4 ms·

As a young(ish) British citizen I am pleased to see the UK ranks so highly in these charts. While I like many aspects of the being part of a religion, what I li

As a young(ish) British citizen I am pleased to see the UK ranks so highly in these charts. While I like many aspects of the being part of a religion, what I like is completely viable without the religious aspect. I have some good friends who are very religious and in chatting with them I can see the benefits of community, helping others and being inclusive. Their strand of Christianity seems to be very liberal and open to both change, and a variety of lifestyles and choices - it just seems, to me, such a shame that to be a part of such a positive community you have to believe in God. I don't think people need the "guiding light" of religion to live a "good" life but I do think that we could all benefit from a secular version of religious gathering, I just wish we could figure out am effective way to do so without religion. On the not praying aspect of the article, I distinctly remember the day that I stopped saying the Lord's Prayer in morning assembly and being called over aside by the Depty Head and asked "Why aren't you praying?", I replied "I don't believe in God" whilst bracing for a telling off and being forced to pray again, she simply said "Ok, if you change your mind then you can always go back to it, that's ok to" - pretty great way to deal with a 6 year old atheist.

Freak_NL 9y ago
Yeah that pretty much sums it up for me as well in the Netherlands. Religion united communities in the past, and without it we are at risk of becoming lonely and isolated. But of course you can't just decide to believe in whatever god(s) your local place of worship subscribes to in order to maintain the community — you'd be living a lie. And lets face it: getting rid of religion (i.e., whatever your parents subscribed to) as a pretty much required facet of your life is for the most part, good. Especially if you consider the intolerance and arbitrary rules (and the waste of a perfectly fine Sunday morning).
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Meeting with other people in your local community to do communal activity, and receive moral guidance from a learned person seems like something that would be an excellent use of a Sunday morning. Re intolerance, do you think those who were intolerant - eg of other races - in opposition to New Testament teaching (there is no Jew [local group] no Greek [foreign group], but all are equal in Christ and all Christians are bound by fraternity to honour and care for one another) will decide to no longer follow a perfunctory observance of a Christian festivals and so will suddenly become tolerant and open to other races? If the teaching of their supposed religion didn't away them what do you suppose will cause this dramatic change?
mistermann 9y ago
> Their strand of Christianity seems to be very liberal and open to both change, and a variety of lifestyles and choices - it just seems, to me, such a shame that to be a part of such a positive community you have to believe in God. You should try asking your friends if you have to...I've heard many times that churches are happy to welcome anyone into their community. Of course, they likely wouldn't want to be lectured about how they're wrong, and I imagine you could expect some pressure to convert. > I don't think people need the "guiding light" of religion to live a "good" life but I do think that we could all benefit from a secular version of religious gathering, I just wish we could figure out am effective way to do so without religion. I'm starting to wonder if maybe it isn't possible for humans, or is extremely difficult. Having a shared constant to believe in, whether it is true or not, might be a pre-requisite for group binding. A monarchy can be a decent substitute, but is much more fragile, whereas religion can endure extreme scandals without losing followers. There is also a theory out there that humans "need" a religion of some sort in life, and if they stop practicing, their mind will seek out another (see the rising social disunity in the West over various "-isms" whose followers are now more devoted than most religious people in the past.)
- simonbarker87 9y ago
  They have invited us (my wife and I) a couple of times but we have always declined as I don't share the belief that binds them together as a community. I would probably get bored and perhaps a bit "eye-rolly", since I like them being my friends that probably wouldn't be a good idea. I would never try to say that they are wrong as, while I referred to myself as an atheist in my first comment, I can't prove God doesn't exist in the same way they can't prove God does. I am not well read on the subject but to me Atheism requires just as much faith that something doesn't exist as religious people have that something does exist. It's not so much that I believe there is no God, I just don't have enough evidence so have decided that there is nothing beyond us. If I get to the gates on my death and it turns out I was wrong then I will hope that God is forgiving and sees I worked with the information I had available and got it wrong. I agree that I think a large shared belief is probably beneficial but not sure how we can create something in todays world.
Helmet 9y ago
You seem to contradict yourself. For example, you say: > While I like many aspects of the being part of a religion, what I like is completely viable without the religious aspect. How do you know it's viable without it? What evidence do we have of that? You claim: > I have some good friends who are very religious and in chatting with them I can see the benefits of community, helping others and being inclusive.. > it just seems, to me, such a shame that to be a part of such a positive community you have to believe in God. And: > I just wish we could figure out am effective way to do so without religion. I'm an atheist, and I've slowly come to accept that the communal aspect that you're describing is unattainable without religion. Or at the least, I, like you, have not "figured out an effective way to do so without religion". It seems to me that you need something transcendent and non-material to bind people materially. Isn't this the lesson of the 20th century "isms" (communism, capitalism, socialism) - the supplanting of religion with ideology, and it's disastrous effects?
ElectronShak 9y ago
The problem is Christianity was being introduced to children as a law, being taught from the Old Testament, as something they had (must) to believe in, simply because their parents are / were Christian. They didn't have a choice. Scripture simply says you should train up a child the way he or she should go, the choice will be clear to them as you teach them. True Christianity is not "religion" because religion points you towards perfecting yourself, Christianity is not something to work for, not a set of Laws to follow, its evidence of God's Love, its a gift of God.
- blattimwind 9y ago
  I find it quite amusing that the OT is given so much relevance by some (christians and christian-bashers likewise), given that it actually has little theological importance.
  - armandososa 9y ago
    What? The NT is pretty much just a commentary on the OT.

Freak_NL 9y ago

Yeah that pretty much sums it up for me as well in the Netherlands. Religion united communities in the past, and without it we are at risk of becoming lonely and isolated. But of course you can't just decide to believe in whatever god(s) your local place of worship subscribes to in order to maintain the community — you'd be living a lie. And lets face it: getting rid of religion (i.e., whatever your parents subscribed to) as a pretty much required facet of your life is for the most part, good. Especially if you consider the intolerance and arbitrary rules (and the waste of a perfectly fine Sunday morning).

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Meeting with other people in your local community to do communal activity, and receive moral guidance from a learned person seems like something that would be an excellent use of a Sunday morning. Re intolerance, do you think those who were intolerant - eg of other races - in opposition to New Testament teaching (there is no Jew [local group] no Greek [foreign group], but all are equal in Christ and all Christians are bound by fraternity to honour and care for one another) will decide to no longer follow a perfunctory observance of a Christian festivals and so will suddenly become tolerant and open to other races? If the teaching of their supposed religion didn't away them what do you suppose will cause this dramatic change?

mistermann 9y ago

> Their strand of Christianity seems to be very liberal and open to both change, and a variety of lifestyles and choices - it just seems, to me, such a shame that to be a part of such a positive community you have to believe in God. You should try asking your friends if you have to...I've heard many times that churches are happy to welcome anyone into their community. Of course, they likely wouldn't want to be lectured about how they're wrong, and I imagine you could expect some pressure to convert. > I don't think people need the "guiding light" of religion to live a "good" life but I do think that we could all benefit from a secular version of religious gathering, I just wish we could figure out am effective way to do so without religion. I'm starting to wonder if maybe it isn't possible for humans, or is extremely difficult. Having a shared constant to believe in, whether it is true or not, might be a pre-requisite for group binding. A monarchy can be a decent substitute, but is much more fragile, whereas religion can endure extreme scandals without losing followers. There is also a theory out there that humans "need" a religion of some sort in life, and if they stop practicing, their mind will seek out another (see the rising social disunity in the West over various "-isms" whose followers are now more devoted than most religious people in the past.)

simonbarker87 9y ago
They have invited us (my wife and I) a couple of times but we have always declined as I don't share the belief that binds them together as a community. I would probably get bored and perhaps a bit "eye-rolly", since I like them being my friends that probably wouldn't be a good idea. I would never try to say that they are wrong as, while I referred to myself as an atheist in my first comment, I can't prove God doesn't exist in the same way they can't prove God does. I am not well read on the subject but to me Atheism requires just as much faith that something doesn't exist as religious people have that something does exist. It's not so much that I believe there is no God, I just don't have enough evidence so have decided that there is nothing beyond us. If I get to the gates on my death and it turns out I was wrong then I will hope that God is forgiving and sees I worked with the information I had available and got it wrong. I agree that I think a large shared belief is probably beneficial but not sure how we can create something in todays world.

Helmet 9y ago

You seem to contradict yourself. For example, you say: > While I like many aspects of the being part of a religion, what I like is completely viable without the religious aspect. How do you know it's viable without it? What evidence do we have of that? You claim: > I have some good friends who are very religious and in chatting with them I can see the benefits of community, helping others and being inclusive.. > it just seems, to me, such a shame that to be a part of such a positive community you have to believe in God. And: > I just wish we could figure out am effective way to do so without religion. I'm an atheist, and I've slowly come to accept that the communal aspect that you're describing is unattainable without religion. Or at the least, I, like you, have not "figured out an effective way to do so without religion". It seems to me that you need something transcendent and non-material to bind people materially. Isn't this the lesson of the 20th century "isms" (communism, capitalism, socialism) - the supplanting of religion with ideology, and it's disastrous effects?

ElectronShak 9y ago

The problem is Christianity was being introduced to children as a law, being taught from the Old Testament, as something they had (must) to believe in, simply because their parents are / were Christian. They didn't have a choice. Scripture simply says you should train up a child the way he or she should go, the choice will be clear to them as you teach them. True Christianity is not "religion" because religion points you towards perfecting yourself, Christianity is not something to work for, not a set of Laws to follow, its evidence of God's Love, its a gift of God.

blattimwind 9y ago
I find it quite amusing that the OT is given so much relevance by some (christians and christian-bashers likewise), given that it actually has little theological importance.
- armandososa 9y ago
  What? The NT is pretty much just a commentary on the OT.