BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 06:41 PM

I simply love your amazingly supported assertions, Wacko Jacko.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 01:19 AM

I wasn't aware science offered the post of spokesman?

Religions on the other hand have thousands of the buggers.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: theleveller
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 03:34 AM

Bugger me! I pop back to Mudcat for a quick look and there are even more interminable religion v atheism threads. I have to wonder if Jack's been talking to his god and been instructed to bombard the site with his ramblings.

Anyway, one thing that does interest me is MtheGM's comments about Rupert Sheldrake. I haven't read the book he refers to but my copy of 'The Rebirth of Nature' is much-thumbed, annotated and dog-eared. I find his theory of morphic resonance et al compelling and thought-provoking. Along with the writings of Sir Alastair Hardy, John Gribben, Peter Russell, Paul Devereux, James Lovelock, Roger Penrose and many, many other exceptional thinkers, it has a place in my own eclectic, ever-changing and perpetually open-minded approach to life, religion and everything. I even keep an open mind about the idea of a single, all-powerful deity but, after over 50 years of searching, I still haven't found anything to convince me. But, of course, if there was certainty, faith would be redundant, so Jack is welcome to his interminable postings – I, however, won't be spending too much time reading them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 05:40 PM

Republicans are not Christians?

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 05:43 PM

"I, however, won't be spending too much time reading them. "

I am fine with that. If you don't like what I say, please don't feel obligated to read or comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 06:49 AM

""Republicans are not Christians?""

The answer to the question is, except in their use of the name, No, they are not!

Exactly as the author of that article says.

The relevance to this thread is...................?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 10:09 AM

The relevance to this thread is that I started this thread to talk about Religion and Atheism. Christianity is a religion. The post is not a quiz. It is a starting point for a discussion for anyone who wants to to politely an intelligently have one.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 11:01 AM

Pope says Atheists can get to heaven.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 11:04 AM

Nice of His Holiness, certainly. But why should he bother, as we won't be interested anyhow, and what difference is it supposed to make to anyone else?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 11:39 AM

Well, see....he just likes to let the world know what he thinks...same as you do.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 11:40 AM

A comment without reading the article? Thank you for your input sir.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:23 PM

Of course I read the article before posting, Jack. But my point holds.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:50 PM

So you realize that the article is a well thought out, well expressed point of view piece expressing a similar stance to the one you just did? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 02:29 PM

Scientist not Republican because of Atheism?

Interesting survey. I find that a lot of strident Atheism seems to be a reaction to the Right wing f the GOP.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 04:47 PM

It's likely that scientists are smarter than the average American. That's why so few of them are Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 08:09 PM

""It's likely that scientists are smarter than the average American. That's why so few of them are Republicans.""

Not likely Guest, bloody certain, and not just in the USA, but in every country on the planet.

Real scientists will always be above the average of the population in intelligence.

And you can sit down again Pete. There is no Creation Science, nor any Creation Scientists.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: GUEST,Musket sans reading glasses
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 03:53 AM

I skimmed the article if it helps. Seems like bollocks to me. Although reading it or not is irrelevant. Jack off decides whether you have read something on the basis of his preconceived opinion of you.

The Pope insists there is something called Heaven eh? All seems well till he starts describing it. We are all entitled to our delusions, but if I were a God fearing Catholic, I'd be a bit pissed off about all the mea culpa I'd been told was important.....

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 01:40 PM

Musket Mather I don't care what you think or say. I am sure that devout Catholics don't either. You have admitted to only using that name so that you can be childish in conversation. Carry on with your childishness, if you must, but don't expect your expressed mocking opinions and insults to carry any weight.

M~ Can speak for himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 02:05 PM

Permission to speak Sah!

Sailor Jack has just lost his permission to post on Mudcat by order of me.

Perhaps I should stop posting too? After all you can't educate pork.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 02:14 PM

More childish insults? .... sigh

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: GUEST,Musket sans reality check
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 02:55 PM

Just thought I'd give you what you keep asking for.

Funny that you never either acknowledge nor debate when I post something serious. So why should I bother?

Far better to treat your atheist taunting threads for what they are. You start with a quote and say it is to provoke debate. Yeah. We don't all live in Dumbfuckistan.

Snag is, you have an idea what you ridicule but have no idea really. As you wish to be taken seriously, pointing and laughing is more appropriate than saying " yes Jack. That's right Jack. Now eat some of the mushed banana the night staff made for you."

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 03:12 PM

"Funny that you never either acknowledge nor debate when I post something serious. "

Because you are always insulting

Because you have said that you are not being serious when you are Musket.

On that basis, why should anyone bother? I think that I give you far more respect than you earn.

"So why should I bother?"

If you are not a God-hater WHY DO you bother? The amount of effort you put forth can only be explained by zeal.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: GUEST,Musket sans timing
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 12:28 PM

If I were a god hater, assuming you can hate fictional characters..... I would be able to post under Spunky's rules, but if was not a God hater I have something called zeal in my pocket? Presumably an American seal?

Ok I get it. I cannot be taken serious unless I use my own name but Seaman Stains should be taken seriously regardless.

Mind you, if I were Jack Off, I would hide behind the idea of not being taken seriously on account of the illogical claptrap he comes out with. No wonder I can't bring myself to debate with the sailor's parrot......

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 04:51 AM

interesting points of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 11:13 AM

Interesting points indeed. (I lost track of this thread last month, and was just now reading most of the parts I missed.)

Malala Yousafzai is an amazing person, not only for her obvious courage, but also for her very sophisticated view of the 'meanings' embedded in various forms of religious thought.

I also read with interest the links to the story "The Life of Pi", which I had never heard of before. I have not been to a 'movie theater' in many years, and will not have a chance to see the film unless YouTube gets it, or I find a DVD. It is interesting to compare Malala's attitude with Pi's... they don't say exactly the same thing, but they might basically agree.
It seems to me that Malala is implicitly saying something similar to Pi's "stories with God are better", simply because she is aware that many (most?) people need a story on which to hang their internal 'processing' of those basic messages. She never touts any of the stories as 'fact', but asks people to take notice of how similar they are when practiced well.

What she doesn't address directly is whether... and how.. atheists can practice the virtues she notes. Since this thread is about "Reflections on Religion and Atheism", it may be relevant to say something in that regard. Immanuel Kant.. (and some other philosophers).. discussed morality and its roots. Kant believed that moral behavior could be deduced and defended thru reason alone, and wrote several turgid explanations of it. Without suggesting that everyone delve into his "Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals", I DO suggest that many non-religious people, when asked what they 'believe' to give themselves a moral compass, will come up with simple forms of many of the arguments that Kant took hundreds of pages to develop....and which Mammy Yokum, the mother of cartoon character L'il Abner, shortened to: "Good is better'n evil, 'cause it's nicer!"

I do wish my links in the early part of this thread had been followed and digested a bit more.

(Jack.. you said back there... "there is a lot of reading in those links, none of it current. I had a look at The Faith of the Heretic. The comparison of Jesus to other religious figures to see which is the greatest is not interesting to me. I don't claim that Jesus is the greatest role model or speaker or whatever..."

I don't really think 'currency' is relevant to what Kaufmann is saying about history and relationships of religious thought.... and personally, I never found any notion of 'comparison' to determine "which is the greatest" in his analysis. I kind of suspect Kaufmann would like Malala!

For those who might like to read all or part of his book, I repost the links:

for a summary

link to the downloads page(several formats)

In the last link, one can find a zip file of plain text.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 11:29 AM

I just watched "The Life of Pi" a couple of days ago, Bill. It's an absolutely wonderful movie.

Yes, moral behavior can be deduced and defended thru reason alone...which is fine. No particular harm done to religion by that.

But let me rephrase Mammy Yoakum's "Good is better'n evil, 'cause it's nicer!" Cute! ;-D

The way I'd put it is, "Good is better than evil because it's constructive, not destructive...because it leads to better results and after-effects, and this is self-evident. It's also practical. It's the wiser course to follow, as we can all figure out just by using common sense."

In Eastern religions this is taught about in terms of karma...negative actions inevitably produce negative results...in the long run...they are not always so evident in the short run. (Al Capone thought he was doing great for a while there...)

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 11:59 AM

There are some atheistic schools of thought that define "good" in non-optimal ways for society. Lenin's version of Marxism, Ayn Rand's stress on "self interest", Nietzsche focus on superior men etc.

That is not to say that there are not immoral ideas carried out by religion. But Atheist philosophy does not inevitably lead to morality.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 12:01 PM

"No particular harm done to religion by that."

Well, you don't think so... and I don't think so, but many IN religion(s) would rather you believe that true morality comes from its acceptance as "god's word". They surmise that without the force of Divine Word that people assume they have a choice, and that they are justified in whatever they can 'get away with'.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 12:23 PM

Yeah. Some of them do think that way. Their choice, not mine.

****

That film of Malala speaking at the U.N. is really something to see!

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 12:34 PM

Atheist philosophy

And what precisely is that when it's at 'ome?

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 12:58 PM

Gee Steve, What is wrong with you? In context of what Bill was saying ("Immanuel Kant.. (and some other philosophers).. discussed morality and its roots. Kant believed that moral behavior could be deduced and defended thru reason alone, and wrote several turgid explanations of it. ") and having given three examples I made myself pretty clear.

If you want piss and moan and quibble over semantics this may not be the best thread for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 01:11 PM

Darwinism? What about Aristotle? Adam Smith?

Though Darwin was a lightening rod of praise and criticism, and a convenient scapegoat for some. He does not deserve all the criticism or blame.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 01:52 PM

Well I'm an atheist but I have no atheist philosophy. I might have philosophy of some kind. But atheism is not a system of tenets to base anything on. Atheism is one big shrug.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 03:09 PM

"Atheism is one big shrug."

Well, it should be. The infamous Madelyn Murray O'Hair couldn't limit it to shrugging and gave atheism (at least in the US) much of its bad press and still affects how many view the word.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 09:57 PM

So what are you saying? That people who oppose the outrageous and unjust default position of religious bigotry in this world have some kind of "atheist philosophy"? I think you should tell us. Or, at least, tell us why you brought that up.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 10:08 PM

If you want piss and moan and quibble over semantics this may not be the best thread for you.

You toss out a stupid throwaway phrase like "atheist philosophy" and I need you to explain what you mean. Semantics my arse. That's just your feeble attempt to legitimise the illegitimate. It's drivel, isn't it, Wacko?

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 10:08 PM

If you want piss and moan and quibble over semantics this may not be the best thread for you.

You toss out a stupid throwaway phrase like "atheist philosophy" and I need you to explain what you mean. Semantics my arse. That's just your feeble attempt to legitimise the illegitimate. It's drivel, isn't it, Wacko?

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 10:10 PM

I absolutely definitely posted that just the once.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 10:58 PM

The term "atheist" has been used many in different ways during human history. In Roman times, for instance, when mobs of conventional Romans gathered to drive the despised Christians from their midst...or kill them...those mobs most popular shout was "Out with the atheists!!!" They saw Christains as atheists because the Christians didn't recognize the conventional Roman gods and goddesses, didn't visit their temples, and didn't make sacrifices to propitiate them. This, to the conventional Roman, amounted to "atheism". It's highly ironical, given the passage of time...and how concerned Christians actually were then about their idea of God.

Hitler encouraged his troops to fight the "godless/atheistic" Soviets, and every German soldier of the Wehrmacht had the words "Gott Mitt Uns" (God is with us) inscribed on his belt buckle (and no doubt most of them believed it). In this case the label "godless" or "atheist" would have fit the Russians (at least a great many of them) fairly well, since their government did follow an officially atheist philosophy.

Mao followed an officially atheist policy, and so did Pol Pot in Cambodia. Mind you, Pol Pot also was against things like modern education, eyeglasses, speaking foreign languages, intellectualism, and pretty well anything else that stood apart from the most rudimentary and primitive peasant existence. The way to survive under his regime was to pretend to be totally ignorant and extremely willing to follow orders, no matter how savage.

If you want to find out what any person means by "atheist"...ask them. You'll get their version of what they think it means, but it won't necessarily agree with your version or with what's in the dictionary either.

Same goes for the phrase "atheist philosophy". You want to find out what someone who says it actually means? You have to ask them. You might get 10 or 100 different explanations, depending on whom you ask.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 03:23 AM

What I like about resurrecting this old thread is that it was started by Jerk who then goes on to say he doesn't have a dog in this hunt.

Couple that with berating others for having closed minds and then stating that whilst there may be others out there as philosophers, Jesus is all he needs.

Do keep going Jerk. Saves me having to type. ......

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 06:24 AM

Say there are a hundred different Gods (I'm not interested enough to have counted them). Then there are just two different camps: those who disbelieve in 99 of them and those who disbelieve in a hundred of them. We're closer than you think, Wacko! Scary! So what's your atheist philosophy, Wacko?

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 09:13 AM

I think there are way more than a hundred. ;-) And nobody's ever succeeded in counting them all. My father and his brother, for example, were at least demigods...although only in their own minds! (Nobody else worshipped them.) Mao was like a god in China. Stalin was like a god in Russia. Al Capone was like a god to his organization. Politicians, generals, and kings have often managed to more or less appoint themselves to such a heady position in life.

The question is, what are the characteristics of the "god" in question? Is it merely a quasi-human character made up by humans in their own image? Or is it more like an underlying principle that lies behind all manifestation? Or is it something completely indefinable? And what do those who speak of it imagine when they use the word "God"? Do they imagine an authoritative old gent on a heavenly throne? If so, where do they think he is located? Or do they imagine a guiding principle or consciousness rather than an embodiment?

There's more to the business of God than just "meets the eye", and that's why I find it interesting. If it was just a question of the old bearded guy on the throne, I'd be as utterly uninterested in the subject as I was at age 7 when I rejected that idea without a second thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 09:15 AM

There are people who are happy to believe in a 'Supreme Being' (or Beings) without any proof that such an entity exists - except, perhaps, for some vague, and often highly ambiguous, statements and narratives in old texts - texts whose origins are often unclear. These people have a tendency to construct complex mythical, moral and ethical structures on such unstable and rickety foundations. In addition they tend to insist that others respect their beliefs and even treat them with reverence.

Then there are people who see no reason to dedicate their lives to a Supreme Being, when they can see no evidence, whatsoever, to suggest that such a Being actually exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 09:30 AM

How would you go about proving that something exists if it's not a physically observable phenomenon? And if it's not separate from anything else, but intrinsically involved in everything?

I just had a thought. I just had another! And another! ;-) How do we go about proving that those thoughts existed? We can't. But I know I just had them, and I have no doubt about that. And our thoughts are real...because we experience them, they affect us profoundly, and they often move us to action (or lack of action, in some cases).

There are many things which are absolutely real, but which cannot be "proven" (or observed by someone else) in any outward sense. They can only be directly experienced within by the person having the experience. Such things lie at the heart of life, give it meaning, and have produced great poetry, art, song, and religious concepts and experiences.

Some people don't wish to think about stuff like that. Fine with me. (shrug) It doesn't matter one way or the other if they do or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 10:53 AM

Little Hawk, if you must interface with the piss takers, please do it on another thread.


You know that they are just doing their same old bullying B.S.

You two can make up your own definition of "Atheist" if you want. But you can't force it on others. I don't see what your problem is. Lenin and Ayn Rand proudly proclaimed their atheism. Both are recognized as philosophers. When they turned to matters of religion and morality, what they produced was atheist philosophy. You two claim not to be atheists then you start a jihad every time the word is used. I don't think that irony is lost on anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 11:00 AM

Oh, I notice that Shaw is now claiming to be an Atheist. But by which definition?

Ayn Rands?

Mao's?

Nietzsche's?

Kant's

There are plenty of Atheist philosophies to chose from. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 11:07 AM

"I think there are way more than a hundred. ;-)"

Not any more, according to Nietzsche's Zarathustra..


With the old Deities hath it long since come to an end:--and verily, a
good joyful Deity-end had they!

They did not "begloom" themselves to death--that do people fabricate! On
the contrary, they--LAUGHED themselves to death once on a time!

That took place when the unGodliest utterance came from a God
himself--the utterance: "There is but one God! Thou shalt have no other
Gods before me!"--

--An old grim-beard of a God, a jealous one, forgot himself in such
wise:--

And all the Gods then laughed, and shook upon their thrones, and
exclaimed: "Is it not just divinity that there are Gods, but no God?"

------------------------------------------------------------------

original text:

Mit den alten Göttern gieng es ja lange schon zu Ende: - und wahrlich,
ein gutes fröhliches Götter-Ende hatten sie!

Sie "dämmerten" sich nicht zu Tode, - das lügt man wohl! Vielmehr: sie
haben sich selber einmal zu Tode - _gelacht_!

Das geschah, als das gottloseste Wort von einem Gotte selber ausgieng,
- das Wort: "Es ist Ein Gott! Du sollst keinen andern Gott haben neben
mir!" -

- ein alter Grimm-Bart von Gott, ein eifersüchtiger vergass sich also:

Und alle Götter lachten damals und wackelten auf ihren Stühlen und
riefen: "Ist das nicht eben Göttlichkeit, dass es Götter, aber keinen
Gott giebt?"

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 11:18 AM

By the way, having a degree in Philosophy, it kinda bothers me to see anyone who sometimes muses on meaning, religion and morality 'accepted' as philosophers. It's diluting the word, rather like "folk".
(We don't call someone who collects & categorizes rocks as a hobby a Geologist, do we?)
Just a personal quibble..

Back to our regularly scheduled bickering discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: GUEST,Musket again
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 11:22 AM

101. You forgot Chris Waddell.

Oy Jerk. Do not post again on this thread. By order of me.

Sanctimonious sod. Little hawk speaks more sense than you so debate between him and others is far better for this thread . You see, interfacing with piss takers as you put it doesn't happen. There are however a growing number of people who have problems taking you seriously. If those who laugh at rather than with you posted on other threads, this thread would soon... Err....

Bloody good idea Jerk! Well done that rating!

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 11:52 AM

Nice quote from "Zarathustra", Bill. I like it.

I'm mostly speaking quite seriously on this subject, Jack, so I don't see what the problem would be (?). I occasionally deal in satire too, but when I do it's usually to make a serious point.

I agree that there are many atheist philosophies to choose from...perhaps as many of them as there are of the religious philosophies. What I find, though, is that people usually just attach themselves to the philosophy they like best at a gut level, and because of familiarity...and then set about justifying and defending it after the fact. They all think they're "right". When I was young I liked the idea of opposing any philosophy that suggested there might be a "God". Why? Well, that's what I learned from my parents...to be contemptuous of such a notion. I now see it differently...but I now see the entire idea of "God" in a very different manner than I did back then. (I don't picture a superhuman figure out there somewhere who judges, rewards, and punishes people.)