Agnostics “R” Us...

??? An insect can navigate complex environments - it can hunt and avoid being caught...

 

No one, I read about it when googling declawing cats. Are your cats declawed? Most people do it because of furniture damage and to prevent climbing trees.

In the United Kingdom, declawing was outlawed by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which explicitly prohibited "interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of the animal, otherwise than for the purposes of its medical treatment." Even before the 2006 Act, however, declawingwas extremely uncommon.

 

I’m sorry - I owe you an apology.
I hadn’t realised that ‘declawing’ is different from ‘trimming.’
Yes - you are quite correct.

 

My pleasure Mister Muso.

I looked up your question on Richard Dawkins. Read this article on it where he says he describes himself as a secular Christian and has a "...feeling for nostalgia and ceremonies" and in the past has called himself a "cultural Anglican". so there is truth in your thinking about Dawkins. Here is the article link:

https://christiantoday.com.au/news/...sense-of-nostalgia-for-church-traditions.html

 

Ey there @Tanni. You may be right. I vaguely remember such a thing when I saw the Constantine documentary on the History Channel many years ago. Emperor Constantine certainly played a pivotal rol in the expansion of Christianity. I'm still not out about certain historic figures in that they truly thought that they received a ''divine'' message from above, or that they were psychological ''unstable'' (many key figures heard voices, which is a possible sign of schizophrenia) that they deceived themselves that they are chosen by god or his servants to fulfill his/their will. To take an example of Joan of Arc; she was convinced she saw visions from servants of God (e.g. Saint Michael), who told her she needs to drive out the English for the sake of France. Apparently the Israelites were not the only ''chosen people''.

About the cookie story: I actually borrowed it from Jim Carrey when I saw the movie Bruce Almighty as a teenager. He used it in the context that it means ''that's the way things go'', but maybe I got it all wrong, which happens more often than not. Here's an example from the king of comedy:

Bruce Almighty - That's the way the...

I agree. The book is outdated in many respects and there's a reason why in the late middle ages/ Renaissance period scholars try to disentangle theology (in this case: the tradition of medieval scholaticism, which entails that scientific methods should be used to understand God and his creations) from secular & humanist philosophy (emphasis on logical, critical reasoning and scientific methods as a means to understand natural phenomena), as some realize that there's a clear distinction in what they see and what they should ought to see (e.g. The trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei). Some tried to change the Church from within, like the catholic and humanist philosopher Erasmus, but with limited success (e.g. he wrote critical essays against power abuse in the church, more respect for independent and critical thought, intolerance against other religions and that dogmatism often inhibits solidarity of christians with other non-christians).

I couldn't agree more that empathy is a key ingredient in better understanding who we are, what we hold dear (in terms of values) and what life entails. But empathy has also an intellectual component and we need to cultivate that, as we are not always able to live through certain experiences that other peoples have (e.g. religious intolerance is different for a white middle aged person in Wrexham than for an Indian-English person from Wolverhampton). Have you read Roman Krnaric's book ''Empathy: why it matters''? In this book, he tells the story that critically discussing literature can help foster empathy, as we dive in the world of others, understand their views, and try to compare that of other key figures in the story or even compare similar works of other authors to gain a better understanding of something. It's sort of a golden rule that we have to read Anne Frank's diary in middle/high school (not every school does it, but most do), as it allows us to have a better understanding what racism and religious intolerance can mean for some people, and that we wouldn't want to be in that position ourselves. It allows us to shape our view on a just society based on those stories, of experiences shared by others (like Anne Frank), and that we maybe draw the conclusion that we want to create a more just society in which a minority is protected against the tyranny of the majority by law.

 

Religious education is a also a subject in some secular middle/high schools. RE does not have the same reputation as Geography, English and Maths, as you do not have to do exams in this subject. You'll only get this in the first three/four years of secondary education, but it's all about having a basic understanding about different (non)religions.

There's definitely a difference in our political culture. If you want to form a government around here, you almost need to have a smaller centrist party to form a majority, and it almost always happens to be a christian party. This happens almost every time. Our current government is led by a right wing conservative party (VVD), but supported by a social liberal centrist party (D'66, looks like your Lib Dems), and two christian centrist parties (CDA and Christian Union). Not a perfect system, but at least in this way parties have to compromise and loss some of their rough edges (not a fan of the conservative VVD, as they want to privatize and deregulate a lot of things, but are kept in check by other parties).

Are these stats right for your country? Culturally, it seems that we have more atheists than in GB. You may be right that Britains are more reserved in their religious convictions than in NL. Anyway, this seems so at odds when you look at our political systems.

 

That certainly hits the spot @Henry Orlando FL. And I really enjoyed reading your story about your ideological struggles with Catholicism and the distinction between secular and ''traditional'' Buddhism. It seems this Stephen Batchelor is quite an authority in this area, as many posts in this thread attest to that. So, Batchelor sort of helped you to find a certain direction in buddhism. Which denomination in Buddhism did you choose and why?

It's actually a trend around here to practice Buddhism without the religious ''fluff''. Most people around here are not willing to convert to a religion, and mindfulness seems in that way safe as it is promoted as a psychological tool to help distress in life. I could have chosen for mindfulness for that same reason, but I just happen to know a Zen teacher who is really relaxed, not dogmatic and very supportive. I also have to add that I used to practice Transcendental Meditation until recently, but this mantra focused relaxation technique is very hard to do if you have a severe case of tinnitus. For me, Zen buddhism is more accessible as I just have to focus on one point in front of me and on keeping a stable composure.

 

I follow Bodhipasksa a thttps://www.wildmind.org/ who is a Scottish immigrant to the USA. He used to be active with them in the UK when it was called the Western Buddhist Order now called the Triratna Order. He is still a member of that community...see here: https://thebuddhistcentre.com/. I also follow Stephen Batchelor and the faculty via https://bodhi-college.org/ in the UK. So I am a Secular Buddhist to the core he says with a smile. For me Zen has never hit the spot and I see it has good points from my readings. Just not my cup of tea. In the USA mindfulness meditation is virtually everywhere now. Businesses use it, psychotherapists use it, Yoga places use it, celebrities have mindfulness apps out and tout it, etc. My wife is a TM person...works well enough for her. Glad you have something that works well for you...that is all that matters I would say.

 

Bearing in mind that the story of Jesus was simply an oral tradition for forty years, how much credibility can we give it?
When Matthew says that Jesus will return and separate the sheep from the goats, which will be cast into lakes of fire, he blackmails the world into belief by fear.
Well - one highly successful way to build your church I suppose.

An Introduction to the Gospels
Written over the course of almost a century after Jesus' death, the four gospels of the New Testament, though they tell the same story, reflect very different ideas and concerns.
by Marilyn Mellowes

A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing of the first gospel. History offers us little direct evidence about the events of this period, but it does suggest that the early Christians were engaged in one of the most basic of human activities: story-telling. In the words of Mike White, "It appears that between the death of Jesus and the writing of the first gospel, Mark, that they clearly are telling stories. They're passing on the tradition of what happened to Jesus, what he stood for and what he did, orally, by telling it and retelling it. And in the process they are defining Jesus for themselves."

These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as "oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and healings, his parables and teachings, and his death. Eventually some stories were written down. The first written documents probably included an account of the death of Jesus and a collection of sayings attributed to him.

Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus. We will never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark, since it was common practice in the ancient world to attribute written works to famous people. But we do know that it was Mark's genius to first to commit the story of Jesus to writing, and thereby inaugurated the gospel tradition.

 

@Tanni, I appreciate your openness. You seem to be able to step outside your preconceptions rather well and not presume to much about others.
Re:

The Bible clearly contains some of the worst examples of humanity I expose myself to or allow my kids to read about. Take king David, for example, had I written this book, he would certainly have been disqualified. Granted no one is perfect, but lots of people are more moral-acting than him. I would have cleaned up and clarified a lot of other stuff too.

I see the Bible teaching morality through many other passages. The amoral parts complicate that, but I don't see that they disqualify it. The amoral parts are just the reality of humanity and are part of revealing the teaching of God's patience and grace, but also his judgement.

I think the extended discussion of the definitions of atheist and agnostic are interesting, and if I were to adopt the more subtle, slippery, squirrel-y ones, I would say I am an agnostic Christian, but just to talk straight, I would say I am a Christian who doesn't' know everything.

 

The threats of ‘hellfire’ etc... render the christian faith unacceptable to me.
Who would want a god like that?
I will not accede to any faith by fear.

Perhaps there is a decent, loving god, quite apart from all this hateful biblical stuff - a god of humanity - who would be worth believing in.

But I won’t hold my breath.

 

And as the dedicated preacher reads from another page of written words many years after Jesus, note the name Jesus not god. But to all those sitting in their church of belief, are being tortured by the words "y'all going to hell ya don't mend yer ways, ya need to believe in what I say. Now let's all sing hymn 537. In god we believe.

Now here's a good one, the 6 year old child who has probably sinned by pissing on the flowers, is going to do his or her first communion where they must accept some god then tell some old guy behind a screen door the sin they have committed, the fear that has been instilled by parents, which the parents were dealt at a young age is a circle of, y'all going to hell!!!!!

The church has brain washed children from the moment they leave the womb. The circle never gets broken, not until the child is old enough to make their own decisions but by then the fear of church and god are planted deep.

I have to agree with @Jazzer on the whole concept of who the hell is this god? But then I lost my belief 60 years ago.

 

Mick and Paddy went to church one sunday for confession. Paddy said I will go in a confess my sin.

Forgive me father for I have sinned.

What is the sin my son?

I had sex with a young lady.

Who was this young lady asked the father. Was it Mary? No
Was it Judy? No. Was it Linda? No. Was it Lucy? No. I cannot tell.

Well my son go say 50 Hail Marys and behave yourself.

Paddy ran to Mick. Mick said did you confess Paddy? Yes I did and I just got the names of 4 more girls.

 

A lot of Christians have experienced a Damascus moment, which is a turning point in one's life, usually sudden, when a person suddenly believes in Jesus. It is hard to explain why, and difficult to explain through logic. It is a bit like magic (not the demonic kind) but received through the Holy Spirit. After baptisms, the baptized person usually gives a short statement on why he became a Christian (usually about his Damascus moment).

There are a lot of people raised from a young age to be Christians, however unless they are also born again such as through experiencing a Damascus moment, they will fall away from the faith or become cultural Christians.

That doesn't mean Christians don't struggle with faith sometimes, especially if the burdens of life become heavy. Also, this doesn't mean Christians fully understand God or why He allowed certain events, etc. However, they do not usually make a conscious decision to walk away and reject.

 

In my opinion the glue that binds ‘believers’ to their faith is quite simply - ‘fear’ of indoctrinated consequences.
“I’d better ‘make out’ I believe just in case.”

 

You're really on top of your game @Henry Orlando FL. Thank you so much for sending me the links. It's always good to delve into the secular buddhism matter. I never knew it was a separate category from mindfulness, as in that there's an order/organisation that focuses on secular buddhism. Anyway, I'm going to look it up

 

All my life I was raised in an extremely religious household and when I was a little kid I was terrified of hell (as a little kid). However around the age of 10-12 I spent a lot of outdoors in nature and in school socializing with friends and I realized the natural world didn't all match the biblical world of super natural phenomena, burning bushes, walking on water, angels miracles ect.. Even when I was a kid I was expecting my parent to tell me Jesus was just like Santa Claus. I was odded out by Christianity and how people dogmatically believed it.

Long story short, the threatening with an eternity in hell never phased me.

 

Ah Christiaan, I can assure you at age 73 I am still working on it!! Trust you find something useful from the links. As they say in Alcoholic's Annonymous "Take what you need and leave the rest." Thanks for creating the space for me to maybe make a contribution. Henry

 

‘Fear not, brave souls
- it’s high time we overcame
the indoctrination we were
subjected to.’

 

In Brooklyn version is, "Do Unto Others, As They Would Do Unto You, But Do It First."

 

Goodness, no I haven't. You're far too intellectual for me! I will look out for it and give it a read.

I very much enjoy reading your posts, and love the below:

I find religious people can be very intolerant, but I always keep in mind that this intolerance works both ways, hence my original post in here. In better words:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

 

It is a peculiarity of Britain that funnily enough I was debating whether to include in my original post to you. If you ask British people to fill out a form on religion, most will identify as 'Church of England'. Very few would be happy to identify as 'Atheist'. However, most of these people will not attend church, read the Bible, pray, or incorporate God into their daily lives in any way.

I think it is very much a generational thing -- being 'Church of England' represents part of the British identity rather than an actual religious conviction. Being 'Athiest' doesn't feel as British. Saying you believe in God is the standard and correct answer for British people of certain generations.

Also, Britain includes Northern Ireland, who are a very religious country -- completely different to England in this respect.

 

I know plenty of people who say they are Christian but they are not. I do not think they know what it means to be Christian. Many of them do not even know what the Gospel is, and can't explain it. I think they like to keep one foot in, and one foot out.