Unknowability of divinity/"God"?

tech77

I'm agnostic.
I can't help seeing both atheistic and theistic viewpoints as arrogant.
Atheists in an intellectual sense (informed by no more than their limited (?) worldly evidence).
And Theists in a (less intellectual) sense.

There's just something hubristic for man (whether atheist or theist) to know it all (or anything) when it comes to matters outside of their own existence, is there not?

Sure you got evolution, well-founded and understood intellectually.
You got man's understanding of the principles of physics- The Big Bang, the cosmos etc.
So what?!
Likewise with the Theists' (less than intellectual and frequently ridiculous) efforts.

It's just that, by it's very nature, wouldn't the concepts of divinity/spirituality/"God" be outside the experience and comprehension of atheists and theists- necessarily unknowable to man (and probably forever so), not amenable to any sort of intellectual treatment or theistic treatment.

Does all this stuff just come down to humility.
Humility in the acceptance of unknowability.

(BTW, on the point of humility, i always wonder if atheists see themselves as more God-like themselves, following on from their absence of belief in God).

robindch

tech77 wrote: »

i always wonder if atheists see themselves as more God-like themselves, what with their belief in the absence of God.

Rehashing a post from a few months back:

There exists various degrees of atheism and agnosticism:

1. "Weak specific atheism" in which the holder believes that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist.
2. "Weak non-specific atheism" in which the holder believes that no deities of any kind exist.
3. "Strong specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist
4. "Strong non-specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that no deities exist at all.

In general, I'd imagine that most atheists here fall into category (1) and a few into (2) and (3) and there's nobody anywhere whom I know who falls into (4). Though there are plenty of religious people who think (entirely incorrectly and despite being reminded about it regularly) that all atheists place themselves in (4). Agnosticism has little meaning without specifying exactly what it is that one's being agnostic about, but once it's been defined, it's possible to apply a similar categorization to the atheist one above.

Most religious people people fall into category (3), when for example, christians assert that Allah is a figment of an overheated desert imagination.

There's nothing "god-like" about saying "I don't know" which is broadly the position of most atheists, or saying "that's nonsense" when presented, say, with an incoherent picture of some deity or other by a religious believer.

marco_polo

tech77 wrote: »

I'm agnostic.
I can't help seeing both atheistic and theistic viewpoints as arrogant.
Atheists in an intellectual sense (informed by no more than their limited (?) worldly evidence).
And Theists in a (less intellectual) sense.

True some folk are arrogant, some are not is that not just human nature? And in my experience if someone is arrogant it is usually not limited to a single topic such as religion.

There's just something hubristic for man (whether atheist or theist) to know it all (or anything) when it comes to matters outside of their own existence, is there not?

Sure you got evolution, well-founded and understood intellectually.
You got man's understanding of the principles of physics- The Big Bang, the cosmos etc.
So what?!
Likewise with the Theists' (less than intellectual and frequently ridiculous) efforts.

I had to look up hubristic (Who is arrogant now Mr Big Fancy words )

As I see it is that science is meerly exploring the nature of how things work, without trying to attach any grander meaning to it.

It's just that, by it's very nature, wouldn't the concepts of divinity/spirituality/"God" be outside the experience and comprehension of atheists and theists- necessarily unknowable to man (and probably forever so), not amenable to any sort of intellectual treatment or theistic treatment.

Does all this stuff just come down to humility.
Humility in the acceptance of unknowability.

What is the alternative, just give up? I think the pursuit of knowledge is a noble trait of humanity. Perhaps one day we will reach the limits of what we can know, but that is no reason not to try.

Many scientists would be the first to admit that it is unlikely that we will ever understand everything fully. In fact outside of some 'multiverse' branches of string theory that need a load of universises to be correct, most physicist could not care less about anything that may lie outside this universe and would agree that it is almost certainly unknowable.

(BTW, on the point of humility, i always wonder if atheists see themselves as more God-like themselves, what with their belief in the absence of God).

Bit of a generalisation there don't you think and I would say most untrue of the vast majority of atheists. Comments like that not very helpful when trying to starting a reasoned debate on what is otherwise a very interesting thread.

tech77

marco_polo wrote: »

Bit of a generalisation there don't you think and I would say most untrue of the vast majority of atheists. Comments like that not very helpful when trying to starting a reasoned debate on what is otherwise a very interesting thread.

No last thing i want to do is offend and stifle debate tbh.
What i mean by

i always wonder if atheists see themselves as more God-like themselves

is just that- i just wonder this.
It's not meant to be rhetorical/accusatory.

So what i mean by this is:
If "God"/divinity/higher power isn't really entertained by atheists, would it kinda follow that an atheistic mankind would logically see itself as the master of their own universe so to speak.
Basing this, albeit, of course, on limited evidence/experience of their universe.
OK so, if not exactly Gods, do atheists see themselves as the most God-like entities in their (limited) experience of the universe then.

All the above is just a curiosity btw, incidental to my main query though- the unknowability of "God" etc.

(And yeah of course the theistic viewpoint is arrogant as well for other reasons, but given the forum i'm just interested for the timebeing in possible atheistic arrogance in the context of this unknowability).

marco_polo

tech77 wrote: »

No last thing i want to do is offend and stifle debate tbh.
What i mean by is just that- i just wonder this.
It's not meant to be rhetorical/accusatory.

Fair enough, just checking

So what i mean by this is:
If "God"/divinity/higher power isn't really entertained by atheists, would it kinda follow that an atheistic mankind would logically see itself as the master of their own universe so to speak.
Basing this, albeit, of course, on limited evidence/experience of their universe.
OK so, if not exactly Gods, do atheists see themselves as the most God-like entities in their (limited) experience of the universe then.

All the above is just a curiosity btw, incidental to my main query though- the unknowability of "God" etc.

(And yeah of course the theistic viewpoint is arrogant as well for other reasons, but given the forum i'm just interested in possible atheistic arrogance above).

Well personally speaking I would just consider myself to be a member of one species on this planet doing my best not to get killed - And maybe span a few young ones along the way .

As for any God like tendancies, I do not personally even view Humans as the highest form of life, certainly we are the best evolved socially and intelligence wise, and have become the dominant species on the planet as a result (although insects and bacteria may like to argue that point) but lock me in a cave underground or put me thousands of meters under the sea on the ocean floor and I wouldn't be taking looking so well evolved then. It really depends on the criteria you use to evaluate, and this can be very different on different parts of the planet.

I find the belief that we were specially created by God in his image, and have dominion over the animal kingdom to be a much more arrogant viewpoint personally speaking.

Just my 2c, perhaps even a bordering on off topic . I will get back to the unknowability question tommorrow.

Zillah

I'm going to borrow an argument from Wicknight, as frankly I'm getting tired of making this same argument over and over again.

You don't believe there is a lion in your attic. Rightly so. This does point out however that to require 100% proof to commit to a belief is strict to the point of absurdity. You, wisely, dismiss the notion of there being a lion in your attic because its so highly unlikely. If someone asked you about said lion you wouldn't say "I am agnostic about the possibility of there being a lion in my attic as there could be forces beyond my ken secretly placing lions in my attic".

Similarly, I assume you don't go leveling such judgments at people who dismiss the existence of vampires and invisible pink unicorns. We're both arrogant enough to make that dismissal, why do you want me to give the question of God any special merit? I find it equally ridiculous.

Finally, your continuous use of ultimately meaningless, emotive words is quite taxing. Arrogant, hubristic, humility...these comments have no place in a rational discussion. One can be both arrogant and right, or humble and wrong.

axer

tech77 wrote: »

I'm agnostic.

I used to label myself as that too but you cannot label yourself as just agnostic since that does not make sense since it does not indicate what you actually believe.

Atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

I have found is that most athiests actually don't rule out the possibility of gods existing at all. They just take the logical approach that it is unlikely from what we know.

Dades

Why is it arrogant to simply believe something?

Especially something that arguably makes your existence meaningless from a theological pov...

limerick_woody

Atheism is the lack of belief in a supernatural being. How can that possibly be considered anything other than the default position?

If someone was to assert that there definitely is no God, then that person has gone too far and is not definitivily an Atheist - the atheist position is a lack of belief - not an untestable assertion.

Rev Hellfire

limerick_woody wrote: »

If someone was to assert that there definitely is no God, then that person has gone too far and is not definitivily an Atheist - the atheist position is a lack of belief - not an untestable assertion.

Surely as has been argued before atheistism is more than a simple 'belief', that would it at level pegging as the theists stance. An atheist states fact, if your's is a simple belief there is no god(s) then you imply you are open to the existence of god(s) which by default makes you an agnostic.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

An atheist states fact, if your's is a simple belief there is no god(s) then you imply you are open to the existence of god(s) which by default makes you an agnostic.

Being open to the existence of gods does not make you an agnostic.

If I may reprint axer's excellent quote from above:

Atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

It is impossible to know whether gods exist or not - given their slippery characteristics. But just because something is unfalsifiable doesn't mean people can't hold a belief as to whether it exists or not.

Rev Hellfire

I would have thought that Zillah point about been able to dismiss absurd notions to be applicable here, otherwise it is just fence sitting and playing with number, well I'm 99.9999999999999% certain there is no god.

Dades

I'm confused. Are you suggesting atheism is fence-sitting?

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

I'm confused. Are you suggesting atheism is fence-sitting?

I'm suggesting that, if your definition of atheism is a belief that their is no god, but one you can't state it with conviction.
Then in my view by that definition atheism is just agnosticism by another name, something I suspect (and I may be wrong here) the more *ahem* harden atheists here would disagree with.

I can't see what distinguishes it from agnosticism ?

Dades

Well given two options; to say I believe gods don't exist, or to say I know gods don't exist I'd have no choice but to go with the former.

My level of (dis)belief is what you might describe as 'strong', if that helps. Also, the term "practical atheist" has been bandied around here, and seems apt, as it reflects a real world belief, rather than a philosophical construct.

Zillah

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm suggesting that, if your definition of atheism is a belief that their is no god, but one you can't state it with conviction.
Then in my view by that definition atheism is just agnosticism by another name, something I suspect (and I may be wrong here) the more *ahem* harden atheists here would disagree with.

I can't see what distinguishes it from agnosticism ?

Hello Mr Atheist, do you believe in God?
No.

Hello Mr Agnostic, do you believe in God?
I'm not sure.

20goto10

I think being agnostic is an awful state of mind to be in. An agnostic to me is someone who knows religion and God is absurd but just can't bring themselves to let go fully of all the rubbish which has polluted their minds by being brought up a Christian. Its akin to any other post traumatic stress syndrome.

brianthebard

Dades wrote: »

Why is it arrogant to simply believe something?

Especially something that arguably makes your existence meaningless from a theological pov...

I think the op is saying its arrogant for someone to close their mind to a particular viewpoint....A lot of atheists say they would believe if something concrete was put in front of them, but most of the time they are too busy ridiculing those with faith to actually be looking for evidence. I personally don't care what an individual believes, and in fact find faith an interesting and intriguing concept, but I find many many atheists argumentative and unnecessarily rude for want of a better phrase.

Rev Hellfire

Zillah wrote: »

Hello Mr Atheist, do you believe in God?
No.

Hello Mr Agnostic, do you believe in God?
I'm not sure.

So to turn your question around slightly to reflect my issue with Dades definition (ie. is atheism a statement of fact as opposed to belief) would this be an accurate representation:

Hello Mr Atheist, do gods exist?
No gods do not exist.

Hello Mr Agnostic, do you believe in God?
I'm not sure.

brianthebard

20goto10 wrote: »

I think being agnostic is an awful state of mind to be in. An agnostic to me is someone who knows religion and God is absurd but just can't bring themselves to let go fully of all the rubbish which has polluted their minds by being brought up a Christian. Its akin to any other post traumatic stress syndrome.

Now that seems like distilled arrogance to me.

pH

brianthebard wrote: »

A lot of atheists say they would believe if something concrete was put in front of them, but most of the time they are too busy ridiculing those with faith to actually be looking for evidence.

That statement is just plain silly. It (or similar) claims have been made quite a few times here before. I'm beginning to think that the average God botherer takes over an hour to prepare a simple post here on boards.

I'm quite capable of reading and responding to threads in under 15 minutes a day, that leaves 23 3/4 hours left to do other things (including 'look for evidence' if I wanted to).

I know that some people believe in really dumb things, but do you really believe that 'a lot' of atheists spend 'most of the time' 'ridiculing those with faith'?, or are you lying?

brianthebard

I didn't realise you were going to take it so literally. I'm agnostic btw. And I'm not lying, but I meant in terms of debate on religion and faith, they often spend more time ridiculing than listening.

Zillah

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

So to turn your question around slightly to reflect my issue with Dades definition (ie. is atheism a statement of fact as opposed to belief) would this be an accurate representation:

Hello Mr Atheist, do gods exist?
No gods do not exist.

Hello Mr Agnostic, do you believe in God?
I'm not sure.

Atheism is a matter of belief. We cannot always justify what we believe. I feel Atheism is a very rational position but I cannot state, in a strict sense, that God does not exist.

Sometimes I might say "No gods do not exist" but mostly I'm just rounding up to 100% from 99.99% for the sake of simplicity.

Hello Mr Atheist, do you believe in God?
No.

Can you prove God does not exist?
No.

Does that make your answer to the first question irrational?
No.

20goto10

brianthebard wrote: »

Now that seems like distilled arrogance to me.

And this goes back to the point where religious people think they deserve some kind of respect because they are a member of the longest running cult in history. I've heard Catholics ridicule mormons and scientologists. When I ask them how are they any different I get the usual "aw shut up you arrogant atheist" argument. The only difference, and this is fact rather than opinion, is that their cult has been running longer and is better funded.

Zillah

Stating that someone else is arrogant is not, contrary to popular opinion, a sound counter to their position. You may as well call them a poo-head for all the good it does for a rational discussion.

brianthebard

20goto10 wrote: »

And this goes back to the point where religious people think they deserve some kind of respect because they are a member of the longest running cult in history. I've heard Catholics ridicule mormons and scientologists. When I ask them how are they any different I get the usual "aw shut up you arrogant atheist" argument. The only difference, and this is fact rather than opinion, is that their cult has been running longer and is better funded.

I noticed you connected religious with Catholicism, despite the fact its not actually the oldest faith. Methinks you are confused about a lot of terminology and the nature of your disgust is misdirected, from the Catholic church to people of faith in general. In any case I don't see how it "goes back to the point", if you had a point to begin with. And I don't see why you believe religious people shouldn't be shown respect, surely its a basic tenet of day to day life?

all the stars

Ages ago i would have jumped into a discussion about stuff like this, but i've always wondered why people feel the need to really go into their religious (or lack of) beliefs so aggressively with people of a differant scope/religion/ whatever..

I mean, realitstically, no-one will be changing their own personal views (read any of the debates in the christian threads) so whats the gain of trying to discuss it?

I mean, why do people need to validate their beliefs, or throw them about so much.
Yes i have gotten involved in the mindless debates before- however, i dont in general 'real' life feel the need to go into it... They are my beliefs/or partial lack of.... and i dont need anybody poking fun at them. ... coz thats what generally happens.

I mean, nobody knows one way or the other with 100% certainty what or which religion is the right one, ... heck, even a priest i know still has a few things he cant awnser 100%... same with the agnostics or athiests...

There is nothing 100% certain .

Dades

brianthebard wrote: »

A lot of atheists say they would believe if something concrete was put in front of them, but most of the time they are too busy ridiculing those with faith to actually be looking for evidence.

That first part of that statement may be correct, but the second part is kind of nonsensical. Countless threads on boards and elsewhere have discussed the "evidence" offered by religion and it's proponents, and every sincere non-believer has simply looked at the same evidence as believers and come to a different conclusion.

brianthebard wrote: »

I find many many atheists argumentative and unnecessarily rude for want of a better phrase.

Yes, religion can take stick here (this is a heathen internet forum), but frankly not everyone subscribes to the idea that religion is some sort of sacred cow that should be free from the same scrutiny that every other facet of life is subject to. Religion affects us all.

Yes, many atheists argumentative and unnecessarily rude. But if you visit the Motors forum you'll find many car enthusiasts are argumentative and unnecessarily rude. And the golf forum. And the photography forum... and so on. This is the internet. Welcome to it. If you see a post where you adjudge someone to be rude - report it.

Zillah

all the stars wrote: »

There is nothing 100% certain .

The fact that nothing is 100% doesn't mean that everything is equal.

If you were gambling, and one choice had a 1% chance and the other had 99%, would you shrug and go on about how nothing in life is 100%?

To me that's faith versus atheism.

20goto10

brianthebard wrote: »

I noticed you connected religious with Catholicism, despite the fact its not actually the oldest faith. Methinks you are confused about a lot of terminology and the nature of your disgust is misdirected, from the Catholic church to people of faith in general.

I said I have heard catholics ridicule mormons and scientoligists because the people doing the ridiculing were catholic.

brianthebard wrote: »

And I don't see why you believe religious people shouldn't be shown respect, surely its a basic tenet of day to day life?

I will respect people in day to day life so long as they don't talk about religion. I'm not saying they don't have a right to speak, I'm saying they don't have a right to speak without being confronted or ridiculed.

brianthebard

20goto10 wrote: »

I said I have heard catholics ridicule mormons and scientoligists because the people doing the ridiculing were catholic.

What is the longest running cult you were referring to so?

I will respect people in day to day life so long as they don't talk about religion. I'm not saying they don't have a right to speak, I'm saying they don't have a right to speak without being confronted or ridiculed.

That's not really respect then is it, its censorship.

Dades

all the stars wrote: »

I mean, why do people need to validate their beliefs, or throw them about so much.

Interesting question. Maybe you could wait outside a church next Sunday and ask people as they leave?

all the stars

Zillah wrote: »

The fact that nothing is 100% doesn't mean that everything is equal.

If you were gambling, and one choice had a 1% chance and the other had 99%, would you shrug and go on about how nothing in life is 100%?

To me that's faith versus atheism.

Regardless, the fact that neither option is 100% means it is not a sure thing.


however, in real life, i dont gamble.

20goto10

brianthebard wrote: »

That's not really respect then is it, its censorship.

Who's being arrogant now? You have the right to spread your lies and nobody is allowed to say boo to you.

brianthebard wrote: »

What is the longest running cult you were referring to so?

Point taken. But its still a longer running cult. My point still stands.

all the stars

Dades wrote: »

Interesting question. Maybe you could wait outside a church next Sunday and ask people as they leave?

i can see the title on "the Star" now.... local girl beaten to death by local christian thugs or something mad like that :pac:

brianthebard

20goto10 wrote: »

Who's being arrogant now? You have the right to spread your lies and nobody is allowed to say boo to you.

The lies of agnosticism?

Point taken. But its still a longer running cult. My point still stands.

Well perhaps, except you are equating religion with Catholicism, and a hatred for the latter with the former.

Zillah

all the stars wrote: »

Regardless, the fact that neither option is 100% means it is not a sure thing.

however, in real life, i dont gamble.

This is hilarious.

You first state that NOTHING is 100%, but then state that you NEVER gamble.

By your own criteria, you take a terrible gamble every second of every day. You can't be 100% sure that reading this post won't give you a heart attack, but you'll make that gamble anyway. Want a cup of tea? Aliens might abduct you on the way to the kitchen, its not 100% guaranteed that they won't!

In the same way that you dismiss the idea of a vampire drinking your blood on the way to the shop, I dismiss the idea of there being a God. Neither are 100%, but we're quite right to laugh our asses off at anyone who takes these ridiculous notions seriously.

all the stars

Zillah wrote: »

This is hilarious.

You first state that NOTHING is 100%, but then state that you NEVER gamble.

By your own criteria, you take a terrible gamble every second of every day. You can't be 100% sure that reading this post won't give you a heart attack, but you'll make that gamble anyway. Want a cup of tea? Aliens might abduct you on the way to the kitchen, its not 100% guaranteed that they won't!

In the same way that you dismiss the idea of a vampire drinking your blood on the way to the shop, I dismiss the idea of there being a God. Neither are 100%, but we're quite right to laugh our asses off at anyone who takes these ridiculous notions seriously.

see, i know earlier in my post i said i dont gamble... i mean the lotto, poker, black jack etc
.
i dont really consider existing a gamble. (in refrence to the cup of tea comment and having a heart attack comment)

Also, earlier in the post i said people just wind up poking fun at others beliefs so whats the point of getting into a proper debate... and there you go, proving the point by saying my personal views are hilarious.:rolleyes:
Actually they aren't.

But yes.... poke fun all you want at everyone. They will love you for it...

all the stars

Also,

i said neither is 100% (referring to christianity/atheism).... i didnt say nothing is 100%.


Buddah existed. 100%. no room for questioning there.
(i dont know much about buddism but that much i do know)

20goto10

all the stars wrote: »

Also,

i said neither is 100% (referring to christianity/atheism).... i didnt say nothing is 100%.


Buddah existed. 100%. no room for questioning there.
(i dont know much about buddism but that much i do know)

What about the flying spghetti monster? You can't prove he exists therefore there is the possibility. Do you sit on the fence about that? Of course not. Because its ridiculous. Now give the spaghetti monster a bible and tell children if they don't believe in him and his preachings then when they die they will be sent to a damp dark cave that smells of poo. Manipulate their minds so that they will truly believe it and grow up truly terrified of doubting the spaghetti bible. Now give it a few hundred years and you have a new god.

Now instead of people calling me an arrogant twat, give me an argument as to why any other god is any different? What about the greek gods? And what of all the people who truly believed in them?

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

Hello Mr Atheist, do you believe in God?
No.

Hello Mr Agnostic, do you believe in God?
I'm not sure.

No, no, no, no and no!

An atheist can "believe in" god, in the sense that an atheist can believe that the abstract concept of a deity exists, or believe that the abstract concept of the existence of a deity exists.

It's the difference between asserting the existence of an abstract concept with "believe in" versus a concrete reality with "believe". This difference is a linguistic beartrap that exists in many languages other than English and very carefully allows people with entirely different views of deities, to appear to agree upon a common position.

Dades

20goto10 wrote: »

Now instead of calling me an arrogant twat, give me an argument as to why any other god is any different?

all the stars never implied you were anything of the sort in any of her posts, and you intimating that she did only serves to show this tangent is becoming blurred beyond the point of usefulness.

Unless someone wants to respond to robindch, this thread is approaching End of Days.

all the stars

20goto10 wrote: »

What about the flying spghetti monster? You can't prove he exists therefore there is the possibility. Do you sit on the fence about that? Of course not. Because its ridiculous. Now give the spaghetti monster a bible and tell children if they don't believe in him and his preachings then when they die they will be sent to a damp dark cave that smells of poo. Manipulate their minds so that they will truly believe it and grow up truly terrified of doubting the spaghetti bible. Now give it a few hundred years and you have a new god. Now instead of calling me an arrogant twat, give me an argument as to why any other god is any different? What about the greek gods? And what of all the people who truly believed in them?

did you not read my posts on this thread? here's a snippet:
"Ages ago i would have jumped into a discussion about stuff like this, but i've always wondered why people feel the need to really go into their religious (or lack of) beliefs so aggressively with people of a differant scope/religion/ whatever..

I mean, realitstically, no-one will be changing their own personal views (read any of the debates in the christian threads) so whats the gain of trying to discuss it?"

Now to awnser you: (your more serious point):

I am not doubting the ancient greek religions. I'm not questioning them either or saying anything about them. People believed in it and many still "pray" to the greek panthenons... also, never called anybody any names ("arrogant twat" to quote you) and have been defending everyones right to ones own belief, and the privacy to practise whatever one chooses without having others talk smack about it..
pick an arguement with someone else. :cool:

pH

all the stars wrote: »

did you not read my posts on this thread? here's a snippet:
"Ages ago i would have jumped into a discussion about stuff like this, but i've always wondered why people feel the need to really go into their religious (or lack of) beliefs so aggressively with people of a differant scope/religion/ whatever..

I mean, realitstically, no-one will be changing their own personal views (read any of the debates in the christian threads) so whats the gain of trying to discuss it?"

And we've had this posted here before. Look around you, all our primary schools are religious, we couldn't buy a condom in this country until 1985, homosexuals are still denied basic rights, remember the Magdelene laundries (the last one closed in 1996)? I could go on.

This is not a pointless debate, to be honest I couldn't care less if they don't change their minds, when the religious are happy to accept their faith as a private matter then there'll be less point in discussing it.

Oh and Christmas ... those bloody Christians have stolen it, and are still trying to make it religious, we want it changed back to the celebration of indulgence it was always meant to be, they can pick another random day to have a church service on.

all the stars

pH wrote: »

all our primary schools are religious,

no they aren't... i live in the midlands and there is non denominational "Educate toghether" school here.... surely in the cities there are also...

pH wrote: »

we couldn't buy a condom in this country until 1985, homosexuals are still denied basic rights, remember the Magdelene laundries (the last one closed in 1996)? I could go on.

This is not a pointless debate, to be honest I couldn't care less if they don't change their minds, when the religious are happy to accept their faith as a private matter then there'll be less point in discussing it.

Oh and Christmas ... those bloody Christians have stolen it, and are still trying to make it religious, we want it changed back to the celebration of indulgence it was always meant to be, they can pick another random day to have a church service on.

I just dont appreciate everyone aggressively bashing everyone's beliefs... it doesn't move things forward.
Im all about moving forward (with most things actually).

More acceptance is needed, i find it hard to get how closed off people are.. thats all. Possibly i should just exit this thread at this point.
Even my comments hoping for more acceptance & less "Bible bashing" and also less anti "Bible Bashing" are ignored.

axer

all the stars wrote: »

no they aren't... i live in the midlands and there is non denominational "Educate toghether" school here.... surely in the cities there are also...

92% of primary schools in Ireland are managed by the catholic church but yet the percentage of catholics in Ireland is much lower than that. That is completely wrong and is not fair on non-catholics.

There is no way that unfounded beliefs should be pushed on so many people via brainwashing in the schools (thought as fact) or otherwise - it is immoral.

Fact is the catholic church still affects the lives of those who are not catholic thus Atheists have a right to be angry about that.

20goto10

Dades wrote: »

all the stars never implied you were anything of the sort in any of her posts, and you intimating that she did only serves to show this tangent is becoming blurred beyond the point of usefulness.
.

I never said she did. Maybe that should be on a different paragraph directed at no-one in particular. Sorry to all the stars for that it wasn't intended to have a go. The rest was though

all the stars

axer wrote: »

92% of primary schools in Ireland are managed by the catholic church but yet the percentage of catholics in Ireland is much lower than that. That is completely wrong and is not fair on non-catholics.

There is no way that unfounded beliefs should be pushed on so many people via brainwashing in the schools (thought as fact) or otherwise - it is immoral.

Fact is the catholic church still affects the lives of those who are not catholic thus Atheists have a right to be angry about that.

grand. not that this matters, but im not catholic. and i dont feel hard done- by.
In fact i went to a convent - secondary school. It didn't bug me much at all... in fact i enjoyed winding up my religion teacher...
Instead of giving out about the schools being this way, maybe become a teacher, work to open more non religious schools... do something about it.
Change what you aren't happy with. Thats all im saying...
The majority of the country has always been catholic so naturally the school system will reflect that.

i've adopted the mantra
"be the change you want to see in the world"
It works.

20goto10

all the stars wrote: »

no they aren't... i live in the midlands and there is non denominational "Educate toghether" school here.... surely in the cities there are also...



I just dont appreciate everyone aggressively bashing everyone's beliefs... it doesn't move things forward.
Im all about moving forward (with most things actually).

More acceptance is needed, i find it hard to get how closed off people are.. thats all. Possibly i should just exit this thread at this point.
Even my comments hoping for more acceptance & less "Bible bashing" and also less anti "Bible Bashing" are ignored.

I agree you should be allowed to believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own mind. But as far as acceptance goes, I think there should be less. everyone who comes out with a comment on the origins and meaning of life or anything at all should be subjected to scrutiny.....everyone. Christian, Muslim, scientist, atheist, mormon, scientologist etc etc.

Scientists are the only ones subjected to scrutiny and this is what makes it the truth...99.99% as there's always room for more scrutinising and quite rightly so. Faith did not send men to the moon or robots to Mars.

Take the Climate Change debate for example of what I mean. Why should we not have the same debate about religion? Religion is protected for the quite obvious reason that it is completely made up and can be blown out of the water by a 5 year old. Its been backed into a corner and its only way out is dirty tactics (I refer to Creationism and particularly teaching it to children in schools and out).

pH

all the stars wrote: »

no they aren't... i live in the midlands and there is non denominational "Educate toghether" school here.... surely in the cities there are also...

all right not all ... 99% ... from educate together ...

However, there are currently approximately 3,150 National Schools in Ireland, 99% of which are under the patronage of denominational patrons and are not owned by the State. The Education Act 1998 copper fastens the religious nature of these schools and the Education Welfare Act 2000 obliges parents to have their children in recognised programmes of education.
http://www.educatetogether.ie/2_campaigns/legalchallenges.html

That 1% obviously makes a difference, does it make you feel all warm and inclusive now? For all practical purposes, primary schools are currently all religious, unless you want to dump your kids in a SUV and drive them miles twice a day, for most people the local school is religious.

More acceptance is needed, i find it hard to get how closed off people are.. thats all. Possibly i should just exit this thread at this point.
Even my comments hoping for more acceptance & less "Bible bashing" and also less anti "Bible Bashing" are ignored.

There really is lots of acceptance for those whose beliefs are a private matter. You're right however, I'm totally "closed off" to living my life by anyone else's religious rules, and I'd hazard a guess that if I picked a religion at random, let's say Scientology, you'd be fairly "closed off" to auditing and thetans if these people had the power to force them on society.

axer

all the stars wrote: »

grand. not that this matters, but im not catholic. and i dont feel hard done- by.
In fact i went to a convent - secondary school. It didn't bug me much at all... in fact i enjoyed winding up my religion teacher...

I think it is different in secondary schools since the students are older and are able to see how stupid the argument is. It is, however, a different story in primary school where the young students have a mallable brain whereby they are literally brainwashed into think this rubbish is fact without any proof.

all the stars wrote: »

Instead of giving out about the schools being this way, maybe become a teacher, work to open more non religious schools... do something about it.

My sister is a primary school teacher and would like to leave the catholic church like I have but then she would have a problem getting a job. I can't see how me becoming a teacher could change this.

all the stars wrote: »

Change what you aren't happy with. Thats all im saying...

and how do you go about doing that? by debating with those that oppose it?

all the stars wrote: »

The majority of the country has always been catholic so naturally the school system will reflect that.

It doesn't make it right.

all the stars wrote: »

i've adopted the mantra
"be the change you want to see in the world"
It works.

I have left the catholic church but yet the world hasn't changed - they still effect me.

Maybe if more "catholics who really aren't catholics" left the church then things might change but people have this impression (because they were brainwashed as children) that you shouldn't leave the church because it would be wrong to do so. Some of my sisters could not understand why I would do such a thing, my parents were not happy (although they knew they had no say in the matter of course), even one or two of my friends thought it was silly and couldn't understand why.

The only way things will change is if more people (who are not really cathlolics) leave the catholic church. That is why it is good to debate these issues and get people thinking about whether they actually believe this crap or not. If they don't believe in it then why are they still members of the church - all it takes is one letter and one stamp.