Atheist!
- Thread starter NoJo
- Start date
temptanddestroy
Virgin
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Posts
- 18
We know nothing
Like I say, we know nothing. Outside of our tiny frames of reference everything is subject to doubt. Everything I know I doubt. I'm not talking about some Matrix stylee virtual reality but all information is fed to us via unreliable (to some extent) sources.
Are women smarter than men? I don't know all men or all women. Is a study of 1000 men and women enough to base that conclusion.
Do I know that I will be alive tomorrow? No, we all know that we could get hit by a bus/meteor/aneurism in the next hour. How many people were alive at the start of you reading this post that will be dead by the end of it? I'll bet some of them had dinner plans tomorrow.
We are weak and vulnerable.
Life and knowledge are precarious.
Uncertainty is scary but that's what atheists face everyday. They say good people die for no reason. They say that shit happens and all we can do is try our best.
Formulating a God is a form of denial. It helps believers cope with world.
(In fact we are all in some form of denial; irrationality is the only way to cope. Read the Existentialist philosophers and you'll see that our expectations of the world are absurd; and then you'll deny it because our minds can't face it. I try not to believe anything but fail all the time!)
Religious people are just the ones that are the most scared. If you try to take that comfort away from them they will fight back. They will judge you, persecute you or kill you.
Belief in certainty where there is none is the biggest fallacy in the world.
Thank you.
Pure said:
Like I say, we know nothing. Outside of our tiny frames of reference everything is subject to doubt. Everything I know I doubt. I'm not talking about some Matrix stylee virtual reality but all information is fed to us via unreliable (to some extent) sources.
Are women smarter than men? I don't know all men or all women. Is a study of 1000 men and women enough to base that conclusion.
Do I know that I will be alive tomorrow? No, we all know that we could get hit by a bus/meteor/aneurism in the next hour. How many people were alive at the start of you reading this post that will be dead by the end of it? I'll bet some of them had dinner plans tomorrow.
We are weak and vulnerable.
Life and knowledge are precarious.
Uncertainty is scary but that's what atheists face everyday. They say good people die for no reason. They say that shit happens and all we can do is try our best.
Formulating a God is a form of denial. It helps believers cope with world.
(In fact we are all in some form of denial; irrationality is the only way to cope. Read the Existentialist philosophers and you'll see that our expectations of the world are absurd; and then you'll deny it because our minds can't face it. I try not to believe anything but fail all the time!)
Religious people are just the ones that are the most scared. If you try to take that comfort away from them they will fight back. They will judge you, persecute you or kill you.
Belief in certainty where there is none is the biggest fallacy in the world.
Thank you.
H
hmmnmm
Guest
Sub Joe said:
that's one of those ideas that sounds good at first, but when you think it through, really it wouldn't work so good. Maybe if a few hmmnmms and rgrahams were in charge... that might work.
And I'm not sure how I'd navigate all the hot chicks, since my wife may not approve, although she is well aware of my typical male fascination with the lesbian stuff.
Actually, I've had the idea for a blog or something: If I Was In Charge
Maybe an open participatory thread? Instead?
H
hmmnmm
Guest
temptanddestroy said:
I should have waited for this post then said, "that comes pretty close to what I wanted to say."
And then this little question popped up seemingly from nowhere:
Maybe there's no such thing as an atheist?
Last edited by a moderator:
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
[/I][I said:
~~~~~~~~~~
Welcome to the forum temptanddestroy.....
This post prompted the song, 'Eleanor Rigby', to go scooting through my head..."look at all the lonely people...where do they all come from...?"
It also reminds me of Ayn Rands fictional description of the 'second handers' in this world, those who have not the courage to take a stand...be 'certain' about anything...born losers copulating with other similar misfits while the rest of the rational world goes about living life.
It is a sad reminder of the lasting influence of the Nihilists and the Existentialists and those 'slice of life' writers stoned to the gills on wine and boo and whining about the unfairness of life...
Don't worry little person, all us grown ups will keep things perking along until you grow up and join the work force...
amicus...
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
amicus said:
Once you've decided to believe the earth is flat, never admit to a moment of uncertainty. Ignore evidence to the contrary; it's irrelevent.
Amicus, your problem is that you don't respect the value of questions, without which there would be no scientific research to support anyone's beliefs. The people historically acknowledged as great thinkers have been the ones who asked questions, not the ones who pretended to have all the answers.
Last edited:
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
[QUOTE=shereads]Once you've decided to believe the earth is flat, never admit to a moment of uncertainty. Ignore evidence to the contrary; it's irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
~~~~~~
Lil ole threadjack there, m'dear, just for a poke at Amicus?
Once you have decided to reject reality, never admit to a moment of uncertainty, Ignore evidence to the contrary; it's irrelevant....(Until you step off a curb in the path of a bus and reality bites...
amicus...
~~~~~~
Lil ole threadjack there, m'dear, just for a poke at Amicus?
Once you have decided to reject reality, never admit to a moment of uncertainty, Ignore evidence to the contrary; it's irrelevant....(Until you step off a curb in the path of a bus and reality bites...
amicus...
Last edited:
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
amicus said:
What are you on this morning? I've never taken any hallucinogens, but you make it seem awfully tempting. That's not a poke, by the way. It's a greeting; poke to follow.
In Bill Bryce's "A Short History of Nearly Everything," there's a fascinating chapter on the progress of science in the Victorian era. A lot of it was being done as a hobby by gentlemen with the financial means and leisure time to speculate on esoteric things like the age of the earth. Magnetism and electricity were parlor entertainments before anyone thought of a practical use.
You might find it interesting reading, or not. I mention it because the author points to a period in the late 1800s when science had progressed so far that it could go no farther. We had mapped the world, catalogued its life forms, harnessed every form of energy that would have any practical use, written our history, formed a definitive picture of Earth's place in the universe, and answered all the questions a man of any sense would find reason to ask. What could be known, was known.
The fact that the search for truth didn't curl up and die then - or at any of the countless times in history when someone has proclaimed the latest version of the truth and dismissed any challenge as heresy or stupidity - can be credited to the few who refused to accept anyone's truth but the one they could prove to their own satisfaction. The curious. The humble. The people with more questions than answers, who even when they're 99% sure don't attempt to pass a theory off as indisputable fact.
Given the choice of living in a world shaped by people with questions and one founded by people who have all the answers, I'd know which side I'd choose.
[/threadjack]
Has anyone noticed that for some atheists, it's is a religion?
Last edited:
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
You are just hissy because I corrected 'relevent' to relevant...it looked wrong...had to go to a dictionary...
SheReads...you were one of the very first on this forum that snarled and hissed at me for what I wrote, I rather enjoyed that, it somewhat endeared you to me.
Your last post was almost rational and until I went back and reread the original thread starter, I thought perhaps to copy your post and begin a new thread addressing your comment, but, upon reconsideration, this does, somewhat fall within the purpose of the thread.
I say 'almost rational' because while your statement is fairly accurate, you left out an essential ingredient for a true understanding of the scientific method and of human nature itself.
I suggest that it takes a great deal of dedication and focus to do what Copernicus or Galileo or Einstein did; I further suggest that each was an individual effort, not a group affirmation or concensus gathering foray.
As such, of course they considered all the science that preceded them and of course they challenged existing theories that contradicted what each found in his research.
You may understand, I am sure you do, as a writer...that it is an individual, lonely effort to create. I recently...last night in fact, watched a PBS thing about a young man, with a lovely Swedish wife and baby girl, who was also a Ph'D in Mechanical Engineering engaged in building robots to send to the Moon and Mars as research tools. He was also, and this is the nitty, an award winning author of fiction stories.
Each of those professions required absolute and utter dedication and focus but somehow, he has managed both to the level of excellence.
One becomes, I suggest, myopic, possessed of tunnel vision, so to speak in the quest to create. One also must, I suggest, possess an ego the size of Texas to have the audacity to create knowing full well all those who have gone before.
This leads, I suggest, to a feeling, a necessary feeling of invulnerability, of always doing methodical, meticulous research either in Math and Science, or in fiction writing.
It is also a very human trait and again, I suggest, a necessary one, to 'know' that your work is error free and absolutely correct to the best of your ability to make it so. Otherwise...why would you even continue if you doubt your own vision?
The really difficult point for me to get across to you personally and to the majority of the usual suspects on this forum is that transition from the 'real' science, math, physics, to that part of the human mind that deals with abstract concepts and emotions, neither of which can you fondle to your satisfaction.
You don't seem to wish to make the transferal of objective truth from the physical to the metaphysical. Thus you remain without a clue to some of the most important things in human life, intra personal relationships, the concepts of morality, right and wrong; even a definition of 'good and evil' elludes you as you reject the rational as it applies to human behavior.
Now, personally, I don't mind, you folks are fun to tease and I just love it when you get all pissy.
The thread starter, if I recall, is lost in a world of subjective considerations and has no way out of the dilemma if they continue to reject reason and rationality as a means to comprehend and deal with the emotional side of humanity.
We are, as so many reject, really, really, really, men and women, males and females and we see, feel, sense and comprehend things entirely differently.
There was a time when this was appreciated by all; as the opposite nature of the beasts rather complimented one another.
But with the insane imperative to discard gender differences and become some sort of 'unisex' being, all ability to comprehend the opposite sex has been diluted to a point of non existence.
I would suggest a rational and in depth exploration into the 'nature of man', and the 'nature of woman', as a beginning point for anyone, yourself included, who wishes a better understanding of themselves, the society you live in and the relationships between individuals.
Thas my story and I'm stickin' to it!
amicus...(scribbled without an edit...take it or leave it)
SheReads...you were one of the very first on this forum that snarled and hissed at me for what I wrote, I rather enjoyed that, it somewhat endeared you to me.
Your last post was almost rational and until I went back and reread the original thread starter, I thought perhaps to copy your post and begin a new thread addressing your comment, but, upon reconsideration, this does, somewhat fall within the purpose of the thread.
I say 'almost rational' because while your statement is fairly accurate, you left out an essential ingredient for a true understanding of the scientific method and of human nature itself.
I suggest that it takes a great deal of dedication and focus to do what Copernicus or Galileo or Einstein did; I further suggest that each was an individual effort, not a group affirmation or concensus gathering foray.
As such, of course they considered all the science that preceded them and of course they challenged existing theories that contradicted what each found in his research.
You may understand, I am sure you do, as a writer...that it is an individual, lonely effort to create. I recently...last night in fact, watched a PBS thing about a young man, with a lovely Swedish wife and baby girl, who was also a Ph'D in Mechanical Engineering engaged in building robots to send to the Moon and Mars as research tools. He was also, and this is the nitty, an award winning author of fiction stories.
Each of those professions required absolute and utter dedication and focus but somehow, he has managed both to the level of excellence.
One becomes, I suggest, myopic, possessed of tunnel vision, so to speak in the quest to create. One also must, I suggest, possess an ego the size of Texas to have the audacity to create knowing full well all those who have gone before.
This leads, I suggest, to a feeling, a necessary feeling of invulnerability, of always doing methodical, meticulous research either in Math and Science, or in fiction writing.
It is also a very human trait and again, I suggest, a necessary one, to 'know' that your work is error free and absolutely correct to the best of your ability to make it so. Otherwise...why would you even continue if you doubt your own vision?
The really difficult point for me to get across to you personally and to the majority of the usual suspects on this forum is that transition from the 'real' science, math, physics, to that part of the human mind that deals with abstract concepts and emotions, neither of which can you fondle to your satisfaction.
You don't seem to wish to make the transferal of objective truth from the physical to the metaphysical. Thus you remain without a clue to some of the most important things in human life, intra personal relationships, the concepts of morality, right and wrong; even a definition of 'good and evil' elludes you as you reject the rational as it applies to human behavior.
Now, personally, I don't mind, you folks are fun to tease and I just love it when you get all pissy.
The thread starter, if I recall, is lost in a world of subjective considerations and has no way out of the dilemma if they continue to reject reason and rationality as a means to comprehend and deal with the emotional side of humanity.
We are, as so many reject, really, really, really, men and women, males and females and we see, feel, sense and comprehend things entirely differently.
There was a time when this was appreciated by all; as the opposite nature of the beasts rather complimented one another.
But with the insane imperative to discard gender differences and become some sort of 'unisex' being, all ability to comprehend the opposite sex has been diluted to a point of non existence.
I would suggest a rational and in depth exploration into the 'nature of man', and the 'nature of woman', as a beginning point for anyone, yourself included, who wishes a better understanding of themselves, the society you live in and the relationships between individuals.
Thas my story and I'm stickin' to it!
amicus...(scribbled without an edit...take it or leave it)
H
hmmnmm
Guest
shereads said:
Again I refer to a good friend. Every chance, with the merest provocation, "there is no god".... "why is it so hard for you to say no?"... and so forth. He would make a good door to door atheist missionary.
It's pretty funny.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
ami,
please submit the names of those scientific studies of 'the nature of man' (or woman) , which you think are most informative. these should be studies that base themselves on data, either first or second hand. (in other words, works of pure philosophy and armchair speculations, and fictions, are out.)
please submit the names of those scientific studies of 'the nature of man' (or woman) , which you think are most informative. these should be studies that base themselves on data, either first or second hand. (in other words, works of pure philosophy and armchair speculations, and fictions, are out.)
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
[QUOTE=Pure]please submit the names of those scientific studies of 'the nature of man' (or woman) , which you think are most informative. these should be studies that base themselves on data, either first or second hand. (in other words, works of pure philosophy and armchair speculations, and fictions, are out.)[/QUOTE]
~~~~~
Get ur own box, Pure, I spent a lifetime gathering mine, go find your own.
amicus....
~~~~~
Get ur own box, Pure, I spent a lifetime gathering mine, go find your own.
amicus....
H
hmmnmm
Guest
And thanks joe for helping me to get back on the Lit habit.
dear god, just get me out of this and I'll be good forever...
dear god, just get me out of this and I'll be good forever...
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
Sub Joe said:
I know what you're getting at, and I empathize, but I'm starting to get the feeling that a Scientific Inquisition is right around the corner, with guys in lab coats and clipboards demanding we give logical explanatons for all we believe.
You can certainly critique the unbelievability of things in the bible, say, but remember, they're miracles, and their unbelievability it the whole point. If they were believable, no one would believe them.
The thread started out being about why atheism has negative connotations in America. It then got into religion in general, and whenever we get into religion, we get into all sorts of trouble, because "religion" means so many different things to different people.
Does religion mean a belief in God?
Does religion mean a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible?
Does religion mean ethics?
Does religion mean intolerance?
Does religion imply irrationality?
Is religion naturally opposed to science?
Is Buddhism a religion? Is Paganism? Is Rationality? The paranormal?
And then we all start talking at once as if we're all talking about the same thing.
My own belief abut religion and warfare is that if you got rid of all religion over night, they'd still be fighting tomorrow, because really, very few wars are really about whether we should worship one god or three-in-one or eat pork or not. They're about wealth and power and people's fear and hatred of strange cultures and customs, cultures and customs that make the other people seem un-human and therefore quite killable. Religion's a part of that strangeness, but it's not the only part or even the main part. I don't think you can name me many "religious" wars in which some great transfer of wealth wasn't involved.
I haven't read Dawkins book but I think I know where he's coming from. I share his frustration and outrage over "creation science" and biblical literalism, and of course it's far worse when they start to treat their beliefs the same weight as empirical science, which it most definitely is not. As far as I'm concerned, people who believe in the literal truth of the bible are, well, what's the most inoffensive way you can say "fools and idiots"?
But you know, I never really liked that John Lennon song. I thought that iano figure was kind of insidiously hypnotic, like a propaganda tune, and it reminded me of people with glassy eyes wearing Mao uniforms. It always made me feel sad for him, like maybe he went to some religious school where they beat him or something to make him feel that way.
One thing I do know is that religious belief does not work through rationalism, and whenever you try to mix the two you get trouble. You can't apply the methods of one to the other. Science may one day be able to tell us exactly how consciousness works, say, but the thing that makes us human will still need that religiuous dimension to understand it. Or maybe it's the other way around and we'll need that thing that makes us religious in order to really be human.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Kendo,
Kendo1My wife was leaning over a piano at Nicky Tam's - a cellar bar in Edinburgh in the 1970's. She was wearing a low cut t-shirt, so the first thing I noticed was her cleavage.
I reckon I made the right choice on the evidence available at the time.
P: I read you on that one: There was no 'rational basis' for the beginning of most of my friendships/close-relationships.
---
A challenge Ami has declined:
Oddly enough, I have NOT found most Randists to be particularly scientific or empirically oriented. Indeed, on average, they're LESS scientific than the Pope (the worlds most famous objective values person.)
===
Great posting mabeuse
Does religion mean a belief in God?
P:It's generally conceded there are atheistic religions; iirc some buddhists say they have no beliefs as to God; that a "God" as ordinarily conceived (omnipotent creator, sustainer, lawgiver, etc.) is(would be) irrelevant, a question of no interest. Like the question of leprechauns on Mars. (The universe takes care of such 'rewards' and punishments as there are-- consequences of acts.)
Kendo1My wife was leaning over a piano at Nicky Tam's - a cellar bar in Edinburgh in the 1970's. She was wearing a low cut t-shirt, so the first thing I noticed was her cleavage.
I reckon I made the right choice on the evidence available at the time.
P: I read you on that one: There was no 'rational basis' for the beginning of most of my friendships/close-relationships.
---
A challenge Ami has declined:
-Pure said:
Oddly enough, I have NOT found most Randists to be particularly scientific or empirically oriented. Indeed, on average, they're LESS scientific than the Pope (the worlds most famous objective values person.)
===
Great posting mabeuse
Does religion mean a belief in God?
P:It's generally conceded there are atheistic religions; iirc some buddhists say they have no beliefs as to God; that a "God" as ordinarily conceived (omnipotent creator, sustainer, lawgiver, etc.) is(would be) irrelevant, a question of no interest. Like the question of leprechauns on Mars. (The universe takes care of such 'rewards' and punishments as there are-- consequences of acts.)
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
tut,tut
Sub Joe, I think, said,
The message that decent Christians draw from the Bible (fewer Jews and Moslems, in my experience), is a very noble and ethically sound one: About charitable behaviour towards your enemies, kindness, respect.
P: Ouch, that's a nasty, though you've qualified it to _your experience_. I doubt it's true even there: I'd guess that within your country (Britain?), the Christians [including the serious and the nominal] do most of the murders (iow, disproportionately so).
Sub Joe, I think, said,
The message that decent Christians draw from the Bible (fewer Jews and Moslems, in my experience), is a very noble and ethically sound one: About charitable behaviour towards your enemies, kindness, respect.
P: Ouch, that's a nasty, though you've qualified it to _your experience_. I doubt it's true even there: I'd guess that within your country (Britain?), the Christians [including the serious and the nominal] do most of the murders (iow, disproportionately so).
NoJo
Happily Marred
- Joined
- May 19, 2002
- Posts
- 15,409
In Northern Ireland, there are definite socio-economic differences between the Protestant and the Catholic population. But that difference is an effect, not a cause, of the sectarian differences there. The two sets of protagonists are almost impossible to distinguish for outsiders -- certainly no genetic or physiological test would work. Many causus belli would (perhaps only gradually) disappear, if they werent engendered or perpetuated by religious divisions.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A "religious" or spiritual experience, a sudden sense of profound awe, which I expect almost everyone has at moments in his or her life, is in no way connected with what I'm talking about, which is religious beliefs. And it's the beliefs that are so damaging to humanity.
Why should a sense of profound awe make us believe in the supernatural? It's not the supernatural, but the natural, Nature itself (herself) that usually engenders those feelings. It seems to me to show a disrepect for nature to have to invent so glib a cause as God. Let the world baffle us and even frighten us!
--------------------------------------------------------------
People are cause-seekers. And sometimes, out of fear, or merely as a result of a runaway imperitive to seek a cause, we invent one when we can't actually find one. Humanity used to do that with thunder, with disease. And before we knew better, most people chose as a cause some human-like agent, which we might possibly appease with bribes and supplications.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Religious feelings are not rational, and are certainly not subject to evaluation as "true" or "false". It is, of course, possible to dissemble, to feign having those feelings. As Erasmus (?) said, "Men judge your heart from your words, God judges your words from your heart". You can profess to a feeling you don't have.
But a belief can be judged as true or false, right or wrong, as well as sincere or insincere, by all the common criteria we use.
Think about:
I say "I believe I left my hat at your house." You say, "You're wrong -- you're wearing it."
I say "I believe I've stayed in this hotel before." Depending on how well you know me, (or the hotel), you may or may not be able to tell one way or the other whether it's a true or false belief. But in principle, my belief is still right or wrong.
I say "I believe in Father Christmas." Depending on how I say it, you may accuse me of being insane or flippant or naive, but I very much doubt you'd tell me I'm wrong. Why not? Probably because you know that whichever of the three I am, I'm either going to get offended by your denial, as though you doubted my sincerity, or just dig my heels in and twist and turn and say "you can only see him if you believe in him" or some other sophistry.
--------------------------------------------------------------
And please, let nobody try and argue the case for religion using "but people have believed X for thousands of years" or "you're accusing the vast majority of the world of being misguided victims". Well, the vast majority of humanity has also spent the vast majority of its existence without democracy, or votes for women, and at the mercy of measles and dental caries.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Is it actually possible that the false beliefs perpetuated by religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam (which are the ones that matter right now) will disappear? I'm optimistic. I'm hopeful that people of the twenty-second century will be bemused, if not amused, at the quaint virulence of religion at the beginning of this century.
I just hope humanity survives that long.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A "religious" or spiritual experience, a sudden sense of profound awe, which I expect almost everyone has at moments in his or her life, is in no way connected with what I'm talking about, which is religious beliefs. And it's the beliefs that are so damaging to humanity.
Why should a sense of profound awe make us believe in the supernatural? It's not the supernatural, but the natural, Nature itself (herself) that usually engenders those feelings. It seems to me to show a disrepect for nature to have to invent so glib a cause as God. Let the world baffle us and even frighten us!
--------------------------------------------------------------
People are cause-seekers. And sometimes, out of fear, or merely as a result of a runaway imperitive to seek a cause, we invent one when we can't actually find one. Humanity used to do that with thunder, with disease. And before we knew better, most people chose as a cause some human-like agent, which we might possibly appease with bribes and supplications.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Religious feelings are not rational, and are certainly not subject to evaluation as "true" or "false". It is, of course, possible to dissemble, to feign having those feelings. As Erasmus (?) said, "Men judge your heart from your words, God judges your words from your heart". You can profess to a feeling you don't have.
But a belief can be judged as true or false, right or wrong, as well as sincere or insincere, by all the common criteria we use.
Think about:
I say "I believe I left my hat at your house." You say, "You're wrong -- you're wearing it."
I say "I believe I've stayed in this hotel before." Depending on how well you know me, (or the hotel), you may or may not be able to tell one way or the other whether it's a true or false belief. But in principle, my belief is still right or wrong.
I say "I believe in Father Christmas." Depending on how I say it, you may accuse me of being insane or flippant or naive, but I very much doubt you'd tell me I'm wrong. Why not? Probably because you know that whichever of the three I am, I'm either going to get offended by your denial, as though you doubted my sincerity, or just dig my heels in and twist and turn and say "you can only see him if you believe in him" or some other sophistry.
--------------------------------------------------------------
And please, let nobody try and argue the case for religion using "but people have believed X for thousands of years" or "you're accusing the vast majority of the world of being misguided victims". Well, the vast majority of humanity has also spent the vast majority of its existence without democracy, or votes for women, and at the mercy of measles and dental caries.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Is it actually possible that the false beliefs perpetuated by religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam (which are the ones that matter right now) will disappear? I'm optimistic. I'm hopeful that people of the twenty-second century will be bemused, if not amused, at the quaint virulence of religion at the beginning of this century.
I just hope humanity survives that long.
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
One poster (Joe?) said:
What we atheists need is a charismatic martyr
Well, how about Rosa Luxembourg?
Cant said,
The long history of God-believers killing people in massacre, torture, war, razzia, pogrom, inquisition, arenas-- you can point to it until your fingers fall off and never even cause a single believer to own it, let alone change their minds about anything on account of it. It's futile to list it. Other crimes abound, too, besides massacre and war. Churches forbade emancipation; they forbade anaesthesia; they forbade geology, astronomy, history, anthropology, biology. They currently forbid equality for women, for gays, for members of certain other religions. That list too can be extended. Some of it you can get them to admit to and take responsibility for, but it still doesn't change them.
Because the component of it which causes the wars and all the rest is not the religion, not the belief, but the attachment of that belief to an US/THEM value system. Nationalism or racism could garner almost as lengthy a list of past crimes. It is US/THEM systems which cause the pain, the crimes and the wars, not religions or beliefs per se.
Good and decent adherents of faiths exist in every tradition
----
At the start of Cant's post I thought I disagreed with him, but as I read through--if my interpretation is correct-- I think he is saying that *religion* per se is NOT the main cause of wars, exterminations, etc.
In my view there's likely a fallacy in attributing war, mass murder etc to religion: It's simply that there haven't been large groups of atheists in power until this century.
BUT when it (official or general atheism) has happened, e.g., Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, it often gotten pretty bloody. I 've never gotten a definitive answer, despite some reading, but it appears Hitler was an agnostic. So there's a fellow not so estimably among yous agnostics.
If I read Cant correctly, then I agree, that arguably the villians are nationalism, racism, xenophobia.
What we atheists need is a charismatic martyr
Well, how about Rosa Luxembourg?
Cant said,
The long history of God-believers killing people in massacre, torture, war, razzia, pogrom, inquisition, arenas-- you can point to it until your fingers fall off and never even cause a single believer to own it, let alone change their minds about anything on account of it. It's futile to list it. Other crimes abound, too, besides massacre and war. Churches forbade emancipation; they forbade anaesthesia; they forbade geology, astronomy, history, anthropology, biology. They currently forbid equality for women, for gays, for members of certain other religions. That list too can be extended. Some of it you can get them to admit to and take responsibility for, but it still doesn't change them.
Because the component of it which causes the wars and all the rest is not the religion, not the belief, but the attachment of that belief to an US/THEM value system. Nationalism or racism could garner almost as lengthy a list of past crimes. It is US/THEM systems which cause the pain, the crimes and the wars, not religions or beliefs per se.
Good and decent adherents of faiths exist in every tradition
----
At the start of Cant's post I thought I disagreed with him, but as I read through--if my interpretation is correct-- I think he is saying that *religion* per se is NOT the main cause of wars, exterminations, etc.
In my view there's likely a fallacy in attributing war, mass murder etc to religion: It's simply that there haven't been large groups of atheists in power until this century.
BUT when it (official or general atheism) has happened, e.g., Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, it often gotten pretty bloody. I 've never gotten a definitive answer, despite some reading, but it appears Hitler was an agnostic. So there's a fellow not so estimably among yous agnostics.
If I read Cant correctly, then I agree, that arguably the villians are nationalism, racism, xenophobia.
NoJo
Happily Marred
- Joined
- May 19, 2002
- Posts
- 15,409
Hitler professed Catholicism, but he was quite a liar, so it's quite likely he wasn't. But so what? I hardly think it needs arguing that religious rhetoric is the stock-in-trade of warmongers.
---------------------------------------------------
There's obviously a lot more going on in organised religion than the creed, and even the rules of daily conduct, it subjects you to:
Belonging to a group is a big part of it, and many people feel a need to belong to a well-defined group.
My father, if anything even more atheistic than me, was an ardent supporter of a London football team. He would return from games hoarse from singing hymns ("We hate Nottingham Forest, We Hate Chelsea too..." to the tune of Land Of Hope And Glory). He supported his team with a passion that invited comparisons with relgious zeal. But supporting a football team with a passion is not in itself harmful: Sincerely believing that the manager of your football team is a supernatural being is madness.
---------------------------------------------------
There's obviously a lot more going on in organised religion than the creed, and even the rules of daily conduct, it subjects you to:
Belonging to a group is a big part of it, and many people feel a need to belong to a well-defined group.
My father, if anything even more atheistic than me, was an ardent supporter of a London football team. He would return from games hoarse from singing hymns ("We hate Nottingham Forest, We Hate Chelsea too..." to the tune of Land Of Hope And Glory). He supported his team with a passion that invited comparisons with relgious zeal. But supporting a football team with a passion is not in itself harmful: Sincerely believing that the manager of your football team is a supernatural being is madness.
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
I don't know why this topic always attracts me and affects me so strongly, or why my posts always leave me kind of dissatisfied and slightly embarrassed. Probably because I can see both sides of the argument very clearly and argue either one, and so end up arguing both. Being able to see both sides of an issue seems to be some terrible moral failing these days.
I'm infuriated by the Creationists and Biblical literalists, and I hate the ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel who want to see all the Palestinians killed because they believe the bible says the land belongs to them. I hate demagoguery in any form, and demagoguery is such a natural part of organized religion.
But at the same time, I fear the tyrrany of reason too. Reason has its place, But there's a big, wide, area where it doesn't, and there's a lot of damned good stuff out there. Most of the stuff that makes life worth living, in fact, like dream and emotion. Sometimes I want to live in a world where a thing either exists or it does not. But most of the time I prefer fooling around in the land of maybe.
So I guess I resent being told by either side what I'm allowed to believe or not believe.
I know we're talking about different ideas of God and religion here, that what Joe's mostly talking about is the Judeo-Christian idea of the patriarchal Old Man In The Sky. That God was originally a kind of nebulous Semitic sky or mountain God who was filtered through Greco-Roman eyes to give us the images on the ceiling of Cistine Chapel. But there are other ways to go, just as there are other ways to worship other than getting on your knees and begging the Old Man for favors and forgiveness.
I mean, it just seems a shame to me to go to all these pilgrims and worshippers in Mexico and Lourdes and the Ganges and Mecca and hold up your hand and say, "Okay, that's enough of that. Stop. It's all a bunch of nonsense. Go home and forget about it." What do you do with all that yearning and emotion and need for meaning? Teach them to square dance?
Well, that's enough. I'm about to start writing about ancient Egyptian religion and Kabbalah and that's a sure sign that it's time to quit. I'm sure this will be embarrassing enough.
I'm infuriated by the Creationists and Biblical literalists, and I hate the ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel who want to see all the Palestinians killed because they believe the bible says the land belongs to them. I hate demagoguery in any form, and demagoguery is such a natural part of organized religion.
But at the same time, I fear the tyrrany of reason too. Reason has its place, But there's a big, wide, area where it doesn't, and there's a lot of damned good stuff out there. Most of the stuff that makes life worth living, in fact, like dream and emotion. Sometimes I want to live in a world where a thing either exists or it does not. But most of the time I prefer fooling around in the land of maybe.
So I guess I resent being told by either side what I'm allowed to believe or not believe.
I know we're talking about different ideas of God and religion here, that what Joe's mostly talking about is the Judeo-Christian idea of the patriarchal Old Man In The Sky. That God was originally a kind of nebulous Semitic sky or mountain God who was filtered through Greco-Roman eyes to give us the images on the ceiling of Cistine Chapel. But there are other ways to go, just as there are other ways to worship other than getting on your knees and begging the Old Man for favors and forgiveness.
I mean, it just seems a shame to me to go to all these pilgrims and worshippers in Mexico and Lourdes and the Ganges and Mecca and hold up your hand and say, "Okay, that's enough of that. Stop. It's all a bunch of nonsense. Go home and forget about it." What do you do with all that yearning and emotion and need for meaning? Teach them to square dance?
Well, that's enough. I'm about to start writing about ancient Egyptian religion and Kabbalah and that's a sure sign that it's time to quit. I'm sure this will be embarrassing enough.
H
hmmnmm
Guest
... went blank again...
The loose thought went to the effect that the bible may never have been meant to be taken as literal truth in the first place.
And that, last winter I discovered a way that the very first verse of genesis makes no assertion at all that a supernatural being exists. I forget how the argument went.
I didn't say that very well...
The loose thought went to the effect that the bible may never have been meant to be taken as literal truth in the first place.
And that, last winter I discovered a way that the very first verse of genesis makes no assertion at all that a supernatural being exists. I forget how the argument went.
I didn't say that very well...
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Guest
Guest
dr_mabeuse said:
Not embarrassing, just lucid, intelligent, well-organized personal thoughts and beliefs.
On this thread you're sharing a bit of yourself with us all, Zoot.
I like the view.
H
hmmnmm
Guest
dr_mabeuse said:
The other thought was to the effect that if america suddenly adopted an atheistic creed, rebellious reflexes would likely tempt me to profess some brand of christianity or something.
izabella
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Posts
- 212
dr_mabeuse said:
I dunno. I grew up in a home where God and beliefs about God weren't really taught to me. Even after learning about various forms of religious beliefs, I never felt a yearning and need for meaning or a desire to believe in some "force" or "spiritual being". I don't feel deprived or "lost" by not feeling that.
I think most of us can recall learning about Egyptian, Norse, Greek and Roman gods and goddesses and look upon that as mythology. Interesting, maybe fascinating, maybe literature, maybe just a collection of stories, fiction, old beliefs that mean very little to us in our present day since we weren't taught to worship sun gods and gods of war and goddesses of love. To me, ALL religion and religious beliefs are like that. Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, Taoism, Islam, Buddhism...it's all just an interesting set of stories, no more.
If people weren't taught to worship in the first place, would they feel a loss? I don't.
