Why is self-determination an inalienable right for the people of the Falklands, but a gross example of Iranian meddling for the people of Bahrain?
Answers on a postcard please with a twenty pound note and framed photo of William Hague to Wars’R’Us, Oil and Armaments Ltd, House of Lords.
angrysoba: There’s no doubt Ahmadinejad does want the destruction of Israel
.
Njegos: Iranians at rallies regularly shout Marg Bar Amrika! Does that mean they are going to destroy America?
.
Please notice the difference between what I said and your propagandistic, biased rephrasing. Just like a lot of “anti-Zionists”, he wants Israel, the state, to no longer exist. That is perfectly in line with the correct translation of the quote.
Angrysoba:
Your dismissive tone may work wonders on that cess-pit Harry’s Place but cut no ice with me.
Ahmedinejad called for regime change. The US constantly calls for regime change. Who is claiming that America wants to wipe Iran off the map?
Don’t reply if you are not prepared to address the point I have raised.
Angrysoba, none of what I wrote was specifically for your sake, apart from the fact that you are a person. So your opinion has only very slight bearing upon whether or not I wasted my time.
Angrysoba, thanks for reminding me that the Iranian media propagandised that statement. I had forgotten that. The Western media also spread it far and wide; the two are not mutually exclusive, and it’s odd that these apparently diverse interests converge. Maybe if you and Passerby meet, you can enjoy inflicting injuries upon each other. I will choose not to watch. However, if you begin using each other’s loved ones as proxy targets, and it is within my power to stop you, I will do so.
Clark: “My provisional theory is that there is something inherently creative about the Universe, and that people (and everything else) have a non-local type of connection to it which they sense intuitively. They give it various names, and amongst those names are “God” and “The Creator”. Whatever it is, people agree that it must be supremely powerful.”
.
Well, that’s hardly a rational basis for a theological paradigm, now, is it? As it happens, I spent years researching intuition and creativity, and in my opinion they don’t necessitate warping the foundations of scientific knowledge by appealing to a spiritualistic ontology. Intuitive judgements clearly reflect individual personalities and are prone to psychological effects such as semantic priming and backwards masking, which can be manipulated experimentally. Creativity incorporates this same evaluative system into a powerful feedback circuit that facilitates the offline manipulation of mental imagery, unconstrained by perceptual input. Elementary examples can be modelled using connectionist circuits, for example in PDP++.
.
And yes, it is a powerful phenomenon, though I’d hesitate to use the (heavily loaded) word “supreme”. “Impressive”, yes, but there’s no special “God” module involved. As an innovative programmer, I’d be reluctant to relinquish the title “The Creator” too readily, especially to some undefined spiritual construct. There’s an interesting thought, though! Imagine what programmers could achieve if they could write API calls that consisted mostly of prayers: the code may be a lot shorter but the results would be quite unpredictable, vulnerable to the whims of whichever computational god you invoked. (Mind you, the Windows environment is so poorly documented it sometimes feels a bit like this – the supreme creator Bill Gates isn’t the most reliable deity in the OS universe). If there was any mileage in the concept of prayer programming, I bet Steve Jobs would have trademarked it before heading off to meet his own maker.
.
But you are of course free to create your own explanatory paradigm by conjuring up combinations of images that seem intuitively satisfying and which resonate with your understanding of your own experiences. I think that’s the ultimate act of Creativity.
Good to hear from you nextus, I was wondering how long it will take before you would join in on this subject.
Hope you are well and your spiritual level has been rejuvenated up there between the glens.
My question is more profound, it does not revolve around set spirituality as said by… for me its more interesting to see whether this emotional state is a default for some other notion, a corrective escape of sorts. And whether it has, like other pre programmed genetic abilities and disabilities, a history within evolution and within related species.
Does spirituality occur in any other animals, or is this what really sets us apart?
We know that primates and other mammals use implements and can make tools, just as we can, but is there more? We have managed to train certain animals well, we know of their intelligence, but this emotional state, as I may call it, which can lead us humans into irrational thoughts, or bliss for that matter, can we see any of this in other species?
maybe in 20 years time we will be able to distinguish whether our evolutionary development has an equivalent emotionary development running concurrently, but no doubt, this subject will always intrigue.
Salute, Ingo. Spirituality is probably a uniquely human phenomenon because it requires the conceptual ability to ascribe intentional predicates to non-perceptual entities (basically, anthropomorphising thin air, or believing in some holistic connecting force. There is no evidence that non-human animals can do so. Some apes can be tricked into treating objects as intentional agents, but it is has to be perceptual – either a thing or a representation of a thing.
.
I actually think ‘spirituality’ is an important dimension of human experience. It serves many personal and social purposes, from emotional sustenance to ethical guidance. Contrary to Dawkins, I don’t think it’s wise to dispense with it entirely. The Humanist Society doesn’t have any notion of spiritual connection, and its meetings are ‘supremely’ dull; there isn’t much to lift the spirits. However, the ‘Sea of Faith’ network, which is kind of like an atheist church, promotes an atheist notion of spirituality. It recognises that religion is a human creation, but an important one nevertheless.
.
For the philosopher-psychologist William James, spirituality comprised the thoughts, feelings and acts directed towards whatever was considered divine. This can include pantheistic notions of transcendental ‘love’ or ‘harmony’, as well as the traditional sky-wizard. His book “The Varieties of Religious Experience” is a kind of philosophical bible on this topic, and it includes a good chapter on mysticism. It’s a sophisticated and respectful text. (In comparison, the Holy Bible reads more like “Spirituality for Idiots”).
.
Some people claim to have had intense religious experiences, with perceptual and noetic characteristics. Science currently suggests that these religious epiphanies are caused by epileptic seizures in the temporal lobe … these can account for all the phenomenological elements that have been described, and the effect has been demonstrated experimentally. Interestingly, certain key figures in the history of religion (naming no names) have exhibited other traits that would suggest temporal epilepsy. It’s one explanation, anyway.
.
Here ends today’s sermon. God bless.
Clark,
Glad to see you have made head ways in your debate, as the latest interactions manifestly show!
,
Until such a time that zionism or the most rotten human sentiment is destroyed and the adhering there of the apartheid theocratic regime is dismantled, any supporter of the said sentiments and the said barbaric regime is a ziofuckwit and beneath any contempt. There ought not be any dialogue with any such cretins.
,
Normality dictates in human societies those transgressing the red lines set, ought to be shunned and ignored, not engaged with and encouraged. On one hand you admit that the ziofuckwits’ immersion propaganda has been obfuscating the truth about these beastly supremacists who are the epitome of perversion of all that is good. On the other you then proceed to denounce me for my “apparent prejudice”, this is an intolerable situation in which I am being coerced by the likes of you to remain silent and not to be verbose about fucking zionism, the obscenity here is the zionist creed somehow is forgotten in this melee.
,
Furthermore, in support of your strong arming, you then dangle the morsels of other silent readers opinions about me. Fact that any Lilly livered sensitive soul who stands offended and upset by my comments, and does not join the growing tide of the opponents of the most rotten human sentiments or zionism, in the face of the daily murder and land theft in Palestine, then so fuck, is my answer to you and them.
,
If these monstrous Tartuffe are upset at my strong expressions of disdain and protest, how could these sit back and witness the carnage that is being wreaked upon the beleaguered nation of Palestine?
,
The simple fact that any anti zionist is held to higher standards of behaviour and conduct, is yet another example of supremacists swinging their dick and using the conventions to make it an acceptable and tolerable affair.
,
You are debating with a ziofuckwit cretin with a moniker of “angry”, and you expect to attain some kind of understanding? Indeed only an optimist can think on these lines. Evidently you are blissfully unaware that every board has its resident ziofuckwit settler to push the same shite that is getting pushed 24/7/52, so stop kidding yourself and me about any dialogue, these bastards are here to reinforce the message that is getting drummed into every tv watching, news paper reading soul, in case these deviate from the path and passive participation in the ziofuckwits evil enterprise of genocide on industrial scale and waging aggressive wars on the nations of the mid east.
Thanks for that nextus, so our current knowledge of animals shows no sign of a similar genetic timeline for this poorly understood emotional state.
With some mamals having much larger brains and much better powers of rememberance, elephants for example, a sort of spirituality could be present, but we have not observed it as yet.
Another example would be whales, when they are diving for squid, a cool dive of a couple of miles at a time, physiology changing during descend and pressure bearing on them, what changes are happening in their brains, or are they switched off alltogether, a pre programmed dive that is undertaken whilst dreaming up the illusion of squid? 🙂
btw. Norfolk’s beautifull in spring.
Nextus, I don’t know; aren’t we at crossed purposes? You studied human creativity. My musings are about the creativity of the Universe, or reality. I disagree with some atheists in this way: I think people respond to that creativity with a belief in something that gets labeled “God”. Aforementioned atheists seem to think that people make up “God” and impose it on others at a remarkably high success rate for a deception, or that some deficiency in everyone’s brains but those of atheists makes them believe in “God”. And they seem to see nothing remarkable about the Universe. I don’t understand. I probably don’t belong amongst people.
Clark:
A question for you: How does beauty fit into an atheist’s conception of the world? We all have different tastes and opinions but, for instance, most people can recognise the beauty of a certain work of art, or a particular woman, or a piece of music, or even a gesture. Similarly, we recognise ugliness and dissonance. Is there an evolutionary need for beauty? And if so, why?
Njegos: Your dismissive tone may work wonders on that cess-pit Harry’s Place but cut no ice with me.
.
Whatever!
Ingo, yes, I think there may be a form of proto-theism in non-human animals. In a previous post I alluded to the matriarchal nature of cat theology; humans groom them like their mothers did when they were kittens, and demonstrate superior powers (opening doors and tins of cat food). But it’s still a bit of a stretch to transfer that kind of emotional bond to a non-perceptual spiritual entity, which I’m sure they can’t conceive. I doubt whether whales or even apes can either. But maybe evidence will one day suggest otherwise.
.
Clark, I don’t think most people in the secular proportion (i.e. the majority) of society are so arrogant or condescending towards ‘believers’. (Dawkins’s militant secularism is the exception rather than the rule.) It’s fair to allege that fundamentalists have been hoodwinked by a dogmatic authoritarian programme (an example has been aptly provided for us here); but most other people are just trying to make sense of the world and their place in it. Some people decide that belief in a spiritual entity best fill the gaps in their conceptual scheme and helps to resolve their existential predicaments. Fair enough, as long as you don’t impose it on others by coercion or social pressure. Secularists aren’t pursuing a social mission to convert believers – there is no divine atheist dictate. The objective for most is to redress the institutional bias towards religion and encourage humanistic morality. And I don’t know what you’re getting at with “nothing remarkable about the universe”. (To be pedantic, science literally comprises remarks about the universe!) What makes you think atheists don’t marvel at art, music, beauty, sensation, love, (human) creativity, and the wondrous patterns of nature? Atheists are not anaesthetised, or even un-aesthetic. They have feelings too.
Clark: Maybe if you and Passerby meet, you can enjoy inflicting injuries upon each other. I will choose not to watch. However, if you begin using each other’s loved ones as proxy targets, and it is within my power to stop you, I will do so.
.
Hmmmm…. I didn’t know that we were doing that.
.
Could I just come back to those 5 points again, quickly:
.
(2) Atheism is increasingly coming with arrogance and rudeness attached to it, as demonstrated on this thread. Glenn does it to, and you usually challenge Glenn, but not on this matter.
(1) When atheists direct arrogance and rudeness at others, it looks increasingly like a faith – “By their works shall you know them” – they must have a belief or they wouldn’t feel so righteous!
(3) No, Russian “communism” was not atheism, but it did try to enforce atheism.
(4) This point contradicts much that Dawkins documented in The God Delusion, though it’s more discrimination than outright persecution – but that is merely a matter of degree.
(5) I didn’t accuse you of offensiveness, I accused Bonifacegoncourt. Your attribution of the entire sense of offence to non-atheists seems like prejudice to me. Bonifacegoncourt attempted offence; that seems quite clear. He provoked a bit of a response from Guano.
.
1) I think you are trying to open up the word “faith” to be so wide as to almost lose all meaning. The point is that religious people often do talk about faith as something they have in God’s will, His grace, His purpose, His Creation, His Divine Judgment etc… and when it is pointed out that there is no evidence for Him and therefore no evidence for all His other attributes and there is no reasonable / rational basis for a belief in Him (i.e atheism/agnosticism) then the answer is that doubt should be suppressed with Faith! If you are trying to use the word differently then you are making a Humpty Dumpty argument and blurring the lines of discussion.
(2) Just because some atheists are rude doesn’t mean there is some code of conduct that they all sign up to. Now, obviously some things do follow from being an atheist. For example an atheist cannot claim that homosexual marriage is wrong on the basis that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, and therefore will either have no grounds for a moral objection unless they make one up (usually through some misuse of Darwinism, etc…) Religious types may, on the other hand, declare homosexuality an abomination and have homosexuals stoned, hanged, burnt at the stake or walls topple on them and claim they are only acting in accordance with Divine Law. Oh really? And how do you know this Divine Law exists? We may ask. Some religious type can then claim his faith tells him so. Now, maybe you can see why that type of reasoning makes atheists angry and less bothered about “causing offence”!
(3) I don’t know why there are scare quotes around Communism. Certainly it sounds like a dirty word nowadays what with having failed to live up to its billing of providing mankind with a material utopia but yes, I agree that the Soviet Union was mostly hostile to religion. I don’t think it was completely banned throughout its history; it turned out to be more popular than Communism in the end. My point was that just because Person X or Ideology Y is atheist it doesn’t follow that it is good or representative of all atheists/atheism. This is why I would repeat that atheism is not a belief system or a faith or have a particular code of morality or conduct.
(4) I don’t remember Dawkins’ claims of persecution. I would be surprised if it rose to that level in the developed world, outside of the Southern United States. Do you have any particular examples that you can remember. Bear in mind, I am here” arguing against interest”, in a sense, given that it seems to be de rigeur to claim personal persecution these days and I am merely saying that I can claim none.
(5) Well, I am sorry if Boniface made Guano break a nail or they both turned up in the same party frock or whatever else Guano claimed to be outraged by. If I was a religious person who was constantly finding offence all the time I would pray for the Lord to give me thicker skin. Remember, we are not talking about persecution here.
Going back to Craig’s original posting on 24 Feb, I notice how short his question was and how long most of the answers are. Few would fit on postcards. It would take extremely skilled editorial skills to extract from the disparate contributions on this thread the valuable insights that are there. Pehaps you, Craig – as a pretty good self-editor and with your FCO training – should set yourself (with some volunteers) the task of producing an Annual Despatch for the website. We don’t ever want to hear again your depressive suggestion of some months ago that a Valedictory Despatch might be in the offing.
.
I thought of you, Nadira and Cameron when I was in my local independent Herne Hill bookshop – brilliant stock – and saw a free ad on the wall for Brixton Bellydance – see http://www.smallworldbellydance.com (Tel 07984-114-679). Unfortunately it seems that James Castle’s “The Society for the Protection of Unwanted Objects” current programme came to an end the day this topic started. However, I shall discover when the next Unwanted Objects will be celebrated by ringing 07817-538-872.
.
The bookshop is a bad place for people like me. I could not resist the brilliantly titled and produced “BRUTAL SIMPLICITY OF THOUGHT – how it changed the world”, Ebury Press 2011.
.
There’s a good entry on “How do you wage war without violence?” And an even better one on “How do you hear from the dead? How do you speak to the unborn? [Answer] “Without writing, every generation would have to start from scratch. Philosophers would have no Plato; mathematicians, no Newton; scientists, no Einstein; actors, no Shakespeare. And your descendents wouldn’t even know where you were buried. Or that you lived at all. But more important, we wouldn’t be meeting on this page now. “
What is going on here? I turn my back and the place is taken over by epistemologists. ontologists and woo merchants. Clark and Ivan Jellical chums, please haul ass over to the Goydian,
where there is a exquisitely meaningless thread on ‘Are Christians Being Marginalised?’ In only 4 hours it already has 360 comments, so you are wasting your loquacity here.
Back to the Cruise Ships of Ushuaia. My first reaction is that the Bennies should do a bit of guerilla twittering. Promote Argentina as a gay vacation spot, the campest place south of San Francisco. Prance in the Pink House! Grab yourself a gay gaucho! Peron was a maricon! Join the Argie Army, we’d rather bum than fight! Etcetera. But that might be a bit childish. Better persuade the Argies to emulate the Irish Republic. In order to achieve peace in the north, they changed their constitution to no longer claim the territory of N Ireland but kind of ‘they can join us if they feel like it’. The Brits could suggest that the Pink House [oo, Matron!] recognise Brit ownership in return for first dibs on the place should the Brits decide to pack up.
Iswail has crept in here as usual. Whatever was said about the future of Al-Quds, every decent person wishes the excision of the zionist cancer in Palestine. Why not dump all the Iswailis in West Falkland? That will keep even the Argies away. Problem solved!
Put them all on a Costa cruise ship and send them all to Tel Aviv bonifacegoncourt. Wonder what the Palestinians think of the decadence.
.
http://telavivgayvibe.atraf.com/
Ingo,
.
I’ve been meaning to thank you for your uplifting comments (especially 26 Feb 9:48 am and 27 Feb 7:41 pm), but I’ve been too busy arguing, or rather defending myself and all those billions of people who still believe in anything other than absolute aspritual atheism.
.
Nextus,
.
Thanks for your 1:14 pm comment, with which I pretty much agree. Dawkins seems to have achieved a remarkable own-goal in encouraging a minority of atheists to feel justified in bigotry similar to that of the religionists that he criticises.
.
“I don’t know what you’re getting at with “nothing remarkable about the universe”. From Bonifacegoncourt: “Why should you feel ‘awe’ for the universe, just because it is bigger than you?”.
.
Njegos,
.
I don’t think the aggressive atheists really accept beauty and aesthetics at all, but I think their argument has something to do with being well adapted, or whatever. That argument helps a bit, for instance it obviously helps to explain why men find women beautiful, though not why some seem more beautiful than others. Thus I think it is inadequate. For my part, I favour Persig’s “Quality” as described in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
.
Angrysoba, 1:29 pm:
.
“Hmmmm…. I didn’t know that we were doing that.” – Well, it seemed to be the direction you both wanted to go. You both had a go at me for trying to stop your row. I suppose I need more faith that you will stop escalation at some point. Many don’t.
.
“(1) I think you are trying to open up the word “faith” to be so wide as to almost lose all meaning.” – No, you’re using it to mean only religious faith. Why should believing that something definitely doesn’t exist (to the point of calling those who disagree stupid and gullible), when either its existence or its non-existence is compatible with available evidence, not be termed “faith”?
.
You can cite that one can’t prove a negative, and I can respond with a probabilistic argument. For instance, prior to the development of rocketry, there was almost certainly no “Celestial Teapot” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_teapot – but now, asserting the Teapot’s definite non-existence would be more an article of faith that no one had launched one. If teleportation were developed a Celestial Teapot would become even more likely, and denial of the possibility even more an act of faith.
.
A “sky wizard” is pretty incompatible with current science, but my “creative something” is to some extent supported, as (1) a principle seems needed to counter thermodynamics, and (2) quantum physics seems to suggest the necessity of mind (or better, Mind) for the existence of the Universe.
.
“(3) I don’t know why there are scare quotes around Communism.” – your observation that follows describes the reason for my quotes.
.
“(4) I don’t remember Dawkins’ claims of persecution.” – He claimed that admission of atheism amounted to professional suicide, particularly in US politics. As I said, this is more discrimination than persecution, but there was also more. Parents rejecting their children, for instance, and more that I don’t remember.
.
(5) – Your attitude here still looks like pro-atheist prejudice. The religious may be offensive to each other and you’ll claim that’s a fault of religion, but when an atheist initiates offensiveness it is still apparently religion’s fault. I think offensiveness is a personal fault. You’re using atheism just as the religious use their beliefs, to excuse and justify your co-believer’s poor behaviour.
@bonifacegoncourt
“My first reaction is that the Bennies should do a bit of guerilla twittering. Promote Argentina as a gay vacation spot, the campest place south of San Francisco. Prance in the Pink House! Grab yourself a gay gaucho! Peron was a maricon! Join the Argie Army, we’d rather bum than fight!”
The kelpers would be doing Cristina a huge favour. The country is looking at every means of keeping dollars flowing into the country.
As I said earlier, the name of the game is economic and diplomatic. The military dimension simply doesn’t count. The strategy is to make Britain feel the Falklands in its wallet – always Britain’s Achilles Heel. They are in it for the very long haul.
@Clark:
I agree with your comments about atheism and beauty. The atheist fundamentalists haven’t figured out the role of aesthetics in evolution. Doubt they ever will.
Atheism is not a ‘faith’ any more than ‘not-farting-in-the-bath’ is a faith. Not smoking does not make you an atobacconist. Atheists are simply people who do not buy a lot of tedious, egotistical rubbish – not paying, not playing, not interested, better things to do. Godbanging is a form of insanity. “The atheist fundamentalists haven’t figured
out the role of aesthetics in evolution.” What is aesthetic
about a slug? Unless you are another slug.
@Bonifacegoncourt
You prove my point.
Eh? You sound a bit bonkers. ‘The Aesthetics of Evolution’??? By, for and about the hot air merchants.
Clark: I’ve been too busy arguing, or rather defending myself and all those billions of people who still believe in anything other than absolute aspritual atheism.
.
Oh Good God! How utterly self-aggrandizing and melodramatic! And how dishonest, too! You keep hopping from the religious to the non-religious camp. Maybe you think it is a good tactic as it is difficult to hit a moving target but you are just tying yourself up in knots.
.
Clark: I don’t think the aggressive atheists really accept beauty and aesthetics at all
.
This is false. And a typical strawman conceit.
.
Passerby: Well, it seemed to be the direction you both wanted to go. You both had a go at me for trying to stop your row. I suppose I need more faith that you will stop escalation at some point. Many don’t.
.
I thanked you for your effort but suggested it was misplaced. I was only trying to assure that I am not as fragile as you supposed. The idea I would escalate it to “targeting” Passerby’s loved ones is a prejudice of yours it isn’t about needing “more faith” that I won’t.
.
Clark: (1) No, you’re using it to mean only religious faith.
.
Of course, I am. That is my point. If you use different senses of the same word then you can’t claim to be talking about the same phenomenon. Otherwise you are being disingenuous and you are equivocating again. If I say, “I have faith in my co-workers” then this is a broader sense of the term “faith” and you are just being foolish or smart-alecy if you say, “I thought, according to you, atheists didn’t have faith?”
.
You can cite that one can’t prove a negative, and I can respond with a probabilistic argument. For instance, prior to the development of rocketry, there was almost certainly no “Celestial Teapot” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_teapot – but now, asserting the Teapot’s definite non-existence would be more an article of faith that no one had launched one. If teleportation were developed a Celestial Teapot would become even more likely, and denial of the possibility even more an act of faith.
.
Now, you’re just being silly. Are you arguing that the probability of there being a Celestial Teapot is now higher than there not being and therefore it is only a declaration of faith in asserting that the Celestial Teapot does not exist? This is one of the most absurd misuses of the term “faith” I have heard, I am afraid.
.
A “sky wizard” is pretty incompatible with current science, but my “creative something” is to some extent supported, as (1) a principle seems needed to counter thermodynamics, and (2) quantum physics seems to suggest the necessity of mind (or better, Mind) for the existence of the Universe.
.
This is just more equivocation. You want to use the term “Mind” and yet claim you are not talking about God. You are trying to have things both ways again by ditching religion and claiming that your own view is far more evidence-based and yet at the same time what you are trying to do is rescue blind-faith (of the religious) from the charges of atheism that religion is silly/untrue etc… Again, why don’t you stand by a position instead of drifting all over the shop.
.
“(3) I don’t know why there are scare quotes around Communism.” – your observation that follows describes the reason for my quotes.
.
I only said “Communism =/= atheism” then you put it in scare quotes. I wonder why. You haven’t explained.
.
He claimed that admission of atheism amounted to professional suicide, particularly in US politics. As I said, this is more discrimination than persecution, but there was also more. Parents rejecting their children, for instance, and more that I don’t remember.
.
There are atheists in US politics. Also, until ten years ago you may have argued that a black man could never become president in the US. I certainly heard it said right up until Barack Obama’s election.
.
1. (5) – Your attitude here still looks like pro-atheist prejudice. The religious may be offensive to each other and you’ll claim that’s a fault of religion, but when an atheist initiates offensiveness it is still apparently religion’s fault. I think offensiveness is a personal fault. You’re using atheism just as the religious use their beliefs, to excuse and justify your co-believer’s poor behaviour.
.
You don’t get the point that atheism is not a creed. Atheists don’t justify their atrocities (although no doubt some do commit them) on the basis of God’s word. This is what atheists have a hard time with. And no, I am not “using atheism to justify” anyone’s poor behaviour. When have I done that? If you answer the question seriously you will have to show that my “justifying” derives from my atheism.
@Bonifacegoncourt.
Not surprised you can’t keep up. Perhaps you are too busy try to being clever instead of reading what people have written. Maybe you should stick to the anti-Argentine stand-up material. There must be someone here who appreciates it.
Bonifacegoncourt:
.
“What is aesthetic about a slug?” – Try looking closely. You’ll find that common slugs carry a beautiful, intricate and highly ordered pattern. I’ve no idea why.
.
What about atheistbanging? That must be OK I suppose, because you’ve been doing a lot of it. Not that you’re the slightest bit egotistical, of course. Only religionists suffer from that fault, as you’ve proven by endless repetition.
.
Angrysoba,
.
you are mistaken, my argument has not changed. Despite me writing it out for you repeatedly, also in our private communications, you still miss my point. I can’t tell if this is willful on your part or just a problem with comprehension. Whatever, I give up, believe whatever you like about my standpoint, life is too short, and besides, you’re probably just trying to wind me up.
.
(No. Patience, Clark, patience. One last time….)
.
(1) Belief in a Universal creative something-or-other is not in itself unreasonable, nor incompatible with modern science. This belief is a widespread part of the natural human condition, and is not a human artifact.
.
(2) Religion is dependent upon the aforementioned belief, not vice-versa. Religions, including their related descriptions of various gods, are human artifacts, and as such are corruptible, and indeed have been widely abused.
.
(3) Again, in case you missed it: belief in something labeled “God”, and belief in the teachings of a religion, are separate, though related, phenomena.
.
(4) In point (3), the latter creates problems between members of different religions. The former doesn’t, and used appropriately can help to solve those problems.
.
If you can understand this short section, you should then be able to understand all the stuff you’ve been arguing against above. Basically, you’re confusing two different things; the gods in bibles and other holy books, and the creative whatever-it-is that people label “God, the Creator”. I admit that this confusion is widespread. You can help to solve this problem by making a clear distinction. If you refuse to make this distinction, there is no point in my discussing it further with you.
.
Njegos,
.
thanks for keeping me sane. Maybe these people like conflict and wish to create more of it.
Angrysoba, when someone has been conditioned into a set of beliefs, directly attacking those beliefs is counter-productive. The beliefs carry “immunisation” against such attacks, and your attempt will just get you labeled as “an agent of the Devil” or some such. As you know, I speak from personal experience due to my religious upbringing.
.
Also from experience, I can tell you what does work. Start from morals. Once the dogma is seen to be morally deficient, the “immunisation” I mentioned then works in your favour.
.
Whether atheism is like a religion or not depends upon the individual atheist. It’s entirely possible to believe in the non-existence of any God or god without examining any evidence whatsoever. Atheism is pretty obviously a faith for Bonifacegoncourt. You can tell from the inflamatory language.
Clark:
.
As far as I am concerned, you are crystal clear. Actually it’s sad to watch atheist fundamentalists in action. It’s a bit like watching Americans who cannot grasp why people do not want to be American. It also seems to be an article of their faith that you cannot believe in a god and be happy. No wonder they guffaw at the mention of aesthetics, beauty and spirituality. It’s a nervous laugh. They consider themselves scientists but they have no satisfactory scientific tools with which to explain some very special yet irrational qualities of human existence.
Most atheists I know are reasonable, intelligent people who have unanswered questions. But at the extreme, as you say, is the atheistic religion whose exponents bore the hell out of me with their superiority complex. For me they will always be a freak show alongside their Christian fundamentalist alter egos.
Clark: Angrysoba, when someone has been conditioned into a set of beliefs, directly attacking those beliefs is counter-productive. The beliefs carry “immunisation” against such attacks, and your attempt will just get you labeled as “an agent of the Devil” or some such.
.
Yes, I know full well that defensive strategies are built in to religious beliefs. That’s what the whole faith thing is all about. A pathetic trump card to use in lieu of rational arguments. The same is true with Truthers who assume everyone who disagrees with them is a “shill”. But that’s fine. I am not seeking to convert anyone and I think that most people don’t want to change anyway. I think that Dawkins and co. have argued that while they may have changed some people’s minds their main purpose is in either showing “closet atheists” that there are others who think the same way, or for it to act as a consciousness raiser, for those who simply haven’t considered atheism and presumably also to show that invoking God is not legitimate in academic debates about evolution etc…
.
There are also others who simply say that the Church and State should be separate and that laws should not be made on religious grounds. I agree with that too.
.
Whether atheism is like a religion or not depends upon the individual atheist.
.
Which is as close to saying that atheism is not a religion as anything. You couldn’t argue that Christianity is a religion depending upon the adherent or Islam is a religion dependent on the adherent. All you can do is point to some individuals and say “Wow! They are very fervent in their behaviour. Almost as though they act with religious devotion.” But I think that only shows that atheism itself is not a religion and not a faith.
.
Also from experience, I can tell you what does work. Start from morals. Once the dogma is seen to be morally deficient, the “immunisation” I mentioned then works in your favour.
.
I don’t understand what this means. How can you show an observant believer that a religious moral dogma is morally deficient?
.
Clark: Basically, you’re confusing two different things; the gods in bibles and other holy books, and the creative whatever-it-is that people label “God, the Creator”.
.
Are you serious? The gods in bibles and other holy books are exactly the gods that the vast majority of people on this planet believe in. The confusion is not mine!
.
I admit that this confusion is widespread. You can help to solve this problem by making a clear distinction. If you refuse to make this distinction, there is no point in my discussing it further with you.
.
Really? And when was the last time you went to a mosque, synagogue or church and told the congregants there that they are confusing the real God with the God of the Koran, the Talmud and the Bible? In the interests of science I’d like to hear what reaction you get.
.
But to get back to your own argument:
(1) Belief in a Universal creative something-or-other is not in itself unreasonable, nor incompatible with modern science. This belief is a widespread part of the natural human condition, and is not a human artifact.
.
The concept of “universal creative something-or-other” is vague in the extreme. If you define it as the Big Bang, then maybe it is not incompatible with science but you seem to be defining it as some kind of universal consciousness which is something as yet unsupported by science. Certainly it is unproven and not at all widely assented to by scientists. From what I gather, you seem to have latched on to certain fringe theorists who have extrapolated beyond the scientific evidence and made highly speculative claims. By the way, you point out that belief in religion is widespread, in all cultures, and therefore is not a human artifact. Yet, something tells me that this only shows just how human it really is. Do other animals exhibit any belief in a creator? Do they have religious rituals? It seems not, yet humans do everywhere. It seems to me that religion in almost all its forms tends to have this anthropocentric view of universalizing a human concept.
.
(2) Religion is dependent upon the aforementioned belief, not vice-versa. Religions, including their related descriptions of various gods, are human artifacts, and as such are corruptible, and indeed have been widely abused.
.
Religion certainly is a human artifact and has as its core another human concept which is a God or gods. If you notice something about the gods it is that they tend to reflect the societies in which they are created in. The monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is a bad-tempered autocratic King who capriciously makes up lots of inexplicable rules and smites and smites and smites and plays horrible tricks on his subjects and goes off into tremendous wobbly fits of anger. And he regularly commands his subjects to commit acts of genocide on pain of death. The Greek Gods, on the other hand, had various different attributes and seemed to sit around discussing things in civilized, democratic discourse. I like those ones better. The Japanese gods spent a lot of their time getting drunk, sumo wrestling and having filthy orgies. I like those the best. But clearly they are made up by the society in which they came from and the creation myths around them were too. In my view creation myths and the positing of a creator are a simple by-product of other intelligent faculties that humans acquired in their struggle for survival. This cannot be proved, of course, but a reasonable argument can be made. I think it is more likely than the alternative which is that all human societies had some way of peering into the Universal Consciousness (which somehow eludes other animals) and came up with their own versions of it.
.
Clark: (3) Again, in case you missed it: belief in something labeled “God”, and belief in the teachings of a religion, are separate, though related, phenomena.
.
(4) In point (3), the latter creates problems between members of different religions. The former doesn’t, and used appropriately can help to solve those problems.
.
I’m afraid this just comes across as naive. It seems to me you are trying to find some grand unified theory of religion to replace all the other religions which is something that has been tried many times in the past only for the new religion to fall into conflict with the others or to schism into various parts.
.
You may say that you are only interested in the God-like entity at the heart of creation and claim this does not make it a religion and yet at other times you really have made claims to know the mind of God in that you have attributed benign intent to this creator and some knowledge of his plan and how he can be known. And of course, the idea that we are all part of a collective mind that we must ally ourselves with was one of the other pronouncements you made which I remarked on before as a religious belief (and one which I considered incoherent and contradictory).