-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Religion and Culture - what comes first?
- Thread starter Tetchytyke
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Yes, lets limit it Christian beliefs. However, it isnt a rant, it is simply a series of very simple questions that you seem unwilling or unable to answer. Instead you resort to long winded, verbose, pompous expressions of noise. Answer a simple question with a simple answer in plain English. Lets start with a simple one:
Why did God send his only soon to earth ( to, we are told, save us from sin) during the Roman period and not during WW2? Surely a vast mechanised war of good v evil sucking in millions of people and when acts of the most awful barbarity were perpetrated is exactly the kind of time an intervention from the Almighty might be useful on the side of good!
How can I be angry with something that doesn't exist?
I must point out, as always, that while I consider religion to be a vast lie and religionists of all kinds to be simple minded, brainwashed fools I defend their right to practice their religion freely and without sanction. I hope they would defend my right to doubt and express that doubt.
Last edited:
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Can you give me a good reason why I should respond with sincerity to such a post?
DarloRich
Veteran Member
you must do as you see fit. I simply express my opinion as I am entitled to do. You may not like the directness of that view but my point remains valid nonetheless.
Like you I'm offering an opinion. Unlike you I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is a simpering fool offering obfuscation in the face of the ble****g obvious. I'm old fashioned enough to think civilised people can knock a point around without resorting to insults as the principle rhetorical tool. Even on the internet.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I don't think that the act of disagreeing or holding/expressing an opinion makes you a simpering fool. I simply wonder why answers to simple questions are not forthcoming and why people are so credulous.
I do think that religion is a lie and that the people who subscribe to that lie must be quite silly. However it is their right to do. After all - The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. Proverbs 14:15
PS -BTW I am not allowed, by forum rules, to insult people!
It's the internet, innit? Most people want a bun fight, and to vent at the world. Using unfamiliar concepts and the words necessary to relay them can be seen as presumptuous when the object of internet engagement is to Get Really Really Cross. It's also necessary to know which god people are angry about, all and any, or the one that raised their ire at a tender age. As I may be equally atheistic towards the latter I don't see why I should defend Verse Blah, Chapter Triple X, at least without considerable exegesis. If my interlocutor's biblical engagement and knowledge of consciousness studies is as a refusenik, it's important to ascertain if we're even on the same page. There are people out there who think a Darwinfish bumper sticker is the height of sceptical satire, and the philosophy of mind will see the Inquisition back in short order. My aim is to engage with more open minds.I don't think that the act of disagreeing or holding/expressing an opinion makes you a simpering fool. I simply wonder why answers to simple questions are not forthcoming and why people are so credulous.
I do think that religion is a lie and that the people who subscribe to that lie must be quite silly. However it is their right to do. After all - The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. Proverbs 14:15
PS -BTW I am not allowed, by forum rules, to insult people!
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, I'm afraid I've lost you here. But I respect your view.
shredder1
Established Member
I worship a number of true Gods, Steve Vai at the moment, but with Paul Gilbert and Yngwie Malmsteen close behind, I was originally introduced into the faith by probably Peter Green and Eric Clapton, quickly following Jimmy Page and Jimi Hendrex as the late 60`s came into play, Eddie Van Halen followed in the late 70`s and Joe Satriani was a shared God in the 1980`s.
Revelations: white boys playing blues is an abomination. They shall be cast unto muddy waters to play noodly guitar solos unto the end of time.
shredder1
Established Member
Haha actually I agree, the famous Led Zep quote from the South, "thats the last time 4 white boys will be playing in the cotton fields"
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Seems a tad unfair to me. Personally I think materialism is almost certainly wrong - and not only wrong, but so obviously in contradiction to the evidence of my senses (I appear to be completely conscious of my existence, something that materialism is manifestly unable to account for) that I marvel that anyone can believe materialism to be true.
But I don't call it a 'lie' (with all the implications of bad faith that that word implies), nor do I think that the people who believe it must be silly. I simply recognise that those people have (apparently) had different experiences from me in their lives, and that seems to have lead them to different beliefs about the nature of the World.
Last edited:
Translation into English please?
Should have been asking why they believe in them. Had just come off a late shift and my brain was leaking out of my ears. Ha ha. In full, if there is anyone on here who is religious why do you believe what you do? It is a genuine question and not one where I will attempt to shoot down anyone who replies with snarky comments. I was brought up Catholic (I was an alter boy) and the last time I went to church (Apart from weddings and funerals) was my Confirmation. I just stopped believing, if anything my Confirmation classes made me think about religion more and made me think it wasn't real. I think I had been going to church for years without really thinking about why. My mum stopped going when she got cancer and my dad stopped going when she died. Thinking about it we all went together as a family for my youngest brothers Confirmation (12 years younger than me) when my mum was ill. He never went again either.
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
It does appear that in our early lives, we appear to have had much in common as I too was an alter boy.
Noting your Liverpool background, there was a song called "In my Liverpool home" that the Spinners sang in which the first few lines should ring a few bells..
"I was born in Liverpool
Down by the Docks
My religion was Catholic
Occupation hard knocks"
Cheers Paul, that is interesting. Yeah, I am well aware of the Spinners, I remember them well. Back when I was little I was taken to see them a couple of times by the folks at the Philharmonic for Christmas shows.
My musical taste changed drastically after "loosing my religion" ha ha. I still have very fond memories of those shows though. Used to love their versions of Christmas Carols with comedy lyrics.
Now we are talking Culture! At least my culture and what made me me. I don't buy in to all this "British Culture" stuff. I have more in common with my friends from Spain, Poland, Colombia and the Philippines than I do with another random English person despite the fact my family have been in England for generations.
Last edited:
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Well if that's the translation of the 18 words in your previous post, then that's an amazingly efficient language you wrote in. I wanna learn it!
But since you were kind enough to translate, and as it happens I am somewhat religious, I guess it would be churlish of me not to respond.
A full reply would probably occupy several books, so this is extremely abridged and rough (so if you think I'm being imprecise about some things, that's probably why):
We appear to exist in a material World, but also have consciousness: The awareness of that world. Three possible interpretations immediately suggest themselves:
1. In reality, there is only matter (materialism)
2. Matter and consciousness are separate things (dualism)
3. In reality, there is only consciousness. Or perhaps, consciousness, caused matter (Roughly: Subjective idealism)
We can reject materialism because it has no way of accounting for consciousness. Yes I know people keep saying that science will be able to explain it eventually - it's been said on this thread several times - but I'd say that's wishful thinking. Science (very roughly) correlates observable events and material things with other material things, and it's incredibly successful at that. But there's never been anything in science that even remotely suggests that, on a reasonable extrapolation, it might be able to account for the experience of being aware.
So we are left with dualism and idealism. Which one? Well, Occam's Razor seems to have a very good track record, so let's use it. Subjective idealism is the simplest theory. So that leaves us with the most likely explanation of the physical World being that it was created by consciousness (or perhaps, it is just an aspect of consciousness). One consciousness or many? Occam's Razor again suggests one. That's starting to look very much like 'God created the World' as the most plausible conclusion.
Of course, that says nothing about the nature of God. It certainly gives no reason to believe that some unique Holy book contains explicit infallible instructions on how we must live - and indeed, that's a notion that I find somewhat ridiculous. But broadly, on reflection, and with some dose of what 'feels right' I end up with the conclusion that living within the very liberal end of Christianity is about right. ('liberal end of Christianity' = the end that emphasizes loving everyone and doesn't go for doctrines of infallible scripture or strange bits of theology or condemnation of certain well-known minority groups and so on)
(Yes I know, big gaps in reasoning there. I don't have time to write a book tonight).
I should also say there's gut feeling and life experience as well as semi-rational reasoning mixed up there. Given that consciousness is the fundamental way we experience the World, paying attention to what 'consciousness' tells you: What 'feels right' as well as what cold logic tells you does seem appropriate. And I suspect it's essential to any belief system. There's no way to logically prove the truth of either atheism or any religion, so I would suggest that therefore even the most hardened atheist/materialist has 'because it feels right' somewhere lurking at the bottom of what they believe - even though I suspect many would be reluctant to admit it.
In that context, as it happens, my interest in Christianity and spirituality first arose when at University, due to various mix-ups, I ended up without accomodation, but people from the Christian Union offered me (then an atheist) a place to stay without any strings or demands, apparently because to them, it was just the right thing to do. That obviously doesn't in any way prove that what those Christian Union people believed was correct, but it certainly gives some reason to ponder what might make them act in that way and whether there are lessons to be drawn from it.
But anyway, based on a hugely expanded version of the above and on lots of history and personal experiences, I've ended up as what I would see as liberal Christian (although I suspect some people at the very 'conservative' end of Christianity - including, ironically, some people of the traditional 'Christian Union' mindset would question the 'Christian' bit of my label, because I pay so little attention to large parts of the traditional 'doctrine'
). By the way, to get back to the 'religion or culture' title of this thread, I do think most established religions - including Christianity - consist of culture and tradition to a far greater extent than most of their adherents realise. And I don't therefore see Christianity as the one true religion: Rather, I see most religions as imperfect attempts by men to understand, reach out to, and have a relationship with God, with all religions resulting in both good and bad things. I don't think anyone needs to enumerate the bad things, although sadly the good things often seem to get forgotten in these kinds of debates.
Last edited:
DynamicSpirit many thanks for your extensive reply. Genuinely much appreciated. To me though Occam's Razor does not suggest that God is the simplest answer to consciousness, the simplest answer is that we just do not know the answer yet (And I am not saying you are wrong). I would tend to say that God is the most amazingly complicated answer and one that no one could ever hope to understand if indeed it is the answer.
Just out of interest, as an atheist I have provided shelter to 3 homeless people because it seemed like the right thing to do. One was a girl sleeping rough when I was at Uni in Bradford, the other two where guys sleeping rough outside Lime Street station more recently both of whom are now housed. If you were one of them would you have come to the conclusion that belief in god had nothing to do with wanting to do the right thing?
Again I only ask out of interest and not to cause any dispute. I believe in helping where I can despite not believing in god.
Just to explain why I think this is connected to religion and culture this is my culture. I was born in the UK and have spent most of my 42 years here. I now have no religion and my culture is made up of my past upbringing as a Catholic, my love of travel and people from other places, the fact I like to try and help people who are in a hole and also my love of very extreme metal music. A lot of these things seem to be at odds with each other so how do I slot them in to such narrow areas as religion and culture as perceived by other people from the same country as me.
Just out of interest, as an atheist I have provided shelter to 3 homeless people because it seemed like the right thing to do. One was a girl sleeping rough when I was at Uni in Bradford, the other two where guys sleeping rough outside Lime Street station more recently both of whom are now housed. If you were one of them would you have come to the conclusion that belief in god had nothing to do with wanting to do the right thing?
Again I only ask out of interest and not to cause any dispute. I believe in helping where I can despite not believing in god.
Just to explain why I think this is connected to religion and culture this is my culture. I was born in the UK and have spent most of my 42 years here. I now have no religion and my culture is made up of my past upbringing as a Catholic, my love of travel and people from other places, the fact I like to try and help people who are in a hole and also my love of very extreme metal music. A lot of these things seem to be at odds with each other so how do I slot them in to such narrow areas as religion and culture as perceived by other people from the same country as me.
Last edited:
EM2
Established Member
DS, can you explain what you understand by 'consciousness', because surely we become aware by experience and our senses?
Good reply, and I subscribe to your logic. I believe there are other conclusions to be drawn based on pragmatic inferences, but the poverty of materialism as an explanation/ideology is inescapable.
Yeah but we come back to the ultimate question and if the answer is god, why? What is god? Take a television back 2000 years and the people there would have thought it was god or some kind of weird magic. Take an Airbus A380 back 150 years and people would be sending themselves to exorcisms. "I saw a city in the sky". The crux for me is why do people still think that things they can't explain must be god?
Last edited:
(Christ, I've been brought back into this thread...)
You claim you can reject "materialism" (I'll use the word physicalism) on essentially a whim. On the other hand, what we understand about neuroscience seems to require that consciousness is only a manifestation of physical processes. We understand a lot more about consciousness than I think a lot of people realise - we understand how to manipulate consciousness, we understand what parts of the brain generate consciousness and we have observed that damage to specific regions of the brain interfere with consciousness. This has all been explained through physical phenomena, and neuroscience is one of the fastest growing fields so we are literally discovering more about this every day.
Will science be able to fully explain consciousness? Possibly, possibly not. I don't see why it cannot. There are who fields of science that couldn't have been imagined decades ago that are now thriving - the work done at the Large Hadron Collider being probably one of the most famous examples, as they continue to look for and find subatomic particles that weren't even theorised a century ago. Any scientist at the turn of the 20th century would rightly be skeptical that the atom could be divided into smaller particles, yet today we are studying a whole array of subatomic particles. It is very dismissive to say that science will never achieve something.
To assert that consciousness is outside reality, one must make a huge number of presumptions. Most significant of these is the existence of a conscious/subconscious/spiritual realm. This is essentially being touted as a pseudoscientific concept, wherein it can not be proven. If it can be proven, then it will be proven through a rigorous scientific process.
So I remain very skeptical at the notion that consciousness cannot be explained physically. What we understand is entirely physical, and there has been no reason to suggest that there is any supernatural component. If indeed there is a subconscious realm, then I fail to see why it cannot be detected and explained, but so far there has been no evidence to suggest that any such supernatural phenomenon exists. Ergo, I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that consciousness exists as a separate entity, rather it appears to be a product of complex biochemical processes within our brain. Demonstrate to me that there is something outwith ourselves that causes consciousness, and you've got my attention (and a Nobel prize).
An atheist does not (necessarily) assert that a god does not exist, but asserts that God has not been demonstrated. There's a big difference. I can't prove that god does not exist, but no one has ever been able to suggest to me that a deity does. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim that a god exists, rather than the one claiming that there is no reason to believe that.
If indeed there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being as claimed in the Bible, it seems like its presence would be relatively easy to demonstrate. Yet, when evidence is offered, it is almost always subjective, and oddly people who have religious experiences all seem to have wildly different experiences (and, interestingly, it always seems to fit with the religion in which they have been brought up).
God is the all-encompassing non answer. Just about anything can be attributed to god, and no evidence is required because "you need faith", or it's claimed to be indemonstrable. Or we can always come to the old chestnut of "god works in mysterious ways".
You are right in that there is no reason to assume that a god is necessary to fill in the gaps, and there is no reason to assume that a god exists. God doesn't actually fill in gaps in knowledge, it just ascribes a name the unknown. If there is indeed a diety that explains any of our gaps, then its presence will be demonstrated.
Last edited:
EM2
Established Member
No, that's an agnostic.
An atheist asserts that no gods exist.
An agnostic asserts that they do not know if gods exist.
As an atheist, I lack belief in a god. I'm not saying that a god or gods do not exist, but I'm saying that I do not believe that they exist because there is no evidence. Asserting that a god does not exist is subtly different to saying that you lack the belief in a god. I think that god almost certainly does not exist - it's been studied for millennia and we haven't got any closer to confirming existence of a deity.
Agnosticism is slightly different; an agnostic does not claim to know one way or the other (and agnostics can, of course, be theistic or atheistic). I am indeed agnostic to an extent - I am open to the idea of a god being demonstrated, and if someone can demonstrate to me the existence of a deity I shall reappraise my views.
Lack of belief in a god is not quite the same as believing there is no god.
EM2
Established Member
Gnosticism and Theism are different concepts. I am a weak agnostic, I am also an atheist. I do not believe that a god exists, (in fact I will say that god almost certainly does not exist, at least not as we have come to know it), but I'm happy for someone to demonstrate to me otherwise and will consider any real evidence of the existence of god. We've been waiting for millennia, so I'm not going to hold my breath, but give me something demonstrable and we'll take it from there.
I think everyone should be agnostic, theists and atheists alike. It is only reasonable to consider other points of view, and challenge your own views.
I think everyone should be agnostic, theists and atheists alike. It is only reasonable to consider other points of view, and challenge your own views.
I was brought up as Catholic, too. I used to be altar boy and all that stuff. But then it was as if the light was switched on and all of a sudden I saw and wondered...but what the heck am I doing here. I was much much younger, of course.
Now I'm happy with my new faith, the flying spaghetti monster:A revelation. Yes, I'm a pastafarian. And it couldn't be otherwise given that I'm Italian and my partner is Jamaican.
Now I'm happy with my new faith, the flying spaghetti monster:A revelation. Yes, I'm a pastafarian. And it couldn't be otherwise given that I'm Italian and my partner is Jamaican.
- Status