BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 04:06 PM

Jack
Bill is a scientist, his math takes him on his path. My math takes me a different direction but one thing about Bill, he takes friendship serious. Not something I can say for a few others.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 04:13 PM

And I treasure my atheist friends here on mudcat. Ya know why, because I don't care what the believe don't believe but I can say they always respected my beliefs even when I prayed for them when they were sick. They knew it helped me worry less. But they key is, they are friends. No so for some others that just kick up the dust in your face all the time

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 04:19 PM

We drove away a lot of great people because of it. Jerry rarely come here and rarely posts, he feels like a second class citizen because of his strong faith. Great job, he is a legend in folk music and been here since this place started and gets driven away. Not once, Not one tine has he push his faith on others. One of the master song writers and performers and the best friend of Art for 50 years. And ya know what Art is an atheist and do I care NO, Art is a treasure and a beloved friend to me.

great job at driving Jerry away, this place is way less without him. Sadly it is only a couple of people that did it

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 06:13 PM

Jerry who? If Jerry got driven away, it either meant that he was insecure about his faith and couldn't stand to see it challenged, or that he logged in and read threads that he could easily have avoided, or that he was pissed off/bored with the whole concept of this board. If you jump ship, you blame yourself. You do not get proxies such as yourself to blame other people on your behalf. Leaving this forum was his choice. Don't start accusing others of driving him away. That's just a sort of arse-about-face blackmail.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 07:09 PM

>>"Compare Frans de Waal and Richard Dawkins"
You people really are something else
What you seem to be objecting to is that Dawkins and de Waal are indulging in something that happens in every pulpit in every country<<

No, I am saying that de Waal and Dawkins are doing the same thing but De Waal is not being rude and Dawkins is.

I guess you must be something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 07:13 PM

Steve Shaw.

"a good deal of insult has been hurled at atheists around here!"

But not for being atheists. You have to keep in mind that when you are being both an atheist and a jerk its not the atheism that people notice.

Compare Frans de Waal and Richard Dawkins. But are outspoken champions of atheism both try to undermine religious paradigms using arguments that start with science.

De Waal sticks to the science and doesn't unscientifically call anyone "delusional."

Dawkins draws a confrontational line in the sand by starting the debate questioning his opponents' mental health.

One is inviting insults, the other is not.

Bill D does not get insulted and you do. Bill is as much an unbeliever in God as you. But Bill does not hate God as you do. Bill does not take it to the level of religion. You do.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 09:33 PM

[sigh...]

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 09:49 PM

Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 10:35 PM

Discussion is impossible at this point. Fact and reason have been held in utter contempt. Both sides of the discussion are completely inane.

As I said before: [...sigh]

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 11:12 PM

Fact: Bill and Steve Shaw are people who are considered to be atheists.

Fact: Bill does not insult anyone.
Fact: People do not insult insult Bill
Fact: Steve Shaw is snarky and insulting
Fact: Steve Shaw gets insulted

Deduction: the reason that some atheists get insulted is because they are insulting other people.

To test this hypothesis, Steve why don't you be polite and see how people treat you. Or you could just stop illogically implying that this issue is about atheism. It is not. It is the childish behavior of a small few activist atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:15 AM

The bottom line is that you cannot clearly take a stand on a proposition whose terms have not been defined. And I think the proposition "There is a God", as it is blithely being debated here, is essentially extremely ambiguous. As a result this becomes a carousel married to a roller-coaster.   Joe's remark ("sigh") is completely understandable.

I personally suspect that the reason the terms have not been defined is because there cannot be a common definition for a phenomenon which is entirely personal. The idea of insisting on an "objective" definition for something that is only found in the subjective universe of one individual at a time is ludicrous on the face of it.

This has nothing to do with whether that something does or does not exist in those individual world-views. But it does indicate that there is no way it can legitimately be another person's concern.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:33 AM

"The is a God is not being debated" It has not been mentioned by either side.

"Can you have a religion without believing in God?" Is being debated.

The answer plainly is "yes" according to one definition of religion. No if there is any logical or fair reason to exclude that definition. The rest is denial, puffery, banter and personal attacks. Just another day on the Mudcat BS.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 01:02 AM

The reason the 'left' embraces atheism so adamantly, is because you can't have two supreme beings..they believe in government as their supreme being and that leaves no room for an individual with a conscience that gets its morals or independent thinking from elsewhere.
Elementary Watson!

GfS

P.S.....Then they'd have to be open to admitting that a bunch of other shit they've been propagating is full of holes, as well....Oh No!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 03:30 AM

My faith in the supremacy of Sheffield Wednesday which can only be denied by pointing out a few facts bears a remarkable resemblance to those who assert their faith in the prescribed versions of a God.

Can you have religion without a god? Yes. Our gods come and go, get transferred and retire. We still have faith in them and put them on a possibly undeserving pedestal.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 04:04 AM

"No, I am saying that de Waal and Dawkins are doing the same thing but De Waal is not being rude and Dawkins is"
Rude - oh dear!
Up to relatively recently religion held sway - it was part of our upbringing/brainwashing from the day we entered school - the Jesuits boasted of the lifelong effect they would have if given access to the mind of a child early enough.
It is an appalling fact that it has taken revelations of the widespread and long term rape of children for that grip to have been loosened.
Recently the slave-like conditions in the Magdalene Laundries has been added to the list of crimes against young people.
And you lot complain about "rude".
I notice you all have carefully avoided the warlike nature of militant sectarian religion.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 04:59 AM

Anyhow, re 'rude': I honestly can't see where Steve has been so. He has stated his case, with which

[along with Jim ~~ blimey, that doesn't happen that often: this is thread I shall remember!]

I entirely concur, with the sort of vehemence and emphasis of the sort usual for Mudcatters to fight their corners ~~ all power to him. But I can't recall a single case where he has been what I feel can reasonably be called 'rude'. In particular, I note that, like me, he avoids the use of what Aunt Edna would have called 'rude words' ~~ unlike an awful lot of people on this forum (which, as I have said before, is IMO a principal one of the unfortunate detractions from both its quality and its effect).

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 05:54 AM

""It seems that one cannot bring up a single religious topic on this forum without the usual atheist suspects jumping in and mocking the topic and mocking the person talking about religion.""

Nor without the usual suspect from the other side of the fence jumping in, either to profess righteous indignation at the insult of hearing the word "delusion" expressed as the opinion of an atheist, or to claim that ""the usual atheist suspects"" are religiously evangelising and trying to force a change of opinion on him, which they patently are not.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 05:59 AM

MtheGM
But I can't recall a single case where he [Steve Shaw] has been what I feel can reasonably be called 'rude'.

Not my experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 06:16 AM

""Of course Atheism is not a religion.
But is anyone who hates God really an atheist?


Some people SAY they are atheists then act like God haters.
When you point that out they say that you are "attacking" all of atheism.""

Atheists don't hate God!! How can anyone hate something which he doesn't believe exists?

When it comes to hatred, it seems to be a primary emotion of the religious, applied to the deities of other religions and of course to atheists.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 06:29 AM

""You have to keep in mind that when you are being both an atheist and a jerk its not the atheism that people notice.""


"If a man fools you once, he's a jerk. If he fools you twice, you're a jerk." Proverb

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 06:33 AM

I think I'm with Joe on this one.

Although not an atheist, I do find those who are easier to talk to.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 07:19 AM

I personally suspect that the reason the terms have not been defined is because there cannot be a common definition for a phenomenon which is entirely personal. The idea of insisting on an "objective" definition for something that is only found in the subjective universe of one individual at a time is ludicrous on the face of it.

I agree with this. But I don't think it's what causes the problem. Religion is the default position in much of world (certainly in the US, the UK and most of Europe, Africa and Latin America). Religious buildings advertise their faith large and loud (literally loud at times, what with calls to prayer and those lovely jangling bells). Archbishops are embedded in politics. No-one raises an eyebrow at the religionification (I just made that up) of Christmas. I've been to many a wedding and funeral and no-one gives the slightest consideration to the fact that the overtly religious content of the services might sit badly with any atheists present (failure to join in with the lusty hymn-singing can't half make you look a bit of a twat). It isn't thought odd that children scarcely out of their nappies are told to believe that myth is truth (and no more disingenuous comparisons with Santa or tooth fairies, please). A lot of it is more amusing/irritating than important, but the principle is that religion holds sway. It doesn't matter what shape your personal deity takes (Jaysus, given a broad enough definition, I might even have one meself), but you can bank on your religion of choice (or birth, more likely) to megaphone it from the rooftops for you. That's the issue, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 07:32 AM

MtheGM
"But I can't recall a single case where he [Steve Shaw] has been what I feel can reasonably be called 'rude'."

Not my experience.

Well, I have this weakness, you see, Snail. I don't mind someone giving me a lusty argument or even telling me that I'm deluded (though I do like to have their reason for thinking it). But when someone constantly nit-picks because of some wacky secret agenda they appear to have (let's call it "a chip on the shoulder"), or misrepresents what I've said in order to have a go, I bite back. If I think you're being silly there is a severe risk that I might tell you so (and I expect the same back). The thing is, I type my posts carefully and review them thoroughly before hitting send. If you want to have a bash at something I've said, but you seem not to be applying similar rigour, then you've got it coming. I haven't got all day to be tirelessly diplomatic with someone for whom that approach doesn't work.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 09:02 AM

Snail ~~ I have not always seen i2i with Steve on all topics, and occasionally we have addressed one another in not entirely cordial tones. But I don't remember an instance of what one could reasonably call 'rudeness' occurring [unlike a nasty little person called 'Lox' IIRC, who seems to have left us a while since, who once took against me for some unspecified reason & took to accusing me of wearing an ill-fitting colostomy bag - which I don't, but even if I did (Nice casuistic point ~ would it have been more rude if it were true or if it were not?)]....

In any event, I took it we were talking particularly of this thread, where Jack had written ~~

"Fact: Bill does not insult anyone.
Fact: People do not insult insult Bill
Fact: Steve Shaw is snarky and insulting
Fact: Steve Shaw gets insulted"

··· inaccurately & invidiously IMO.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:01 AM

Jack:

The question "Can you be religious without believing in God" is just as ambiguous, and for the same reasons, as the question "Is there a God?".

Cf., "Can you be religious without believing in ferglebothams?" (to which some will reply, "absolutely not!").

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:14 AM

I oft ponder the Numinous, thrilled that there might be More Things in Heaven & Earth after all, but as to what that might be... well, I've no more grasp of that than our kitchen slugs have of the goings on in The Trafford Centre. There is enough (and more) to enthral me in the human world & the material realms of nature we inhabit and once dared personified in terms of Myth - which is how (I dare say) we conceived the rotten God-concept in the first place. Not one of our better ideas - along with Fascism, Communism, Nuclear Power, Conservatism, Folk Music, Morris Dancing and Clackers...

They say we can't uninvent things - and that those who do not remember the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them - but what we can do is live in hope for a more inclusive world-view predicated on the common, the falsifiable, the corporeal & the pragmatic rather than the lingering residue of a few bad trips our ancestors once had whilst off their heads on too much Psilocybe semilanceata during a solar-eclipse and so bowed their heads in terror of the unknown.

Thing is, we know it now; we even know that the stuff we don't know isn't going to be too dissimilar to the stuff we do. I dare say Stonehenge was built in the same spirit as as the Large Hadron Collider - to test a theory of what already suspected was true anyway. And so wonder recommences with every step we take towards the light, leaving our God concepts and Religions to slowly rot away in the realms of ignorance and superstition.

Non-belief in God is to embrace the truly awesome wonderment of universal mystery during the brief time we have the chance to do so. Pondering Theology can be great fun - like pondering Myth & Folklore, none of which is actually true, but nevertheless tells us something about the sort of beings we are and the sort of journey we've had in getting to where we are today. To take such things literally is, I fear, not just to them a considerable disservice, but also ourselves, and (perhaps most importantly) our children by clouding their innocent brains with the darkness of an ancestral ignorance that has no more 'reality' than Quatermass or the Cybermen, and a good deal less entertainment value to boot.

Much joy comes from KNOWING we're all in this together; but what possible satisfaction can there be in the delusion that those who don't agree with you will be spending an eternity in hell for the simple fact of being human?

*

(Apologies for the above - I'm still ill. This morning I felt so bad I spent 80 minutes watching the 4 episodes of Attack of the Cybermen on YouTube. Did it help? Like shite it did, although the Radiophonic Approximation of the Steptoe & Son theme some 12 minutes into the first episode did me smile. Check it out, though if you're pre-disposed to a literal fear of man-made demons then maybe you'd better not, although back in the day I recall a fair few daring to perceive a measure of the numinous in the global endowments of Perpugilliam Brown...   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGZQg7rdc8s)

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:18 AM

The conspicuous threads on Mudcat support Steve Shaws contention that there are those who are trying to bait atheists.

The Crusade Brigade is essentially going after non-believers who have written books expressing their ideas. These are in no way "new Atheists" since non-belief has been around for as long as Hypatia was murdered by a Christian mob. The only main thing these books on non-belief have in common is a sharing of non-belief and a willingness to express reasons why. Therefore the Crusade Brigade have enmity for these ideas and start propaganda crusades about how atheists are this and that. When they throw their brickbats, they are like the schoolyard bully who claims "self defense".

Regarding de Waal, it is prudent of him not to get mixed up in a religious debate. He could lose funding, whereas Dawkins is from England and doesn't have to worry about expressing his ideas.

There are certain ideas that should not be respected. Certain ways that religion is practiced by the Crusade Brigade trashing "atheists". Religion has been the rationale for the subjugation of women, disregard for their reproductive rights, making them second class citizens in a Christian Man's world, "sons of Ham" being used to justify slavery,
bible verses on gun barrels in the US military, religious burquas and honor killings,
oppression of Palestinians by Christo- Zionazis, the trashing of evolutionary science by creationists..........none of these things should be respected. These are far worse than someone's idea of "rudeness".

I agree with Jim Carroll and wonder at the "militant new Christians" that picture Jesus with an AK 47. :)

Why is it that Christians preach peace and love and behave abominably by accusations,
recriminations, nasty comments and aggressively violent words? What's to respect here?

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:21 AM

Is the persuit of a good scotch a religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:22 AM

MtheGM


I wasn't talking about this thread I was talking about "debating" while expressing the assumption that the other party is stupid or insane. The word he inaccurately uses and wrongly defends is delusional.

MtheGM, I thought you had I had this discussion already. Didn't you and I agree that there was no way to describe someone as delusional without it being a put down? Bill D manages to get his point across without the verbal put downs. So does de Waal.

Steve Shaw, and Dawkins use verbal put downs because their purpose is not to get their point across but to anger people and start a shouting match.

If you don't think rude is the right word. Choose another. But that is what is happening. That is what I am talking about.

"The God Delusion" is part of the dogma of Dawkins. Maybe being someone who spreads his words is not part of a religion. But the are using dogma. Whether that dogma is religious or not. It is used to reinforce as specific illogical, divisive belief and it is defended by people like Steve Shaw as if it were Gospel.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:38 AM

Ed T says

"Is the persuit of a good scotch a religion?"

according to the OED, if it is done with great devotion, I guess it is.

>>A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion<<

As I said before though, I would not use the word "religion" to describe Atheism. So obviously I would not us "religion" to describe Whiskyism. But I do think that the behavior of strong adherents to any cause can be very similar to that of the worst of religious people.

The defense of certain definitions of folk music is not a religion. But it can seem that it is reading many posts above the line.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:38 AM

""Why is it that Christians preach peace and love and behave abominably by accusations,recriminations, nasty comments and aggressively violent words? What's to respect here?""


On a similar thought, why does the USA and it's citizens preach a respect for democracy and behave in such as ant-democratic way when it comes to the asperation of other countries? Does this mean that democracy itself, the USA or even all Americans are nasty and bad? Or, does it mean something else?


On a related thought, is it the alcohol that is the villian, or the opeople who abuse it?

alcohol and agression

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:40 AM

""Is the persuit of a good scotch a religion?""

Only if you are doing it outside the territorial boundaries of Bonny Scotland, when it becomes a Pilgrimage.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:46 AM

Stringsinger says: What's to respect here (with christianity)?

I would expect that all persons should be respected, regardless of what they believe. There are assholes in all aspects of life, including those who claim to follow relious teachings and those who take an opposing view. I even know a few scientists whom I would say are assholes, but it does not mean I don't respect science.

Why would anyone promote the idea that a double standard should be used?

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:04 PM

I think that you have to keep in mind that the media, in the USA and the Commonwealth at least, loves a conflict. They tend to publish the most controversial things and ignore reasonable people and people of peace.

That is why Pat Robertson gets all the ink that he does and some one like Charles Stanley does not.

That is why Dawkins gets heavy coverage wherever he goes and other zoologists do not and anti-religionists do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:06 PM

Is it true that most religions don't believe the other religions are really religous?

If this is true, then follow Dawkin's advice and stop believing that the one most of you were brought up in is anything other than a rag bag of old stories and make-believe.

Best wishes

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:11 PM

whats to respect?
that pretty much says it all doesn't it

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:12 PM

"Stringsinger says: What's to respect here (with christianity)? "

Everyone.

I think this pretty much confirms my point about him.

He is clearly disrespectful. He makes no bones about it, though he does sometimes tries to cloak that in long winded, tedious, third person insults.

You don't have to call that being "rude" if you don't want to. Call it what you want. Just recognize that it exists and believe me that I don't have a problem is not with atheists. It is with people who are disrespectful. It is with people who do not want to live and let live. It is with people who read books by disrespectful people so that they can pass that disrespect on to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:14 PM

pat yourself on the back, claim victory and enjoy the friends you have left if any

I can't take this shit anymore ... see ya

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:18 PM

There are plenty of Americans Ed that are simultaneously preachy and nasty to each other and you, as a perceptive human being, must be able to recognize them by their behavior.

I have mentioned earlier that I can respect people inherently but not for ugly behavior or nonsensical ideas. Would you find it in your heart to respect Hitler or Stalin's behavior?

I respect some Christians, Ed, but not Christianity in itself. I respect science far more.
The history of any religion is fraught with bloodshed, wars, intransigence, rationales for ugly behavior and I don't think you can say that for science which is not a religion.
You might argue that the atomic blasts in Hiroshima or Nagasaki was a product of science but here, the general use of how it was used was not to be respected but as you say a product of ugly behavior. History of Christianity and other religions show that it inculcated nasty behavior by the belief system in ways science never could.

A religion by necessity creates a boundary line between people. You are either this or that.
You are inside or outside and the joke is that there is no evidence for its existence.

What I think can be separated is how a person behaves and what they purport to believe from their intrinsic worth as a human being. This is not relegated to religious "morality" but a basic core value as de Waal points out, that doesn't emanate from the "top down",
Big Daddy in the Sky (which I don't respect) but from the "bottom up", an evolutionary
behavior of compassion and empathy which predates religion which I do respect.

If anything, religion(s) tend to diminish compassion and empathy in many people.

Just as alcohol makes some people violent and aggressive. They are both used as soporifics.

Hence I have little respect for either.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:21 PM

"The God Delusion" is part of the dogma of Dawkins. Maybe being someone who spreads his words is not part of a religion. But the are using dogma. Whether that dogma is religious or not. It is used to reinforce as specific illogical, divisive belief and it is defended by people like Steve Shaw as if it were Gospel.

This is just more goading, I'm afraid. Dogma requires certainty. Both Richard Dawkins and Steve Shaw (that is, me: I love the way Jack always lumps us two together: what an honour!) state loud and clear that they do not know whether God exists or not. To rattle on all the time about uncertainty equating to dogma is to point you out as, at best, semi-literate. And I'm not saying that (that would be "rude"). You do it all by yourself.

By the way, Gospel truth is no kind of real truth at all!

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:31 PM

Non-belief in God is to embrace the truly awesome wonderment of universal mystery during the brief time we have the chance to do so.

Exactly. What a shame it is to believe that an inexplicably complex and law-breaking being created everything. An answer in a nutshell that actually answers nothing at all. Worse, there's the danger that this will stop you from looking. Even worse, from enjoying. The commonplace all around us is the most wonderful stuff any of us will ever know, and we all have mighty brains with which to explore it, untrammelled by lame "explanations". God is a brain-killer!

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:32 PM

Hey, Either you have it or you don't. God does not exist merely because people 'believe' that there is one. Nor does one not exist, because some people haven't got close enough to 'feel' one.
God is NOT a religion, nor is physics null and void, just because you might not know about physics! You aren't going to read a book of physics, and understand all of it, nor are you going to read a 'religious' book, and understand all of it, either.
Having 'knowledge of' and 'knowing' are two different things altogether.
'Having knowledge of' is more of an academic exercise, while 'knowing' entails an experience in which you 'become one with the experience'...and like I posted earlier, but it might have been on one of NINE related threads, you can read about an orgasm..but it doesn't mean that you've experienced one...however, once you do, your perspective, gained only by learning behavior and symptoms goes right out the window....and likewise, those who have not had the experience of either God or an orgasm, sound like fools, trying to tell others that neither one can be. All you are saying is that you have not experienced one or the other, to really know what you are talking about...and to those who HAVE had one of those experiences, all you are saying, you say out of naivete. No matter what pedantic rhetoric you may wish inflict on other people, you really sound like a gaggle of young teenage girls tittering about what you think your first kiss should be like!.....Once one of them get their first orgasm, it changes their whole perspective, from 'theory' to 'practice'. Same can be said about a genuine spiritual experience...and both tend to change lives, forever.
...and like some babbling little school girls, who pretend to 'know it all', and act so self assured, the fact is, they don't know squat about what they titter about. They may have been frightened off from being intimate with a man, because they got the wrong impression, from a jerk....same with God.....you might have been 'put off' by some cleric, or group of other 'titterers' who said one thing, but really didn't know what they were talking about, by practice....and so that just re-enforces one's disbelief, that anything is 'out there' besides your limited understanding coupled with your frigidity.....it doesn't mean that you've experienced the depth of the human existence, it just means you haven't got laid..either physically or spiritually!
So you make up all these excuses, as to 'why' getting laid is either bad, or not that big of a deal, or having a genuine spiritual experience is either a delusion, or it doesn't exist...and in reality, what doesn't exist, is yourself in that experience....and then we have to sit through these semi-literate diatribes, by naive blathers, who have not even had that part of their brains 'lit up'...and yet feel compelled to tell us others, how their limited consciousness is all that exists...for everyone!!!
...and it is so obvious......and hopefully someday, you have that experience (either one or the other), and you flash on what an imbecile sounds like!!...and to make matters worse...you heard it from your own lips!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:40 PM

That clears it up, then. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 01:09 PM

But you are a sailor and therefore your knowledge of anything doesn't get beyond knowing how to tie knots.

Or as you put it. (wholly inaccurately) Dawkins is a zoologist. The silly inference is the same.

Interestingly I have just got to my hotel room and the glossy magazine in my lounge area has on its cover a quote from an article by Dawkins as he is speaking at a literary festival here soon. The cover quote is "I lay out the evidence and people are free to ignore it or be fascinated by it."

Mmmm. Doesn't sound like an angry jealous god to me. Are you SURE you aren't reading Betty Swollocks books again Jack?

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 01:44 PM

" The cover quote is "I lay out the evidence and people are free to ignore it or be fascinated by it.""

Just because Dawkins says it, it must be so eh? I wish my faith was as unshakable as yours ;-) Blind faith is a wonder to behold! LOL LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 02:01 PM

Jack the Sailor: "Blind faith is a wonder to behold! LOL LOL!"

Ever meet a virgin that has it ALL figured out?? They can be bossy little bitches, ordering everyone around....but then when they get laid, and it rocks their world....but then they still might be bossy little bitches, and never get a clue....because they ignored the big one..and then act as if they are the only ones who ever got it good!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 02:06 PM

All the science in the world is open to all the people - it's all consistant - no contradictions - except right at the edge of knowledge and understanding. That is Dawkins point.

You christians can't even agree amongst your selves never mind agree with all the other relgions - but why should you?

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 02:17 PM

No, they can't, can they? Why, here is one who has popped up to tell us that God is in some way [how? how? tell us! please!] analagous to an orgasm. I am really having a non-orgasmic ball trying to get my poor, non-deluded, head round that one!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 02:35 PM

Steve Shaw

Well, I have this weakness, you see, Snail. I don't mind someone giving me a lusty argument or even telling me that I'm deluded (though I do like to have their reason for thinking it). But when someone constantly nit-picks because of some wacky secret agenda they appear to have (let's call it "a chip on the shoulder"), or misrepresents what I've said in order to have a go, I bite back. If I think you're being silly there is a severe risk that I might tell you so (and I expect the same back). The thing is, I type my posts carefully and review them thoroughly before hitting send. If you want to have a bash at something I've said, but you seem not to be applying similar rigour, then you've got it coming. I haven't got all day to be tirelessly diplomatic with someone for whom that approach doesn't work.

Fairly mild by Steve's standard but I think it proves my point.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 02:43 PM

Century mark!