Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[ProfessorDavey]

So out of your suitcase of theories on the workings of religion we have 1) Upbringing 2) Church or temple or mosque attendance and now 3) The promise of reward or punishment.

Yup - these are all standard elements in the religious toolbox aimed at inculcating belief. RCC is a fantastic example of 'joined-up' thinking across all those three elements. When a couple marries they are expected to commit to have children and to bring them up RCC. When they have children the RCC expects parents to have the child baptised and at that ceremony for the parents again to commit to their own faith and to do all they can to bring up their child RCC. And the church expects those children to participate in (and go through extensive preparation for) first communion and confirmation. And the church expects attendance at mass and other attendant obligations. And throughout there is a clear message that if these expectations are not met then hell, rather than heaven is the likely post-death outcome.

And perhaps the RCC might be the most joined up (not really sure, but RCC is the example I have the most insight into through my wife and her family), but I think most other religions have rather similar elements of child initiation and development of beliefs, of obligations and of claimed post-death outcomes if those obligations are/are not met.

...also....4) mental incapacity?

Eh - you've lost me now. Where on earth have I suggested mental incapacity?

[ekim]

It seemed like everything I heard from followers of religion sounded so absurd and irrational and close-minded - as though they had entered a different world or parallel universe - that it prevented me from giving more than a passing thought to the ideas behind religions. The religious were like a barrier to religion and that was the basis of my atheism.

My parents were not particularly religious but I was sent to Sunday Schools more as a social occasion and making friends, but I think some of the schooling must have rubbed off on me at the time.  During the 2nd World War, having been bombed out of the house I was born in when I was about 5 years old, we moved to another location which unfortunately was located within a triangle where there was a bomber command base on one side, an American Air Force base on another and an British Army base on the third.  I remember, at the age of about 7, hiding under the stairs during a particularly intense overhead German bombing raid and anti-aircraft gun fire saying to my mother ' I think we need to pray to God'.  Nowadays I am more inclined to have an ignostic approach because of the lack of definition of 'God'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

My parents were not particularly religious but I was sent to Sunday Schools more as a social occasion and making friends, but I think some of the schooling must have rubbed off on me at the time.  During the 2nd World War, having been bombed out of the house I was born in when I was about 5 years old, we moved to another location which unfortunately was located within a triangle where there was a bomber command base on one side, an American Air Force base on another and an British Army base on the third.  I remember, at the age of about 7, hiding under the stairs during a particularly intense overhead German bombing raid and anti-aircraft gun fire saying to my mother ' I think we need to pray to God'.  Nowadays I am more inclined to have an ignostic approach because of the lack of definition of 'God'.

Glad you made it through that!

Yeah agree there is a lack of definition. I find I don't need to define/ understand it - I just have some ideas about the concept that I can use to benefit me, which means I am no longer an atheist. 

[ekim]

Glad you made it through that!

Yeah agree there is a lack of definition. I find I don't need to define/ understand it - I just have some ideas about the concept that I can use to benefit me, which means I am no longer an atheist.

Perhaps you could share them, Gabriella.  (Especially as you are 'Quite handy with weapons' and your name means 'Champion of / Strength of God  )

[Gonnagle]

Dear Ekim and Gabriella,

Defining God?

Gonnagle.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Perhaps you could share them, Gabriella.  (Especially as you are 'Quite handy with weapons' and your name means 'Champion of / Strength of God  )

Think I shared the benefits for me earlier e.g. sense of accountability to something higher/ better than me that I did not have as an atheist, which sometimes leads to different decision-making that seems to have a positive impact on my life in my opinion; emotional/mental/ physical boost from Muslim rituals of prayer and reciting the Quran in Arabic.

Haha - yeah I'm not 'handy with weapons'  - thought the tag line went with my new persona and avatar on here. And I had no idea what the name 'Gabriella' meant - thanks

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Dear Ekim and Gabriella,

Defining God?

Gonnagle.

From a Muslim perspective, in the Quran there is a short sura or verse called Al-Ikhlas as a response when people asked for a definition of Allah - https://quran.com/al-ikhlas?translations=131%2C22%2C19

I included 3 different translations in the link ranging from older English to more modern translation. One translation below:

Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “He is Allah—One;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none comparable to Him

[Gonnagle]

From a Muslim perspective, in the Quran there is a short sura or verse called Al-Ikhlas as a response when people asked for a definition of Allah - https://quran.com/al-ikhlas?translations=131%2C22%2C19

I included 3 different translations in the link ranging from older English to more modern translation. One translation below:

Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “He is Allah—One;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none comparable to Him

Dear Gabriella,

And that will do for me❤️ Eternal, Absolute,.

And now that we have the God question out of the way, lets talk Islam, specifically the question of laughter, I have read about it, but if you don't mind, Gabriella's thoughts on the subject, please.

Gonnagle.

[ekim]

Dear Ekim and Gabriella,

Defining God?

Gonnagle.

God - Old English - supreme being, deity; from Proto-Germanic guthan which is of uncertain origin; perhaps from ghut- "that which is invoked".  Originally a neuter noun in Germanic, the gender shifted to masculine after the coming of Christianity.

[Gonnagle]

God - Old English - supreme being, deity; from Proto-Germanic guthan which is of uncertain origin; perhaps from ghut- "that which is invoked".  Originally a neuter noun in Germanic, the gender shifted to masculine after the coming of Christianity.

Dear Ekim,

That which is envoked, Eternal, absolute my own feeble attempt, Be still and know that I Am

Now we can stop, that is enough❤️

Or is it

Gonnagle.

[ekim]

Dear Ekim,

That which is envoked, Eternal, absolute my own feeble attempt, Be still and know that I Am

Now we can stop, that is enough❤️

Or is it

Gonnagle.

Or is it?  Two words from the Bible translated as God:

YHWH is an archaic third person singular imperfect of the verb "to be", meaning, therefore, "He is being".  "I am being". It stems from the Hebrew conception of monotheism that God exists by himself for himself, and is the uncreated Creator who is independent of any concept, force, or entity; therefore "I am that I am".
Elohim, means "He who is the object of fear or reverence", or "He with whom one who is afraid takes refuge". Another theory is that it is derived from the Semitic root "uhl" meaning "to be strong". Elohim then would mean "the all-powerful One"

[Free Willy]

Yup - these are all standard elements in the religious toolbox aimed at inculcating belief. RCC is a fantastic example of 'joined-up' thinking across all those three elements. When a couple marries they are expected to commit to have children and to bring them up RCC. When they have children the RCC expects parents to have the child baptised and at that ceremony for the parents again to commit to their own faith and to do all they can to bring up their child RCC. And the church expects those children to participate in (and go through extensive preparation for) first communion and confirmation. And the church expects attendance at mass and other attendant obligations. And throughout there is a clear message that if these expectations are not met then hell, rather than heaven is the likely post-death outcome.

And perhaps the RCC might be the most joined up (not really sure, but RCC is the example I have the most insight into through my wife and her family), but I think most other religions have rather similar elements of child initiation and development of beliefs, of obligations and of claimed post-death outcomes if those obligations are/are not met.
Eh - you've lost me now. Where on earth have I suggested mental incapacity?

The Roman Catholic Church is not the whole of religion.
Many Catholics would agree that you cannot earn your way to heaven and so the idea of "rewards and punishments" being part of the toolbox". It's part of your toolbox.

As a protestant my suspicion of Catholicism is that there are too many human and angelic intermediaries but when I read Alan Burns for example I get the impression of deep commitment to Christ So I have to put my suspicions against experience and listening rather than shoehorned people into categories.

In terms of control, Societies reign people in because of moral.concensus don't they. In other words society needs control doesn't it?
I'm not sure which part of the term religious control concerns you most. Control or religion.

[ProfessorDavey]

In terms of control, Societies reign people in because of moral.concensus don't they. In other words society needs control doesn't it?
I'm not sure which part of the term religious control concerns you most. Control or religion.

True, but I that isn't what I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about 'don't murder' or 'don't steal', where there is likely to be a broad moral consensus in society.

No, I'm talking about a very different kind of social control - effectively, telling the masses to accept being grindingly poor and that their lives are unspeakably miserable because by accepting this they'll get untold reward in the next life. And, of course, the people telling you this are people with power and influence whose lives aren't like yours at all and they need you to stay poor and in your place in order for them to retain their power influence and wealth.

That's the kind of control that I'm talking about which has been ruthlessly imposed over many, many centuries, only really beginning to break down in the last century and a half (which has coincided with a loss of influence of religions).

[Gonnagle]

True, but I that isn't what I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about 'don't murder' or 'don't steal', where there is likely to be a broad moral consensus in society.

No, I'm talking about a very different kind of social control - effectively, telling the masses to accept being grindingly poor and that their lives are unspeakably miserable because by accepting this they'll get untold reward in the next life. And, of course, the people telling you this are people with power and influence whose lives aren't like yours at all and they need you to stay poor and in your place in order for them to retain their power influence and wealth.

That's the kind of control that I'm talking about which has been ruthlessly imposed over many, many centuries, only really beginning to break down in the last century and a half (which has coincided with a loss of influence of religions).

Dear Prof,

Sorry but you will have to help me out here, which religion told the masses to accept being grindingly poor, certainly not Christianity and the little I know about Islam education was a big factor in their religion.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

Sorry but you will have to help me out here, which religion told the masses to accept being grindingly poor, certainly not Christianity and the little I know about Islam education was a big factor in their religion.

Gonnagle.

Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:23

But these are just the most obvious example. The point being that people were told that their reward would be in heaven and therefore to be accepting of their lot in the hear and now.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

Quoting scripture to me✝️ The end is nigh

Nice try Prof but my question still stands, at the very heart of Christianity and I think Islam was education, tell me Professor how does education keep you poor.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

Quoting scripture to me✝️ The end is nigh

Nice try Prof but my question still stands, at the very heart of Christianity and I think Islam was education, tell me Professor how does education keep you poor.

Gonnagle.

Are you being serious Gonners!?!

I cannot speak about Islam, but the suggestion that christian societies promoted education for all over many centuries is absolutely laughable.

Up until the mid Victorian era (arguably continuing today amongst evangelicals) christian societies did not promote education for all but only for the very elite and indeed 'education' was mostly just religious instruction. Actually Christian societies went further than being against widespread education with a broad curriculum for all - they were inherently anti-intellectual. Good examples being Galileo and Darwin - those that used science to discover truths about the word were ostracised by the christian establishment if those facts had the temerity to challenge unevidenced christian dogma.

So for centuries christian societies kept the vast majority poor, uneducated and without power - which is exactly how the elites (who of course included the religious elite) wanted it.

[Dicky Underpants]

Are you being serious Gonners!?!

I cannot speak about Islam, but the suggestion that christian societies promoted education for all over many centuries is absolutely laughable.

Up until the mid Victorian era (arguably continuing today amongst evangelicals) christian societies did not promote education for all but only for the very elite and indeed 'education' was mostly just religious instruction. Actually Christian societies went further than being against widespread education with a broad curriculum for all - they were inherently anti-intellectual. Good examples being Galileo and Darwin - those that used science to discover truths about the word were ostracised by the christian establishment if those facts had the temerity to challenge unevidenced christian dogma.

So for centuries christian societies kept the vast majority poor, uneducated and without power - which is exactly how the elites (who of course included the religious elite) wanted it.

Just a footnote on Galileo, because anti-Christians do see him as some sort of martyr to the truth. I don't exactly approve of the Catholic Church's treatment of him, but he was in some respects his own worst enemy. He had published his "Dialogue of the two world systems" in which he gave the arguments for the geocentric theory to a character called Simplicio, who is clearly a caricature of the contemporary Pope Urban, and uses words that the pope himself had used in argument. The pope was very much a "right man", as was Galileo himself, and the pope was not best pleased. The Inquisition asked for proof of Galileo's heliocentric hypothesis, and it is a fact that at that time Galileo did not have ultimate proof**, though all his arguments made good scientific sense. He was originally told that he could publish, if only he would state that this was not ultimate scientific fact, I believe. Instead, he met the pope head on, like a bull at a gate.

He was lucky not to be tortured - instead he got away with relatively comfortable house arrest, and the Catholic Church clamped down hard on the heliocentric theory for centuries to come. Clash of personalities can be as much an enemy to the progress of science as anti-scientific ignorance.
**
"It was Isaac Newton that finally derived the mathematical proof for the heliocentric solar system, by using Kepler's laws. Kepler, by this time, had determined the planets were in elliptical orbits. The next major development was the generalization of Kepler's laws in 1687 by Isaac Newton (1642-1727)."

[Gonnagle]

Are you being serious Gonners!?!

I cannot speak about Islam, but the suggestion that christian societies promoted education for all over many centuries is absolutely laughable.

Up until the mid Victorian era (arguably continuing today amongst evangelicals) christian societies did not promote education for all but only for the very elite and indeed 'education' was mostly just religious instruction. Actually Christian societies went further than being against widespread education with a broad curriculum for all - they were inherently anti-intellectual. Good examples being Galileo and Darwin - those that used science to discover truths about the word were ostracised by the christian establishment if those facts had the temerity to challenge unevidenced christian dogma.

So for centuries christian societies kept the vast majority poor, uneducated and without power - which is exactly how the elites (who of course included the religious elite) wanted it.

Dear Prof,

Perfectly serious.

https://www.barnardos.org.uk/who-we-are/our-history

But that is only the start of our wonderful journey✝️

Lets go a little further back in time.

https://thinkfaith.net/2022/05/31/the-inspiring-story-of-august-francke-who-transformed-a-german-city/

And Prof just how further back do I need to go before you accept that your original statement holds no water.

No, I'm talking about a very different kind of social control - effectively, telling the masses to accept being grindingly poor and that their lives are unspeakably miserable because by accepting this they'll get untold reward in the next life. And, of course, the people telling you this are people with power and influence whose lives aren't like yours at all and they need you to stay poor and in your place in order for them to retain their power influence and wealth.


To end Dear Prof, at the moment I am reading a small fictional book ( but based on a historical event ) The Instrumentalist, not only were these children given a basic education but if they showed promise a glittering career awaited them in the world of music, they were taught the violin, cello and piano.

So, sorry to prove you so very wrong, but the history books tell me at the heart of Christianity was education. so my question still remains, how does education make you poor?

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

I don't think that education, per se, makes you poor: I think that lack of opportunities is a bigger culprit, hence university graduates may be found serving chips and burgers in McDonalds.

It may also be the case that certain types of education (certain degrees or qualifications) may not lead to substantive opportunities.

[Gonnagle]

I don't think that education, per se, makes you poor: I think that lack of opportunities is a bigger culprit, hence university graduates may be found serving chips and burgers in McDonalds.

It may also be the case that certain types of education (certain degrees or qualifications) may not lead to substantive opportunities.

Dear Gordon,

Just trying to tell the good Prof that he should not make wild accusations, in fact after reading a few of the good Prof's post I am beginning to wonder if the Prof was born to the sound of the Lambeg drum does he march every 12th of July with his shoelaces tied together I know a few pubs were the Prof could get drunk as a skunk with his anti RC stand ( he would have to explain some of the longer words  ) is the Prof a big fan of the dearly departed Rev Ian Paisley 🎵No Surrender Professor🎵

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just a footnote on Galileo, because anti-Christians do see him as some sort of martyr to the truth. I don't exactly approve of the Catholic Church's treatment of him, but he was in some respects his own worst enemy. He had published his "Dialogue of the two world systems" in which he gave the arguments for the geocentric theory to a character called Simplicio, who is clearly a caricature of the contemporary Pope Urban, and uses words that the pope himself had used in argument. The pope was very much a "right man", as was Galileo himself, and the pope was not best pleased. The Inquisition asked for proof of Galileo's heliocentric hypothesis, and it is a fact that at that time Galileo did not have ultimate proof**, though all his arguments made good scientific sense. He was originally told that he could publish, if only he would state that this was not ultimate scientific fact, I believe. Instead, he met the pope head on, like a bull at a gate.

He was lucky not to be tortured - instead he got away with relatively comfortable house arrest, and the Catholic Church clamped down hard on the heliocentric theory for centuries to come. Clash of personalities can be as much an enemy to the progress of science as anti-scientific ignorance.
**
"It was Isaac Newton that finally derived the mathematical proof for the heliocentric solar system, by using Kepler's laws. Kepler, by this time, had determined the planets were in elliptical orbits. The next major development was the generalization of Kepler's laws in 1687 by Isaac Newton (1642-1727)."

Yes, I am aware of the Galileo story, and I guess my comment was a little simplistic - the issue is about the 'idea' not the individuals per se.

So Galileo may have been 'text-book' what to do to irritate the religious elite with a new idea, Copernicus was exactly the opposite - his approach was 'text-book' what to do not to irritate the religious elite with a new idea. He was a canon and I think dedicated his writing to the pope. Yet his work was also banned by both the protestant and catholic churches. So it really didn't matter whether the writer had a good or bad relationship with the church their ideas (which were of course correct) were still banned as they contradicted theological orthodoxy.

And the church's opposition to evolution isn't specifically about Darwin, but about opposing an evidenced and true theory which challenges theological orthodoxy.

That's my point - anti intellectualism is about refusing to accept and actively banning ideas that do not fit with your own dogma regardless of their veracity.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Gordon,

Just trying to tell the good Prof that he should not make wild accusations, in fact after reading a few of the good Prof's post I am beginning to wonder if the Prof was born to the sound of the Lambeg drum does he march every 12th of July with his shoelaces tied together I know a few pubs were the Prof could get drunk as a skunk with his anti RC stand ( he would have to explain some of the longer words  ) is the Prof a big fan of the dearly departed Rev Ian Paisley 🎵No Surrender Professor🎵

Gonnagle.

Err - what are you on about. I think you will find that my original post where I mentioned Galileo (and Darwin) never mentioned RCC at all - I talk about christian societies.

And if we are on heliocentrism the protestant church was initially more aggressively anti. Copernicus' book was banned by the Protestant church immediately, while it took a while for the RCC to ban it (perhaps because he was one of their own). And actually something similar with evolution - RCC has probably been more relaxed, it is those on the 'biblical-truth' evangelical wing of christianity who are most extreme.

So no Gonners - I am no more anti-RCC than anti-protestant. I base my views on the evidence and the history.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

Perfectly serious.

https://www.barnardos.org.uk/who-we-are/our-history

But that is only the start of our wonderful journey✝️

Blimey - using Barnado's as an example - bit of an own goal.

So firstly Barnado's schools were hardly groundbreaking - when he started establishing so-called ragged schools in the late 1860s there was already a well established network of such schools across the country, many of which had been running for decades. Secondly Barnardo's main mission was proselytising children into his version of christianity. And of course the schools (and their homes) were riddled with abuse. Plus they were massively involved in an appalling forced migration of children across the globe, many of whom suffered appalling abuse.

So yup - good move Gonners - using Barnardo's as a beacon of ethical behaviour. Not!

[Gonnagle]

Blimey - using Barnado's as an example - bit of an own goal.

So firstly Barnado's schools were hardly groundbreaking - when he started establishing so-called ragged schools in the late 1860s there was already a well established network of such schools across the country. Secondly Barnardo's main mission was proselytising children into his version of christianity. And of course the schools (and their homes) were riddled with abuse. Plus they were massively involved in an appalling forced migration of children across the globe, many of whom suffered appalling abuse.

So yup - good move Gonners - using Barnardo's as a beacon of ethical behaviour. Not!

Dear Prof,

Oh nice body swerve ( and I am actually set upon for using the term God Dodgers ) so let me remind you again, the argument is not ethics it is education, but you have already answered that in this post, ragged schools, but this type of establishment goes back hundreds of years, and everyone of these establishment's offered some kind of education.

I probably could go back to the very early days of Christianity, but learning and education played a big part in the formation of Christianity, nice try at the nutmeg Prof, but big fail, stick to the argument, how does education make you poor.

Gonnagle.