LW says people should respect Dan Crowley's faith

[Newish Pie]

Gervais and other vocal atheists seem to think the burden of proof for a creator lies with those who believe in one, and that not believing in one is somehow scientifically proven, which it isn't.

"Agnostic" is often taken to mean that someone doesn't know or doesn't have a settled view about whether god or gods exist. But it can also mean the view that there isn't sufficient evidence, or even that there could never be sufficient evidence to rule out the existence of a god or gods. Though I think there could probably be evidence that a god or gods exist if they made themselves known to us. But even then... could we tell a genuine deity from a sufficiently advanced alien civilization. Or a bored ****ager running the simulation we're all living in?

And even if Jesus H Christ returned tomorrow in all his glory, there would still be people claiming it was a false flag, he was a crisis actor, or a stooge of the WEF.

Like others, I was brought up with a religious faith and genuinely believed it until my ****age years. I'd describe myself as a humanist now, and agnostic. People who've had both religious and secular periods of their lives have a particular insight into religious faith, because we/they know what it feels like from both perspectives, and how differently we experience both the world and our inner lives. I'd say if you've never had religious faith, you can never properly understand it. And if you've only ever had religious faith, you can't properly understand how it feels to have a secular mindset.

[crazyfists]

It's good for LW to make the point but is this what we're talking about - a few idiots on X or whatever?

This 100% and not only in this issue. It's full of absolute morons on social media in the main, a load of reactionary idiots posting things that before social media they'd have had to keep in their head. I don't believe some bellends on there are what fans think in the majority. I respect anyone for their beliefs even if I might not agree with all of them. I'm sure most people think the same.

[countygump]

It seems to me from snippets I've heard or read that christianity has helped them to turn a corner from maybe some personal demons. I hover between atheist and agnostic. But Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy provided many answers for me

Let the lad pray to and thank who he wants. If he carries on playing well and scoring goals, I might well be thanking God as well. I'm not particularly religious, I'm more of a commune with nature sort of a guy. You know, roaming the country and helping people, a bit like Kung Fu. So if you're having any problems with cattle rustlers or the local land Baron, lerrus know as I'll mostly be in the Carlton area this week, aii yaaaa.

[nw6pie]

This 100% and not only in this issue. It's full of absolute morons on social media in the main, a load of reactionary idiots posting things that before social media they'd have had to keep in their head. I don't believe some bellends on there are what fans think in the majority. I respect anyone for their beliefs even if I might not agree with all of them. I'm sure most people think the same.

We need to stop amplifying the anonymous idiots on social media. It is the equivalent of a newspaper in the 1980s reporting on a couple of random comments in a pub - except that you might be able to identify the idiots in the pub. Very lazy reporting.

[Old_pie]

Gervais and other vocal atheists seem to think the burden of proof for a creator lies with those who believe in one, and that not believing in one is somehow scientifically proven, which it isn't.

I don't know his stance and can't be bothered to look, but the whole reason religions are called FAITHS is that there is no proof, otherwise it wouldn't need faith. However I will also say that science as yet as not proved there isn't a god even though it's worked out we go round the Sun, the stars are other suns, there are millions of stars in our galaxy, and there are millions of galaxies and we don't know what is beyond nor what came before, if there was a before or even if there was a before.

I've recently read "Living with the Gods (On Beliefs and Peoples)". It is a book by Neil MacGregor who was Director at the British Museum and he has examined the cultural meanings of dozens of artifacts from different times and places that are in the museum. I found it a good read. There are a couple of quotes in the preface:

"Religion is an attempt to find meaning in events, not a theory that tries to explain the universe" JOHN GRAY

"Religious belief are not universal truths, but community truths, and they guide lives rather than describe facts. They experss what it means to belong to a community and to owe allegiance to its values" DON CUPITT

Unfortunately a lot of the world, especially power hungry institutions, don't see it that way.

[slack_pie]

"Agnostic" is often taken to mean that someone doesn't know or doesn't have a settled view about whether god or gods exist. But it can also mean the view that there isn't sufficient evidence, or even that there could never be sufficient evidence to rule out the existence of a god or gods. Though I think there could probably be evidence that a god or gods exist if they made themselves known to us. But even then... could we tell a genuine deity from a sufficiently advanced alien civilization. Or a bored ****ager running the simulation we're all living in?

And even if Jesus H Christ returned tomorrow in all his glory, there would still be people claiming it was a false flag, he was a crisis actor, or a stooge of the WEF.

Like others, I was brought up with a religious faith and genuinely believed it until my ****age years. I'd describe myself as a humanist now, and agnostic. People who've had both religious and secular periods of their lives have a particular insight into religious faith, because we/they know what it feels like from both perspectives, and how differently we experience both the world and our inner lives. I'd say if you've never had religious faith, you can never properly understand it. And if you've only ever had religious faith, you can't properly understand how it feels to have a secular mindset.

The fact is that nobody knows. I personally think the evidence for a divine creator is more compelling than the evidence against, but you are right, neither is sufficient to be certain. That's where faith comes in. Whether atheists like to admit it or not, there position is just as much faith-based as someone who believes in god. Given that there's no concrete evidence either way, I find it strange that people become staunchly atheist, as it's a rather pessimistic worldview that can teeter towards nihilism if one isn't careful.

On your point about if Jesus returned tomorrow - you are right. I'd imagine he'd meet the same fate as the first time, probably at the hands of the most devoutly religious people.

[jackal2]

It seems to me from snippets I've heard or read that christianity has helped them to turn a corner from maybe some personal demons.

This is true for a lot of people and it's the reason why, some years ago, I stopped describing myself as an atheist and now use the term agnostic instead, out of respect for those who do have a faith.

I'm not a religious person, but as I've got older I've seen evidence on numerous occasions of people having or finding a faith that has led them through some very dark times to a better and brighter position in their lives, so even if I don't share that faith/belief, why would I want to undermine or dismiss something that has worked for them and improved their lives and mental state?

Understandably, if religion has had that effect on your life, you'll want to champion it to other people who might also benefit from it, and as long as that's not done in an overpowering or coercive way, seeking to control others, then it's not a problem. Dan Crowley thanking his 'Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ' doesn't offend me, it's just him expressing his faith/opinion and where he comes from, and all power to him.

The time when religion becomes problematic is those who state/believe that any non-believers should be punished or eradicated, but of course the people who say that aren't really religious anyway. They're nothing more than violent thugs and failed human beings who are too cowardly to look in the mirror and admit to themselves that they're just violent thugs and failed human beings, so they seek out some sort of vehicle/brand/cause to make their heinous actions sound moral or justifiable. Football hooligans do the same thing.

[BanjoPie]

Lets just keep commenting on it and turn a molehill in to a f*in mountain!

[BigFatPie]

This is true for a lot of people and it's the reason why, some years ago, I stopped describing myself as an atheist and now use the term agnostic instead, out of respect for those who do have a faith.

I'm not a religious person, but as I've got older I've seen evidence on numerous occasions of people having or finding a faith that has led them through some very dark times to a better and brighter position in their lives, so even if I don't share that faith/belief, why would I want to undermine or dismiss something that has worked for them and improved their lives and mental state?

Understandably, if religion has had that effect on your life, you'll want to champion it to other people who might also benefit from it, and as long as that's not done in an overpowering or coercive way, seeking to control others, then it's not a problem. Dan Crowley thanking his 'Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ' doesn't offend me, it's just him expressing his faith/opinion and where he comes from, and all power to him.

The time when religion becomes problematic is those who state/believe that any non-believers should be punished or eradicated, but of course the people who say that aren't really religious anyway. They're nothing more than violent thugs and failed human beings who are too cowardly to look in the mirror and admit to themselves that they're just violent thugs and failed human beings, so they seek out some sort of vehicle/brand/cause to make their heinous actions sound moral or justifiable. Football hooligans do the same thing.

All fair enough and grown adults like Dan Crowley should be free to believe and say what they like about their religion.

The problem is that most people consider themselves religious only because they’ve been indoctrinated by parents and then schools from a very early age. My kids went to a fairly steady CoE school and they were bombarded with God from day 1.

That’s why religious types are so keen on faith schools, kids need to be turned from a young age, once they’re adults they’re usually lost.

Evidence based education should be the norm rather than the exception.

[ancientpie]

I would describe myself as an atheist who hopes he's wrong ( especially on the life after death question) I was actually fairly religious until I was 10 & lost my 14 year old brother to the Trent, I questioned the existence of a glorious being looking over us then & have seen nothing to change my opinion since, however in a way I envy those with true faith because I understand & have seen how it can help some in some very dark times.