Religion, what's the point?

[Roane]

Exactly!

And it is not only the financial gains, don't forget the "spiritual power". Which is a real power. The power to tell the people what to do and how to behave, and the power to "absolve their sins". And the love and the respect of their "community".

Religion in the West today is largely thought of as a "personal matter". But it wasn't like that in the past, and it is not that in most parts of the planet today, especially in Islam. Religion is not a personal affair, it is a community affair, and the leaders of religion have the power to influence the lives of others. They have *the right* to tell you how to live your life. It is not okay if you just stay away from them because that diminishes their power. And they love the power they have over people. That's why many Muslims (and fundamentalists of any religion) dislike atheists more than they dislike other religions. In many Muslim-dominated countries it is very dangerous to openly declare that you are an atheist, it is a blasphemy.

Seperation of church and state has been going on since the 11th and 12th century. By the 18th it was a done deal in many parts of the world. So what past do you speak of?

 

[Roane]

Trump is a con artist. Muhammad was a con artist.

Con artists do not believe the bullshit they are saying. They just want to gain followers because this gives them power. And power also gives them money, which is important for some, especially for Trump.

I'm sorry what?

Power gives them money and you include Muhammad in that? The man who was offered wealth and riches and refused them? The man who excluded himself and his family from certain funds that were available? The man who died destitute despite being a leader of a nation?

I get it you hate religion but come on lad at least look into the people you are slandering

 

[Withnail]

Oh shit I thought it was the serious one. This makes a bit more sense lol!

Well just to expand your point about tolerance and hearing both sides of a debate atheists aren't welcome in the 'serious thread' but sure that thread only has 17 pages in 6 years.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/religion-discussion-read-the-op-before-posting.424322/

 

[2cents]

atheists aren't welcome in the 'serious thread'

Top two posters in that thread are myself and @Carolina Red, neither of us religious (not sure if CR identifies as an atheist but as a label it fits me as well as any).

 

[Withnail]

Top two posters in that thread are myself and @Carolina Red, neither of us religious (not sure if CR identifies as an atheist but as a label it fits me as well as any).

Well what's the OP about then? You have to play nice?

 

[2cents]

Well what's the OP about then? You have to play nice?

Well my understanding is that this thread is basically centered around non-religious posters posting about stupid/dangerous stuff they believe is inspired by religion, and challenging religious posters to justify their positions. Whereas the other one was created to provide a platform to actually discuss religion as it exists without getting into all that type of stuff.

For me, the question of whether or not God exists or if this/that religious claim is true or not is one of the least important and least interesting aspects of talking about religion, I’m more interested in the history and practice, so that thread did facilitate that type of discussion while it was active.

 

[Withnail]

Well my understanding is that this thread is basically centered around non-religious posters posting about stupid/dangerous stuff they believe is inspired by religion, and challenging religious posters to justify their positions. Whereas the other one was created to provide a platform to actually discuss religion as it exists without getting into all that type of stuff.

For me, the question of whether or not God exists or if this/that religious claim is true or not is one of the least important and least interesting aspects of talking about religion, I’m more interested in the history and practice, so that thread did facilitate that type of discussion while it was active.

Well that's fair enough but I was talking about the OP which explicitly states it's only a thread for those who believe in Religion. Therefore I wouldn't post in it regardless of any interest.

 

[2cents]

I'm talking about the OP which explicitly states it's only a thread for those who believe in Religion. Therefore I wouldn't post in it regardless of any interest.

We’ll I can’t say much about the OP except that @Raoul hasn’t actually banned any atheists from posting in the thread as far as I’m aware.

 

[Withnail]

We’ll I can’t say much about the OP except that @Raoul hasn’t actually banned any atheists from posting in the thread as far as I’m aware.

Well that's fair enough. I did find it a little odd though.

 

[Isotope]

No not really.

I didn't say the Qur'an has anything to do with burden of proof. I just quoted an ayat that explains how I feel about the original question/statement.

I believe in God, I don't feel the need to prove anything. If someone doesn't good luck to them.

This whole you believe in God, prove it the burden of proof is on you simply doesn't wash with me. I don't have a problem with folk not believing and it amazes me why people who don't believe are so hung up on it.

Have you ever considered that God may not exist? Do you have no doubt at all?

If you were born within a family and population where half is believers and the other is not, have you thought about which side you might be end up with?

 

[Zlaatan]

No not really.

I didn't say the Qur'an has anything to do with burden of proof. I just quoted an ayat that explains how I feel about the original question/statement.

I believe in God, I don't feel the need to prove anything. If someone doesn't good luck to them.

This whole you believe in God, prove it the burden of proof is on you simply doesn't wash with me. I don't have a problem with folk not believing and it amazes me why people who don't believe are so hung up on it.

That's all well and good but the fact that you don't feel the need to prove your god has nothing to do with where the burden of proof lies. I don't feel the need to do algebra either but that doesn't mean the correct answer to an algebra problem is 'who cares'. Burden of proof also isn't a concept that only pertains to theism, it's used every day in a 1000 different situations and it works exactly the same every time. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, which in the case of invisible supernatural beings is the theist. Period.

And does it really amaze you that non-believers are hung up on billions of people devoting their lives to different stories that hasn't been proven to be real which is affecting us all every single day? It's one of the biggest questions mankind has ever faced so you'd think figuring out and proving if it's true should be quite high up on the to-do list.

 

[BEST No7]

No not really.

I didn't say the Qur'an has anything to do with burden of proof. I just quoted an ayat that explains how I feel about the original question/statement.

I believe in God, I don't feel the need to prove anything. If someone doesn't good luck to them.

This whole you believe in God, prove it the burden of proof is on you simply doesn't wash with me. I don't have a problem with folk not believing and it amazes me why people who don't believe are so hung up on it.

Why do you believe in God?

 

[Gehrman]

@Gehrman a tafsir is basically a commentary on the Qur'an which seeks to place the surahs in context and deduce broader meaning from them. As such it is an extremely important genre in the (ongoing) history of the production of Islamic law. However different commentators will offer different interpretations of the verses based on their particular approach to a variety of matters. To give three famous examples - the tafsir of Ibn Kathir, a 14th century Shafi'i scholar, is I believe regarded as one of if not the most authoritative works in the genre by Sunni Muslims all the way to the modern age. You will find that later scholars will regularly refer back to his work a lot, even in cases where they may differ slightly. It is said to reflect a fairly straightforward, literal approach to the text, avoiding metaphorical speculation and such. Another famous example is Sayid Qutb's In the Shade of the Qur'an. Qutb was an important figure in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in the 40s-60s and his legacy helped shape the thoughtof Islamist and jihadist groups long after his death. So you might expect his tafsir to reflect the Islamist outlook of the Islamist trend, with an emphasis on the Qur'an's revolutionary potential. Finally there is Muhammad Asad's Meaning of the Qur'an, which includes his own English translation alongside his commentary. Asad was an Austrian-Jewish convert to Islam in the early 20th century, who, among other things, befriended and advised Ibn Sa'ud and later became a citizen and diplomat in the new state of Pakistan (he also wrote a really interesting memoir called The Road to Mecca which I always recommend as a great examination of the spiritual appeal of Islam for converts). His approach would reflect what is called Islamic Modernism, where the concern would be to reconcile the meaning of the text with the modern world. Of the three, I would guess Asad's is likely the least popular among Muslims today. It should be noted that Ibn Kathir is the only one of the three who would be recognized as an 'alim (scholar), the other two being laymen.

I mention these three not only because they are three of the most famous examples of the genre representing three distinct trends, but because they're all also easily available to find online in English translation. So you will have no problem dipping into them and finding out their approach to these surahs.

While I appreciate all the suggestions and I may have to bookmark this page, reading the quran once and 2 biographies of Muhammed I think is as much that I personally can slug through as a non-muslim since I didn't find the quran interesting or appealing and stuff like that. I found reading biographies of Muhammed far more entertaining and in a sense illuminating. For whatever reason I might give another go sometime in the future with the commentary you mentioned but there tons of stuff I'd rather read or do atm.

 

[2cents]

While I appreciate all the suggestions and I may have to bookmark this page, reading the quran once and 2 biographies of Muhammed I think is as much that I personally can slug through as a non-muslim since I didn't find the quran interesting or appealing and stuff like that. I found reading biographies of Muhammed far more entertaining and in a sense illuminating. For whatever reason I might give another go sometime in the future with the commentary you mentioned but there tons of stuff I'd rather read or do atm.

Don’t think anyone expects you to sit down and read through an entire tafsir, I certainly haven’t done that and I doubt there are many laymen who have. But if you’re interested in a specific surah or section of a surah (as you seemed to be) they are useful to dip into to see how the commentators interpret it. Even then though, you still won’t learn a whole lot about how the text is applied in the execution of the shari’ah. There is a genre a law books that give lists of rulings relating to various topics, one famous example is a work of Hanafi fiqh called Al-Hidaya authored by a Central Asian ‘alim called al-Marghinani (again you can find online), it was very popular in the Indian subcontinent and eventually translated into English by British colonial administrators who used in developing what eventually evolved into Anglo-Muhammadan Law.*

Still, a list of rulings in a book like that makes the law appear quite rigid and settled - certainly that is how the British understood it. The reality however was probably quite different, and it is believed that there was a lot more flexibility and individual interpretive initiative (ijtihad) exploited by the qadis making rulings. That certainly seems to be the case in the Ottoman and Mughal empires where Hanafi fiqh dominated for the most part.

*(edit): just thinking a better example might be a work known as Reliance of the Traveler by a 14th century Shafi’i jurist al-Misri. The common English translation of the Hidaya was translated from a Persian translation from the original Arabic in the late 18th century and likely contains lots of error, while there is a very recent English translation of Reliance of the Traveler that has been authorized by al-Azhar.

 

[Roane]

Have you ever considered that God may not exist? Do you have no doubt at all?

If you were born within a family and population where half is believers and the other is not, have you thought about which side you might be end up with?

Yes. No.

Yes

 

[Roane]

That's all well and good but the fact that you don't feel the need to prove your god has nothing to do with where the burden of proof lies. I don't feel the need to do algebra either but that doesn't mean the correct answer to an algebra problem is 'who cares'. Burden of proof also isn't a concept that only pertains to theism, it's used every day in a 1000 different situations and it works exactly the same every time. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, which in the case of invisible supernatural beings is the theist. Period.

And does it really amaze you that non-believers are hung up on billions of people devoting their lives to different stories that hasn't been proven to be real which is affecting us all every single day? It's one of the biggest questions mankind has ever faced so you'd think figuring out and proving if it's true should be quite high up on the to-do list.

The only person I had to prove it to was me. And for me the correct answer for those who don't believe IS who cares.

I like your algebra example. I enjoyed algebra. For those who feel the need to do it I'd help. To those who don't feel the need to do it I don't care. Similarly as a theist I don't HAVE to prove nothing. I can choose to if I feel like it.

If by non believers you mean atheists then no I'm not amazed some are hung up etc. For some it's a religion.

Atheists/non believers are like sects in religion. Some do their thing and get on with life. Some follow personality and quote their views. Some knock on your door and demand answers.

For me I like to entertain some and shut the door on others. Depends how I feel and depends on their approach.

 

[Roane]

Why do you believe in God?

It was a rather long journey and not an easily answered question.

The short version is it's the only thing in the end that made sense.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

They can happen without religion but they don't Peter. Or at least not to the same scale.

So while you may not agree with religion yourself if the church is one of the few organisations actually providing entertainment for kids through clubs, company and food for pensioners or raising money to help those in need. Can you not at least respect their views for the good they're doing? Not every person who goes to a church is anti gay, anti trans and anti abortion.

I don't know enough about the conflict you reference to comment. But in recent years alot of wars seem to be more about money and oil rather than religion.

In Northern Ireland our conflict is portrayed as protestant v Catholic and to the outsider appears to be a problem caused by religion. But religion has very little to do with it. 99% of those involved in the conflict have never stepped foot in a Chapel or church. They don't practice either religion. And if anything it was the protestant and Catholic Church who have always been at the forefront of cross community and reconciliation.

So that's a perfect example of a conflict portrayed to be all about religion to the outside but it's not at all.

It's about the British colonising Northern Ireland and taking land of Irish natives and then treating them poorly and discriminating against them for years. Even 40 years ago in London there were signs saying no blacks, no dogs, no Irish.

You have the nationalists who want unification and don't identify as British. And then the unionists who identify as British and want to stay part of the United Kingdom.

So there's the perfect example of a conflict which to the outsider seems like its religious of nature but in reality its not religious at all. British tend to be protestant and Irish tend to be Catholic. Bar that there's no religious element to it and as most of those who fight are atheists, that just further backs it up.

Jeremy Corbyn is another example of media trying to make things all about religion. Because he condemns Israel attacks on hamas he's portrayed as an antisemitie which I don't believe he is at all. And the main people fueling this hate between religions is the media again.

The Palestine Israel conflict again a war all about religion but is it really? I think it probably has alot more to do with their land being occupied by Jewish people after the world war. Just like the Irish have had British occupation in Northern Ireland. Which again has been made out to be a religious conflict but the issue runs much deeper than religion in both cases.

Can I say thank you for an actual good conversation about religion without getting antagonist.

If the "church" is the only one providing, what would happen if there was no church? Would the people setting up children's clubs or helping out pensioners change their personalities? Would they suddenly become selfish and ignore all the plight around them? I think they would act the same but with more time and money to do so.

And have you ever thought about why religious organizations put effort into children's clubs? Even you, who are not religious, went to methodist churches. That's exactly the point of the clubs. It's a bit like the groups who go out to third world countries, 'we will feed your starving children, but you have to pray with us, because our God is the one saving you, not that God or that god'.

It's like shops selling certain products at a loss to entice shoppers in, who will then spend money on profitable products as well. They call them 'loss leaders' in economics.

Churches need a constant supply of new young believers, otherwise they won't have the same income, they don't invest in the community out of the kindness of their hearts, they do it out of the necessity of keeping their congregations full.

Even the conflict in Ireland, yes,its about territories and, basically the control of the drug trade, but the lines, the othering, is drawn down religious lines, and those lines are taught to children way before they get to the point of violence. It's easier to kill or beat up someone from the "other" community.

And again, with Corbyn, how can you 'other' him and his movement? Other him by calling him an antisemite. He's not Jewish or Muslim, he just sees human rights violations. But you can get a more emotional response by saying he's attacking your community, rather than the policies of a country half way around the world.

By forming a Christian community, a Jewish community, whatever, by definition you are othering people not of that community. "Help thy neighbour, as long as they believe in the same fairy in the sky as thy do"

 

[Carolina Red]

Do you mean that some of them want to other people because of sexual orientation? Very open and welcoming...

What is the issue though? And is it exclusive to Methodists? By sex I feel it could be transgender related?

The UMC has split due to differing stances on LGBT+ congregants. It’s been a very long time coming, as they’ve been debating the issue since the 1970s, the UMC’s official stance being “homosexuality is incompatible with the Christian faith”. It finally came to a head in 2019 when the UMC governing body discussed prohibiting same sex marriages in their churches and liberal UMC congregations stated they’d ignore any such ruling… Well, the conservative minded Methodists who won the vote decided to schism and form the GMC (Global Methodist Church) to distance themselves from those liberal congregations.

 

[Carolina Red]

Top two posters in that thread are myself and @Carolina Red, neither of us religious (not sure if CR identifies as an atheist but as a label it fits me as well as any).

I’d say that describes my beliefs as well

@Withnail - what @2cents said. That thread is a place to get into the theology and history of religion without the “other stuff” of this thread. If I post in that thread it’s to discuss a religions history or whatnot on an academic level rather than on a “personal feelings about it” level.

 

[Carolina Red]

Similarly as a theist I don't HAVE to prove nothing. I can choose to if I feel like it.

You don’t have to prove god exists in the sense that you can choose to make the argument or not, but the burden to do so in a debate on the existence of god does rest on your shoulders if you make the positive claim of gods existence.

While you certainly have the choice to say “I don’t have to prove that”, don’t be surprised when people then react accordingly.

 

[frostbite]

Donald Trump: 'I could shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ould-shoot-somebody-and-still-not-lose-voters

Muhammad did that and he did not lose any followers.

Who said Muhammad didn't lose followers? One of the surahs Germahn quoted earlier was all about losing followers.

Well, apparently Muhammad did not lose you as a follower!

 

[Gehrman]

Well, apparently Muhammad did not lose you as a follower!

Muahmmed didn't shoot people.

 

[Roane]

You don’t have to prove god exists in the sense that you can choose to make the argument or not, but the burden to do so in a debate on the existence of god does rest on your shoulders if you make the positive claim of gods existence.

While you certainly have the choice to say “I don’t have to prove that”, don’t be surprised when people then react accordingly.

The way I see it I myself react accordingly. Even on this thread I've gone into detail with one poster and not so much with a couple of others.

If I was knocking on your door and preaching God's existing I absolutely agree with you that burden of proof etc is on me.

If you knock on my door and come with the whole "prove to me an invisible entity..." Then I don't really care for the reaction if I close the door on you.

In these discussions you can be having a nice conversation and you will get people coming in with comments and remarks. That's fine, it's a forum. But I don't feel the need to entertain every person who does so. This is often further decided by the point or the remark.

What I find happens a lot, and others have commented, is folk aren't interested in a discussion. They just want to add their tuppence or rehash some point off YouTube or some commentator that they think makes sense. None moreso than in religion discussions and usually some guy kean to show he is an atheist.

For a certain response my only response is ok good luck.

 

[Roane]

Well, apparently Muhammad did not lose you as a follower!

Certainly didn't. Gained one in me. What's your point?

 

[frostbite]

A guy hears voices and the voices tell him to kill his son. You ask why, he tells you it is the voice of god, wanting to test his faith.

What do you do?

1. Report him to the police.
2. Bring him to a psychiatrist.
3. Accept him as a great prophet.

It is amazing that billions of people choose option (3).

It is amazing that a long time ago I was one of those people. How can we be so irrational? You read so many stories that make no sense, and yet as a believer you somehow accept them. The more weird and more irrational they are, the more compelling they become. And after falling into the rabbit hole it is really hard to get out. Somehow, it becomes a positive sign of great faith to ignore all evidence that it is a scam.

 

[frostbite]

Certainly didn't. Gained one in me. What's your point?

That's my point.

And that's Trump's point, too. He may lose some voters, but he will gain even more. He is very proud that he got more votes in 2020 than in 2016.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

The way I see it I myself react accordingly. Even on this thread I've gone into detail with one poster and not so much with a couple of others.

If I was knocking on your door and preaching God's existing I absolutely agree with you that burden of proof etc is on me.

If you knock on my door and come with the whole "prove to me an invisible entity..." Then I don't really care for the reaction if I close the door on you.

In these discussions you can be having a nice conversation and you will get people coming in with comments and remarks. That's fine, it's a forum. But I don't feel the need to entertain every person who does so. This is often further decided by the point or the remark.

What I find happens a lot, and others have commented, is folk aren't interested in a discussion. They just want to add their tuppence or rehash some point off YouTube or some commentator that they think makes sense. None moreso than in religion discussions and usually some guy kean to show he is an atheist.

For a certain response my only response is ok good luck.

If you ever need to have the conversation about whether God exist, you can use the theory that I wrote a few pages back about the dimensions of space and time. It doesn't exactly prove that there is a god, but it does kind of make the idea of no god a bit of an arrogant stance.

 

[Gehrman]

That's my point.

And that's Trump's point, too. He may lose some voters, but he will gain even more. He is very proud that he got more votes in 2020 than in 2016.

Considering that Trump is not a religious leader or the founder of a religion, can we perhaps leave him out of this despite that fact that large number of million american feckwtits thinks he's a great guy and presidential material?

 

[Roane]

That's my point.

And that's Trump's point, too. He may lose some voters, but he will gain even more. He is very proud that he got more votes in 2020 than in 2016.

Muhammad's been dead for over 1400 years.

 

[Moby]

If you ever need to have the conversation about whether God exist, you can use the theory that I wrote a few pages back about the dimensions of space and time. It doesn't exactly prove that there is a god, but it does kind of make the idea of no god a bit of an arrogant stance.

He'd get thrown out of his faith for not believing every single word written in some book. It's Muhammed or nothing.

 

[Gehrman]

If you ever need to have the conversation about whether God exist, you can use the theory that I wrote a few pages back about the dimensions of space and time. It doesn't exactly prove that there is a god, but it does kind of make the idea of no god a bit of an arrogant stance.

I always find it a very western discussion that either it was a big conicidence or it all intelligent design by god/yahew/jehova/Allah. Bypassing all the debates on spirituality and what we know now from for instance eastern religions.

 

[Moby]

Considering that Trump is not a religious leader or the founder of a religion, can we perhaps leave him out of this despite that fact that large number of million american feckwtits thinks he's a great guy and presidential material?

Well this thread is generally about power hungry ******* leaders who intend to brainwash people into thinking they are special and are gonna do great things for those people.

 

[Roane]

If you ever need to have the conversation about whether God exist, you can use the theory that I wrote a few pages back about the dimensions of space and time. It doesn't exactly prove that there is a god, but it does kind of make the idea of no god a bit of an arrogant stance.

I have been reading your posts. I find them very interesting.

For me though life is simple. If someone genuinely wants to ask a questiom I try and answer it. If someone demands an answer because they have an axe to grind. Meh

 

[Gehrman]

Well this thread is generally about power hungry ******* leaders who intend to brainwash people into thinking they are special and are gonna do great things for those people.

Trump is not religious end of story.

 

[Moby]

I always find it a very western discussion that either it was a big conicidence or it all intelligent design by god/yahew/jehova/Allah. Bypassing all the debates on spirituality and what we know now from for instance eastern religions.

I've been born and brought up in an eastern religion in a massively devoted environment that revolves completely around spirituality and that's just as pointless and meaningless as anything written in abrahamic religions. As I said above fine if fantasies like those help you to overcome some kind of existential vacuum but it has as much right to be a part of a public community and defining any kind of morals as any other texts - which is zero.

 

[Moby]

Trump is not religious end of story.

Theres hardly any difference between religious and political motivations. Two sides of the same coin.

 

[frostbite]

Muhammad's been dead for over 1400 years.

Con artists have been alive for thousands of years. They all follow the same patterns. Some are more successful than others.

 

[Gehrman]

I've been born and brought up in an eastern religion in a massively devoted environment that revolves completely around spirituality and that's just as pointless and meaningless as anything written in abrahamic religions. As I said above fine if fantasies like those help you to overcome some kind of existential vacuum but it has as much right to be a part of a public community and defining any kind of morals as any other texts - which is zero.

HIndu?

 

[frostbite]

Trump is not religious end of story.

Of course he isn't. He is a con artist. Muhammad was a con artist. Many **** leaders are con artists. Trump has created a ****. Inside a ****, the leader can do any weird thing, and the followers do not lose their faith to the head of the ****.

There are many similarities between a "****" and a "religion". A "religion" has more followers than a "religious ****". A "nonreligious ****" has many similarities with a "religious ****".