Cycling UK Forum

It would be a twist of semantics to claim they are not religious societies.
They are certainly acting exactly like any other religion in Myanmar at the moment.

meic wrote:It would be a twist of semantics to claim they are not religious societies.
They are certainly acting exactly like any other religion in Myanmar at the moment.

They do not believe in a God, do not believe in some all powerful being.

And I agree about the horrific things that are happening in Myanmar at the moment. And should we also look at e.g. the Catholic Church in the late 1400's?, etc., etc. I'd suspect that most religions have "skeletons in the cupboard". That such things are common to many religions and societies and those holding belief systems certainly does not lessen the wrong, just makes one question the benefit of religion to the survival of a society you suggest.

Just look at the Catholic Church and it's insistence on it's dogma in declaring contraception wrong and thereby hindering those trying to address e.g. the spread of aids, trying to help societies address many social issues, etc. and from my limited biblical education, I don't remember the bible saying anything about birth control.

Ian

Just look at the Catholic Church and it's insistence on it's dogma in declaring contraception wrong and thereby hindering those trying to address

Add to that the compulsion that all the mother's offspring must be Catholics and you create millions and billions of new Catholics.
Which is probably good for maintaining the religion's dominance. The religions may be sold under the title of morality but their survival (and the societies who adopt them) is not a matter of morality, just results.

Hi,
It carries on and on and on-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -allegedly

Edited-
Catholic churches across the world are paying hundreds of millions in compensation...........will they bankrupt soon.........not likely, they were once bankers of the world..............some religion.............

says it all really?

"Photographer Jonas Bendiksen documented men who believe they are second coming of Christ."

"These people are not psychotic.." hmm not sure of that...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-pacific-41282442/photographer-jonas-bendiksen-documented-men-who-believe-they-are-second-coming-of-christ

Oh, so you do believe that, to condemn any sphere of human life, all you need is an ad hominem attack? In which case, you'll have given up cycling years ago, because cycling is constantly subject to those?

(OK sorry, I'm back, was just aware that two of us were dominating things, which isn't usually good on a forum.)

Reflecting during my ride today and I was wondering why, believe in an all powerful God figure and you are "mainstream" but believe in e.g. "Spiny Norman" and you have a questionable mental state.

Ian

Well, I'm no advocate of Spiny Norman but, to be honest, most of the people bandying around ideas about questionable mental states seem to me to be those who want to suppress belief in anything, mainstream or not.

I think Christians would tend to leave belief in Spiny Norman to die out by itself. Which would happen pretty quickly, I'd think.

drossall wrote:Well, I'm no advocate of Spiny Norman but, to be honest, most of the people bandying around ideas about questionable mental states seem to me to be those who want to suppress belief in anything, mainstream or not.

I think Christians would tend to leave belief in Spiny Norman to die out by itself. Which would happen pretty quickly, I'd think.

I was thinking more of the contrast between the two slightly different beliefs in something for which there is no evidence. Not trying to suppress belief in anything. To me both seem to have equal footing (though in reality there is probably more evidence for the Spiny Norman belief).

I don't see that a larger number of people believing something gives that belief greater credibility. If that were the case them maybe we should be accepting Creationism ... (and probably loads of other beliefs).

Ian

You're not far wrong. If you don't believe either in the first place, you're not likely to see why distinctions between any two beliefs may matter; indeed, you'll probably find the distinctions obscure in the extreme. However, you're implicitly excluding the possibility that either belief might actually be true, so your problem with all this is rather built into your assumptions. In short, the differences between two false beliefs generally don't matter. However, if there's any truth in either, the differences may matter quite a lot.

I'd agree with you, too, that it's not just a numbers game. That argument is often advanced against faith in general - the "No-one believes that now" approach. The problem being that, first, the assertion isn't true and, second, the implied conclusion, as you have just said, wouldn't necessarily follow even if it were.

drossall wrote:You're not far wrong. If you don't believe either in the first place, you're not likely to see why distinctions between any two beliefs may matter; indeed, you'll probably find the distinctions obscure in the extreme. However, you're implicitly excluding the possibility that either belief might actually be true, so your problem with all this is rather built into your assumptions. In short, the differences between two false beliefs generally don't matter. However, if there's any truth in either, the differences may matter quite a lot......

I would agree. I was reflecting mainly from a "social acceptance" consideration rather than the truth of the belief. I think there are two separate points
1) The truth or fallacy of the belief
2) The social acceptance of the belief in a fallacy.

Why does society accept one belief as fine/normal/mainstream whilst the other indicative of mental illness (by implication both beliefs being fallacy as there would be little question over a belief in something well proven or well established)?

Ian

Tradition?

I find it interesting the way any discussion that ends up being a debate on religion ends up being argued over by atheists. Does anyone with religious views have various view on religion? Serious question, why do these arguments become an atheists' debate and most religious types keep out.

I've been away from this thread for the weekend but going back a few pages there's been a few comments about in or out from Reohn. Not something I recognize from my Christian roots (childhood into teenage years). I rarely went to church only with cubs then scouts once a month for parade. The one thing I've never experienced is the in or out. The church kind of focused on how to b live your life right or lead a "good" life. It was actually inclusive. Even my brief dalliance with RC the priest seemed inclusive. Other churches I've sat through services in under CoE and methodist and RC all seem to be less about in/out or saved / dammed divide. I wonder if that's the extreme end of religion and the views of atheists not actual followers of mainstream religion?

Anyway can I ask everyone posting on here to state their religious or non-religious views. Are your RC, CoE methodist or atheist or agnostic? Were you ever a follower of a religious tradition and how long ago did you leave that tradition? I think it would be interesting to know where posters on this religious topic are coming from.

Tangled Metal wrote:I find it interesting the way any discussion that ends up being a debate on religion ends up being argued over by atheists. Does anyone with religious views have various view on religion? Serious question, why do these arguments become an atheists' debate and most religious types keep out......

I wonder if it's a question of numbers. My local area village church has a catchment of over 1200 people (villages "share" a vicar so services rotate around churches); and from over 1200 people maybe 20 turn-up to services (judging by the cars parked outside couple of times a month).

It always used to be on official paperwork & forms in the UK the entry "Religion" was often filled-in as CoE or Christian or similar almost as a default irrespective of whether the individual actually had any belief. I think these days as the religions in the UK have become more diverse and as it is more socially acceptable to not believe in any, so people are more ready to consider themselves having no religion.

And with church attendances dropping (CoE hit a record low in 2016) I suspect there are few believers.

So I'm not too surprised there are not many religious people in the discussion.

To me the interesting aspects about religion are whether it has a positive or negative impact on society. The truth or fallacy of the religion seems to stop at with with either belief without evidence or you require evidence. Far more interesting is the impact of religious practices and how those following religions behave compared to those without religious beliefs. How many of the wars and the oppression going on in the world are religion based and would those not be happening without religious beliefs? As society develops (e.g. we move to gender equality, we become more accepting of others and other lifestyles), does religion help or hinder that development (e.g. LBGT rights, marriage equality, gender equality, etc).

Ian

The in or out issue is a matter of fact from the mainstream Christian doctrine POV.
You either accept Jesus the Christ as your savour,in which case you're saved and become part of christendom,part of God and all the benefits of that inclusion.
Or you don't,in which case you're not part of God and will be separated from God,and be outside It's kingdom.
The Christian Church that doesn't teach that is a watered down version of the Christian faith and isn't fulfilling it's secondary function,(the first being to worship God).
The only thing that saves you from separation from God is the acceptance of the sacrifice Christ made for you by dying in your place on the cross,no amount of good works will get you God's acceptance unless you believe that.
That's the basic fundamental doctrine of Christianity