shull Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 I was only joking with the "fairies and unicorns" earlier, no need to go all oaky on me! For clarification, I define a deist as someone who believes in a non-interventionist god and a theist as someone who believes in an interventionist god ... and, if we have to use the word, an atheist as someone who doesn't believe in a god (as opposed to someone who believes that there is no god). By that definition Hindus are atheists, then. I always thought of them as polytheists, too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 Religion is predominantly based on symbolism. Any belief system that is based on symbolism yet commands significant influence in how societies operate warrants considerable scepticism. Unlike most branches of science, religious leaders and broader communities seldom welcome scepticism. That has to be a worry for the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antrin Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 1 hour ago, rea said: Glad i bumped this...was all a bit quiet...brain needed some summer excercise. Nah.... You'd have been better off turning the other cheek... if your brain needs summer exercise then open the church doors and set it free to explore in the glorious big universe. (Or, indeed... Multiverses...) from my PoV, it's not science (tho it is vitally important) that underpins my lack of 'belief', it's simply rationality. For example, it is science that informs us/you that it understands only a limited extent and that a lot of heavy lifting has yet to be done. It hasn't sat back and rested on the prognostications assembled from some surviving two millennia old documents. i genuinely believe we are better than that. the journey's just begun, humans are not at the cutting edge and are unimportant in a big picture... It would be good - always - to know and understand more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 You know I can't take a joke, stop it. [emoji14] Hindus believe in a god - and another god - and another god - and ... Polytheists? I don't think Hindus are made from plastic. You're just parotting phrases now, stop... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 3 hours ago, rea said: I could if i wanted to but that is not my intention. My intention is to show that trying to use Science to rule out any possible truth of religion is a bit daft when science can only identify 4.9% of what the Universe even consists of....just like using a religious text to demonstrate a scientific point is a bit daft. Science and Religion are not aimed at doing the same thing...they are in different sphere with currently very little over lap. Both can and have and in many places still do exist side by side. See in Christianity case the number of believers in the Scientific community. "New Atheism" has done very little for both sides and has in fact turned that sort of Athiesm into a religion or sorts...see definitions of Secular Humanism as a religion. Glad i bumped this...was all a bit quiet...brain needed some summer excercise. I have attended a couple of humanist funerals in the last year or so and the striking thing was the propensity of the family to cling on to religious concepts. One ceremonywas really confused, the deceased was a neighbour of mine, a big rally fan who claimed Colin McRae as a pal, the back of the pamphlet was a picture of my neighbour walking off into the distance whilst talking on his mobile phone, with a caption that read "get the kettle on Colin, I'm coming to join you" which implied the notion of an afterlife The humanist celebrant then read out a post-it note written by the deceased that had fallen off the front door a day or so before he died. it was directed at his workmates and read "just knock-if no answer then I'm upstairs working". All the humanists smiled fondly at this referrence to a form of heaven. It did make me think that many of those who profess to have no faith still seek the comfort that faith can give. Maybe they just reject the restrictions that folowing a faith/creed can impose, whilst hoping to enjoy the benefits that would supposedly only come from a creator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 3 hours ago, Drew said: Religion is predominantly based on symbolism. Any belief system that is based on symbolism yet commands significant influence in how societies operate warrants considerable scepticism. Unlike most branches of science, religious leaders and broader communities seldom welcome scepticism. That has to be a worry for the rest of us. ... plus, if you are, let's say, REA sitting with an iPad on your lap posting on here while eating toast and enjoying a cuppa, or you are an athiest sitting with an iPad on your lap posting on here and enjoying a cuppa.... you could sit posting your own take on the matter for a year, ten years, fifty years... and the result would still be a 0-0 draw. Both sides were unable to make the breakthrough and give us a goal. My take on it is we're all here, with toast, and iPads, and if you're lucky, your family and your health. Take each day as it comes, get on with it, an no matter if you're a 'believer' or an athiest... get the fcuking HoF panels sorted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 51 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said: There is the possibility that there is something after this life that doesn't require a creator. There is just no "good proof" for it - just like for a creator. My point was, the concept of an afterlife was raised in the context that it existed "upstairs" and that this was of some comfort to the humanists in the congregation. The possibility that an afterlife can be experienced as, for example, some form of energy that exists around us can be accepted by Humanist (i think) but accepting that there is an afterlife above relies on the concept of some sort of deity in a heavenly kingdom. i just see it as bet-hedging. "Don't give me your Q'ran or your commandments, just give me a cosy wee everlasting existence". I don't mind people having that as their belief, it just interests me how closely so-called Humanists, who must be largely an Aetheist group, hold religious concepts to their hearts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, rea said: It is a funny poster...not a complete world view I appreciate that but my sense of humour fails when you are joking about religion. You need to be able to see this from the angle of a woman, a homosexual, a victim of child rape at the hands of various churches etc etc etc in order to understand why so many millions of us hold religion in utter contempt. Edited July 12, 2017 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 5 hours ago, rea said: I could if i wanted to but that is not my intention. My intention is to show that trying to use Science to rule out any possible truth of religion is a bit daft when science can only identify 4.9% of what the Universe even consists of....just like using a religious text to demonstrate a scientific point is a bit daft. Science and Religion are not aimed at doing the same thing...they are in different sphere with currently very little over lap. Both can and have and in many places still do exist side by side. See in Christianity case the number of believers in the Scientific community. "New Atheism" has done very little for both sides and has in fact turned that sort of Athiesm into a religion or sorts...see definitions of Secular Humanism as a religion. Glad i bumped this...was all a bit quiet...brain needed some summer excercise. I am unaware of anyone who says science can rule out any possible truth of religion. Who is doing that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 4 hours ago, Drew said: Religion is predominantly based on symbolism. Any belief system that is based on symbolism yet commands significant influence in how societies operate warrants considerable scepticism. Unlike most branches of science, religious leaders and broader communities seldom welcome scepticism. That has to be a worry for the rest of us. It is worse than that. It wasnt that long ago that even questioning religious doctrine got you burnt at the stake in this country and with Islam that happens right now across the world. This is a classic control technique which stops people questioning things. That leads to an environment for example where thousands of children can be systematically raped across decades by members of a religious cult, the catholic church in this case, whilst the cult itself covers up that series of crimes. It is essential that the general public can criticise a religion or we risk going back to those days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 4 hours ago, antrin said: Nah.... You'd have been better off turning the other cheek... if your brain needs summer exercise then open the church doors and set it free to explore in the glorious big universe. (Or, indeed... Multiverses...) from my PoV, it's not science (tho it is vitally important) that underpins my lack of 'belief', it's simply rationality. For example, it is science that informs us/you that it understands only a limited extent and that a lot of heavy lifting has yet to be done. It hasn't sat back and rested on the prognostications assembled from some surviving two millennia old documents. i genuinely believe we are better than that. the journey's just begun, humans are not at the cutting edge and are unimportant in a big picture... It would be good - always - to know and understand more. Yeah I am in this category as well. I simply consider myself too intelligent to fall for religion. I recognise the control techniques a mile away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 33 minutes ago, beyond our ken said: My point was, the concept of an afterlife was raised in the context that it existed "upstairs" and that this was of some comfort to the humanists in the congregation. The possibility that an afterlife can be experienced as, for example, some form of energy that exists around us can be accepted by Humanist (i think) but accepting that there is an afterlife above relies on the concept of some sort of deity in a heavenly kingdom. i just see it as bet-hedging. "Don't give me your Q'ran or your commandments, just give me a cosy wee everlasting existence". I don't mind people having that as their belief, it just interests me how closely so-called Humanists, who must be largely an Aetheist group, hold religious concepts to their hearts. Its because the idea of an afterlife is a good story, deeply embedded in our culture after thousands of years of indoctrination. There is no harm in thinking about it. If you can find any humanist talking about believing in a god described by any current religion then I would be very surprised. I like the idea of this being some kind of training camp and we go onto do other things in other forms after we die but there is no way I am going to BELIEVE that, spend my life emotionally blackmailing others into believing it, lobbying government to change laws to support that belief or attemtping to deny human rights to homosexuals or women about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 5 hours ago, shull said: There surely must be another thread you can entertain yourself on where thinking is not required? No need for attention seeking on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, oaksoft said: Its because the idea of an afterlife is a good story, deeply embedded in our culture after thousands of years of indoctrination. There is no harm in thinking about it. If you can find any humanist talking about believing in a god described by any current religion then I would be very surprised. I like the idea of this being some kind of training camp and we go onto do other things in other forms after we die but there is no way I am going to BELIEVE that, spend my life emotionally blackmailing others into believing it, lobbying government to change laws to support that belief or attemtping to deny human rights to homosexuals or women about it. a serious Humainst or Aetheist would surely not hold the comfort of religious stories so dearly. My increasing experience of many people these days is that they don't want to believe in the concept of sin because it limits their actions or burdens them with guilt, but want to wait and see if the whole afterlife thing crops up at the appropriate time. But you've started something here, if it is OK for non-believers to hold on to these things (no harm, as you say) then why is it that you have problem with people who buy into the whole deal getting together to share and explore the concept. Any time you hear of it you seem to suggest that anyone who follows an organised religion is aligned to murderers and rapists. That seems close to the concept of guilt by association and also close to the concept of original sin. Are you a proponent of these notions? I know a St Mirren supporter who as a young man smashed a pensioner to a pulp, are we all guilty of that then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, beyond our ken said: a serious Humainst or Aetheist would surely not hold the comfort of religious stories so dearly. My increasing experience of many people these days is that they don't want to believe in the concept of sin because it limits their actions or burdens them with guilt, but want to wait and see if the whole afterlife thing crops up at the appropriate time. But you've started something here, if it is OK for non-believers to hold on to these things (no harm, as you say) then why is it that you have problem with people who buy into the whole deal getting together to share and explore the concept. Any time you hear of it you seem to suggest that anyone who follows an organised religion is aligned to murderers and rapists. That seems close to the concept of guilt by association and also close to the concept of original sin. Are you a proponent of these notions? I know a St Mirren supporter who as a young man smashed a pensioner to a pulp, are we all guilty of that then? Not at all. I think the bible is full of great stories. As I said before, one of my absolute favourites is the one where Mary and Joseph managed to persuade a gullible public that she was pregnant as a result of god rather than the two of them engaging in sex behind a bush. If they had failed to persuade, then they would have been executed. Its a brilliant story and still relevant today where unmarried pregnancy is still a problem for religions. I think many people probably do hedge bets but that says more about the high levels of indoctrination when they were kids than anything else. It is not guilt by association at all. You are misunderstanding. Relgion is not about sharing. It is about control. It is about not questioning scripture. It is about decrying all other religions as less worthy. It is about saying that only your religion is the true faith and only followers of this specific religion can be saved. If you cannot recognise this as a control technique then I am not sure I can help here TBH. Edited July 12, 2017 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 Don't get me wrong, unlike you and the priests, I'm not judging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 3 hours ago, beyond our ken said: Don't get me wrong, unlike you and the priests, I'm not judging. That will make a nice change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antrin Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 On 12/07/2017 at 1:12 PM, oaksoft said: It is worse than that. It wasnt that long ago that even questioning religious doctrine got you burnt at the stake in this country and with Islam that happens right now across the world. This is a classic control technique which stops people questioning things. That leads to an environment for example where thousands of children can be systematically raped across decades by members of a religious cult, the catholic church in this case, whilst the cult itself covers up that series of crimes. It is essential that the general public can criticise a religion or we risk going back to those days. You may be interested or have already seen this ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40580196 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, antrin said: You may be interested or have already seen this ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40580196 Yep and Pakistan are not the only basket case county out there where the law is centred around the demands of religious fruitcakes. Nobody should be supporting organised religions like this. No decent and normally functioning human anyway. Edited July 13, 2017 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted July 14, 2017 Report Share Posted July 14, 2017 Yep and Pakistan are not the only basket case county out there where the law is centred around the demands of religious fruitcakes. Nobody should be supporting organised religions like this. No...normally functioning human anyway. And yet you don't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted July 14, 2017 Report Share Posted July 14, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, salmonbuddie said: And yet you don't? I bet that sounded absolutely hilarious in your head. Edited July 14, 2017 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted July 14, 2017 Report Share Posted July 14, 2017 I bet that sounded absolutely hilarious in your head. I'll bet it makes sense in lots of people's heads...the normally functioning ones, anyway. Yet you can't see it.The prosecution rests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted July 15, 2017 Report Share Posted July 15, 2017 On 14/07/2017 at 0:48 PM, salmonbuddie said: I'll bet it makes sense in lots of people's heads...the normally functioning ones, anyway. Yet you can't see it. The prosecution rests. I didn't say it didn't make sense. You need a better lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted July 16, 2017 Report Share Posted July 16, 2017 I didn't say it didn't make sense. You need a better lawyer. 24 hours to think about it and that's the best you can do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.