Less than half of Irish people consider themselves religious

philologos

Shenshen wrote: »

As opposed to religious rethoric, like John Waters calling atheists "the stupid people in Ireland" on newstalk recently?

I'd say that was equally obnoxious. I think it is a good deal more rare though.

Your belief or lack thereof does not make it acceptable to be obnoxious or rude concerning another person. Claiming that Katie Taylor is an idiot for believing in Jesus is one of those situations.

philologos

Cienciano wrote: »

After 2000 years of being killed or their lives being made a misery for saying what he said, i think it's great that we can finally openly say what we feel. Same way you can call him obnoxious, and no one bats an eyelid.

Where in the gospels does Jesus say its acceptable for Christians to kill non-Christians?

I don't believe what Jesus taught ever brought misery. I think the evil in the heart of man has done so. People have warped both atheism and Christianity for that purpose. Look up state atheism in the USSR to see how people twisted atheism to make peoples lives a misery.

Cú Giobach

scoob70 wrote: »

Wow.

The hostility on this thread. And this is why we have the problems that we have to today in the world because people can't respect each others beliefs .

Do you respect the belief that some people have that the holocaust didn't happen?? That Black people are inferior to White? Or on a religious note, that all infidels should be killed??

You can respect someone's right to have a belief, but there is no reason to respect the belief itself.

Shenshen

philologos wrote: »

I'd say that was equally obnoxious. I think it is a good deal more rare though.

You go on thinking that. I'll think that, too, next time someone with a megaphone on O'Connell Street shouts about all the punishments his god will have in store for people so unspeakably evil and stupid as to not believe...

Your belief or lack thereof does not make it acceptable to be obnoxious or rude concerning another person. Claiming that Katie Taylor is an idiot for believing in Jesus is one of those situations.

Of course it doesn't.
But I'm not sure if you've heard about that phenomenon, recently people have started to make fun of public figures. I know, disgraceful, I too hope ths fad will die out soon, and we can return to the usual, respectful and polite way of bantering we all enjoy so much.

scoob70

Shenshen wrote: »

As opposed to .... when, exactly? When have people with beliefs ever respected those without, or with different beliefs?

Ok so its pick my statement apart time because I said 'today'. Anyway.... yes true and there does seem to be a pattern of this throughout history but, with my misty eyed response, wouldn't it be nice if we could break this pattern and then the human race could focus all that energy into oh I don't know...... world peace .

ChickenZombie

For me, it boils down to raw human needs and nature. We are animals pretending, in the blink of an eye.

We are as much creatures of emotion as much as we are creatures of logic.
If we are pro-choice, we must respect what we consider ignorant, whatever our side.

Meanwhile, someone pass me some ammo...

Dave!

philologos wrote: »

For the record, asking if people are religious is a rubbish criteria for determining how many believe in God or accept traditional Christian belief.

Personally, I wouldn't define myself as being "religious" or even "devout" as these terms often have Pharasaic implications, or imply works based salvation.

Yet, I'm still a Christian.

The poll asks "Irrespective of whether you attend a place of worship or not, would you say you are a religious person, not a religious persons or a convinced atheist?"

The available options are:

• A religious person
• Not a religious person
• A convinced atheist
• Don’t know/refuse

Are those options really so confusing that you couldn't possibly choose the correct one when presented with the question above? What would your answer be? The results show that 0% chose "Don't know/refused", so they either chose religious or not religious.

And the rest of the results appear (superficially at least) to be pretty accurate, don't you think? The tables for the most religious and least religious countries are broadly in line with what we would consider religious or secular countries. Is there something special about Ireland that we couldn't respond appropriately to the question?

And regardless, when the same question was asked in 2005, 69% self-identified as religious, compared with 47% this year, so there has been a significant drop. I'm sure you'll attribute that to disillusionment with the Catholic Church or something. Maybe it's the proliferation of atheist and rationalist literature instead?

scoob70

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Do you respect the belief that some people have that the holocaust didn't happen?? That Black people are inferior to White? Or on a religious note, that all infidels should be killed??

You can respect someone's right to have a belief, but there is no reason to respect the belief itself.

Gosh think I'm guna leave this board before I get shot down by some keyboard warrior who's looking for a FIGGGGHHHHTTT lol. However yes I agree with your last point. Going to go for a run in the sun now and leave you all to it :D.

ChickenZombie

Perhaps this thread should be renamed "dawn of the computer age".
What I mean is, hasn't society been progressing out of one era, into a newer.

The stats on Irish religious convictions don't matter. In the vain sense of moving through evolutionary eras, it's in extinction.

What's rather more exciting is where we're going and what planets our grandkids will hopefully populate...

philologos

Dave - the problem is one might be a Christian in terms of belief and not see themselves as religious, pious, devout and so on. I certainly don't. I couldn't pick any of those options with certainty.

There are better questions that will give you more accurate results.

Cú Giobach

scoob70 wrote: »

Gosh think I'm guna leave this board before I get shot down by some keyboard warrior who's looking for a FIGGGGHHHHTTT lol. However yes I agree with your last point. Going to go for a run in the sun now and leave you all to it :D.

Ahh come on now less of the keyboard warrior and fighting stuff, We're only having a chat.
Loads of people make the mistake of confusing respecting someone's right to beliefs and respecting the actual belief, huge numbers of people in fact.

Enjoy the sun, it really is a lovely day alright.

Dave!

philologos wrote: »

Dave - the problem is one might be a Christian in terms of belief and not see themselves as religious, pious, devout and so on. I certainly don't. I couldn't pick any of those options with certainty.

There are better questions that will give you more accurate results.

You're being disingenuous. You would clearly pick "religious" when the alternatives are "not religious" and "convinced atheist". Even if you say that you personally would not be able to answer, clearly almost everyone else could, so they chose one of three options. It may not be a perfect survey, but you pick the answer most appropriate for you, and anyone who believes in the Christian God would obviously choose "religious" over the other two options, particularly when the question is prefaced with "Irrespective of whether you attend a place of worship or not...", which if anything gives more wiggle room for the religious.

Was there no confusion when the same question was asked in 2005, and a big majority chose religious?

Do you not believe that the table of "most religious" and "least religious" countries pretty accurately reflects reality? With the exception of Ireland of course, because there's not a chance that Catholic Ireland is losing its religion :rolleyes: Even if you have concerns about the survey, the same question was asked consistently across the different countries.

philologos

Its not disingenuous to say that I couldn't pick any of the options. The logical conclusion of the beliefs I hold would discourage me from saying that I'm religious, devout, pious etc.

If you asked me do I believe in God, do I believe in Jesus - virgin birth and resurrection I'd say absolutely yes.

The latter questions you deal with actual belief in the former its about personal feeling.

BetterCallSaul

philologos wrote: »

Your belief or lack thereof does not make it acceptable to be obnoxious or rude concerning another person. Claiming that Katie Taylor is an idiot for believing in Jesus is one of those situations.

I wrote that as tongue in cheek, relax. I don't think Katie Taylor is an idiot, if she gets her inspiration from God, fair play to her. Personally, I couldn't care less.

Dave!

philologos wrote: »

Its not disingenuous to say that I couldn't pick any of the options. The logical conclusion of the beliefs I hold would discourage me from saying that I'm religious, devout, pious etc.

If you asked me do I believe in God, do I believe in Jesus - virgin birth and resurrection I'd say absolutely yes.

The latter questions you deal with actual belief in the former its about personal feeling.

What a sophisticated philosophical argument.

It's irrelevant though, because nobody chose "I don't know", so your argument does not account for the results.

And you keep ignoring my other 2 points.

Do you have an actual argument?

Ush1

philologos wrote: »

Its not disingenuous to say that I couldn't pick any of the options. The logical conclusion of the beliefs I hold would discourage me from saying that I'm religious, devout, pious etc.

If you asked me do I believe in God, do I believe in Jesus - virgin birth and resurrection I'd say absolutely yes.

The latter questions you deal with actual belief in the former its about personal feeling.

So you'd answer religious, fine, that's that.

BetterCallSaul

philologos wrote: »

New atheist rhetoric is absolutely obnoxious. Hopefully sensible people will see through it.

I've never read any Dawkins , Hitchens etc. I came to my own conclusions from the ages of about 14 - 24. As I said, it was a gradual process for me, but this "New atheist" term you have for me is amusing by your definition.

Cienciano

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Do you respect the belief that some people have that the holocaust didn't happen?? That Black people are inferior to White? Or on a religious note, that all infidels should be killed??

You can respect someone's right to have a belief, but there is no reason to respect the belief itself.

Spot on. And it only seems to be the "popular" religions we have to respect. Christianity, Islam & Hinduism. We can all laugh at someone genuinely believing Scientology, Mormonism, Ancient Roman/Greek gods because they're just "made up".
scoob70, would you respect a christians beliefs when they tell us homosexuality is wrong.

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

So you'd answer religious, fine, that's that.

No I wouldn't because I don't think I am. My point is people could be Christians and tick not religious.

The poll is flawed for that reason. Ask theological questions and you'll find out what people actually believe. At university someone asked me to fill in research on religiosity. On a scale from 1 to 10 I answered 2. I annotated it with my reasons why.

Dave - the poll is meant to tell me what things are actually like on the ground. Polls shouldn't be designed to confirm presuppositions about how atheistic I happen to think a country is. They should provide accurate answers to what people believe.

That would be bad research.

Vicxas

Id consider myself agnostic, I dont have any religious beliefs or ties.

I was christened but i chose to ignore that, ive no interest in religion at all.

Ush1

philologos wrote: »

No I wouldn't because I don't think I am. My point is people could be Christians and tick not religious.

How are they not religious when they are a Christian? You either pertain to that religion or you don't.

In fact, if you are a Christian and say you're not religious, whatever you are, you ain't no Christian.

Cú Giobach

Cienciano wrote: »

Spot on. And it only seems to be the "popular" religions we have to respect. Christianity, Islam & Hinduism. We can all laugh at someone genuinely believing Scientology, Mormonism, Ancient Roman/Greek gods because they're just "made up".

Very true, though I went out with a Hindu woman for a while once and the comments from some people here about her belief system weren't what you might call respectful (reincarnation? how many gods?? elephants!! :eek:), her attitude on the other hand to anyone else's from Christianity to radical Islam to no belief at all was truly amazing, the epitome of tolerance and acceptance.

scoob70, would you respect a christians beliefs when they tell us homosexuality is wrong.

In fairness scoob had a revelation and the scales were taken from his/her eyes.

Dave!

philologos wrote: »

No I wouldn't because I don't think I am. My point is people could be Christians and tick not religious.

The poll is flawed for that reason. Ask theological questions and you'll find out what people actually believe. At university someone asked me to fill in research on religiosity. On a scale from 1 to 10 I answered 2. I annotated it with my reasons why.

And how many people do you suppose have that same warped logic? :rolleyes: It's not widespread. Christian = religious, by any common usage of both terms. Your disingenuousness is very transparent here.

philologos wrote: »

Dave - the poll is meant to tell me what things are actually like on the ground. Polls shouldn't be designed to confirm presuppositions about how atheistic I happen to think a country is. They should provide accurate answers to what people believe.

That would be bad research.

What in the f*ck are you talking about? The poll pretty accurately, or at least approximately, reflects known figures for religiosity in the other countries, would you not accept that? If not, please support with facts.

You used to have a bit of credibility back in the day, but now I see why some of the other posters have to go to such great lengths to get you to address their points/posts. Your experience trying to justify Christian belief is making you a very competent contortionist.

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

How are they not religious when they are a Christian? You either pertain to that religion or you don't.

In fact, if you are a Christian and say you're not religious, whatever you are, you ain't no Christian.

Claiming to be pious or religious implies a works based salvation. As a result I don't identify as such because it doesn't really agree with what I actually believe as a Christian.

Dave - its not disingenuous to tell you what I actually believe on the subject. I wouldn't rate myself 2 out of 10 if I believed I identified as "religious".

Shenshen

philologos wrote: »

Claiming to be pious or religious implies a works based salvation. As a result I don't identify as such because it doesn't really agree with what I actually believe as a Christian.

So, according to you, Christianity is not a religion?

What would you say it is, then? A car make?

Cienciano

Dave! wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

Dave - the poll is meant to tell me what things are actually like on the ground. Polls shouldn't be designed to confirm presuppositions about how atheistic I happen to think a country is. They should provide accurate answers to what people believe.

That would be bad research.

What in the f*ck are you talking about? The poll pretty accurately, or at least approximately, reflects known figures for religiosity in the other countries, would you not accept that? If not, please support with facts.

I think what philologos is saying is, he's not happy with the poll results so they're wrong.

philologos

Cienciano wrote: »

I think what philologos is saying is, he's not happy with the poll results so they're wrong.

I'm saying the question could have been better, much better. I'm interested to know if people believe, not if they feel religious. That's irrelevant.

Dave!

philologos wrote: »

Claiming to be pious or religious implies a works based salvation. As a result I don't identify as such because it doesn't really agree with what I actually believe as a Christian.

Dave - its not disingenuous to tell you what I actually believe on the subject. I wouldn't rate myself 2 out of 10 if I believed I identified as "religious".

What you believe doesn't matter a damn, it's a survey of 50k people, and there's not a chance that any significant percentage of them would apply such warped logic as to remove Christianity from the religious spectrum.

You've still failed to address any of the other points I made. There's no point in me continuing to engage with you -- I think it's clear that you simply don't want to accept the results for your own internal reasons. Best for me not to pry.

Cú Giobach

Religious: definitions.
One.
1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious:

Two.
1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
3: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful

If you believe in a god you are religious it seems. This does not mean one has to be pious or zealous, just a believer.
Of course some people can take one definition and ignore others if they so wish, but but in common parlance we all know what the word means.

philologos

Dave - its honestly not my fault if you can't see clear flaws in the question

Seanchai

Dave! wrote: »

Less than half of Irish people consider themselves religious

Fewer.

ScumLord

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yep, I do have a will. No way I'd have anything to do with the child rapists and torturers of the Roman church in life or in death.

Do you know if it's going to be difficult to carry out your requests? Remember your family will have just lost someone they love and your going to be sending them on a mission to find alternative grave sites and so on. Some of them will panic if you can't be buried in the family plot. It's could be a lot of pressure to put on your family.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I think most people in this day and age do have a will really,

Statistics say otherwise. in the US it's around 45% that have wills in the UK it's about 35%.

philologos wrote: »

It disgusts you that a priest will discuss a Roman Catholic perspective on life and death at a Roman Catholic funeral?

It disgusts me that the priest makes little effort to know the person and just inserts their name into a Catholic propaganda speech. They lie about the person. It's not all priests that do that, some use God and heaven to give comfort I'm not so much against the Catholic position they're taking but to use someone's death to clearly push agendas, attack other groups or push guilt onto people is disgusting.

philologos wrote: »

I'd say that was equally obnoxious. I think it is a good deal more rare though.

It is not, religion starts from an obnoxious standpoint when it comes to non-believers. We're all going to hell for eternal damnation simply because we don't believe what they believe that's pretty harsh.

philologos

Dave! wrote: »

What you believe doesn't matter a damn, it's a survey of 50k people, and there's not a chance that any significant percentage of them would apply such warped logic as to remove Christianity from the religious spectrum.

You've still failed to address any of the other points I made. There's no point in me continuing to engage with you -- I think it's clear that you simply don't want to accept the results for your own internal reasons. Best for me not to pry.

It matters a damn when I'm determining who I am. It also matters a lot when other people are determining who they are.

In short I don't care if you don't give a damn. All I'm saying is that it'd be better to ask another question

Dave!

Great - so you have nothing to contribute as far as the actual topic of the thread goes then.

philologos

Dave! wrote: »

Great - so you have nothing to contribute as far as the actual topic of the thread goes then.

I've had plenty to contribute whether you're up for listening is another question!

astonaidan

Id consider myself religious, I just dont really go to mass, It just bores me to death, but like I pray and try be as good as I can be spiritually wise!

Kivaro

astonaidan wrote: »

Id consider myself religious, I just dont really go to mass, It just bores me to death, but like I pray and try be as good as I can be spiritually wise!

Why?

K4t

astonaidan wrote: »

Id consider myself religious, I just dont really go to mass, It just bores me to death, but like I pray and try be as good as I can be spiritually wise!

That's a step in the right direction. Just stop the praying and you'll be almost home and dry.

Hotblack Desiato

astonaidan wrote: »

Id consider myself religious, I just dont really go to mass, It just bores me to death, but like I pray and try be as good as I can be spiritually wise!

Just to be different from the other posters quoting you

The words I highlighted in bold were the ones that stuck out for me. What is being good? Is it something you get from religion? Is the RCC or another religion the ultimate arbiter of what is good or bad? Most non-religionists would maintain that goodness and morality are entirely separate concepts from religious belief.

K4t

ninja900 wrote: »

Just to be different from the other posters quoting you

The words I highlighted in bold were the ones that stuck out for me. What is being good? Is it something you get from religion? Is the RCC or another religion the ultimate arbiter of what is good or bad? Most non-religionists would maintain that goodness and morality are entirely separate concepts from religious belief.

Hold on a second, we all know that without the ten commandments we'd all be rapists and murders..and asassins.:cool:

Scanlas The 2nd

Colmustard wrote: »

amadain17 wrote: »

You make a point to your feelings and I respond with my feelings. Am I a figurehead now? Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. For a lot of people that lack of belief came from actually looking at the available evidence. Does it really piss you off when people point out that this is no evidence to back the claims of one of the most powerful institutions in the state?

Awwww did I offend your church are you going to have me stoned. You's are becoming more a religion everyday with your utopian dreams of a better atheistic society, you even have your celebrity saints, Dawkins, Hitchens, Fry, Pinker etc etc.

Are you one of these "spiritual" atheists, well I am not I have no spiritual beliefs, I don't believe in them.

But I agree with John Gray over Dawkin's and Pinker. Religion is in our genetic make up, it has been with us in all places for all time since modern humans evolved (probably 75,000 years ago). You place a bunch of children on a desert Island without cultural interference. they will naturally develop a form of communication and grammar, a sexuality and religion.

You can be as atheistic as you think you are but you hit your thumb with a hammer you will scream a profanity at some "imagined" deity.

I'm spiritual and atheist, we do exist.

philologos

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Colmustard wrote: »

amadain17 wrote: »

You make a point to your feelings and I respond with my feelings. Am I a figurehead now? Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. For a lot of people that lack of belief came from actually looking at the available evidence. Does it really piss you off when people point out that this is no evidence to back the claims of one of the most powerful institutions in the state?

Awwww did I offend your church are you going to have me stoned. You's are becoming more a religion everyday with your utopian dreams of a better atheistic society, you even have your celebrity saints, Dawkins, Hitchens, Fry, Pinker etc etc.

Are you one of these "spiritual" atheists, well I am not I have no spiritual beliefs, I don't believe in them.

But I agree with John Gray over Dawkin's and Pinker. Religion is in our genetic make up, it has been with us in all places for all time since modern humans evolved (probably 75,000 years ago). You place a bunch of children on a desert Island without cultural interference. they will naturally develop a form of communication and grammar, a sexuality and religion.

You can be as atheistic as you think you are but you hit your thumb with a hammer you will scream a profanity at some "imagined" deity.

I'm spiritual and atheist, we do exist.

What do you mean by spiritual?

Colmustard

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm spiritual and atheist, we do exist.

Well I am not to me it is a strictly sticks and stones universe no interconnectedness and eventually a cold rational scientific explanation for it all. Be it one we may never achieve, it is rather complex to say the least.

But I know where you are coming from, people do identify with strange things larger then themselves, perhaps there are evolutional reasons for this, as that did serve in the success of our specie. Or its an accidental effect of our reasoning systems, it would be difficult to determine which is true.

But just because it is in our genes does not make it the universal truth, but it does create a need with-in us for a religious expression. A church, a sport, popular culture, ceremonies, even some people expression of atheism as in world atheism would make it a better world, a utopian one with a more scientific reasoning and less wars (it wont).

Take me, I use to be a Liverpool man, I sometimes still am, I would support a team from a distant foreign city whose players are not even from that city and feel bad if they were beaten by another set of players probably from another distant city wearing different coloured jerseys and banter with their fans who are also not from that opposing city. Logically that makes no sense. But football is routinely described as a religion.

More a Dub man now, its a better game and it has more meaning to me, but still logically I shouldn't really care as to what that bunch of players, playing a game fortunes or misfortunes. But I do.

Scanlas The 2nd

philologos wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Colmustard wrote: »

amadain17 wrote: »

You make a point to your feelings and I respond with my feelings. Am I a figurehead now? Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. For a lot of people that lack of belief came from actually looking at the available evidence. Does it really piss you off when people point out that this is no evidence to back the claims of one of the most powerful institutions in the state?

Awwww did I offend your church are you going to have me stoned. You's are becoming more a religion everyday with your utopian dreams of a better atheistic society, you even have your celebrity saints, Dawkins, Hitchens, Fry, Pinker etc etc.

Are you one of these "spiritual" atheists, well I am not I have no spiritual beliefs, I don't believe in them.

But I agree with John Gray over Dawkin's and Pinker. Religion is in our genetic make up, it has been with us in all places for all time since modern humans evolved (probably 75,000 years ago). You place a bunch of children on a desert Island without cultural interference. they will naturally develop a form of communication and grammar, a sexuality and religion.

You can be as atheistic as you think you are but you hit your thumb with a hammer you will scream a profanity at some "imagined" deity.

I'm spiritual and atheist, we do exist.

What do you mean by spiritual?

I have no belief in anything supernatural, everything has a scientific explanation even of we don't understand it yet. In the spiritual side I don't identify ( try to anyway) with anything, I have no self image to validate. As Buddhists would say, there is no self, the self is an illusion. It's about seeing past your ego an not letting it control you.

philologos

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I have no belief in anything supernatural, everything has a scientific explanation even of we don't understand it yet. In the spiritual side I don't identify ( try to anyway) with anything, I have to self image to validate. As Buddhists would say, there is no self, the self is an illusion. It's about seeing past your ego an not letting it control you.

Do you believe in something called a spirit, or something called a soul?

That's generally what's understood by being spiritual. I'm just curious as to what you mean by the term.

If you don't believe in the supernatural, is the spirit something that you can locate biologically in the individual or is it just a concept that has no tangible presence?

Scanlas The 2nd

philologos wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I have no belief in anything supernatural, everything has a scientific explanation even of we don't understand it yet. In the spiritual side I don't identify ( try to anyway) with anything, I have to self image to validate. As Buddhists would say, there is no self, the self is an illusion. It's about seeing past your ego an not letting it control you.

Do you believe in something called a spirit, or something called a soul?

That's generally what's understood by being spiritual. I'm just curious as to what you mean by the term.

If you don't believe in the supernatural, is the spirit something that you can locate biologically in the individual or is it just a concept that has no tangible presence?

I believe our spirit is our awareness behind our thoughts, feelings, sense perceptions and emotions. It's a stillness of calm awareness that is in everyone, most are too consumed by thought to notice it. I believe much of what Jesus, the Buddha has said refers to this "stillness" in us all.

I do believe our soul lives on after we die because our soul is the same as everyone else's. I also believe when Jesus referred to God and "the light" he is referring to my interpretation of the soul.

That's why " god is within us all". Meditation allows you to find "god" inside you more easily.

Ghost Buster

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I believe our spirit is our awareness behind our thoughts, feelings, sense perceptions and emotions. It's a stillness of calm awareness that is in everyone, most are too consumed by thought to notice it. I believe much of what Jesus, the Buddha has said refers to this "stillness" in us all.

I do believe our soul lives on after we die because our soul is the same as everyone else's. I also believe when Jesus referred to God and "the light" he is referring to my interpretation of the soul.

That's why " god is within us all". Meditation allows you to find "god" inside you more easily.

I just call that 'chilled out'.

philologos

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I do believe our soul lives on after we die because our soul is the same as everyone else's. I also believe when Jesus referred to God and "the light" he is referring to my interpretation of the soul.

That's why " god is within us all". Meditation allows you to find "god" inside you more easily.

The soul living on after death is supernatural. It is a belief that isn't observed in nature. We can't see what happens after death in the world. Are you still sure you don't believe in the supernatural?

As for Jesus and what he understood by God the light and so on. I don't think there's any doubt from the New Testament that he did believe that God was real and the same as the Old Testament.

If you like we can walk through the passages. If not that's OK too.

I think your beliefs are fascinating but they are clearly supernatural.

philologos

ScumLord wrote: »

It disgusts me that the priest makes little effort to know the person and just inserts their name into a Catholic propaganda speech. They lie about the person. It's not all priests that do that, some use God and heaven to give comfort I'm not so much against the Catholic position they're taking but to use someone's death to clearly push agendas, attack other groups or push guilt onto people is

It is not, religion starts from an obnoxious standpoint when it comes to non-believers. We're all going to hell for eternal damnation simply because we don't believe what they believe that's pretty harsh.

Firstly. If people don't show up at church how can the priest know the deceased. The responsibility is on the family of the deceased. It's not disgusting that the priest doesn't know them if they are not known to him. Why have a Catholic funeral?

This is why in my will I'll compile a list of pastors who know me personally or at least make clear that I want the pastor to explain the Gospel and the role that has in my life to those in attendance. That's my responsibility, not the responsibility of whoever officiated at my funeral.

The Christian position is that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We are guilty as a result. Thankfully Jesus came into the world to die in our place on the cross so we can be forgiven and come into a new relationship with Him. That's good news that I advocate sharing with all people.

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

Thankfully Jesus came into the world to die in our place on the cross so we can be forgiven and come into a new relationship with Him. That's good news that I advocate sharing with all people.

Good news yeay \o/, nothing like a nice gory blood sacrifice to appease the gods.

< Heads off to find a puppy to slaughter, must keep Yahweh happy. >