Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Mumsnet classics

Relive the funniest, most unforgettable threads. For a daily dose of Mumsnet’s best bits, sign up for Mumsnet's daily newsletter.

Honest question. Is this site a religious site?

843 replies

follderol · 26/01/2009 18:01

It seems to me there's a large amount of Christian posts. I've also noticed a fair amount of disapproval for other religions.

I am an atheist. I don't really want to be part of a christian site posing as a parenting site.

So is this actually a Christian place?

OP posts:
Threadworm · 01/02/2009 22:14

OK, AWPA will celebrate communion with Madelaines and an insouciant red with a suggestion of cinnamon and furled daisies.

RustyBear · 01/02/2009 22:15

Bath Olivers?

Thanks for the recommendation, justabout, I'll have a look in the library.

RustyBear · 01/02/2009 22:17

I think wankery has to be an adjective, as it means 'like a wanker' whereas wanky means 'like a wank', which is probably not what you mean.....

Threadworm · 01/02/2009 22:18

Good point. Pedantic wankerishness, one of the best sorts.

UnquietDad · 01/02/2009 22:21

The Judeo-Christian god is also totally, in its own way, a product of its culture. Every god is.

We're back to special pleading again. I always come back to the same question - why your god and not someone else's god? To claim that it's all part of some great supernatural force and that they are all the same thing really is intellectually bankrupt as an argument, and anyway it totally contradicts all the stuff nooks has cited above about the various ways in which they are all different.

I've just googled Ward and he is an ordained priest. Forgive me, but isn't that a bit like reading "Why Burgers Are Great" written by a senior manager at McDonald's? Is there no objective Theology For Dummies?

It's funny how people find Dawkins cheap and nasty when interviewing people. True, he is sharp, and doesn't brook any waffle, but that's not the same as being rude. He occasionally gets irritated, true, but wouldn't you? FFS, you'd need the patience of a saint not to when you put up with people throwing that much half-baked, ill-thought-out, irrational piffle at you all the time. I've seen him interviewing religious people and he affords them just as much - and as little - opportunity to put their theories and their evidence in front of him as he would any of his scientific colleagues. That's not just polite - that's something he simply does not have to do, and yet he does. In this sense, he is tolerant.

Threadworm, colour is a bad example because there is a clear, simple, scientific explanation for it. It may not have been within the knowledge of our forebears, but so what? There are plenty of things science doesn't currently understand, but it it strives to. If 19th-century learning had just accepted that colour was "beyond human understanding" and in the realm of the "spiritual", we'd never have had the writings on the subject by Goethe, Maxwell and others who have helped us to understand it.

AMum, I rather thought that was what you were driving at so thank you for clarifying it. We are speaking totally different languages, and that is the problem I have here with Threadworm and others. The terms people use on here are just not clearly defined enough - they can mean whatever they want them to mean, and this is somehow evidence of an extraordinarily "sophisticated" approach to faith which I would immediately understand if I went and read some theology. Forgive me for being a little cynical.

Swedes · 01/02/2009 22:22

Is wankery also a noun, like a wormery? A place where wankers can hang out.

Threadworm · 01/02/2009 22:23

It would be quite a nice house name, wouldn't it. The Wankery.

UnquietDad · 01/02/2009 22:24

nooka, sorry. I didn't mean to call you nooks. It was a slip of the keyboard, and not some weird attempt to appear over-familiar...

RE the above, is someone going to say "get thee to a wankery"?

Threadworm · 01/02/2009 22:24
Grin
Swedes · 01/02/2009 22:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

RustyBear · 01/02/2009 22:26

Well, I'll start with Ward - I think I'm probably still enough of a historian to read with an eye to possible bias- and go on to an atheist pov afterwards. Any recommendations?

Swedes · 01/02/2009 22:26

at nooks.

Threadworm · 01/02/2009 22:29

Swedes, perhaps cottage is a verb there and the St Martins were known for it. It is not a house name just a malicious piece of graffiti.

Swedes · 01/02/2009 22:33

Threadworm

TheFallenMadonna · 01/02/2009 22:48

Actually, I find the colour thing very interesting. There is certainly a scientific explanation for colour vision, but the phenomenological consciousness of colour really can't (at the moment) be simply explained by science. Or at least not in a way that is widely accepted.

Not really relevant to the discussion. Sorry. Back to you biscuits and wankery.

Threadworm · 01/02/2009 22:52

Really? Is that right? That is interesting. I'm completely a thicko about the science bit.

ruty · 01/02/2009 22:52

what dya say Swedes? Did I miss you being obscene?

[considers opening boutique hotel in Devon called 'The Wankery'..]

IorekByrnison · 01/02/2009 23:04

Are you all watching The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser?

Like AWPA

ruty · 01/02/2009 23:09

guess what, dh watching Hitch-hiker's guide...

Funny, quite a film buff [can talk Tarkovsky anytime - poncetastic - ]but have seen none of erzog's films. Will have to educate myself.

ruty · 01/02/2009 23:09

Herzog.

nooka · 01/02/2009 23:20

Madelaines are surely cake aren't they?

UQD no worries. I assumed it was a typo

The perception of colour is an interesting question about how our brains work, I think, as is much of this to me. I'm more interested in the why of religions (why do so many peoples and cultures develop myths, what do they tell us about those people and cultures). I feel no need to delve deeply into the god question itself, as it just seems to me an odd quirk of other people really. There doesn't seem to me to be any great need for the god concept. It causes such a lot of grief for people, whether that is about believers being intolerant, or the anguish of those trying and failing to follow the teachings of whatever belief they aspire to.

I am satisfied with thinking the world is incredible and wonderful without needing a creator, and that people are interesting and should be treated well without needing an afterlife. I see no gap for god.

UnquietDad · 01/02/2009 23:23

"no gap for god" is a good way of putting it.

TheFallenMadonna · 01/02/2009 23:28

"There is no need for the god concept" - If I were an evolutionary psychologist, which I certainly am not, I might suggest that the evidence is that it is at least adaptive.

nooka · 01/02/2009 23:39

I'm only talking personally, of course. I suspect that in previous periods of history when life was much more arbitrary, and control of circumstances very difficult the idea of rewards in another life was useful both for those living a difficult life and those benefiting (and perhaps causing) from other people's difficult lives. Similarly the idea of arbitrary gods messing things up for mortals probably explained a lot when there will little other way to find meaning.

Threadworm · 01/02/2009 23:39

You like Tarkovsky Ruty? The Sacrifice is one of my favourite films. Have just given up on Hauser. Too sleepy.