Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Hi Haystack,

Like you I am none religious, and whilst believing that religion 'taken to esteems' has cause more trouble in this world than all other reasons put together, I for one will not offend anyone for their beliefs, as long as those beliefs have no harmful intent to others.
I have known many good none believers and many bad believers.
As to myself, I like to think that as I know the difference between good and bad, that often makes me a better person than those pious people who preach that to be a believer makes you good, and none believers bad.
I feel that the worse part of most religions is that 'if you truly repent then all your sins are forgiven.
So if are truly sorry, 'Thats alright then'.

If all people believed in a religion that is true, IE no harm to others, love thy neighbor etc, the world would be a better place.
Unfortunately, many believe that their religion overrules all others.

As to my believe, I feel that this world would be a far better place if a few million people who don't deserve to be on this earth, example Qaddafi, were taken out, it would be a far better place.

No doubt some would feel that if I advocated that action it would mean I was playing 'God' and perhaps it would, but it would certainly improve things quite a lot.

Skinny,

Brilliant, have forwarded it on to several friends.

Regards Greek.

I have often wondered how many very intelligent people have managed to believe in religion. I can see how they are indoctrinated from an early age, which is the initial cause. However, you would have thought that later in life, when they can evaluate things better their views would change. I went through the religious mill. I went to a convent primary school and then a grammar school run by Jesuit priests. The best part was the Jesuits, who encouraged independent thinking. It was during that period that I realised what a lot of nonsense it all was.

I saw an item on CBS News last night that helps to explain the fact tat intelligent people still believe in some extra-terrestrial being loosely called god. The item was about Steve Jobs and his biggest regret.

He had pancreatic cancer of a type that is normally survivable. He was told that an operation to remove the tumour would be needed and the likelihood was that he would get better. He chose instead to go on a macro-biotic diet with organic vegetables etc. This was odd bearing in mid that there is no evidence that it would be effective. It is even more strange bearing in mind that this no ordinary person. This is someone in the top fraction of a percentage of intelligent people with supposedly strong critical faculties. The outcome is well known. After several years of his 'alternative' therapy, he realised that he had been wrong. He then opted for the operation and it was found that the cancer had spread to surrounding tissue that could not be removed. They cut out what they could and told him that he had just a limited time left. He said that his biggest regret was not listening to his mind and instead following some irrational belief. He said that on reflection that he was surprised that he had chosen to go down the particular path that he had chosen and could not understand why he did against all logic.

.

The article is a few years old - the maxim timeless - Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man

The use of that phrase in relation to the Jesuits is a bit odd. Firstly it is supposed to be the motto of the Jesuits. This is definitely not true as it is Ad majorem Dei gloriam ("to the greater glory of God"). We had it on our blazers and it is on the Jesuit crest. The use of the phrase is also odd as the Jesuits rarely teach young children at an age under 7. This is usually done by nuns or orders such as the Christian brothers. We discussed the phrase at school and the Jesuits's opinion was that the meaning was a general one to do with What a child is like at the age of seven shows what the child will be grown up.

Haystack - I wasn't alluding to the Jesuits per se - more to the quote itself.

Even just the quote itself may in fact be a reference to the theory that a child at seven is a good indication of what the adult will be. Quotes from St Francis nearly 1,000 years ago are likely to be a bit unreliable.

There's the old question about asking a Christian what was God doing before he created the Universe, the best answer seem's to be that he is a Spirit so HE was not created , another answer was that he was bored being on his own , so created mankind ,which makes him seem almost human if anything.

To say that if you don't believe in him and don't worship him at every possible chance you will burn in hell , makes him out to be a vain egomaniac which is what a lot of cult church leaders are. Most Church's use various degrees of brain washing/mind control , even the Alpha course's , first there is the love bomb as it is called were you suddenly find they treat you like a long lost friend, they also assign someone to be your best friend and report back to the church leader's so they know what your weak point's are such as the death of a close relative.

All religions are cults. They always have been.

Cutting the crap...

These days we can simplify things by merely arguing about

Evolution?
or
Creation?

and then using scientific and/or technical argument to just trash the latter.



What is so very difficult to do, is to trash the idea, that people cannot have really good morals if they are atheists.

This latter argument, is the one where you almost have to fight the government of the day to win the argument conclusively and then get religion chucked out in the trash. Now this is just about impossible to do, because no electable politician will ever distance himself from the religious (and thus moral) section of his voters.

Any politician who says he is an atheist, thus indirectly tells his voters he is, almost by definition, morally corrupt.

And of course, governments also like churches because they are the only ones doing anything at all so as to maintain any kind of a good morality about the place.

IMHO, if we do ever manage to get rid of religion, then we need to put something back in its place to teach and reaffirm good morality to the masses.

And I don't think 'school is the place' to do this. IMHO, I think we need some kind of 'Life and How to Live It' plan - almost a sorta kinda 'National Creed for Every Citizen'. This would then act as the perfect substitute for 'the good stuff' that religion actually does provide.

Having eventually got rid of religion, the currently very important religious concept, that 'life begins when you die' nonsense can also be trashed. Then we might have some much better chance that people would begin to respect the rights of individuals much more and behave better towards themselves as well as towards others.

I would like the government of the day to absolutely state, 'There is definitely not any kind of an entity called God. We are now sure that life evolved out of nothing and was not created by some kind of mystic being'.

Of course, Einstein and his chums and forbears, the Hadron Collider and particularly, the 'Grand Theory of Everything' has a great part to play in all of this task.

But importantly, we cannot remove something, that is so important for people, without devising what else we can put back in its place.

(And of course, we mustn't forget how resistant all those religious leaders are going to be too.)

delete

.

There doesn't need to be any coercion involved. It wouldn't be a question of banning religion. The first step would be to remove all of religion's privileges. Stop the tax charitable status and breaks making them businesses like any other, stop funding and special status for religious schools. This would lead, after a time, to the separation of state and religion and the church being disestablished. People should be free to practice their religion, but the teaching of it in schools would not be allowed even in religious schools. There is no reason why people should not believe in fairies and even meet together in groups to do so.

And don't forget that if anything good or bad happens, it is always 'Gods Will'.
This must be the best all round excuse ever!

I have always found it strange that those religions that believe in such material things such as Sun or Moon worship are often talked about as Pagan beliefs that are always ridiculed by the other so called true religions, when to my mind they make more sense.

After all we all know that without the Sun we would not exist, so a few prayers to something that is relevant to our existence makes sense to me.

Like Haystack, I was bought up to believe in God, although not in such a strict way.

I went to Sunday school, where I found the stories interesting, and followed that up with 3 years bible study.

At no time in those 3 years or since have 'I believed', although I do believe that someone called Jesus did exist and that he was a great teacher, orator and a leader of men.
My studies lead me to believe that he was indeed, crucified and died.
To me the facts end there.
I do not believe he was the son of god, nor that he rose from the dead.
I do believe that the 'story' has been expounded, by people who wanted to believe, which is the reason why all religion start.
One of the reasons, they also continue is to make vast amounts of money for a few people.
I also feel that these beliefs, can do good (as well as harm) and are a help to many people.
It is not the religion that needs to be true, only that you believe it to be, IE the belief itself!
As to myself, as said, I am a none believer and if that condemns me to Burn in hell, I ain't that bothered, after all I don't believe I will around to care that much.

I must admit that during a few Life or Death situations, I have said a quick prayer, mind you if a witchdoctor had been passing by (ever notice, theres never one around when you need one) I would have offered him a few beads on the off chance he could help.

Anyway, must close now as the chicken bones and toads eyes are just coming to the boil.

Haystack,

You say, "There is no reason why people should not believe in fairies and even meet together in groups to do so".

I'm fairly certain, you can't say that anymore.

No wonder there is a lot of youth unemployment when they can't speak to the general public in plain English.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13445487">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13445487

No wonder there is a lot of youth unemployment when they can't speak to the general public in plain English.

- and nobody gets to read about it because the link done by some butters or other is wrong.....

Try: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13445487

Ughh.

It seems to me that many atheists, having lost their belief in a "god" and "rules and regulations", switch their belief in a "non-god" with as much zeal as many fervent believers in a "god".

Not having a "god and rules and regulations", may relieve them of communal moral responsibility for some of their own actions.

From my own experiences, many who have religious beliefs and adhere to them, seem more content than free roaming atheists without a real basis for a moral code.

But it is strange how others having religious beliefs, engenders so much hostility from those propounding atheism.

=

Gadaffi,

I am quite happy that the above has been eradicated and think his death has probably saved the "new regime possible problems. If he remained alive, he might have been a focus point for his previous followers.

But, if he was killed when a prisoner and "defenceless", the perpetrator's action was probably "illegal" and against international law.

Many of Gadaffi's actions were against international law and copying his actions, by members of the new administration, or a "police" officer (who thinks he knows what is right, or wrong) is, I think, in itself wrong. (Setting the example for others do likewise at whim. Perhaps, Mafia justice.


If you have a legal system and laws, which you hope to protect you, then it is necessary to uphold them.

That means, no picking and choosing on based on ones own insightful instincts.

Gadaffi, picked and chose which laws he wished to keep to and justified his deviations, when they were advantageous to himself.

(If you don't like the laws, or rules, change them, don't break them. The latter leads to anarchy. Use the constitution of the relevant country to do so.)



-----------------


If I had caught G, I might have shot him!





===========

Fred

"Not having a "god and rules and regulations", may relieve them of communal moral responsibility for some of their own actions."

You don't need god to have a framework of morals. I have no hostility against believers in god and religious people, I just want them stopped from teaching it all to children and having tax breaks that we are paying for.

By the way Life of Brian is on BBC 2 at 9:00pm tinight.

Hays,

I agree with you that there should be a separation of state and religion.

I don't like "religiously segregated schools" and do not think they should be subsidised by the state.

I don't think that being a "religious organisation" should receive tax "allowances" or "benefits" for being, but would be tolerant of support for them for "social work" they undertake.

I.E. the likes of the work carried out by the Salvation Army, with what many see as the untouchables.

Religion, without the hypocrisy which tends to go with it, can be of "humane" benefit to society.

Replacing the beneficial effects by teaching of "a state's institutional civil morality" would be difficult.

Look how communism seems to have failed.

delete