Messageboard
The Village Hall permalink
Where have all the atheists gone?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by amethy5t (U13830783) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
I was following the very interesting thread started by furiouslocki, but it seems to have petered out - but the relijus threads are popping up all over the place.
I also had a bit of an input about atheism - well, it was about Dawkin's, actually - on the DA board thread about Shula and Alan's marriage...that was quite sparky and great fun (but politeness was maintained!
I have just come back after conducting a Humanist funeral (I'm a BHA officiant) and everything about these experiences at funerals only deepens my certainty about nogod...
Actually, my hubby and I (also a humanist) have serious 'debates' (no blood is spilt!) about my 'absolutism' that there is nogod...he is of the opinion that the 'probably' on the Atheist Bus slogan is better that saying 'there isn't...' and OK best so as not to turn people off who are still not committed to atheism, but - for me - there's no such thing as Father Xmas (sorry, folks!) fairies, spaghetti monsters or little green teapots circling around the moon/mars (depending on which story you hear) and so why continue to say that it is 'possible' for a god?
It's a story/stories that came out of someone's head far back beyond - or from lots of someone's - who had to have some way of making sense of the chaos that is part of the natural world, and so I don't have to believe any of it, nor even to leave open the possibility which (IMO) gives a hostage to fortune to theists who are overly triumphant when even Dawkin's wont commit.
I do understand (have even taught in a previous academic manifestation) philosophical arguments about the problems attending 'certainties' (which is where the little green teapots etc arguments spring from) - but I've been placed in the corner of being a 'hard' atheist...couldn't be anything else though!
But I really dislike polarisation in this way because of the discomfort of others over syntactical positions - I feel there is an argument to be had/sustained and wonder what it is we are afraid of by saying 'I KNOW there is nogod' in the face of those who say 'I KNOW there is agod'...it avoids so much wriggling around when the argument gets backed into a corner ('Oh, so you can't say definitely that there isn't a creator...').
Hmmmmm- got a bit carried away there - the wife of the man for whom I conducted the funeral was so delighted that there wasn't any of the usual mumbo-jumbo - however sincerely carried out by the traditional ministers - and pleased to hear the main focus of the ceremony which emphasises that we live for 'the one life we have', and not for an imaginary after-life (either full of fluffy clouds or fiery flames) so I've probably brought a bit of that back with me.
Well...that's my bit for now - back to cookin' the tea! -
Message 2
Posted by Bette (U2222559) on Thursday, 26th February 2009
It doesn't surprise me that the atheist thread died down (or out) as I don't see how people can continue discussing things they don't believe in.
I /was/ interested in the notion of atheist-agnostic - in the sense that one /cannot/ 'know' either way - but then, that argument applies to anyone or any belief, so therefore becomes meaningless. -
Message 3
Posted by Tir_Eoghain (U1541087) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:54 GMT, in reply to amethy5t in message 1
Hi amethy5t!
<>
Here they are (waiting for the next bus).
TÃr (:<
-
Message 4
Posted by CaliforniaPongo (U9523093) on Friday, 27th February 2009
I rarely come here but your thread caught my attention.
I have a question, if I may.
Is this a thread just for athiests or are you looking for a spirited debate and dialog with believers as well as non-believers?
If everyone is welcome, I think it would be respectful if our members here who believe in God were spared words such as "mumbo-jumbo;" "nogod" and phrases such as "fairies, spaghetti monsters or little green teapots circling around the moon/mars.." and "imaginary afterlife ...fluffy clouds or fiery flames."
You very respectfully refer to yourself and your husband as "Humanists" and you tell us that you are a "BHA officiant, and that sounds very important, indeed.
IMHO, I think the use of derrogatory names, terms and phrases is not likely to get you an engaging debate where all sides are welcome to express themselves in the spirit of mutual respect.
However, if that is not what you were seeking, please disregard this post and please do continue as you were. -
Message 5
Posted by amethy5t (U13830783) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Ah well - 381 messages wasn't too bad I suppose...though the discussion wasn't all about 'things they don't believe in'.
-
Message 6
Posted by Redbookish (U1335018) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:40 GMT, in reply to CaliforniaPongo in message 4
If everyone is welcome, I think it would be respectful if our members here who believe in God were spared words such as "mumbo-jumbo;" "nogod" and phrases such as "fairies, spaghetti monsters or little green teapots circling around the moon/mars.." and "imaginary afterlife ...fluffy clouds or fiery flames."Â
You see, this is part of the problem of such a debate: there can sometimes be a tendency for believers to try to claim special status for their beliefs over those of others. Pre-Christianity, a belief in fairies, sprites, nymphs, and so on, as spiritual inhabitants of the land, the woods, the countryside, /was/ a set of serious spiritual beliefs.
So respect works in a number of directions. For example, I see precious little respect from some theists, that an atheist can have a serious ethical code, and live a spiritual life, /without/ needing to base that on a belief in a theistic system of belief. -
Message 7
Posted by amethy5t (U13830783) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Hi CaliforniaPongo
Well - not so important, just a context for the message that I had just come back from conducting a Humanist funeral, at which it was the wife of the deceased who used the term 'mumbo-jumbo'...
I certainly mean no disrespect - and affirmed that I feel that traditional services may well be sincerely felt and delivered - but, yes, I have had many spirited debates with believers (and think that will continue in that other part of my life that is not on the VH board) and I don't venture onto the boards where their debate takes place, so was hoping that non-believers/atheists would join in with this thread - but please continue to read and comment if this thread continues.
The phrases I used are an intrinsic part of the atheist debate as well as general philosophical discussion about how we 'know' something. They're certainly not my phrases although I find them useful and start off the type of discussion that I want to engage in...and the shorthands of nogod etc underline atheist thinking as I am sure that believers may also use some such briefer ways of talking, perhaps?
Also - isn't it also in the believers canon to refer to 'fluffy clouds and fiery flames' in discussions about heaven and hell - perhaps not in those terms but that's the quick reference to afterlife debates? Is it because an atheist is using the terms that this seems disrespectful...?
...and, Tir, aren't we all but they only come in threes
<:> -
Message 8
Posted by sadie (U781345) on Friday, 27th February 2009
This is interesting. I would consider myself an atheist as I have no belief or interest in the concept of any God or system of worship. This view is instinctive and is one I have held since a small child despite being brought up into a religion and accomanying family to church regularly until my teens. I never rebelled, I used to just sit there and think and try to get what they were all on about, to me it was just incomprehensible and meaningless, it still is.
I do however have a strong belief in humankind, in treating people fairly and justly and in kindness, some of which is covered by several faith systems.I am a do as you would be done by sorta woman.
I have also registered the effect of me telling people of my(dis)belief, one aunt was visably upset, and it made me think about how important having a faith is to others and how they fear for me if I out myself as a non believer.
So now I am a silent atheist, not wanting to impose or hurt others with my lack of belief in their faith. It is quite sad really, because i would love a good debate, it is just too difficult to have one without upsetting the believers and frankly I don't need people to know my point of view badly enough to start upsetting people with it.
Sx -
Message 9
Posted by amethy5t (U13830783) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Thank you Redbookish - I'm quite a newbie on several boards and still quite nervous about what's acceptable to say - though I really don't want to cause offence, just engage in debate that is focused on non-belief.
I find Dawkins statement (below) a comfort...
"Beliefs that are unsupported, bigoted or demand special privileges should always be challenged. No opinion should be protected from criticism simply by virtue of being religiously held" -
Message 10
Posted by Redbookish (U1335018) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:25 GMT, in reply to sadie in message 8
It is quite sad really, because i would love a good debate, it is just too difficult to have one without upsetting the believers and frankly I don't need people to know my point of view badly enough to start upsetting people with it.Â
Really interesting post, sadie, and your ethical system is a good example of how we can have a set of beliefs which go beyond the here and now, but don't require a theistic belief system.
But I think -- like the Dawkins' quotation that Amethyst gives us -- that thee is anover-respectfulness given to religious belief. Is it because it is generally deeply lodged in peope's emotional selves, whereas atheism is generally more connected to the rational part of our selves? Or can we have rational theistic belief and emotional a-theism?
BTW, I want to pose that question without attaching a comparative value judgement between emotional and rational. We are all both. -
Message 11
Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Friday, 27th February 2009
I think there is endless debate about atheism, but obviously not enough interest on the MB.
-
Message 12
Posted by sadie (U781345) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Thanks Red,
You pose another interesting question. I used to be very open about my beliefs until I realised how much of an emotional response they could generate, and I then found myself a bit bewildered as to the strength of feeling from others that theirs was the right way of thinking.
I think my non belief is a rational choice, it is just who I am and what I believe. I have no wish to challenge others emotional or religious beliefs. I do not think this makes me over respectful of religion, just careful to not impose myself on others.
Whenever I had tried to discuss this with those who have a faith, it has always ended up with them becoming defensive, using emotive language, once even asking me if I did not want to meet up with loved ones in heaven!!
I replied that my belief was that loved ones live on within me due to their influence on me when they were alive, and my memory of them and our lives together. This led to much confusion on the part of the believer who did not seem able to grasp what I was saying.
Anyway, having said I don't need people to know about my non beliefs it is quite refreshing to have a forum to debate this, I look forward to this thread developing.
SX -
Message 13
Posted by Morganish (U9108847) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Here's another atheist, amethyst 5t. I was brought up in the C of E, listening patiently to bible stories and dutifully singing hymns, while all the time feeling very aware that I was participating in a tradition - but that was all it is. When I was about nine I had a conversation with a religious aunt in which I said that I quite liked going to church for the singing and the sense of history and the feeling of community it generated, but I didn't actually believe in any of it. I can remember the shock on her face. My parents, who were just going through the motions themselves, were amused.
I don't want to get involved in a debate with believers, I'm afraid. Believers believe - that's who they are, what they do. You can't argue with someone who believes profoundly in something that doesn't exist. To those of us who experience the world without the props of a promise of an afterlife or a greater reason why we're here, belief in fairies or sprites or gods or alien abduction are all the same. -
Message 14
Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Friday, 27th February 2009
There is actually more atheist debate on other threads than on the one designated for it!
-
Message 15
Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Friday, 27th February 2009
I am certainly have an emotional atheisim. It longs for a true explanation of the universe and it gets angry with the tenacity of religous belief which diminishes the wonder of 'creation'and impedes our discovery of its 'truth'.
Surely rational Christianity is impossible. No doubt I will be told again that this is wrong. -
Message 16
Posted by amethy5t (U13830783) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Hi Sadie,
So sorry that you felt that you have to be a 'silent' atheist...I know that it's difficult when people are shocked by non-belief but I've had to toughen up and get the arguments ready because there doesn't seem to be the same respect for those of us who don't fit into the fold (pun intended!) - as Redbookish points out.
Morganish also points out a further problem with the debate...my hubby's family (in SA and in Ozland) are of the christian fundamentalist tradition (world 6 thousand years old, god creating mountains with fossils already embedded - you name it!) and were so upset when the grandpop had a recent heart attack (he's 89 and reasonably fit for his age now)...the youngest grandson (the sweetest boy, believe me) actually said to him that he couldn't bear the thought that gramps didn't believe in jesus because they wouldn't see him in heaven...breathtaking arrogance for a start (we're going and you're not)but painful for pops (very atheist) and for us as we could hardly believe that this young and lovely child had such thoughts from his parents and surrounding adults.
As you will appreciate, for the sake of family peace we said nothing other than to try and comfort the child - but his conviction was looked upon with approval by the other members of the family...and there's a whole other set of stories some funny but - ultimately - very sad and worrying.
So...although we prefer not to be involved with debates with believers, it's part of the course for us as we feel the need to be a part of something - the British Humanists Association - that says it like it is...
...and /please/ no, we don't think that this is just like another religion/belief system, any more than belonging to the local Scrabble/jigsaw/ramblers group is (that's another 'jibe' - that it's humanists who are the 'fundamentalists!). -
Message 17
Posted by amethy5t (U13830783) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Hi furiouslocki,
I'm so glad to hear you again as it was your original 'Atheist Thread Anyone' that encouraged me to start another thread...and loads of people will tell you/us that we're wrong, but I know that you don't think that, hmmm?
(:< -
Message 18
Posted by Silver Jenny (U12795676) on Friday, 27th February 2009
#15 Locki
it gets angry with the tenacity of religous belief which diminishes the wonder of 'creation'and impedes our discovery of its 'truth'.Â
Well so do I, Locki, and I am one of those possibly misguided souls who takes the leap of faith. Not all reliigionists are creationists. The more I learn about our planet and the infinite wonders of life forms on it, the more I see the hand of a Creator, and that is where we must differ.
If I can restrict my comment to Christianity, the fundamentalists have lost sight of the true teaching of Jesus imo. Their stance does harm, as does any fundamentalist stance which does not allow questioning, education and debate.
AmethySt, I am not going to gatecrash your thread any further except to say this. A recent series on Ö÷²¥´óÐã2 'around the world in 80 faiths show that there is a deep need inside countless people for some spirtitual content to their lives. Some have found it in quite extraordinary and even frightening ways. A wild generalisation here but I do think what atheists condemn is /churchianity*/ which stems from human beings' infinity capacity to hide wonder behind clunky organisation.
* other faiths are available. -
Message 19
Posted by Lili Bolero and the band played on (U10534540) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Sadie - I recognise the 'silent atheist' phenomenon, too. My F-i-Law (long deceased) was very pained, nay outraged, when I suggested that it might be easier for OH and I to get wed in a Register Office. (There was a strike/work-to-rule of Registrars at the time). He would not stand for it! I think he really struggled with the idea that someone could be a moral or 'good' person if they had no belief, and that would be a problem if/when we produced grandchildren.
I think perhaps the previous thread fizzled out a bit because, we aren't actually trying to convert anyone to our way of thinking. I don't think I have ever encountered an 'evangelistic atheist'. Or perhaps that's just my take on it. I don't care what other people believe, as long as it doesn't impinge unreasonably upon my life. -
Message 20
Posted by Psiomniac (U3027615) on Friday, 27th February 2009
furiouslocki
Surely rational Christianity is impossible. No doubt I will be told again that this is wrong.Â
Or 'probably' wrong -
Message 21
Posted by petal jam (U1466691) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:24 GMT, in reply to sadie in message 8
This is more or less my position on it all too Sadie - except that I think the stories we tell ourselves to explain the world are profoundly interesting.
However I think it's even more important that those of us who instinctively have no sense of an external entity say so clearly and often. At the moment there is an awfully loud debate going on in which Atheists are being characterised [both by proponents of particular religions and unfortunately by other atheists] as people who have rationalised themselves out of belief - an argument which presupposes that Belief or Faith are natural and innate states of being.
For me, the claim [which you are not making] that belief is something you have as a child and are persuaded out of or grow out of when you hear the explanations that Science can offer is problematic. The claim is too easily confused with arguments against teaching or developing Scientific knowledge which does not sit comfortably with the dogma of some religious groups which see Science setting itself in opposition to Faith.
I am also interested in the question of what Spirituality is for and why do some people describe their moments of intense insight or wonder or super-connectedness with others in terms of religious experience. And why in the West are we so reluctant to acknowledge that religious practice is a powerful political stance. At the moment, like Red, I am increasingly concerned that the non-religious are devalued as participants in society because their thoughts are based upon an egalitarian sense of justice rather than coming from a tradition of one Faith group or another.
All of which makes me uneasy - as if I'm being manipulated into arguing on others' terms. Really I would rather be like Bette and Sadie and go quietly about my life without any supposition of allegiance or lip-service or any need to defend its absence. -
Message 22
Posted by Psiomniac (U3027615) on Friday, 27th February 2009
petal jam,
I think your post might explain your resistance to the notion of a predisposition to form beliefs about supernatural agents.
Of course, such a predisposition would not mean that everybody actually formed such beliefs, so I don't think it is actually incompatible with your position. -
Message 23
Posted by petal jam (U1466691) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:43 GMT, in reply to Psiomniac in message 22
Oh I am remarkably accommodating in many things, psi!¬) -
Message 24
Posted by kk forever in the cyber atlantis of mustardland (U4670994) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:44 GMT, in reply to petal jam in message 21
However I think it's even more important that those of us who instinctively have no sense of an external entity say so clearly and often.Â
I've posted before that I tend to describe myself as a reluctant atheist, and I miss the support that the cocoon of belief gave me long after I had lost faith with the religion of my childhood.
It has taken me a very long while to overcome the psychological intimidation foisted on those who have the temerity to openly express doubt and my regret is that I continued to respect the belief of others and the status quo for too long.
Since my breakthrough phase, about ten years ago now, I have patiently waited for something - anything - which suggested that my new path was false but it hasn't happened. Nor have I been blasted the dreaded bolt of personalised lightning, which I anecdotally understand accompanies many who choose to step off the Abrahamic path in any of its' forms. -
Message 25
Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Friday, 27th February 2009
I wouldn't concern yourself about the atheist thread disappearing when it runs out of steam. The christian ones seem to consist of woofti telling people what to read in the bible without any discussion and the other thread is a discussion of the infections one might get from taking communion [which I find very amusing]..... so hardly deep stuff
-
Message 26
Posted by Borsetshire Blue (U2260326) on Friday, 27th February 2009
For me, the claim [which you are not making] that belief is something you have as a child and are persuaded out of or grow out of when you hear the explanations that Science can offer is problematic. Â
Yes pj, that is something which has been irritating me more and more recently. I too have been an atheist for as long as I can remember and people with faith find it very hard to believe that I have neither had a bad experience of religion in the past, nor come to a position of atheism as a result of reading too many copies of New Scientist.
I am currently reading a great book, 'Atheism, A Very Short Introduction' by Julian Baggini and like the argument he makes in a section titled 'A positive case for atheism'. He asks the reader to imagine a time when most people in Scotland are aware of the existence of Loch Ness and many, probably the majority, of people in Scotland believe that the loch is a big lake pretty much like all the other lochs in Scotland. Their views are what we would call normal.
However, there are a handful of people who believe that the loch contains a weird creature, some even claim to have seen it, although they have never presented any evidence of its existence. Over time more and more people come to believe in the monster's existence and are soon called Nessies. Despite there still being no evidence for the monster's existence the number of Nessies grows until they become the majority in Scotland and the beliefs that were once seen as normal are now held by the minority. It is at this point that those who do not believe in the Loch Ness monster are given the name Anessies.
He goes on to say - "Is it true to say that the beliefs of Anessies are parasitic on those of the Nessies? That can't be true, because the Anessies' beliefs pre-date those of the Nessies. The key point is not one of chronology, however. The key is that the Anessies would believe exactly the same as they do now even if the Nessies had never existed. What the rise of the Nessies did was to give a name to a set of beliefs that had always existed but which was considered so unexceptional that it required no special label." BB (Proud - if unexceptional - Anessie!) -
Message 27
Posted by Everything Stops 4 Tea (U3819066) on Friday, 27th February 2009
I posted a couple of times on the old atheist thread, along the lines of:
"I don't believe in any God or Deity, but, as I am a mere human bean who can't possibly know everything, I am happy to acknowlege that I may be wrong, and that your God may exist. For you, at least. But probably not for me."
Basically, I am a lazy car who wants a quiet life.
Live and let live and all that.
Although I'm not sure that women wearing burkas should be allowed to drive - no distrespect to their faith intended, it's just blimmin' dangerous!
To conclude: I must strongly disagree with part of the opening post,
< ... or little green teapots circling around the moon/mars ... >
They do, actually.
Seen 'em.
So, ner! ner! wiv knobs on!
ES4T
[smiley face wotsit] -
Message 28
Posted by Psiomniac (U3027615) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Everything Stops 4 Tea,
You have seen green teapots circling Mars or the Moon? I've seen a few teapots that probably could be said to describing a kind of frilly ellipse around the sun, but circling around the moon/mars is stretching things a bit isn't it? -
Message 29
Posted by kk forever in the cyber atlantis of mustardland (U4670994) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:53 GMT, in reply to Psiomniac in message 28
I've seen a few teapots that probably could be said to describing a kind of frilly ellipse around the sun, but circling around the moon/mars is stretching things a bit isn't it?Â
No-one will take this seriously until you reveal what colour they were, and just how emotional you were at the time. -
Message 30
Posted by Everything Stops 4 Tea (U3819066) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Irony, Psiomniac, irony ...
(Psssttt! There's a great big clue in my board name)
ES4T -
Message 31
Posted by Psiomniac (U3027615) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Irony, Psiomniac, irony ...Â
Er...ok...I just wanted to rule out a variant of the 'there are teapots orbiting the sun' quip, but never mind. -
Message 32
Posted by petal jam (U1466691) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:19 GMT, in reply to Everything Stops 4 Tea in message 30
Ah - an atheist's response to Waiting for Godot. -
Message 33
Posted by Everything Stops 4 Tea (U3819066) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Hello, Psiomniac,
Apologies - I'm obviously being as thick as a Tarm Archuur Bap [again].
BTW: Going to see Waiting For Godot in June.
Or was is the Krankies?
Oh, I forget now ... -
Message 34
Posted by CaliforniaPongo (U9523093) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Afternoon, amethy5t and thanks so much for your resposne:
I don't think this is a thread that I can participate in because to tell you the honest-to-God truth (pun intended) I have an extremely opininated view of organized religion.
I don't like them. At all.
I also don't read the bible or believe for a minute that what is contained therein are "God's words" or "Christ's words" or any mere mortal man's words.
I think religious texts such as the New and Old Testaments are nothing more than a means to control people. They have been used and abused to further the agenda of people who want to shape the world and society to their own liking and their own benefit.
I believe in God and I believe we have souls. I believe that my loved ones are in a better place, but no, I do not describe it as a place with "fluffy clouds." Nor do I describe eternal torment, which some people rightfully deserve, as a place of "fiery flames."
And I most definitely believe in divine retribution. I have to. I've spent my entire career working with attorneys.
I hope this debate takes off full speed and that no one feels insulted or disrespected.
I will depart by saying, if I've offended any religious person who has visited this thread, please know I didn't mean to. I am just being honest. -
Message 35
Posted by sagethyme (U5272261) on Friday, 27th February 2009
California
If you are still around, I am genuinely interested in your contribution which raises many issues.
As a start, have I understood you correctly as saying that your God allows the New and Old Testaments to be used and abused as a way to control people? If not please correct my understanding of your position.
I suppose if one believes in a god then one has to put up with whatever evils arise. However I have never understood how people can actually want to be in a 'better' place with a god who allows such things to happen. It would make more sense to me in a way to have the Greek/Roman relationship with gods, fearful and expecting to pay tribute.
I accept that you were seeking a dialogue and I hope you will continue to participate. Why apologise only to religious persons though? -
Message 36
Posted by kk forever in the cyber atlantis of mustardland (U4670994) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:45 GMT, in reply to CaliforniaPongo in message 34
I have an extremely opininated view of organized religion.
I don't like them. At all.Â
This, and the rest of your post, seems to be at odds with your your postings on JJP Answers All of Your Catholic Questions in TB:
Are you saying that Roman Catholicism isn't a religion, or that it's a disorganised religion, or that you've cherry picked a personal spiritual philosophy that meets your own needs but which overlaps with Roman Catholicism when you feel it's expedient to do so?
My intention is not to specifically bash the Holy Roman Church btw, and I mention it because you said quite clearly and several times on that thread that you are a Catholic, and now you state that you don't like organized religion. -
Message 37
Posted by petal jam (U1466691) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:52 GMT, in reply to sagethyme in message 35
Um.. I read Cali's post to mean that her idea of a god allows people to make their own mistakes. I don't think she is suggesting either a benign or otoh an interventionist presence necessarily - rather that judgement comes into it somewhere.
Agree that this is a useful post outlining a different understanding - much of [if not most] the theistic stuff we read on here is specifically organised around social rituals or texts. -
Message 38
Posted by CaliforniaPongo (U9523093) on Friday, 27th February 2009
Hi sagethyme....I knew I shouldn't have posted here. It was a mistake but I really just did not want the very religious among us to feel insulted.
Neither do I want athiests or agnostics to feel insulted either.
amethy5t (sorry if I got it wrong) posted a very kind response to me and I had the want to chat a bit with him (or her).
I have no problem telling people I believe in God, and that I am not part of an organized religion because I, personally, don't care for organized religions. The rest is private. We all have the right to call ourselves by whatever religious name or affiliation we chose and we should never be made to explain or defend it.
It's offensive for people to make such demands. You haven't done that and I appreciate your courtesy.
I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone has to believe in "a god" or where nobody can believe in "a god." Nothing educates and broadens the horizons like diversity.
And I think my apology to the religious among us, if I offended or hurt them in some way, is warranted. I spoke out about organized religion. I did not speak out about athiests nor did I speak out about agnostics. Frankly, between you and me, I can make more sense of the athiestic/agnostic viewpoint than I can the ultra religious.
Thanks again for the opportunity to chat with you. I appreciate it. -
Message 39
Posted by CaliforniaPongo (U9523093) on Friday, 27th February 2009
"I read Cali's post to mean that her idea of a god allows people to make their own mistakes. I don't think she is suggesting either a benign or otoh an interventionist presence necessarily - rather that judgement comes into it somewhere."
That's it PetalJam. You read me correctly.
Another other word is "karma." Loads more, I'm sure. -
Message 40
Posted by Psiomniac (U3027615) on Friday, 27th February 2009
CaliforniaPongo
It's offensive for people to make such demands.Â
Nobody has made such a demand. Somebody has noticed that on one thread you declare you are Catholic and on another you say you are against organised religion. I think it is perfectly legitimate for somebody to point out such an inconsistency, don't you? -
Message 41
Posted by sagethyme (U5272261) on Saturday, 28th February 2009
Psi
I have not read the other thread mentioning Catholics. However I think I could understand Cali's position on organised religion.
At school we studied large chunks of the bible.
My recollection is that Jesus (whether a real person or not) was a Jew who believed in god and was against some aspects of organised religion, particularly hypocrisy.
Even so, Cali, I think that 'true' Catholics and adherents of many religions are supposed to accept the whole package. If someone rejects aspects of a faith I can see that would not stop them believing in god, unless you think god is intervening in everyday life and should make the priests see sense. -
Message 42
Posted by petal jam (U1466691) on Saturday, 28th February 2009
Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:06 GMT, in reply to Psiomniac in message 40
Psi I suspect that people describe themselves as 'Catholic' in almost the same way as they might say 'I am Jewish.' It denotes the background, not always current habits of worship or thought. Vron uses the term 'ethnic Catholic' which I think is hugely amusing but not especially well-found [it pre-supposes Irish or Latin heritage I think rather than German or Polish.]
Also I had assumed in the past that good Catholics all wrestled with their consciences over subscribing to every thread on the Pope's bulletin board. But since reading a variety of adherents here over the years, I sense that there are many congregations full of worshippers who think the Church is simply taking a long time in coming round to their own ethical principles. Contraception appears to have miraculously conceived a cheerful defiance - in the West at least. -
Message 43
Posted by Psiomniac (U3027615) on Saturday, 28th February 2009
sagethyme and petal jam,
My point was that:
1) There was an apparent inconsistency,
2) it is perfectly legitimate for somebody to point that out.
Your explanations of said inconsistency might be perfectly correct, but that wasn't my concern. -
Message 44
Posted by petal jam (U1466691) on Saturday, 28th February 2009
Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:52 GMT, in reply to Psiomniac in message 43
Hmm Psi I think my 'inconsistency' represents a shift in contemporary usage. When I was younger, we never said 'Catholic' to refer to a 'Roman Catholic' becuase it was incorrect. Wouldn't presume to speak for sagethyme. -
Message 45
Posted by Psiomniac (U3027615) on Saturday, 28th February 2009
petal jam,
Why was it regarded as incorrect? -
Message 46
Posted by sagethyme (U5272261) on Saturday, 28th February 2009
Psi
Of course I am usually quick to see inconsistency in religious folk.
Was just trying to be fairminded to someone with opposing views to mine (California) on a minor point. No objections to you raising the point at all.
On a different point, someone asked earlier whether atheists actively proselytise. I used to love lively discussion on religion in my teens and 20s with anyone. Later I saw how religion helped a couple of friends through unbearable tragedies and I stopped trying to take that away from them. No good saying to them....why does your god let it happen? Just tried to help in practical ways while the priests faff around. -
Message 47
Posted by petal jam (U1466691) on Saturday, 28th February 2009
Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:52 GMT, in reply to Psiomniac in message 45
Because catholic simply means universal, open to all or wide-reaching. The CfE is also a catholic church - in the Nicene creed they still recite:
"We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church"
- just not the /Roman/ catholic church!¬) And when when the man in the street gets all aeriated (sp) about the middle eastern cult which wants to take over the world he has either conveniently forgotten or never realised that the christians had put their marker down in the 4th century. -
Message 48
Posted by Psiomniac (U3027615) on Saturday, 28th February 2009
sagethyme,
I'm quite partial to a religious debate too, but agree that there is a time and a place. -
Message 49
Posted by Psiomniac (U3027615) on Saturday, 28th February 2009
petal jam,
Thanks for the clarification. -
Message 50
Posted by Psiomniac (U3027615) on Saturday, 28th February 2009
petal jam,
I imagine that protestants would be keen to be precise in saying RC in order to counter the RC's assertion that it is /the/ universal church, but I don't know if that is correct as I'm not from a religious background.
Who was it that described christianity as 'an absurd oriental fable'? I forget.
About this Board
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.