Common Folk

Common as...

Ok I gotta few questions for you's. So first of I better say that im a catholic (on paper anyways). Why? Because like most young people in this country i never really cared or took the whole thing seriously.So i guess there's the first question.

1. Would you agree that when it comes to religion most of the young Irish (under 40 ) are chatholic but cos they got bigger fish to fry; shopping, sport, women, men, T.V. drinking and so on, they ain't bothered about the whole thing and just kinda go with the flow when it comes to religion?

I've got friends male/female from all walks of life some are very well educated and have very good jobs/career etc while others have trouble with the law and i've worked in several differant type jobs.
So not very often but maybe at or around the time of a funeral a conversation about what you believe comes up. Now i'll generalize here but in a group of about 6 or 7 there's always 1 or 2 who confess to being atheist and demand evidence in order to believe in something.
But from my experience anyways when someone says they are atheist to a group that is kinda vague about what they believe in ( most young people) it never really changes the views of those who are non-atheist about them, in fact its such a non-issue it might even be forgotten. A debate may spark up but it wouldn't get that serious, of course if you add drink into the mix it might get a little heated but dosen't every arguement.

2. So do Irish atheist here have a "Im the only gay in the village" mentality and if so how did that come about?

Now if im pushed as to what I really believe I would say, I believe in a Being, Thing, God, Higher power call it what you like; that is uncomprehensible to myself and all other humans. As for the bible and religions well I would need some really strong evidence in order to believe any of that. I don't go to mass, but why do I go along with all the stuff like weddings funerals prayers christenings etc. Why do I do this? I gotta pretty solid answer to that, I don't wanna dissappoint my parents.

I also would think that this view is quiet common amoung young people in this country anyways. Now it may not seem like that here on a religious forum but my experience from living here, is that this is very much the case.
3. So considering I was raised catholic; parents,schools, teachers etc and my views above are common. Do you think when it comes to organized religion here its pretty much a case of, game over, ball burst!?

ShooterSF

Most of my friends fall into the same category as yourself and I think most just don't think about their religion as theyre comfortable with it.

As for question number 2, Would your group be accepting if someone said they were gay? It's not the (stereotypical al a carte catholic) young Irish that give an atheist heartache over what they believe (or don't (before "THAT" starts)).

Common as...

ShooterSF wrote: »

Most of my friends fall into the same category as yourself and I think most just don't think about their religion as theyre comfortable with it.

As for question number 2, Would your group be accepting if someone said they were gay? It's not the (stereotypical al a carte catholic) young Irish that give an atheist heartache over what they believe (or don't (before "THAT" starts)).

Well if say a good friend said all of a sudden that he/she was gay, I know id be very accepting and i would try anyways at being supportive but at the same time it would be a big deal, im sure id be shocked, and im sure them being gay would define them for the next while until people got used to the idea. As for say a group of friends Id like to think they would be accepting but can't say for sure.
But if a good freind said all of a sudden they were atheist, it wouldn't be such a big deal or even close.

strobe

1. No. I wouldn't think they were Catholic unless they were actually living by the Catholic doctrine and believed in it. It's my opinion a large proportion of the people you are talking about may say "catholic" when asked what their religion is out of habit more than anything else. |I would not consider them Catholic and most genuine Catholics that I know would not consider them Catholic either.

2. No. Whenever the topic of religious belief comes up, which is usually when people are drunk and someone has recently died, I have never been the only person to say I was agnostic/atheist. Nowadays I would be pretty surprised to find myself in that situation, certainly amongst people of my generation. So no I've never felt like I'm the "only atheist in the village". So no, I don't think that mentality exists.

3 .No. I don;t think it's game over in terms of organised religion. Have a look at the power and influence organised religion has had in Ireland or the western world in general. 500 years ago. Then 100 years ago. Then 30 years ago. Then today. It seems to me it is a pretty clear downward trend in terms of organised religions 'success' for want of a better word. I believe that the causality of this is tied directly to education and the freedom and availability of information. I think organised religion will never go away completely but it will continue to have less and less influence and adherents as time goes on. I'd predict that people self identifying as belonging to a particular organised religion will be a small minority within two generations in the developed world.

Zillah

Common as... wrote: »

1. Would you agree that when it comes to religion most of the young Irish are chatholic but cos they got bigger fish to fry; shopping, sport, women, men, T.V. drinking and so on, they ain't bothered about the whole thing and just kinda go with the flow when it comes to religion?

I would consider it accurate to say that most young Irish people would label themselves Catholic because they don't really give a shit. They're still not Catholic though. The vast majority don't even understand the details of Catholicism, let alone believe in them.

2. So do Irish atheist here have a "Im the only gay in the village" mentality and if so how did that come about?

I'm not sure what this means. I think its a little britain reference but I've never watched that show.

3. So considering I was raised catholic; parents,schools, teachers etc and my views above are common. Do you think when it comes to organized religion here its pretty much a case of, game over, ball burst!?

Organised religion is screwed in Europe. The newest generation are generally deists or non-specific theists, which means they have no where near the conviction required to instill the religion in the next generation. Japan, Australia and New Zealand seem to be heading the same direction, but the Americas, Africa, Middle East and Asia have a long way to go. China and Korea are pretty big exceptions though. China confuses me. Religious adherence is really low, but general wishy washy spirituality and superstition are very common, so it'll be interesting to see what happens there over the next century.

Here's a question for you; why would you consider yourself a Catholic when you think almost everything the Catholic Church teaches is nonsense?

Bearing in mind of course that there is a huge difference between pretending to be a Catholic for your parents' sake and actually considering yourself one.

Daftendirekt

Common as... wrote: »

Ok I gotta few questions for you's. So first of I better say that im a catholic (on paper anyways) <snip>

It's interesting that you call yourself a Catholic, but go on to say the following:

Now if im pushed as to what I really believe I would say, I believe in a Being, Thing, God, Higher power call it what you like; that is uncomprehensible to myself and all other humans. As for the bible and religions well I would need some really strong evidence in order to believe any of that. I don't go to mass, but why do I go along with all the stuff like weddings funerals prayers christenings etc. Why do I do this? I gotta pretty solid answer to that, I don't wanna dissappoint my parents.

I'm pretty sure believing in the Abrahamic god, going to mass and accepting the Bible as truth are pretty fundamental prerequisites to being a Catholic.

That bit of pedantry aside, I do agree with your general point though. Lots of people call themselves Catholic simply because they've always been told that that's what they are. The word "deist" needs a lot more exposure, methinks.

Goduznt Xzst

Common as... wrote: »

I better say that im a catholic

As for the bible and religions well I would need some really strong evidence in order to believe any of that. I don't go to mass...

What you have said basically amounts to something like:

"First off I better say that i'm an Olympic Sprinter. But I don't compete, have never really ran, have never been in the Olympics, but I've watched Olympic Sprinters on TV. I feel this alone is a valid enough reason to claim that I am also an Olympic Sprinter"

Dades

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

What you have said basically amounts to something like:

"First off I better say that i'm an Olympic Sprinter. But I don't compete, have never really ran, have never been in the Olympics, but I've watched Olympic Sprinters on TV. I feel this alone is a valid enough reason to claim that I am also an Olympic Sprinter"

More realistically... "Both my parents were Olympic sprinters, and always assumed I'd be one too. So I tell them I am, just so as I don't disappoint them".

Des Carter

A non-practicing Catholic is still a Catholic!

I dont get this whole "if you dont believe everything in the Christian faith then your not a Christian/Catholic" argument. It makes no sense most people call themselvs Catolic because its the closest religion to their beliefs.

seamus

Des Carter wrote: »

A non-practicing Catholic is still a Catholic!

I dont get this whole "if you dont believe everything in the Christian faith then your not a Christian/Catholic" argument. It makes no sense most people call themselvs Catolic because its the closest religion to their beliefs.

I don't get this whole, "You can pick and choose all you like and call yourself a Catholic, no biggie".

Catholicism is defined by the set of rules and beliefs to which it adheres. You either abide by them, or you're not Catholic. Simple as. Exactly the same as calling yourself a vegetarian, but deciding that it's OK to eat pork one day a week and maybe have a bit of steak if it's a special occasion.

If you don't agree with Rome on any issue, then you're not catholic. There is no scope for disagreement. You either follow it all, or you're not catholic.

"Christian" is an entirely different thing altogether and gives one the right to make up most of your own rules provided that you're happy that the son of God came down, died and was resurrected for your sins.

The problem here is that we've turned religion into an ethnicity. Just look at Northern Ireland. There are official government forms in NI where you have to explicitly state whether you're a Catholic or a Protestant, if you're an NI-born person. It doesn't matter that you're atheist, according to these forms, being catholic or protestant is nothing to do with religion.

Of course, this is nonsense. There is no ethnic link between all catholics or protestants or muslims. The Jews have done their best to pretend that they have some form of ethnic heritage or racial definition but likewise anyone can call themselves a Jew, so it cannot be an ethnicity or a race.

magicbastarder

Common as... wrote: »

Now if im pushed as to what I really believe I would say, I believe in a Being, Thing, God, Higher power call it what you like; that is uncomprehensible to myself and all other humans.

so you're a believer, but you don't seem to have any concept of what you believe in?

Galvasean

Des Carter wrote: »

A non-practicing Catholic is still a Catholic!

Not according to actual Catholic dogma.

Des Carter wrote:

most people call themselvs Catolic because its the closest religion to their beliefs.

Actually, most people who claim to be non-practicing Catholics have beliefs which are much closer to Protestantism. They just don't realise it.

For a better/more in depth answer see seamus' post.

Common as...

FXXK i just wrote a long post and i lost it. Took me ages! im outta time now.
I should have a thanks Icon where is it?

OK quickly, Yes it is a little Britian reference not sure what i was on about i shoulda left it out

So then it turns out im not a catholic if you wanna take the label of me thats fine its not big deal to me.
I've one main question, if I was to give myself a label would it be a "deist"?

I forgot to mention funerals before, I wouldn't defect from the church because Id prefer to leave it up to the priests if i suddenly died. This has nothing to do with my parents.
In short; I was saying my girlfriend isin't irish and here parents aren't religious but she likes the idea of a wedding, as for christianings its no real skin of my back but not doing these things could be a lotta hassel for me.

I feel a little guilty cos im using the church when it suits me, but Its the situation I find myself in.
Now me thinks i gotta alot more Q's for the christian forum than the atheist!! Like why do they persist when Im sure they know the situation

axer

Common as... wrote: »

In short; I was saying my girlfriend isin't irish and here parents aren't religious but she likes the idea of a wedding, as for christianings its no real skin of my back but not doing these things could be a lotta hassel for me.

Non-religious folk get married too!

Zombrex

Des Carter wrote: »

A non-practicing Catholic is still a Catholic!

By whose standard?

Dades

Common as... wrote: »

I've one main question, if I was to give myself a label would it be a "deist"?

I thought originally that you sounded like some form of Deist.

Don't feel too guilty. I was married in a church and had a youngling begrudgingly baptised. (The missis is 'catholic').

robindch

Common as... wrote: »

I feel a little guilty cos im using the church when it suits me, but Its the situation I find myself in.

Wouldn't worry too much -- everybody else is using the church for when it suits them too.

The number of people who do exactly what the Vatican requires is probably zero.

Mark Hamill

Des Carter wrote: »

A non-practicing Catholic is still a Catholic

Are non-practising vegetarians still vegetarian?

Truley

Des Carter wrote: »

A non-practicing Catholic is still a Catholic!

Yeah, but only because they wont let us leave now! :mad:

Zillah

Common as... wrote: »

I should have a thanks Icon where is it?

A little off topic, but I noticed that your smileys are direct links with [.img] tags rather than bb-code, which would imply your browser isn't showing you the smiley buttons, which implies it is blocking some images. I'd say that's why you have no thanks button. My best guess would be overly aggressive ad-blocker.

So then it turns out im not a catholic if you wanna take the label of me thats fine its not big deal to me.
I've one main question, if I was to give myself a label would it be a "deist"?

It's not about us "taking" anything from you, it's about what term best describes your beliefs. It is a bit silly to call you a Catholic if you don't agree with Catholic beliefs.

A deist is someone who believes in a God (or God-like thing - some people like to be vague about it) that created the universe but now sits back and does not get involved. It means no miracles, visions, interventions etc. It also certainly means no Jesus.

I forgot to mention funerals before, I wouldn't defect from the church because Id prefer to leave it up to the priests if i suddenly died. This has nothing to do with my parents.
In short; I was saying my girlfriend isin't irish and here parents aren't religious but she likes the idea of a wedding, as for christianings its no real skin of my back but not doing these things could be a lotta hassel for me.

I feel a little guilty cos im using the church when it suits me, but Its the situation I find myself in.

I don't think you need to feel guilty about it at all. Everything the Church has was gotten from a mix of dodery auld ones bequething their stuff in their wills, donations extorted from the average person and land siezed from victims of the inquisition. I think telling a lie to get a Church wedding is pretty tame...and probably a hell of a lot more common than the bishop would like to imagine

Now me thinks i gotta alot more Q's for the christian forum than the atheist!!

Honestly, you're probably better off asking your questions here.

Beruthiel

Common as... wrote: »

In short; I was saying my girlfriend isin't irish and here parents aren't religious but she likes the idea of a wedding

I recently got married. We had an old fashioned hand fasting ceremony with a registered Solemniser. No gods were mentioned in the proceedings.

I gotta pretty solid answer to that, I don't wanna dissappoint my

My parents are in their early 70's and are very religious. Not a word was said about the ceremony and they enjoyed the day.

Keeping your parents happy is not an excuse to carry on in a particular way if you no long believe in it.
Be true to yourself.

farna_boy

seamus wrote: »

I don't get this whole, "You can pick and choose all you like and call yourself a Catholic, no biggie".

Catholicism is defined by the set of rules and beliefs to which it adheres. You either abide by them, or you're not Catholic. Simple as. Exactly the same as calling yourself a vegetarian, but deciding that it's OK to eat pork one day a week and maybe have a bit of steak if it's a special occasion.

If you don't agree with Rome on any issue, then you're not catholic. There is no scope for disagreement. You either follow it all, or you're not catholic.

"Christian" is an entirely different thing altogether and gives one the right to make up most of your own rules provided that you're happy that the son of God came down, died and was resurrected for your sins.

The problem here is that we've turned religion into an ethnicity. Just look at Northern Ireland. There are official government forms in NI where you have to explicitly state whether you're a Catholic or a Protestant, if you're an NI-born person. It doesn't matter that you're atheist, according to these forms, being catholic or protestant is nothing to do with religion.

Of course, this is nonsense. There is no ethnic link between all catholics or protestants or muslims. The Jews have done their best to pretend that they have some form of ethnic heritage or racial definition but likewise anyone can call themselves a Jew, so it cannot be an ethnicity or a race.

Galvasean wrote: »

Not according to actual Catholic dogma.



Actually, most people who claim to be non-practicing Catholics have beliefs which are much closer to Protestantism. They just don't realise it.

For a better/more in depth answer see seamus' post.

Just an FYI.

What you are talking about here is Roman Catholics. The term "Catholic" also applies to the Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglicans and some Lutherans as far as I can tell.

The "catholic church" only refers to the RCC though (I don't know why).

ColmDawson

Zillah wrote: »

A little off topic, but I noticed that your smileys are direct links with [.img] tags rather than bb-code, which would imply your browser isn't showing you the smiley buttons, which implies it is blocking some images. I'd say that's why you have no thanks button. My best guess would be overly aggressive ad-blocker.

His post count is six; he won't get a thanks button until it's at ten, I think.

Common as...

Beruthiel wrote: »

Keeping your parents happy is not an excuse to carry on in a particular way if you no long believe in it.
Be true to yourself.

Well, maybe your right, I guess I can't claim to be that easy going about it if im on here posting

Common as...

ColmDawson wrote: »

His post count is six; he won't get a thanks button until it's at ten, I think.

maybe

Common as...

ColmDawson wrote: »

His post count is six; he won't get a thanks button until it's at ten, I think.

your

Common as...

ColmDawson wrote: »

His post count is six; he won't get a thanks button until it's at ten, I think.

right too

Common as...

ya got it now!:D

ColmDawson

Cheeky fecker, you had to earn a thanks button in my day!

Common as...

:pac::pac: well thats us vague wishy washy deist folk for u

Bduffman

Zillah wrote: »

I would consider it accurate to say that most young Irish people would label themselves Catholic because they don't really give a shit. They're still not Catholic though. The vast majority don't even understand the details of Catholicism, let alone believe in them.

This is soooo true. In the last 6 months alone I have had to explain transubstantiation to two 'catholics'. When they realised what they were supposed to believe in they were visibly shocked. And stated that they don't believe in it (that to them its only symbolic).
And guess what? They still call themselves catholic!! One of them still goes to mass (yes the other one hasn't gone to mass for years :rolleyes:)

seamus

^^
Ah yes, it's getting better. Coronation Street has a storyline involving two young (and hot!) lesbians who are part of a bible choir group. When the pastor finds out about it, he lands into their house to discuss it with them and tells them that it's OK to have these feelings, provided that you never, ever act on them.

My wife was shocked, thinking that he must be some mad bible-thumper. I explained to her that's exactly what the bible says and what pretty much every single Christian sect believes.

I think I'll get her de-converted eventually.

Mark Hamill

Bduffman wrote: »

They still call themselves catholic!!

What really annoys me is when people get insulted when you point out to them that they are, in fact, not catholic. They seem to think catholic has no defined meaning and are completely resistant to the idea that its certain beliefs about god and Jesus that make you catholics, not just whether or not you like the label.
The amount of times I've told people that they are closer to protestant or christain (or, in a lot of cases, just deist) when they point out they dont follow the pope only for them to outright deny that the vatican has anything to do with catholicism is unreal.

nozzferrahhtoo

Common as... wrote: »

1. Would you agree that when it comes to religion most of the young Irish (under 40) are chatholic but cos they got bigger fish to fry; shopping, sport, women, men, T.V. drinking and so on, they ain't bothered about the whole thing and just kinda go with the flow when it comes to religion?

Assuming you meant Catholic then I think you are right, there is a lot of this. Many people do not have faith and are simply therefore indifferent to it rather than opposed to it.

It is worth noting however that there are also people who think religion is a good thing even if they do not believe it themselves. These are the people who Daniel Dennett refers to those who “believe in belief”.

What he says he means by this are people who do not believe in god or any religion themselves, go through life without thinking there is such a being, but for some reason think that it is a good thing that OTHER people are believing it. Despite thinking it all poppy cock themselves, they will actually defend religion as being a good thing and will defend it against attacks from Atheists etc.

I would love to see a study done to ascertain how many such people exist in Ireland. Personally at this time I would not be surprised to find it is a significant % of our population but this is just my personal feeling.

Common as... wrote: »

I believe in a Being, Thing, God, Higher power call it what you like; that is uncomprehensible to myself and all other humans. As for the bible and religions well I would need some really strong evidence in order to believe any of that.

I am not sure I can relate to or understand your point of view here.

For me the bit you believe is the most outrageous part and is entirely devoid of any supporting evidence. WERE it to be true, all the other things become that bit much more credible. I would still need evidence for them of course, but the existence of an all powerful immense being that has the power to make them occur instantly adds credibility to the likelihood of them being true.

For example if a Christian were to tell me that there exists a magical powerful being Satan who can make snakes talk and it did so and spoke to Adam and Eve as a snake, then this would be amazing stuff and I would need evidence for all of it.

If they prove Satan exists and does have this power, then I would still need evidence that a snake was made to talk to the people in question, however having accepted the base premise that it could happen and the being capable of making it happen exists, I would have a LOT less difficulty in establishing the event to be true.

So why you think you can accept the base premise on literally no evidence, but THEN say you need strong evidence to accept the rest... simply makes no sense to me whatsoever on any level. It is as if you have drawn a line in the sand for yourself and said "I will be skeptical of everything to the right of this line, but everything to the left is A-OK with me despite being devoid of ANY support whatsoever".

Or in short: Wanting strong evidence to believe the Bible I can understand. Somehow not wanting that strong evidence to believe in an all powerful being I do not.

keppler

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is worth noting however that there are also people who think religion is a good thing even if they do not believe it themselves. These are the people who Daniel Dennett refers to those who “believe in belief”.

What he says he means by this are people who do not believe in god or any religion themselves, go through life without thinking there is such a being, but for some reason think that it is a good thing that OTHER people are believing it. Despite thinking it all poppy cock themselves, they will actually defend religion as being a good thing and will defend it against attacks from Atheists etc.

Funny you should mention this, I dont have many atheist friends/family but a few weeks ago I was having a discussion about religion with a close friend. His views on religion were exactly as you say above..... 'I think its a load of codswollop myself but I think its a good thing for some people to believe'.
Just out of a matter of interest did Dennet go into why he thought people hold this idea?......I ask this because when I questioned my friend further about why he thought it was good for some people to believe, he could'nt really explain his reasoning! However I did notice that in giving alot of his reasons (that actually explained nothing) he used the fact that his parents and siblings were religious.............I guess the point im getting at is maybe these people are only trying in some way or other to defend the beliefs of their loved ones who still believe?
Do you know the name of Dennets book which he talks about this 'belief in belief'......Maybe I could equip myself better for next time?

nozzferrahhtoo

He did and there are many talks from him onYou tube explaining his thought process but he says himself he wants to research more into why people are like that.

In fact he was coupling the talks in question with information on a project he is engaging in where he wants to meet… entirely in secret with full confidentiality…non-believing Pastors, priests and other religious teachers etc from each of the major religions to survey them as to why they stick to doing what they do in absence of belief.

Thus far he is of course finding the common answer is “Well I simply do not know what else to do now, this is my career” but he is hopefully going to normalise for that one and glean some decent answers.

Other common answers are pretty similar to the arguments Theists make when they stop arguing that religion is true… but that religion is useful in some way. Claims that they think it inspires people to do good deeds, or produce beautiful art and common fallacies like this.

I myself suspect there are many that think they themselves are perfectly moral people, but are afraid of what the morality of many may become if they abandoned beliefs in god. When you have people like Dinesh D’Souza openly admitting that he could not think of a single reason to do something even as simple as give his seat to an old woman on a bus if it was not for his Christian beliefs… you can understand why some people might hold such a fear.

As for which book it is, I think this part is a work in progress and is to be a subject of coming books. The You tube talks I saw were recent and it has not been in any of his books I have read so far.

Undergod

My stance on that is that religion is capable of doing good, and it can have many benefits for individuals and for societies, but that still doesn't make it true.

Goduznt Xzst

reminds of a nearly two year old thread:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58451331

My opinions from that thread are the same now.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

People who's lot in life will never greatly increase for their generation and most likely that of their childrens need some sort of quantifiable Raison d'être. Christianity gives them tasks and goals that are achieveable without means and that promises them that they will get a reward post humously, a chance at a better existence, something food and shelter and education will never give them.

Much like the way parents get their children to behave before Christmas by saying Santa doesn't give presents to naughty children. It works the same way, you promise a person something to stroke their selfish desires and they will act altruistically to attain it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Undergod wrote: »

My stance on that is that religion is capable of doing good, and it can have many benefits for individuals and for societies, but that still doesn't make it true.

I am not sure it is capable of any such thing alas. I think people will do good things and then give the credit to religion in retrospect.

The reason I think this is that no causal link has been shown between religion and any good deed that has not also been performed by someone in the complete absence of religion.

Charity, self sacrifice, defending ideals, care for fellow man… all these things happen completely in the absence of religion all the time.

This would indicate that religion is entirely superfluous and I put it out there that if something is 100% superfluous to do good then it must only do one bad thing in order to be in negative equity and hence worth disposing of.

How many bad things can we ascribe to it? I doubt it would be just 1.

Undergod

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure it is capable of any such thing alas. I think people will do good things and then give the credit to religion in retrospect.

The reason I think this is that no causal link has been shown between religion and any good deed that has not also been performed by someone in the complete absence of religion.

Charity, self sacrifice, defending ideals, care for fellow man… all these things happen completely in the absence of religion all the time.

This would indicate that religion is entirely superfluous and I put it out there that if something is 100% superfluous to do good then it must only do one bad thing in order to be in negative equity and hence worth disposing of.

How many bad things can we ascribe to it? I doubt it would be just 1.

Okay, and most of the bad things I can think of that have been carried out by religious organizations or religious people, have been carried out by atheist and secular people. There are obviously a few exceptions for specifically religious punishments, but they have parallels to non-religious acts. People of all ideologies commit atrocities; It's not really that relevant.

Goduznt Xzst

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The reason I think this is that no causal link has been shown between religion and any good deed that has not also been performed by someone in the complete absence of religion.

I disagree. What motivates the Irreligious to help others?

Everything that motivates the irreligious, also motivates the religious, except for the clincher...

Religion also feeds the selfish desires of believers while being able to give them tangibly nothing. This is the perfect motivator for altruistic acts.

They are being promised an eternity of existence, a secular society can't compete with that.

mikhail

How many people do you know who act like they genuinely believe there's an eternal, blissful afterlife? Really?

nozzferrahhtoo

Undergod wrote: »

Okay, and most of the bad things I can think of that have been carried out by religious organizations or religious people, have been carried out by atheist and secular people. There are obviously a few exceptions for specifically religious punishments, but they have parallels to non-religious acts. People of all ideologies commit atrocities; It's not really that relevant.

Exactly, now you are with me! It is not relevant at all.

What is relevant is to list the good and bad things that can directly lead from each. In other words look at causation and not correlation.

Instead of asking the wrong question, as to whether atheists or theists do good or bad things... ask yourself is there any causal link between either of them and the performance of good and bad things.

Thus far I have found no causal pathway between “I do not believe your claim that there is a non-human intelligence responsible for creating the universe” and any action at all, good or bad.

This is NOT true of religion however and I can give you many causal links between belief in a given religious concept and resulting bad actions that would not be performable or justifiable in the absence of the base belief.

nozzferrahhtoo

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I disagree. What motivates the Irreligious to help others?

Gold is precious because it is rare. So is life if you do not believe in an eternal after life.

What motivates the irreligious to help each other therefore? The knowledge that this is the only life that matters and “each other” is the only thing we have to help us get through it.

The knowledge that this is the only life we have and that those around us are the only ones we have to share it with is an exceptionally powerful motivator for helping others. Helping others means not only that you are helping them, but helps build a world where that is the kind of act that is perpetrated and thus we too benefit as that is more often than not the kind of world we wish to live in ourselves.

nozzferrahhtoo

mikhail wrote: »

How many people do you know who act like they genuinely believe there's an eternal, blissful afterlife? Really?

I have met more, and communicated with more, than I care to. However you are right, such people are severely in the minority. I think there are many that like to think they believe it, and they feel smart because they know the cliche arguments for it, but rarely do you meet people who actually act like they seriously do believe.

But of course this is entirely dependant on our own expectations of what a true believer would act like. We have to assume that that impression is correct.

Undergod

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Instead of asking the wrong question, as to whether atheists or theists do good or bad things... ask yourself is there any causal link between either of them and the performance of good and bad things.

I was never asking that question.

The benefits of religion I mentioned are (as I see it) include that it can be a unifying force in a community, and that it can provide great comfort to individuals. This is true of any ideology, of course, but it's not true of the absence of ideology.

Of course, as I say, none of this makes it true.

nozzferrahhtoo

Undergod wrote: »

I was never asking that question.

I am sorry, i am in danger of seeing patronising now and i really do not want to come accross that way but i know you were not asking that question. Maybe it is my bad that I did not phrase it better, but I apologise if I left that impression with you.

The point I am making is that unless you can show that such a unifying effect happens only within the presence of religion and not in the absence of it then we are still talking of something superfluous.

The avenue of thought you need to explore is whether this sort of behaviour happens "anyway".... and is retrospectively assigned to religion.

Common as...

[PHP][/PHP]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure I can relate to or understand your point of view here.

For me the bit you believe is the most outrageous part and is entirely devoid of any supporting evidence. WERE it to be true, all the other things become that bit much more credible. I would still need evidence for them of course, but the existence of an all powerful immense being that has the power to make them occur instantly adds credibility to the likelihood of them being true.

For example if a Christian were to tell me that there exists a magical powerful being Satan who can make snakes talk and it did so and spoke to Adam and Eve as a snake, then this would be amazing stuff and I would need evidence for all of it.

If they prove Satan exists and does have this power, then I would still need evidence that a snake was made to talk to the people in question, however having accepted the base premise that it could happen and the being capable of making it happen exists, I would have a LOT less difficulty in establishing the event to be true.

So why you think you can accept the base premise on literally no evidence, but THEN say you need strong evidence to accept the rest... simply makes no sense to me whatsoever on any level. It is as if you have drawn a line in the sand for yourself and said "I will be skeptical of everything to the right of this line, but everything to the left is A-OK with me despite being devoid of ANY support whatsoever".

Or in short: Wanting strong evidence to believe the Bible I can understand. Somehow not wanting that strong evidence to believe in an all powerful being I do not.

I didn't say all powerful immense being,I said, something that in uncomprehensible to myself and all other humans.
I try and explain. I live in the universe,the land of space and time. Im able to understand space, both the things in space and empty space.
I cannot comprehend no-space or no-thing.
You could say the same about time, I can comprehend time to a certain extent, in that I can look back in time,It can be measured and so on.
But I cannot compredend no-time.
Because the universe does exist and us humans are so out of our depth when it comes to understanding how the universe came into being, I believe that something beyond human comprehension brought it into being.

I've a question.
Lets say that you have two young children, Ricky and Danny, and you have just got a new job in the science Lab at the local college. So you need to employ a child minder to look afer Ricky and Danny.
Two suitable canditates emerge but they are equal in every way and you can't decide which one is the best. So you let the decission rest on their answer to following question.
How do you think the universe came into being?
Canditate A's answer: I believe something uncomprehensible to humans created the universe.
Canditate B's answer: I believe the Bible word for word.
Which one would you chose?

Turtwig

Common as... wrote: »

[PHP][/PHP]
I didn't say all powerful immense being,I said, something that in uncomprehensible to myself and all other humans.
I try and explain. I live in the universe,the land of space and time. Im able to understand space, both the things in space and empty space.
I cannot comprehend no-space or no-thing.
You could say the same about time, I can comprehend time to a certain extent, in that I can look back in time,It can be measured and so on.
But I cannot compredend no-time.
Because the universe does exist and us humans are so out of our depth when it comes to understanding how the universe came into being, I believe that something beyond human comprehension brought it into being.

I've a question.
Lets say that you have two young children, Ricky and Danny, and you have just got a new job in the science Lab at the local college. So you need to employ a child minder to look afer Ricky and Danny.
Two suitable canditates emerge but they are equal in every way and you can't decide which one is the best. So you let the decission rest on their answer to following question.
How do you think the universe came into being?
Canditate A's answer: I believe something uncomprehensible to humans created the universe.
Canditate B's answer: I believe the Bible word for word.
Which one would you chose?

Firstly, us humans are out of depth when it comes to everything about this universe not just its origin. You don't understand time, even if you think you do. I'll bet you barely even appreciate or know what a day on earth actually is, or for that matter a year.

I would hire both with the stipulation that they cannot some discuss their philosophies infront of the kids. I would install some naked micro web cameras in every room in my house, ensure there is a plentiful supply of alcohol wait patiently for the kids bedtime and then watch the two candidates fight to the death! Muhahaha.

Common as...

Ok then, I have a very limited understanding of both space and time.

liked the Vids, thanks.

Turtwig

Common as... wrote: »

Ok then, I have a very limited understanding of both space and time.

liked the Vids, thanks.

Yeah it's a bit of a cliche at this stage but if you think you understand modern physics then obviously you don't understand it. I'm pretty sure that applies for most branches of modern science too reality is much weirder than our intuitions would tell us.