'mourning sickness'

[miles teg 1]

1) existing religions' abandonment of their core foundations of faith and doctrine

What excatly are these core foundations and doctrines that religions (for example, christianity) have abandoned recently?

Christianity?   Well selfless love for our fellow human beings for one thing.  I see few Christians practicing the teachings of Jesus.  All they seemed concerned about is loving Jesus and accepting Jesus into their heart so that they can go to heaven.  Most Christians I've met do not practice their faith very sincerely accept perhaps going to Church once in awhile... but applying the teachings of Jesus to their lives is another matter.  Nevertheless I still know good Christians who are really trying hard to be good Christians.  I just wish there was more of them... ditto for good Muslims and good Jews who don't fall for all the political crap being thrown around by some fundamentalists preachers, imams, and rabbis who try to stir hatred and division up in people's hearts.

ShinRaiden echoed my beliefs perfectly.   That is why I am an agnostic and don't believe in organized religion.  I believe more in the essence of religions.   Coincidently I'm also a HUGE J.R.R. Tolkien fan, and to tell the truth Tolkien's writings are where I have gotten most of my core spiritual beliefs.

It doesn't matter that its a work of fiction.  It has wisdom, and very pure ideals of what good and evil are and what honor, loyalty, friendship, sacrifice, hatred, and love are as well as a description of the natural world that resonates in my heart like nothing else.  

But I see echoes of these beliefs in all religions...glimpses into the divine.   Which is why I don't like seeing people bad mouthing religion or people who follow some religion because for some people that is what resonates in their heart and to trivialize that is to trivialize their life and center of belief that keeps them going every day.  

I prefer to praise people of faith who do beautiful things and good things in the world while attacking those who are clearly doing evil in the name of religion.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Hinny 0]

The BBC is just out to make money for itself,

The BBC is publically funded.

It doesn't make money.

[Placebo 29]

1) Why do you feel the need to show this as a mark of respect?

If there are Spanish forum members or forum members with ties to Spain I want them to know I'm thinking about them.

2) What do you feel you or others gain from showing it as a symbol?

Sometimes in life things are done despite there being nothing to gain from it

3) Do you think if, for whatever reason, the media only gave the Madrid bombings a couple minutes news time would your reaction be the same?

Who knows, maybe it's a numbers thing, perhaps I only feel for them if it's more than 100 in one day or something? Or perhaps it was the fact that a bunch of people who did nothing to nobody going about their day to day life were cruelly and callously murdered without any kind of justification or political reasoning whatsoever?

Just my opinions, for the very little they're worth

[Placebo 29]

The BBC is just out to make money for itself,

The BBC is publically funded.

It doesn't make money.

Actually it does, it makes a shedload of money from the shows it sells, kids shows like The Teletubbies, Postman Pat, Bob the Builder alone have brought in 100's of ÅM.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Solidarity, and all that.

[Hinny 0]

The BBC is just out to make money for itself,

The BBC is publically funded.

It doesn't make money.

Actually it does, it makes a shedload of money from the shows it sells, kids shows like The Teletubbies, Postman Pat, Bob the Builder alone have brought in 100's of ÅM.

Okay, granted.

But by publishing an article or expressing an opinion (which in general it's good for not doing) it makes no money whatsoever.

[Pukko 0]

I do not agree with the articles 'substitute for releigion' focus, but I do agree that it partly fills a similar function. I do not usually make generalistic 'truth claims', but the fact is that all things living (humans, animals and even in some small degree vegetables & probably Aliens   ) need some kind of concieved order & meaningfulness to survive. Completely deprived from it the body will go into a state of chock and die in no time. Religion is one kind of belief-system that adds to many other, even for the most hardcore religious fundamentalist I recon.

The ones of us that lives in secular nationstates and consider ourselves as ateists simply have other things that gives that to us. OK, enough of obvious rambling.... but even the 'nihilist' get order and meaningfulness from believing in everything and nothing.

And now to my point that is in the spirit of Frisbee's post:

Beliefsystems and identity is very closely related and can hardly be separated I recon. There are many kinds (levels/layers) of identities one could speak of for sure, but the one I'm thinking about in relation to this thread is of the bigger scale - like national identity. On this level its very much about concieved differences - us and them. I became furious, and still is, over the World press photos of the year selection. In my interpretion to a very high degree related to identity and a wish to maintain us & them.

The link here is ofcourse what Frisbee called 'selective mourning'. It was what filled my mind when during last monday I was in the center of Gothenburg and saw on the digital displays at the tramstops that all traffic would stop for the Europe-wide 3 silent minutes at noon. I was furthermore surprised over all the flags at half-mast that seemed to be everywhere. I really could not take it very seriously, just reflecting over why.. It gave me cold shivers thinking that this probably was a rational way for politicians to strengthen a common European identity. That it would bring us Euros closer together. I do recon that there is more and more of this kind. Or was there European-wide 3 silent minutes after for example the Estonia catastrophy, or the Lockerbie catastrophy?

That kind of (planned & concious in all well-meaning) identity building really scares me, and as I have written before I view just the European identyty-building as the most crucial part of the European project. If we hurry if up through cheap (no disrespect for the Spaniards) us & them 'preaching' Europe will become just another bullying superpower, or temporary 'empire' - praising ourselves while making sure that most of the other parts world keeps inferior. While if we let Europe slowly through the decades get comfortable as a whole, there is great hope that Europe can be truly open and harmonical power that really strives to make the entire world a better place, instead of just 'Europe über alles!' But maybe we are still too close to the stoneage for that to happen....... (but yes, I have made statements like "its better with a hastily united Europe that can say no to a possibly downfalling and thus more aggressive/frustrated USA, than having WW3", and I still stand by that if USA's foreign policy continues in the present direction, even if that probably means that Europe just will take USA's role - but as long as there is hope....).

To finish off this all too long post, I'll add some recent quotes from American officials that shows aspects of national identity building/maintaining in its most aggressive form, even if I'm sure I don't really have to look that far away, Berlusconi probably have some similar comments for example...

Condolezza Rice, March 2000:

"We need a common enemy to unite us."

"We need a new threat as a marker to where we will lead."

The main document of The Project for the New American Century where a big part of the Bush administration have a past, September 2000:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Well, I hope you get my point - to be aware and reflecting over the dangers of separating us & them... its very much a (changeable) lingvistic problem of dichotomies, but Ok, I'll stop there...

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Perhaps I've just not met enough people yet, but every single professing agnostic or atheist I've met and talked with at length has admitted that their choice of belief is a construct in reaction to either parochial abuses, personal emotional trauma or neglect, or the choice of a lifestyle incompatible with an orthodox lifestyle. That is their choice, but by taking a reactionary stance they deny themselves as much opportunity as they claim we deny ourselves though alleged subservience to faith.

I don't know how many times I have to say this but Atheists do not have beliefs

Atheism is not a choice, per se. I cannot force myself to believe that the earth is flat when I know it is not. I cannot force myself to believe in impossible things such as most definitions of god(s).

Atheism is a LACK of belief in gods. It is possible for 'strong' atheists to say 'I believe god x does not exist for reasons x y and z (usually because they are impossible, like a square circle) but overall atheism is a lack of belief in god(s).

And your strawman arguement is also highly insulting, btw. I would not say that every christian I've ever met is a small minded bigoted hypocrite.

Quote[/b] ]

The article Acecombat cited was an interesting read, but still limited itself on various possiblities outside of mainstream thinking, such as, if 'God' were to organize pre-existing elements in His own design, that could meet the scientific requirement of continuity of matter and the religious requirement of obligation to divine creation.

Science would save itself a great deal of wasted time and effort if they would get off their high horse and ask the man upstairs how he did it.

THERE ISN'T A MAN UPSTAIRS.

There are no faeries at the bottom of the garden. There are no veruuca gnomes.

That article was completely hilarious because of the nonsense it spouted.

Quote[/b] ]

The original BBC article did hint in the general direction that the general problem is a selfish "ME ME ME" perspective that people are ingratiating themselves on. There have been similar articles recently as well on the 'philosophy and spirituality' of Tolkien, Harry Potter, and Star Wars as well. The related failings of organized religion worldwide I think could most likely be pinned on 1) existing religions' abandonment of their core foundations of faith and doctrine, and 2) the populace's lack of commitment to living a faith-centered life.

I'd pin it on people's realisation that religions are a load of BS.

Quote[/b] ]

How many folks, given the opportunity, would ditch church (or synagogue or friday prayers at the mosque or anthing else) for Football or football? How many scientists make it their life's work to attempt to prove the finality of death? You have one camp saying that faith creates liberty, and the other side saying that it abrogates self-existent liberty. Since both sides are arguing based on mutually exclusive systems of belief, how (or should) the two sides be reconciled?

Science is NOT a system of belief. Not all scientists are atheists, either (although most are irreligious and there is a higher percentage of atheists in science along with most other highly educated fields.)

[Gollum1 0]

Perhaps I've just not met enough people yet, but every single professing agnostic or atheist I've met and talked with at length has admitted that their choice of belief is a construct in reaction to either parochial abuses, personal emotional trauma or neglect, or the choice of a lifestyle incompatible with an orthodox lifestyle. That is their choice, but by taking a reactionary stance they deny themselves as much opportunity as they claim we deny ourselves though alleged subservience to faith.

I don't know how many times I have to say this but Atheists do not have beliefs

Atheism is not a choice, per se. I cannot force myself to believe that the earth is flat when I know it is not. I cannot force myself to believe in impossible things such as most definitions of god(s).

Atheism is a LACK of belief in gods.

Agree, as I do with the rest of your post.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Minor point: There is, but its not as fast as in Europe.

Numbers of irreligious people are growing everywhere *edit* that people are being educated*edit*

Do you have sources to back that up? I have not heard of any such decline in Texas nor have I observed any decline.

Well I didn't just make that up, if thats what you are suggesting. I did see some sets of figures but I don't have them to hand. Searching now.

AFAIR the stats were from the american census over years which, despite wording the question in a leading way (defining atheism wrongly, TBH) showed an increase in the amount of atheist and nonreligious people.

I'm not sure about specific counties, though, so the sort of fundamentalist bible belt areas could well show a decrease.

Quote[/b] ]You also by the way, can be highly educated and still be very religious or spiritual or whatever you want to call it.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Yes, but its much less likely, TBH.

[igor drukov 0]

Quote[/b] ]I don't know how many times I have to say this but Atheists do not have beliefs

Definition from The Oxford English dictionary :

Quote[/b] ]Atheism : The theory or belief that God does not exist.

Dude, you can't prove that God exist, but you can't prove that He does not exist, either.

Quote[/b] ]I'd pin it on people's realisation that religions are a load of BS.

Out of the 6 billion people on earth, at least 5 billion believe in "something". You know why ? Because they suffer, because they see their friends and relatives die, and because they need a way to alleviate their pain and cheer up sometimes.

There's a fine line between humans and animals, but one of the greatest difference, the very source of the religious feeling I'd say, is that humans CARE for their dead, and that they're able to sympathize.

Wars, slaughters, rapes happen when these worthy feelings are overcome. Needless to say, religions have too often overlooked their primary function and helped those massacres. But that's mostly when they start focusing on something which is none of their business, that is, politics and power.

[Gollum1 0]

Quote[/b] ]I don't know how many times I have to say this but Atheists do not have beliefs

Definition from The Oxford English dictionary :

Quote[/b] ]Atheism : The theory or belief that God does not exist.

Dude, you can't prove that God exist, but you can't prove that He does not exist, either.

I can't prove that faeries don't exist either. Can't I say I have a lack of belief in faeries instead of a strong theory that they don't exist?

Pointless.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ]I don't know how many times I have to say this but Atheists do not have beliefs

Definition from The Oxford English dictionary :

Quote[/b] ]Atheism : The theory or belief that God does not exist.

...Because dictionaries are 100% correct by default? Sorry, but no. Just because the dictionary was written by a christian, it defines the word wrongly.

Depending on the honesty of the editors, and the dictionary, different dictionaries have slightly different definitions. If the dictionary refers specifically to 'God' then its obviously pretty biased, wouldn't you say?

The word can be broken down thusly

A - without

Theism - belief in god(s)

Quote[/b] ]Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition

Here is how the OED defines atheism:

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

1. To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.

2. Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).

3. To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.

4. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

THATS more like what it should say.

Quote[/b] ]Dude, you can't prove that God exist, but you can't prove that He does not exist, either.

I can tell you quite categorically that square circles do not exist. They have self- contradictory qualities and CANNOT exist.

I can also tell you that all all knowing, all powerful, all good god who tortures his own children for infinity for FINITE crimes CAN NOT exist.

That does not mean that any supernatural entitiy cannot exist. It means that some that are defined with self contradictory qualities cannot exist.

For example, if the god above was simply all knowing and all powerful, but not completely good, then it 'could' exist... although there's still no reason to think so.

Quote[/b] ]

Out of the 6 billion people on earth, at least 5 billion believe in "something".

Out of the 6 billion people on earth, at least 5.9 billion believe something different from what you believe. Why don't you believe what they believe?

Argument from numbers is not a valid argument. 10 million lemmings are still wrong.

Quote[/b] ]

You know why ? Because they suffer, because they see their friends and relatives die, and because they need a way to alleviate their pain and cheer up sometimes.

....none of which needs gods involved, and none of which makes gods any more likely. Less likely, in the case of the supposedly 'good' ones.

Quote[/b] ]

There's a fine line between humans and animals, but one of the greatest difference, the very source of the religious feeling I'd say, is that humans CARE for their dead, and that they're able to sympathize.

....because atheists don't sympathise? Aye, right. Good job, captain nonsense arguments.

[denoir 0]

Perhaps I've just not met enough people yet, but every single professing agnostic or atheist I've met and talked with at length has admitted that their choice of belief is a construct in reaction to either parochial abuses, personal emotional trauma or neglect, or the choice of a lifestyle incompatible with an orthodox lifestyle. That is their choice, but by taking a reactionary stance they deny themselves as much opportunity as they claim we deny ourselves though alleged subservience to faith.

Then you have not met enough people About 85% of the Swedish population are atheists/agnostic and I doubt that we are all traumatized, abused and living an 'unorthodox' lifestyle. I'd even like to mirror your statement and claim that people become religious as an unrational reaction to some abnormal event or environment.

That doesn't have anything to do with what you believe in or you don't. It has to do with what the norm for the society is. If you are in a society where the theist are in majority then the atheists will be the 'odd ones' and vice versa for societies where atheists are in majority.

Being an atheist is rationally the default setting for all people. Religion is a theory that is consturcted upon the default setting. The question is not why some people do not believe in god, the question is why some people believe in god. It's an additional theory you add to the default settings so it's for those that advocate that theory that have to prove that it is correct.

Because its complete lack of any form of validatable proof, religion is completely arbitrary. This you can easily see if you just take a look at the great diversity of religions around the world.

Quote[/b] ]Science would save itself a great deal of wasted time and effort if they would get off their high horse and ask the man upstairs how he did it. If I want to learn how to fiddle with a config.cpp, I come and ask one of you in the forums here. If I have a question on car maintanence, I ask my parents who have done plenty themselves. If I have a question about why the stars were put where they were, I ask the One who would know such things.

And there is your major flow in thinking. You are just assuming without any whatsoever proof that there is a 'man upstairs'. If you ask somebody for config.cpp help, you have evidence that the person exists, because he talks back to you . If you ask your parents about car maintenance, you do so because you know they exist because you've seen them and talked to them. Other people have seen your parents and they too agree that they exist. There is physical evidence that your parents exist. Where is god, shinRaiden? When was the last time you saw him? When was the last time you interacted with him in such a way that could be observed by others?

Try talking in public to your secret friend the big pink fluffy bunny that you believe walks next to you and see how fast you'll end up in a mental institution. You have no more proof that god exists than you have that a big pink fluffy bunny is walking next to you.

I have to ask you something, shinRaiden: Have you been traumatized in life? Were you abused by your parents? Are you living an unorthodox life? No? Then why do you not believe in the big pink fluffy bunny that is standing right next to you? Why are you in such denial? You know you are only doing yourself a disfavour. The big pink fluffy bunny is a very kind bunny that will help you with just about anything if you ask it nicely. What's wrong with you? Why won't you believe in the big pink fluffy bunny?

[Major Fubar 0]

I firmly consider myself an agnostic, ut I like to think I am tolerant of other's beliefs.

I have friends who are Christian fundamentalists, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, Athiests, Catholics, Protestants and even Satanists...and I respect them all equally. As long as people don't try to push their beliefs on me, then there is no problem.

As for ribbons about various events, I have no problem. IMHO, people showing their respects to a tragedy or alliance to a cause by wearing (or displaying) a ribbon is fine...

[Hinny 0]

Ahhh! I didn't want this thread turned into a thread about religion and if it's right or wrong!

If people want to believe in a religion, they can. If they don't want to believe they don't have to.

The kind of divisions of 'I'm right, you're wrong' attitude is really worrying. Surely tolerance of other people's beliefs is better than trying to force your own on people.

[igor drukov 0]

Sorry hinny, sorry moderators, I just would like to react to a few things. Indeed, tolerance is  the key-word. For in the end, proselytizing people, who can be atheists too, will always wind up calling you names    .

@ Gollum1 :

Quote[/b] ]I can't prove that faeries don't exist either. Can't I say I have a lack of belief in faeries instead of a strong theory that they don't exist?

Pointless.

Strong as it may be, a theory is still a belief. And a lack of belief is not knowledge. Denying the existence of something is not establishing "scientifically" its non-existence.

@ Baron :

Quote[/b] ]I can also tell you that all all knowing, all powerful, all good god who tortures his own children for infinity for FINITE crimes CAN NOT exist.

Unless you are a determinist, men are FREE and RESPONSIBLE for their actions. I don't know of a God that tortures anyone.

I won't react to the rest of your message, which assumes, out of your faith in godlessness, that I said things I didn't say. Unlike you, I am/was not proselytizing or trying to prove anything but that people have (thank whoever you want, for the sake of variety) different creeds, among which atheism.

@ denoir

Quote[/b] ]Being an atheist is rationally the default setting for all people. Religion is a theory that is consturcted upon the default setting.

Funny way of putting things. This can not be more historically inaccurate. Most people sure did and do not have the security, comfort and education level of Swedes today. Assume faith gives them hope in a dangerous world. Just a question : are there cutting-edge scientists (in neuro-sciences, in quantum mechanics, etc.) that believe in God ?

Quote[/b] ]It's an additional theory you add to the default settings so it's for those that advocate that theory that have to prove that it is correct.

Why prove anything at all ? Why should there be a burden of proof on anyone at all ? There will be nitpicking, hair-splitting, and abuse in the end.

Besides, faith and scientific knowledge are two things very different in nature : sciences do not help me mourn the dead ; they do not entice me to try and behave better towards the others.

Here is what Thomas More wrote in Utopia 500 years ago :

Quote[/b] ]In matters of religion, [King Utopus] was not at all quick to dogmatize, because he suspected that God perhaps likes various forms of worship and has therefore deliberately inspired different people with different views. On the other hand, he was quite sure that it was arrogant folly for anyone to enforce conformity with his own beliefs by means of threats or violence. He supposed that if one religion is really true and the rest false, that true one will prevail by its own natural strength, provided only that men consider the matter reasonably and moderately.

I find the black ribbon a very decent and dignified way to show one's sympathy. The absence of reference to any particular religion is worthy of notice.

Take it easy   ,

"Captain of NSA" Igor Drukov  

[denoir 0]

Unless you are a determinist, men are FREE and RESPONSIBLE for their actions. I don't know of a God that tortures anyone.

Of course he does! Unless you do exactly as he wants then you'll burn in hell! Religion is the ultimate totalitarian system. It's not just what you do it wants to regulate and control, but even what you think.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Being an atheist is rationally the default setting for all people. Religion is a theory that is consturcted upon the default setting.

Funny way of putting things. This can not be more historically inaccurate.

Are you saying that you are born religious?

Quote[/b] ]Just a question : are there cutting-edge scientists (in neuro-sciences, in quantum mechanics, etc.) that believe in God ?

Of course. Much fewer than the average population and certainly none of them applies religion in their scientific work.

Quote[/b] ]Why prove anything at all ? Why should there be a burden of proof on anyone at all ? There will be nitpicking, hair-splitting, and abuse in the end.

If you don't prove it, you can't claim generality. If you can't claim generality, you can't build upon it. As long as it keeps in its domain, religion doesn't have to prove things. But when it starts to attack secular matters or scientific matters then the same burden of proof lies on it as for other methods.

Quote[/b] ]Besides, faith and scientific knowledge are two things very different in nature : sciences do not help me mourn the dead ; they do not entice me to try and behave better towards the others.

Tell that to those that claim that the theory of evolution is bullshit on religious grounds. The problem is that religion does not stick to its domain but has opinions about the real world. Often incorrect opinions that clash with the scientific facts.

got to go.. later

[Placebo 29]

If people don't follow my guidance on page2 this thread will be closed, I almost closed it now but I know my kneejerk reactions always make Denoir sad

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Strong as it may be, a theory is still a belief. And a lack of belief is not knowledge. Denying the existence of something is not establishing "scientifically" its non-existence.

No, it is not. Please go back to school.

A theory is not a belief.

Quote[/b] ]

Unless you are a determinist, men are FREE and RESPONSIBLE for their actions. I don't know of a God that tortures anyone.

Haven't read the bible then?

Quote[/b] ]

I won't react to the rest of your message, which assumes, out of your faith in godlessness,

I think you cannot read. Please re-read (or get your guardian to read it out to you) the section above where I gave a little point re atheists and belief.

Quote[/b] ]

@ denoir

Quote[/b] ]Being an atheist is rationally the default setting for all people. Religion is a theory that is consturcted upon the default setting.

Funny way of putting things. This can not be more historically inaccurate.

It couldn't be more true.

Humans, and all other animals, are born without religious belief: as atheists. In order for them to have religious beliefs, they must either make them up themselves or (more usually) have them forced upon them by parents/ guardians/ whoever.

Quote[/b] ]

Most people sure did and do not have the security, comfort and education level of Swedes today. Assume faith gives them hope in a dangerous world. Just a question : are there cutting-edge scientists (in neuro-sciences, in quantum mechanics, etc.) that believe in God ?

Assume that faith doesn't give them hope in a dangerous world because that is not nessesarily true. Then stop asking questions that have already been answered. Yes, there are some scientists that believe in god(s/ goddesses). But not many, and I don't know of any literalists (those who take their holy books as complete, literal, fact) - most of those believe in the sort of spinozoan god. (one who doesn't interact much with the universe, to simplify it)

Quote[/b] ]

Why prove anything at all ? Why should there be a burden of proof on anyone at all ? There will be nitpicking, hair-splitting, and abuse in the end.

Why bother discovering fire? Why bother coming out of the ocean in the first place? Luddite.

Quote[/b] ]

Besides, faith and scientific knowledge are two things very different in nature : sciences do not help me mourn the dead ; they do not entice me to try and behave better towards the others.

Ever heard of social sciences?

Faith is not nessesary to mourn the dead. Faith is not nessesary to behave nicely to other people (in fact it tends to discourage it)

Quote[/b] ] it was arrogant folly for anyone to enforce conformity with his own beliefs by means of threats or violence.

Which is why I don't like religion. Which is why I do like rational thought.

It still doesnt seem to be sinking in, so perhaps it needs restated:

Atheism is not a religion.

Science is not a religion.

Rationality is not a religion.

[Acro 0]

If you were totally rational you wouln't feel sorry for the bomb attack victims. Why? Because you would be like a insect which doesn't comprehend death.

So, i believe there is somekind of higher being who gave us sense of compassion.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Wrong. Stop asserting ridiculous fallacies.

Being rational doesn't mean, at all, that you don't feel emotions, that you don't have compassion. And its pretty insulting to the billions of people worldwide who are rational that you think they are like insects.

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps I've just not met enough people yet, but every single professing agnostic or atheist I've met and talked with at length has admitted that their choice of belief is a construct in reaction to either parochial abuses, personal emotional trauma or neglect, or the choice of a lifestyle incompatible with an orthodox lifestyle. That is their choice, but by taking a reactionary stance they deny themselves as much opportunity as they claim we deny ourselves though alleged subservience to faith.

ShinRaiden, Hi. My name is ozanzac. I'm agnostic, and I'm none of the above, So it might come to quite a shock to you that there are other reasons why people don't believe in or are sceptical of the existence of a god.

My first and foremost reason for being agnostic is that there is no uniform religion among the human race. In fact, most religions seem to contradict each other. This is a major problem, as contradicting values are a likely source for dispute. And any dispute means there can't possibly be peace. Why would one who seeks peace want to observe something that can be a potential source for conflict? Is not this a fundamental flaw in 'religion', as it introduces segregation, does it not?

This brings me to the second major part of my scepticism: Religion must be an invention of the human race. There is no question that in order to have religion, there must first be ones who believe in it, and the instant that the first 'religion' was coined, was also the first case of segregation. We were all equals to begin with. Only religion and it could have only ever been religion that introduced the mentality that we weren't.

Three: Religion can be mis-leading and extremely dangerous when the evil that religion seeks to remove from society infiltrates its hierarchy (which is in itself, a form of segregation). Once that hierarchy is infiltrated, then the followers, who are already vulnerable to abuse, are now extremely vulnerable to abuse. For religions, the paradox is that it is so open to abuse, that there is almost nothing to prevent the 'flock' from being 'delivered to evil'. Surely, this is a weakness that the often already weak and/or disadvantaged should not be exposed to at all.

Being agnostic does not deny me any chance at all. I walk through life with an open mind, taking in and processing all information that I come across or presents itself to me. This information could sway me towards the pro-religion side of things, keep me at the middle-of-the-road, or go anti-religion.

But, it would take an awful lot of propaganda (because there is no better word to describe a lot of religious materials, be it pro or anti) in order to push me either way. But for the moment, I am quite happy being a functional, peaceful and free member of society, where my morals share most of those that most religions aim to achieve, but are flexible enough to meet the demands of modern life.

I've had many diverse experiences during my short life with the Methodist (uniting) church during early childhood, The Baptist Church through friends, the Catholic Church through education (which presented the opportunity to go to a synagogue) and the Greek-Orthodox church through dads’ side of the family. None bad, but none that were sufficient enough to make me a ‘true believer'. Yes, they did fast track some of the fundamental values of being a good citizen, but it’s not as if I wasn’t going to pick those skills up in life anyway. I don't go to church. I haven't ever voluntarily been, as I feel no need nor commitment to go except to broaden my knowledge, and that's how I think most people should view religion.

Back to the article, is it so bad when masses of people show solidarity for a cause, especially when as we saw in Spain and other parts of the world, where millions of people stood in defiance of evil? I think not. Why would it ever be?

[denoir 0]

If people don't follow my guidance on page2 this thread will be closed, I almost closed it now but I know my kneejerk reactions always make Denoir sad  

Not in this case. Unlike the political discussions that geg injected with fresh news, the god vs. no god discussion is an endless loop. Personlly I love to participate in religion discussions because they give an easy cheap satisfaction for my sadistic cravings. Coming down on religion with rationallity is the equivalent of a child stepping on ants. The 'figth' isn't equal. And while as I said, I don't mind in discussions kicking while my opponent is lying down, I agree that overall its quite pointless. The atheists get a good laugh. The religious people get angry over the decadence of the people in the world. Nobody convinces anybody and nothing new happens.

The plus side (apart from the sadistic pleasure one might get) is that you get to know the other forum members a bit better. I'm not quite sure that it's all a good thing. I've known a few people who I respected until I found out what fucked-up view of the world they have.

Anyway, nothing is going to happen here in this discussion. Nothing. As long as people don't get nasty, nothing is not bad, but ultimately people start calling each other names etc

Either way, close it, don't close it, this will be a recurring discussion and it will be equally pointless then and people will get equally rude.

[shinRaiden 0]

Thank you ozanzac, you made a great case, that I believe is echoed by many others who should pipe up more often.

I do disagree somewhat with this attitude:

Quote[/b] ]But, it would take an awful lot of propaganda (because there is no better word to describe a lot of religious materials) in order to push me either way. But for the moment, I am quite happy being a functional, peaceful and free member of society, where my morals share most of those that most religions aim to achieve, but are flexible enough to meet the demands of modern life.

Do you allow yourself to be pushed? Do you let other people make up your mind for you? Is there a certain point that you can be 'bought'? If I were somehow able to convey a compelling enough arguement, what wouldn't you do?

At basic face value, the original article makes the allegation that many of the crowds of mourners are doing so in a flash-mob mentality for personal emotional masochism, as opposed to proactive sympathy for the bereaved, and commitment to better society's situation from the event. That is, to me, a very interesting arguement.

Denoir:

Quote[/b] ]

When was the last time you saw him? When was the last time you interacted with him in such a way that could be observed by others?

I've never seen you, therefore you don't exist. Be careful that the mods don't deactivate the DenoirBOT's auto-reply system.

Quote[/b] ]

What's wrong with you? Why won't you believe in the big pink fluffy bunny?

I have a big pink fluffy bunny. It has a tag that says "Made in china". Mao is dead, why should I worship him?