Aspies For Freedom

Certainly everyone should endeavour to stand on their own two feet; but there are people who suffer illness, go through divorce or loose their job through no fault of their own. To deny these people the safety net of welfare lacks compassion. The idea that we live in some sort of perfect world where appropriate jobs and training are available to all is a nonsense.

Ian:- I may be wrong but I think Emmy was making a general comment rather than saying something specifically against you.

Good for you..
I have real trouble knowing what he's on about--perhaps you can translate for me.

Well Dostum was a follower of Islam and Palpatine was Darth Sidious, evil lord of the Sith--so I suppose to a christian they both represent 'the dark side of the force'

I do think Christmas and other religious holy-days should be viewed in a religious context (not just as a chance to get drunk and eat lots). I also think that older spiritual practices which form the basis of Christian holy-days should be respected; and people should see the various different cultural and spiritual meanings of a particular day.

Over the years Christianity has hijacked holy days and ancient religious practices and turned them to its own purposes. This is an excellent way of supplanting local spiritual beliefs; and is understandable since Christianity is after all an evangelical religion.

My own religious beliefs are rather eclectic; I do consider a spiritual life important; I confirmed as a Christian a couple of years back. But I continue to incorporate other religious ideas--Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, Pagan etc in my world view.

I feel that many people choose a particular religion for cultural reasons; if they had been born in a different country they would perhaps still be religious--but follow different spiritual practices.

Speaking personally, I would be just a happy being involved in a Buddhist meditation section as a Christian prayer meeting. No religion is any better or worse than another. It all comes down to how people use and interpret religious teachings.

The Church has been male dominated for a very long time; its good to see the ordination of women by the Church of England. I'm sure it'll only be a matter of time we'll see a female bishop. The female clergy I've come across have been at least as good as the men. But even now there's still resistance to women vicars from some quarters.

Knowledge of the world is limited; theories about the origin of the universe incomplete. We live in uncertainty--ever questioning? Full of doubt and confusion--often the world seems meaningless.

Religion offers meaning in an uncertainty world. It allows us to connect with the universe in an un-intellectualised intuitive way--based on feeling.

Faith cannot be articulated. But it’s equally valid to perceive the world through religion as through science.  

The heart fills in the gaps in understanding left by the head; and is the glue that holds everything together.

Science bases it’s conclusions on evidence--but the evidence is always limited. Sooner or later a new piece of evidence comes along to overthrow a conclusion. Science is therefore based on objective uncertainty.

So scientific theories are also “a bunch of made up stuff”--as they are limited by the available facts; and can only show a partial view of reality.

Religion is of course also “a bunch of made up stuff”--just based on the ‘subjective certainty’ of divine revelation.

While science speaks to the head; religion speaks to the heart. To understand the world fully we must hold science in one hand and religion in the other.

What a load you pants^
The theist’s belief in the existence of god is based on faith and as such does not require ‘proof’.
Proof would only ever satisfy agnostics.
Atheists don’t believe in god anyway and so wouldn’t accept proof regardless.

I’ll except that the Bible contains much that is not be factually accurate.

But then the Bible isn’t scientific document; and too treat it as such misses the point.

It’s a book about man’s relationship to god.
It’s allegorical…containing stories intended to demonstrate a particular philosophical point. It contains philosophical and spiritual ‘truth’…but not necessarily historical fact.

If you read it as you would a scientific paper you won’t understand it. You need to feel your way through it.

Who??? I hope you're not suggesting I did that. I have enough trouble writing my our words.
But it is possible I went offline last night around the same time this person posted--so I forgive you. Our religious chat was interesting...but not interesting enough for me to stay up past 1AM.

I can't say whether or not the stories of miracles are fictional...I wasn't there. But am willing except their realness as a matter of faith.

Can you be sure 'the big bang' happened? The evidence suggests that it did--but can you be 100% certain. Yes...no?
If you except that it did happen...you've taken a 'leap of faith'.

We create our own heaven; we create our own hell.
But if you mean...the place/places we go when we die...the I couldn't say... as I'm not dead.

Just my inherent paranoia my friend. lol

Well, I'm a wishy washy kinda guy.
You're a clever bloke Creasy.

I would call all those things ‘a leap of faith’ because they involved trusting in ones beliefs. Whether those beliefs derive from scientific observation or intuitive introspection is irrelevant. You’re still putting your faith in your beliefs.

I see god and the universe as pretty much the same thing. I have a relationship with god…and I study to universe. I believe that humankind evolved from the apes and that the universe began with ‘a big bang’. I also believe in the grace of god and that man was created in god’s image.

Just out of interest…
How do you see religions that do not rely on the existence of a divine creator? Buddhist and Taoist beliefs for example. Are they still illogical?

Now there's an idea.