Christening....which religion.....

Torry_Quine

EchoLocation wrote: »

I would hope that we both agree that new born babies were not Gods 'opponents'.

The question was "Can anyone think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?" Can you honestly deny that someone exactly carrying out something that God commanded, was not doing so precisely because of their religious faith?



We clearly get morals from evolution. Morals are simply rules and constructs that came about by our societal living. Animals show signs of morality and altruism, did they get them from God, or is it simply beneficial for their evolution and propogation to retain this behaviour?

Must admit I've never come across the phrase 'babies as God's "opponents'" so can't answer other than agreeing with you.

As I said people often think they are carrying out God's wishes.

Disagree with evolution as I've said on numerous occassions.

neverdespairgirl

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Really?

You can trace your roots back to Anglo Saxon ancestors and have no foreign blood?

Weren't Harold's ancestors something to do with Sweden and Denmark as well, the Viking lot?
The Normans were descended from Norse men themselves, not much different from much of the ruling elite in Britain at the same time.

His father was Anglo-Saxon (Godwin, Earl of Wessex). His mother, Gytha, was Danish.

neverdespairgirl

ebayqueen wrote: »

Please remove this one as well Crazy guy. Very distasteful

I thought it was pretty funny.

EchoLocation

Torry_Quine wrote: »

Must admit I've never come across the phrase 'babies as God's "opponents'" so can't answer other than agreeing with you.

Come on. Make the connection. Old Testament (sorry to keep bringing it up!). Infanticide. "God was very harsh at times to His opponents". See what I mean, were the babies killed his opponents?

Torry_Quine wrote: »

As I said people often think they are carrying out God's wishes.

Isn't God directly commanding something then 'God's wish'? Unless the Bible is wrong?

Torry_Quine wrote: »

Disagree with evolution as I've said on numerous occassions.

That's not a counter argument against morals being a product of societal habitiation? Why couldn't it be so? Why would morals MUST have come from God?

erichamster

Torry_Quine wrote: »

This is where we seperate, while agreeing all of us have a capacity to be moral beings, I would say that it comes ultimately from God.


I would actually argue that religious people who are moral because of a delusional belief in god or religion are actually less moral than atheists with similar moral values. Religious people often remark that they can't imagine why you would be good if there was no god, the implication then is that those people are moral only in order to appease god and avoid his punishment, they are moral in order to suck up. Whereas the atheist has no such reason to be moral, he or she anticipates no reward after death and therefore is moral for morality's sake, rather than simply for their own gain. Also as I mentioned before, morality and altruistic behaviour have a strong grounding in evolution, which is based on observed evidence.


I'm sorry you feel that way. I can only say that my relationship with God is the most important one in my life and is beneficial in many ways.

I genuinely would love to know exactly how is it beneficial? I can think of no way in which my life could possibly be improved by believing in a fictional deity and I'm always interested to hear why other people indulge in thses kinds of beliefs.

Torry_Quine

I would actually argue that religious people who are moral because of a delusional belief in god or religion are actually less moral than atheists with similar moral values. Religious people often remark that they can't imagine why you would be good if there was no god, the implication then is that those people are moral only in order to appease god and avoid his punishment, they are moral in order to suck up. Whereas the atheist has no such reason to be moral, he or she anticipates no reward after death and therefore is moral for morality's sake, rather than simply for their own gain. Also as I mentioned before, morality and altruistic behaviour have a strong grounding in evolution, which is based on observed evidence.

erichamster wrote: »

I genuinely would love to know exactly how is it beneficial? I can think of no way in which my life could possibly be improved by believing in a fictional deity and I'm always interested to hear why other people indulge in thses kinds of beliefs.

I am not one of those who say why would you be moral without a belief in God. Being moral as a Christian is not the easy option though it frequently means going against the world view of things.

I disagree that morality and altruistic behaviour have a grounding in evolution.

The problem is that God is a fiction to you but to me is real so you can never understand how having Him in my life enriches it.

Oldernotwiser

meritaten wrote: »

I too am well aware that the correct term is 'denomination' - but being of a slightly older generation, know that when someone asked 'what religion are you' they generally meant denomination!
This was the commonly used word up until very recently!

I don't know whether you're older than I am but I certainly never heard it used in that way in the past. If someone asked that question, they'd be looking for the answer Jewish/Christian/Muslim, not RC/ CofE/Baptist.

erichamster

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I am not one of those who say why would you be moral without a belief in God. Being moral as a Christian is not the easy option though it frequently means going against the world view of things.

I disagree that morality and altruistic behaviour have a grounding in evolution.

The problem is that God is a fiction to you but to me is real so you can never understand how having Him in my life enriches it.

But that's the same sort of cop out as "god works in mysterious ways". How can you base your life on something you can't even explain to others? It's pointless.

The trouble is that religion rarely takes hold in people who haven't been indoctrinated as children because it has no basis other than 'the bible says it's so', I may as well say any old book must be true because it was written down a long time ago in the olden days!

That's why religion is so keen to get 'em while they're young so please don't christen your innocent child OP, it's a pointless, outdated tradition that labels tiny children as sinners and saddles them with defunct beliefs before they're anywhere near mature enough to decide how they stand on the point, you wouldn't label a child a Labour child or a Conservative child but its fine to call them a Christian child or a Muslim child as an infant!
Bring them up with an open mind to question everything and ask how people know things and what is the evidence, not just to accept whatever they're told blindly.

neverdespairgirl

EchoLocation wrote: »

Rather like Christopher Hitchens' challenge to Theists...

Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever? Can anyone think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?

Burning of heretics?

Oldernotwiser

erichamster wrote: »

The trouble is that religion rarely takes hold in people who haven't been indoctrinated as children because it has no basis other than 'the bible says it's so', I may as well say any old book must be true because it was written down a long time ago in the olden days!

That's quite a ridiculous thing to say. There are an enormous number of practising Christians who converted as adults; in Protestant churches, probably a large majority.