Faith Healing

[Ray Gin]

To take the atheist viewpoint means that you absolutely deny the possibility, even if evidence is produced

 

No it doesn't. It simply means the lack of belief in the existence of a God or Gods. 

As an atheist, if actual tangible, undeniable evidence were to ever actually be found to back up the notion of a God then I'd admit I was wrong. I wouldn't continue to blindly deny it in the face of all evidence, like some sort of flat-earth lunatic.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

You know how the devil got cast out of heaven into he'll, and now he tortures those unworthy of heaven?

Well, isn't he doing God's work in that case? Which makes him a good guy surely?

 

Good point.

 

Besides where is the source that says the Devil is Evil and that God is Good?  Is it in the 'Good Book' perhaps?

This narrative has been promoted for centuries by 'black robed' priests and other religious zealots saying that God is Good and that 'Jesus loves you' whilst they persecuted, tortured, burnt at the stake, drowned and just generally killed anybody who had the audacity to form a different view to theirs, somehow I doubt that the persecuted took much comfort from the fact that Jesus loved them as the torch lit the fire or they and their children were put to the sword, all in the name of God and or Jesus, and these are supposed to be the good guys remember.

They also destroyed any and every document which they could get their hands on, which again didn't conform to their view.  Censorship of the highest order.

 

History is written by the victors, but that doesn't necessary mean that the victors were the good guys.

[maroonlegions]

Good point.

 

Besides where is the source that says the Devil is Evil and that God is Good?  Is it in the 'Good Book' perhaps?

This narrative has been promoted for centuries by 'black robed' priests and other religious zealots saying that God is Good and that 'Jesus loves you' whilst they persecuted, tortured, burnt at the stake, drowned and just generally killed anybody who had the audacity to form a different view to theirs, somehow I doubt that the persecuted took much comfort from the fact that Jesus loved them as the torch lit the fire or they and their children were put to the sword, all in the name of God and or Jesus, and these are supposed to be the good guys remember.

They also destroyed any and every document which they could get their hands on, which again didn't conform to their view.  Censorship of the highest order.

 

History is written by the victors, but that doesn't necessary mean that the victors were the good guys.

 

 

Satan, the Devil, Lucifer, Beelzebub names a intelligent  negative evil from a religious and biblical perspective.

 

Occult terminology of this intelligent evil is  the realm called the "QLIPHOTH"  this realm is in opposition to the tree of life or "gods creation".

 

It is said that the biggest trick this intelligent evil ,(Satan, Devil), played on humanity was that it convinced humanity that it did not exist so it was free to wage war on god through  humanity without believe-ability or accountability for its actions.

 

Evil in occult terms comes in two forms,  intelligent positive evil and intelligent negative evil.

 

1. Positive evil can be seen in this example, the house needed destroyed to make way for a new one.That act of destruction ,(positive evil),can be seen as beneficial. 

 

2; Negative evil, wilful destruction of anything that has no  future positive  goal like the above. In short negative evil is the snake that devours its self, it has become aware of is self and seeks to spread that awareness through its  conscious wilful acts of negative evil.

 

 

In occult terms "evil" is a "limitation" forced on it through its inertia or a self destructive awareness that in time only devours its self. 

 

The occult goes much deeper that any religious text on the realms of positive and negative evil.

 

 

 

 

The Qliphoth/Qlippoth/Qelippot or Kelipot (Heb. ??????????, the different English spellings are used in the alternative Kabbalistic traditions^[1] of Hermetic Qabalah and Jewish Kabbalah respectively), literally "Peels", "Shells" or "Husks" (from singular: ???????? Qliphah/Kelipah "Husk"),^[2] are the representation of evil or impure spiritual forces in Jewish mysticism, the polar opposites of the holy Sephirot.^[3] The realm of evil is also termed "Sitra Achra/Ahra" (Aramaic ???? ????, the "Other Side" opposite holiness) in Kabbalah texts.

 

 

 

In Jewish Kabbalistic cosmology, the Qliphoth are metaphorical "shells" surrounding holiness.

 

They are spiritual obstacles receiving their existence from God only in an external, rather than internal manner. 

 

Divinity in Judaism connotes revelation of God's true unity, while the shells conceal holiness, as a peel conceals the fruit within.

 

They are therefore synonymous with idolatry, the root of impurity through ascribing false dualism in the Divine, and with the Sitra Achra (???? ???? "Other Side"), the perceived realm opposite to holiness.

 

They emerge in the descending Seder hishtalshelus (Chain of Being) through Tzimtzum (contraction of the Divine Ohr), as part of the purpose of Creation.

 

In this they also have beneficial properties, as peel protects the fruit, restraining the Divine flow from being dissipated. Kabbalah distinguishes between two realms in Kelipot, the completely impure and the intermediate.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qliphoth

[jake]

What is your point?

 

My point was i think that nothing can be discounted .

Because if everything can be explained by math then anything is possible.

 

Its the theory of infinity.

 

The actual structure of this theory is know as the fingerprint of god.

[jake]

http://highvibrationfoundation.org/mathematics-bbc-horizon-infinity.html

[jake]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x20grta_horizon-infinity-bbc_shortfilms

[aussieh]

I can play this game too. People who think atheists are worse than Islamists are worse than nazis.

Exactly, Hitler and Stalin, two of the worlds greatest Atheists.

 

I wonder what their combined death tally is.

[Solid Snake]

Exactly, Hitler and Stalin, two of the worlds greatest Atheists.

 

I wonder what their combined death tally is.

 

Aye, because THE motivations behind the acts of Hitler and Stalin were due to a lack of belief in God.

 

How have you not been emptied yet?

[redm]

No it doesn't. It simply means the lack of belief in the existence of a God or Gods. 

As an atheist, if actual tangible, undeniable evidence were to ever actually be found to back up the notion of a God then I'd admit I was wrong. I wouldn't continue to blindly deny it in the face of all evidence, like some sort of flat-earth lunatic.

 

I often wonder if some Christians know he doesn't exist but are quite comfortable living as if they believe he does, because the benefits of the lifestyle and positive effects of having faith make it worthwhile.

I wonder if some of them 'do' Christianity purely for the feeling of family or community they get from the Church. 

[Justin Z]

Exactly, Hitler and Stalin, two of the worlds greatest Atheists.

 

I wonder what their combined death tally is.

 

I'll give you Stalin, but Hitler?  Where in the world did you get that idea?

 

Regardless, even if we pretend Hitler was an atheist for a moment, what did atheism have to do with their death tally?  Did they commit their atrocities in the name of a lack of belief in a god or gods? Did their immorality stem from their atheism, was it motivated by it? (a hint--the answer is no)  And by corollary how valuable is a morality where the only reason you don't commit mass murder is because you think there's someone waiting to punish you after you die if you do? (a hint--not very)

 

Somehow I've managed to come to the conclusion that mass murder is bad without that stick lingering in the background.  Weird.

[Justin Z]

I often wonder if some Christians know he doesn't exist but are quite comfortable living as if they believe he does, because the benefits of the lifestyle and positive effects of having faith make it worthwhile.

I wonder if some of them 'do' Christianity purely for the feeling of family or community they get from the Church. 

 

There are plenty of pastors and priests for whom this is the case, much less regular churchgoers.  Here's an article.

[Ray Gin]

My point was i think that nothing can be discounted .

Because if everything can be explained by math then anything is possible.

 

That's just not true. The speed of light can be explained by maths and cannot be broken just because you can add 1 to any number.

[Justin Z]

That's just not true. The speed of light can be explained by maths and cannot be broken just because you can add 1 to any number.

 

That's a good example.

 

Maths is also entirely arbitrary.  There's no universal law that says first you have to do the operations in the parentheses, then exponents, then multiplication and division, and finally addition and subtraction.  We simply decided to make it that way.  In fact, it's a valid question to ask whether numbers actually really exist at all or if they're simply constructs in our minds.  For example . . .  How do you define "one"?  Where do you find "one" anywhere in the universe?  I'm not aware of a thing called "one" that we base our idea of "one" off of.  We invented it.  Just as we invented zero.  What is "nothing"?  Is there anywhere in the universe where an actual "nothing" exists?

 

Infinity, too, is purely a construct, a mathematical tool that can be used to help us understand reality that isn't reality in itself.

[aussieh]

No it doesn't. It simply means the lack of belief in the existence of a God or Gods.

As an atheist, if actual tangible, undeniable evidence were to ever actually be found to back up the notion of a God then I'd admit I was wrong. I wouldn't continue to blindly deny it in the face of all evidence, like some sort of flat-earth lunatic.

As opposed to what evidence. The big bang, make it up as you go along,contradiction of science.

Humans don't have all the evidence to make judgement on feck all. There's too many missing ingredients from the beginning to ever come up with the perfect soup. All it takes is one key element of extinct gas to forever stump human endeavour for the key to creation. So if people want to believe in god or not, let them, its none of our business and vice versa.

 

As for Isis etc... That's a land grab just like the empire, under the guise of religion.

 

 

 

 

Science and religion both have one thing in common. Flawed/Corrupt human beings.

 

 

Id just like to know one thing. If we're now to believe in multiverse and infinity faithdom. If everything that's possible(like a super being god thingy)can exist in the multiverse, why not god?

Personally I don't believe in god, but I do believe that the Jesus did.

However I dont feel the need to go about chastising folk who do and don't. W@nker behaviour.

Aggressive atheists are w@nkers.

[Ray Gin]

As opposed to what evidence. The big bang, make it up as you go along,contradiction of science.

 

Humans don't have all the evidence to make judgement on feck all. There's too many missing ingredients from the beginning to ever come up with the perfect soup. All it takes is one key element of extinct gas to forever stump human endeavour for the key to creation. So if people want to believe in god or not, let them, its none of our business and vice versa.

 

As for Isis etc... That's a land grab just like the empire, under the guise of religion.

 

 

Science and religion both have one thing in common. Flawed/Corrupt human beings.

 

 

Id just like to know one thing. If we're now to believe in multiverse and infinity faithdom. If everything that's possible(like a super being god thingy)can exist in the multiverse, why not god?

Personally I don't believe in god, but I do believe that the Jesus did.

However I dont feel the need to go about chastising folk who do and don't. W@nker behaviour.

Aggressive atheists are w@nkers.

 

You're the one who is coming across as aggressive. 

[Mollo]

I get the debate on the God Vs No God topic. It's as old as time itself.

 

What I don't, personally, get is those who in the debate (from either side) choose to go full on 'child' about it. Those who choose to cast judgement on behalf of their God on someone who is calmly voicing their atheist belielf. Or those aethiests who choose to say rude \ crude things about God. It just makes you look like you belong in the playground. Apologies to anyone who thinks this is aimed a them.

 

The way I see it is circa 84% of mankind living today, they estimate, has a faith. The MASSIVE, COLOSSAL majority of them live in peace. A HUGE proportion would atest their faith is linked to their morals and how they live their life. Fair play I say. If you switched off faith over night the world would last under an hour before it fell apart.

 

If you believe - do so. If you don't believe - don't. But act with morals, kindness and maturity either way I say.

[Mollo]

Also - Faith Healing, effectively could be discussed out-side of the God discussion. 

 

Most often faith helaing is linked to a belief in divine intervention. But it could be argued that seeking healing via a percieved faith that a practise WILL heal, is similar to the placebo effect.

 

It could be mind over matter. Some 'miracles' could be psychologically explained, but the mind is still a powerful thing. Personally I know of at least two people who claim they can heal.

 

One is religious, the other is not. And disregarding my own opinions, I have seen (in both cases) people who believe in this stuff, go to those people and genuinely come away with a brand new outlook on thier health \ injury situation. Very interesting. Intersting psychologically, or interesting in the divine sense..? That's down to personal opinion!

[redm]

There are plenty of pastors and priests for whom this is the case, much less regular churchgoers.  Here's an article.

 

Interesting read, that. Thanks

"Congregational life", that's probably the term I was looking for. You can totally understand why someone, who is surrounded by other Christians and has lived a Christian "congregational life" for some time, may either choose not to think too hard about whether or not they truly believe. For many people it would be life-changing in the most difficult sort of ways. Family, friends, how you spend your time, the emotional crutch and familiarity. It's almost easier just to go with it, I suppose, especially when it's all you really know.

 

I was a little surprised to read about the number of non-believer clergy. That's pretty nuts. The pressure and guilt elements must be massive for them. 

[redm]

Also - Faith Healing, effectively could be discussed out-side of the God discussion. 

 

Most often faith helaing is linked to a belief in divine intervention. But it could be argued that seeking healing via a percieved faith that a practise WILL heal, is similar to the placebo effect.

 

It could be mind over matter. Some 'miracles' could be psychologically explained, but the mind is still a powerful thing. Personally I know of at least two people who claim they can heal.

 

One is religious, the other is not. And disregarding my own opinions, I have seen (in both cases) people who believe in this stuff, go to those people and genuinely come away with a brand new outlook on thier health \ injury situation. Very interesting. Intersting psychologically, or interesting in the divine sense..? That's down to personal opinion!

 

For me it all depends on what they claim to be the source of this healing power, or how they explain it. 

If someone was to pop up and say they knew some great ways to help you feel better (or to help you help yourself) just by improving your mindset, or through positive thinking and action, then I could probably buy into that. It might make sense. If they come along and tell me some God invested the power of healing in them, I'd think they were just shady crackpots to be honest. Especially if they make money from it. That's the part that bothers me the most...the money. Making cash under false pretences from those who are vulnerable or afraid. Horrible.

[i8hibsh]

There is serious arrogance with faith healing imo.  Someone thinks their faith got them through cancer etc - how dare they.  What makes them so special?  A bit like when a bus crashes or something. 48 passengers and a driver and 20 die, and someone who survived will say I know God was looking out for me.  What makes them so special!!!  Why would their God kill 20 but make them survive? What kind of sick ****er is their God?

 

 

The reality is that many people fight cancer and many people die from it.  People survive crashes and people die in them.  You have to be some kind of arsehole to think that out of 7 billion people on the planet (the majority of which live in misery) for that one split second God looked over them whilst children are being born with AIDS in Africa.

 

[Mollo]

For me it all depends on what they claim to be the source of this healing power, or how they explain it. 

If someone was to pop up and say they knew some great ways to help you feel better (or to help you help yourself) just by improving your mindset, or through positive thinking and action, then I could probably buy into that. It might make sense. If they come along and tell me some God invested the power of healing in them, I'd think they were just shady crackpots to be honest. Especially if they make money from it. That's the part that bothers me the most...the money. Making cash under false pretences from those who are vulnerable or afraid. Horrible.

Totally agree redm, for conmen it must be like a pot of jam to wasps. Cretins.

 

 

One is a work guy - non-religious, bit of a hippy-type, into the psychological side of 'energy' and how to use it (as oposed to crystals and all that jazz!). He also only talks about it when in the right crowd, very cautious to not influence anyone who thinks it is magical or divine. Also doesn't do it for any reward. This person is the one I find more interesting in a way. If hypnotists and 'persuasion illusionist types' can influence the way you think, I don't see why such a placebo effect can't happen, to a degree with all this healing stuff.

 

I find it very interesting from a 'human mind' point of view.

[Ray Gin]

 

There is serious arrogance with faith healing imo.  Someone thinks their faith got them through cancer etc - how dare they.  What makes them so special?  A bit like when a bus crashes or something. 48 passengers and a driver and 20 die, and someone who survived will say I know God was looking out for me.  What makes them so special!!!  Why would their God kill 20 but make them survive? What kind of sick ****er is their God?

 

 

The reality is that many people fight cancer and many people die from it.  People survive crashes and people die in them.  You have to be some kind of arsehole to think that out of 7 billion people on the planet (the majority of which live in misery) for that one split second God looked over them whilst children are being born with AIDS in Africa.

 

 

 

[Justin Z]

I took the bursd I was dating to see Tim Minchin years ago now.  He actually had her going at the beginning.  She was not the brightest one ever, that's for sure

 

He's absolutely brilliant live, by the way.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/pray.in.jesus.name.muslim.woman.bedridden.for.a.year.healed.after.her.husband.followed.gods.command/103684.htm

 

A Muslim woman was 'healed' too!

[Maple Leaf]

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/pray.in.jesus.name.muslim.woman.bedridden.for.a.year.healed.after.her.husband.followed.gods.command/103684.htm

 

A Muslim woman was 'healed' too!

Extract from the article quoted below.  Sounds legit to me.

 

"One day, with his wife screaming in pain, Nizar's uncle cried out to God in desperation. "What do you want from me? Why am I suffering like this? Why do you let life hit me like this, break me like this?" he asked.

Suddenly, the man heard a voice from above that said: "Go to your wife and pray in the name of Jesus Christ. Put your hand on her back and she will be healed."

[Jambo-Jimbo]

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/pray.in.jesus.name.muslim.woman.bedridden.for.a.year.healed.after.her.husband.followed.gods.command/103684.htm

 

A Muslim woman was 'healed' too!

 

 

He couldn't afford to send his wife to a hospital but could send her to a doctor who examined her and carried out x-rays, how could he suddenly afford that? 

The Doctor couldn't explain it, probably because the doctor didn't see the patient until after she was 'cured', remember the husband couldn't afford treatment for her.  

 

Sounds like blatant propaganda from a Christian group saying that our God (Christian) is better & stronger than your God (Muslim).

[Bindy Badgy]

Extract from the article quoted below.  Sounds legit to me.

 

"One day, with his wife screaming in pain, Nizar's uncle cried out to God in desperation. "What do you want from me? Why am I suffering like this? Why do you let life hit me like this, break me like this?" he asked.

Suddenly, the man heard a voice from above that said: "Go to your wife and pray in the name of Jesus Christ. Put your hand on her back and she will be healed."

 

I don't know about everyone else but that's me convinced.

[peter_hmfc]

One thing that struck me recently is that when these people are on a TV show such as Montel or Ellen (both of which are cretins for allowing them the airtime), why are there not avid paranormal ghost-hunting fans desperately camped out with their equipment trying to capture any evidence of spirits?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Had been ignoring this thread because I thought it was still about faith healing.

 

Couple points of order -- anyone talking about the specifics of Lucifer as the angel cast out of heaven by God should understand that that entire storyline, including the name Lucifer, was invented entirely by Milton.  It's particularly prominent in the Anglican church as religious literature but is not actually doctrinal to any denomination of Christianity. If you're arguing about Lucifer, you're arguing with Milton and his fans, not with Christianity or even the Anglican church in particular.

 

Also, I've said this before, but many atheists have a particularly impoverished notion of the logic that leads one to be a practicing religious adherent. I suppose there are people out there who start from the proposition that God exists and then move from there, but I've never once heard anyone describe their faith journey that way to me (and as a pastor's spouse I've heard a lot of faith journeys).  Many atheists do seem to start with the proposition that God does not exist and progress from there, and that's fair enough, but I think this is a reason that in arguments theists and atheists do a lot of talking past each other.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

Had been ignoring this thread because I thought it was still about faith healing.

 

Couple points of order -- anyone talking about the specifics of Lucifer as the angel cast out of heaven by God should understand that that entire storyline, including the name Lucifer, was invented entirely by Milton. It's particularly prominent in the Anglican church as religious literature but is not actually doctrinal to any denomination of Christianity. If you're arguing about Lucifer, you're arguing with Milton and his fans, not with Christianity or even the Anglican church in particular.

 

Also, I've said this before, but many atheists have a particularly impoverished notion of the logic that leads one to be a practicing religious adherent. I suppose there are people out there who start from the proposition that God exists and then move from there, but I've never once heard anyone describe their faith journey that way to me (and as a pastor's spouse I've heard a lot of faith journeys). Many atheists do seem to start with the proposition that God does not exist and progress from there, and that's fair enough, but I think this is a reason that in arguments theists and atheists do a lot of talking past each other.

What are your thoughts on faith healing?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Fact checking myself because I wanted to be sure, my comment about Lucifer isn't 100% correct -- there was a minor tradition of Satan as the "day star" cast out of heaven before Milton, but it was made far more prominent with a quirk of the King James translation and then heavily popularized by Milton. 

 

Just sayin'.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

 

Personally, I believe no-one is born believing in God. They get brainwashed later.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

What are your thoughts on faith healing?

 

I think modern medicine has, until relatively recently, overlooked the mental and affective aspects of disease, and how the "spirits" of the person involved (even in the most atheist and secular sense) can have a great deal of impact on the healing of the body.  I also believe strongly in the ability of healthy religious practice to calm, soothe, and focus a person, particularly with things that we roughly call "mental illness."  So in that sense, I do strongly believe that faith can be healing.

 

In terms of the more sensationalist, cancer miraculously disappears simply because someone turns to Jesus, I am open to being surprised but in general I dismiss these as coincidence and hokum.  If there's a religious doctrine which will guarantee a person long life and a lack of tragedy, it has yet to be found.  Saying different is tantamount to blaming the sufferer for having the wrong belief, which I find unspeakably cruel and evil.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Personally, I believe no-one is born believing in God. They get brainwashed later.

 

No one is born believing in anything.  All education and experience might similarly be termed "brainwashing."

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

No one is born believing in anything. All education and experience might similarly be termed "brainwashing."

I know, I only became an atheist being forced to sit through preaching at primary and Sunday schools.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

I know, I only became an atheist being forced to sit through preaching at primary and Sunday schools.

 

Forcing children to sit through worship services seems like a great way to create atheists to me.  Absolutely daft policy IMO.

[zoltan socrates]

No it doesn't. It simply means the lack of belief in the existence of a God or Gods. 

 

As an atheist, if actual tangible, undeniable evidence were to ever actually be found to back up the notion of a God then I'd admit I was wrong. I wouldn't continue to blindly deny it in the face of all evidence, like some sort of flat-earth lunatic.

Thats agnostic then ray

[i8hibsh]

Human beings as a species literally have to be the most gullible possible.  Seriously, some of the shit that the majority believe in literally makes you take a step back and go wow to yourself.  Some bursd in my work today is actually on edge as it is Friday the 13^th.  I mean for the love of actual ****.  She thinks that the outcome of her day will be altered for no other reason than it?s Friday 13^th.  Utterly bizarre behavior.  Ghosts, black cats, rabbit?s foot, religion, Gods and faith healing.  I honestly would laugh if it wasn?t so ****ing serious.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Forcing children to sit through worship services seems like a great way to create atheists to me.  Absolutely daft policy IMO.

 

When I was at school during the 60's & 70's that was what it was like.

 

In the morning at Primary School you had to recite the Lords Prayer, and attend Church at Easter & Christmas with the rest of the school, amongst other things.

At High school we had 'Religious Education' which in those days was 100% Christian based, we learnt nothing about other religions, only what the bible says and what Jesus did etc etc etc.

In the mid 70's in my year at High school we had a Sikh & a Muslim and guess what, they were told they had to attend these Christian propaganda classes, long story short the school had to relent after the Education Authority got involved.

 

It was a disastrous policy to try and force feed Christianity down peoples throats, because if anything it had the opposite effect, as out of a class of say 30 pupils there were maybe around 10 or so who actually even went to church and believed this stuff, the rest of us were condemned to eternal damnation as non believers.

 

School's should let children make their own minds up and if they want to follow a God then so be it, if they don't want to, then it shouldn't be rammed down their throats.

[Ray Gin]

Thats agnostic then ray

No it isn't.

 

Agnosticism is thinking that we can't truly know if there is a God or not.

 

Atheism is dismissing the notion of a God completely. However it doesn't mean you can't change your mind if proven wrong.

[Sarah O]

I don't even think he has received compensation as yet.

 

edit : just read - he received a pathetic ?2 million.

?200 odd quid a day.

 

Not a bad pay....

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

When I was at school during the 60's & 70's that was what it was like.

 

In the morning at Primary School you had to recite the Lords Prayer, and attend Church at Easter & Christmas with the rest of the school, amongst other things.

At High school we had 'Religious Education' which in those days was 100% Christian based, we learnt nothing about other religions, only what the bible says and what Jesus did etc etc etc.

In the mid 70's in my year at High school we had a Sikh & a Muslim and guess what, they were told they had to attend these Christian propaganda classes, long story short the school had to relent after the Education Authority got involved.

 

It was a disastrous policy to try and force feed Christianity down peoples throats, because if anything it had the opposite effect, as out of a class of say 30 pupils there were maybe around 10 or so who actually even went to church and believed this stuff, the rest of us were condemned to eternal damnation as non believers.

 

School's should let children make their own minds up and if they want to follow a God then so be it, if they don't want to, then it shouldn't be rammed down their throats.

Totally agree, except I was at school in the 80s. I went to a mixed religion school and had a jew in my year, he had to get involved.

 

It only stopped when the teachers went on strike.

 

Religious schools should not be funded by the tax payer.

[i8hibsh]

?200 odd quid a day.

 

Not a bad pay....

 

2 million is a lot but would you give up 25 years for 2 million squid?

[zoltan socrates]

No it isn't.

 

Agnosticism is thinking that we can't truly know if there is a God or not.

 

Atheism is dismissing the notion of a God completely. However it doesn't mean you can't change your mind if proven wrong.

Ahah see i saw it as atheism was complete rejection irrespective whereas agnosticism was rejection unless decent evidence was brought forth, ill revise myself then , i am an atheist

 

Thanks

[Jambo 4 Ever]

Ahah see i saw it as atheism was complete rejection irrespective whereas agnosticism was rejection unless decent evidence was brought forth, ill revise myself then , i am an atheist

 

Thanks

Are you a humanist?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Totally agree, except I was at school in the 80s. I went to a mixed religion school and had a jew in my year, he had to get involved.

 

It only stopped when the teachers went on strike.

 

Religious schools should not be funded by the tax payer.

 

Mine was just an ordinary bog standard school, however back in the 60's & 70's pupils from a different racial (non White) or religious background (non Christian) were few and far between.

[Maple Leaf]

Forcing children to sit through worship services seems like a great way to create atheists to me.  Absolutely daft policy IMO.

When I attended the Royal High School in Edinburgh, first thing every morning, before classes started, was a Protestant Christian service.  Attendance was mandatory.  If a student was a Catholic or a Jew and didn't like the policy, it was suggested that he find another school.  The outcome, for me, was as you have predicted, but that wasn't the only factor.

 

Mind you, I loved many of the hymns, and can still belt them out today.  "Onward Christian Soldiers" and "For all the Saints" and "Jerusalem" were among my favourites.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

When I attended the Royal High School in Edinburgh, first thing every morning, before classes started, was a Protestant Christian service.  Attendance was mandatory.  If a student was a Catholic or a Jew and didn't like the policy, it was suggested that he find another school.  The outcome, for me, was as you have predicted, but that wasn't the only factor.

 

Mind you, I loved many of the hymns, and can still belt them out today.  "Onward Christian Soldiers" and "For all the Saints" and "Jerusalem" were among my favourites.

 

From a distance it seems like policies were more worried about making sure that students picked the "right" brand of Christianity than actually developing a mature understanding of religion, and in the process pushed several generations right out of the church.

 

"Onward Christian Soldiers" has always been too militant for my tastes but to this day I can't make it through "For All the Saints" without greeting like a Hibee watching an Ozturk screamer go in.

[Justin Z]

Also, I've said this before, but many atheists have a particularly impoverished notion of the logic that leads one to be a practicing religious adherent. I suppose there are people out there who start from the proposition that God exists and then move from there, but I've never once heard anyone describe their faith journey that way to me (and as a pastor's spouse I've heard a lot of faith journeys).  Many atheists do seem to start with the proposition that God does not exist and progress from there, and that's fair enough, but I think this is a reason that in arguments theists and atheists do a lot of talking past each other.

 

Apologies--you may have said it before but for the life of me I can't parse what it is you're trying to say, but if it's what I think you're trying to say, the statistics we have available on who ultimately joins which religious sect--at the macro level--correlate so strongly to their parents' and greater society's tendency that it flies in the face of it.  Put more simply, where you are born strongly correlates with what your religious belief is likely to be.  That hardly jives with the claim I understand you to be making--that most believers aren't presuming, from the time their brains have developed enough to start thinking about it for themselves, that a god or gods exist.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Apologies--you may have said it before but for the life of me I can't parse what it is you're trying to say, but if it's what I think you're trying to say, the statistics we have available on who ultimately joins which religious sect--at the macro level--correlate so strongly to their parents' and greater society's tendency that it flies in the face of it.  Put more simply, where you are born strongly correlates with what your religious belief is likely to be.  That hardly jives with the claim I understand you to be making--that most believers aren't presuming, from the time their brains have developed enough to start thinking about it for themselves, that a god or gods exist.

 

I (obviously) can't speak for all Christians, much less for practitioners of other religions, but the act of religious practice involves a decision greater than simply assuming that God exists. As a few have pointed out above, there's a fair few in the pews who have questions about the existence of God, and if surveys from the US from a few years ago hold up, there's an awful lot of people who don't darken the door of a church except perhaps on Christmas Eve who think God does exist.

 

In my experience, most adult Christians have gone through some period of questioning in their lives, and attending church is something they come to a conscious decision of after that period of questioning.  I spent 10 years away from the church and I had a lot of complicated reasons for going back, but suddenly deciding that I did think God existed after all was definitely not among them.  When new members join or we ordain new officers of the church, we often ask people to describe how they ended up here.  A lot of time it has to do with their children asking hard questions about suffering and wanting some help with answers, or thinking back to how their own experience in Sunday School helped them make friends and learn to be nice to others, and wanting their kids to do the same.  Some are there for the music -- they're not sure they believe but they love singing the hymns.  Some have had major conversion experiences, some are struggling with major changes in their lives (one of our members used to attend a very conservative Baptist church, but then his daughter came out as gay, and when it came to picking between his church and his daughter, the daughter won).  Some are just lonely.  But I have yet to hear someone who said, "well, clearly God exists, and because of that, I'm supposed to be in church..."

 

In my very strong opinion church at its best allows for generous room in how people understand what "God" means.  Christ as described in the Gospels is the center of everything -- if you can't follow Christ you probably need to be elsewhere -- but what following means is something we're trying to figure out together.

 

I ended up back in a Presbyterian church because I came to understand that religion was about more than something I did on Sunday morning, but that it was about who I was, the words I used, the values I had, and so forth.  That doesn't make it the only "right" answer, but it makes it mine. Or to put it another way, I think there is truth in what we do at church, but it's not the only truth there is.