Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

MaxWig wrote: »

So I am asking you, considering the billions of people throughout the world who look to some belief system for personal, private guidance or solace in times of existential confusion or massive grief, are you sure the world would be a slightly better place without religion - even considering the topics we clearly agree upon regarding family planning and institutional prejudices etc.

I'm also curious as to what kind of non-religious customs might deal with said issues (death, existence, meaning etc.)

People take solace from all sorts of things. Martial arts, fishing, painting, making things, there are all sorts of meditative arts that you can do to bring about the same mental calmness that praying would bring to religious people.

I've always found the best guidance you can get is from people that have gone through similar experiences. They make you feel like you're not alone, they can give you specific guidance and relate their situation to yours in a productive way.

All these things are more productive and help you deal with problems in healthy way that will benefit you into the future, so you can better deal with them when they inevitably happen again.

Religion is one way of dealing with life's crisis, there are a multitude of alternative ways that are much better.

People take solace from all sorts of things. Martial arts, fishing, painting, making things, there are all sorts of meditative arts that you can do to bring about the same mental calmness that praying would bring to religious people.

I'd agree with that.

I've always found the best guidance you can get is from people that have gone through similar experiences. They make you feel like you're not alone, they can give you specific guidance and relate their situation to yours in a productive way.

I'd also agree with that to an extent, if you are talking about grieving. But at some point that grief becomes an existential realisation that you are dying too, and there simply is nobody who can talk you through this one. Nobody that can make you feel like you're not alone - because you are alone - Utterly.
I'm depressing myself now
But my point is that religious belief is less about the experience of life, and much more about the reality of life AND death - and the psychological impact of our awareness of it.

All these things are more productive and help you deal with problems in healthy way that will benefit you into the future, so you can better deal with them when they inevitably happen again.

I don't know that they are. I think the creativity of religious belief is being underestimated.

Religion is one way of dealing with life's crisis, there are a multitude of alternative ways that are much better.

Seems they're not as easy to market

MaxWig wrote: »

OK - replace 'gradually' with blink of an eye - but taken in terms of the thousands of years in which religions have developed, you would imagine any change would be pretty quick, relatively.

I really have to take issue with the idea that I'm putting words in your mouth or misrepresenting you.

You have not stated, nor have I suggested you have, that the world would be a paradise without religion.

You have stated that it would be nominally better considering the misguided teachings of some churches and the way they are enacted by their followers.

I have repeatedly said that I felt this was to miss a large part of what religion means. You frequently ignored this point.

So I am asking you, considering the billions of people throughout the world who look to some belief system for personal, private guidance or solace in times of existential confusion or massive grief, are you sure the world would be a slightly better place without religion - even considering the topics we clearly agree upon regarding family planning and institutional prejudices etc.

I'm also curious as to what kind of non-religious customs might deal with said issues (death, existence, meaning etc.)

You seem to be phrasing the question like I want to turn off a religion switch and leave everyone dangling. When people dump religion of their own accord they get on with, honestly I have no idea how individuals deal with all these questions , I personally dont really care as in I cant know what vast numbers of people believe, any answer is going to sound glib and incomplete. At the end of the day the things that matter are family , friends and enjoying life and dealing with the fact that you have a limited time on this planet. I would dispute your assertion that it is a net benefit, you are only describing how some people use religion now, not how they would have lived their life if they were atheist. We are not talking about taking away a positive good like healthcare or public transport. Again think about the amount of families divided over religion for starters , gay children badly treated stress in families where kids dont buy into the faith of their parents.....
I come back to the main thrust of my point is that religious people should not via the State control the choices of non religious people. There is not much more to it than that.

hinault wrote: »

25 year difference (1985 compared to 1961) or 45 year difference (1985 compared to early 1940's).

45 year figure isn't even a lifetime, Harp.

I still say that given the time lines evident in both countries, it is reasonable to suggest that Ireland was not that far behind Britain in that regard

Do you allow facts to impact your mindset at all ? Condoms were available to all German troops from the beginning of WW1 and to American troops from very early on. They were made freely available to British troops from 1917 and thus became easily available throughout the UK , which of course included Ireland at that time .

They continued to be available in the UK and in Ireland after we became independant in 1922 and in 1935 under pressure from the RCC they were made illegal for importation and sale until the 1980's . Even family planning leaflets could not mention them under the Censorship of Publications Act .

And it was only after a long a sometimes farcical campaign plus a Supreme court decision made their legalisation inevitable , and it was opposed by the RCC every step of the way -

''On 22 May 1971 a group of Irish feminists including Mary Kenny travelled to Belfast by rail and made their return to Dublin, laden with contraceptive devices, into a statement on the illogicality of the law. This provoked criticism from the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland ; Thomas Ryan, Bishop of Clonfert, said that "... never before, and certainly not since penal times was the Catholic heritage of Ireland subjected to so many insidious onslaughts on the pretext of conscience, civil rights and women's liberation."

or

tommy2bad wrote: »

On condoms, theirs discussion of barrier methods of contraception in the bible, this method goes back to ancient Egypt. Then notion that condoms didn't exist until the 50's is in the same class as Flanagan's assertion about sex and the late late show!
The definition of religion as a system of beliefs in supernatural phenomena is off the mark a bit, and rich commng from atheists who counter every secular example of evil with, but that was religion too!
If we could accept that religion is a system of rules and regulations of what is clean and unclean, sacred and profane, or acceptable, unacceptable we see that supernatural elements are not necessary. We would need another definition for systems of supernatural phenomena. Spiritualism? Unfortunately that doesn't adequately describe what faith based religion is. Theirs a community element that needs to be included.
We see the first kind of definition of religion in lots of things, we tend to dismiss them as ideologies, whether socialism, neo conservatism, health fads, Allan Carr foundation.

It's a hard concept to pin down, the traits of religion seep into things that have no supernatural elements and seem absent from some things that are specifically supernatural. Ghosthunters, Yuri Gellar or alchemy.
Merely deciding the existence of the supernatural won't remove religion from societies, it will just replace one set of priests with another. Pope Dawkins anyone?

That is not quite correct though tommy is it ? How many definitions and arguments about Zoroastrianism Jainism or Paganism do you find going on in here ? None

And why ? because the don't or they don't seek to impact our daily lives , Christianity does and it does so every day and continues to fight tooth and claw to resist any change.

From that basis we end up with all the subsidiary discussions about anything and everything . But you resolve that basic conundrum and that would all stop .

marienbad wrote: »

or

That is not quite correct though tommy is it ? How many definitions and arguments about Zoroastrianism Jainism or Paganism do you find going on in here ? None

And why ? because the don't or they don't seek to impact our daily lives , Christianity does and it does so every day and continues to fight tooth and claw to resist any change.

From that basis we end up with all the subsidiary discussions about anything and everything . But you resolve that basic conundrum and that would all stop .

So you have no issue with religion then, but with politics?

marienbad wrote: »

or

That is not quite correct though tommy is it ? How many definitions and arguments about Zoroastrianism Jainism or Paganism do you find going on in here ? None

And why ? because the don't or they don't seek to impact our daily lives , Christianity does and it does so every day and continues to fight tooth and claw to resist any change.

From that basis we end up with all the subsidiary discussions about anything and everything . But you resolve that basic conundrum and that would all stop .

Isn't their a whole forum for pagans on boards?
That's not really my point, I'm not saying that Christianity hasn't in the past and still dose influence our society. In fact the exact opposite, it's influence has been enormous, both for good and bad. Maybe it's religious, by my definition, aspect has had a far more negative influence than it spiritual aspect. The point I'm making is even removing Christianity from the equation won't fix this. Look at how public health has morphed from an evidence based attempt to improve health to a morals based pack of lifestyle nonsense. Plain packs, sugar is evil and all the rest of the evidence free proposed meddling it engages in now. Their was a time when sanitation, vacvaccination and education were the cornerstones of public health, now we have the WHO proclaiming war on sugar!
This religious instinct to declare things good and evil, in and out never goes away.

So even if Christianity were to fade to the level of Jainism, we would still have to deal with this problem. Maybe I'm too cynical about people but I've no evidence it will be any different in a secular world. I doubt a secular world is even possible. Gods always turn up, whether that God is racial purity, health, or nationalism.

indioblack wrote: »

Religion doesn't include belief in supernatural phenomena?
If religion includes in it's system rules concerning what's sacred and profane I would say that a supernatural element is not only necessary, but essential.
Another definition for systems of supernatural phenomena? Absolutely agree there. Spiritualism? Well, why not? Some kind of transcendence. Reincarnation?
This debate centres around the Christian god and biblical interpretations - and for myself it still doesn't square the circle of that description of god, and scripture, with our perception of the reality of our existence.

Sacred and profane don't necessarily need supernatural support. In essence a'll they are are things declared special and ordinary. Written constitution models of car or preserved lands/buildings. No need for supernatural justification at all, only symbolic value and a sense of morality attached to the be life that these things are sacred.
It isn't even that simple though, the community must consent to this list, religion is a social activity.
Problems arise when faith drifts towards fanaticism. As to the existence of god squaring with our experience of reality, it dose for me and not for you, same with nationalism, I reject it completely, others hold it to be the highest form of existence. Religion in action.

MaxWig wrote: »

So you have no issue with religion then, but with politics?

Correct if we had a completely secular state.

If the major religions such as Christianity or Islam were as separated from the state as much as Zoroastrianism is then I would have none .

I would enjoy their traditions, their music, their architecture , their art ,their majestic poetry possibly ,even more than I do now .

MaxWig wrote: »

I'd also agree with that to an extent, if you are talking about grieving. But at some point that grief becomes an existential realisation that you are dying too, and there simply is nobody who can talk you through this one. Nobody that can make you feel like you're not alone - because you are alone - Utterly.

Sorry but that's nonsense. every child has to deal with the realisation they and everybody they love is going to die. It's part and parcel of being human. We come to terms with it in many ways, we have children, we pass on our thoughts and beliefs through our children, we create art, we honor our ancestors (which ends up being religion).

Humans are never alone either, no more so than any ant is alone. You're born into a room that at worst has your mother and another person helping you into the world, more likely you're surrounded by a team of highly trained humans bringing your into the world. People can end up dying alone for whatever reason but for the most part humans don't get to be alone for any extended amount of time.

But my point is that religious belief is less about the experience of life, and much more about the reality of life AND death - and the psychological impact of our awareness of it.

If it's not about the experience of life it's utterly useless to most people. It's a story to make you feel better about death. If you take a realistic look at lie though there's plenty to give solace. Your children pass on your genes and behaviour patterns. You can leave your mark on the world and society that can last for thousands of years. Science tells us that energy never disappears, and the matter we're made of has been here since the beginning of time. We will still be here just not in our current form.

marienbad wrote: »

Correct if we had a completely secular state.

If the major religions such as Christianity or Islam were as separated from the state as much as Zoroastrianism is then I would have none .

I would enjoy their traditions, their music, their architecture , their art ,their majestic poetry possibly ,even more than I do now .

Do you think it would be any easier to counter other ideologies just because they lacked supernatural claims? Isn't it just as possible to treat Christianity as a political movement the same way you would treat socialism or neo liberalism?
What I'm trying to get at is why presume all the things you desire for your self are denied by only Christianity and only available under secularism?
I see both as equally illiberal, depending on the culture they exist in. Secular Soviet Russia wasn't exactly a paragon of equality freedom and justice.Secular America with its reconsideration of church and state has failed spectacularly to reign in the influence of religion. Europe has done far better in that even with states like Ireland Italy and Spain nominally Catholic. While the U.K. has its head of state serve as head of its state church, yet it's the U.K.'s politicians who " don't do God"
Carefully what you wish for, you might get it!

marienbad wrote: »

Completely different argument tommy but still I agree with you .I am not saying the Christianity is the only ideology that seeks control. But is it the ideology that has dominated this country for the last 70 years .

Europe has done better because the Enlightment values have progressed and progressed and religions has faded accordingly.

Well it has, not sure why exactly but it's influence has not been benign. However it's not a separate argument entirely.
Remember the enlightenment grew from christianity, yes every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so did Puritanism ( funny how no one mentions that the pilgrim fathers went to America to set up a theocracy not to escape persecution but to protect their right to persecute).
That level of influence is not an issue anymore, I doubt anyone will vote against the amendment for purely faith reasons, throes voting against will do so for a mix of reasons. If anything the yes vote will be the act of faith.
I'm pushing this tangent to draw attention to the dose not follow nature of using religion as an argument against the existence of god. No matter how much religions differ, no matter how much they change/don't change over time, all that tells us is once people adopt an ideology they tend towards totalitarianism in one form or another.
God makes little difference. Unless you argue that little difference proves the lack of a God ,it's irrelevant. It also tends to attract the most anti religious for whome the existence or otherwise of god is irrelevant, they just have a bee in their bonnet about religion. As I said previously we need a thread for ranting against religion seperate from existence of god debates. Jesus had similar issues with the Pharisees, this is nothing new.
I've a few choice posts for such a thread but I think the mods frown on that kind of thing.:-)

tommy2bad wrote: »

Do you think it would be any easier to counter other ideologies just because they lacked supernatural claims? Isn't it just as possible to treat Christianity as a political movement the same way you would treat socialism or neo liberalism?
What I'm trying to get at is why presume all the things you desire for your self are denied by only Christianity and only available under secularism?
I see both as equally illiberal, depending on the culture they exist in. Secular Soviet Russia wasn't exactly a paragon of equality freedom and justice.Secular America with its reconsideration of church and state has failed spectacularly to reign in the influence of religion. Europe has done far better in that even with states like Ireland Italy and Spain nominally Catholic. While the U.K. has its head of state serve as head of its state church, yet it's the U.K.'s politicians who " don't do God"
Carefully what you wish for, you might get it!

There are issues when you have conflicts between ideologies which are, essentially, irrational. When you have a disagreement between two believers of two different, and potentially mutually exclusive religions, we have a difficulty. How do we resolve such an argument? Whilst some might argue that some people can hold a political ideology very close to them it tends to be the case that most people are more willing to change their views on certain issues much more readily than they would their religious beliefs.

As an example... Imagine in the next election, however it might have happened, a political party somehow got into power that believed in running a country using sharia rules. Overnight women were told they must cover up in public, they were not allowed to drive or be out in public without their husband or a family member. Now, this is a pretty extreme example, but it is simply to make a point. These new rules are founded on the new governments interpretation of its religion. That interpretation will be different to other people interrelation of the same religion not to mention rather different to the views of those of completely different or no religion.

So having set the background, how does one argue that these new rules are wrong? They are based on religious interpretation. One cannot show that their interpretation is wrong. One can present their own interpretation of that religion, or indeed a completely different religion, but one is as unsupported by evidence as the other. Each believes the truth has been revealed to them and they all other supposed revelations are wrong. It is difficult, if not impossible to move someone fm a position like this.

When you have laws or rules based on something like religion then it can be extremely difficult to get people that don't beleive in that particular religion to accept them. This is particularly the case when you are seeking to restrict someone's rights. If you want to tell someone they can't do something, like drive a car, for example, then you need to provide them with a reason that is reasonable and rational to them. There is a difference between saying 'you can't drive because you are a woman and I think woman should not drive' and 'you can't drive because you have had multiple accidents, you drink drive and you have been caught without insurance'. In both cases the person is likely to be unhappy, but one of them has a rational basis.

Politicians should be free to be informed by their beliefs, but if they intend to use the coercive force of the state to restrict the rights of individuals then they should provide justifications not based solely on those beliefs. The ban on condoms in Ireland is a good example. What rational justification could be given for that? This was a law that was neither reasonable not rational to anyone except those following a fairly strict interpretation of Catholicism.

All that being said, states will sometimes have to enact laws or rules that people don't like, things like tax, for example. Things like this are necessary for the continuation of the state, so are slightly different. Personally I like the idea of a sort of harm principle. Simplistically, states should base restrictive laws on a harm principle. For example, what is the harm in making condoms available? Any perceived or theoretical harm which may be presented as a justification for the restriction must be based on resigning that is accessible to all. This would mean that 'my church's particular interpretation of a particular passage from the bible, an interpretation that differs from pretty much every other Christian denomination, says that contraception is against god's will' is not a valid justification. But that is how it should be.

MrP

SW wrote: »

MOD NOTE

Fixed up the last few posts I found with bad quote tags. It actually looked like multiple posts were mis-representing other posters due to the error.

Just something to watch out for if you're quoting a post as part of your reply.

Thanks for your attention.

Thank you. Stupid phone.

MrP