As I understood it, Unitarians were Christians who rejected the concept of Trinity and to some extent the divinity of Jesus. The Wikipedia article describing Unitarian-Universalist says that Christianity is not required. People of any religion (Jewish, Islam. Buddhism, etc.) can participate. What is going on?
Unitarians
- Thread starter mathman
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
From where I'm standing you've nicely described what's going on.
Can you be more explicit with your question?
I went it a Unitarian church for several years. And I'm an atheist. (I went for the community. Nobody ever asked me about God.)
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1378/unitarianism
Unitarian Universalism is a theologically liberal, inclusive belief system
The consolidation of the Unitarian and Universalist denominations in 1961 brought together two distinct traditions to form a creedless movement that acts today as an umbrella organization for religious liberals all over the world. Under its current name, Unitarian Universalism is a theologically liberal and inclusive belief system
That's what's going on. Unitarians nowadays have nondenominational services.
One is that Jesus was a great man and a prophet, but not necessarily a part of God. Others:
Jesus is a pretty good role model
Science and belief can coexist; there is no conflict between the two
There is no 'original sin' and people can be good or bad
No one religion has the absolute truth
The authors of the Bible were inspired, but human, and so made mistakes
Predestination, heaven and hell are silly
OK, I would not describe as great. One of a number of prophets around at the time. Possible non existent even. Just an amalgamation from those who were around and just one which religion chose to elevate
Mild harmless belief
Debatable if you are into debating dubious religious people
Can coexist
only if both do not attempt to invade the others territoryWhen science shows lighting is an electrostatic discharge not Zeus throwing thunderbolts science is not invading religious territory, merely pointing out religion has no territory as far as Zeus is concerned
there is no conflict between the two X
I take it when you say belief you mean religion. In which case my tick and cross stand, since religion is ALL belief
Belief equals acceptance without evidence and I cannot see science buying that crock
I would classes that sentence as a given
Since absolute truth is non existent no-one has
More that they took advantage of people who believed in fictional stories and concocted stories to tell which they claimed gave them superiority over others
It was deliberate not a mistake
Predestination debatable concept
heaven and hell are silly - another given
My 10 cent summation
A group who are peevish about religion
Last edited:
He did sort of have a big effect on the world.
Nope. You asked about UNITARIAN beliefs. Not ALL beliefs.
I am going with Hanlon's Razor on that one. It works 99.9% of the time.
More the people who elevated him what 600 years after he supposedly died
If UNITARIANS believe such you are mistaken
I'm going with malice
. Edit some time later. I fell asleep
I don't think deliberate malicious, more uneducated malicious (doubtful if they were much more educated than the people they were conning)
So I can go with unintentional malice. However it should (might) have dawned on them later the person had a lot of trust in them
To continue the fictional story telling then it becomes malicious
Last edited:
Oh, I am pretty sure he died!
I disagree. People find ways to make the two conflict all the time; they are trying way too hard. There's no basic conflict. The Bible isn't a science book.
That presumes he existed
Far from established that he did
The basic conflict is
- science requires evidence
- religious belief does not
Pretty good evidence. From Roman senator and historian Tacitus, who lived from 56 to 120 AD, wrote about the people "called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus." He had no love for Christians and regularly condemned them. Josephus, a historian who lived from 37-100 AD, also referenced Jesus in his writings.
So if you believe that charity and kindness is a good thing, you can't be a scientist?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I think you're actually making the point that science and belief can co-exist.
Science has nothing to say about that.
Science address questions about what - things we can see.
Faith addresses question about why - things we can't see.
If you ask faithful scientists, that's often the answer they give.
Regardless of whether he did, there is an ethical construct built around him that imperfect humans can follow.
Science has nothing to say about that.
They don't operate in the same sandbox.The basic conflict is
- science requires evidence
- religious belief does not
Science address questions about what - things we can see.
Faith addresses question about why - things we can't see.
If you ask faithful scientists, that's often the answer they give.
Christians yes as a group, JC as an individual - questionable
Religious people have not a sandbox to operate in
It is only a sandbox in their imagination. When scientists via science throw out some of their imaginary sand they pretend no big deal. Science cannot figure out WHY the Universe exist and the purpose of us humans on Earth
The Universe exist and humans exist because both are allowed by physics
Neither have any purpose
Religious people step up and prattle on about god's plan and humans role in god's plan. In other words make up stories
With good reasons scientists don't deal in made up stories
Ask any religious scientists are they looking for god's plan, or something mundane in the real world
The scientists religious aspects has god's plan settled by BELIEF by default
Pesky reality makes scientists work for evidence
Abortion where many religious people, and yes a few non religious (although they put forward the same arguments, or state they don't like it) are trying to kick the sand out of the reality sandbox
No-one invited them in but they seem to feel a need to dominate non religious people to get them to believe their made up fantasy
Frustration over not being able to explain made up fantasy is not reality, my 10 cent explanation for their spoil sport behaviour
Charity and kindness operate in reality
A scientist religious beliefs are not a requirement for being charitable and kind in reality
Time for coffee
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is a straw man.
We've gone from 'What is Unitarianism' to Michael345's 'Decrees About All Religion' in just a few short posts.
Show me the scientific basis of kindness, why it is objectively good.
billvon brought up that UNITARIANS discuss and in my words are
If billvon had said UNITARIANS believe daffodils taste good with roast lamb I would be posting about that
scientific basis of kindness - there is none
objectively good - it isn't - good / bad run through a spectrum of value judgements which are all subjective
Yourself brought up sandbox
Therefore, by your arguments, there is a conflict between science and kindness.
In reality, there is not.
You said that science requires evidence but belief does not, and therefore evidence-based science and non-evidence-based beliefs conflict.Sorry not following
Please explain
You also said that there is no evidence to show compassion and kindness are objectively good - it's just a belief.
Therefore, by your own argument, they conflict.