birds of a feather, thats atheists and the religious.

Rev Hellfire

I’m sure this is a concept to which asiaprod is familiar with but I’ll throw it into the discussion pot here.

For quite some time I’ve felt both atheists and those of a religious leanings have been unduly hung up on the existence or non-existence of god.

I can’t but help but feel that to the question ‘Is there a god’ the answer is worthless, I personally can perceive no real value to humanity in searching for an answer to this question.

To those who see religion as a tool for control; I agree with you. It is in many cases used in such a manner, but I equally believe if we lived in a purely secular society devoid of religious elements I’m sure other forms of social control would be found by those who desire them.

But equally to those who believe I see no real benefit. Any god which suffers from the vanity of requiring us to offer up praise to their greatest is not worthy of it. I would be judged on my actions and intent alone, not on the dirt marks on my knees.

It’s not where you’re going that’s important but how you get there, so to speak.

As an agonistic (assuming you can be one when you actually don’t think it matter one way or another) I just can’t see any reason to get off my fence and join either side, it all seems like a waste of energy.

I’m curious if anyone feels the same.

pH

I can’t but help but feel that to the question ‘Is there a god’ the answer is worthless, I personally can perceive no real value to humanity in searching for an answer to this question.

I some ways I do concur, I personally have not seen any convincing evidence that there is a God, but to me it's completely the wrong question.

What I am truly militantly atheistic about is people claiming to know the mind of God. We know the universe is 13.5 billion years old, and after the first tiny fraction of a second we have a reasonable understanding of what happened from then to now. We can pretty much explain why the universe is like it is and how we (and all other life on earth) came to be,

In all of this we can be certain of one thing, if this God exists he has left no trace of his existance or any of his work. Everything to the best that we can tell has been moving unmolested since it started, all according to laws of nature unearthed using the scientific process.

The idea that God did all this so that on one insignificant planet in a backwater solar system in a not particulary important galaxy some humans would pop up after a few billion years, that he could test individually for 75 years of life and then commit them to an eternity of bliss or suffering is quite frankly bizarre, stupid and crass. (Oh now I've offended someone haven't I?)

How we get from "You can't prove that God doesn't exist" to souls, sacrements, sin and sinners, heaven, hell, angels, saints and the holy trinity is completely beyond me.

Fine there may be a God, but if there is, he set of a bloody big firework nearly 14 Billion years ago and hasn't been heard from since.

I would have thought that this would be accepted as common sense by anyone with access to a first world education, but yet they're everywhere, not only are they convinced that there is a God, but they know exactly how he thinks and what he wants them to do (normally to others).

Merry Christmas!

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote:

For quite some time I’ve felt both atheists and those of a religious leanings have been unduly hung up on the existence or non-existence of god.

Isn't that kind of like saying "philatelists are hung up on stamps"? The question of whether or not there is a god is what makes you an atheist or a theist.

Also, in the same way I might believe OJ Simpson was guilty, I have a belief in the question as to the existence of a god. What I believe makes no difference in reality - but it's there and there's nothing you can do about it.

pH wrote:

Oh now I've offended someone haven't I?

Only about 96% of the population of Ireland for starters - but don't let that stop you. :v:

Another thing - while the big bang and evolution ideas are certainly our best theories as to where we sprung from I think there are no certainties. The universe is so mind-boggling vast and downright weird I would suggest we know next to nothing.

But yeah, life's a journey - not a destination.

Rev Hellfire

The Atheist wrote:

Isn't that kind of like saying "philatelists are hung up on stamps"? The question of whether or not there is a god is what makes you an atheist or a theist.

Absolutely, but both the question and the answer are irrelevant. Quite like those pieces of research you hear at the end of the news, like do ‘cats always land on there feet in zero gravity we set out to prove it …’ totally and utterly pointless.

The Atheist wrote:

Another thing - while the big bang and evolution ideas are certainly our best theories as to where we sprung from I think there are no certainties. The universe is so mind-boggling vast and downright weird I would suggest we know next to nothing.

But again who really cares other than those people with an agenda on either side of the god camp?

I'm all on for expanding the boundaries of knowledge, but surely people could put both their minds and resources to more pressing matter which effect us in the here and now.

Stephen

I wouldn't care about any of this (and probably wouldn't bother reading an atheism forum) if I didn't regularly experience religious zealots (mostly hardcore catholics, given the country we live in, but sometimes other flavours too) trying to push their beliefs/way of life on others. That **** is what gets me "hung up" on it. Live and let live, f**kholes.

For example:
Anyone see the news items the other day about the first gay marriage in the UK happening up north? There were plenty of Jesus freaks outside the venue ranting and raving and generally making pricks of themselves.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I'm all on for expanding the boundaries of knowledge, but surely people could put both their minds and resources to more pressing matter which effect us in the here and now.

C'mon now the world would be a drab place if interesting questions like "where did we come from" were not debated. You might as well suggest sport is pointless. It is, but it takes your mind off the fact that the guy next door has a bigger car than you.

I'd say you'd be popular in the philosophy forum.

Stephen wrote:

Anyone see the news items the other day about the first gay marriage in the UK happening up north? There were plenty of Jesus freaks outside the venue ranting and raving and generally making pricks of themselves.

I don't make a habit of punching people in the head but I'd make an exception for those twats.

Rev Hellfire

Stephen wrote:

Anyone see the news items the other day about the first gay marriage in the UK happening up north? There were plenty of Jesus freaks outside the venue ranting and raving and generally making pricks of themselves.

Totally agree, but I suspect that has less to do with religion and more to do with a general homophobia. I just can't at times feel the whole religion thing is played up a bit. Certainly there are people with exteme views which come from their religion, but I'm of the opinion that the religion is more a product of the society than the reverse.

hairyheretic

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Totally agree, but I suspect that has less to do with religion and more to do with a general homophobia. I just can't at times feel the whole religion thing is played up a bit. Certainly there are people with exteme views which come from their religion, but I'm of the opinion that the religion is more a product of the society than the reverse.

Maybe, maybe not.

A few years back one of the local supermarkets in my home town (up North) was planning to open the sunday before christmas, so people could take care of any last minute shopping.

The local godsquad paid a visit to the manager and told him that if he did so, they would physically picket the store, and prevent people from going in.

If they don't want to work or do anything on a sunday, thats their business, but what makes them think they have the right to impose those beliefs on anyone else?

pH

The Atheist wrote:

Another thing - while the big bang and evolution ideas are certainly our best theories as to where we sprung from I think there are no certainties. The universe is so mind-boggling vast and downright weird I would suggest we know next to nothing.

But yeah, life's a journey - not a destination.

I've no problem with the fact that these theories may turn out to be wrong, or that more explanative theories may turn out to be downright weird, but the fact remains that science has no major gaps in our understanding that require a God or creator. That's a pretty astounding feat for a hairless ape!

HairyHeretic wrote:

If they don't want to work or do anything on a sunday, thats their business, but what makes them think they have the right to impose those beliefs on anyone else?

Maybe this is best for another thread, but I'd love the see how far you'd be prepared to test that philosophy. Myself I am in agreement with it, but how far would you go with your 'laisser faire' way of life? How many of the following do you agree should be allowed* ?

Drug Taking
Polygamy
Prostitution
Incest

*between consenting adults.

Stephen

Many of those are legal in some places with little negative effect - i.e. prostitution - legal in (for example) Germany, Nevada USA etc, certain drugs being legalised like marajuana in Amsterdam. Scum drugs like heroin and crack should never be legal. Their negative effects on society are obvious to anybody with two braincells to rub together.
Polygamy - legal in most arab nations (for men anyway), but of course the religious controlled regimes there wouldn't be my cup of tea.

Things like legalized prostitution and recreational drugs seem to lead to lower crime levels, as these things can be state-regulated, taking the thugs/pimps/dealers etc out of the loop.

Incest though... ugh. If its between two consenting adults, let them do what they want. The problem is if they reproduce.

Hmm, this went off on a bit of a tangent didn't it?

lostexpectation

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I’m sure this is a concept to which asiaprod is familiar with but I’ll throw it into the discussion pot here.

For quite some time I’ve felt both atheists and those of a religious leanings have been unduly hung up on the existence or non-existence of god.

I can’t but help but feel that to the question ‘Is there a god’ the answer is worthless, I personally can perceive no real value to humanity in searching for an answer to this question.

the problem I have with this is that you try to equate the non-belief in god with the belief in god.


btw the big bite had another religion in education debate the other day, the priest said Ireland was mission country. he wouldn't recognise the monopoly that the church has education, he called this choice somehow.

Dades

pH wrote:

but the fact remains that science has no major gaps in our understanding that require a God or creator. That's a pretty astounding feat for a hairless ape!

Um there is one gap - like where did the universe come from?
Not that I'm suggesting for a moment that we require a Creator to fill that gap.

pH wrote:

How many of the following do you agree should be allowed* ?

Drug Taking
Polygamy
Prostitution
Incest

I'd imagine Vangelis has probably started a thread on most of those in Humanities.

robindch

> Scum drugs like heroin and crack should never be legal. Their
> negative effects on society are obvious to anybody with two
> braincells to rub together.

Not so fast!

By making a highly-addictive drug illegal, you're putting massive power into the hands of the people who supply it to the poor b*stards who are hooked on it, and who'll do anything to satisfy their cravings. As a result, there's massive profits to be made and from this you get the drug-supplier wars, including murder + street- and property-crime, taking place all over dublin and elsewhere.

A more imaginative approach is firstly, to allow its supply, as a pure substance, from government-regulated (not controlled) outlets. This will remove the lethal criminal element from the supply-chain. Secondly, educate people more effectively about the effects of the addivtive drugs -- before'n'after pictures are especially good. [fyi - I spent five years working part-time in a well-known dublin homeless shelter where drug- and alcohol-addiction is endemic]

Above all, remember that legislation is just one input into people's behaviour, and not always a very strong one at that.

hairyheretic

pH wrote:

Maybe this is best for another thread, but I'd love the see how far you'd be prepared to test that philosophy.

Similar threads have come up in humanities before.

pH wrote:

Myself I am in agreement with it, but how far would you go with your 'laisser faire' way of life? How many of the following do you agree should be allowed* ?

Drug Taking

Drug taking is already quite accepted in society. Alcohol and tobacco are drugs after all.

pH wrote:

Polygamy

Wouldn't bother me, to be honest. Religious polygamy exists in several places, and I recall a story not too long ago of a dutch trio (man and two women) who have some kind of legal arrangement.

pH wrote:

Prostitution

Already legal in several countries, and civilisation is yet to crumble

pH wrote:

Incest

*between consenting adults.

Trickier one, considering the genetic implications. I'd be a bit dubious about this, and the taking of harder drugs, but frankly the others wouldn't bother me.

pH

hairyheretic wrote:

Similar threads have come up in humanities before.
Trickier one, considering the genetic implications. I'd be a bit dubious about this, and the taking of harder drugs, but frankly the others wouldn't bother me.

But it does show you have limits as to what you are prepared to tolerate others doing (you facist!) At a certain level (albeit quite liberal in the general scale of things) you would like to interfere with other people who are harming no one but possibly themselves. Yes you will purport to have noble intentions, "protecting them from themselves", or for "the good of society", but the fact remains you would like your views inflicted on others.

I on the other hand would argue strongly that a crime without a victim is not a crime, and society should not inflict punishments and retribution on people who 'commit' these 'crimes'.

hairyheretic

pH wrote:

But it does show you have limits as to what you are prepared to tolerate others doing (you facist!)

As does everyone, I would say.

pH wrote:

At a certain level (albeit quite liberal in the general scale of things) you would like to interfere with other people who are harming no one but possibly themselves.

If someone is going to harm themselves though, should you not make some attempt to stop them?

pH wrote:

Yes you will purport to have noble intentions, "protecting them from themselves", or for "the good of society", but the fact remains you would like your views inflicted on others.

Its a reality that we do all have others views inflicted on us .. laws, for instance. The point is where you draw the line on what you are prepared to accept.

pH wrote:

I on the other hand would argue strongly that a crime without a victim is not a crime, and society should not inflict punishments and retribution on people who 'commit' these 'crimes'.

To some extent I would agree.

However I think we're taking this thread a bit far off topic.