Jump to content

Recommended Posts

reading this at the moment

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Transformation-Socrates-Confucius-Jeremiah/dp/1843545071/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214395863&sr=1-1

Very interesting if horribly naive in places, but the strands of development in comparative religion is fascinating reading, especially when the myths and histories are teased apart (something she's better able to do in some places than others)

I've promised it to McGabhann, but further borrowage if people would like.


ooh, I you a book anyway don't I brendan.

Doesn't that hold some sort of proof that religion is a mind-virus / mental illness?

Not saying I think that, of course, though I am a paid up member of British Humanist Association.


Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Terry Pratchet was, until recently, a confirmed

> atheist. He is now diagnosed with early onset

> Alzeimhers. He announced last week that he has

> since had a spiritual experience and now believes

> there is a "higher being".

>

> Has he swapped one religion for another or has he

> given up on rationalism for superstition?

I think what Mamora Man was getting at was that some people see atheism almost as a religion in itself due to the almost "fundamentalist" nature of some of its supporters (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchins etc) whilst other people would view atheism as an entirely rational thought process compared to the jingoistic, superstitiousness nonsense of organised religion.


I'll let you decide for yourself, Kel.

Haven't brain surgeons been able to recreate that final visitation and white light effect some people claim to see on their deathbed, by poking around* in the relevant bit of a conscious person's brain? It's all chemicals and synapses. I think Mr Pratchett is merely very ill, and it is a very sad thing.


*very delicately with a tiny stick, of course.

Anthony Grayling answers the question - Can an Atheist be a Fundamentalist with the following:


"Any view of the world which does not premise the existence of something supernatural is a philosophy, or a theory or, at worst, an ideology. If it is either of the first two, at its best it proportions what it accepts to the evidence for accepting it, knows what would refute it, and stands ready to revise itself in the light of new evidence. This is the essence of science. It comes as no surprise that no wars have been fought, pogroms carried out or burnings conducted at the stake over rival theories in biology or astrophysics."


to which Chris Hitchens adds:


"Clear? It's not a matter of "room" for doubt. The whole analytical method of humanist materialism is based on scepticism. We take nothing on faith. Imagine what a fortune could be made by a palaeontologist who unearthed human bones and dinosaur bones in the same layer of sediment. I will bet my house that this discovery will not be made, but my bet is not entirely, or at all, an article of belief. It is, rather, a conviction based on the study of evidence.


As to the manner in which I express myself, it rather depends on the antagonist. I'm normally renowned for my patience and good humour, but I admit to being easily bored and, when I come up against, say, a self-righteous rabbi, can be tempted to succumb to sarcasm. I think that may be where your confusion arises. Oh, and I do not "profess" to despise religious extremists. I really do despise them."

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think what Mamora Man was getting at was that

> some people see atheism almost as a religion in

> itself due to the almost "fundamentalist" nature

> of some of its supporters (Richard Dawkins,

> Christopher Hitchins etc) whilst other people

> would view atheism as an entirely rational thought

> process compared to the jingoistic,

> superstitiousness nonsense of organised religion.


Or that the following of a certain thought process which denotes a certain way of approaching things and is championed by prominent figures bears a similarity to religion and often elicits a fanatical reaction in its followers which is akin to fundamentalism.


Anyway stop dragging me into this 2 dimensional, inelegant aspect of it all. Next thing I?ll be discussing soccer.

KalamityKel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> lol I already have my own views and opinions of

> the subject of "religion" but always take an

> interest in others thoughts so I was just

> wondering what angle MM was on :)



I have just checked this thread and pleased to see the question has elicited a series of considered and balanced responses, mostly in favour of atheism. I posited the qestion equating atheism to a religion deliberately to provoke a response or two. David Carnell sums up my position rather well.


I am an atheist and, I like to think, a humanist. I believe the concept of a greater being to be fanciful and illogical, especially in the face of ever growing scientific knowledge that came about through testing hypotheses rather than wishful thinking.


I am not a militant / fundamental atheist - by which I mean I don't proselytise but do consider atheism to be a rational respone to the world about us. This, logically, means I do not consider religion in any form to be sensible and therefore class it with superstition.


I am thus disappointed that an individual has moved from a state of rational thought and thinking to a less logical position. However, I note the quote by Terry Pratchet and a glad to see that firstly the reports of him giving up atheism seem to be exagerated and secondly that he has not lost his sense of humour.

?It is, rather, a conviction based on the study of evidence.?


When man first came up with the idea of there being a god of the sea or of a mountain or in the clouds it was also a conviction based on the study of evidence. The intellectual tools being used were just different.


Anyway it all has to do with semantics. By defining ?atheism? as an entity which people can adhere to you just prove my point that it is a tangible view point from which to consider the world and therefore, for many people who can?t see the wood for the trees, fulfils the same human need as religion does in others.

I only found about about "practical atheism" because I sat next to an Opus Dei chap for many years and that's what he said the church would label me.*


I don't consider myself an atheist, merely one who considers these matters and has come to no conclusion.

I am not atheist in the sense I deny God(s) or even in that I have no place for spirituality im my life, just that nothing on offer makes much sense, so I'm happy enough to pootle along without the need for 'answers', leave alone a tick list of things to do or avoid.


I don't know if there's a political equivalent. I've seen what the parties have to offer, and they are institutional and limited. I've looked a the various political tenets and much makes sense, and a lot of it doesn't.


It's not that I deny politics, I'm just not going to draw my mark in the sand and say I'm Socialist or I am Libertarian though I certainly have leanings politically, just as I do morally.


Whether this is a cultural thing, my upbringing, my nature, my divine nature or predestination, it's not for me to say.


Good luck to everyone in whatever you do I say, but if you disagree with me I might you are clearly a heretic and I'm off to get some sticks and a match ;)


*Thoroughly nice chap as it happens. I've no idea whether or not he wore a cilice, but I certainly never saw him assassinate anyone.

Yeah D_C,why not, is God unknowable, probably, but then if we can look in and out and see wonder and music and perhaps echoes of the divine, then spirituality itself isn't completely unknowable. Perhaps ignostic is better in htat the parameters of the debate are a bit pointless because without any idea of what the nature of 'god' is then the starting point of the whole debate is rendered somewhat moot.


Of course those with strongly defined faith would claim that that is the case. I'd argue that the great religious personalities would probably have argued strongly against that.

Andy Partridge of XTC covered this subject well in the song Dear God.


He writes to God telling him he doesn't believe in him.


To my probably mentally unbalanced mind, we made Gods up. The existence of rainbows and thunderstorms coincided with human's needs to make stories, to fill in the gaps, so we made up Gods to explain those natural phenomena, and in turn those stories of Gods help control other humans. And it works beautifully. It's brilliant.

Brendan: "When man first came up with the idea of there being a god of the sea or of a mountain or in the clouds it was also a conviction based on the study of evidence. The intellectual tools being used were just different. "


Really? Really really? Or was mankind barely out of diapers and prone to making stuff up. Say what you will about science/intellectual argument.. it acknowledges every single day it's limits, learns new things, adapts and moves the argument on


My issue with religion (as opposed to "does God exist") is that it hasn't changed one iota. Ever. Sure, concessions are made (albeit againstnumbing opposition) re: women priests, vatican 2 etc, but the text books, the teachings, the things you are given AS A CHILD are as flawed as they were when first published.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
    • Niko 07818 607 583 has been doing jobs for us for several years, he is reliable, always there for us, highly recommended! 
    • I am keeping my fingers crossed the next few days are not so loud. I honestly think it is the private, back garden displays that are most problematic as, in general, there is no way of knowing when and where they might happen. For those letting off a few bangers in the garden I get it is tempting to think what's the harm in a few minutes of 'fun', but it is the absolute randomness of sudden bangs that can do irreparable damage to people and animals. With organised events that are well advertised there is some forewarning at least, and the hope is that organisers of such events can be persuaded to adopt and make a virtue of using only low noise displays in future.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...