 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The God Delusion 2010
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Paul Burke Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:26 PM I don't think Buddhism sits well on its pedestal, CS. Remember the recent war in Sri Lanka. And the oppressors in Burma are just as Buddhist as the oppressed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:19 PM I think I will feel much better after I hunt that skunk down that sprayed me last night and kill his ass. And many thank to Bobad, his concoction worked. Then I won't be so crabby at everything I read |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:11 PM Anyway my point is made. And you maybe right .. I could just be pissed off at the world at the moment and taking it out on everyone .. but I do get rather pissed at the religous comments I read all the time. I don't do that to others .. but it does seem to be ok for others to do that to me and everyone else here that does have a belief system .. anyway .. I will agree to disagree and leave it |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:07 PM well here is what the Supreme Court ruled it as a religion http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: VirginiaTam Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:05 PM Buddhism is technically a philosophy not a religion but you are spot on about it being a good positive guide on how to conduct one's life. The example of Jesus is too for that matter. It is all the other stuff attached to Christianity that I find too bitter a pill to swallow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:47 AM I tend not to like to be called an atheist. Reading oldude's diatribe, there is no wonder... Why do superstitious people get all precious over their delusion? Is it because deep down they realise the imaginary friend bit is in fact just a metaphor for the whole mindset? or is it because again deep down, they either knowingly or otherwise resent being told how to behave by people in charge of their faith? Nobody is denying anybody's right to be religious. the problem is that many interpretations of religion are profoundly jealous of either other religions or lack of religion so try to impose their religion on others. That and that alone is reason enough to laugh in the faces of those who try and ram it down your throat. Next time a Jehovas Witness knocks on your door, ensure they waddle back down the drive, with a copy of their Watchtower protruding and causing the wobbly walk. Anyway, I have had occasion recently to fill in a few forms where my religion has been asked for, (I thought it was illegal to do so, but there you go...) rather than a box with none in it, there was a "rather not say." This was not satisfactory, but there was a "other" box with a field for you to fill in. I trawled the net and signed up to The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am a Pastafarian! Whats more, I ruin silly ethnic monitoring forms by stating the fact. That makes me so happy, I suppose it is a little bit sad really..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:44 AM "Christ came pretty close but" Buddhism is a second to none religion. No dogma and no concept of blasphemy. In fact it encourages introspection and questioning. Zen in particular, is really just a set of tools for cultivating self-mastery. And you don't have to be religious, devote yourself to any supernatural agency, or even aspire to the notion of 'self-realisation' to make use of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,Wesley S Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:39 AM Religion - noun : A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Notice that it says "especially" - not "exclusively". "Usually" and not "always". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:33 AM Atheism is about Reality and Inclusivity; it is about the celebration of the commonality of each and every one of us in that not one of us is any greater than any other. No matter what we are there is an ultimate Atheistic Unity in our Individual & Cultural diversity. There are countless idioms and genres of music - not one of these claims to be any truer than any other, just different. Same goes for language, art, sexuality, dance, craftsmanship, literature - all is done in the glory of the unversality of idiomatic diversity that is entirely Human. I might bring in Folklore, I might even bring in Spirituality, but the reason why Atheism is most assuredly not a Religion is because Religion is not about Reality, nor is it about Inclusivity - it does not celebrate the commonality of Humanity, nor yet does it acknowledge that there is Unity in our Individual and Cultural Diversity. Atheistic Truth is manifestly self-evident in the universality of acceptance; Religious Truth is crammed away in the narrow minds of denial. That Humans aren't perfect is a fact largely measured by our propensity for righteousness, which is invariably religious, or else something very like it. Atheism isn't about Righteousness, it is simply about Right, which is measured by the Right of each and every single one of us. What about the right to be religious? To quote Bakunin, if I may: I am truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise and confirmation. As with Anarchy, then so with Atheism. No religion would ever say such a thing, much less allow it; Christ came pretty close but - and here's a crazy thought - imagine anyone being so stupid as to found a religion on his teachings and example! Just ain't going to happen... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: bobad Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:23 AM Me, I prefer opiates but chacun à son goût. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Stu Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:19 AM "Atheism is by definition a belief system ... hence it is a religion just as Muslim, Jew or Christian is." That is a profoundly wrong statement. In no way, shape or for is atheism a religion, not matter how you couch it. That is simply very wrong olddude mate! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: John P Date: 27 Aug 10 - 10:49 AM olddude, Calm Down!! Why are you feeling so attacked? Why are you seeing hatred and bigotry in every other post here? Perhaps a good technique for you would to respond very specifically to specific statements, instead of making blanket comments. That way, you might actually find out that people aren't putting you down before you start blasting away. I get the feeling that there is a whole other side to this conversation that is only taking place in your head. I'm afraid you're responding in the external world to the internal dialog. And if you don't get off the "atheism is a religion" thing, I will start attacking you. But I'll do so because you're being a jerk, not because you're a Christian. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 27 Aug 10 - 10:48 AM Ok here is my point one more time. If a Christian started a thread on a daily basis quoting Scripture ... people here would be on them like flies on shit ... Since there cannot and never can be proof of the existence or non existence of God .. it comes down to a belief system. Atheism is by definition a belief system ... hence it is a religion just as Muslim, Jew or Christian is. yet on mudcat it is ok for others to jam their belief system on others and we are suppose to take it cause it is a belief system in non belief ... it is a religion plain and simple and the attempt to convert others to that thinking who don't agree is as odorous as the door knockers handing out fliers to people who don't want to hear it. yet it is hidden under this idea that it is only free thinking ... bunk ..it is a religious doctrine that people are trying to push on others who don't want to keep hearing it plain and simple. X's and Y's don't lie .. it is what it is |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 27 Aug 10 - 10:20 AM Can I just add that I see Religion in much the same way as Folklore? They're manifestations of human irrationality we're all prone to, to a greater or lesser extent. Thus I delight in many aspects of our culture that have a religious vibe - churches, festivals, Christmas, Easter, Catholic Statuary, Green Men, Misericords, churches, cathedrals, etc. etc. but all of these I see purely in terms of their humanity; Folklore likewise, and other so-called Spirituality. So whilst I don't do hocus-pocus, I wouldn't deny another person's right to partake if that is their desire. I will, however, oppose the Mormons, JWs, Christians or any other rancid cult who comes knocking at my door intent on saving my soul in the sincere hope they end up in the hell they've dreamed up for the rest of us. So whilst I see Atheism as the ultimate objective of Humanity, it still remains a high Ideal, as with Anarchy - we've a long way to go, but we've also come a long way too and we're getting there, by slow and steady degrees. Love those Carl Sagan quotes, SJ - that says it all! Amen indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: MGM·Lion Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:46 AM "Christian laws for you ... need something , go steal it cause that is a Christian law and you wouldn't want a Christian law .." NO IT ISN'T DAN!!! Again, it's a human law. You'll find laws against stealing in Tibet & Israel & Egypt ~~ none of them Christian countries. And back when in Babylon & Assyria, & among the Aztecs & the Incas ~ & ~ & ~ &.... Again: ~~ NONE OF THEM CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES OR SOCIETIES. What the hell has come over you, Dan? Who has shaken your trolley so hard as to make you so unwontedly THICK, for goodness' sake!? ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Stu Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:42 AM "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion. Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address" Amens x 100 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Stu Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:41 AM "Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. Carl Sagan" Double amen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Stu Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:39 AM For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan Amen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 27 Aug 10 - 08:52 AM I have no religion, olddood - Humanity is the whole of the case and all religion was made up by human beings. You only find religion in a human context - I gaze up at the stars, look at the trees or listen to the birds and there's nothing there in least bit religious, although the religious might tell you about this wrathful/benign/all-loving/all-hating/all-powerful creator who made it all, and gave us free will only to send us to hell if we actually use it. The spiritual is the consequence of inadequate sensory aperatus coupled with our instinctive fear of death and the unknown, all of which seems fair enough to me. Otherwise, I take a keen interest in the cultural & human manifestations of religion & spend a good deal of time rooting around medieval churches & listening to otherwise 'sacred music'; I have sung plain chant and Gelineau Psalm Tones with the Benedictine monks of Worth Abbey and told of fantastic miracles acounted for in the Cantigas de Santa Maria. It's rich and fascinating for sure but no more or less so than Foghorn Leghorn or the animations of Max Fliescher. There is no Atheist Dogma though - only the common Truth that all religions are as wrong as they are manifestly absurd. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 27 Aug 10 - 08:22 AM yea but it is perfectly ok to preach your religion isn't it .. ashtray yup ... the version of the world as you see it .. The in your face I have all the answers so I am going to point you to the light of the atheist dogma .. and you say Christians are evil ... you cornered the market on that one. Someone tell me why I engage with bigots ... I must be nuts - hope you have a great life .. maybe we can get rid of some of those pesky Christian laws for you ... need something , go steal it cause that is a Christian law and you wouldn't want a Christian law .. makes me sick. Got it all figured out do you. Oh and the science, lets don't forget that ... well I have worked with some of the best minds in the world (Including a professor who won the Nobel prize) some are atheists .. most are Christians , I guess the great atheist non god didn't reach those guys yet .. maybe that is your religious charge to convert them to your belief system also as you do here everyday on the Cat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 27 Aug 10 - 07:19 AM To some of us a television is inexplicable; I'm writing this on my laptop which I couldn't explain either. To all of us Stonehenge is inexplicable, likewise, to some of us, it's 21st Century cousin the Large Hadron Collider. Same goes for the world; if it works, there is an explanation, just we haven't got there yet. Instead we make up gods to account for all the stuff that bugs us until we figure it out, but then the Religious hang on to the gods because it gives them power over people & the smugness of righteousness. At the heart of every Christian is the stinking evil that they believe they are going to heaven and everyone else is going to hell. As with God, then so with Foghorn Leghorn, Captain Ahab, Monsieur C. Auguste Dupin, Don Quixote, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Borg, Greggary Peccary - we made them all up, along with so much else, just no one's committed any mass atrocities in the name of Top Cat, so that'll do for me. In lieu of so-called Spirituality I will watch Top Cat on a Television that I find inexplicable safe in the certainty that there is an explanation for everything. There is nothing in the universe that cannot be accounted for, nor is there anything more Sacred than the joy of the material world in Human terms, which are, of course, the only terms we've got. Meanwhile.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB0qbcQXEyE&feature=related |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:55 AM Actually it's quite true that religion is dangerous. So is electricity. So is gravity. So are people. ................................. "...how can you be angry about something you don't think exists? " Very easily indeed, it would appear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:38 AM "People don't require a supernatural explanation for the way the world works" There isn't a supernatural explanation and there never will be. There may well be a supernatural ~imposition~ on the science (by exceptionally non-supernatural people), but an explanation it can never be. You can't explain something by ascribing it to something else infinitely complex, infinitely rule-breaking and infinitely inexplicable in itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:31 AM " 'It's the sheer arrogance of believers in assuming that the rest of the planet should put up with this not-so-subliminal proselytising that's so amusing ("Get over it": - sorry, Joe, but you said it!)' Like I put up with posters on the sides of buses saying God doesn't exist? Hey guess what. This country has freedom of speech. I'm allowed to say "God exists" in public, and you're allowed to say "No he doesn't." If you can't get over that, there are lots of nummy countries you might prefer to live in. Sadly for you some of the ones that most cracked down on religious people speaking out are now gone. Although I'm sure if you were interested you could get a bunch of people together and buy an island and insulate yourselves from the free speech of people you disagree with." Silly, silly, mousethief. You picked this bit from me to include in your polemic, but unfortunately you completely misread the meaning it's meant to convey, and, even worse, you then go on to extrapolate that I'm somehow against free speech. Nowhere have I said that the public show of religious iconography, or wayside pulpits, or even those bells, should be curtailed. Pointing to the arrogant presumption by a religion that the whole world, including the non-religious or otherly-religious, deserves exposure to their wacky notions is not the same at all as my saying they should be stopped from doing it. As a result of this misreading you go off half-cock about free speech. I think you'd like me to be against free speech to help make your case but I can't oblige, sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:20 AM Hey Joe, You have done what some of us would wish to do but don't get around to always, ie seeing what all the fuss is about. Dawkins does have many strong comments on those who hide ignorance behind religion, but his comments on God are more benign. after all, how can you be angry about something you don't think exists? I am with him on the subject of God being a convenient metaphor for what we don't yet understand. I am also with him when he loses patience with those who reckon they have interpreted that which we don't understand without scientific research. ie., putting substance to the God metaphor, hence denying the idea that one day scientific understanding will chisel that bit of God away. Like I said before, the reason why so many see him as a threat, (and the propaganda war against him is immense!) is that he has put forward (with others, I must admit) a reason why altruism exists and it ain't the love of any God. Ants sacrifice themselves for the perpetuation of the community. Our good deeds as humans can do the same. Why? well, to date, I can't see a better reason than his idea of genes demanding it as the best vehicle for perpetuation. That is hugely dangerous to the idea of religious faith and the supremacy of humans. Not as devastating as Darwin, but certainly up there, and strengthening Darwin whilst at it.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:16 AM Whatever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: VirginiaTam Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:01 AM Oh dear. Pharisee. Like the "good" Samaritan parable. Another divisive label. :~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Aug 10 - 05:54 AM Well, Tam, my interpretation is that they were blessed because they showed compassion. I know that some religious traditions define an exclusive, elite group of those who are saved, but that's not what this passage says. The passage is quite clear - the rest of it says that those who fail to show compassion, are damned. And the list of compassionate acts is repeated four times in a very short passage. It's the only description of the Last Judgment that is attributed to Jesus, and it's all about compassion. And I'll be the first to agree that many so-called "religious" people are the very antithesis of compassion. Jesus had the same problem with the Pharisees. I believe in a God who is "slow to anger and rich in kindness and abounding in mercy and love" - these words appear six times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). I don't believe in a God of judgment - those who fail to show compassion, pass judgment on themselves. All that simplistic shit about being "saved" has little scriptural basis. If you're not compassionate, it doesn't mean a thing. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: VirginiaTam Date: 27 Aug 10 - 05:44 AM di·a·tribe [dahy-uh-trahyb] –noun a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism Mousethief, insult is a matter of interpretation. I found Wesley's tone fit all of the things stated in the definition. If I was on the Christian right, I would still think so. If I was an extraterrestrial with no prior knowledge of belief systems, I should still think it so. But alright, perhaps the term is too strong so for the sake of peace, I retract it with a genuine apology for offending anyone with it. 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world...... Joe, never did I feel more bereft, unwanted and unloved by God than when I was amongst fellow believers. This verse (written by a man) indicates that God has already chosen the blessed and encourages the same exclusivity in religon, that I find so unpalatable. I won't deny it sounds lovely, ideal and poetic, but it never applied to me. And if it doesn't apply to me, what about all the others to whom it does not apply? Indeed, how can anyone really know they are on the blessed list. All I can do is live each day trying to do more good than harm to the world and my fellow man. And then just take what comes after life (if anything) as it comes. If it be damnation, then there was nothing I could do differently in life to change that, because the decision was a done deal before I was born. In my experience (granted it was limited - raised up moderate southern baptist) religion made me despair. The more I learn about others historically and currently, the more I despair. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Aug 10 - 05:00 AM Religion bereft of the "human cause"? How about this?
(Matthew 25, NRSV) Why do I believe? It doesn't have anything to do with doctrine or authority - that's just the institutional structure intended to serve those who share the faith. And to my mind, theories of creation or the origins of things, have very little to do with the essence of faith. I believe because all my life, I have experienced glimpses of a profound goodness. I see that goodness embodied in Jesus Christ, and I call that goodness God. Other people don't have that same experience, and that's fine with me. I cannot and will not impose my experience of what I call God on others. I respond to that experience through my (Catholic) religious tradition, and other people respond differently. If people see that this has a good effect on me, maybe that will make a difference to them - or not. Whatever the case, it's good for me, and it's sacred to me - and I don't want to argue about it, or impose it on anyone else, or allow somebody to back me into a corner and beat me on the head about it. It's part of who I am, part of my essence. If you don't like who I am, leave me alone and go talk to somebody else. I don't want to force anything on you, and I don't want to prove myself to you, and I don't want to defend myself to you. Why should I have to? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: mousethief Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:42 AM Don't fall into the trap that because you don't adhere to a religion you can't have a moral code; Agreed. I know a good number of atheists through my stepson, and they are all both (a) much nicer than I am, and (b) no less moral than any of the Christians I know (and more moral than some of the Christians I know). My further point was that religion does not appear to operate according to the laws of logic (this is not a value judgement, just a fact) hence there can be no real dialogue between religion and science. I dunno. Most religions have an internal consistency -- like most novels, even the most fantastic or science-fictionny, have an internal consistency. That doesn't mean that you have to believe them, but I don't think that they are totally devoid of logic. Of course the bits of religions that are taken "on faith" are not going to be scientifically provable (by definition, wot?), and so in that sense they are not "in dialogue" with science. But I can easily balance belief that my wife loves me, which is not provable by logic or science, with my understanding (lame as it is) of quantum mechanics or string theory. I think they are complementary rather than contradictory. In fact I'd argue the secular stuff was a good deal more sacred because it addresses the Human Cause of which religion is entirely bereft. Can you explain what you mean please? What is this "Human Cause" of which religion is entirely bereft? Sounds (forgive me) like a distinctly unscientific thing. People follow what appeals to them on some level for whatever reason. Yes and no. CS Lewis famously said that if he was picking a religion on what appealed to him, he'd pick Norse Mythology. He became a Christian because it impressed itself upon him as true. diatribe The insults continue. Time to stop now? This forum could and should be the perfect tool for understanding and accepting each other whatever we believe or don't. Instead it devolves like so many others into division. As it is likely to do. As Joe stated, most of the religious people on this board are very reserved. The atheists come out like a bull in a china shop, flinging insults left and right. Accepting and understanding don't seem to be in sight. Things like (I'm paraphrasing and combining here) "I won't tell anybody what to believe but you're all a bunch of irrational bullies" don't help any. (Nor, to be sure, was my insult, and I apologize for coming across so strong. One does get tired of being battered about the head, and sometimes the battering in one place isn't so bad but it puts one in mind of earlier batterings. I'll attempt to be more evenhanded.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:33 AM Well, Willie, maybe I should should listen to Richard Dawkins directly, instead of getting him filtered through people like Richard Bridge, who says he's "inclined to go with [Dawkins] that religions are all dangerous." - which is painting religion with the broad brush I complain about. But on the other hand, I watched this video from Dawkins promoting his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth (which is about evolution) - and I agree with everything Dawkins has to say on the video. Here's another video from Dawkins on The New Atheism. Can't say I agree with everything he says, but he's certainly far more diplomatic and far more rational than he is portrayed by his supporters (not to mention his detractors). In listening to fifteen minutes of Dawkins, I didn't hear any of the broad antireligious generalizations that his supporters attribute to him. In his talk on The New Atheism, Dawkins pokes fun at Pope John Paul II's claim to have been saved from assassination by "Our Lady of Fatima." I agree with Dawkins - I always thought that was JPII's silliest moment (and many progressive Catholics share my views on that). I'll pay more attention to Dawkins in the future, and let you know later what I think. I have to say that I enjoyed and appreciated what he had to say. So, did Dawkins actually say that "religions are all dangerous," or is that the Richard Bridge interpretation of Dawkins? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: VirginiaTam Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:19 AM How would you set about "proving" that Duke Ellington (or Chuck Berry) is good? You believe he is, and so do lots of other people, but that's a matter of "faith"... Kevin, that is not a matter of 'faith' it is a matter of taste, which is what religion or any other system people will group themselve into, is. People follow what appeals to them on some level for whatever reason. I wish there were better words than "atheist" or "agnostic", since both of these carry lots of connotations that don't apply to me. John, that is the nature of all labels that lump people together. Some will view with disdain the Catholic, others, the Jew, another the diasbled child, the black youth or the unmarried mother. No getting around it as long as any group or person excludes another group or person. the great athiest non god came down and told you exactly what life was all about and how it all worked and now it is your mission to preach to the rest of us or enlighten the rest of us on the folly of our faith ... Dan, not all unbelievers are trying to push their nonbelief down the believer's throat. As I stated before, Dawkins' television style I find repugnant. I purposely do not call myself an atheist or agnostic because; 1) I don't like labels, 2) I won't be defined by a group "The mob is the untruth." because it impedes my ability to think for myself and displaces my personal responsibility for word and deed committed within and without the group. But I would never tell anyone else they should or should not believe this or that. What I would do is let a person know when a specific word or deed, harms or excludes another human being. What I find interesting is that so many non-believers here feel it's their duty to start threads and get in the face of those people who belive in a higher power of some sort - just to tell them how wrong they are. IF people of faith were to take ACTIONS against you for your beliefs that would be wrong. But it seems to me that many of the athiests here find THOUGHTS objectionable. And I've been told that before - that my thoughts are offensive to another Mudcatter even though we've never met - and I've taken no actions against them. It appears that some of the athiests here would love to become the thought police. It's the difference of thoughts vs actions. Can you see the difference? Wesley, the original post was not a slap in the face to believers. It was mearly a statement of personal opinion and one that I interpreted as a developing opinion, based upon his phrasing. By your own description, it was his THOUGHT and not an ACTION. But on an electronic forum where ACTION is not possible THOUGHT will stand as ACTION if the reader wishes to view it as such, as you have demonstrated in the diatribe cited above. BillD and JohnP - I agree there is a worrying discrimination in politics and business towards ahteist and agnostic as there is to some religions, which is why many people do not aswer the reigious affiliation part of job applications. Again labels and sorting individuals into groups is what is destructive and unfair. Let's make this clear... the thread title is the name of the book written by Dawkins, the presenter of television "documentary" viewed by the OP. It was not made up by the OP in order to inflame sensibilities of anyone on this forum. That was just an accident (happy to some and unhappy to others). This forum could and should be the perfect tool for understanding and accepting each other whatever we believe or don't. Instead it devolves like so many others into division. love to all from tamara, the naive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:14 AM LH - I wasn't suggesting My Ding-a-Ling wasn't a manifestation of the divine, I was was just asking in what way it was. I think I've got the answer now - the song is about God's demonstration of the Thrusting Masculine Generative Force of the Universe couched entirely in Occult Gnostic Symbolism. As for Duke Ellington - all his music was sacred, not just the religious stuff. In fact I'd argue the secular stuff was a good deal more sacred because it addresses the Human Cause of which religion is entirely bereft. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci7Q8d66_oI |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:11 AM "I like the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." as put forward by Shimrod. However, the invisible goo monster behind my chair right now would have to possibly exist if we thought that through enough." Thanks for the acknowledgement 'Steamin' Willy'. My point was though that if you postulate an "invisible goo monster", AND EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE IN IT, it is your responsibility to prove that it exists - it is not my responsibility to prove its non-existence (which it is impossible for me to do). The only logical thing for me to do is to remain 'agnostic' with respect to invisible goo monsters until you prove that they exist. My further point was that religion does not appear to operate according to the laws of logic (this is not a value judgement, just a fact) hence there can be no real dialogue between religion and science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Stu Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:10 AM I love churches, the sound of a peal of bells (I'm lucky enough to be able to hear them from my house) but I'm not a Christian, or even religious (although I like to think of myself as spiritual). Personally, I've no problem with mosques, temples or any religious building as I think they add to our urban and rural landscapes; they represent a continuity of expression of human spirituality that is quite fantastic. "is it because you have NO foundation to believe in anything then why not allow murder ... or stealing or pretty much anything else you want to do" Don't fall into the trap that because you don't adhere to a religion you can't have a moral code; read my earlier post on that subject, or Little Hawk's. People don't require a supernatural explanation for the way the world works and it is, and that doesn't make them amoral miscreants. Like Joe says, don't judge everyone with the same yardstick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 27 Aug 10 - 03:43 AM Ok, a few observations.. Joe Offer (scroll up a few...) takes a sentence of my admiration of Dawkin and sadly takes it out of context. Come on Joe, we can all do a bit better than that. I do have sympathy (empathy? Have to think about that,) with your frustration that people judge religious belief at the fundamentalist level. ie., you have faith therefore you are a fundamentalist. I can see where Joe is right in saying "Don't judge me with that yardstick." I am a huge football fan and my support for my team has parallels with religious faith. In the '70s and to a much smaller degree since, violence within crowds at matches has been evident. Therefore, the term football fan has been successfully crossed with football hooligan. I'm still a huge fan of my team and get to as many matches as I can. But I resent being tarred with the same brush as the idiots. I guess this is Joe's point regarding religion? Mind you, by swelling the crowds at the match, could I be seen as encouraging the idiots? Moot point.... some could, (unfairly I know..) say that people like Joe give respectability to the dangerous fundamentalist looneys who profess their take on religion in a way that goes well beyond the moral compass and metaphor. I like the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." as put forward by Shimrod. However, the invisible goo monster behind my chair right now would have to possibly exist if we thought that through enough. I prefer Einstein's take that atheism cannot be the ultimate answer as that infers chaos, and the laws of physics work every time, so chaos cannot be the answer. I notice bell ringing has cropped up. Here's one for you. My wife is a bell ringer, and many of our friends are. Funnily enough, once the service starts, you will find most bell ringers either in the cafe (mornings) or the pub (evenings.) It may be a service to the church from the church's perspective, but it is a hobby on the mathematical and (in their opinion) musical level to many of the people who practice it. Being a Christian or not is quite irrelevant. (A cathedral not too far away has a family of a father and a daughter ringing and they are Muslim. They love the hobby, tradition etc. and why not?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:19 AM Laws against murder and theft are common to (virtually) all societies, though people find various ways around it...like murdering and thieving from the neighbouring tribe or society. That's called "war". ;-) It is also true that virtually all societies, if not all societies without exception, were religious in the ancient times when they first began to form, and they were all openly religious up until quite recent historical times. You can therefore either claim that... 1. laws against common crimes like murder and theft arose because of religion or you can claim that... 2. they would have arisen regardless even if there had been no religion. To argue about it and blame religion for everything that's gone wrong in the past 20,000 years or to say that religion played no useful part in the development of human societies, seems worse than stupid to me. It would be just as stupid as saying that religion is the only thing that's ever made anything go right for people in the past 20,000 years. And to attack anyone with an opinion different from your own and try to shoehorn them into one of these exaggerated fanatical positions is to erect a straw man. That's what happens on these threads. People erect a straw man (the religious fanatic or the atheist fanatic) to suit their particular brand of prejudice, and then they attack that straw man continuously, and rave on about how awful he is, and they pretend (or imagine) that anyone who doesn't agree with them on every point must be just like that straw man. And that's just a big waste of hot air. Too bad we don't have a big balloon to inflate. ;-) This thread and others like it would then serve a useful purpose of sorts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:08 AM Virginia Tam says: Any system that promotes intolerance, exclusivism, misogyny, to name a few, is unacceptable to my mind and makes no valuable contribution to society. ....and I agree wholeheartedly. And along with Bill D, "I agree very much with John P about This country, and its laws, are overwhelmingly slanted toward Christianity. As a non-Christian, I have often felt strong prejudice against me.... and ...no non-religious person will be elected to high office any time soon. That IS political discrimination, and one that is supported by many otherwise "good" Christians." -It's quite true that Americans in positions of leadership are expected to practice some sort of religious creed. As a result, churches are plagued with nominal believers, people whose only belief is that God is on their side and supports their views and prejudices. One reason I became disillusioned with the Boy Scouts of America was their insistence that members and leaders believe in God - again, this led to a number nominal believers who tended toward right-wing "God is on my side" practices. Their opposition to homosexuals was another thing that caused me dismay, and I finally gave up believing they would change. And JohnP, I agree that there is a semantic problem with the term "atheist." Some atheists just don't believe in a God, and I have no quarrel with them. The people who trouble me are those who are actively antireligious - especially those who insist on defining what it is that I believe and then condemn me for it, not bothering to find out what actually it is that I do believe. -Joe Offer- Interesting to see mention of Ellington above. He did some terrific sacred music - (click). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: MGM·Lion Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:37 AM Many of your arguments hold water, Dan: but not this last bit ~~ laws against murder, theft &c, are not CHRISTIAN laws, specifically ~ and please don't cop out by saying you didn't say they were, just look back at your last sentence above: they are ones which must, & do, exist in all societies, not just Christian societies, just to enable them to function at all. You will find these two specified in the 10 Commandments e.g., btw, which are some 12 centuries pre-Christian, you know. Are you not in danger here of confusedly claiming all social morality to be Christian-based? Think about it. ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:01 AM and much to the chagrin of many, women do have the right to choose. And doctors have the right to choose not to do it also ... and I support their right. One cannot get an abortion in my town. You can go down the road to another hospital but not here .. Why, no doc will do it .. some because of their faith .. others because they feel it is wrong ... like Ebbie said it is way beyond religions beliefs ... but ya know something else ... IT IS LEGAL .. so much for the CHRISTIAN LAW THAT DISTURBS YOU SO .. but I go back to my original assumption. Does atheists think stealing and murder and other such Christian laws are bad HUH .. is it because you have NO foundation to believe in anything then why not allow murder ... or stealing or pretty much anything else you want to do ... is that your argument? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:46 AM completely agree with Ebbie. anti abortion is not the exclusive domain of the religious. My doc is an atheist, he WILL NOT do an abortion. He believes it is against the oath of a doctor to do no harm and he frankly says it is killing a child .. That is from an atheist .. you don't have to be religious to be against abortion. ME i let people make the call as to what they can do to their own bodies ... I hate the idea of abortion but want no law to stop it .. period .. again the same exact clinches that I see all the time here to justify your own belief system and to justify converting us to the way of the atheist ..(your religion) yet I see no christian doing that here on a daily basis preach on ... I ain't buying it |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ebbie Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:54 PM That's all I need, I thought. Bloody Jehoover's Witnesses hahahha Now, that's funny. Bill D, you say: "Whether you agree with abortion or disapprove of it, this 'suggested' law is precisely based on and fueled by Christian belief" You may be right, Bill, but I'll bet you good money that there are non-religious, non-Christian people in this world who are against abortion. I personally uphold the right to abort- believing it to be a matter between the mother and her doctor - but at the same time I would feel better if I knew when a thinking life begins. I do NOT believe that human life begins at conception. You also say: "But I DO remember in 1952 how Dwight Eisenhower had to quickly 'find a church' to be seen in, as his advisors doubted he could beat Adlai Stevenson if he could not show 'membership'. Again, that is undoubtedly true but in my opinion a lot of that belief (no offense) comes from so few people having the courage to try it. I would have no trouble voting for a good man or woman who frankly said that they were agnostic. Now, on the other hand, if they said adamantly that they are atheist and don't see how anyone could believe in such claptrap- NO. I would not vote for them, because it reveals a mindset that I am not comfortable with. John P, you say: "I know I once failed to get a job because I didn't profess my faith at the verbal opening in the interview that was created for that purpose." I have no idea what kind of employment field that was; I certainly have never been asked in a job interview about my religious beliefs. I did, however, once lose a job offer at a city Chamber of Commerce because my Letters to the Editor revealed that I was "not in harmony with them". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: mousethief Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:41 PM Golly, I go away and work on the deck all afternoon, and y'all have been having fun here without me! I didn't write who said each of the things in italics, but I hope whoever said one of them knows who they are and can The cockles of my heart are truly warmed by such a display of charitable Christian tolerance. I didn't say I don't tolerate stupid people. Hell, if I couldn't tolerate them I'd die, because this country right now seems to be chock full of stupid people. The vast majority of the stupid people saying stupid things in the news tend to be Christians, or claim to be. They do make my teeth hurt, I'll admit. What most people know about epistemology can be fit into a thimble. They then make big pronouncements about science this and reason that, and to somebody who has actually studied epistemology, they come off looking like fools. But if you say that, you're attacked as not being a good little Christian. What-the-fuck-ever. Oh, and people who say, "I don't have a belief system" are also deluded. Everybody has a belief system. Unless you are using the term "belief system" to mean "religion" -- which you're allowed to. But if you use words that way be sure to pay them extra, like Humpty-Dumpty. That said, I won't say that atheism is a belief system. Atheists have belief systems, which is to say, a system of interlinked beliefs in their heads. One of those beliefs may be "God does not exist" or a watered-down derivative thereof. I'm not saying atheism is a belief system. You see religious people advance the hypothesis: 'there is a God' This is where you're wrong. We do not advance that as a hypothesis. Which says more about you than anyone else, I'm afraid. Yes, it says I am familiar with epistemology and you're not, I'm afraid. Do not impose irrationality or your faith-based rules on others. I agree with this. Probably makes me a bad Christian, and somebody will be along to make an arch-sarcastic comment about how they find me an inferior Christian and are therefore unlikely to go to my church because of me. I should, however, like to see more evidence of religious moderates disliking or disapproving of religious extremists. I disapprove of religious extremists. I think nobody should be forced to do anything because of somebody else's religion. This is one reason why I am in favour of pro-choice laws even though I personally believe abortion is wrong. Now, when will atheist moderates show evidence of disliking or disapproving of atheist extremists? If anybody even hints that Dawkins might be an extremist, a whole phalanx of hysteria comes out of the batteries and is broght to bear. You Christians this, you religious people that. Poor Mr Dawkins, he just thinks that raising a child in your own religion is worse for a child than being the victim of pedophila. Yes he said that. He took it back, but I'm skeptical that that means he doesn't still believe it. It just means he got caught saying something out loud he shouldn't. THAT is extremism, friends. It's also really really really really stupid to think that bringing up a child in one's own religion means that they will stay there. It's the sheer arrogance of believers in assuming that the rest of the planet should put up with this not-so-subliminal proselytising that's so amusing ("Get over it": - sorry, Joe, but you said it!) Like I put up with posters on the sides of buses saying God doesn't exist? Hey guess what. This country has freedom of speech. I'm allowed to say "God exists" in public, and you're allowed to say "No he doesn't." If you can't get over that, there are lots of nummy countries you might prefer to live in. Sadly for you some of the ones that most cracked down on religious people speaking out are now gone. Although I'm sure if you were interested you could get a bunch of people together and buy an island and insulate yourselves from the free speech of people you disagree with. Personally, I am an Athiest because I can't conceive of a greater divinity than Duke Ellington. Who, ironically, could. Still, a clever line. BUT I regard the questioning of metaphysical concepts which I find absurd to be a different order of communication altogether; For my part, I have no problem with people questioning "metaphysical concepts" (you mean like the existence of matter? Oh wait, not that kind of metaphysical concept) (grin) all they want. But using words like "sky fairy" are just blatant attempts to be insulting/disrespectful/rude/funny. They can't possibly taken seriously as an attempt to civilly discuss religious issues. And people who insist on the propriety of using them are hard to take seriously. In what way is My Ding-a-Ling a manifestation of the divine? Doesn't God have a penis? I do think they are irrational to some degree, in that they are willing to believe something for which there is no evidence. See, this is an in to a conversation about what it is reasonable to believe, and what counts as "evidence" for any given proposition. I would love to have a real discussion with any atheist about what is required for a working epistemology that can take into account the ways people actually work vis-a-vis believing, knowing, etc. It's almost impossible to do that online, and without a little background reading. So I'll be polite here: thinking that you have "evidence" for everything you believe, and that they don't have "evidence" for believing in God, is a weeny teeny bit naïve. As I've said, faith necessitates a leap into thought processes that I cannot make. I usually try to say I "think" something is true rather than merely leap unthoughtfully to a place where a thing is truth because I want it to be that. To me, it's just wishful thinking! Very few people become believers via the "leap" route. That's a trope invented by Kierkegaard that has little bearing on 99% of believers. I don't understand your "think" thing -- who doesn't think that certain things are true? I must be missing something. @BillD: I agree that the fudge laws trying to worm out abortion clinics by regulating them to death are wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:39 PM and if someone wanted you to profess their faith to get a job .. I would have a lawyer so far up their ass I would end up owning the company ... that is about as illegal as it gets. I share your concern with places like Texas where a group can edit textbooks based on their version of the bible ... People like that are as far from Christian as one can get and never understood a thing they ever read about the teachings of Christ. Cause that ain't him.. But that is local school board and if people are that stupid to elect those folks as school board members I can only cry for the children. But trying to blame everything on the stupid actions of a few is a mistake. It is always a mistake to generalize anyone for that matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:25 PM Wasn't singling you out John. It was more of a shotgun blast then a precision shot ... It all started with the term DELUSION ... that phrase sure is going to make friends and influence people .. yup .. and then when someone gets pissed off and calls it like it is .. they are just a Christian bigeot trying to stop free speech. No actually it is others trying to force their belief system on people like me... I don't start fights .. I don't walk away from them either .. but I should |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: John P Date: 26 Aug 10 - 09:37 PM olddude, Calm down!! I'm not sure what it is that I wrote that got you so riled up, but I really didn't mean to insult anyone. Things I don't do: -Proselytize, except sometimes about traditional folk music. -Get any more bothered by a Christian at the door than I do by any other salesperson. -Knowingly insult anyone. -Get my conclusions about whether or not there's a god from some outside source. -Think that laws against theft and violence are based on Christianity. -And, as I said, I don't spend much time thinking about it. And, can I just say, here it is again: you say that atheism is a belief structure. I'm pretty tired of encountering that statement every time there's a discussion on Mudcat about religion. The statement is logically and semantically specious. Saying that a lack of belief is belief is doublespeak at its best. As I made clear earlier, I don't believe in God because I've never been given any reason to do so. I've also never been given any reason to think the sky is bright red. "Belief" simply doesn't enter the equation. You go farther to say that I fail to have belief because some "great athiest non god came down and told you exactly what life was all about and how it all worked". This is another tactic I'm sick of in Mudcat discussions. It is dismissive: since I'm obviously too stupid to make up my own mind about something, I must be getting my ideas from some outside source, and therefore I don't need to be taken seriously. This is really, really bad discussion/debate/conversation technique, and makes you largely useless as a conversation partner. I wish you'd talk to individuals instead of to a perceived wide-spread agenda. As for prejudice against non-religious people and laws that are based on religious beliefs, I'm not going to start making a list for you. I'm sure there are many websites run by the atheist proselytizers, who I also find distasteful. I can just say that as an outsider looking in, the laws and attitudes are widespread. I can also say, thankfully, that I'm not much personally affected by any of it, since I live in Seattle and not Kansas or Texas. I know I once failed to get a job because I didn't profess my faith at the verbal opening in the interview that was created for that purpose. That's one example of prejudice that was directed at me. I'd enjoy continuing to talk about this, but really don't want to have an argument. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Smokey. Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:45 PM Non-belief isn't necessarily a 'faith', olddude, mine certainly isn't. When I said my head 'won't do faith', I didn't just mean it one sidedly. I've known some highly irritating atheists whose preaching was as unwelcome as any, regardless of agreement or disagreement. I try to not have rigid beliefs, I see them as a constriction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Slag Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:37 PM Blanket inclusions are as offensive as blanket dismisals with regards a a person's belief system(s). So much has to do with how one incorprates information and experience into their reality. The limitations, inherent or learned, of any such view serve those who may differ as an anvil or a hammer for THEIR particular view. And don't we tend to all be "right" in our own eyes? On and on it goes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Bill D Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:33 PM "And what the hell laws are you talking about that are based on christian belief " The attorney general of Virginia has issued an 'opinion' that it would be appropriate to enact laws requiring abortion centers to fall under the exact same rules and standards that hospitals do. This means they would have to widen hallways to "acommodate 2 gurneys", when they don't USE gurneys. It is estimated this would cost about $1.2 million per facility, and result in closing 17 out of 20 in the state. There are already laws in other states that strive to 'combat' abortion thru cleverly designed laws. Whether you agree with abortion or disapprove of it, this 'suggested' law is precisely based on and fueled by Christian belief. This one of the areas I mentioned earlier in my comment at 11:39PM last night about the opinion of many Christians that the 'truth' of their religion justifies almost any law, procedure or propaganda which advances their agenda. If I had a couple hours, I could dig up many, many laws from many states which implicitly reflect religious attitudes. No, I don't know of any "...any laws saying you go to jail if you don't go to church or if you are a non believer you get public whipping or something "....but that is a straw man argument, Dan...neither I nor anyone else has made such a claim. But I DO remember in 1952 how Dwight Eisenhower had to quickly 'find a church' to be seen in, as his advisors doubted he could beat Adlai Stevenson if he could not show 'membership'. Dan....none of this invalidates the Christian religion, and *I* have argued in THIS thread that religious freedom MUST be preserved and that religious faith is a major force for strength & comfort in the lives of many people...but it IS still the case that NON-religious people are frowned on and directly rejected in many ways in this country....no matter how honest, sane and decent they are. |
