Do you feel it is important to share your views on faith or atheism?

[gingerdodger]

This is a genuine question, I am not asking to promote a faith vs atheism debate as we have plenty of those.

My question is whether people feel that it is part of their faith to share those beliefs with others? How far do you take this and how do you approach it? Similarly for those who are atheist, do you feel it is important to share your opinions and in what ways do you do this?

I know some faith groups see this as absaloutely fundamental to their faith whilst others are more relaxed. I also see that those who do not believe in God(s) also often wish to share their opinions widely. It interests me to think about what this achieves in terms of sharing opinions, understanding of each other etc.

From my point of view I strive to be open about my faith, I like to listen to other's perspectives as this makes me think (providing they are listening, I tend to bow out when it starts to feel adversarial and not inquisitorial). I don't feel compelled to actively knock on doors (metaphorically or otherwise) to share my faith but rather subscribe to the view that I hope my approach to life and openness about faith allows me to discuss my faith openly and honestly. I do believe actions speak louder than words and the best form of 'preaching' is to live Christian values of love (not saying I am good at this).

I just want to thank you capsium for your contributions towards a secular society. :)

I've said it before. What we need is to get Capsium or some bishop with a really tall hat (that's how you can tell how close to god they are) on prime time TV explaining why the one true god has decided and you will all do as you are told.

On MN is a start though since a lot of people read it.

In the US the Christians have been gloating that they won over the right of businesses to discriminate (but only if owned by Christians) and I've been reading of the backlash. Ordinary people putting up signs saying "we serve anyone".

At some point even many Christians find themselves saying "ok, I'm religious, but not like that"

All this vitriol because I have gall to say I value collective worship in schools, that I would support a suitable, fair, enriching, alternative for those who did not want to take part and that I think everyone should decide to either opt in or out so there is no bias in terms of what is seen as the norm.

I can clearly see that some would have preferred me to support an entirely secular education or for people to have opt their children into collective worship. However I think this is biased the other way, it suggests religious belief and worship is something that should be hidden away from society - which I think does not create a freer society at all.

capsium this is not about hiding away religion- this is about not imposing it upon others.

There is a choice that is not imposing.

I also support making the choice very straightforward, easy and one that everyone has to make, so there is no opt in, opt out, bias. I absolutely believe no stigma should be attached to a child because their parent has opted them out of collective worship and there should be enriching alternative activities provided for them.

What you want combust is no Christian collective worship in schools. This is not choice. It removes something that some feel is valuable and i do believe it promotes the idea that religious belief and worship should only take place in private or at buildings dedicated for the purpose, essentially hiding it away, making it shameful.

Rubbish- whenyou go to see a GP you are not asked to pray, at libraries, swimming pools, hospitals, airports, fitness classes. golf clubs, breastfeeding groups.

Why should schools be any different? Don't play the victim here.

There are chapels in hospitals and visiting clergy. I am not playing the victim either. I am saying some value collective worship in schools and I do not believe it should be removed. Schools are a microcosm reflective of society, we do not live in an entirely secular society it is not surprising people still see value in having collective worship in schools.

Yes there are chapels and visiting clergy in hospitals, but you don't see a staff nurse having morning prayer over a ward.

THis thread casts you in a very bad light capsium.

And is not yoga traditionally a form of religious worship/exercise?

combust

THis thread casts you in a very bad light capsium.

And you are biased. Would you like me if I agreed with you and everything you said?

"And is not yoga traditionally a form of religious worship/exercise?"

And?

The yoga comment was in reference to fitness classes, but maybe it is only Christianity you object to?

But people choose to go to a yoga class. And you would be hard pushed to find a yoga class with any religious bias.

Yoga is not a religion.

But people choose to go to a yoga class.

And I am advocating everyone makes a choice of whether they opt their child in or out of collective worship, with meaningful alternative activities provided for those children who are opted out and no stigma involved.

Removing collective worship from schools removes choice not creates it.

I give up. You just don't get it do you. Are so so blinded by your faith that you can't understand simple logic? Or are you just a thouroughly nasty selfish person?

Hinduism and yoga

"A statue of Shiva in yogic meditation.
In whatever way a Hindu defines the goal of life, there are several methods (yogas) that sages have taught for reaching that goal. Texts dedicated to Yoga include the Bhagavad Gita, the Yoga Sutras, the Hatha Yoga Pradipika, and, as their philosophical and historical basis, the Upanishads. Paths that one can follow to achieve the spiritual goal of life (moksha, samadhi or nirvana) include:

Bhakti Yoga (the path of love and devotion)
Karma Yoga (the path of right action)
R?ja Yoga (the path of meditation)
Jñ?na Yoga (the path of wisdom)[347]
An individual may prefer one or some yogas over others, according to his or her inclination and understanding. Some devotional schools teach that bhakti is the only practical path to achieve spiritual perfection for most people, based on their belief that the world is currently in the Kali Yuga (one of four epochs which are part of the Yuga cycle).[348] Practice of one yoga does not exclude others. Many schools believe that the different yogas naturally blend into and aid other yogas. For example, the practice of jnana yoga, is thought to inevitably lead to pure love (the goal of bhakti yoga), and vice versa.[349] Someone practicing deep meditation (such as in raja yoga) must embody the core principles of karma yoga, jnana yoga and bhakti yoga, whether directly or indirectly.[347][350]"

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Yoga

combust by your definition of nice and selfless what would you have me do? Agree with you?

As many others have done I will bow out of this thread.

You are single handedly doing a brilliant job for the atheist argument.

Yoga originated with in Hinduism but yoga is not a religion. It has no belief system attached to it. In the same way you do not have to be a Buddhist to meditate or worship the Greek Pantheon to be a discus thrower (it is questionable whether Buddhism is a religion at all).

There are devotional schools of yoga like Bhakti, and there are entirely secular styles like Bikram, and everything in between - the reason it can encompass such a broad church (!) is precisely because there is no doctrine. Not everyone in yoga likes the way the more spiritual aspects have been removed by many in the west, but equally there is very little in it that requires a belief in anything other than the possession of a deeper level of conciousness.

It is a philosophical and physical system that brings you into a deeper connection with......well, that depends on the practitioner. For some it may be god and for others it is with themselves.

But doctrine need not by religious. Here:

dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/doctrine?q=Doctrine

So a 'philosophical system' could be it's doctrine, couldn't it?

^ be not by. Typo.

Buddhists are atheists.

I think that must mean technically it isn't a religion - perhaps its a teaching or learning system.

Buddhists don't "worship" Buddha or pray to him.

I know that isn't relevant but interesting.

And is something entirely secular, that is it not religious just because there is no belief in God, god or gods?

dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/religion?q=Religion

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Not that it matters hugely...just that I've never thought as yoga as completely secular.

There isn't a doctrine of yoga, religious or otherwise - no beliefs are required.

Yoga can be entirely secular. In some modern styles the practice is entirely physical. My own opinion is that this is a very restricted view of what yoga is since yoga means the union of the mind and body. Atheist practitioners may see it as a connection with deeper levels of our own consciousness. For others it is very much a spiritual discipline. For some it may also be devotional, but the object of that devotion is not determined by yoga. God is there if you want, or a great conciousness, or just yourself.

Kew, yes, i would think of Buddhism as a philosophy. Practices are geared towards self-enlightenment - the same as yoga, which is not surprising given their shared roots.

Yes a philosophy is a good way of putting it.

A number of people have argued with me over the years when I have said Buddhists were atheists They are adamant that it is a religion. Perhaps they think Buddhists worship Buddha?

I have never personally participated in yoga that was anything other than secular. Not that it is impossible to bring a religious element into it if you choose but surely thats true of just about anything

Rugby is a religion in Wales but that's just a turn of phrase in common usage, it doesn't mean that the Welsh worship at the altar of Leigh Halfpenny. Though given what he can do with a ball when he hoofs it I don;t think it'll be long before he's cannonised.