BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism

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

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

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

Darwinism? What about Aristotle? Adam Smith?

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

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

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

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

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

Atheist philosophy

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

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

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

****

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

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

"No particular harm done to religion by that."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for a summary

link to the downloads page(several formats)

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

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

interesting points of view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because you are always insulting

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

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

"So why should I bother?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More childish insults? .... sigh

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

Permission to speak Sah!

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

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

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

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

M~ Can speak for himself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don T.

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

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

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

Scientist not Republican because of Atheism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Chongo

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

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

~M~

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

Pope says Atheists can get to heaven.

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

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

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

""Republicans are not Christians?""

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

Exactly as the author of that article says.

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

Don T.

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

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

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

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

Republicans are not Christians?

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

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

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

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

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

Religions on the other hand have thousands of the buggers.

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

I simply love your amazingly supported assertions, Wacko Jacko.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 06:32 PM

Steve, You are a very poor spokesperson for science.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 06:31 PM

". and that even if 'better' in their terms, they are still only stories "

that is not what the character says in the movie that is not what the novelist says about the movie.

I haven't commented except to quote them. If you don't believe it your problem is with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 06:12 AM

Of their parts of the jigsaw, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 06:10 AM

I did listen to a lot more than 120 seconds as it happened, The. Still, it was a long time ago and I'm not watching it again until the sun goes back in.

Well now, wacko. You think science is a belief system just like religion because I trust everything that's told to me without checking it first-hand for myself.
So let's demolish this false equivalence 'twixt science and religion once and for all.

Religion tells you what to believe. Science puts information in front of you.

Religion is a massive disconnect between the writings of ancient desert-dwellers, claims of witnesses, tradition and the assertions and edicts of holy men (rarely holy women). Science is an ever-accumulating body of hard-won knowledge via the verification of evidence.

Religious "knowledge" must not be questioned. You may end up being excommunicated, ostracised or having your head cut off. Science is not science unless it can be questioned at every step. In fact, science must be questioned at every step. That's the way science has progressed, and that's why religious knowledge never progresses. All we have is the further ruminations of "theologians" who operate within a tight ringfence.

Religion consists of a static and unconnected mix of myth, witness and edicts. Science consists of a huge single jigsaw of knowledge for which we are forever finding more pieces. Quite often, we realise that the jigsaw seems to be growing bigger before our eyes. I know whether I can trust the findings of Galileo or Newton or Einstein because many further pieces of their jigsaws have been discovered and are still being discovered, and you can't fit pieces of the wrong jigsaw. For any new scientific assertion, I can find the paper, study the details of the methodology and take or leave the conclusions if I want to. I don't need to imagine that the whole of science is one big fraud unless I check every detail personally. That is not faith in anything like the same sense as religious faith, which is completely blind (if it wasn't, there would be no religion). If you want to call it faith at all, it's based on sheer practicality, in the same way that I have "faith" in the fact that my wife hasn't poisoned my porridge this morning.

So try not to be so silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 05:21 AM

... and that even if 'better' in their terms, they are still only stories

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 05:04 AM

No, Jack -- I shall quibble with YOU, till you get into your thick head that you have misunderstood what they mean by 'better'.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 04:56 AM

I have not read every post you have submitted me old Jack Tar but I believe you generally talk bollocks.

Is that what you meant?

Science isn't a belief system. Belief systems are belief systems. Science describes what we understand about what we observe, not what we wish to observe.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 04:00 AM

M~ the author and Pi in the book have both said that the stories with God are better. You want to quibble with the movie or the novel, quibble with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:40 AM

Jack ~ "Stories are better with God in them":

I think it is you who miss Pi's point ~~ that, though they might sound better to some, be more entertaininig and interesting than boring old actuality, they still remain simply stories.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:37 AM

You just don't get Sheldrake, Hen. You have given yourself, to hear you tell it, a viewing of 120 seconds of a public discourse by him, without having read a word he has written or listened to a further word he has said, and presume to judge him entirely by that. Do you really think that becoming intellectual behaviour, or a basis on which to come to a conclusion?

Surprised at you. Whose commonsense has take the day off, as you put it? If you really want to dismiss him [& I tell you, he is in this discourse one of us, not one of them], at least provide yourself with a reasonable intellectual framework within which to do so.

~The~

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:22 AM

Science is not a belief system. Of course it isn't. Did you know that Steve Shaw examined every fossil in existence and went to the very ground from which they were dug before he believed in evolution. Did you know that he personally checked every notation in Einstein's math before he accepted Relativity?

He read all of Fermi's and Curie's work in the original Italian then replicated all of their work in his second floor bathroom.

He observed the heavens through his own telescope befor he believed Galileo Galilei and Newton.

Of course he did, faith and trust are totally rejected by low level science teachers. Science rejects belief!! All must be tested by each individual!

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 06:30 PM

Honestly, The, has your common sense taken a day off? Here we have an embittered man (for reasons best known to himself) who immediately starts by railing at science for its being usurped by belief-system obsessives. It should have taken you less than the 90 seconds to realise that here we had a man who was doing that usual dismal thing of equating what he doesn't agree with (atheism/science? Select your particular bent) with religious belief systems, as equal but opposite. But science is not a belief system. It is the way that human minds seek explanations for natural phenomena. Science starts with unbelief, dismissal and super-scepticism. Neither is atheism a belief system. Atheism is waiting for evidence, pure and simple. Allowing yourself to be swept up into this pseudo-intellectual back-alley, is, well, somewhat unbecoming.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 05:48 PM

Personally, I like stories with fairies in them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 05:45 PM

MthGM I can only assume that you did not see the last scene in the movie where adult Pi explains to the interviewer how stories with God in them are better.

But don't argue with me. Argue with the man who wrote the original story.

"according to Yann Martel, can be summarized in three statements- "Life is a story... You can choose your story... A story with God is the better story."

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 12:00 PM

Agree about the film's visuals and atmosphere, Jack; but less sure about its 'message' [if that is quite the word I want]. After all, it wasn't Allah or Jesus or Buddha that influenced the final choice and judgment ~~ it was Richard Parker, that exquisite TIGER, wasn't it? Honest, now! And even if he be taken as a sort of Deity-symbol, then what are we to make of the fact that he so disappointed Pi ultimately by not even turning to give him an affectionate final glance, after all they had gone thru together and the relationship he thought they had forged against all the odds, before vanishing from his life into the jungle for ever? Beware how symbols may turn on you & bite your bum!

LoL

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 11:51 AM

MtheGM I saw it last night. It is the most visually beautiful film I have ever seen. Ang Lee even makes those old block style apartment buildings in La Belle Province look way prettier than they do in person. I thought that no one could surpass Amelie and Avatar in their own ways for sheer cinematic beauty. Ang Lee has beaten both at their own game.

M~, According to what I saw in the film and quotes I have read by the novelist, the theme is that when you have two stories, one with "God", one without, the one with "God" is the more interesting. This is a story that speaks a little about the Hindu Gods, Jesus & Allah and has a very sympathetic Buddhist character.

Life of Pi is exactly the type of material I started this thread to discuss. If there is no discussion other than the usual nonsense, at least I will have done my part. At least I will have tried.

Subject: RE: BS: Reflections on Religion and Atheism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 11:39 AM

As a matter of coincidence, I broke off to catch up on the Cat from the book I am currently reading ~~ which happens to be that very Sheldrake's "Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home". I happen myself to have had experiences with an acquaintance at one time which seemed [and seems still, tho it was years ago] inexplicable except in terms of telepathy, which I am convinced is essential as one of the thus-far unaccounted for functions of our minds which desperately need further exploration. Sheldrake is the one doing it ~~ not helped by the hysterical, non-scientific flak to which his work is being subjected by some who should know better. Like ?? and ?? and...