Christianity. In the context of whether belief is actually necessary. Or not.

Mishap - that's my position too.
And that's why I won't enter into any discussions about whether God exists or not, because it can't be proved one way or another.
All we can do is try to lead a decent life according to the code of behaviour that each person believes is right.

"Mild agnosticism" indeed. Most thinking Christians, including clergy, regard themselves as not knowing any certainties and on a journey of looking for some sort of truth - a healthier position than fundamentalism and categorical beliefs.

Mild agnosticism kinda goes with the territory in some parts of the Church of England.
No bad thing either.
Those religious sorts who claim to have all the 'right' answers can be a bit much.
There's very little fun in fundamentalism.

He chose to live as a Muslim as a Cape Malay all his life- but his son emigrated to the UK at the time of Apartheid. We have a very interesting book about his life and many of his paintings are kept at Wittwaterstrand Uni. Initially he was in charge of sets and artistic works for Drury Lane Theatre- at the time of Lilly Langtry, Oscar Wilde and more.

He sounds an interesting chap!

It would be interesting to know how many people 50+ who are religious, are still faithful to the religion they grew up in/with- or have changed?

Looking around me, both in UK, France and here- I know very few people who have changed- as their religion is so closely linked with social and cultural elements.

My DH's grandfather was one of the first to convert to Islam- from a very old British family steeped in the Anglican Church from a rural area. As an artist in London in the 1850s- he became fascinated first by Islamic art and architecture in Andalucia (Seville and Grenada) and then Islamic culture. He emigrated to study and follow his new Faith- to Egypt and then SA.

I do not think that feetle's statement that "faith is the abdication of reason" is dismissive. Having faith is not about reason - it is about faith, which by definition is "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." (Oxford dictionary).

Spiritual conviction and reason are different things. They both have their place and neither should be dismissed lightly.

Many people do not have that spiritual conviction and find it hard to imagine where that comes from; those who have it find it hard, in the main, to convey to others where it comes from.

Would that spiritual conviction were universal - we would all be safer and happier.

That is the beauty of reason - proven facts are proven facts and cannot be argued over. The astronauts on the space station from different parts of the world co-operating to ensure the safety of all when an emergency occurred is a good example of the unifying force of reason. I find that beautiful too, as those with religious convictions find their faith so.

It is interesting as history, too, to see the effects of religion(s) on people, and the influence of various doctrines on the laws of different cultures and countries. Why is anyone surprised that non-believers sometimes know more about a faith than those who are part of it? Knowledge and believing are not the same thing.

Some believers don't actually want to have much knowledge, just as some people who are ill do not want to know too much about the details of their disease - they hand it over to their doctor to cure them, and the more confidence they have in the doctor, the more likely they are to recover (though not from everything).

I don't think tolerating everything that is done in the name of religion has ever been a good idea. Tolerating religion doesn't mean that to me. It means accepting that people have different beliefs, not that anyone else has to suffer impositions of those beliefs (such as prayers in council meetings). People without religious faith are bound to have an interest in, and to say so, when the consequences of other people's faith affect them too. There are fewer effects now than in, say, medieval times, but still more than many of us are comfortable with.

As I said in my previous post I do not think religion is nothing ....."No-one can be dismissive of religion - it has shaped cultures and lives throughout the ages.

Why would someone who is not a believer be excluded from an interest in something as profound in terms of culture, art, music, conflict, psychology etc.? It is important for everyone to try and understand what this is all about. The future of our world and our safety will probably hinge on that understanding.

'Since no-one was being dismissive'? I've already pointed out that while some posters making comments like 'faith is the abdication of reason' (sorry, * feetle* but yours is the nearest!) seem not to be dismissive, that is one opinion. Members of faith communities on this forum have said, over and over, that the kind of comments often made on GN by those who are not, can be taken as unpleasant. I believe the cartoons in Charlie were very offensive and intended to be so. That doesn't mean they didn't have the right to publish them. But if their aim had been to avoid offence, they wouldn't have done so. And there is a tendency among the non-believers to spend a lot of keyboard time on matters of religion. If you were truly tolerant you would just leave it alone! And as jingl rightly says! why make so much fuss about what you think is nothing?

But Liliygran it was you who suggested that people were being dismissive and that they were "having a go" - that sounds like being "defensive and offended" since no-one was in fact being dismissive, just expressing a different point of view. No-one can be dismissive of religion - it has shaped cultures and lives throughout the ages. Not subscribing to it is not the same as being dismissive.

It is you who have said that the faith is the people so if you criticise the faith you criticise the person - that is what I am saying about the underlying dangers of religions; they are felt so deeply and personally that they become hard to discuss without risking giving offence - and for some that leads to violence.

Some of my best friends are female vicars and I love them dearly and we happily agree to differ - indeed one of them is married to an atheist - they are a shining example of live and let live, and of respect. She does not feel she is being got at by her husband, just that he has a different point of view.

I do not think you are illogical - you just have a different belief from me. Does that make me illogical in your eyes?

I'm neither defensive nor offended. For a bunch of people who think I'm illogical you aren't ever so good at admitting that it works the other way round. While you may believe you are simply expressing common sense views it doesn't appear so to everyone. Different points of view can exist without one of them being rubbish. An acknowledgement of that is all I'm hoping for. And feetle, the faith is the people. The church isn't the building or the paintings or even the music, it's the body of believers. Same with Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism.....one worshipping adherent constitutes a religion.

our daughter was told exactly that by the old Vicar, when she was 5. So not that long ago in 78! It led to terrible nightmares- I was meek and mild then, but oh I wish I had made an official complaint to the education dpt and the Diocese. Shocking.

There are some hugely intolerant atheists around though.

I am a non believer but I'm not absolutely sure that I will die and that will be the end of it.

Actually there are very few things I am absolutely 'sure' of and that is the way I like it to be.

I agree totally with that, jura. It was the unfairness of what I was taught about salvation when I was a child (such as that someone who wasn't baptised couldn't go to heaven) that seeded my first doubts.

Good post, mishap. I would go a step further than you and say that I do dismiss beliefs that I don't share (just as I expect others to dismiss beliefs of mine that they don't share), but that still doesn't mean I'm dismissing their importance to someone else, only that they have no importance or relevance in my life.

To be honest, I always found the concept of religious tolerance difficult to fathom. As if anyone truly believes that THEIR God is the only way to salvation, and that following any other dog will lead to, at worse, hell, or at best, oblivion- how could anyone be tolerant?

Non believers on the other hand are quite sure they will die and that will be the end of it. It puts everything into perspective and makes tolerance, or respect, of others, much easier.

I am not having a go at your religion Lilygran but expressing my OWN doubts - that really is not having a go or being dismissive. I have never said it is nonsense. It is very deeply important and fundamental to those who believe - how can that not be important?

But I think you have hit on a very basic problem - and I have touched on this before. Because religions deal in fundamentals, then any suggestion that someone else might not share that belief is seen as threatening. Hence the sort of dangers that we see acted out before us on the world stage - as they have done over centuries.

If I were to say that I did not like pink roses for example, you might be happy to say you loved them without feeling that I was being dismissive of your love for pink roses or of you personally. If I say that I am not able to believe in the existence of god, and you say that you do, then the concern arises that I am being dismissive of your belief. But there is no reason to think that.

This is the problem - for believers, their belief is so central to their life and who they are that any hint of a different view is threatening in a way that other differences of view would not be.

I am not telling you that your religion is nonsense, but simply that at this point in my life I do not share it.

This defensiveness is understandable because of the fundamental nature of belief to believers, but it is also very dangerous indeed in the minds of those who think in a rigid way and who do not have the education to deal with a difference of view without becoming violent. We are watching this unfold around us now.

Sadly Lilygran, religious people are too often dismissive of the way I feel and how I got there.

I taught in UK schools for over 30 years- and my daughters went to UK schools. The RE teachers were all evangelical Christians, bar a couple- and although they were happy to teach about world religions- they knew just how to emphasize the superiority of the Christian faith. What really upset me, with all of them, bar 1, is that they were totally dismissive of himanism/agnosticism or atheism- which they generally described as a moral vacuum- which as said before, is on the contrary, nothing of the sort.

A large part of my family are Christians of one or other denomination- but many are Muslims too. So I try not to be dismissive on anybody- but I wish they'd extend the same courtesy to me, DH and family.

@Lilygran - Do you mean what I said about atheists etc knowing more about religions? All I can say is that in surveys it has been shown that the 'non-religious' score higher on, say, Bible-knowledge, than do the Christian believers.

Moving on... I also say that I respect the people, but not their beliefs.
'The faith is the people' - what does that mean? It's a slogan, no more.
I would rather say that the faith is the abdication of reason.

granjura and mishap, you may both have hit on a fundamental and irreconcilable difference: you see respectful and I see dismissive. The whole 'I only have a go at the religion, not the people who believe' is nonsense on stilts. The faith is the people. Telling me my religion is nonsense is telling me I believe in nonsense. Pretty dismissive?

Indeed they have Mishap- very controlled imho.

Not believing is not the saMe as dismissive - I think the agnostics and atheists on this site are extremely respectful of others' beliefs.

Sweeping statement, feetle? Perhaps people of faith don't feel like debating with someone who is so dismissive of religion?