Let's get theological....

[nicwing]

What? Kilmarnock? Any 4x4s for sale?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha

Nice one Cels.

[Robusto]

The Simpsons seem to pep up most RE lessons here.
KS4 RE seems to be lo-fi Sociology. The pupils do not like it.
Why is it compulsory?

I do like a nice silent church and a tuneful set of hymns and a cream tea afterwards. I like English country churches, but I'm not one of those tweedy brass-rubbing perves.

God took on some of the best writers down the years. Good album sales.

I wish the Lord would drop the nutcases with the pictures of God who knock on my front door on Saturday mornings.

People with strongly-held religious beliefs are fine as long as they don't judge me and try to correct me.

I'm not anything.
If I HAD to be something, I'd be a Quaker.

I feel I am a good person anyway. I try to be so.

I smoke the cigar. Please shoot me.

[celsis]

The Simpsons seem to pep up most RE lessons here.
KS4 RE seems to be lo-fi Sociology. The pupils do not like it.
Why is it compulsory?

I do like a nice silent church and a tuneful set of hymns and a cream tea afterwards. I like English country churches, but I'm not one of those tweedy brass-rubbing perves.

God took on some of the best writers down the years. Good album sales.

I wish the Lord would drop the nutcases with the pictures of God who knock on my front door on Saturday mornings.

People with strongly-held religious beliefs are fine as long as they don't judge me and try to correct me.

I'm not anything.
If I HAD to be something, I'd be a Quaker.

I feel I am a good person anyway. I try to be so.

I smoke the cigar. Please shoot me.

A bit like me. I try to be a good person without too many hangups. If I was to be anything, I'd be in the Craft or a Buddhist.

Blessed Be!

[TJCoro]

Senor Pooh cracks wise!

errr can we have a poll akin to the porn poll to see if religion is something we wish to see on the forum ?

Good one, mate! I see you found the point....under Nic's hat

[TJCoro]

I guess you had to be there.

I've got to admit that this is by far my favorite Olivia Newton John song of all time, and let me tell you that's pretty high praise!

Not sure what senor Spy's been smokin', but I don't get it

Names TJ, TJCoro, and is it me or is senor Nic posting on the wrong thread...agian?


Hey! Who's been playin' with me balls....again?

[EugeneSax]

Not sure what senor Spy's been smokin', but I don't get it

"..let me hear your body talk, body talk.."


[Chancing my arm a bit as a newbie, discussing religion on a forum.]

I was confirmed CofE in my teens, but intelectually have certainly 'lost my way' in more recent years.

If I subscribe to anything these days it's a quote from Douglas Adams:

"We no more know our own destiny than a tea-leaf knows the history of the East India Company."

I actually find some solace in those words, when lying awake at night trying to make sense of things. I think it does actually allow one to believe/disbelieve in God and or science.


Funnily enough surfing T'web this afternoon rather than doing any work, I came across the following apt & tea-related comment on a blog:

"Bertrand Russell?s teapot is a tired old clich? but it answers your comment.

If I say that there is a celestial teapot orbiting the sun that you cannot see, I suspect your default position would be not to accept the existence of the tea pot. You wouldn?t have to take a leap of faith to disbelieve in the teapot as there is no evidence to suggest it is really there. You would however, have to make a leap of faith if you wanted to believe in the teapot in the absence of any evidence to support its existence.

Where does the burden of proof lie? Should we assume the teapot exists unless the unbelievers can irrefutably disprove it, or should we be skeptical on the existence of the teapot until the believers can prove that it does exists? I think the later.

Finally, you may still not believe in the teapot, but you cannot conclusively disprove the non existence of the teapot, so why not call yourself a teapot agnostic just in case it does exist? Because it suggests your midway between believing and not believing, when in fact your much further along the disbelieving side."


I think I'll go and have a cup of tea now.

[moidoid]

Well you must be a very brave or foolhardy man to be starting a thread like this. You'll be doing one on politics next.

I'll get in the foxhole for that one I think

I would take issue with this bit:

- I have a lack of faith. My definitions of the three states are:

Religious - has faith that there is a God(s).

Agnostic - lacks faith that there is a God(s).

Atheist - has faith that there isn't a god...

I would say that I am an atheist, but I don't have faith that there isn't a God. I would say that I don't believe that there is a God, just as I don't believe that there is Russell's celestial teapot.

In the case of either if evidence is produced which makes them more likely then I can change my mind. Unfortunately the evidence seems to be going rather the other way.

I find substantial evidence for the existence of Doble Coronas.

[TJCoro]

Don't Touch the Fro, Man!

"..let me hear your body talk, body talk.."
.

Muchas Gracias, Senor Eugene!

BTW...lovin' the Fro!!!

TJ

[EugeneSax]

I posted that comment about Russel's Teapot as it seemed so relevant to Simongrffths' 3 states of faith comment (and continued the tea theme), although I find it a surprisingly facile arguement for such a reknown philosopher. The consequences/causes of there being a teapot in celestial orbit are so miniscule in absolute and particularly in comparrison to the existence/non-existence of a God.

To my mind Richard Dawkins is as fundamentalist as any Iranian Mullah.

A betting man with only a small understanding of probabilities ought to stakes his all on there being a God however long the odds, given the infinite reward on offer.

[Robusto]

A betting man with only a small understanding of probabilities ought to stakes his all on there being a God however long the odds, given the infinite reward on offer.

That is EXACTLY the thinking of Blaise Pascal,
French Philosopher (1623 - 1662).
This 'thought' (he had many) is known as The Wager.

I spent a lot of time with Blaise at University.
He was a decent bloke.

[EugeneSax]

Most of my 'knowledge' of philosophers & philosophy comes from the song sung by the Bruces at the University of Wolamaloo (sp?) & I had heard of Pascal from a related source, but knew nothing of his theories

"...Emanule Kant was a real p*ss ant who was very rarely stable... etc"

[moidoid]

Indeed, Robusto, this is famously known as Pascal's wager. The problem with it being of course that all these religous types seem to insist that their own god is the one true god, which makes it rather difficult to decide which one to worship to claim my infinite reward.

Wouldn't it be a pisser to find out that you had spent a lifetime worshipping a plethora of gods only to find out that the one you had missed, the flying spaghetti monster, was sitting in front of you in all his exalted noodliness? Bummer.

[Robusto]

I was thinking about Pascal's Wager as I was cleaning the kitchen earlier.

When the 50/50 option was considered in the 1600s and infinite riches were what you might stand to gain if you opted FOR the existence of God, it must have been very attractive.

Is it not the case that in the 21st Century that we all have many riches already in life? I mean consumer goods. TVs and the like. Central heating. Health.

I'm being deliberately superficial, but it becomes harder to take the infinite riches route.

Religious beliefs are a delicate subject. It's difficult to write anything at all without offending someone.

I always listen to the Today programme. I'm afraid the section I dislike the most is Thought For The Day. It is an awkward religious prod at about ten to eight.

I keep listening because I don't like Moyles.

[michael69]

Yes, I knew I was in the right place on this forum!

Seems most here are decent, honest, moral, try-to-do-the-best-by-others etc etc people..... WITHOUT the need for some hocus-pocus "sword of Damacles" defining and prescribing their behaviour.

In my opinion, Religion and a faith in a higher all-powerful creator is akin to an ABSENCE of true morality and "goodness" for it's own sake.

I HATE it!

Funny how, in my experience, most of the dishonest, indecent, immoral, selfish people I've come across profess some form of religious "belief"

I don't believe in belief.

Having said that, some of my best friends are religious and decent, honest, moral etc..........

I certainly would never ever judge them or feel any disrespect toward them for having their faith.

I am more and anti-theist than even an athiest in fact!

I used to be a choirboy in a cathedral choir, by the way, and I have a deep and lasting love of English Church Music; this was, of course, written by human beings (many of whom were, often and neccessarily secretly, athiests)

We find our own "heaven" right here (and it often involves a cigar )

... and some decent spirit!

[cj121]

A betting man with only a small understanding of probabilities ought to stakes his all on there being a God however long the odds, given the infinite reward on offer.

That is EXACTLY the thinking of Blaise Pascal,
French Philosopher (1623 - 1662).
This 'thought' (he had many) is known as The Wager.

I spent a lot of time with Blaise at University.
He was a decent bloke.

Was that Harvard Bryan?