most Christians I know think my beliefs (that there is no God, that when you die that's it,you survive only in other people's memories) are far too hard. They're not comforting at all, but the alternative sounds so unlikely. After all, the one thing that must unite all Charlton fans is that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. They also often make assumptions that I have no morals; but I do. As I am English, they are based on Christianity, but I'm pretty sure all religions have a variant on the golden rule.
Don't you think English people had morals before Christianity then?
Would have been paganism here before Christianity, no ?
The actual amount of religious people has reduced significantly over the years, which for people like me it's a shame, debates like this show the ratio is very much outnumbered, I don't think that makes it any less true just less people have found their faith. Also Christian values and lessons are not taught to children at home and school anymore due to PCness and all that.
When I first moved round here I knew there was a church walking distance but didn't know where I stopped and asked loads of people and it was astounding how many locals didn't even know where the church was and it's not exactly small.
Interesting thread. I am a humanist - which basically is an atheist with ethics as opposed to the caricature of atheists popular in the American media. I used to go to church a bit as a teenager, off my own bat as well as parents were classic CofE - put it on forms but never went or thought about it much. Nice people, but I couldn't sustain the faith idea and stopped going. By the time I was 18/19 I was full on atheist and have been ever since. I am probably less hostile to organised religion that I used to be, mainly because I don't think it is as much of a threat in this country and I would also pay tribute to the many good things that people do motivated by their faith (e.g. the Jimmy Mizen Foundation). I would like to see the country properly secular and things like the act of worship in schools and faith schools dropped. But I also think there shouldn't be discrimination against people for their religious beliefs, nor should any one group be privileged. As an example, the ruling against the air stewardess wearing a cross was daft unless all jewelry is banned at work, but the registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships was right to lose - it was her job after all. If I lived in America or somewhere equally intolerant of non-belief (like the Arab countries), I would hope that I would act on it and I would certainly be a lot more militant about it. A lot of the criticism people like Dawkins and Hitchens get is for their confrontational style - I'm not a fan but then I live here - I think they are mainly addressing an American situation. If I was the only non-believer in town I'd want someone scoring some hard points against the people attacking me. They also spend a lot of time addressing the Biblical literalism/ Bishop Ussher interpretations that are the basis of much of the more militant faithful (and this sort of creationism has also been absorbed by Muslims). A very good mate of mine who has just died was a devout Christian. He had 2 science degrees and had no trouble reconciling his faith with science. After a couple of years of most of our social group taking the piss out of his beliefs, most of us just stopped because neither he nor we were going to shift. It's funny on one level as most Christians I know think my beliefs (that there is no God, that when you die that's it,you survive only in other people's memories) are far too hard. They're not comforting at all, but the alternative sounds so unlikely. After all, the one thing that must unite all Charlton fans is that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. They also often make assumptions that I have no morals; but I do. As I am English, they are based on Christianity, but I'm pretty sure all religions have a variant on the golden rule.
Don't you think English people had morals before Christianity then?
There wasn't an England until after Christianity was introduced here
I am currently reading Sam Harris's latest book " Waking Up - a guide to spirituality without Religion" which is very interesting and worth a read whatever your beliefs.
The mindfulness techniques described are based upon buddist meditation but there are no associated religious beliefs so these can be used by believers and non believers alike. There is also a strong empirical basis for the benefits of this approach which is now being used in a variety of areas including a range of mental health problems.
Harris argues that a spiritual dimension is an intrinsic part of the human experience and draws out commonality of spritual experience with all religions. He suggests the use of certain techniques and argues that a link between this intrinsic manifestation of spirituality and outside of religious beliefs is not required.
After my own " conversion" to atheism I found myself trying to reconcile the spiritual elements of me with not believing in Religions, a God, the supernatural or an afterlife. I was drawn to mindfulness and some elements of Zen and after a hiatus started using Mindfulness techniques again recently. It is simple but requires some level of practice.
Incidentally I think that there is a great deal of mindfulness and being present in the moment in watching Charlton play. Those moments when you very existence is totally absorbed with every kick of the game and you merge into the crowd.
Football as a religion, now there's a thought........
Comments
Absolutely bloody excellent.
Bill Bryson said if the earth was a pea, Pluto a grain of sand, they'd have to be 9km away to represent the actual distance to scale.
Sorry, keep posting on this thread, but I've got shit loads of material. "Not my words, the words of top gear magazine"
Would have been paganism here before Christianity, no ?
Try this one. String theory related. Just jump to the conclusions:)
The String Theory and the BhagawadGita #stringtheory #science #vedicscience #bhagavadgita
It's on LinkedIn, I can't even copy the bloody link. Apologies
" Carpenter from Nazareth seeks joiners" being top of the list, followed closely by ;
" Jesus is my rock, that's how I roll "
" No one likes us but we don't care"
When I first moved round here I knew there was a church walking distance but didn't know where I stopped and asked loads of people and it was astounding how many locals didn't even know where the church was and it's not exactly small.
https://youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AUjHb4C7b94
The mindfulness techniques described are based upon buddist meditation but there are no associated religious beliefs so these can be used by believers and non believers alike. There is also a strong empirical basis for the benefits of this approach which is now being used in a variety of areas including a range of mental health problems.
Harris argues that a spiritual dimension is an intrinsic part of the human experience and draws out commonality of spritual experience with all religions. He suggests the use of certain techniques and argues that a link between this intrinsic manifestation of spirituality and outside of religious beliefs is not required.
After my own " conversion" to atheism I found myself trying to reconcile the spiritual elements of me with not believing in Religions, a God, the supernatural or an afterlife.
I was drawn to mindfulness and some elements of Zen and after a hiatus started using Mindfulness techniques again recently. It is simple but requires some level of practice.
Incidentally I think that there is a great deal of mindfulness and being present in the moment in watching Charlton play. Those moments when you very existence is totally absorbed with every kick of the game and you merge into the crowd.
Football as a religion, now there's a thought........