What is Your Personal Experience of Your God?

[Leonard James]

But Rose isn't religious and she isn't talking about religious belief, but a personal experience.

OK, then it's a personal experience engendered by a cultural belief. 

[Rhiannon]

But Rose isn't religious and she isn't talking about religious belief, but a personal experience.

OK, then it's a personal experience engendered by a cultural belief. 

Possibly. But that isn't a religious con.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If it's not a choice then why are atheists apparently trying to force it on everyone else?

We are not trying to force it on others. We are trying to get you to see FOR YOURSELF that without you knowing it, your ability to reason has been misled by culture and/or religious teaching into reaching a false conclusion.

What do you mean ''we'' Len. You just  point score and loudly assert.
IMHO.

I have not been misled by my culture which was ''Secular British''.

[Leonard James]

But Rose isn't religious and she isn't talking about religious belief, but a personal experience.

OK, then it's a personal experience engendered by a cultural belief. 

Possibly. But that isn't a religious con.

Cultural cons are just as bad as religious ones.

The real problem is the credulity of some people, and whilst I realise there isn't much we can do about genetic causes, I will still try to combat environmental influence!

[Rhiannon]

No, it's not a con, its just a subjective experience that hurts nobody and that may or may not arise from stuff within our culture (not religion btw, nothing in Rose' story fits with conventional religious dogma). What harm does it do?

[Outrider]

If it's not a choice then why are atheists apparently trying to force it on everyone else?

Religion scares us. It's as simple as that - religion makes/supports/allows people with good intentions do some quite horrific things. God doesn't, we don't believe in gods, and Satan doesn't, because we still don't believe in gods.

Of course, there are any number of atheists who aren't scared of religion's potential to engender abuse, but you don't hear from them because they have nothing in their atheism to communicate to anyone else.

Presumably they came to that conclusion themselves, and seem to think everyone else ought to make that choice.

We've come to that realisation and we'd like to help other people realise that truth. Most of us aren't ideological anti-theist (sorry Vlad) but as a practical anti-religious tactic, the most effective method is to ensure that religions get fewer recruits, and the best way to achieve that is to help people to realise that religions are just fairy tales with pointy hats.

If you really don't think it's a choice, what is the point?

Because if you can expose people to enough information and get them to understand then that inability to choose belief will give their faith no defence against reality.

It's one thing to put your own POV as an atheist, but that isn't what happens.

I think it normally is.

O.

[Leonard James]

No, it's not a con, its just a subjective experience that hurts nobody and that may or may not arise from stuff within our culture (not religion btw, nothing in Rose' story fits with conventional religious dogma). What harm does it do?

More to the point .. what good does it do?

Surely it is better to just accept not knowing than to put your own (or cultural/religious) interpretation on an experience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But Rose isn't religious and she isn't talking about religious belief, but a personal experience.

OK, then it's a personal experience engendered by a cultural belief. 

Possibly. But that isn't a religious con.

Cultural cons are just as bad as religious ones.

The real problem is the credulity of some people, and whilst I realise there isn't much we can do about genetic causes

Ah, thus speaks the master race.

[Rhiannon]

No, it's not a con, its just a subjective experience that hurts nobody and that may or may not arise from stuff within our culture (not religion btw, nothing in Rose' story fits with conventional religious dogma). What harm does it do?

More to the point .. what good does it do?

Surely it is better to just accept not knowing than to put your own (or cultural/religious) interpretation on an experience.

My paganism is a mix of experience and not knowing. I can't read a book on paganism that has anything along the lines of 'we believe that...' My culture is a part of what I am and I see no need to jettison it when it works quite well for me.

[Leonard James]

Ah, thus speaks the master race.

It is entirely possible that somewhere in the future medical science will find a way to reduce the genetic inclination to be credulous.

It would be nice if humans could be immune to believing nonsense. We could still have all our romantic myths, but not be daft enough to believe them true.

[Rhiannon]

If it's not a choice then why are atheists apparently trying to force it on everyone else?

Religion scares us. It's as simple as that - religion makes/supports/allows people with good intentions do some quite horrific things. God doesn't, we don't believe in gods, and Satan doesn't, because we still don't believe in gods.

Of course, there are any number of atheists who aren't scared of religion's potential to engender abuse, but you don't hear from them because they have nothing in their atheism to communicate to anyone else.

Presumably they came to that conclusion themselves, and seem to think everyone else ought to make that choice.

We've come to that realisation and we'd like to help other people realise that truth. Most of us aren't ideological anti-theist (sorry Vlad) but as a practical anti-religious tactic, the most effective method is to ensure that religions get fewer recruits, and the best way to achieve that is to help people to realise that religions are just fairy tales with pointy hats.

If you really don't think it's a choice, what is the point?

Because if you can expose people to enough information and get them to understand then that inability to choose belief will give their faith no defence against reality.

It's one thing to put your own POV as an atheist, but that isn't what happens.

I think it normally is.

O.

So you aren't a secularist then?

[Rhiannon]

Ah, thus speaks the master race.

It is entirely possible that somewhere in the future medical science will find a way to reduce the genetic inclination to be credulous.

It would be nice if humans could be immune to believing nonsense. We could still have all our romantic myths, but not be daft enough to believe them true.

Do we understand the implications of that? What if exploring things you regard as only for the 'credulous' leads to greater understanding and discovery?

And what would the end of mysticism mean for human creativity?

[Leonard James]

No, it's not a con, its just a subjective experience that hurts nobody and that may or may not arise from stuff within our culture (not religion btw, nothing in Rose' story fits with conventional religious dogma). What harm does it do?

More to the point .. what good does it do?

Surely it is better to just accept not knowing than to put your own (or cultural/religious) interpretation on an experience.

My paganism is a mix of experience and not knowing. I can't read a book on paganism that has anything along the lines of 'we believe that...' My culture is a part of what I am and I see no need to jettison it when it works quite well for me.

"It works quite well for me" can produce some abhorrent behaviour.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah, thus speaks the master race.

It is entirely possible that somewhere in the future medical science will find a way to reduce the genetic inclination to be credulous. .

Ah, but Len, more people, including perhaps yourself, would then be able to see through your claim that you are trying to make believers see the truth for themselves  and see that you are merely a loud asserter.

[Rhiannon]

No, it's not a con, its just a subjective experience that hurts nobody and that may or may not arise from stuff within our culture (not religion btw, nothing in Rose' story fits with conventional religious dogma). What harm does it do?

More to the point .. what good does it do?

Surely it is better to just accept not knowing than to put your own (or cultural/religious) interpretation on an experience.

My paganism is a mix of experience and not knowing. I can't read a book on paganism that has anything along the lines of 'we believe that...' My culture is a part of what I am and I see no need to jettison it when it works quite well for me.

"It works quite well for me" can produce some abhorrent behaviour.

But that isn't confined to religion or spirituality. Terrorising people worked quite well for the Krays. If you want to end abhorrent behaviour, wipe out humanity.

[Leonard James]

Do we understand the implications of that? What if exploring things you regard as only for the 'credulous' leads to greater understanding and discovery?

Hypothesising is perfectly distinguishable from credulity.

And what would the end of mysticism mean for human creativity?

It wouldn't affect creativity, it would just mean accepting mysticism as romantic conjecture.

[Leonard James]

But that isn't confined to religion or spirituality. Terrorising people worked quite well for the Krays. If you want to end abhorrent behaviour, wipe out humanity.

That's a bit drastic! 

We can only try to teach people from infancy the Golden Rule.

[Outrider]

If it's not a choice then why are atheists apparently trying to force it on everyone else?

Religion scares us. It's as simple as that - religion makes/supports/allows people with good intentions do some quite horrific things. God doesn't, we don't believe in gods, and Satan doesn't, because we still don't believe in gods.

Of course, there are any number of atheists who aren't scared of religion's potential to engender abuse, but you don't hear from them because they have nothing in their atheism to communicate to anyone else.

Presumably they came to that conclusion themselves, and seem to think everyone else ought to make that choice.

We've come to that realisation and we'd like to help other people realise that truth. Most of us aren't ideological anti-theist (sorry Vlad) but as a practical anti-religious tactic, the most effective method is to ensure that religions get fewer recruits, and the best way to achieve that is to help people to realise that religions are just fairy tales with pointy hats.

If you really don't think it's a choice, what is the point?

Because if you can expose people to enough information and get them to understand then that inability to choose belief will give their faith no defence against reality.

It's one thing to put your own POV as an atheist, but that isn't what happens.

I think it normally is.

O.

So you aren't a secularist then?

Personally, yes, I am. On principle, because I think that you can't fight for peoples' rights and freedoms by trampling on other peoples' rights and freedoms, and pragmatically because I think that banning religions will feed into the 'besieged victim' mentality that entrenches the worst elements of the authoritarian nature of religious politics.

O.

[ippy]

No, it's not a con, its just a subjective experience that hurts nobody and that may or may not arise from stuff within our culture (not religion btw, nothing in Rose' story fits with conventional religious dogma). What harm does it do?

More to the point .. what good does it do?

Surely it is better to just accept not knowing than to put your own (or cultural/religious) interpretation on an experience.

My paganism is a mix of experience and not knowing. I can't read a book on paganism that has anything along the lines of 'we believe that...' My culture is a part of what I am and I see no need to jettison it when it works quite well for me.

Put your paganism to one side for a period of time and see if it makes any difference; I very much doubt it will, if you did.

Ah well back to my lollipopism.

ippy

[ippy]

Rose you posted this:

"All too often (at least on the Internet ) being an Athiest seems synonymous with being closed and narrow minded and seeing any deviation of opinion as "irrational ".

What is rational about believing in any unsupported idea?

ippy

It's not the believing, because no one has to believe anything, it's the unwillingness to explore different answers or look into different things.

Nothing wrong with exploring/looking for diferent answers, surely the answers that have some kind of backing, are better than those without or close to zero backing? Couldn't this view be filed under common sense?

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Rose you posted this:

"All too often (at least on the Internet ) being an Athiest seems synonymous with being closed and narrow minded and seeing any deviation of opinion as "irrational ".

What is rational about believing in any unsupported idea?

ippy

It's not the believing, because no one has to believe anything, it's the unwillingness to explore different answers or look into different things.

Nothing wrong with exploring/looking for diferent answers, surely the answers that have some kind of backing, are better than those without or close to zero backing? Couldn't this view be filed under common sense?

ippy

It depends who backs them
The consensus of Rednecks is often mistaken for common sense.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

We've come to that realisation and we'd like to help other people realise that truth. Most of us aren't ideological anti-theist (sorry Vlad) but as a practical anti-religious tactic, the most effective method is to ensure that religions get fewer recruits, and the best way to achieve that is to help people to realise that religions are just fairy tales with pointy hats.

Boy! you need a heavy dose of Armstrong, try finding out about your subject before you brand it fairytales and pointy hats.

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

Dear Outrider,

We've come to that realisation and we'd like to help other people realise that truth. Most of us aren't ideological anti-theist (sorry Vlad) but as a practical anti-religious tactic, the most effective method is to ensure that religions get fewer recruits, and the best way to achieve that is to help people to realise that religions are just fairy tales with pointy hats.

Boy! you need a heavy dose of Armstrong, try finding out about your subject before you brand it fairytales and pointy hats.

Gonnagle.

It's about 50 50% here in the UK and rising but unfortunately for your lot Gonners.

Looks like the taste for fairy tales is on it's way out at least it is here in the UK. 

ippy

[ippy]

Rose you posted this:

"All too often (at least on the Internet ) being an Athiest seems synonymous with being closed and narrow minded and seeing any deviation of opinion as "irrational ".

What is rational about believing in any unsupported idea?

ippy

It's not the believing, because no one has to believe anything, it's the unwillingness to explore different answers or look into different things.

Nothing wrong with exploring/looking for diferent answers, surely the answers that have some kind of backing, are better than those without or close to zero backing? Couldn't this view be filed under common sense?

ippy

It depends who backs them
The consensus of Rednecks is often mistaken for common sense.

Is that what your Tarot cards are telling you Vladicus, surely your horoscope's more accurate than Tarot cards?

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Rose you posted this:

"All too often (at least on the Internet ) being an Athiest seems synonymous with being closed and narrow minded and seeing any deviation of opinion as "irrational ".

What is rational about believing in any unsupported idea?

ippy

It's not the believing, because no one has to believe anything, it's the unwillingness to explore different answers or look into different things.

Nothing wrong with exploring/looking for diferent answers, surely the answers that have some kind of backing, are better than those without or close to zero backing? Couldn't this view be filed under common sense?

ippy

It depends who backs them
The consensus of Rednecks is often mistaken for common sense.

Is that what your Tarot cards are telling you Vladicus, surely your horoscope's more accurate than Tarot cards?

ippy

I don't do Tarot or Horoscopes. You are being deliberately offensive.