Why do so many people want to devoid life of a spiritual meaning

JohnnyFlash · 30-05-2020 12:30pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

Pity that you believe all that stuff yet are a member of an organisation that has committed and covered up horrific crimes against women and children.

You’re a SF supporter. The IRA murdered women and children.

Stop pontificating all the time.

One eyed Jack · 30-05-2020 12:46pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

Pity that you believe all that stuff yet are a member of an organisation that has committed and covered up horrific crimes against women and children.

Wasn’t it people within the organisation that committed those crimes though? And people within the organisation who covered up for those people who committed those crimes, and turned a blind eye to the ill treatment of people who themselves were, and still are, members of the same organisation? My point is that it wasn’t the organisation is at fault, it’s the small minority of people within the organisation you’re referring to, I would say the small number of people within any organisation, who have their own agenda going on.

It doesn’t mean that the organisation is at fault, or that all the members of the organisation can be or should be held accountable or responsible for the crimes committed by the small minority of people within the organisation who committed criminal acts and subjected people to ill treatment and abuse. What you’re attempting to suggest is akin to suggesting that the son is responsible for the sins of the father. That’s really not how accountability and responsibility work. Individuals are responsible for their own actions.

4068ac1elhodqr · 30-05-2020 1:31pm

Any organisation, cult, ideology or group is capable of such crimes.
It boils down to a matter of access, influence, control and ultimately too much power over people.

You only have to look at Scouting Ireland to spot a similar scandal to the RCC over recent years.
Also take a look across in Eng, where the (mainly) Pakistani (muslim, but not really practising) grooming gangs, have ran amock on a huge scale.
Then there's the elites, politicians, royals and so on, often self-serving headonist types themselves.

Kaybaykwah · 30-05-2020 2:28pm

NIMAN wrote: »

I just think that it's not so much people trying to take anything away from life, but they aren't prepared to believe in something they consider nonsense to make their life seem more fulfilling or special.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Wasn’t it people within the organisation that committed those crimes though? And people within the organisation who covered up for those people who committed those crimes, and turned a blind eye to the ill treatment of people who themselves were, and still are, members of the same organisation? My point is that it wasn’t the organisation is at fault, it’s the small minority of people within the organisation you’re referring to, I would say the small number of people within any organisation, who have their own agenda going on.

It doesn’t mean that the organisation is at fault, or that all the members of the organisation can be or should be held accountable or responsible for the crimes committed by the small minority of people within the organisation who committed criminal acts and subjected people to ill treatment and abuse. What you’re attempting to suggest is akin to suggesting that the son is responsible for the sins of the father. That’s really not how accountability and responsibility work. Individuals are responsible for their own actions.

Yes, not to put everyone in the same basket, and yet, most good Catholics were aware of the Magdalen Laundries in the past. The pious were indeed OK with doing away with the girls gone wrong, knocked up by a priest and shunned for life. The sins of the Church were unquestioned, they were part and parcel of the system that was deemed unquestionable because that is what faith requires. So. No, it is not just a happy few in the hierarchy who abuse, but all who avert their eyes from gross injustice meted out by same.

ressem · 30-05-2020 3:49pm

Perhaps some of the religions ought to clean up the contradictions in their teachings, and dump the ill-deserved "perfect, divinely inspired" reviews they attach to their scriptures.
Treating the old testament as a tribal history, rather than a valuable guide to life.
Because it's just too easy for a malevolent would-be leader to cherry-pick.
And beautiful passages can be made about wars and sieges and plagues.

The claims of Judaic based religions and others have been used as excuses for atrocities and prejudices to physically attack members of other spiritual groups for millennia now. So I suppose trying to attach the false tag of "religion" (or cult) onto the scientific method and those that use it shouldn't surprise.

In Ireland's current culture that places some restrictions on hate-mongering, you'll still have homilies about the spiritual dangers of yoga, mindfulness and other "fads" that are popularized / commercialised out of other religions.

The religious bits that encourage self-improvement and self-discipline can get a recommendation of practice from the scientific method through trial and recording results.

30-05-2020 3:54pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Wasn’t it people within the organisation that committed those crimes though? And people within the organisation who covered up for those people who committed those crimes, and turned a blind eye to the ill treatment of people who themselves were, and still are, members of the same organisation? My point is that it wasn’t the organisation is at fault, it’s the small minority of people within the organisation you’re referring to, I would say the small number of people within any organisation, who have their own agenda going on.

It doesn’t mean that the organisation is at fault, or that all the members of the organisation can be or should be held accountable or responsible for the crimes committed by the small minority of people within the organisation who committed criminal acts and subjected people to ill treatment and abuse. What you’re attempting to suggest is akin to suggesting that the son is responsible for the sins of the father. That’s really not how accountability and responsibility work. Individuals are responsible for their own actions.

the same holds true for good works.

people do things. jesus doesnt change anybody's life. they change their own life through a framework suggested to them with a set of handy parables and a couple of vague basic instructions.

jesus, yoga, atkins or agile- whatever concept/philosophy/tool moves you, great.

it doesnt make them conscious deities.

but you certainly can't claim that jesus is real and responsible for only the good bits- there's a reason that church philosophers have had themselves in a (thoroughly unconvincing) tangle for centuries over that principle.

DanielODonnell · 30-05-2020 4:02pm

I am OK with non existence after I die, I can't imagine any after life would be suitable for me anyway, I can't socialise and I am uncomfortable around humans so how will that end in an an after life. Non existence is OK for me just like before I was born, you can't be afraid of that, being afraid of death is like being afraid of the 1980s, I time when I didn't exist, there was no pain in the 1980s for me. If God wishes me to me at peace in his heaven he will need to give me a new brain, simple as that.

30-05-2020 4:07pm

You'll live on in your music Daniel..

i57dwun4yb1pt8 · 30-05-2020 4:13pm

DanielODonnell wrote: »

I am OK with non existence after I die, I can't imagine any after life would be suitable for me anyway, I can't socialise and I am uncomfortable around humans so how will that end in an an after life. Non existence is OK for me just like before I was born, you can't be afraid of that, being afraid of death is like being afraid of the 1980s, I time when I didn't exist, there was no pain in the 1980s for me. If God wishes me to me at peace in his heaven he will need to give me a new brain, simple as that.

sure picked the wrong career then , eh ?

jobeenfitz · 30-05-2020 4:27pm

DanielODonnell wrote: »

I am OK with non existence after I die, I can't imagine any after life would be suitable for me anyway, I can't socialise and I am uncomfortable around humans so how will that end in an an after life. Non existence is OK for me just like before I was born, you can't be afraid of that, being afraid of death is like being afraid of the 1980s, I time when I didn't exist, there was no pain in the 1980s for me. If God wishes me to me at peace in his heaven he will need to give me a new brain, simple as that.

Most people have a fear of death. Some have fear of after death. I think this could be a big factor in them believing in religion. I'm not looking forward to death but I have no worries about being dead.

I believed in God when I was young because of parents, teachers, priests and nuns. I was thought by nuns in secondary school. Also fear was a factor in my belief.

I just can't believe there's a god, without proof.

Is there higher powers? Did the big bang happen, what caused it to hapen? Hopefully mankind will eventually know these things.

One eyed Jack · 31-05-2020 10:51am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

the same holds true for good works.

people do things. jesus doesnt change anybody's life. they change their own life through a framework suggested to them with a set of handy parables and a couple of vague basic instructions.

jesus, yoga, atkins or agile- whatever concept/philosophy/tool moves you, great.

it doesnt make them conscious deities.

but you certainly can't claim that jesus is real and responsible for only the good bits- there's a reason that church philosophers have had themselves in a (thoroughly unconvincing) tangle for centuries over that principle.

Well, I could, in just the same way as critics of anything can claim the opposite - either side is only looking at any idea from the perspective that suits their argument. If their beliefs inspire them to do good, then I’m good with that. If they want to attribute responsibility for their good deeds to a deity, I’m ok with that too. If someone is claiming that their ill deeds or attitudes towards others is inspired by their beliefs, or they attribute responsibility for their ill behaviour to a deity, then I’d have an issue with their claims.

Consider for example the case of Jan Broberg, a devout Mormon who was kidnapped as a child by another member of the Mormon Church, who had her believe she was an alien, and that she must have sex with him. It was because of how she was raised as a Mormon that she was able to forgive him and move on with her life, and to this day is still a very active member in her Church. She chooses to focus on the positives and if that’s what she finds peace in, I’m certainly not of a mind to try and undermine her beliefs.

I’d be the same with Ben Carson, a devout Seventh Day Adventist and pioneering neurosurgeon who attributes his gifts to God, and there’s no doubt the guy is gifted. He’s doing incredible work, and if he attributes the source of his inspiration for being able to do so to a deity, I’m ok with that.

If a couple of Muslims break into an office in France and take out a couple of journalists in the name of their God, then I’m not ok with that, nor am I ok with it being used as an example to tar Muslims as though though the actions of the minority represent the values of the majority. I’d be the same with anyone who would suggest that the malicious actions of a minority within the Catholic Church, within any Church, within any organisation, represent the values of the majority of members of the organisation in question.

I’d be the same if anyone were to try and argue that science and spirituality are conflicting ideals. They’re not, because they’re two completely distinct concepts with their own branches of knowledge and understanding - science relates to that which is observable. Philosophy or spirituality relates to that which isn’t observable, but it is true what you say that Church philosophers have tied themselves up in rather unconvincing knots trying to untangle that principle, and the same is true of scientific philosophers who have tried to do the same thing, only from their perspective. I think that’s where the OP is coming from, that there are a growing number of people who don’t fully understand science, and argue that it is somehow superior to spirituality, as though the two concepts are in conflict.

That’s why we find ourselves in circumstances now where a 16 year old child is punted around the globe and paraded in front of political world leaders berating them like any spoilt child would who isn’t getting her own way and failing to understand why people won’t just “listen to the scientists”. I’m guessing she isn’t referring to the Government scientist in the UK who was advising Boris, and then proceeded as though his own scientific evidence didn’t apply to him.

eviltwin · 31-05-2020 12:00pm

I'm not religious and I don't consider myself to be spiritual either. It hasn't left a void in my life. I get great peace of mind from listening to a good album, doing some gardening or going for a run. It's good to cleanse the mind but there are many ways to do so.

Kylta · 31-05-2020 2:26pm

DanielODonnell wrote: »

I am OK with non existence after I die, I can't imagine any after life would be suitable for me anyway, I can't socialise and I am uncomfortable around humans so how will that end in an an after life. Non existence is OK for me just like before I was born, you can't be afraid of that, being afraid of death is like being afraid of the 1980s, I time when I didn't exist, there was no pain in the 1980s for me. If God wishes me to me at peace in his heaven he will need to give me a new brain, simple as that.

Sorry mate only hell awaits country and western singers, try sing some reggae and you just might get to hi hi hi heaven mon

upupup · 31-05-2020 2:54pm

Kylta wrote: »

Sorry mate only hell awaits country and western singers, try sing some reggae and you just might get to hi hi hi heaven mon

Johnny the fiddle player kicked the devils ass!

"The Devil bowed his head because he knew that he'd been beat
And he laid that golden fiddle on the ground at Johnny's feet
Johnny said, "Devil, just come on back if you ever wanna try again
I done told you once--you son of a bitch--I'm the best there's ever been."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzuYKwIcuKk

B.A._Baracus · 31-05-2020 4:01pm

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I’m totally areligious but that being said I acknowledge that pretty much every known society and culture throughout history has had some sort of tradition of believing in a higher power. Therefore I would define it to be as much a part of the human condition as enjoying music or any kind of storytelling.

That’s why I always laugh at the sneering fat internet atheists you see on websites such as this. Declaring themselves to be “people of science” despite the fact that their own scientific nous extends only as far as what a pop scientist like Brian Cox told them in some podcast for arseholes.

The kind of people who pride themselves on trusting “facts” and “logic” but who also ignore their doctors warnings about controlling their blood sugar by eating two kilos of sugar every weekend.

Well said. Total agree

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! · 31-05-2020 4:10pm

completedit wrote: »

The religion of science in the hands of those not smart enough to truly understand it is every bit as scary as anything that has come before it.

Why do religious people have this deep desire, to pretend they know the unknowable in this life?

Is it really that hard to live and enjoy your life, without having answers to all the big questions in the universe? Why do you actually have to know who/or what created us, in order to live a good life, be a decent person and enjoy what's out there for you?

I find faith to be one of the most arrogant positions that anyone can take in this life... to say you know who/what created us, and to then compound this further by saying you don't require any evidence to prove your wild assertions... :rolleyes:... No thanks, not for me!

Mostly, I just don't get why anyone needs to believe in a god to enjoy their life and live a good life. I certainly don't need faith... I see it as a character flaw in most people. It's a sign of weakness from my perspective, when I see people who need faith to guide them in this life. Each to their own and all that jazz... but I personally feel a bit sorry for most religious people. (including all the people into those wacky faith healers and energy BS)

If you can't navigate this world without these types of crutches... you've got problems in my book. No offence intended btw. Just my humble opinion!

Warbeastrior · 31-05-2020 4:11pm

Has anyone else noticed that a lot of athiests and non spiritual individuals seem to love to attack the beliefs of others.
I know that some people who do believe may rub some people up the wrong way but in my experience, it's a lot more prevalent seeing people who aren't spiritual bothering the spiritualistic.
Ricky Gervais is one example. Fair enough if you don't believe but why feel the need to talk bad about something that is very important to some people.

Fourier · 31-05-2020 4:12pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think that’s where the OP is coming from, that there are a growing number of people who don’t fully understand science, and argue that it is somehow superior to spirituality, as though the two concepts are in conflict.

That’s why we find ourselves in circumstances now where a 16 year old child is punted around the globe and paraded in front of political world leaders berating them like any spoilt child would who isn’t getting her own way and failing to understand why people won’t just “listen to the scientists”. I’m guessing she isn’t referring to the Government scientist in the UK who was advising Boris, and then proceeded as though his own scientific evidence didn’t apply to him.

This makes very little sense to me.

The fact that there are people who think science is superior to spirituality is why we have people like Greta Thunberg?

People then won't listen to what she says, which mostly aligns with what scientists say, because of what? Because there is a growing number of people who think science is superior so that's not a reason to seriously take in evidence of what needs to be done about Global Warming (makes little sense)? Or because a UK scientist from another discipline was hypocritical (also makes little sense)?

I don't really get the link between the three groups here, it just seems like a grab bag of vaguely related current events.

B.A._Baracus · 31-05-2020 4:39pm

Warbeastrior wrote: »

Has anyone else noticed that a lot of athiests and non spiritual individuals seem to love to attack the beliefs of others.
I know that some people who do believe may rub some people up the wrong way but in my experience, it's a lot more prevalent seeing people who aren't spiritual bothering the spiritualistic.
Ricky Gervais is one example. Fair enough if you don't believe but why feel the need to talk bad about something that is very important to some people.

Yeah. You see a lot of that on boards.
Probably not as bad as it was a few years ago. As hard as that could be to believe.

You'd often have people saying "oh so you believe in the flying spaghetti monster?" - like what a downright dick thing to say to someone of faith.

There was once a thread in after hours saying how people who didn't believe in God were smarter than those who do. Que all the athiests agreeing. Pathetic looking bad as everyone was just blowing themselves out. Like one big circle jerk.

Warbeastrior · 31-05-2020 4:57pm

That's exactly the type of stuff B.A.
I would have faith but I'd never go onto a forum and start criticising or making fun of someone for not.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! · 31-05-2020 5:03pm

Warbeastrior wrote: »

Has anyone else noticed that a lot of athiests and non spiritual individuals seem to love to attack the beliefs of others.
I know that some people who do believe may rub some people up the wrong way but in my experience, it's a lot more prevalent seeing people who aren't spiritual bothering the spiritualistic.
Ricky Gervais is one example. Fair enough if you don't believe but why feel the need to talk bad about something that is very important to some people.

I think it's more a case of religious people being far too sensitive, and not being able handle any critique of their faith... or heaven forbid (:p) anyone should direct some humour at their oh-so-very-serious religion!

Gervais is very good at highlighting many of the absurdities within religion... He's not "talking bad" about religion. He's just doing what observational comedians do... observe contradictions and oddities within certain subject matter, and then use that to get a laugh!

The reason many religious people take offence, is because the things he highlights are actually quite embarrassing for anyone who happens to take these religions seriously!

And why should religion be excluded from ridicule anyway? If I told you that tree out in my back garden was talking to me, and telling me how to live my life... you would be well within your rights to ask me for some sort of evidence of my wild claims... and I would expect to be the butt of a few jokes, if I failed to provide you with said evidence...

But if it's a burning bush in some ancient book... apparently it's off limits for criticism or humour? :rolleyes:

Religious folk need to grow a thicker skin... and get used to religion/faith being the fuel for many jokes. It's part of our evolution as a species. We need to pull apart old practices and traditions - and yes often make fun of them too!

Kylta · 31-05-2020 5:06pm

upupup wrote: »

Johnny the fiddle player kicked the devils ass!

"The Devil bowed his head because he knew that he'd been beat
And he laid that golden fiddle on the ground at Johnny's feet
Johnny said, "Devil, just come on back if you ever wanna try again
I done told you once--you son of a bitch--I'm the best there's ever been."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzuYKwIcuKk

kudos to you. I was only listening to that track yesterday. It actually briliant. Now with exception to johhny. The rest of your country and western folk say your prayers ole nick is waiting

One eyed Jack · 31-05-2020 5:09pm

Fourier wrote: »

This makes very little sense to me.

The fact that there are people who think science is superior to spirituality is why we have people like Greta Thunberg?

People then won't listen to what she says, which mostly aligns with what scientists say, because of what? Because there is a growing number of people who think science is superior so that's not a reason to seriously take in evidence of what needs to be done about Global Warming (makes little sense)? Or because a UK scientist from another discipline was hypocritical (also makes little sense)?

I don't really get the link between the three groups here, it just seems like a grab bag of vaguely related current events.

It goes back to the point the opening poster was making in pointing out that there is a growing number of people with an almost cult like fervour for attempting to associate their beliefs with science, showing that by doing so, they have very little understanding of what science actually is (and indeed what it isn’t), very similar to cult-like behaviour which would more often be associated with religious fervour in promoting their beliefs by historically associating their beliefs with religion as an authority which should be shown deference.

That’s why I used the example of Greta Thunberg as an example of this kind of deference to authority, she doesn’t say listen to her, she says listen to the scientists, as though science is the ideology, and scientists are the moral authority. It’s analogous to the idea of Jesus as a child preaching that people should listen to the word of God, with religion being the ideology, and God being the moral authority.

The reason I gave the example of the scientist who the Government in the UK were listening to, was to make the point that scientists themselves are not an infallible authority, that by his own actions he undermined his own authority, and even in announcing his resignation from his Government position, he continued to promote misleading information which given his expertise in the area, he had to have known was simply false -

In a statement to CNN, Ferguson said he accepted he made "an error of judgement and took the wrong course of action," and had therefore stepped back from his involvement in SAGE.

"I acted in the belief that I was immune, having tested positive for coronavirus and completely isolated myself for almost two weeks after developing symptoms," he said.

"I deeply regret any undermining of the clear messages around the continued need for social distancing to control this devastating epidemic.

"The government guidance is unequivocal, and is there to protect all of us."

His explanation as a justification for his behaviour doesn’t sound to me like someone who has even the most basic grasp of epidemiology, and considering his position, that is indeed scary. Would I trust him? No, and that is the danger of promoting scientists and science as having the capacity to inform discussions which relate to morality. Science doesn’t have any meaningful basis to inform morality any more than religion does.

Warbeastrior · 31-05-2020 5:15pm

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote:

The reason many religious people take offence, is because the things he highlights are actually quite embarrassing for anyone who happens to take these religions seriously!

And you've just tried to make your point by doing exactly what I said happens.
You just insinuated that faith is something that shouldn't be taken 'seriously'.

There's a difference between humour and disrespect. I'm a practicing Catholic and find Fr Ted very funny. That's humour.

Tbh I am still a fan of Ricky Gervais' comedy. I just think that he has an obsession to 'prove that God doesn't exist' which is ridiculous. He doesn't believe, so be it. I'm not trying to force him to believe but he seems to have to force believers to stop believing.

Has nothing to do with being too sensitive.

Fourier · 31-05-2020 5:24pm

One eyed Jack wrote:

That’s why I used the example of Greta Thunberg as an example of this kind of deference to authority, she doesn’t say listen to her, she says listen to the scientists, as though science is the ideology

I don't see how saying to listen to an expert in a subject is an "ideology" or "cultlike" unless one strains the meanings of cult and ideology beyond their normal meaning.

If somebody told me to listen to what my cardiologist was telling me, an example of appealing to an expert, that's hardly an ideology or cultlike. It's just listening to an informed expert.

His explanation as a justification for his behaviour doesn’t sound to me like someone who has even the most basic grasp of epidemiology, and considering his position, that is indeed scary. Would I trust him? No, and that is the danger of promoting scientists and science as having the capacity to inform discussions which relate to morality. Science doesn’t have any meaningful basis to inform morality any more than religion does.

Again to me this is very confused.

We cannot be 100% sure that somebody is correct in any given area. However the large scale evidence informed conclusions of the majority of experts, e.g. in climate science, should be seriously considered. They are not analogous to the single recommendations of one individual.

Of course science can inform morality by discovering pertinent facts. I think your point is better made by saying science cannot dictate morality. If science cannot inform morality you are basically saying facts cannot inform morality, since science is simply a method for accruing fact, and that makes little sense to me.

Finally of course religion has a basis to inform morality (if you accept it). In many religions the faith directly proscribes and makes moral claims.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! · 31-05-2020 5:32pm

Warbeastrior wrote: »

And you've just tried to make your point by doing exactly what I said happens.
You just insinuated that faith is something that shouldn't be taken 'seriously'.

There's a difference between humour and disrespect. I'm a practicing Catholic and find Fr Ted very funny. That's humour.

Tbh I am still a fan of Ricky Gervais' comedy. I just think that he has an obsession to 'prove that God doesn't exist' which is ridiculous. He doesn't believe, so be it. I'm not trying to force him to believe but he seems to have to force believers to stop believing.

Has nothing to do with being too sensitive.

Well in all fairness now, if people of faith can preach and attempt to bring new people into their particular faith (which a great many still do - and always have)... then why can't Ricky Gervais try to recruit people over to his side of the fence?

I don't see the problem with an atheist trying to convince people to turn away from religion... it's fundamentally no different to a religious person preaching their views/way of life!

It's a free world - we can each choose which path we prefer.

I think what bothers many people about famous atheists, is that they are very influential... so when they critique religion or make fun of it... it does have a significant impact on those people who were perhaps undecided on the topic.

But what's wrong with that? If a famous and influential atheist can make some strong arguments against religion... good for them. And if that creates more atheists as a consequence... fair play. What's the problem? It's a hearts and minds issue... if these particular religions are lacking influential figures of their own, and are struggling to compete... that's their problem.

I used to love listening to the late great Christopher Hitchens... his ability to tear religion apart, and entertain the crowd at the same time. It was amazing to watch.... Most of the religious people he was locking horns with, were boring and bland characters... it's hardly surprising that so many people are turning away from faith in favour of atheism!

B.A._Baracus · 31-05-2020 5:44pm

Hey Gretas Gonna Get Ya!,
I know you think you are being clever but it's becoming really obvious at this point you're sh*t stirring :pac:

Warbeastrior · 31-05-2020 5:46pm

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote:

I used to love listening to the late great Christopher Hitchens... his ability to tear religion apart, and entertain the crowd at the same time. It was amazing to watch.... Most of the religious people he was locking horns with, were boring and bland characters... it's hardly surprising that so many people are turning away from faith in favour of atheism!

It is different imo because peoples faith is very important to them. I genuinely don't know one athiest who says that aspect is important to them.

If I mocked your family, would that be ok?
No, it wud be disrespectful. A lot of people hold their faith just as important. Which is why I don't like Gervais' approach. It's needless.
Now people are allowed to disagree of course but it comes back to respect.

31-05-2020 5:49pm

Gervais is just a sneering idiot for the most part too..the fact that he's being held up as an example of intelligent atheism doesn't say much..

The office was kind of funny, but he's only one character, based on laughing at those less fortunate really..

Kylta · 31-05-2020 5:57pm

I can't see what all the fuss is about. Whether you believe or don't believe is god. I mean if we where partaking in a good old fashion orgy, would you really care what anybody believed in. When were all naked and going at it like hammer and tonges who cares what about beliefs. And forget about the christians in the orgy the ones with the contraceptives. That could be anybody practising safe sex

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! · 31-05-2020 6:08pm

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Hey Gretas Gonna Get Ya!,
I know you think you are being clever but it's becoming really obvious at this point you're sh*t stirring :pac:

It's called having an opinion.

Calling me a troll, is just a lazy way of not needing to respond to any points made! :P

Warbeastrior wrote: »

It is different imo because peoples faith is very important to them. I genuinely don't know one athiest who says that aspect is important to them.

If I mocked your family, would that be ok?
No, it wud be disrespectful. A lot of people hold their faith just as important. Which is why I don't like Gervais' approach. It's needless.
Now people are allowed to disagree of course but it comes back to respect.

Plenty of atheists and agnostics consider their lack of faith/religion to be deeply important to their way of life... not to mention how they view the world.

But most atheists don't tend to be as easily offended as people of faith. I think it's a hang-up from when religion was still this great big sacred cow that nobody would dare criticise or make fun of... many of you guys would like to return to those more austere times in history. But those days are over. (at least in the west anyway)

Religion is fair game for humour and critical analysis. And so it should be!

Like I said, you need to grow a thicker skin. If you are going to make some of the wild claims that religions make... and not back those claims up with a shred of evidence... then you need to be prepared for ridicule/criticism/comedy etc etc... is completely natural.

Warbeastrior · 31-05-2020 6:26pm

Greta's but can you do that with respect and without the nasty mockery?

I don't agree with most of Islam but I don't go around making crude remarks which is my point.

Its not hard to have a respectful debate when it involves something that is really important to peoples core beliefs.

jobeenfitz · 31-05-2020 6:27pm

Warbeastrior wrote: »

It is different imo because peoples faith is very important to them. I genuinely don't know one athiest who says that aspect is important to them.

If I mocked your family, would that be ok?
No, it wud be disrespectful. A lot of people hold their faith just as important. Which is why I don't like Gervais' approach. It's needless.
Now people are allowed to disagree of course but it comes back to respect.

Is mocking an unproven god the same as mocking your family?

Warbeastrior · 31-05-2020 6:31pm

jobeenfitz wrote:

Is mocking an unproven god the same as mocking your family?

You say unproven but to the person in question, they are very much real.

B.A._Baracus · 31-05-2020 6:38pm

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

It's called having an opinion.

Calling me a troll, is just a lazy way of not needing to respond to any points made! :P

The bs is strong in this one :pac:
Cause the whole not responding to my points is all Shi*e. Cheap poor man retort to deflect. I know because I've used it myself before.

You have your stick out bating others and you'll just hide behind "well, it's my opinion" - but we both know the story don't we

Gooey Looey · 31-05-2020 6:44pm

Btw, Happy 90th birthday to one of the best known atheists there is, Clint Eastwood
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Eastwood

rossie1977 · 31-05-2020 7:02pm

Religion of science lol

jobeenfitz · 31-05-2020 7:03pm

Warbeastrior wrote: »

You say unproven but to the person in question, they are very much real.

I only say unproven because there is no proof of God, whatever your religion. How can I mock something that doesn't exist.

I used to be a Catholic when I was young because my parents were Catholic. The people I loved and most adults in my life believed.

It was also a nice warm feeling that there was something to look forward to after death. Especially when someone you love dies.

There are many reasons to want to believe but alas this does not make it true.

I know that no proof of God has ever being shown to me, I would guess you have no proof either. Just because you or people I love, believe in a god that doesn't exist is no reason for me not to mock same non existing God.

One eyed Jack · 31-05-2020 7:07pm

Fourier wrote: »

I don't see how saying to listen to an expert in a subject is an "ideology" or "cultlike" unless one strains the meanings of cult and ideology beyond their normal meaning.

If somebody told me to listen to what my cardiologist was telling me, an example of appealing to an expert, that's hardly an ideology or cultlike. It's just listening to an informed expert.

Again to me this is very confused.

We cannot be 100% sure that somebody is correct in any given area. However the large scale evidence informed conclusions of the majority of experts, e.g. in climate science, should be seriously considered. They are not analogous to the single recommendations of one individual.

Your first example of someone suggesting you listen to your cardiologist is not the ideology or cult like behaviour I was referring to. That’s the single recommendation of one individual, whereas your second example is more akin to the idea of science as an ideology and some individuals adherence to it to add legitimacy to their claims, as cult like behaviour. Large scale evidence based upon rigorous scientific inquiry is one thing, it’s simply as you suggested earlier, an accumulation of the facts. How those facts are presented though, is what leads to the perception of cult-like behaviour and treating science as an ideology.

In interpreting the data using terms such as “climate crisis” and “climate emergency” and suggesting that people need to adopt a vegan diet, have no children, and abstain from air travel, as humans are the greatest influence on climate change, is using the data to promote a moral imperative. I’m almost certain that I as an individual use far more resources in a week than a family of ten in some of the most underdeveloped parts of India where Hindus adhere to what Westerners would call a vegan diet. The data suggests that a regression of Western civilisation to pre-industrial times would do less damage to the environment. One doesn’t need to be a climate scientist to have figured that one out really. One just needs to ignore all other factors which influence economic and social development.

This is what I mean when I say that Greta acts like a spoiled child who isn’t getting her own way because she feels that politicians aren’t listening to climate scientists. They simply do not regard climate scientists with the same moral authority that Greta does. Long may she continue to be a complete pain in the arse, and she has a massive following, but I’m just not one of them, any more than I think she would appreciate an expert in economics demonstrating that her ideas simply aren’t all that sustainable for numerous reasons, not the least of which being their greater impact on the development of underdeveloped nations than the impact they would have on the developed world.

Fourier wrote: »

Of course science can inform morality by discovering pertinent facts. I think your point is better made by saying science cannot dictate morality. If science cannot inform morality you are basically saying facts cannot inform morality, since science is simply a method for accruing fact, and that makes little sense to me.

Finally of course religion has a basis to inform morality (if you accept it). In many religions the faith directly proscribes and makes moral claims.

Morality concerns decisions made on the basis of the discovery of facts, and what facts should be considered pertinent, such as for instance the discovery that Seventh Day Adventists are a pretty healthy bunch to use as test subjects for epidemiological studies -

Adventists' clean lifestyles were recognized by the U.S. military in 1954 when 2,200 Adventists volunteered to serve as human test subjects in Operation Whitecoat, a biodefense medical research program whose stated purpose was to defend troops and civilians against biological weapons.

I didn’t say that science cannot inform morality, I said that science doesn’t have any meaningful basis to inform morality any more than religion does. I acknowledge that people use religion to proscribe and make moral claims, and some people use science to do the very same thing.

Fourier · 31-05-2020 7:26pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your first example of someone suggesting you listen to your cardiologist is not the ideology or cult like behaviour I was referring to. That’s the single recommendation of one individual, whereas your second example is more akin to the idea of science as an ideology and some individuals adherence to it to add legitimacy to their claims, as cult like behaviour. Large scale evidence based upon rigorous scientific inquiry is one thing, it’s simply as you suggested earlier, an accumulation of the facts. How those facts are presented though, is what leads to the perception of cult-like behaviour and treating science as an ideology.

In interpreting the data using terms such as “climate crisis” and “climate emergency” and suggesting that people need to adopt a vegan diet, have no children, and abstain from air travel, as humans are the greatest influence on climate change, is using the data to promote a moral imperative.

Well yes, but what is the "cult-like" behaviour here. I don't agree with some of this stuff either, but I don't see it as particularly "cult-like" or treating science as an ideology.

The actual climate science does give a certain set of facts. Greta and people like her are using them a simplistically perhaps, or not considering other issues, but I don't see anything cult-like in the use of the facts themselves. The data clearly shows a "climate crisis" by any normal definition of the word "crisis". I don't see how phrasing it like that is some cult-like presentation.

I mean really what we have here are findings from climate science and other suggestions from economics. Considering both and caring less for the economic arguments, while it might be wrong, is hardly cult like. Otherwise do we say that those with the opposite conclusion have a cult-like devotion to economics?

Morality concerns decisions made on the basis of the discovery of facts, and what facts should be considered pertinent, such as for instance the discovery that Seventh Day Adventists are a pretty healthy bunch to use as test subjects for epidemiological studies -

What's the relevance of quoting that 7th day Adventist study? It just seems to be a non-sequitur. I'm not really discussing religious groups. There are similar studies showing Atheists have high levels of mental well-being and health. So what?

[There are studies showing that "non-religious" people have poorer health, but I suggest reading them carefully first as what they actually say is quite different from the popular conception of them]

I didn’t say that science cannot inform morality, I said that science doesn’t have any meaningful basis to inform morality any more than religion does. I acknowledge that people use religion to proscribe and make moral claims, and some people use science to do the very same thing.

So what you are saying is that science and religion have an equal basis to inform morality?

If so, then under the usual conception of them, I would say this is wrong.

Science is a method for obtaining facts you can use to inform your morality.

Religion itself provides a moral framework, it doesn't simply inform it. It's not that "some people use religion to proscribe...", it's that religions themselves present what they consider the correct moral framework. The Bible is meant to make objective moral claims. This isn't the same as using science to inform morality. There's no real consistent way to be religious and simply use it to inform your morality. It has to be the basis of morality.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! · 31-05-2020 7:55pm

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

The bs is strong in this one :pac:
Cause the whole not responding to my points is all Shi*e. Cheap poor man retort to deflect. I know because I've used it myself before.

You have your stick out bating others and you'll just hide behind "well, it's my opinion" - but we both know the story don't we

You're entitled to view me as a troll, if that's how you perceive my contributions on this thread... you're wrong, of course, but you're entitled to hold that view.

And since you're so strong in your belief that I'm on the wind up... it would be somewhat churlish of me to disappoint you with my next contribution. So here is some fuel for the fodder in your mind.

:pac:

Gradius · 31-05-2020 8:02pm

People getting worked up publicly only to display their beliefs in an antagonistic fashion are contrarians with nothing better going on in their lives.

Childish, really.

Gradius · 31-05-2020 8:38pm

I remember going into a place in phibsboro to get lunch on a Sunday, it was a newish place so why not try it?

As we're queuing I start to note the "vibe" of the place. Communist this and that, diversity ads, immigration blah blah.

Get to the counter and ordered some food, then the bloke asks me "do you want some whiskey?"

I just looked at him strange. Why would I want whiskey so early in the day with a sandwich?

So he picks up on my puzzlement, "it's okay, it's free. A free glass of whiskey" he restated.

Declining, we sat down and it was only then a friend said it's because it's easter Sunday (or whatever holy day you're supposed to avoid alcohol). This place was encouraging everyone going in to drink alcohol, to the point of giving it away free.

To this day, it is one of the worst examples of try-hard contrarian nonsense I have experienced. When the penny dropped, my eyeballs rolled so far back in my head they did a 360. What a complete bunch of self-righteous, cringe-inducing eejits. It's still funny to recall

More to the point, being anti-religious/spiritual is practically a brand at this point. Insufferable and hilarious all at once.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! · 31-05-2020 8:43pm

Gradius wrote: »

I remember going into a place in phibsboro to get lunch on a Sunday, it was a newish place so why not try it?

As we're queuing I start to note the "vibe" of the place. Communist this and that, diversity ads, immigration blah blah.

Get to the counter and ordered some food, then the bloke asks me "do you want some whiskey?"

I just looked at him strange. Why would I want whiskey so early in the day with a sandwich?

So he picks up on my puzzlement, "it's okay, it's free. A free glass of whiskey" he restated.

Declining, we sat down and it was only then a friend said it's because it's easter Sunday (or whatever holy day you're supposed to avoid alcohol). This place was encouraging everyone going in to drink alcohol, to the point of giving it away free.

To this day, it is one of the worst examples of try-hard contrarian nonsense I have experienced. When the penny dropped, my eyeballs rolled so far back in my head they did a 360. What a complete bunch of self-righteous, cringe-inducing eejits. It's still funny to recall

More to the point, being anti-religious/spiritual is practically a brand at this point. Insufferable and hilarious all at once.

Sounds more like you were the uptight one, and that establishment was having good old pisstake at the expense of conservative religious traditions.

Maybe you should have taken the whiskey... sounds like you need to loosen up a bit! :pac:

I think the whole anti-religious thing is great btw... when you consider how much of a stranglehold the church had on this country and many others, it's a great step forward for society that we feel confident enough as citizens to just tear the whole thing apart and ridicule all of it's outdated and dogmatic rituals.

Gradius · 31-05-2020 8:48pm

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Sounds more like you were the uptight one, and that establishment was having good old pisstake at the expense of conservative religious traditions.

Maybe you should have taken the whiskey... sounds like you need to loosen up a bit! :pac:

Come on now, dont be an eejit

Imagine going into some restaurant for a bite to eat, and the ones serving you are going above and beyond to get you to break a religious tradition. Silly.

Imagine going into a place during Ramadan for a non alcoholic drink, and they start pushing an array of pork products on you, just because it's contrarian

Eejits to laugh at, nothing more, nothing less.

Gradius · 31-05-2020 8:51pm

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Sounds more like you were the uptight one, and that establishment was having good old pisstake at the expense of conservative religious traditions.

Maybe you should have taken the whiskey... sounds like you need to loosen up a bit! :pac:

I think the whole anti-religious thing is great btw... when you consider how much of a stranglehold the church had on this country and many others, it's a great step forward for society that we feel confident enough as citizens to just tear the whole thing apart and ridicule all of it's outdated and dogmatic rituals.

I quoted you before your add on.

"it's a great step forward for society blah blah". Id imagine if you threw a party a funeral might break out from the excitement, Ms "loosen up"

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! · 31-05-2020 8:55pm

Gradius wrote: »

Come on now, dont be an eejit

Imagine going into some restaurant for a bite to eat, and the ones serving you are going above and beyond to get you to break a religious tradition. Silly.

Imagine going into a place during Ramadan for a non alcoholic drink, and they start pushing an array of pork products on you, just because it's contrarian

Eejits to laugh at, nothing more, nothing less.

No actually, that's where you are very wrong... it's these religious traditions that are "silly"...

Telling someone you can't drink this or eat this on a certain day... give me break... what utter moronic outdated nonsense!

Good on that establishment for intentionally breaking stupid traditions and pointless taboos! Too many people have been held prisoner over the years, by dogmatic bullsh*t...

You need to take yourself less serious, and see that moment for what it actually was... you sound very uptight tbh.

Gradius · 31-05-2020 9:03pm

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

No actually, that's where you are very wrong... it's these religious traditions that are "silly"...

Telling someone you can't drink this or eat this on a certain day... give me break... what utter moronic outdated nonsense!

Good on that establishment for intentionally breaking stupid traditions and pointless taboos! Too many people have been held prisoner over the years, by dogmatic bullsh*t...

You need to take yourself less serious, and see that moment for what it actually was... you sound very uptight tbh.

Okay.

See you at the party later, fellow cool kid.

B.A._Baracus · 31-05-2020 9:08pm

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

You're entitled to view me as a troll, if that's how you perceive my contributions on this thread... you're wrong, of course, but you're entitled to hold that view.

And since you're so strong in your belief that I'm on the wind up... it would be somewhat churlish of me to disappoint you with my next contribution. So here is some fuel for the fodder in your mind.

:pac:

- gets called out as a sh*t stirrer.
- denies it
- doubles down and gets a bigger spoon :pac:

Nicely done :pac:

jobeenfitz · 31-05-2020 9:10pm

Gradius wrote: »

I remember going into a place in phibsboro to get lunch on a Sunday, it was a newish place so why not try it?

As we're queuing I start to note the "vibe" of the place. Communist this and that, diversity ads, immigration blah blah.

Get to the counter and ordered some food, then the bloke asks me "do you want some whiskey?"

I just looked at him strange. Why would I want whiskey so early in the day with a sandwich?

So he picks up on my puzzlement, "it's okay, it's free. A free glass of whiskey" he restated.

Declining, we sat down and it was only then a friend said it's because it's easter Sunday (or whatever holy day you're supposed to avoid alcohol). This place was encouraging everyone going in to drink alcohol, to the point of giving it away free.

To this day, it is one of the worst examples of try-hard contrarian nonsense I have experienced. When the penny dropped, my eyeballs rolled so far back in my head they did a 360. What a complete bunch of self-righteous, cringe-inducing eejits. It's still funny to recall

More to the point, being anti-religious/spiritual is practically a brand at this point. Insufferable and hilarious all at once.

That's an amazing story.

Why do so many people want to devoid life of a spiritual meaning

Comments