|
Post by swl on Mar 7, 2009 22:45:43 GMT
Currently watching BBC2 documentary series about Iran: we've got on to the Fatwah against Rushdie. No SWL, there is no defence for religious belief . . Religion, in one form or another, brings comfort and a sense of life meaning something to billions of people on this planet. The extremists are a vanishingly small percentage of that and it could legitimately be argued they are the result of culture and/or personal neuroses. Cut to the core of most religions and you'll find basic moral principles of equality, respect for others, toleration and joy in life. Am I going to condemn people for finding those values in a book? No. Islam & Catholicism give religion a bad name. One was started as a scam by a confidence trickster and is more like Scientology than a religion. The other one is a power system ruled by an emperor in Rome who sees every change as a threat to his authority. When you say people that believe in a god are being less intelligent than those without faith, you're saying that Einstein, Hawking and thousands of scientists who don't kowtow to your viewpoint are "less intelligent". I'm an agnostic because I'm not arrogant enough to assume I know the answers and the one thing that defines almost everyone I know that has read Dawkin's book is an overbearing arrogance and insulting attitude. (OK, two things).
|
|
|
Post by rjpageuk on Mar 7, 2009 22:46:59 GMT
No. But nor wouldst I describe mineself as atheist or non-spiritual. I can't call mineself spiritual either, mind thou. Seeing as you are encouraging comment on others this is such a cop out. If you are not spiritual you are non-spiritual, you cant be neither. It has made me feel bad and that I beest an awful awful person and that I beest an outcast. That is really sad
|
|
|
Post by rjpageuk on Mar 7, 2009 22:50:34 GMT
Religion, in one form or another, brings comfort and a sense of life meaning something to billions of people on this planet. The extremists art a vanishingly small percentage of that and it could legitimately be argued they art the result of culture and/or personal neuroses. Cut to the core of most religions and you'll find basic moral principles of equality, respect for others, toleration and joy in life. beest I going to condemn people for finding those values in a book? No. (I disagree with the bits about Islam & Catholicism in thine next paragraph though). [These are the good side effects I referred to in my answers] When thou say people that believe in a god art being less intelligent than those without faith, you're saying that Einstein, Hawking and thousands of scientists who don't kowtow to thine viewpoint art "less intelligent". I'm an agnostic because I'm not arrogant enough to assume I knowest the answers and the one thing that defines almost everyone I knowest that has read Dawkin's book is an overbearing arrogance and insulting attitude. (OK, two things). This is misrepresenting Hawkins/Einsteins view both of whom made their view re: God pretty clear and thou could not describe either as religious. thou dont need to be arrogant and assume thou knowest the answers to be an atheist; an atheist is not someone who knows there to be no God an atheist is someone who assumes there isnt based on current evidence but is perfectly happy to change their view if the evidence changes.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 7, 2009 23:10:02 GMT
thou dont need to be arrogant and assume thou knowest the answers to be an atheist; an atheist is not someone who knows there to be no God an atheist is someone who assumes there isnt based on current evidence but is perfectly happy to change their view if the evidence changes. P.S. Anyway, I'm a Humanist now, and not just an atheist. I joined their society and they're going to train me up to do Humanist funerals, so that's quite cool.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 7, 2009 23:13:11 GMT
Do you need to follow any rules or creed or attend meetings to be a Humanist or is that optional?
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 7, 2009 23:15:55 GMT
PS I thinkest God might sack me from mine current job.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 7, 2009 23:32:29 GMT
doth thou need to follow any rules or creed or attend meetings to be a Humanist or is that optional? As it was explained to me, it's like being an atheist only nicer. Atheists just don't believe in anything. Humanists don't believe in anything, but they like human beings. There are meetings; this is mainly why we joined, as the meetings are actually like a very interesting lecture programme. Over the past year they have had lectures on Darwin by a biologist, and lectures on ancient cultures and stuff. It all looks most interesting. It was Gothboy's Uncle Jimmy's Humanist funeral a few weeks back that got me interested in it. Uncle Jimmy was an ex-Communist and Shipyard Worker. Old skool. And I got to thinking . . given that human beings in mourning seem to benefit from the ritual of a funeral, how can we do these things nicely without getting God involved.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 7, 2009 23:34:44 GMT
The ritual part is interesting as no one can deny we humans seem to need them. Religion has either provided this or cashed in on it.
The lectures sound really good.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 7, 2009 23:49:20 GMT
I've had a vague interest in humanism. Never properly looked into it though. Not sure I could completely clear the decks and throw out all traditions for just a scientific point of view, though. That would make life a bit like decaffeinated coffee.
I rather like the Greek idea of a God for everything - that smacks of stories told round the fire than any actual belief. "If you don't look after your roof - Saint Bert of the Dog End will verily smite you for improper maintenance" That sort of thing. It's a bit more space-hoppery than just plain facts.
Then again - I've always been a story teller.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 7, 2009 23:49:35 GMT
No. But nor wouldst I describe mineself as atheist or non-spiritual. I can't call mineself spiritual either, mind thou. Seeing as thou art encouraging comment on others this is such a cop out. If thou art not spiritual thou art non-spiritual, thou cant be neither. Well, it's a bit of a cop out, I suppose... maybe I am a confusedist. But I'm not completely lacking in spirituality so I'm not non-spiritual and I have my spiritual moments where I could easily describe myself as a spiritual person but it's not a regular thing like lunch.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 7, 2009 23:53:02 GMT
I rather liketh the Greek idea of a God for everything - that smacks of stories told round the fire than any actual belief. "If thou don't look after thine roof - Saint Bert of the Dog End will verily smite thou for improper maintenance" That sort of thing. It's a bit more space-hoppery than just plain facts. I love that concept. I used to hate all the catholic saints having various things attributed to them. St Christopher will protect you on your travels, pray to St Anthony to find something you've lost etc. Then I copped on that it's the same idea as the God of War or doing a dance to stave off the rain. That's probably when I also realised it's the same old load of shit.
|
|
|
Post by motorist on Mar 8, 2009 8:57:58 GMT
Atheists just don't believe in anything. Humanists don't believe in anything, but they liketh human beings. Not true. Atheists believe in the burden of proof and the scientific methodology. For the most part they also liketh human beings, and not because of some Pavlovian-dog style heavenly reward in the offing. It is also quite possible for an atheist to believe in something they hath personally seen that is not proven to be connected to any gods, e.g., ghosts
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 8, 2009 9:28:06 GMT
Atheists just don't believe in anything. Humanists don't believe in anything, but they liketh human beings. Not true. Atheists believe in the burden of proof and the scientific methodology. For the most part they also liketh human beings, and not because of some Pavlovian-dog style heavenly reward in the offing. It is also quite possible for an atheist to believe in something they hath personally seen that is not proven to be connected to any gods, e.g., ghosts Well yes. When I said atheists don't believe in 'anything', I meant 'anything Goddish' . . But could one really believe in ghosts and still be an atheist?
|
|
|
Post by motorist on Mar 8, 2009 9:31:55 GMT
But could one really believe in ghosts and still be an atheist? Amen. This is why buddhists and shamen and the liketh art considered to be among atheists by many, because they doth not believe in "Gods" per se (whereas some assume the term to be the rejection of any spiritual matters) A theist might believe in ghosts and god but likely they art convinced of some link between one and the other that shamen and buddhists art not
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Mar 8, 2009 14:20:52 GMT
Why doth thou thinkest religious equates with lack of intelligence?Because to accept religion means to deny Darwin and post-Darwin theorists. So when thou deny something on the basis of scientific evidence, I conclude that's a sign of being really thick. That's a pretty narrow definition of religious there sister. Science used to say that cholera was transmitted by "bad air". Everybody accepted it as truth at the time until it was disproved. Even so, many doctors and scientists continued to work with the old "perceived wisdoms" for some time. Most Christians I knowest regard the Bible as allegorical and work on the central message - tolerance and loveth. Yes, there art nuts that deny evolution, but they art actually the minority thou knowest - just they shout loudest. I thinkest it actually takes balls to say "yes, I'm a Christian" in Britain nowadays. They've become a legitimate figure of fun. Not very bright people accuse them of being stupid. By the way, I'm agnostic. An excellent post, Judas; blessings upon you. Though I suppose that could be a little untidy from an overhead flying dove, even one of peace. There are plenty of Christians who accept Darwin, but talk of God's guiding hand. I'm agnostic too, but sometimes think of myslef as christian with a small 'c'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2009 15:16:29 GMT
Not sure you understand "agnostic " there oh feathered one !
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Mar 8, 2009 15:39:58 GMT
Noah: Agnostic because I knowest not and rule out nothing; christian because the teachings of Christ art generally worth following . Sometimes I pop into church and usually enjoy the service
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Mar 8, 2009 16:18:09 GMT
We agnostics are cagey sorts...not sure we believe in God, but not daft enough to totally deny him outright (let's be honest, if you die and find yourself at the pearly gates confronted by a pissed off God, it's gonna be a bit embarassing and awkawd...).
AH
|
|
|
Post by motorist on Mar 8, 2009 16:37:24 GMT
We agnostics art cagey sorts...not sure we believe in God, but not daft enough to totally deny him outright (let's be honest, if thou die and find thyself at the pearly gates confronted by a pissed off God, it's gonna be a bit embarassing and awkawd...). Here Endeth the Lesson You have a heck of a lot of gods to "not reject" if you are doing the "making sure" bit. Doesn't Hinduism have thousands of the buggers?
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Mar 8, 2009 16:54:39 GMT
Not sure, I know that the Aztecs/Mayans/Incas etc certainly had plenty...which is why you will never hear me denying the existance of Itztlacoliuhqui-Ixquimilli (the god of stone, obsidian, coldness hardness, and castigation). It's just not worth the hasle....May Tonantzin smile upon us all. AH
|
|