sorry..........
- Thread starter DavidF
- Start date
TonyL
Club Krautrock Plinque
I think you will find many atheists are people such as myself who grew up in very close proximity to religion. I was raised in a very devout C of E family, my mother is a retired theology teacher, my father a church organist. I was forced to go to church as a young child and even made to take part in some of the on-stage rituals (carrying the incense thingy about etc). I realised pretty early on that I just didn't buy into it at all, though rather than reject religion out of hand at that point I went deeper in - I joined a Baptist church! I have seen people writhing on the floor speaking in tongues and many similarly bizarre things. I also went to see Billy Graham. Twice! I realised he was merely a very good used car salesman and got out, my scepticism perfectly intact. I suspect I am not the only atheist who has tried, and completely failed to believe in religion. My mind is simply too analytical – it just doesn't work on trust.
Tony.
Bob McC
living the life of Riley
Spot on Tony. Like you I was coerced into the Anglican church, then the whole family went over to the Methodists when the Anglicans got too high church for them. I had to do the whole 10 yards, Sunday School etc. I did my best to accept it, going in deeper, thinking my scepticism must be my fault but it didn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. I finally rejected it in its entirety and like you think we'd be better off as a species without it.
greg
Its a G thing
Religion yes, but God?
I went to a C of E Primary school and my senior school was Christian, but none of that had any effect on me. I always felt uncomfortable in church, all seemed so twee. I just don't really see this sort of thing has any significance, not sure any organised religion I've encountered has much relevance to me at all really.
TonyL
Club Krautrock Plinque
I went through 18 years plus of the sales pitch and didn't end up buying. How can one possibly get close to something that all the evidence one has access to suggests does not exist? I am sure this is why the likes of Dawkins (or myself) have no specific argument for or against 'faith' - from a logical scientific perspective it is simply an irrational belief, fear or delusion and must be dismissed as such.
Tony.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 178
- Reaction score
- 0
Aren't you cherry picking ? The basis of Christianity, the bible, is apparently the word of God ?
Personally the whole subject of religion or a devine creator is so outdated, infantile and anthropocentric. It baffles me that people are still, in this day and age, swept up in it's pathetic cause.
Dev
Moderator
This is closer to my idea of God rather than the more widely accepted vision of "a man in the sky".
greg
Its a G thing
greg
Its a G thing
If the sales pitch you didn;t buy and the evidence you never found surrounded something other than, then this might explain it.
TonyL
Club Krautrock Plinque
greg said:
I simply don't buy the supernatural aspect, that is all. I am no less in awe of nature, the earth, the universe and everything that surrounds me. It is far, far more amazing, enormous and majestic to me than the simplistic 'magic' portrayed in scripture. Natural selection is so much more wonderful, complex and truly beautiful than any creation myth. This is a key area the Intelligent Design nut-jobs get wrong, they consider the only options to be 'creation' and 'chance' when the answer is very clearly neither.
Tony.
Fundamentally Atheism is a rejection of god or gods. This is really not the same thing as rejecting religious practice, religious bigotry, the social failings of organised religion. All the things Tony and Dawkins (and I, incidentally) hate about organised religion have little or nothing to do with the subject of God (IMO).
//lamboy// I don't see atheism as a total rejection of god or gods. Its a position of belief based in fact, without a default stance of an existence of god. Put it this way, I kinda hope he exists, but I dont think he does. No evidence I have seen to date has changed my mind.
Let's not overlook the fact his book isn't entitled "The Failing of Religion" or "The Evil of Religious Bigots" it's "The God Delusion".
//lamboy// I believe it was the publisher that renamed the book for more attention grabbing - it worked. But the content remains the same.
Some Atheists are simply rejecting religion and in that case (may) not really understand their own position, in contrast genuine Atheism is (arguably) an engagement of philosophical discussion from the position of non-belief.
//lamboy// I agree. I also think there is a blurred line with agnostics and hardcore atheist (fundamentalist). I say always keep an open mind.
True Faith is not belief in the supernatural. A common misconception of some Atheists is that God is a belief in the supernatural - that they need to see empirical evidence of God's hand at work. If evidence cannot be produced then Faith is debunked. Again a total inability to understand something which cannot be described in their language constructs. It seems to me that true Faith is a knowledge of God. To "know" God, not to believe in God like you might believe in ghosts or fairies.
//lamboy// I disagree. Anything that isnt natural has to be supernatural - pending scientific knowledge and proof. Faith in god is faith in a supernatural entity. You talk about lack of constructs then you talk about "knowing god". Belief is belief. Is "knowing" belief squared? Of course its almost a flippant question, but knowing god doesnt make him/her more likely to exist imo.
Another area is this idea that belief in God is a rejection of science. What if God was simply a word used to describe the laws of nature? To use the vernacular - what if the miracle is simply the fucking incredible wonder which surrounds all of us?
//lamboy// Those laws of nature you mention are actual physical laws of nature, and pretty well understood. God should not be credited with anything here. Yes, these laws are fucking incredible.
If that were God and you accepted the laws of nature then you actually accepted God?
//lamboy// Ive accepted the physical proven understood laws of nature (well, I trust the educated physicists, botanists, biologist etc learned masses - maybe thats atheist faith right there!). I don't believe in a complex ever present all potent creator.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 178
- Reaction score
- 0
I think I have the only logical perception of religion and no amount of wordsmithing and mumbo jumbo can convince me otherwise.
Last edited by a moderator:
7_V
I want a Linn - in a DB9
I understood that a 'purist' Intelligent Design nut job believes in 'creation' while an evolutionist goes for 'chance' (random mutation), combined with fitness for purpose. You've said above that the answer is very clearly neither. What then?
Bob McC
living the life of Riley
natural selection is the same as chance then....oh dear!
7_V
I want a Linn - in a DB9
I didn't say that, Bob. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
Mutation is random (according to evolutionists) but only those fit for purpose survive. 'Natural selection' is the combination of random mutation and survival of the fittest.
TonyL
Club Krautrock Plinque
When attempting to discredit natural selection the standard argument put forward by the religious zealot is "creature x is so amazing and perfectly developed for purpose that it must have been designed, it can not possibly have happened by chance". This argument obviously sees 'chance' as some arbitrary gamble at the horse track or coming up trumps at the national lottery etc – this is clearly not the case. Natural selection is billions upon billions of subtle iterations that has taken place over a timescale the religious person is not even allowed to comprehend. As Dawkins says in his book Intelligent Design is merely creationism wearing a cheap tuxedo.
This brings us neatly to another aspect of religious belief – lets call it 'selective religion' for the time being. Anyone with an IQ over about 70 will agree the biblical timeframe of 6000 years or so from creation to now is utter bollocks. It has been conclusively proven by scientific means and no amount of nut-job financed creationist "museums" will be met with anything other than derision by anyone who has even the slightest grasp of reality. So given that any intelligent religious person has to reject this timeline and also tends to have rejected absurdities such as the old testament passages relating to stoning people to death for blasphemy etc we seem to have reached a point where it is considered acceptable for people to pick and choose the bits of their religion they want to believe, i.e. they can make it up as they go along.
This was one of the many things I struggled with when I played with religion back in the 70s. I always got the impression the C of E churchgoers would happily hoof a tramp out of the church porch and then sit and listen to the sanitised sermon convinced they had done nothing wrong. The last thing any of them would do was to give up any of their wealth to help others beyond making a token gesture of sticking 50p or so in some charity box. They had IMO selectively ignored the vast majority of documented teachings from their Christ and were clearly hypocritical. Likewise the US bible belt nutters use carefully selected biblical passages to bolster their aggressive and hateful right-wing politics whilst completely ignoring the key new testament teachings on tolerance, wealth distribution and pacifism. The problem with books such as the bible is that they are so incoherently and poorly written that it is impossible to interpret them without such levels of ambiguity. There is a stage where it all becomes completely and utterly worthless – if the instruction manual is bollocks what does that say about the product?
Tony.
7_V
I want a Linn - in a DB9
Fundamentalism NE Spirituality.
No one here is arguing in favour of the former. Some of us are for the latter whether that's expressed in terms of godless or 'godded' wonder.
No one here is arguing in favour of the former. Some of us are for the latter whether that's expressed in terms of godless or 'godded' wonder.
