Do you believe in God?

[TexRex]

Oh jeez this one with their periodic popping in to talk about a thing being discussed after reading a single post and ignoring all context surrounding it.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Evil? In what way? I don't even want to know, but I'm curious. Unless they hurt children or abused certain people.

I'm curious about this question and not sure how to respond as you say you don't want to know about child abuse or abusing "certain people"?

I found that a book on critical thinking helped me in my interactions here and with the world in general, as well as going back into education.

 

[Chris30]

I'm curious about this question and not sure how to respond as you say you don't want to know about child abuse or abusing "certain people"?

I found that a book on critical thinking helped me in my interactions here and with the world in general, as well as going back into education.

That's why I don't post much here. I do know what abuse is. My grandma did it to us and my mom/grandpa by withholding money for us getting food and medical treatment. And when I was little, if I broke any rules my grandma whipped me with a belt. I was horrified back then. Yeah, TexRex I know you're talking about me, well don't other people pop in here too to discuss this matter and about God.

 

[Duke]

Have any atheists here prayed since becoming an atheist?

An Atheist’s Prayer | HDS News Archive

news-archive.hds.harvard.edu

"Is not prayer a study of truth? A venture of the soul into the unfound infinite? No one ever prayed heartily without learning something.”

Emerson wasn’t wrong.

I still don't pray on my own, my spiritual practices don't involve talking when no one but me is there to hear. But I no longer run from prayer. I am learning something. Can an atheist pray, and why would she want to? After today, let the answers to these questions be a little less clear, and let us remember how it can feel to pray the prayers of others with our whole hearts, to stop TRYING, for half a breath, to make a prayer fit neatly into our theology, and just let it come. To open ourselves up to some change, to pray heartily, and to learn something.

What does any of that even mean? That article made no sense to me whatsoever.

If you’re an atheist, why would you love religious community? Why wouldn’t it just be community?

And if you’re not praying to a supernatural entity, then isn’t it just… thinking?

No, I’ve never been moved to pray since deciding there was nothing to pray to. And nothing in that article made me see a point in trying.

 

[Meythia]

If you’re an atheist, why would you love religious community? Why wouldn’t it just be community?

One doesnt make the other necessary.
Even when I say I dont believe in any god entity existing, I know the majority of people doesnt share this believe and lives in religious communities of any kind. But of course this is up to everyones own decision.

And if you’re not praying to a supernatural entity, then isn’t it just… thinking?

I would be interested in knowing how people invented the believe in any supernatural entity.
There must have been some thought behind it (I hope).

But praying as an atheist doesnt make any sense to me, praying is communication with a supernatural being, otherwise (without the supernatural thing) it is thinking.

 

[Duke]

They seem to be using prayer as a way of organizing thoughts, and I get that. But making it a prayer to nothing seems weird.

And I really don’t get why they specifically love religious communities but aren’t religious.

 

[Exorcet]

I would be interested in knowing how people invented the believe in any supernatural entity.
There must have been some thought behind it (I hope).

It was probably an extension of the ability to detect intent, which would have come about from trying to avoid threats from other animals. Humans are probably best at modeling human thoughts and so are most likely to apply human characteristics to a perceived intelligently driven action. Back when religion was getting started and knowledge was very limited it would have been easy for people to see something they could not explain and imagine that someone was behind the action. Over time and through word of mouth that is prone to exaggeration, you get gods and religion.

EDIT

If you're asking on a more personal level, I'd say the above still applies just because so much of religion is tradition and appeal to emotion. People elevated above other myths because it has been around so long and in that time it has been shaped into something that is very good at getting into people's heads.

Honest thought is what leads away from religion in my mind.

 

[HenrySwanson]

That's why I don't post much here. I do know what abuse is. My grandma did it to us and my mom/grandpa by withholding money for us getting food and medical treatment. And when I was little, if I broke any rules my grandma whipped me with a belt. I was horrified back then.

And you understand Christians can commit the most horrific abuse, correct?

And that Christianity can promote abuse?

Yeah, TexRex I know you're talking about me, well don't other people pop in here too to discuss this matter and about God.

They do....but to contribute meaningfully it's best to get a little background instead of just taking a random post and rushing to comment. There's no time limit to post.

 

[Duke]

This is the cognitive disconnect that I feel is endemic to the very concept of religion. I saw this ad for a local church:

Join Pastor Doug for a mind-blowing, 15-part study series and get clear, trustworthy, logical answers to your most pressing questions about prophecy and the Bible. You’ll not only receive life-changing insight into what the future will bring next, but you’ll also gain the practical tools you need to thrive in these challenging times!

Some of this is standard religious boilerplate language; challenging times, future will bring, etc.

But how do logical and practical even enter the chat? Trustworthy is in the eye of the truster, I suppose, but if an answer about a supernatural spirit is clear, it's either completely fabricated or just plain wrong.

 

[Danoff]

This is the cognitive disconnect that I feel is endemic to the very concept of religion. I saw this ad for a local church:

Some of this is standard religious boilerplate language; challenging times, future will bring, etc.

But how do logical and practical even enter the chat? Trustworthy is in the eye of the truster, I suppose, but if an answer about a supernatural spirit is clear, it's either completely fabricated or just plain wrong.

Clear, logical, trustworthy... I guess he's going to say it's all made up.

 

[UKMikey]

 

[TexRex]

This is the cognitive disconnect that I feel is endemic to the very concept of religion. I saw this ad for a local church:

Some of this is standard religious boilerplate language; challenging times, future will bring, etc.

But how do logical and practical even enter the chat? Trustworthy is in the eye of the truster, I suppose, but if an answer about a supernatural spirit is clear, it's either completely fabricated or just plain wrong.

Remove "prophecy" and "Bible" and it's no different from any number of podcastbros. "Don't listen to them. They're lying to you. Only I will tell you the truth." Scripture isn't necessary for this to work. I'd lay odds that the fact that it works is why scripture exists.

 

[Duke]

Remove "prophecy" and "Bible" and it's no different from any number of podcastbros. "Don't listen to them. They're lying to you. Only I will tell you the truth." Scripture isn't necessary for this to work. I'd lay odds that the fact that it works is why scripture exists.

Agreed. I kind of feel that willingness to suspend disbelief and reason that way makes one susceptible to religion, and religion breeds the type who take advantage of that.

It’s no coincidence that the Trump Cult overlaps heavily with very Christian followers.

 

[HenrySwanson]

There needs to be a mass walkout and rejection of these churches until they change.

There won't be, however. And I'm doubtful there will be much change either.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Going down a rabbit hole, I found out about Kizzmekia Corbett-Helaire, and glanced over the transcript of an interview:

Kizzmekia Corbett-Helaire & Francis Collins | Live from Faith & Science 2024 - BioLogos

Francis Collins and Kizzmekia Corbett-Helaire share some key moments from behind the scenes of the COVID pandemic and vaccine development.

biologos.org

Which led me to look up Francis Collins:

Is there a God and does he care about me? The Testimony of BioLogos Founder Francis Collins - BioLogos

biologos.org

So for me, faith and science always—from the time of my conversion—seemed incredibly complementary. Synergistic. They were two ways of knowing, but knowing different things and asking different questions. Science asking how, faith answering why. We are reading both of the books God gave us.

In between, I wondered about Edward Jenner's religious views because he's sometimes considered (depending on how you look at it) the person who saved the most lives so searched his wiki:

Neither fanatic nor lax, Jenner was a Christian who in his personal correspondence showed himself quite spiritual.  Some days before his death, he stated to a friend: "I am not surprised that men are not grateful to me; but I wonder that they are not grateful to God for the good which He has made me the instrument of conveying to my fellow creatures"

But then I think, "well, why would the diseases be there in the first place", and hit a dead end....

 

[UKMikey]

 

[HenrySwanson]

Why couldn't we do the same with Huw Edwards

(And I think even 3 years is too short)

 

[MatskiMonk]

Why couldn't we do the same with Huw Edwards

Why would we?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Why would we?

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean

 

[MatskiMonk]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean

It's pretty straightforward. You asked why we couldn't impose a three year custodial sentence on Huw Edwards. The Judge in the Edwards case appears to have followed sentencing guidelines in regards to his case, hence he got a sentence typical for his crime. So my question is, why make the exception to impart a far more severe sentence on Edwards than other people get for doing the same?

 

[HenrySwanson]

It's pretty straightforward. You asked why we couldn't impose a three year custodial sentence on Huw Edwards. The Judge in the Edwards case appears to have followed sentencing guidelines in regards to his case, hence he got a sentence typical for his crime. So my question is, why make the exception to impart a far more severe sentence on Edwards than other people get for doing the same?

Which should lead you to:

The lenience of Huw Edwards’s sentence is bad enough, but the explanation is worse | Catherine Bennett

A failure to get into Oxford as mitigation for viewing child sex abuse images surely points to a need to review 2012 guidelines

www.theguardian.com

(Or something similar)

 

[MatskiMonk]

Which should lead you to:

An opinion that is the same as yours but offers no actually reasoning?

 

[HenrySwanson]

An opinion that is the same as yours but offers no actually reasoning?

Curious how you concluded that they didn't offer reasoning.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Curious how you concluded that they didn't offer reasoning.

Because there wasn't any thing sensible - the author didn't reason her conclusion, she spent most of the article undermining it. She concluded by saying verdicts need to be explained, after paragraphs ridiculing the explanation of the verdict, and after spending only a couple of lines on (what I assume is) the actual point - which is the public want harsher sentences.

None of which does anything to address why you think Huw Edwards should be singled out for a much harsher sentence than is typical, though at this point it's not really on topic for this thread so I'll just reiterate what I've said before: If you think the outcome of a case is wrong, but it followed the law, you need to be complaining about the law, not the case.

 

[HenrySwanson]

If you think the outcome of a case is wrong, but it followed the law, you need to be complaining about the law, not the case.

From one paragraph:

All which arguably deserves a more thoughtful response than: the judge was right.

Is it time, now that the distribution of sex abuse images has become an epidemic, to look again at sentencing guidelines last reviewed in 2012?

Among that paragraph is a link to an article from another...."newspaper"....about public fury. Before that, there is a link to a Guardian article.

The rest of her piece is poking holes at how ridiculous some of Edwards' mitigating factors may be. Do you think she should have echoed the other articles instead?

Where I become confused when looking at the guidelines is this part (since it has been applied to Edwards):

Where there is a sufficient prospect of rehabilitation, a community order with a sex offender treatment programme requirement under part 3 of Schedule 9 of the Sentencing Code can be a proper alternative to a short or moderate length custodial sentence.

Does the prospect of rehabilitation automatically nullify the punitive part? That doesn't sit right with me. And what about deterrence....

Edwards may be contrite, but sufficiently so to not serve a sentence? After reading this:

Edwards said ‘go on’ when asked about ‘naughty pics’ of young person, court told

The 63-year-old’s barrister said he was ‘truly sorry’ for the damage he had caused to his loved ones.

www.irishnews.com

You can make up your mind.

 

[UKMikey]

Louisiana Republican official, minister convicted on child cruelty charges

A member of Louisiana's Republican Party governing board and minister has been convicted of child cruelty in his role as headmaster of Christian school.

eu.shreveporttimes.com

John Raymond, a member of the Louisiana Republican Party's state central committee, was found guilty late Monday by a St. Tammany Parish jury on three felony counts of child cruelty for taping students' mouths shut and a count of second degree child cruelty for holding his hand over a 4-year-old child's mouth keeping the child from breathing.

 

[TexRex]

Good. There's no hate like Christian love. Let's see if the bitch gets more than a slap on the wrist.

 

[Chris30]

Louisiana Republican official, minister convicted on child cruelty charges

A member of Louisiana's Republican Party governing board and minister has been convicted of child cruelty in his role as headmaster of Christian school.

eu.shreveporttimes.com

That makes me sick when people do that kind of stuff, he needs someone to teach him a lesson about messing with children. God, I feel sad for those kids that he blocked their breathing. Evil, cruel and inhumane! If Jesus were alive, I'm sure he'd beat him upside the head.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I was sure I posted this but searching makes me think I didn't:

Meet the far right evangelicals who believe Trump will reclaim American for Christ

In his interview with Elon Musk, Donald Trump spoke about becoming more religious after the assasination attempt in Pennsylvania in July and as the former president tries to get back to the White House, scores of religious figures are determined to see him get there. Alex Hannaford explores the...

www.independent.co.uk

Web magazine Religion Dispatches calls the NAR “one of the most important Christian religious and political movements of our time” and points to the role of NAR leaders in the electoral campaigns of Trump “and Trump-aligned figures, from school boards to statewide elected offices”.

On his website, Lance Wallnau, an American preacher who popularised the Seven Mountains strategy, calls it an “unstoppable movement”.

Some media coverage conflates the NAR with Christian Nationalism, but they're actually very different. Christian nationalism contends that America has always been a Christian nation. But it’s more about identity than religion, bound up in nativism and white supremacy – reimagining the country’s history and values.

NAR, on the other hand, is very much rooted in religion. It’s also multi-racial, and at its root is the restoration of modern-day apostles and prophets – including women like White-Cain. NAR’s vision is to remove the “demonic forces” from positions of power and replace them with Christians intent on bringing about the Kingdom of God.

 

[UKMikey]