Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Rhiannon on June 03, 2015, 07:53:07 PM
-
Beliefs, religion, or experiences/spirituality?
If we have a secular society, why should it be desirable for us all to be atheist? Why do people look forward to a utopian ideal of universal non-belief?
-
Can i jump in here, because it makes sense to drop all the silly stuff(religion) and concentrate in what is real/factual/testable/re-testable/honest/reliable and the yet to be discovered wonders for the sake of our planet. Faith answers nothing.
-
Beliefs, religion, or experiences/spirituality?
If we have a secular society, why should it be desirable for us all to be atheist? Why do people look forward to a utopian ideal of universal non-belief?
Because experience has shown that differing beliefs can cause much harm.
-
Can i jump in here, because it makes sense to drop all the silly stuff(religion) and concentrate in what is real/factual/testable/re-testable/honest/reliable and the yet to be discovered wonders for the sake of our planet. Faith answers nothing.
Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century?
To deal with the thread title itself, if we gave up our beliefs, how would we decide how to live? After all, we all have beliefs, be we atheists or theists.
-
Beliefs, religion, or experiences/spirituality?
If we have a secular society, why should it be desirable for us all to be atheist? Why do people look forward to a utopian ideal of universal non-belief?
Because experience has shown that differing beliefs can cause much harm.
Most harm has been caused by differences in political beliefs.
-
To deal with the thread title itself, if we gave up our beliefs, how would we decide how to live?
The way some of the rest of us do, I guess, using reason and common sense and compassion, concentrating not on subservience to nonexistent entities who have to be propitiated but the wellbeing of real creatures who really exist and who have real lives that can go better or worse.
-
To deal with the thread title itself, if we gave up our beliefs, how would we decide how to live?
The way some of the rest of us do, I guess, using reason and common sense and compassion.
Quite! But I suppose anybody who lacks one of those qualities needs to be taught.
-
To deal with the thread title itself, if we gave up our beliefs, how would we decide how to live?
The way some of the rest of us do, I guess, using reason and common sense and compassion, concentrating not on subservience to nonexistent entities who have to be propitiated but the wellbeing of real creatures who really exist and who have real lives that can go better or worse.
Sentimental old Rose Tinted cobblers.
-
Beliefs, religion, or experiences/spirituality?
If we have a secular society, why should it be desirable for us all to be atheist? Why do people look forward to a utopian ideal of universal non-belief?
Bit of a straw man here, though, isn't it Rhi? To be fair. Here in England (specifically) we don't have a de jure secular society, though it largely is de facto.
I don't think you could find anyone, not even the most vociferous anti-theist, who thinks that a world without religion would be 'utopia.' Plenty of people however think that a world without it, or with vastly less of it, would be a better (note: better, not perfect) world, given that that would be the fastest and easiest way of eliminating the irrationality, cruelty, floundering ignorance and petty tribalism and divisiveness it creates so much of the time.
Your beliefs are very much of the privatised, individualistic sort - thank goodness. They give shape, meaning and colour to your life; they're meaningful to you and you don't come across as the sort of person who thinks that everybody else has to believe as you do. If more religion was of this kind there'd be far, far, far less conflict in the world - it's when religions become organised; when they become a cult with clout; when they achieve critical mass and know it; when they are able to start making demands on the lives of others, that's when the trouble starts. That's what we need less of in this world.
-
Beliefs, religion, or experiences/spirituality?
If we have a secular society, why should it be desirable for us all to be atheist? Why do people look forward to a utopian ideal of universal non-belief?
Because experience has shown that differing beliefs can cause much harm.
Most harm has been caused by differences in political beliefs.
If construed in its broadest terms there has never been any kind of societal organisation that human beings have ever tried without one political system or another. Conversely, many, many human beings live without adhering to a religion; so, pace what some people would have us believe, it looks to me as though politics (of some sort) rather than religion is basic and fundamental to the human animal.
People can and do do without religion; they seemingly can't do without some kind of political system as a means of ordering society. So religion is dispensable.
-
Beliefs, religion, or experiences/spirituality?
If we have a secular society, why should it be desirable for us all to be atheist? Why do people look forward to a utopian ideal of universal non-belief?
Because experience has shown that differing beliefs can cause much harm.
Most harm has been caused by differences in political beliefs.
If construed in its broadest terms there has never been any kind of societal organisation that human beings have ever tried without one political system or another. Conversely, many, many human beings live without adhering to a religion; so, pace what some people would have us believe, it looks to me as though politics (of some sort) rather than religion is basic and fundamental to the human animal.
People can and do do without religion; they seemingly can't do without some kind of political system as a means of ordering society. So religion is dispensable.
I don't go with that at all. Man has always had the need to believe in something beyond this existence. It is a fundamental urge, or need. There are billions who certainly cannot do without their religion. Political systems have mostly been devised by those who wish to control and dominate. The masses have no choice because it is inflicted on them.
-
Beliefs, religion, or experiences/spirituality?
If we have a secular society, why should it be desirable for us all to be atheist? Why do people look forward to a utopian ideal of universal non-belief?
Because experience has shown that differing beliefs can cause much harm.
Most harm has been caused by differences in political beliefs.
If construed in its broadest terms there has never been any kind of societal organisation that human beings have ever tried without one political system or another. Conversely, many, many human beings live without adhering to a religion; so, pace what some people would have us believe, it looks to me as though politics (of some sort) rather than religion is basic and fundamental to the human animal.
People can and do do without religion; they seemingly can't do without some kind of political system as a means of ordering society. So religion is dispensable.
People have never been without religion nor it's influence whether religious or not.
History shows that if they aren't living and letting live they are going to inordinant and often laughable lengths to eliminate it.(E,g, The Jesus Entry in The Great Soviet Encyclopedia).
My prediction will be that life in secular Britain will become nastier.
-
My prediction will be that life in secular Britain will become nastier.
I don't get this.
Secularism in no way excludes, stops or otherwise adversely affects religion. Unless you think religion should have extra privileges that other organisations don't get.
I think what you actually mean is: "life in atheist Britain....". You'd still be wrong but that's maybe for another thread.
-
The way some of the rest of us do, I guess, using reason and common sense and compassion, concentrating not on subservience to nonexistent entities who have to be propitiated but the wellbeing of real creatures who really exist and who have real lives that can go better or worse.
In other words, Shaker, we base our actions on our beliefs.
-
Hope
Your beliefs inform your actions.
That's why its important that your beliefs are correct.
-
Sentimental old Rose Tinted cobblers.
Not 'sentimental', not 'old', not 'rose-tinted', and certainly not 'cobblers'. It's actually reality.
-
Hope
Your beliefs inform your actions.
That's why its important that your beliefs are correct.
And what do you define as 'correct'? In accordance with your opinion? In accordance wit reality? In accordance to the SNP's opinion?
-
Hope
Your beliefs inform your actions.
That's why its important that your beliefs are correct.
And what do you define as 'correct'? In accordance with your opinion? In accordance wit reality? In accordance to the SNP's opinion?
In accordance with reality.
-
I believe in Jesus, and love, forgiveness and empathy with your fellow man. Is that correct enough?
-
The way some of the rest of us do, I guess, using reason and common sense and compassion, concentrating not on subservience to nonexistent entities who have to be propitiated but the wellbeing of real creatures who really exist and who have real lives that can go better or worse.
In other words, Shaker, we base our actions on our beliefs.
All beliefs are not equal. Some are grounded in fact, reason, logic, observation and experience, and others ... aren't
-
I believe in Jesus, and love, forgiveness and empathy with your fellow man. Is that correct enough?
OK so far.
-
I don't go with that at all. Man has always had the need to believe in something beyond this existence. It is a fundamental urge, or need.
The problem with this is the same as with the famous (in philosophy, anyway ...) problem of induction: there's no way of guaranteeing that the past is a reliable guide to the future. (See that little fable which has become known as Russell's Turkey ... although it was a chicken when he first mentioned it in The Problems of Philosophy. Either way, the point is the same). That something actually has been or has seemed to have been the case in the past does not determine that it's bound to persist in future. There are some people who will quite confidently tell you - and I don't mean atheists either so these are not people who approve of the idea - that not only is the general non-religiousness of the developed world since the Enlightenment era a vast unplanned social experiment (which is true) but that the effect of that has been the "breeding" (albeit unintended and unplanned) almost of a new kind of human being: Homo non-religiosus you might say, people who not only don't have but don't even seem to need anything like "transcendence" (whatever that is; it's one of those words often bandied about, like 'spirituality,' with no clear meaning) or a belief in anything other than this life in this world. I think there are reasons for that, ones that I find not only credible but entirely convincing.
There are billions who certainly cannot do without their religion.
You hear this a lot, and I always wonder if the people who advance this argument are fully aware of what it implies: that believers are like children who can't do without a dummy or blankie or teddy, and can't be allowed to grow up.
I'm about as far from being a people person as you can get, but even I have a slightly higher opinion of humanity than that.
Political systems have mostly been devised by those who wish to control and dominate. The masses have no choice because it is inflicted on them.
True in many cases. And yet, we can't seem to do without one or the other.
-
Shaker,
"You hear this a lot, and I always wonder if the people who advance this argument are fully aware of what it implies: that believers are like children who can't do without a dummy or blankie or teddy, and can't be allowed to grow up "
Why should you equate belief in a religion with the need for a comfort blanket? I think you underestimate the perspicacity of people. I look at, say, the A of C, and don't see someone so insecure that he needs a comfort blanket. It may apply to some, but to assume all are so in need is unrealistic.
-
Hope
Your beliefs inform your actions.
That's why its important that your beliefs are correct.
And what do you define as 'correct'? In accordance with your opinion? In accordance wit reality? In accordance to the SNP's opinion?
In accordance with reality.
But that can only be your reality. It's still subjective.
-
Can i jump in here, because it makes sense to drop all the silly stuff(religion) and concentrate in what is real/factual/testable/re-testable/honest/reliable and the yet to be discovered wonders for the sake of our planet. Faith answers nothing.
What about the Eco movements within paganism and other faiths?
-
Beliefs, religion, or experiences/spirituality?
If we have a secular society, why should it be desirable for us all to be atheist? Why do people look forward to a utopian ideal of universal non-belief?
Bit of a straw man here, though, isn't it Rhi? To be fair. Here in England (specifically) we don't have a de jure secular society, though it largely is de facto.
I don't think you could find anyone, not even the most vociferous anti-theist, who thinks that a world without religion would be 'utopia.' Plenty of people however think that a world without it, or with vastly less of it, would be a better (note: better, not perfect) world, given that that would be the fastest and easiest way of eliminating the irrationality, cruelty, floundering ignorance and petty tribalism and divisiveness it creates so much of the time.
Your beliefs are very much of the privatised, individualistic sort - thank goodness. They give shape, meaning and colour to your life; they're meaningful to you and you don't come across as the sort of person who thinks that everybody else has to believe as you do. If more religion was of this kind there'd be far, far, far less conflict in the world - it's when religions become organised; when they become a cult with clout; when they achieve critical mass and know it; when they are able to start making demands on the lives of others, that's when the trouble starts. That's what we need less of in this world.
I don't know, Shaker. I see a lot of this kind of thing from the very lovely SusanDoris:
Not only will people of different faiths living in the UK with its mainly fair and open society realise its benefits, but also the real and provable excitement of usable technology, evidence of probes landing on comets and so on will surely make younger people understand that that is far, far more exciting than chasing the ever-elusive shadows of inexplicable, mystical stuff.
to which the equally lovely Len replied
That's true, and hopefully it will negate the nonsense they are taught to believe.
And I'm wondering why that is a good thing, to eradicate the mystical from the world.
Eta my opening sentence should read 'if we were to have a secular society...' I know we don't have one at the moment.
-
Rhiannon,
"And I'm wondering why that is a good thing, to eradicate the mystical from the world."
Sorry to be flippant, but I think that was Leonard's template, number 6. :)
-
It's not desirable, but moreover not even possible to eradicate the mystical from the world. It's perennial and inexhaustible.
I'm one of those people too in love with reality to want to hand over the mystical to a bunch of people, usually middle-aged or elderly men or headed by them, who think that the mystical is their sole preserve and possession and can only be explored if you sign on the dotted line, give your credit card details and subscribe to their particular, wholly implausible version of the nature of reality. One of the various reasons that religion is so dislikable is that it betrays its man-madeness by being so damned parochial. The universe is bigger than we can comprehend, and bigger than that.
-
Yes, well I fell out of love with organised religion a long time ago. It's probably why I've stayed solitary as a pagan - even a bunch of people in someone's front room is too organised for me.
I get why Brian Cox gets so excited about the stuff he does, it is mind-blowing. But in a small way, my stuff is too, even if it's just for me. We can't all be astrophysicists and I don't see why some think it would be desirable for the mystical to disappear.
-
HOPE msg 3 "pol pot and stalin etc" trundled out again, its so bloody annoying. Almost as annoying as "if you dont believe in something, youll believe in anything" tosh.
-
Beliefs, religion, or experiences/spirituality?
If we have a secular society, why should it be desirable for us all to be atheist? Why do people look forward to a utopian ideal of universal non-belief?
I don't accept the premise in the question, i.e. 'if we have a secular society, it should be desirable for us all to be atheist'.
A secular society favours freedom of religion rather than favours one.
I want a society where people are free and happy, religion brings happiness to a lot of people.
The issue comes when theists insist that everyone has to adhere to what they think their god wants, we saw this across many issues, gay marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, stem cell research, etc.
-
Like I said, it should be 'if we were to have'.
Sorry. :-[
-
Like I said, it should be 'if we were to have'.
Sorry. :-[
We have a secular society for the most part?
-
We do, but we still have too much legislation framed around religion. Religious institutions should be free to choose to hold same sex marriages, for example. Sharia law should not be recognised at all. We still have an institutional church. So actually at the moment I do get the objection to religion.
If we ever do get a genuinely secular society though, I don't get why some atheists then have the desire for the 'mystical' to be replaced by 'reason'. Maybe some people like the mystical?
-
Beliefs, religion, or experiences/spirituality?
If we have a secular society, why should it be desirable for us all to be atheist? Why do people look forward to a utopian ideal of universal non-belief?
I don't accept the premise in the question, i.e. 'if we have a secular society, it should be desirable for us all to be atheist'.
A secular society favours freedom of religion rather than favours one.
I want a society where people are free and happy, religion brings happiness to a lot of people.
The issue comes when theists insist that everyone has to adhere to what they think their god wants, we saw this across many issues, gay marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, stem cell research, etc.
That! :)
I have my own issues - primarily linguistic more than anything else - with the concept of spirituality or spiritual matters and what have you, but there's little doubt that whatever you mean by that term, historically organised religions have regarded it as their exclusive property as of right, and like much else to do with religion they do not and will not give it up easily or nicely. They think it's theirs, that it belongs to them and that they and only they are allowed to define it and its parameters. Examples:
http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/21/viewpoint-the-problem-with-being-spiritual-but-not-religious/
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/959216
That attitude is changing, but not as fast as I'd like.
-
The way some of the rest of us do, I guess, using reason and common sense and compassion, concentrating not on subservience to nonexistent entities who have to be propitiated but the wellbeing of real creatures who really exist and who have real lives that can go better or worse.
In other words, Shaker, we base our actions on our beliefs.
So are you happy that the majority of people base their actions on a lie?
-
I believe in Jesus, and love, forgiveness and empathy with your fellow man. Is that correct enough?
How about I believe in Jesus, and love, forgiveness and empathy with your fellow man. Is that correct enough?
No need for the mythical god-man.
-
I believe in Jesus, and love, forgiveness and empathy with your fellow man. Is that correct enough?
How about I believe in Jesus, and love, forgiveness and empathy with your fellow man. Is that correct enough?
No need for the mythical god-man.
I don't happen to believe He is mythical. Neither do I happen to put any store by your assumptions.
-
Jeremy will clarify if he feels like it but I took his comment to mean that a god-man is mythical, not the man bit.
Which I suspect is what most non-believers would (in fact probably do, when it comes up) say. The existence of a historical Jesus is on balance probably more likely than not (though not beyond all and any reasonable doubt); the existence of a miracle-working god-man born of a virgin and who can walk on water and reanimate corpses isn't.
-
Jeremy will clarify if he feels like it but I took his comment to mean that a god-man is mythical, not the man bit.
Which I suspect is what most non-believers would (in fact probably do, when it comes up) say. The existence of a historical Jesus is on balance probably more likely than not (though not beyond all and any reasonable doubt); the existence of a miracle-working god-man born of a virgin and who can walk on water and reanimate corpses isn't.
Throughout history there have been beliefs that certain things are unlikely, or impossible. But, so often it has turned out not to be the case.
-
Like?
-
Like?
www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Nothing-is-Impossible-329751.html
"Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." Arthur C. Clarke.
-
Can i jump in here, because it makes sense to drop all the silly stuff(religion) and concentrate in what is real/factual/testable/re-testable/honest/reliable and the yet to be discovered wonders for the sake of our planet. Faith answers nothing.
We do not have anything factual about how life first came into being or when...next! :D
-
Can i jump in here, because it makes sense to drop all the silly stuff(religion) and concentrate in what is real/factual/testable/re-testable/honest/reliable and the yet to be discovered wonders for the sake of our planet. Faith answers nothing.
We do not have anything factual about how life first came into being or when...next! :D
Which is completely and utterly irrelevant to anything important about life here and now.
-
Which is completely and utterly irrelevant to anything important about life here and now.
Ah yes, but what about the life to come? ;D ;D ;D
-
Which is completely and utterly irrelevant to anything important about life here and now.
Ah yes, but what about the life to come? ;D ;D ;D
All the posts by you sad atheists exhibit the lack of one thing in your lives; something which Paul emphasise: hope. What miserable and sterile lives you must lead, especially when you consider your own mortality. There is no certainty of anything; but without hope life is a millstone round your neck.
-
Speaking very much for yourself there Bashers. Certainly not for me or any other atheist I know, on here or otherwise.
-
Speaking very much for yourself there Bashers. Certainly not for me or any other atheist I know, on here or otherwise.
You are afraid to admit it; that's why you atheists bluster on so much: it's a defence mechanism to hide you from, what for you, is a grim reality. Know thyself!
-
According to Buddhism, hope is a poisoned purse. To continually live in hope is to make inadequate the present, and given that the present is the only thing we can be certain of, that's a half life. By definition life cannot get any better than the present moment, because the present moment is the only life we have.
As a theist of kinds I've seen just enough for me to allow for the possibility of an afterlife. So I live in the hope of one, you could say. But I try to live as though there isn't, because otherwise I'm missing the miracle of me, now.
-
Speaking very much for yourself there Bashers. Certainly not for me or any other atheist I know, on here or otherwise.
You are afraid to admit it; that's why you atheists bluster on so much: it's a defence mechanism to hide you from, what for you, is a grim reality. Know thyself!
What's your methodology for being able to determine the difference between (a) someone with something that they don't want to admit to and (b) someone with no such thing to admit to? Because if you have no such means of being able to tell, alas you're merely contributing to climate change by producing so much hot air :)
-
According to Buddhism, hope is a poisoned purse. To continually live in hope is to make inadequate the present, and given that the present is the only thing we can be certain of, that's a half life. By definition life cannot get any better than the present moment, because the present moment is the only life we have.
A different route to the same conclusion: I was just thinking of three very different thinkers - Sartre, Camus and Russell - who individually said that life must be, can only be lived without hope or appeal.
-
According to Buddhism, hope is a poisoned purse. To continually live in hope is to make inadequate the present, and given that the present is the only thing we can be certain of, that's a half life. By definition life cannot get any better than the present moment, because the present moment is the only life we have.
As a theist of kinds I've seen just enough for me to allow for the possibility of an afterlife. So I live in the hope of one, you could say. But I try to live as though there isn't, because otherwise I'm missing the miracle of me, now.
It is perfectly feasible to live a fulfilled and meaningful life, and have hope as well. Why not? You need't be obsessed with thoughts of what is, or isn't to come. The two things are complementary.
-
Because hope makes the present not good enough. If it turns out that the present is all we have, then our whole lives become not good enough.
-
Because hope makes the present not good enough. If it turns out that the present is all we have, then our whole lives become not good enough.
How cynical! Hope does nothing of the sort: it is an incentive to make the best of life, in the hope of more to come.
-
Just found on Wikipedia (on the page for 'Absurdism'):
The rejection of hope, in absurdism, denotes the refusal to believe in anything more than what this absurd life provides. Hope, Camus emphasizes, however, has nothing to do with despair (meaning that the two terms are not opposites). One can still live fully while rejecting hope, and, in fact, can only do so without hope. Hope is perceived by the absurdist as another fraudulent method of evading the Absurd, and by not having hope, one is motivated to live every fleeting moment to the fullest. In the words of Nikos Kazantzakis' epitaph: "I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free."
-
Just found on Wikipedia (on the page for 'Absurdism'):
The rejection of hope, in absurdism, denotes the refusal to believe in anything more than what this absurd life provides. Hope, Camus emphasizes, however, has nothing to do with despair (meaning that the two terms are not opposites). One can still live fully while rejecting hope, and, in fact, can only do so without hope. Hope is perceived by the absurdist as another fraudulent method of evading the Absurd, and by not having hope, one is motivated to live every fleeting moment to the fullest. In the words of Nikos Kazantzakis' epitaph: "I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free."*
t.
Well , he was a twit! And a lost one, to boot!
-
Ah yes, the standard retort of the ignorant.
Sad.
-
Ah yes, the standard retort of the ignorant.
Sad.
And your retort is the standard one from someone who you cannot think of an adequate comment.
-
Beliefs, religion, or experiences/spirituality?
If we have a secular society, why should it be desirable for us all to be atheist? Why do people look forward to a utopian ideal of universal non-belief?
Some comments. There are a number of ways of looking at 'belief'. One is as an assessment of probability based upon factual information, which the scientific method engages with to get as close to the 'truth' as possible. A second is based upon thought control or indoctrination over a period of time, where the believer is conditioned to believe without question. The truth or otherwise of this belief is often difficult for the individual to assess as he is often bound to it by emotions like desire and fear. A third is perhaps more personal to the individual and revolves around the belief in a method, path or way to sustain the wellbeing of that individual. The truth or otherwise of the method can be tested by the individual through following that method, which is often towards an inner 'state' of being. If I recall correctly, the 'lief' part of belief meant 'love'. So, perhaps, 'be-love' is the inner state to aspire to so that notions of secular v religion and theism v atheism become redundant.
-
Just found on Wikipedia (on the page for 'Absurdism'):
The rejection of hope, in absurdism, denotes the refusal to believe in anything more than what this absurd life provides. Hope, Camus emphasizes, however, has nothing to do with despair (meaning that the two terms are not opposites). One can still live fully while rejecting hope, and, in fact, can only do so without hope. Hope is perceived by the absurdist as another fraudulent method of evading the Absurd, and by not having hope, one is motivated to live every fleeting moment to the fullest. In the words of Nikos Kazantzakis' epitaph: "I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free."*
t.
Well , he was a twit! And a lost one, to boot!
And you're not, of course! ;D ;D ;D
-
If we ever do get a genuinely secular society though, I don't get why some atheists then have the desire for the 'mystical' to be replaced by 'reason'. Maybe some people like the mystical?
That depends on the context surely, we can't run a society based on mystical feelings, we have to reach a consensus. Example: Lets ban equal marriage because god told me it was wrong, I'm not suggesting all the augments against equal marriage were of that nature but some were.
If a Christian is against equal marriage and chooses not to marry someone of the same sex because of mystical reasons then as a liberal I think they should be free to marry who they want.
It becomes an issue when theists tell others who they can or can not marry based on mystical/religious reasons.
In public discourse 'reason' rather than 'mystical' is the only game in town, unless you pick one religion and become a theocracy.
-
Smashing post jakswan.
A few years ago Richard Holloway - that's former Bishop Richard Holloway - wrote a book called Godless Morality in which he argued that when discussing any moral matters religious belief had to be set aside if you ever hope to reach agreement. You can't hope to persuade an atheist that your version of 'God says yes' or 'God says no' has any traction whatsoever; every party around the table has to start and end with principles that they can all agree to, otherwise there's no point having a discussion at all.
-
According to Buddhism, hope is a poisoned purse. To continually live in hope is to make inadequate the present, and given that the present is the only thing we can be certain of, that's a half life. By definition life cannot get any better than the present moment, because the present moment is the only life we have.
As a theist of kinds I've seen just enough for me to allow for the possibility of an afterlife. So I live in the hope of one, you could say. But I try to live as though there isn't, because otherwise I'm missing the miracle of me, now.
You're on a roll. I worked with a Zen teacher for a while, who used to warn of crushed illusions, if you followed the meditation technique seriously. But as you say, the disillusionment also brought a vivid sense of this moment. It's also something that is always available, and feels complete, and even perfect. It does mean letting go of tons of stuff, but I think we do that anyway, as we get older.
-
And I'm wondering why that is a good thing, to eradicate the mystical from the world.
Eta my opening sentence should read 'if we were to have a secular society...' I know we don't have one at the moment.
Religious views will never be totally eradicated, but will, slowly but surely, become understood as not fact. The dividing line between fact and fiction/superstition/etc will become much clearer and the truth, as Alan Burns has as his sig line, will set us free!! :)
-
Smashing post jakswan.
A few years ago Richard Holloway - that's former Bishop Richard Holloway - wrote a book called Godless Morality in which he argued that when discussing any moral matters religious belief had to be set aside if you ever hope to reach agreement. You can't hope to persuade an atheist that your version of 'God says yes' or 'God says no' has any traction whatsoever; every party around the table has to start and end with principles that they can all agree to, otherwise there's no point having a discussion at all.
You won't find any pagan disagreeing with that. I don't think I've ever read or heard anything from any pagan saying 'God wants' or 'God thinks'. There's not much consensus in paganism but if it does exist it is in agreeing we are all personally responsible and accountable for our own morality.
But I still come back to questioning why, given that we will/would have a secular society in which religion has no say in matters such as marriage equality, it would still be seen as desirable by some atheists that we all lose our personal sense of the mystical.
-
According to Buddhism, hope is a poisoned purse. To continually live in hope is to make inadequate the present, and given that the present is the only thing we can be certain of, that's a half life. By definition life cannot get any better than the present moment, because the present moment is the only life we have.
As a theist of kinds I've seen just enough for me to allow for the possibility of an afterlife. So I live in the hope of one, you could say. But I try to live as though there isn't, because otherwise I'm missing the miracle of me, now.
You're on a roll. I worked with a Zen teacher for a while, who used to warn of crushed illusions, if you followed the meditation technique seriously. But as you say, the disillusionment also brought a vivid sense of this moment. It's also something that is always available, and feels complete, and even perfect. It does mean letting go of tons of stuff, but I think we do that anyway, as we get older.
I don't know if I'm on a roll, I just know that I had no choice but to get here. I'm a million miles from enlightenment, but I'm here, in the shit, and it is fine as it is.
-
O wise bodhisattva, you and the shit are one!
-
Tell me about it! ;D
-
I always said Rhi was the shit. In the good sense, of course :D
-
HOPE msg 3 "pol pot and stalin etc" trundled out again, its so bloody annoying. Almost as annoying as "if you dont believe in something, youll believe in anything" tosh.
No more annoying than others implying (pretty heavily) that violence and other such problems are the preserve of theists and theist beliefs. As for "if you don't believe in something, you'll believe in anything", I'm sorry if this sums up your thinking. It has never crossed my mnd.
-
A few years ago Richard Holloway - that's former Bishop Richard Holloway - wrote a book called Godless Morality in which he argued that when discussing any moral matters religious belief had to be set aside if you ever hope to reach agreement. You can't hope to persuade an atheist that your version of 'God says yes' or 'God says no' has any traction whatsoever; every party around the table has to start and end with principles that they can all agree to, otherwise there's no point having a discussion at all.
And he was rightly panned by a number of sectors of society for suggesting that anyone should have to set aside their raison d'etres in this way.
I would also disagree with him on the very suggestion that this has to happen. I have had plenty of very useful and constructive discussions about matters 'moral' with people who don't have any religious belief. Sadly, it has rarely happened here.
-
Because there is nothing 'moral' about opposing marriage equality.
-
And he was rightly panned by a number of sectors of society for suggesting that anyone should have to set aside their raison d'etres in this way.
I would also disagree with him on the very suggestion that this has to happen. I have had plenty of very useful and constructive discussions about matters 'moral' with people who don't have any religious belief. Sadly, it has rarely happened here.
It clearly has to happen his way, since there's no other. When people try to argue, as some people have/did, that you should be prevented from reading The Satanic Verses or forbidden to marry your same-sex partner because their version of a god is butthurt about it, then they have no rational case to put forward and must be ignored. Preferably with an accompanying high degree of derision.
-
It clearly has to happen his way, since there's no other. When people try to argue, as some people have/did, that you should be prevented from reading The Satanic Verses or forbidden to marry your same-sex partner because their version of a god is butthurt about it, then they have no rational case to put forward and must be ignored. Preferably with an accompanying high degree of derision.
Oddly enough, the "accompanying high degree of derision" is usually only one way, even when those doing the deriding are no less able of producing a rational argument for their pov. It has happened on ths board countless times, with the likes of yourself asserting X, Y, and Z when there is neither a more rational or logical reason for that pov than anything else. It is often as if folk like yourself have a new God, and it is what others of us call science.
-
Only theists have gods - that's what defines them as theists. The rest of us, in the reality-based community I mean, simply call science, science.
-
Smashing post jakswan.
A few years ago Richard Holloway - that's former Bishop Richard Holloway - wrote a book called Godless Morality in which he argued that when discussing any moral matters religious belief had to be set aside if you ever hope to reach agreement. You can't hope to persuade an atheist that your version of 'God says yes' or 'God says no' has any traction whatsoever; every party around the table has to start and end with principles that they can all agree to, otherwise there's no point having a discussion at all.
You won't find any pagan disagreeing with that. I don't think I've ever read or heard anything from any pagan saying 'God wants' or 'God thinks'. There's not much consensus in paganism but if it does exist it is in agreeing we are all personally responsible and accountable for our own morality.
But I still come back to questioning why, given that we will/would have a secular society in which religion has no say in matters such as marriage equality, it would still be seen as desirable by some atheists that we all lose our personal sense of the mystical.
As it is a 'personal sense' I doubt whether atheists (or theists) would have any control over it. What they might seek control over is any attempt to proselytise mystical assertions as facts applicable to everybody. From organised religion's point of view there is a fine line between being a mystic and being a heretic, which is probably why mystics often tended to lead isolated lives.
-
Smashing post jakswan.
A few years ago Richard Holloway - that's former Bishop Richard Holloway - wrote a book called Godless Morality in which he argued that when discussing any moral matters religious belief had to be set aside if you ever hope to reach agreement. You can't hope to persuade an atheist that your version of 'God says yes' or 'God says no' has any traction whatsoever; every party around the table has to start and end with principles that they can all agree to, otherwise there's no point having a discussion at all.
You won't find any pagan disagreeing with that. I don't think I've ever read or heard anything from any pagan saying 'God wants' or 'God thinks'. There's not much consensus in paganism but if it does exist it is in agreeing we are all personally responsible and accountable for our own morality.
But I still come back to questioning why, given that we will/would have a secular society in which religion has no say in matters such as marriage equality, it would still be seen as desirable by some atheists that we all lose our personal sense of the mystical.
Cheers Shaker.
Religion does have a say in marriage equality, your marriage equality, but not mine or anyone else's.
-
Beliefs, religion, or experiences/spirituality?
If we have a secular society, why should it be desirable for us all to be atheist? Why do people look forward to a utopian ideal of universal non-belief?
Because experience has shown that differing beliefs can cause much harm.
You mean like politics?
-
Beliefs, religion, or experiences/spirituality?
If we have a secular society, why should it be desirable for us all to be atheist? Why do people look forward to a utopian ideal of universal non-belief?
Because experience has shown that differing beliefs can cause much harm.
You mean like politics?
Well I was actually referring to differing religious beliefs ... but differing political ones can be just as harmful.
-
Religious views will never be totally eradicated
[/quote]
Susan. How do you know it's not you and your fellow denizens who are the ailment?
-
Can i jump in here, because it makes sense to drop all the silly stuff(religion) and concentrate in what is real/factual/testable/re-testable/honest/reliable and the yet to be discovered wonders for the sake of our planet. Faith answers nothing.
We do not have anything factual about how life first came into being or when...next! :D
Which is completely and utterly irrelevant to anything important about life here and now.
Explain what HERE & NOW, has to do with life? Not a brilliant answer from you shakes.. not even a good answer...
Read what was written and try to take in what the reason for the reply is...
-
Because hope makes the present not good enough. If it turns out that the present is all we have, then our whole lives become not good enough.
There is a difference between acceptance of life today and the life and hope of the future...
Hope does not have a negative affect on now. It makes now worth living believing things will be as GOOD not Better in the future...
Glass half empty and glass half full.
What happens in a persons life is not about how good or bad they see themselves.Other people and their actions affect how and individual person lives.Christianity...God and Jesus Christ affect the persons life and the power of Spirit is what assures the person that the life here is not the ultimate that is still to come.
-
Just found on Wikipedia (on the page for 'Absurdism'):
The rejection of hope, in absurdism, denotes the refusal to believe in anything more than what this absurd life provides. Hope, Camus emphasizes, however, has nothing to do with despair (meaning that the two terms are not opposites). One can still live fully while rejecting hope, and, in fact, can only do so without hope. Hope is perceived by the absurdist as another fraudulent method of evading the Absurd, and by not having hope, one is motivated to live every fleeting moment to the fullest. In the words of Nikos Kazantzakis' epitaph: "I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free."
The bible states:-
Happy people always enjoy life...
15.The life of the poor is a constant struggle, but happy people always enjoy life.
What makes me sad in life is the troubles of other people throughout the world... Seeing children starving and disease ridden.Mentally handicapped being mistreated and seeing those young persons life ebbing through disease here.
If I am honest these things make me sad and really hurt me...
It has been a daily reality for myself seeing and experiencing it first hand due to my own disabled daughter.
One family has a mother and three children with a disease similar to muscular dystrophy, the youngest died and the other are showing symptoms now which means they could soon die.
It breaks my heart to see these things...
I am thankful for the LORD because I know those children are with him and they are in full health...
But I still hurt for them and their family... :( :'(
-
Just found on Wikipedia (on the page for 'Absurdism'):
The rejection of hope, in absurdism, denotes the refusal to believe in anything more than what this absurd life provides. Hope, Camus emphasizes, however, has nothing to do with despair (meaning that the two terms are not opposites). One can still live fully while rejecting hope, and, in fact, can only do so without hope. Hope is perceived by the absurdist as another fraudulent method of evading the Absurd, and by not having hope, one is motivated to live every fleeting moment to the fullest. In the words of Nikos Kazantzakis' epitaph: "I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free."
The bible states:-
Happy people always enjoy life...
15.The life of the poor is a constant struggle, but happy people always enjoy life.
What makes me sad in life is the troubles of other people throughout the world... Seeing children starving and disease ridden.Mentally handicapped being mistreated and seeing those young persons life ebbing through disease here.
If I am honest these things make me sad and really hurt me...
It has been a daily reality for myself seeing and experiencing it first hand due to my own disabled daughter.
One family has a mother and three children with a disease similar to muscular dystrophy, the youngest died and the other are showing symptoms now which means they could soon die.
It breaks my heart to see these things...
I am thankful for the LORD because I know those children are with him and they are in full health...
But I still hurt for them and their family... :( :'(
You know nothing of the sort, you just want to believe that to be true!
-
Happy people always enjoy life.
What a daft observation! If they don't enjoy life they aren't happy, and if they aren't happy they don't enjoy life.
The statement simply repeats an obvious fact, and conveys nothing.
-
To deal with the thread title itself, if we gave up our beliefs, how would we decide how to live?
The way some of the rest of us do, I guess, using reason and common sense and compassion, concentrating not on subservience to nonexistent entities who have to be propitiated but the wellbeing of real creatures who really exist and who have real lives that can go better or worse.
Shaker, belief doesn't have to be religious. We all have understandings of how the universe works, and all of those understandings are based on our experiences, our reading of science and other documentation. We all have belief systems that educate our lives. Without them, we wouldn't be in a position to use reason and common sense and compassion.
-
What is likely to happen with the advent of a purely secular society is that reigion will, as (according to Margaret A Murray) witchcraft did with the advent of Chritianity and Catholicism under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, disappear underground for a couple of hundred years until it is discovered that secularism is not the panacea it was claimed to be; that a lack of religion works no better than religion does - there is no "One Size fits all" and we go back to trying to find a workable compromise.
-
... it's when religions become organised; when they become a cult with clout; when they achieve critical mass and know it; when they are able to start making demands on the lives of others, that's when the trouble starts. That's what we need less of in this world.
Ironically, Shaker, I'd agree with you. Take Christianity; until Constantine and his successors decided to formalise and state-ify it, it had been a marginal group that had questioned social mores and offered an alternative world-view.
Hinduism and Buddhism long predate nationalism. I think that Islam is probably the only world religion that has had world political domination from its outset.
-
What is likely to happen with the advent of a purely secular society is that reigion will, as (according to Margaret A Murray) witchcraft did with the advent of Chritianity and Catholicism under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, disappear underground for a couple of hundred years until it is discovered that secularism is not the panacea it was claimed to be; that a lack of religion works no better than religion does - there is no "One Size fits all" and we go back to trying to find a workable compromise.
Ironically a workable compromise is precisely what secularism means.
-
Ironically a workable compromise is precisely what secularism means.
As has been said on numerous occasions, Shaker, some people seem to believe that secularism is all about getting rid of religion. It isn't, but then they don't allow that truth to get in the way of their antagonism towards religion.
-
As has been said on numerous occasions, Shaker, some people seem to believe that secularism is all about getting rid of religion. It isn't, but then they don't allow that truth to get in the way of their antagonism towards religion.
It's true only in the limited sense of removing any one religion from a position of privilege and influence, and treating all religions equally as private beliefs which should have no place in the operations of state.
-
It's true only in the limited sense of removing any one religion from a position of privilege and influence, and treating all religions equally as private beliefs which should have no place in the operations of state.
I'd even ditch the term 'religion' and simply use 'beliefs', Shaker. The problem, as I see it, is that those who are really antagonistic to religion only want to apply the terms of secularism to religious belief, not their own belief system.
-
It's true only in the limited sense of removing any one religion from a position of privilege and influence, and treating all religions equally as private beliefs which should have no place in the operations of state.
I'd even ditch the term 'religion' and simply use 'beliefs', Shaker.
Yes, I'm sure you would.
The problem, as I see it, is that those who are really antagonistic to religion only want to apply the terms of secularism to religious belief, not their own belief system.
Secularism only applies to religious beliefs.
-
Ironically a workable compromise is precisely what secularism means.
As has been said on numerous occasions, Shaker, some people seem to believe that secularism is all about getting rid of religion. It isn't, but then they don't allow that truth to get in the way of their antagonism towards religion.
If you are talking about me - I am religious - I am proud of my religion, its history and it beliefs.
I only have antagonism to religions and the religious that deny and/or denigrate the validity of any religion other than their own.
-
Just found on Wikipedia (on the page for 'Absurdism'):
The rejection of hope, in absurdism, denotes the refusal to believe in anything more than what this absurd life provides. Hope, Camus emphasizes, however, has nothing to do with despair (meaning that the two terms are not opposites). One can still live fully while rejecting hope, and, in fact, can only do so without hope. Hope is perceived by the absurdist as another fraudulent method of evading the Absurd, and by not having hope, one is motivated to live every fleeting moment to the fullest. In the words of Nikos Kazantzakis' epitaph: "I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free."
The bible states:-
Happy people always enjoy life...
15.The life of the poor is a constant struggle, but happy people always enjoy life.
What makes me sad in life is the troubles of other people throughout the world... Seeing children starving and disease ridden.Mentally handicapped being mistreated and seeing those young persons life ebbing through disease here.
If I am honest these things make me sad and really hurt me...
It has been a daily reality for myself seeing and experiencing it first hand due to my own disabled daughter.
One family has a mother and three children with a disease similar to muscular dystrophy, the youngest died and the other are showing symptoms now which means they could soon die.
It breaks my heart to see these things...
I am thankful for the LORD because I know those children are with him and they are in full health...
But I still hurt for them and their family... :( :'(
You know nothing of the sort, you just want to believe that to be true!
You have just proved that you have NO heart for the suffering of others... Because all you want to do is attack anything to do with faith... SHAME ON YOU!
-
Happy people always enjoy life.
What a daft observation! If they don't enjoy life they aren't happy, and if they aren't happy they don't enjoy life.
The statement simply repeats an obvious fact, and conveys nothing.
There you are Leonard... THE WHOLE TRUTH UNDERNEATH PRINTED AND NOT THE PATHETIC ATTEMPT OF YOURS JUST QUOTING ONE SENTENCE....
Just found on Wikipedia (on the page for 'Absurdism'):
The rejection of hope, in absurdism, denotes the refusal to believe in anything more than what this absurd life provides. Hope, Camus emphasizes, however, has nothing to do with despair (meaning that the two terms are not opposites). One can still live fully while rejecting hope, and, in fact, can only do so without hope. Hope is perceived by the absurdist as another fraudulent method of evading the Absurd, and by not having hope, one is motivated to live every fleeting moment to the fullest. In the words of Nikos Kazantzakis' epitaph: "I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free."
The bible states:-
Happy people always enjoy life...
15.The life of the poor is a constant struggle, but happy people always enjoy life.
What makes me sad in life is the troubles of other people throughout the world... Seeing children starving and disease ridden.Mentally handicapped being mistreated and seeing those young persons life ebbing through disease here.
If I am honest these things make me sad and really hurt me...
It has been a daily reality for myself seeing and experiencing it first hand due to my own disabled daughter.
One family has a mother and three children with a disease similar to muscular dystrophy, the youngest died and the other are showing symptoms now which means they could soon die.
It breaks my heart to see these things...
I am thankful for the LORD because I know those children are with him and they are in full health...
But I still hurt for them and their family... :( :'(
If that was how you read your bible then no wonder you lost your faith. Your attempt to reply to my post shows that if you ever read the bible it was to cherry pick to find reasons not to believe.
Now that truth will remain with you ALWAYS...
-
What is likely to happen with the advent of a purely secular society is that reigion will, as (according to Margaret A Murray) witchcraft did with the advent of Chritianity and Catholicism under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, disappear underground for a couple of hundred years until it is discovered that secularism is not the panacea it was claimed to be; that a lack of religion works no better than religion does - there is no "One Size fits all" and we go back to trying to find a workable compromise.
Tell that to Russian and Communist countries...
Ans tell that to the Millions of Jews Hitler murdered...
Truth is man uses whatever excuse he can to execute his own form of evil.. Look at Nero and Rome.
Whether religion or not... Man wants to harm not heal...
-
What is likely to happen with the advent of a purely secular society is that reigion will, as (according to Margaret A Murray) witchcraft did with the advent of Chritianity and Catholicism under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, disappear underground for a couple of hundred years until it is discovered that secularism is not the panacea it was claimed to be; that a lack of religion works no better than religion does - there is no "One Size fits all" and we go back to trying to find a workable compromise.
Tell that to Russian and Communist countries...
Ans tell that to the Millions of Jews Hitler murdered...
Truth is man uses whatever excuse he can to execute his own form of evil.. Look at Nero and Rome.
Whether religion or not... Man wants to harm not heal...
Hitler was a sort of Christian.
Did you not know?
-
Whether religion or not... Man wants to harm not heal...
Ah, but if they can hide behind "this is what God tells me to do", it frees them from blame, doesn't it?
-
Hitler was a sort of Christian.
Did you not know?
What's a 'sort' of Christian? Is it like a 'sort' of human?
By the way, if he was a 'sort' of Christian why was it his stated aim to destroy the church?
-
What is likely to happen with the advent of a purely secular society is that reigion will, as (according to Margaret A Murray) witchcraft did with the advent of Chritianity and Catholicism under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, disappear underground for a couple of hundred years until it is discovered that secularism is not the panacea it was claimed to be; that a lack of religion works no better than religion does - there is no "One Size fits all" and we go back to trying to find a workable compromise.
Tell that to Russian and Communist countries...
Ans tell that to the Millions of Jews Hitler murdered...
Truth is man uses whatever excuse he can to execute his own form of evil.. Look at Nero and Rome.
Whether religion or not... Man wants to harm not heal...
Hitler was a sort of Christian.
Did you not know?
Another old chestnut, both wrong and stupidly advanced.
-
Whether religion or not... Man wants to harm not heal...
Ah, but if they can hide behind "this is what God tells me to do", it frees them from blame, doesn't it?
And it doesn't have to be 'what God told me to do', Len. It can just as well be 'what the officers/politicians/peer group/society told me to do'.
-
... with the obvious difference that human beings can be called to account; gods get off scot-free every time.
-
Another old chestnut, both wrong and stupidly advanced.
BA, it wasn't completely untrue - Hitler did claim to be a Christian, albeit one with some pretty crazy ideas about what Christianity is all about.
What Christians have to recognize is that it isn't for us to judge people's confessions of faith; God does that.
-
... with the obvious difference that human beings can be called to account; gods get off scot-free every time.
I thought your efforts on this board were just that, Shaker - efforts to call God to account. Are you admitting that you aren't being very successful?
-
Whether religion or not... Man wants to harm not heal...
Ah, but if they can hide behind "this is what God tells me to do", it frees them from blame, doesn't it?
And it doesn't have to be 'what God told me to do', Len. It can just as well be 'what the officers/politicians/peer group/society told me to do'.
Yep! Equally true.
-
... with the obvious difference that human beings can be called to account; gods get off scot-free every time.
I thought your efforts on this board were just that, Shaker - efforts to call God to account.
Then you thought wrong - but eh, no surprises in that.
-
Yep! Equally true.
Suggesting, therefore, that this is less a 'religious' issue and more a 'human' problem.
-
Yep! Equally true.
Suggesting, therefore, that this is less a 'religious' issue and more a 'human' problem.
Human problems are compounded by religious belief sometimes.
-
Yep! Equally true.
Suggesting, therefore, that this is less a 'religious' issue and more a 'human' problem.
Human problems are compounded by religious belief sometimes.
And often it is precisely the opposite.
-
Yes, well I fell out of love with organised religion a long time ago. It's probably why I've stayed solitary as a pagan - even a bunch of people in someone's front room is too organised for me.
I get why Brian Cox gets so excited about the stuff he does, it is mind-blowing. But in a small way, my stuff is too, even if it's just for me. We can't all be astrophysicists and I don't see why some think it would be desirable for the mystical to disappear.
Sorry that I have come to see this so late.
On your point one - I fell out with the organised religion of my father and the military (the same organised religion applied to both) at the very beginning of the 1960's - from then until I was introduced to paganism, as a solitary, in the mid-1990's, my only "religious text" was from my uncle, 'if you cannot do someone a good turn, do not do them a bad one', almost a version of the threefold rule.
Despite now being a member of a Coven that performs rituals for the eight Sabbats and the thirteen Esbats I still do personal rituals, solitary ones, or with one or other or both my daughters. None of the latter can in anyway be described as organised, they are usually furiously ad-lib'd.
As, I believe you do, I do not observe any strict must do's or must not do's that might come from within the pagan community outside my family group previously described.
Separation of Church and state is as big a fiction in this country as it is in the States and will continue to be so as long as the Anglican/C of E bishops sit in the upper house.
I think that a secular society is a long way off as those at the top who need to take a big part in setting such a society up by ripping down some of the old society have a vested interest in not doing so.
-
Separation of Church and state is as big a fiction in this country as it is in the State and will conbtinue to be so as long as the Anglican/C of E bishops sit in the upper house.
The Bishops in the HoL is so minor an element of the connection between Church and State as to be irrelevant, Matt. You only have to look at the USA to see that you don't need 'bishops' in any legislative house to still have such a connection.
I think that a secular society is a long way off as those at the top who need to take a big part in setting such a society up by ripping down some of the old society have a vested interest in not doing so.
Oddly enough, it seems to be MPs who are least keen to see this connection broken. I suspect that they understand that as soon as the Church of England is disestablished, it will become a far more vociferous opponent to many things Governmental.
At the same time, one needs to remember that there is only official connection between the State and the Church of England, not with the church as a whole. Depending on which statistics one uses, there are currently approximately 1 million members of the Church of England; even if only 3% of the UK population are Christians (=2 million), that still leaves 1 million Christians with no official connection to the State.
-
Separation of Church and state is as big a fiction in this country as it is in the State and will conbtinue to be so as long as the Anglican/C of E bishops sit in the upper house.
[quoteThe Bishops in the HoL is so minor an element of the connection between Church and State as to be irrelevant, Matt. You only have to look at the USA to see that you don't need 'bishops' in any legislative house to still have such a connection.
Of course you would say that wouldn't you? The point is that they are an un-elected group who have a serious agenda that relates to a reducing number of the population of this country. Heck, they only represent a minority of the Christian population of this country, the majority of the Christian population and the entire non-Christian population having no such voice in the upper house.
I think that a secular society is a long way off as those at the top who need to take a big part in setting such a society up by ripping down some of the old society have a vested interest in not doing so.
Oddly enough, it seems to be MPs who are least keen to see this connection broken. I suspect that they understand that as soon as the Church of England is disestablished, it will become a far more vociferous opponent to many things Governmental.[/quote]
At the same time, one needs to remember that there is only official connection between the State and the Church of England, not with the church as a whole. Depending on which statistics one uses, there are currently approximately 1 million members of the Church of England; even if only 3% of the UK population are Christians (=2 million), that still leaves 1 million Christians with no official connection to the State.
Precisely, and, as above all non-Christian and Non-C of E members of the population have no such voice of a pressure group in the legislative process. I would venture to suggest that the vast majority of members of the House of Lords, who are not Bishops, are also members of the Church of England or are people who, when they attend church services, do so in a C of E church.
Quite a pressure group!
-
Of course you would say that wouldn't you? The point is that they are an un-elected group who have a serious agenda that relates to a reducing number of the population of this country.
So, are you suggesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury's outburst against Wonga was merely on behalf of the members of the Church of England? Or that many of the votes cast by the Bishops against Government welfare cuts and the like were merely on behalf of that same group?
Heck, they only represent a minority of the Christian population of this country, the majority of the Christian population and the entire non-Christian population having no such voice in the upper house.
I'd agree that about 50% of the population have no official representation in the HoL, but at least there are some Christians who are allowed to make their independent voices heard. As for the 'entire non-Christian population having no such voice', most of the Labour, and many Tory and Lib. Dem. members of the House represent those people.
Precisely, and, as above all non-Christian and Non-C of E members of the population have no such voice of a pressure group in the legislative process. I would venture to suggest that the vast majority of members of the House of Lords, who are not Bishops, are also members of the Church of England or are people who, when they attend church services, do so in a C of E church.
Quite a pressure group!
I've already corrected your wrong understanding of the representation of non-Christians and non-CoE members, so that part of your argument is somewhat undermined.
Regarding the 'pressure group', they seem to be more on the side of the poor and disenfranchised than on that of the rich and powerful. Have a good look at their voting records.
-
Of course you would say that wouldn't you? The point is that they are an un-elected group who have a serious agenda that relates to a reducing number of the population of this country.
So, are you suggesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury's outburst against Wonga was merely on behalf of the members of the Church of England? Or that many of the votes cast by the Bishops against Government welfare cuts and the like were merely on behalf of that same group?
Heck, they only represent a minority of the Christian population of this country, the majority of the Christian population and the entire non-Christian population having no such voice in the upper house.
I'd agree that about 50% of the population have no official representation in the HoL, but at least there are some Christians who are allowed to make their independent voices heard. As for the 'entire non-Christian population having no such voice', most of the Labour, and many Tory and Lib. Dem. members of the House represent those people.
Precisely, and, as above all non-Christian and Non-C of E members of the population have no such voice of a pressure group in the legislative process. I would venture to suggest that the vast majority of members of the House of Lords, who are not Bishops, are also members of the Church of England or are people who, when they attend church services, do so in a C of E church.
Quite a pressure group!
I've already corrected your wrong understanding of the representation of non-Christians and non-CoE members, so that part of your argument is somewhat undermined.
Regarding the 'pressure group', they seem to be more on the side of the poor and disenfranchised than on that of the rich and powerful. Have a good look at their voting records.
Hope
You have a miraculous talent for changing tack when challenged.
I never mentioned any specific issues but I am not surprised that you have. You often use this tactic - when no specific is mentioned you do so to bring up a point that supports your view.
I was only talking about these people being a pressure group when involved with something that is against their beliefs, anything else and they can go whichever way they wish.
Things like Sunday Trading that were initially created to fit with keeping people in church, shoppers and shopkeepers both.
-
... with the obvious difference that human beings can be called to account; gods get off scot-free every time.
I suppose the lack of truth in your ways to accept God as ultimate righteous judge and jury as creator blurrs.
God cannot be accountable there is no one higher than him to be accountable too.
He doesn't have a maker... you do... it is God and you are answerable...
-
Such a thing, if it existed, would have to beg my forgiveness first.
-
Such a thing, if it existed, would have to beg my forgiveness first.
He certainly seems to have committed far more sins than mosty humans - how many people have been harmed or killed by "Acts of God"? Millions?
-
Such a thing, if it existed, would have to beg my forgiveness first.
:D Quite an opinion you have of yourself!
-
... with the obvious difference that human beings can be called to account; gods get off scot-free every time.
I suppose the lack of truth in your ways to accept God as ultimate righteous judge and jury as creator blurrs.
God cannot be accountable there is no one higher than him to be accountable too.
He doesn't have a maker... you do... it is God and you are answerable...
More unproven nonsense from Sass! ;D
-
Such a thing, if it existed, would have to beg my forgiveness first.
:D Quite an opinion you have of yourself!
Of course. Anyway, compared what has been written, ad nauseam, about gods and how they are depicted*, it's hardly a stretch.
* To wit: "Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoilt child." - Robert A. Heinlein
-
Can i jump in here, because it makes sense to drop all the silly stuff(religion) and concentrate in what is real/factual/testable/re-testable/honest/reliable and the yet to be discovered wonders for the sake of our planet. Faith answers nothing.
Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century?
To deal with the thread title itself, if we gave up our beliefs, how would we decide how to live? After all, we all have beliefs, be we atheists or theists.
"Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century"?
What has the question just above got to do with this thread?
ippy
-
Can i jump in here, because it makes sense to drop all the silly stuff(religion) and concentrate in what is real/factual/testable/re-testable/honest/reliable and the yet to be discovered wonders for the sake of our planet. Faith answers nothing.
Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century?
To deal with the thread title itself, if we gave up our beliefs, how would we decide how to live? After all, we all have beliefs, be we atheists or theists.
"Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century"?
What has the question just above got to do with this thread?
ippy
Because in terms of 'oughts', that is how we should behave to each other, science based on 'is' answers nothing
-
... with the obvious difference that human beings can be called to account; gods get off scot-free every time.
But is that legitimate under subjective morality.
In other words does a moral relativist have any justification to call anybody to account?
-
... with the obvious difference that human beings can be called to account; gods get off scot-free every time.
But is that legitimate under subjective morality.
In other words does a moral relativist have any justification to call anybody to account?
as much as a moral objectivity - opinion
-
... with the obvious difference that human beings can be called to account; gods get off scot-free every time.
But is that legitimate under subjective morality.
In other words does a moral relativist have any justification to call anybody to account?
as much as a moral objectivity - opinion
Sorry, The correct answer is, of course, no justification to call anybody to account whatsoever.
-
And yet in a world of subjective morality we have laws, police, courts and prisons all the same. Try again.
-
... with the obvious difference that human beings can be called to account; gods get off scot-free every time.
But is that legitimate under subjective morality.
In other words does a moral relativist have any justification to call anybody to account?
as much as a moral objectivity - opinion
Sorry, The correct answer is, of course, no justification to call anybody to account whatsoever.
in which case no one does. Since you only have an opinion on morality, you are left with that problem. The issue only applies if you think you need an objective morality.
-
Sorry, The correct answer is, of course, no justification to call anybody to account whatsoever.
Objectively, you are correct. Nature (evolution) knows no moral code. Survival and reproduction are the only reasons for our existence.
We are, however, an intelligent social species, and are aware that laws are essential for peaceful cohabitation. So we invented morality. It is an entirely subjective concept.
-
Can i jump in here, because it makes sense to drop all the silly stuff(religion) and concentrate in what is real/factual/testable/re-testable/honest/reliable and the yet to be discovered wonders for the sake of our planet. Faith answers nothing.
Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century?
To deal with the thread title itself, if we gave up our beliefs, how would we decide how to live? After all, we all have beliefs, be we atheists or theists.
"Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century"?
What has the question just above got to do with this thread?
ippy
Because in terms of 'oughts', that is how we should behave to each other, science based on 'is' answers nothing
Assuming you are saying that Pol Pot ect, were using science based ideologies when they were doing their wicked deeds, well for one thing science is science as far as I know there's nothing more to science than that, it doesn't have an ideology.
Pol Pot etc didn't do their wicked deeds for the cause of science they just happened to be a type of wicked person that wanted to do wicked things because that was their nature and unfortunately people like this gain power from time to time, at he moment we've got yet another bunch of religious nutters out there in Syria and Iraq doing the wicked things this time.
ippy
-
Can i jump in here, because it makes sense to drop all the silly stuff(religion) and concentrate in what is real/factual/testable/re-testable/honest/reliable and the yet to be discovered wonders for the sake of our planet. Faith answers nothing.
Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century?
To deal with the thread title itself, if we gave up our beliefs, how would we decide how to live? After all, we all have beliefs, be we atheists or theists.
"Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century"?
What has the question just above got to do with this thread?
ippy
Because in terms of 'oughts', that is how we should behave to each other, science based on 'is' answers nothing
Assuming you are saying that Pol Pot ect, were using science based ideologies when they were doing their wicked deeds, well for one thing science is science as far as I know there's nothing more to science than that, it doesn't have an ideology.
Pol Pot etc didn't do their wicked deeds for the cause of science they just happened to be a type of wicked person that wanted to do wicked things because that was their nature and unfortunately people like this gain power from time to time, at he moment we've got yet another bunch of religious nutters out there in Syria and Iraq doing the wicked things this time.
ippy
You seem to have read my post as if it was from Hope and was a direct follow on from his earlier one - it isn't. You were suggesting we use only facts to decide what we ought to do. We can't - they don't help unless you make some earlier assumption. If religion answers nothing on this, it at least tries to, Science is unconcerned about it.
You are right in that in relation to science Pol Pot etc have no import. Indeed ideologies are merely in many ways secular faiths. My reading of Hope's post is that we can have such a thing as a secular faith, note this is different from a secular society though that difference is one that posters often try and blur. A secular society is essentially a liberal democratic construction that gives as much freedom to people that it can including religion. An ideology such as fascism can be secular in the sense of not being involved with the sacred but that's a different use of the term. It should also be noted that fascism could be part of a theology as well.
It's the quality I admire most in liberal democracy that it is a leap of faith across the ought is gap but it is the one that gives the biggest spread of allowance for being wrong.
-
Can i jump in here, because it makes sense to drop all the silly stuff(religion) and concentrate in what is real/factual/testable/re-testable/honest/reliable and the yet to be discovered wonders for the sake of our planet. Faith answers nothing.
Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century?
To deal with the thread title itself, if we gave up our beliefs, how would we decide how to live? After all, we all have beliefs, be we atheists or theists.
"Is that why we have had the likes of Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Stalin and Mao during the 20th century"?
What has the question just above got to do with this thread?
ippy
Because in terms of 'oughts', that is how we should behave to each other, science based on 'is' answers nothing
Assuming you are saying that Pol Pot ect, were using science based ideologies when they were doing their wicked deeds, well for one thing science is science as far as I know there's nothing more to science than that, it doesn't have an ideology.
Pol Pot etc didn't do their wicked deeds for the cause of science they just happened to be a type of wicked person that wanted to do wicked things because that was their nature and unfortunately people like this gain power from time to time, at he moment we've got yet another bunch of religious nutters out there in Syria and Iraq doing the wicked things this time.
ippy
You seem to have read my post as if it was from Hope and was a direct follow on from his earlier one - it isn't. You were suggesting we use only facts to decide what we ought to do. We can't - they don't help unless you make some earlier assumption. If religion answers nothing on this, it at least tries to, Science is unconcerned about it.
You are right in that in relation to science Pol Pot etc have no import. Indeed ideologies are merely in many ways secular faiths. My reading of Hope's post is that we can have such a thing as a secular faith, note this is different from a secular society though that difference is one that posters often try and blur. A secular society is essentially a liberal democratic construction that gives as much freedom to people that it can including religion. An ideology such as fascism can be secular in the sense of not being involved with the sacred but that's a different use of the term. It should also be noted that fascism could be part of a theology as well.
It's the quality I admire most in liberal democracy that it is a leap of faith across the ought is gap but it is the one that gives the biggest spread of allowance for being wrong.
Overall, call me thick if you like, I'm not sure exactly what your point was in that last post of yours.
I can't understand how or why Pol Pot Etc were mentioned, any more than say the price of fish in Halifax this morning.
My kind of secularism is a level playing field for all, the religious, or not, all get a vote and that's for me the beginning and end of any influence religion is due in every day life.
The nearest I get to fascism is buying the Daily Telegraph once a week Saturdays and that's only because it's so right wing it makes me laugh more than it annoys me.
A clarification of your post would be good, my brain isn't what it used to be.
ippy
-
Overall, call me thick if you like, I'm not sure exactly what your point was in that last post of yours.
I can't understand how or why Pol Pot Etc were mentioned, any more than say the price of fish in Halifax this morning.
My kind of secularism is a level playing field for all, the religious, or not, all get a vote and that's for me the beginning and end of any influence religion is due in every day life.
The nearest I get to fascism is buying the Daily Telegraph once a week Saturdays and that's only because it's so right wing it makes me laugh more than it annoys me.
A clarification of your post would be good, my brain isn't what it used to be.
ippy
Ok, I'll see what I can do.
There are two uses of the word secular here. The first is the one which you are using which is bound up in an idea in liberal democracy about a level playing field. In order to achieve this a secular sate is one which is a liberal democratic one which allows freedom of religion amongst other things.
There is a second use of secular which simply refers to be non religious. In that sense Pol Pot ran a non religious and indeed anti-religious state but it was in this second sense secular. There is a blurring of the use by those who oppose the first use (your's) by implying that it is the same meaning as the second.
The relevance of Pol Pot etc to you post though I would see it as being about your idea that following scientific methods somehow is going to lead to answers on morality. It doesn't do this and is explicit in not doing this. While religion may get what you see as the 'wrong' answers to such questions, it along with political ideologies at least tries to. Science does nothing to prevent a Pol Pot.
-
Ok, I'll see what I can do.
There are two uses of the word secular here. The first is the one which you are using which is bound up in an idea in liberal democracy about a level playing field. In order to achieve this a secular sate is one which is a liberal democratic one which allows freedom of religion amongst other things.
Yes that's more or less it for me.
There is a second use of secular which simply refers to be non religious. In that sense Pol Pot ran a non religious and indeed anti-religious state but it was in this second sense secular. There is a blurring of the use by those who oppose the first use (your's) by implying that it is the same meaning as the second.
I don't think that applies in most western cultures; here in the U K it wouldn't support a dictatorship regime purely because we laugh too much at people like budding dictators to much for them to be taken seriously.
The relevance of Pol Pot etc to you post though I would see it as being about your idea that following scientific methods somehow is going to lead to answers on morality. It doesn't do this and is explicit in not doing this. While religion may get what you see as the 'wrong' answers to such questions, it along with political ideologies at least tries to. Science does nothing to prevent a Pol Pot.
Yes I understand; but if you try YouTube Sam Harris science and morality his take on this science doesn't give answers on morality, gives that idea a sever knock on the head, I wish I was as articulate as Sam so try Sam on this subject via YouTube, he says it in a way that is so much better than anything I could put forward to you; I'll go with sam it's not as cut and dried as you it seems to me are putting it forward.
ippy
-
You seem to have read my post as if it was from Hope and was a direct follow on from his earlier one - it isn't. You were suggesting we use only facts to decide what we ought to do. We can't - they don't help unless you make some earlier assumption. If religion answers nothing on this, it at least tries to, Science is unconcerned about it.
You are right in that in relation to science Pol Pot etc have no import. Indeed ideologies are merely in many ways secular faiths. My reading of Hope's post is that we can have such a thing as a secular faith, note this is different from a secular society though that difference is one that posters often try and blur. A secular society is essentially a liberal democratic construction that gives as much freedom to people that it can including religion. An ideology such as fascism can be secular in the sense of not being involved with the sacred but that's a different use of the term. It should also be noted that fascism could be part of a theology as well.
It's the quality I admire most in liberal democracy that it is a leap of faith across the ought is gap but it is the one that gives the biggest spread of allowance for being wrong.
Bloody good post!
-
Ok, I'll see what I can do.
There are two uses of the word secular here. The first is the one which you are using which is bound up in an idea in liberal democracy about a level playing field. In order to achieve this a secular sate is one which is a liberal democratic one which allows freedom of religion amongst other things.
There is a second use of secular which simply refers to be non religious. In that sense Pol Pot ran a non religious and indeed anti-religious state but it was in this second sense secular. There is a blurring of the use by those who oppose the first use (your's) by implying that it is the same meaning as the second.
The relevance of Pol Pot etc to you post though I would see it as being about your idea that following scientific methods somehow is going to lead to answers on morality. It doesn't do this and is explicit in not doing this. While religion may get what you see as the 'wrong' answers to such questions, it along with political ideologies at least tries to. Science does nothing to prevent a Pol Pot.
This likewise.
-
Ok, I'll see what I can do.
There are two uses of the word secular here. The first is the one which you are using which is bound up in an idea in liberal democracy about a level playing field. In order to achieve this a secular sate is one which is a liberal democratic one which allows freedom of religion amongst other things.
There is a second use of secular which simply refers to be non religious. In that sense Pol Pot ran a non religious and indeed anti-religious state but it was in this second sense secular. There is a blurring of the use by those who oppose the first use (your's) by implying that it is the same meaning as the second.
The relevance of Pol Pot etc to you post though I would see it as being about your idea that following scientific methods somehow is going to lead to answers on morality. It doesn't do this and is explicit in not doing this. While religion may get what you see as the 'wrong' answers to such questions, it along with political ideologies at least tries to. Science does nothing to prevent a Pol Pot.
This likewise.
Yes it was a good post and it is also worth a look at Sam Harris on this subject via YouTube, he describes a link he sees between science and morality; I'll go with sam on this one it's not as cut and dried as it might be thought.
ippy
-
And yet in a world of subjective morality we have laws, police, courts and prisons all the same. Try again.
Yes is that a hang over from objective morality?....probably.
Is there any logical warrant for it under subjective morality? Not at all.
-
Ok, I'll see what I can do.
There are two uses of the word secular here. The first is the one which you are using which is bound up in an idea in liberal democracy about a level playing field. In order to achieve this a secular sate is one which is a liberal democratic one which allows freedom of religion amongst other things.
There is a second use of secular which simply refers to be non religious. In that sense Pol Pot ran a non religious and indeed anti-religious state but it was in this second sense secular. There is a blurring of the use by those who oppose the first use (your's) by implying that it is the same meaning as the second.
The relevance of Pol Pot etc to you post though I would see it as being about your idea that following scientific methods somehow is going to lead to answers on morality. It doesn't do this and is explicit in not doing this. While religion may get what you see as the 'wrong' answers to such questions, it along with political ideologies at least tries to. Science does nothing to prevent a Pol Pot.
This likewise.
Yes it was a good post and it is also worth a look at Sam Harris on this subject via YouTube, he describes a link he sees between science and morality; I'll go with sam on this one.
What?......JeremyP isn't on top of Ippy for laziness in not providing the link? Jeremy, you are a big fat hypocrite.
-
Yes is that a hang over from objective morality?....probably.
I didn't know such a thing had ever been determined to exist.
Who did so, where and when?
Is there any logical warrant for it under subjective morality? Not at all.
I can think of lots - or perhaps, lots which ultimately resolve down to one. Why can't you?
-
To deal with the thread title itself, if we gave up our beliefs, how would we decide how to live?
The way some of the rest of us do, I guess, using reason and common sense and compassion, concentrating not on subservience to nonexistent entities who have to be propitiated but the wellbeing of real creatures who really exist and who have real lives that can go better or worse.
That is one of the thngs that I like about the Pagan deities, they do not require our subservience.
They have given us the world and the free will to use it as we will and are available to assist when we ask for their assistance, not that they always give what we ask for though and the resyt of the time they fight, party and fornicate amoungst themselves.
-
Why should we give up our beliefs ?
Because by doing so, we would become more honest.
If humans stopped indulging their beliefs half the worlds wars would end tomorrow. Beliefs are a manifestation of arrogance and ego. None of us can personally decide what is true. I don't decide that Munich is in Germany, I discover that it is in Germany. The habitual holding of beliefs compromises our ability to see clearly and to learn from new findings; abandoning beliefs might not be comfortable, but by giving up some ego we can approach closer to what is true.
-
Why should we give up our beliefs ?
Because by doing so, we would become more honest.
If humans stopped indulging their beliefs half the worlds wars would end tomorrow. Beliefs are a manifestation of arrogance and ego. None of us can personally decide what is true. I don't decide that Munich is in Germany, I discover that it is in Germany. The habitual holding of beliefs compromises our ability to see clearly and to learn from new findings; abandoning beliefs might not be comfortable, but by giving up some ego we can approach closer to what is true.
But surely the most indulged belief system going is trying to make subjective morality into a kind of ersatz objective morality i.e. indulging and enforcing mere opinion.
-
Why should we give up our beliefs ?
Because by doing so, we would become more honest.
If humans stopped indulging their beliefs half the worlds wars would end tomorrow. Beliefs are a manifestation of arrogance and ego. None of us can personally decide what is true. I don't decide that Munich is in Germany, I discover that it is in Germany. The habitual holding of beliefs compromises our ability to see clearly and to learn from new findings; abandoning beliefs might not be comfortable, but by giving up some ego we can approach closer to what is true.
That is logical thinking, a no-no for people who are indoctrinated with religious beliefs.
-
Yes is that a hang over from objective morality?....probably.
I didn't know such a thing had ever been determined to exist.
At the very least it is subjective morality touted as objective morality in that laws established by subjective moralists are an enforced opinion as if they are truths. That effectively makes yo guys ''Major Bullshitters''.
-
Why should we give up our beliefs ?
Because by doing so, we would become more honest.
If humans stopped indulging their beliefs half the worlds wars would end tomorrow. Beliefs are a manifestation of arrogance and ego. None of us can personally decide what is true. I don't decide that Munich is in Germany, I discover that it is in Germany. The habitual holding of beliefs compromises our ability to see clearly and to learn from new findings; abandoning beliefs might not be comfortable, but by giving up some ego we can approach closer to what is true.
That is logical thinking, a no-no for people who are indoctrinated with religious beliefs.
You really are a twerp!
-
Why should we give up our beliefs ?
Because by doing so, we would become more honest.
If humans stopped indulging their beliefs half the worlds wars would end tomorrow. Beliefs are a manifestation of arrogance and ego. None of us can personally decide what is true. I don't decide that Munich is in Germany, I discover that it is in Germany. The habitual holding of beliefs compromises our ability to see clearly and to learn from new findings; abandoning beliefs might not be comfortable, but by giving up some ego we can approach closer to what is true.
That is logical thinking, a no-no for people who are indoctrinated with religious beliefs.
Again I am glad that I am Pagan.
No-one 'indoctinated' me with any of my beliefs. I read anything that I could find about Paganism and found those things which seemed to be right for me, kept on reading and adjusted my way of working with the deities as I gained more knowledge.
So much better than getting told off for snoring during a long and boring sermon telling me that the world was created in seven days just over 4,000 years ago.
-
And yet in a world of subjective morality we have laws, police, courts and prisons all the same. Try again.
Yes is that a hang over from objective morality?....probably.
Is there any logical warrant for it under subjective morality? Not at all.
Well, actually yes; if a group of people broadly agree on a set of behaviours which they consider to be acceptable/unacceptable/practical based on their shared subjective morality, then they can codify that and agree among themselves to restrict behaviours accordingly. For example, we have agreed in this country that driving on the right hand side of the road is dangerous and bad and should be prevented and/or punished. Completely arbritary, but we have agreed on it collectively and it works.
Please don't respond with "are you saying.." followed by something I haven't said. What I "am saying" is what I have written above.
-
Again I am glad that I am Pagan.
No-one 'indoctinated' me with any of my beliefs. I read anything that I could find about Paganism and found those things which seemed to be right for me, kept on reading and adjusted my way of working with the deities as I gained more knowledge.
The part I have put in bold is the indoctrination. You unconsciously indoctrinated yourself with the ideas of other people that such "deities" existed.
So much better than getting told off for snoring during a long and boring sermon telling me that the world was created in seven days just over 4,000 years ago.
But basically not very different.
-
You unconsciously indoctrinated yourself with the ideas of other people that such "deities" existed.
I'd be interested in hearing from you how that works but doubtful of your abilities to justify that thesis (based on almost zero previous evidence).....
Which leads me to ask how you know yourself not to be, as you say, ''unconsciously indoctrinated yourself with the ideas of other people.''?
-
Again I am glad that I am Pagan.
No-one 'indoctinated' me with any of my beliefs. I read anything that I could find about Paganism and found those things which seemed to be right for me, kept on reading and adjusted my way of working with the deities as I gained more knowledge.
The part I have put in bold is the indoctrination. You unconsciously indoctrinated yourself with the ideas of other people that such "deities" existed.
So much better than getting told off for snoring during a long and boring sermon telling me that the world was created in seven days just over 4,000 years ago.
But basically not very different.
It is amazing how people think when they are trying to fit someone else's experiences into thier way of thinking.
If what I did was self-indoctrination then what you have done is far far worse than that, it is acceptance without thought, denial of your God-given freewill and intelligence, of what someone else has told you, without consideratiuon to the possibility of it being incorrect.
If it IS self-indoctrination it is thousands of times better than allowing myself to be indoctrinated by someone else to their way of thinking becasue I am too lazy, or too weak, to think for myself.
-
If it IS self-indoctrination it is thousands of times better than allowing myself to be indoctrinated by someone else to their way of thinking becasue I am too lazy, or too weak, to think for myself.
Thinking for myself is precisely what I do! I take everything that I have learned from other people, think about what they are claiming, and reject what I don't accept as true.
And the foremost of the things I reject is the existence of gods of any sort, simply because the "evidence" presented for them is unconvincing to me.
-
If it IS self-indoctrination it is thousands of times better than allowing myself to be indoctrinated by someone else to their way of thinking becasue I am too lazy, or too weak, to think for myself.
Thinking for myself is precisely what I do! I take everything that I have learned from other people, think about what they are claiming, and reject what I don't accept as true.
R. They all say that.....
-
If it IS self-indoctrination it is thousands of times better than allowing myself to be indoctrinated by someone else to their way of thinking becasue I am too lazy, or too weak, to think for myself.
Thinking for myself is precisely what I do! I take everything that I have learned from other people, think about what they are claiming, and reject what I don't accept as true.
R. They all say that.....
True, but the majority of nominal theists never think about it, they just follow like sheep.
-
If it IS self-indoctrination it is thousands of times better than allowing myself to be indoctrinated by someone else to their way of thinking becasue I am too lazy, or too weak, to think for myself.
Thinking for myself is precisely what I do! I take everything that I have learned from other people, think about what they are claiming, and reject what I don't accept as true.
R. They all say that.....
True, but the majority of nominal theists never think about it, they just follow like sheep.
I think it's the other way round now. hence the word ''apatheist'' a couldn't give a shitness that typifies modern atheists.
You're harking back to the old times.
-
You're harking back to the old times.
Maybe because I'm an old-timer. :)
-
You're harking back to the old times.
Maybe because I'm an old-timer. :)
A very good morning to you and yours, sir.
-
You're harking back to the old times.
Maybe because I'm an old-timer. :)
A very good morning to you and yours, sir.
Igualmente, jovencito! :)
-
If it IS self-indoctrination it is thousands of times better than allowing myself to be indoctrinated by someone else to their way of thinking becasue I am too lazy, or too weak, to think for myself.
Thinking for myself is precisely what I do! I take everything that I have learned from other people, think about what they are claiming, and reject what I don't accept as true.
R. They all say that.....
True, but the majority of nominal theists never think about it, they just follow like sheep.
And you know that for a fact, do you? So you must have canvassed the millions of them to be able to state that. You have, then? Or just another generalisation you've plucked out of the air to suit your "argument!"
-
You unconsciously indoctrinated yourself with the ideas of other people that such "deities" existed.
I'd be interested in hearing from you how that works but doubtful of your abilities to justify that thesis (based on almost zero previous evidence).....
Which leads me to ask how you know yourself not to be, as you say, ''unconsciously indoctrinated yourself with the ideas of other people.''?
'Indoctrinated' is Len's way of saying 'arrived at a different conclusion from me'
-
If it IS self-indoctrination it is thousands of times better than allowing myself to be indoctrinated by someone else to their way of thinking becasue I am too lazy, or too weak, to think for myself.
Thinking for myself is precisely what I do! I take everything that I have learned from other people, think about what they are claiming, and reject what I don't accept as true.
And the foremost of the things I reject is the existence of gods of any sort, simply because the "evidence" presented for them is unconvincing to me.
The emboldened it is just what I said myself!
You reject deities, I accept them. One of us is wrong but we will neither of us have any proof of which we of us is which until we are dead.
Tough that, ain't it?
-
The emboldened it is just what I said myself!
You reject deities, I accept them. One of us is wrong but we will neither of us have any proof of which we of us is which until we are dead.
Tough that, ain't it?
And of no importance! :)
-
The emboldened it is just what I said myself!
You reject deities, I accept them. One of us is wrong but we will neither of us have any proof of which we of us is which until we are dead.
Tough that, ain't it?
And of no importance! :)
If it is of no importance, I wonder why you have dedicated so much of your time to telling people they've guessed wrongly.
-
The emboldened it is just what I said myself!
You reject deities, I accept them. One of us is wrong but we will neither of us have any proof of which we of us is which until we are dead.
Tough that, ain't it?
And of no importance! :)
Then why do you bother posting!
Your responses show that your denial of the deities is as important to you as my belief in my deities is to me.
-
I've been asking the reason any of these atheists have blathered on for so long, when they are arguing about, what is to them, a non-existent God! None has really answered satisfactorily. So we can only wonder! ???
-
The emboldened it is just what I said myself!
You reject deities, I accept them. One of us is wrong but we will neither of us have any proof of which we of us is which until we are dead.
Tough that, ain't it?
And of no importance! :)
Then why do you bother posting!
Your responses show that your denial of the deities is as important to you as my belief in my deities is to me.
Nah, it's just too hot to go outside, and I can't sit just doing nothing.
-
I've been asking the reason any of these atheists have blathered on for so long, when they are arguing about, what is to them, a non-existent God! None has really answered satisfactorily. So we can only wonder! ???
Well that's either blithering ignorance or a downright lie. You've had the answer - indeed the same answer - to that question every time you've trotted it out. Whether you find it satisfactory or not is your problem; you've asked the question and have had your answer.
-
Dear Shaker,
Thank you 8)
Dear Christians,
Copy and paste Shakers post, it will save a lot of time next time you are asked the same old boring questions.
Gonnagle.
-
I've been asking the reason any of these atheists have blathered on for so long, when they are arguing about, what is to them, a non-existent God! None has really answered satisfactorily. So we can only wonder! ???
Well that's either blithering ignorance or a downright lie. You've had the answer - indeed the same answer - to that question every time you've trotted it out. Whether you find it satisfactory or not is your problem; you've asked the question and have had your answer.
If you've been given the answer, why are you still blathering?
-
I'm not.
You've been given the answer to a question you asking. Whose problem is it if you can't accept the answer?
-
I'm not.
You've been gi
Wellyou, repeating it over and over is making no impact. So stop blathering.