Religious and educated?

[Leonard James]

Dear Leonard,

A God, any God, where did this idea/concept come from.

Gonnagle.

Nobody can know for certain. My belief is that it came from the imagination of one of the "spirit" believers, who saw all these spirit forces as a tribe with a leader, a natural human deduction. So he invented a chief spirit in charge of all the others ... a 'god'.

[Nearly Sane]

Serious Atheism is an increasing world view

Yay 

I have no idea what Serious Atheism is. I have no real idea how any such thing would count as a world view, though to be honest dressing up the vast majority of people's set of mixed up prejudices, desires and reactions as a world view is, in my far from humble opinion, like putting a hat on a WII and saying it is your best friend Charlie

I'm not since you have described the ''messe perditio''.

Perhaps instead of saying serious atheists were increasing you would have had me say they were a tiny group who were getting louder?

Given that I wrote that I have no idea what a serious atheist is, it is a complete non sequitur, to suggest that. Read what is written, rather than reply to stuff that you seem to make up.

[Rhiannon]

Dear Outrider,

Absence of belief!

We have been worshipping gods since Paleolithic times, I don't think we ever have had a absence of belief, its in the genes.

Gonnagle.

We have worshipped many things - nature, the sun, disembodied conceptual personalities... We have attempted to pacify that which we could not control or which we did not understand, and ritual behaviour has been part of that. That's culture, but we are not born with a particular culture, we are shaped into it.

The tendency to see agency where there is none, it seems, does have an inherent basis - that tendency to recognise patterns is part of why we develop conceptual thinking and language, but as with any 'test' there is the possibility of false positives.

We are also social creatures, and so ideas are communicated, shared and multiplied not necessarily in proportion to the evidence, but in proportion to the cultural appropriateness: religion was appropriate in primitive societies, and becomes increasingly less so as we increasingly have evidence to support better explanations.

That we have a tendency to believe makes us human, it doesn't make gods true.

O.

Your post doesn't mention relationship. For me as a pantheist/panentheist relationship is the crucial part. I don't worship and I know damn well I can't appease, but I can relate to, commune with, be a part of.

[Outrider]

Dear Outrider,

Good post, one which I don't think I have any argument, but ( always a but ) I am not arguing are gods true, just the belief we have had for millions of years.

Gonnagle.

And there is some evidence that the belief has been useful, in some ways, in the past. However, it's rapidly approaching the point where it's beyond doubt that it's unnecessary, and that the remnants of it are perhaps becoming a net burden on society.

Society Outslider? surely you mean ''Atheist Master Race''.

It says a lot about you, Vlad, that you think those two phrases equate - is that part of your well-established persecution complex, or is this a new addition?

O.

[Outrider]

Dear Outrider,

Unnecessary! As long as it is replaced with compassion, compassion becomes the new religion.

We eat, drink, live compassion, when you eat your cornflakes in the morning you are thinking compassion.

When the politicians enact a new law, they ask, is this the compassionate thing to do.

We breath compassion, every thought, every move.

Gonnagle.

Gonners, the principles that the majority of Christians - and Muslims and probably Hindus - suggest are the basis of their faith are fantastic, I'd advocate them every day of the week.

Unfortunately, the practical realities of religion are such that the principles get submerged under doctrine and catechism and organisational structure.

O.

[Outrider]

Your post doesn't mention relationship. For me as a pantheist/panentheist relationship is the crucial part. I don't worship and I know damn well I can't appease, but I can relate to, commune with, be a part of.

How do you commune with something that doesn't have thoughts and can't communicate?

O.

[Rhiannon]

Your post doesn't mention relationship. For me as a pantheist/panentheist relationship is the crucial part. I don't worship and I know damn well I can't appease, but I can relate to, commune with, be a part of.

How do you commune with something that doesn't have thoughts and can't communicate?

O.

Through feelings.

And yes, I know that is completely subjective and unreliable.

[Outrider]

Through feelings.

And yes, I know that is completely subjective and unreliable.

From what I've seen of your writing, Rhi, you've not claimed anything else, you certainly don't attempt to put your faith onto others, just out there for them to intersect with if they wish - I was (am!) genuinely curious.

How do you determine what's inspired by outside, though, and what's from inside? How do you - indeed, do you? - differentiate between what you do and, say, meditation to get insights into you?

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

Post 129, I totally agree, as for my own religion, back to basics, a revisit of the Four Gospels, starting with the Two Greatest Commandments.

As for your reply to Rhiannon, I am sure you must have heard "communing with nature" something that our very early ancestors would have been very skilled at.

Gonnagle.

[jeremyp]

I agree atheism can be described in terms of THE BIG NON i.e atheism is the lack of belief in God/Gods.

But I disagree that THAT is implicit in textbooks or lessons.

Read any science text book.  You will find no mention of God at all, except maybe if there is a historical section.

Read a history or art text book and you will find God mentioned only in the context of the fact that people's religious beliefs were (and are) often motivations for their actions.  There will not be anything in there that requires the reader to believe that God exists.

Incidentally, the same was true for my RE lessons more than 30 years ago.  Our RE teacher was actually a fundamentalist Christian but, at no point were we required to actually believe in the Christian or any other god to do well in the lessons.

For a curriculum to be atheist it would have to have religion filleted out of it. Particularly in terms of art, music and history

I disagree.  I think it merely means that its explanations of events do not require a belief in gods on the part of the student.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jeremyp,

Is A Brief History of Time a scientific text book.

Then we will know the mind of God.

Gonnagle.

[jeremyp]

Dear Jeremyp,

Is A Brief History of Time a scientific text book.

No.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jeremyp,

Fair enough

Gonnagle.

[jeremyp]

Dear Jeremyp,

Fair enough

Gonnagle.

Yes, it isn't a text book, it is a pop science book.  Even so, none of the explanations (or more accurately: descriptions) he gives require the reader to accept supernatural phenomena.  The last line, that you quoted also isn't really theistic, it's just a dramatic way to end the book by implying heavily that we won't need God at all. 

[Rhiannon]

Through feelings.

And yes, I know that is completely subjective and unreliable.

From what I've seen of your writing, Rhi, you've not claimed anything else, you certainly don't attempt to put your faith onto others, just out there for them to intersect with if they wish - I was (am!) genuinely curious.

How do you determine what's inspired by outside, though, and what's from inside? How do you - indeed, do you? - differentiate between what you do and, say, meditation to get insights into you?

O.

As a pantheist I'm a part of the whole, so in a sense there is no 'inside' and 'outside'. Meditation is a big part of what I do, that and visualisation. In nature itself it is becoming still, listening with your feelings, which I know sounds woo but it is the best way I can put it. Intuition I guess.

I know when to discard something, and that is when I feel it has been an effort to sense, 'see' or 'hear' it. Inevitably that comes from my own conscious striving and doesn't give me anything. If it comes without effort then it has meaning, whether from another part of creation or within my own inner stillness.

[Jack Knave]

Common sense would suggest that less educated people are more gullible in practically all areas where they are uneducated ...

Having lived and worked among so-called 'uneducated' people in India and Nepal, I was surprised by the fact that, on the whole, the most gullible of the people I had dealings with were the educated westerners (including myself).  The common sense factor seems to get educated out of us, leaving us reliant on technology, complicated and expensive reports, etc.

I would say that we are talking about areas that people feel a need in their lives. I would guess they were 'wise' because their basic needs wouldn't be satisfied by some 'plastic' western trinket. When someone has convinced themselves, or been convinced, that they have this need then how they tackle it will depend on their knowledge of the content of that need and its implications in their lives. For example a lot of third world rural people find it hard to understand the need for politics etc. as their lives styles have worked to date without it.

This is true of the EU. It is a contrived illusion that we really don't need.

I was driving through Spain about 1963 thereabouts and I saw women still bashing out their washing on rocks by the river I can remember then thinking I suppose we'll, (the UK), will have to stall while they catch up, it put me off of the whole idea of the EEC then.

Of course that's not all and I've seen and heard of many more reasons since that have put me off of the whole idea and now the disunity about the refugees just one more good reason why we don't need them.

I voted against the EEC that won the day; who voted for a Federal Europe?   

Do you remember Brown creeping off and going out of his way to avoid being photographed in Lisbon and he signed something there probably some of our birthrights; it was the sheepish way he did it, do you know what it was he signed away; he was obviously not that proud of himself whatever it was.

ippy

I never understood why Brown did that. We all knew what he was doing. Anyone with half a brain knew he was a slimy scumbag.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I agree atheism can be described in terms of THE BIG NON i.e atheism is the lack of belief in God/Gods.

But I disagree that THAT is implicit in textbooks or lessons.

Read any science text book.  You will find no mention of God at all,

Yes nor any mention of philosophical naturalism.
Stop using the word science as if you were in possession of the fucking Elder wand.

[jeremyp]

I agree atheism can be described in terms of THE BIG NON i.e atheism is the lack of belief in God/Gods.

But I disagree that THAT is implicit in textbooks or lessons.

Read any science text book.  You will find no mention of God at all,

Yes nor any mention of philosophical naturalism.
Stop using the word science as if you were in possession of the fucking Elder wand.

Your descent into crude stupidity tells me you concede the point.  Thank you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I agree atheism can be described in terms of THE BIG NON i.e atheism is the lack of belief in God/Gods.

But I disagree that THAT is implicit in textbooks or lessons.

Read any science text book.  You will find no mention of God at all,

Yes nor any mention of philosophical naturalism.
Stop using the word science as if you were in possession of the fucking Elder wand.

Your descent into crude stupidity tells me you concede the point.  Thank you.

JeremyP has declared himself right because he, er declares himself right.

Jeremy, science does not support any of your ideas about religion. Suck it up.

It is not antireligion, suck it up.

If it does not include God in any hypothesis God cannot fall out the other end in the conclusion, Suck it up.

just repeating the word science does not convert it into atheism, suck it up.

Science is not philosophically naturalistic. It is a methodology incapable of philosophising, suck it up.

What does my new hoover do to the dirt I bring in on my shoes.........You've guessed it.

[Shaker]

Jeremy, science does not support any of your ideas about religion. Suck it up.

Do you think science supports any of yours, Vladdypops?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Jeremy, science does not support any of your ideas about religion. Suck it up.

Do you think science supports any of yours, Vladdypops?

science doesn't do God.

[Shaker]

Jeremy, science does not support any of your ideas about religion. Suck it up.

Do you think science supports any of yours, Vladdypops?

science doesn't do God.

Yes Vlad, yes.

Some of us knew that already

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Jeremy, science does not support any of your ideas about religion. Suck it up.

Do you think science supports any of yours, Vladdypops?

science doesn't do God.

Yes Vlad, yes.

Some of us knew that already

It doesn't do philosophical naturalism either.

[jeremyp]

Jeremy, science does not support any of your ideas about religion. Suck it up.

Do you think science supports any of yours, Vladdypops?

science doesn't do God.

Which is exactly what I said when I claimed science is atheistic.

Suck it up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Jeremy, science does not support any of your ideas about religion. Suck it up.

Do you think science supports any of yours, Vladdypops?

science doesn't do God.

Which is exactly what I said when I claimed science is atheistic.

Suck it up.

Science has a lack a belief in Gods so Jeremy calls it atheist.

But it lacks belief in anything because it is not capable of belief!

It has nothing to say about God or philosophical naturalism.

If it's atheist it's also aphilosophical naturalist.........Are you Jeremy?

It's atheist in the same way that the instructions on a bottle of Brobat toilet cleaner are.