Things that we have in common with those of faith.

Tigger

Hi all, i believe that there is a lot of confusion on the religion and spirituality fara due to a tendency to fixate on the differences between teh different groups.
I was browsing the christianaity forum yesterday and was please to see quite nice discussion about the similarities and diferences between reformist and non-reformist faiths and cultures. (~ok some people suggested that the troubles used those differences as a flag to follow but thats not my point)

I have many values and belifes that are similar to those of a christian faith and i think that it would be nice to have a thread to discuss similar points of view.

I'll start ; i don't think that greed is a sin nor do i blieve in "sin" but i can quite clearly see that the immense greed and consumerisim has changed this country for the worse so i believe greed for greeds sake is wrong (whatever wrong is)

Stercus Accidit

Forget similarities, the only difference between us is they attribute human positives to god, and human negatives to the devil, absolving themselves of responsibility for human nature.

Then theres the whole jumble of confusion caused by trying to fit actions into one category or another, and standing by these decisions long after they become obsolete.

Naz_st

Tigger wrote: »

I'll start ; i don't think that greed is a sin nor do i blieve in "sin" but i can quite clearly see that the immense greed and consumerisim has changed this country for the worse so i believe greed for greeds sake is wrong (whatever wrong is)

Long live capitalism!

Dades

We're all carbon-based life forms?

robindch

Tigger wrote: »

i can quite clearly see that the immense greed and consumerisim has changed this country for the worse so i believe greed for greeds sake is wrong (whatever wrong is)

I'm not sure that I can think of a single Irish acquaintance who's greedy for greed's sake. What exactly do you mean?

Tigger

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure that I can think of a single Irish acquaintance who's greedy for greed's sake. What exactly do you mean?

i mean that many people were buying things they didn't need and couldnt afford and in many cases don't want and that they then needed more money to pay for more things

when i left callege in 99 a chem graduate started on 15k about €19,000
which was enough to live on quite happilly

ten years later and we'd expect twice that thats whats made us uncompetitative and thats the problem.

Goduznt Xzst

We like to run counter to the second law of thermodynamics?

Tigger

how so?

ChocolateSauce

Tigger wrote: »

i mean that many people were buying things they didn't need and couldnt afford and in many cases don't want and that they then needed more money to pay for more things

when i left callege in 99 a chem graduate started on 15k about €19,000
which was enough to live on quite happilly

ten years later and we'd expect twice that thats whats made us uncompetitative and thats the problem.

Speaking as a future Chemistry graduade, I'd say we're not paid enough. It's a very important qualification which reqiures a great knowledge of how the world works at the atomic level and has enormous job potential, and yet we're paid a pitiful 25-40k a year on average. If we intend on being a knowledge economy, we need the brightest people in science jobs. Right now, the brightest go to do medicine and business. I think pay between 50-90k a year for masters level science jobs is direly needed to attract people into those jobs. People who have masters in business often get paid more than 100k, and the highest ranking Doctors get several hundreds of thousands.

What can make us uncompetitive is having too few scientists, and saying high wages is counter-productive is untrue. If you buy something cheap, odds are it is poor quality.

Goduznt Xzst

Tigger wrote: »

how so?

Sorry... I should of used a ":rolleyes:". Admittedly it was maybe too subtly sarcastic. It's a common Creationist claim that all life violates the second law of thermodynamics, which is frankly not true.

I believe there was an article posted on it recently in the BC&P thread *rummages*

http://www.physorg.com/news137679868.html

pH

Tigger wrote: »

i mean that many people were buying things they didn't need and couldnt afford and in many cases don't want and that they then needed more money to pay for more things

Is this a down with the little folk type comment? For hundreds (if not thousands) of years we've had the mega-rich living indulgent lifestyles, with a downtrodden populace working for pittance and being 'happy with their lot.

Now it's become OK (and possible) for everyone to join in you think it's the cause of social ills? We should be good little folk, happy with our place in the scheme of things?

philologos

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Forget similarities, the only difference between us is they attribute human positives to god, and human negatives to the devil, absolving themselves of responsibility for human nature.

Even though Scripture claims that we are without excuse for our transgressions? Interesting.

Well, I think atheists and theists do have a lot in comparison. Basically everything that doesn't involve religion surely can be matched between them.

Doctor DooM

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Speaking as a future Chemistry graduade, I'd say we're not paid enough. It's a very important qualification which reqiures a great knowledge of how the world works at the atomic level and has enormous job potential, and yet we're paid a pitiful 25-40k a year on average. If we intend on being a knowledge economy, we need the brightest people in science jobs. Right now, the brightest go to do medicine and business. I think pay between 50-90k a year for masters level science jobs is direly needed to attract people into those jobs. People who have masters in business often get paid more than 100k, and the highest ranking Doctors get several hundreds of thousands.

What can make us uncompetitive is having too few scientists, and saying high wages is counter-productive is untrue. If you buy something cheap, odds are it is poor quality.

Sorry mein fruend but this is graduate syndrome. No one gets paid like that straight out of college, no matter how hard you've worked.

OT anyway... I guess one thing I share with alot of religious people is I love a considerable amount of lone comtemplative time. I'm just not prayatating when I am.

bnt

I think all people share many values regarding life, the universe, and everything. Where the differences come in often relate to where those values originate(d). Theists have their scriptures, which makes the whole business of "why" nice and simple: the book says so, and if we ask why the book is considered to be the word of [god], the answer is that the book says it's the word of [god], and therefore must be obeyed.

Meanwhile, we atheists think things a bit more complicated ... but not that much more. Start with a simple selfish idea, "I'm not going to hurt you, because you might hurt me", run it through millions of trials over many thousands of years, sometimes splitting, sometimes merging down the line. Bingo: a simple idea evolves in to the varied, complicated and sometimes contradictory moral and ethical values we expect today.

Stercus Accidit

Jakkass wrote: »

Even though Scripture claims that we are without excuse for our transgressions? Interesting.

Quite, but then again, scripture is deeply flawed, if useable at all as a source of information, given its huge inconsistencies, but I'm sure thats the point, as you can root out any scripture at any time to support any argument.

An eye for an eye, turn the other cheek, which ever suits the moment, what wonderful 'evidence' you have.

But this is off topic, I do believe the main differences are as my first post on thread, the scripture does not necessarily echo the reality.

Húrin

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Forget similarities, the only difference between us is they attribute human positives to god, and human negatives to the devil, absolving themselves of responsibility for human nature.

Thinking that any individual human is responsible for human nature sounds pretty ridiculous. Thinking that human nature is somehow flawed, and that it ought to be "better" while simultaneously being atheist is also ridiculous.