calling all religious fanatics

[Snipe Watson]

Theism is the box that most people find themselves put into. I'll agree with that, but the natural instinct of people is to reject that box and everything that goes with it. I contend that is the reason why many people feel liberated by their atheism when they 'escape' from religion.

Spot on and that is my argument. People do reject something which if society hadn't set it as the norm would not be necessary. It may seem a somewhat superfluous argument because this is a well set norm at our particular station on the civilisation line but still one I'd call out because it is a root cause of where we are.

I agree about the liberation feelings and I'd also contend that folk who unearth evidence to support a position of belief in a supreme being can also feel liberated- Liberation from doubt which in its own way is a deliverance from a restrictive bind.

Well I can only speak for myself, but I would say that I absolutely feel liberated by my faith. I think as beings, we like to have pillars around which to build our lives. Everyone needs an anchor of some kind or other and a sense of belonging.

[Shan]

Well I can only speak for myself, but I would say that I absolutely feel liberated by my faith. I think as beings, we like to have pillars around which to build our lives. Everyone needs an anchor of some kind or other and a sense of belonging.

Nicely put horse. I'd find it hard to disagree with that.

[Snipe Watson]

Well I can only speak for myself, but I would say that I absolutely feel liberated by my faith. I think as beings, we like to have pillars around which to build our lives. Everyone needs an anchor of some kind or other and a sense of belonging.

Nicely put horse. I'd find it hard to disagree with that.

Aren't we just the two quare reasonable biys.......

[solidarity]

Theism is the box that most people find themselves put into. I'll agree with that, but the natural instinct of people is to reject that box and everything that goes with it. I contend that is the reason why many people feel liberated by their atheism when they 'escape' from religion.

Spot on and that is my argument. People do reject something which if society hadn't set it as the norm would not be necessary. It may seem a somewhat superfluous argument because this is a well set norm at our particular station on the civilisation line but still one I'd call out because it is a root cause of where we are.

I agree about the liberation feelings and I'd also contend that folk who unearth evidence to support a position of belief in a supreme being can also feel liberated- Liberation from doubt which in its own way is a deliverance from a restrictive bind.

Well I can only speak for myself, but I would say that I absolutely feel liberated by my faith. I think as beings, we like to have pillars around which to build our lives. Everyone needs an anchor of some kind or other and a sense of belonging.

I'm with Snipe on the liberated bit. I've never felt constrained by my faith from doing things that make me happy and leave my conscience clear. On the other hand I have felt constrained not to do things that I and pretty much all of us know we shouldn't do (lie, steal, support Leinster) and I don't mind that constraint. Earlier in the thread someone claimed that Christianity is based on sin and shame. If I'm right, sin and shame are not core to Christian teaching, they are secondary;joy is the core issue, we were created to enjoy life. As I understand it, a good definition of sin is that which destroys joy and shame is what a person ought to feel who destroys other people's joy

I'm not sure though, that the default position of most people is theism, real theism. Is the evidence not that most people are either atheist or agnostic. Most churches aren't exactly bulging at the doors and a quick look round surely says that most people are, in practice, atheist or agnostic. Can you really believe in God and not respond to that in some meaningful way by listening to what purports to be his words and ordering your life accordingly? Certainly a fair number in NI will articulate some sort of cultural attachment to Christianity but does it really mean anything to most folk? Maybe a couple of generations ago there was a sort of Christian feel to many aspects of life but I don't think Church attendance ever topped 50%, at least for Prods, and today, I think we're a pretty secular bunch.

Is atheism not the foundation of our education system, with grudging lip service paid to RE for historical reasons? When the Blair government said that they 'Don't do God' did most people not shout, 'Amen.'... well maybe, 'hear, hear'?

[Shan]

I'm not sure though, that the default position of most people is theism, real theism. Is the evidence not that most people are either atheist or agnostic. Most churches aren't exactly bulging at the doors and a quick look round surely says that most people are, in practice, atheist or agnostic. Can you really believe in God and not respond to that in some meaningful way by listening to what purports to be his words and ordering your life accordingly? Certainly a fair number in NI will articulate some sort of cultural attachment to Christianity but does it really mean anything to most folk? Maybe a couple of generations ago there was a sort of Christian feel to many aspects of life but I don't think Church attendance ever topped 50%, at least for Prods, and today, I think we're a pretty secular bunch.

Not what was being put forward. You are talking about pratice and I am talking about the stating point influenced by societal norm. I think 44% claimed no religion in the last UK census but nobody asked about belief. Even if it was a gauge it is wildly inaccurate anyway because we already know that some theists will select the NO Religion box and some atheists will nominate a religion they feel culturally bound to...or indeed will select for darker reasons. Church attendance is no gauge of whether people think of themselves as atheists,not to mention the starting point for anybody in relation to their atheism, or theists for that matter. Religion has connections to supreme beings and the belief in them but that is all. Theism is a far wider matter than simple roll calls or membership cards of the different religions. Dave called it correctly earlier when he said that many folk when explaining their atheism will reference either God or one of the religions. They can't help it as that is their starting point.

Secularism also has nothing to do with this subject. One can be a theist and a secularist. Indeed I'd argue one has a civic and social responsibility and duty to be a secularist if one is a theist, unless one is supportive of restricting the rights of their fellow citizens.

You mention true theism. True theism is the belief in a supreme being or beings. It has nothing to do with most of what you mention in your post.

[BaggyTrousers]

Thanks Baggy for those posts. Always good to cut through the ordure, but you don't cut through it by simply adding more.

I've no interest in philosophy but I do like to think a bit, purely recreationally You sound like a bundle of laughs.

btw trying to show me that Paris exists by telling me you've been there is what Christians call 'testimony'. Nice to see that you're adopting a religious approach to life. And if you say that I can go and visit Paris, that's a classical evangelistic technique, 'Come and share my experience.' To top it all, your rant in response to a decent discussion makes you a fundamentalist.

Welcome to the madhouse. At least the crack's good.

Chube Fundamentally of course.

You may stick your testimony, its a typical sadsack mentalist approach to us nonbelievers to attempt to ascribe your bullshite labels to us folk who know better.

Furthermore I was not "trying to show you anything" you clown, I am stating an irrefutable fact, if you want to play silly games that is your prerogative but leave me out, I can get all the bullshit I need without hearing it from you.

Incidentally, you are probably somewhat disappointed that I reduce matters to personal abuse, tough ould haun', I am well known for it. Normally however I am the soul of decency towards new posters but, hey, I'm happy to make an exception for you, I think you deserve it.

[BaggyTrousers]

Well I can only speak for myself, but I would say that I absolutely feel liberated by my faith. I think as beings, we like to have pillars around which to build our lives. Everyone needs an anchor of some kind or other and a sense of belonging.

Nicely put horse. I'd find it hard to disagree with that.

OK Shan I have to ask, you have regularly referred to me as "horse" now Snipe is "horse", do you keep a stable of us or what's the feckin' craic ya gowlbeg?

[BaggyTrousers]

Children shouldn't be exposed to religion. In my opinion it's child abuse.

I would disagree completely. I believe firmly that knowledge acquisition is a primary right and the provision of such is a duty for any free society. Learning about religion has as much validity as learning about any subject of pragmatic, cultural or philosophical value.

Sadly much as I agree with Jackie's sentiments and doubt he will harm his kids in any way,I do accept there is an education a l benefit in knowledge of religion though certainly not inculcation. There are so many references to religion in so many things, the arts, literature and so on that a working knowledge of religion is almost essential.

I will tell them about religion, I will be telling them its all rubbish although an interesting lesson on history of Human Beings flock like mentality.

To tell a child they are born in sin is morally reprehensible. What sort of God would have you tortured for an infinite amount of time for a finite crime? A complete bar steward that's who.

Jackie, you know I'm with you in spirit and my sole reservation is that for non-religious reasons I believe there to be value in knowing what the fairy stories entail, not of course that I am remotely expert on them.

See you in hell buddy.

[Dave]

Yes the burden of proof is on the theist. Clearly there is no consensus on the definition of an atheist. For me it is a position declaring there is no God. There is no point asking a question like 'how do you know?' because you can't disprove there is an non-interventionist invisible deity somewhere in space and time (or outside of). I have rejected my belief in God. I say I am agnostic because I don't believe you can know. I'm basically too dumb to be an atheist.

I think the whole thing is distorted because of our starting position Dave. Atheism should be the natural starting position but because of human history that has changed. Even atheists think of their atheism from the starting point of rejecting a supreme being and in doing so their starting position is theism. They are starting at the wrong end of the spectrum as you clearly are. You are a theist who no longer accepts the existence of a deity, without evidence. Therefore you are looking for an answer. You are looking at atheism as an opposite to theism. You are looking at it to give you the answer your theism has not been able to give you. You are not alone. I'd suggest that very close to 100% of people on this board and in the UK & Ireland are in the same boat and very close to 100% of their children and grandchildren will be in the same boat. It has been standardised and our expectations and questions about life have been standardised.


Without that influence it would be possible to be an atheist who may or may not seek answers for life's secrets in science. Mostly we've been robbed of that opportunity because of societal influences which have seamlessly changed the starting point.....which may be by design or just a by product of centuries of religious societies.

Yes I'm definitely in that boat. Theism was my starting point and I don't feel I can go as far as Atheism. It is difficult to frame the universe and how we all fit in without a higher power, when it has underpinned so much of my ideology for so long. Although I found enormous freedom in taking the step to reject Christianity. I am curious as to how people do rationalise Atheism and sceptical of those who clearly cannot.

Did you actually believe there was a God Dave or were you just corralled into a church as a child and therefore accepted it? I know a lot of people who were corralled as children and never left that state of acceptance. I did.

Yes I was definitely coralled but I did make a conscious choice to affirm my faith as a teenager. I almost became a missionary!

[solidarity]

Thanks Baggy for those posts. Always good to cut through the ordure, but you don't cut through it by simply adding more.

I've no interest in philosophy but I do like to think a bit, purely recreationally You sound like a bundle of laughs.

btw trying to show me that Paris exists by telling me you've been there is what Christians call 'testimony'. Nice to see that you're adopting a religious approach to life. And if you say that I can go and visit Paris, that's a classical evangelistic technique, 'Come and share my experience.' To top it all, your rant in response to a decent discussion makes you a fundamentalist.

Welcome to the madhouse. At least the crack's good.

Chube Fundamentally of course.



You may stick your testimony, its a typical sadsack mentalist approach to us nonbelievers to attempt to ascribe your bullshite labels to us folk who know better.

Furthermore I was not "trying to show you anything" you clown, I am stating an irrefutable fact, if you want to play silly games that is your prerogative but leave me out, I can get all the bullshit I need without hearing it from you.

Incidentally, you are probably somewhat disappointed that I reduce matters to personal abuse, tough ould haun', I am well known for it. Normally however I am the soul of decency towards new posters but, hey, I'm happy to make an exception for you, I think you deserve it.

Didn't realise I came across like that. I apologise.

[solidarity]

I'm not sure though, that the default position of most people is theism, real theism. Is the evidence not that most people are either atheist or agnostic. Most churches aren't exactly bulging at the doors and a quick look round surely says that most people are, in practice, atheist or agnostic. Can you really believe in God and not respond to that in some meaningful way by listening to what purports to be his words and ordering your life accordingly? Certainly a fair number in NI will articulate some sort of cultural attachment to Christianity but does it really mean anything to most folk? Maybe a couple of generations ago there was a sort of Christian feel to many aspects of life but I don't think Church attendance ever topped 50%, at least for Prods, and today, I think we're a pretty secular bunch.

Not what was being put forward. You are talking about pratice and I am talking about the stating point influenced by societal norm. I think 44% claimed no religion in the last UK census but nobody asked about belief. Even if it was a gauge it is wildly inaccurate anyway because we already know that some theists will select the NO Religion box and some atheists will nominate a religion they feel culturally bound to...or indeed will select for darker reasons. Church attendance is no gauge of whether people think of themselves as atheists,not to mention the starting point for anybody in relation to their atheism, or theists for that matter. Religion has connections to supreme beings and the belief in them but that is all. Theism is a far wider matter than simple roll calls or membership cards of the different religions. Dave called it correctly earlier when he said that many folk when explaining their atheism will reference either God or one of the religions. They can't help it as that is their starting point.

Secularism also has nothing to do with this subject. One can be a theist and a secularist. Indeed I'd argue one has a civic and social responsibility and duty to be a secularist if one is a theist, unless one is supportive of restricting the rights of their fellow citizens.

You mention true theism. True theism is the belief in a supreme being or beings. It has nothing to do with most of what you mention in your post.

Fair point, simple roll calls are not all they're cracked up to be. I was thinking that belief and practice were more closely linked. Does belief in a supreme being not result in some sort of action that is more or less consistent with what the believer understands the supreme being to be?

What do you make of religious people who are not theists? I'm not sure myself.

[rorybestsbigbaldnoggin]

Have missed this thread almost completely. I'm not sure whether to be heartened by the genuine debate of theology, the role of religion in society and metaphysics, or pray ( ) all the harder for 22nd August to roll around until we get to the good stuff.

A few observations, some of which already discussed:

1. Lord of the Rings are a cracker set of books.


2. Dave, I would lean towards the view that when deciding 'does God exist?', the burden of proof lies on those who say yes.

I personally would, when asked, term myself an 'atheist'. This is because, from around the age of 18, I started thinking about that question. I started from the neutral premise of 'no God exists', then considered all the philosophical/logical arguments in favour of God (first cause, intelligent design, the other pertinent arguments - mainly Thomas Aquinas'), and found them wanting.

However - and this is a vital distinction - I am not 'categorically' atheist - I do not think it is possible for anyone to be. It is entirely possible that I'll die tomorrow and JC himself will be upstairs, waiting to blast me with a ray-gun as punishment for my lack of faith. What I am confident of, however, is that there is no single philosophical explanation, or combination thereof, that sufficiently backs up the claim that 'God' - an all-powerful, ever-present Creator - exists. If the argument is a logical one, I am 100% atheist. That 0.00000000000000000000000001% of doubt arises from the very fact that everyone on this board is mortal - if God exists, He (or She, or it) may well be an immortal, illogical being, by definition beyond the understanding of any of us.

This is a distinction, as Shan has alluded to, that many firebrand 'atheists' (Dawkins ) are unwilling to concede.



In any case, I'm philosophically happy to live my life day-to-day, enjoying my work, girlfriend and rugby, come what may when I land in the grave.

Yes the burden of proof is on the theist. Clearly there is no consensus on the definition of an atheist. For me it is a position declaring there is no God. There is no point asking a question like 'how do you know?' because you can't disprove there is an non-interventionist invisible deity somewhere in space and time (or outside of). I have rejected my belief in God. I say I am agnostic because I don't believe you can know. I'm basically too dumb to be an atheist.

I think the two of us agree on the definition of atheist.

I would call myself atheist if talking to someone who didn't have the theological/philosophical interest or knowledge to really argue the point. The more accurate answer, however, is your own - I am an agnostic. I am personally confident that there is no logical explanation for the existence of a monotheistic, all-powerful and ever-present 'God'* - that is not to say, however, that there is an illogical explanation that is quite simply beyond me, and/or everyone else. So yes, I'm "too dumb to be an atheist", but only to the same extent that every human is.



*For what it's worth, this sort of athe/agnosticism does not imply a big black hole where the heart should be. Spinoza has a model of pantheism which I find persuasive, which simply asserts that all existence is God ("God is Nature and Nature is God"). This God is not an agent of any sort, has no 'will' - in this view, something is not right or wrong, or good or bad - it simply is.

[rorybestsbigbaldnoggin]

I'm not sure though, that the default position of most people is theism, real theism. Is the evidence not that most people are either atheist or agnostic. Most churches aren't exactly bulging at the doors and a quick look round surely says that most people are, in practice, atheist or agnostic. Can you really believe in God and not respond to that in some meaningful way by listening to what purports to be his words and ordering your life accordingly? Certainly a fair number in NI will articulate some sort of cultural attachment to Christianity but does it really mean anything to most folk? Maybe a couple of generations ago there was a sort of Christian feel to many aspects of life but I don't think Church attendance ever topped 50%, at least for Prods, and today, I think we're a pretty secular bunch.

Not what was being put forward. You are talking about pratice and I am talking about the stating point influenced by societal norm. I think 44% claimed no religion in the last UK census but nobody asked about belief. Even if it was a gauge it is wildly inaccurate anyway because we already know that some theists will select the NO Religion box and some atheists will nominate a religion they feel culturally bound to...or indeed will select for darker reasons. Church attendance is no gauge of whether people think of themselves as atheists,not to mention the starting point for anybody in relation to their atheism, or theists for that matter. Religion has connections to supreme beings and the belief in them but that is all. Theism is a far wider matter than simple roll calls or membership cards of the different religions. Dave called it correctly earlier when he said that many folk when explaining their atheism will reference either God or one of the religions. They can't help it as that is their starting point.

Secularism also has nothing to do with this subject. One can be a theist and a secularist. Indeed I'd argue one has a civic and social responsibility and duty to be a secularist if one is a theist, unless one is supportive of restricting the rights of their fellow citizens.

You mention true theism. True theism is the belief in a supreme being or beings. It has nothing to do with most of what you mention in your post.

Fair point, simple roll calls are not all they're cracked up to be. I was thinking that belief and practice were more closely linked. Does belief in a supreme being not result in some sort of action that is more or less consistent with what the believer understands the supreme being to be?

What do you make of religious people who are not theists? I'm not sure myself.

Solidarity - out of curiosity, what would a non-theist religious person look like?

See my above post on Spinoza and pantheism - am I one of those yokes? I essentially consider myself a Spinozist existentialist: that is to say, my view is 'I don't think there is a God, but sure we'll never "know" in this lifetime, so let's have a bit of fun while we're here.'

[Wee Woman]

Everyone needs an anchor of some kind or other and a sense of belonging.

My anchor is my wonderfully inter-denominational family going back decades and decades.

Genealogy is a wonderful pastime and it provides me with my sense of belonging, even if my ancestors hail from Munster

[Dave]

Have missed this thread almost completely. I'm not sure whether to be heartened by the genuine debate of theology, the role of religion in society and metaphysics, or pray ( ) all the harder for 22nd August to roll around until we get to the good stuff.

A few observations, some of which already discussed:

1. Lord of the Rings are a cracker set of books.


2. Dave, I would lean towards the view that when deciding 'does God exist?', the burden of proof lies on those who say yes.

I personally would, when asked, term myself an 'atheist'. This is because, from around the age of 18, I started thinking about that question. I started from the neutral premise of 'no God exists', then considered all the philosophical/logical arguments in favour of God (first cause, intelligent design, the other pertinent arguments - mainly Thomas Aquinas'), and found them wanting.

However - and this is a vital distinction - I am not 'categorically' atheist - I do not think it is possible for anyone to be. It is entirely possible that I'll die tomorrow and JC himself will be upstairs, waiting to blast me with a ray-gun as punishment for my lack of faith. What I am confident of, however, is that there is no single philosophical explanation, or combination thereof, that sufficiently backs up the claim that 'God' - an all-powerful, ever-present Creator - exists. If the argument is a logical one, I am 100% atheist. That 0.00000000000000000000000001% of doubt arises from the very fact that everyone on this board is mortal - if God exists, He (or She, or it) may well be an immortal, illogical being, by definition beyond the understanding of any of us.

This is a distinction, as Shan has alluded to, that many firebrand 'atheists' (Dawkins ) are unwilling to concede.



In any case, I'm philosophically happy to live my life day-to-day, enjoying my work, girlfriend and rugby, come what may when I land in the grave.

Yes the burden of proof is on the theist. Clearly there is no consensus on the definition of an atheist. For me it is a position declaring there is no God. There is no point asking a question like 'how do you know?' because you can't disprove there is an non-interventionist invisible deity somewhere in space and time (or outside of). I have rejected my belief in God. I say I am agnostic because I don't believe you can know. I'm basically too dumb to be an atheist.

I think the two of us agree on the definition of atheist.

I would call myself atheist if talking to someone who didn't have the theological/philosophical interest or knowledge to really argue the point. The more accurate answer, however, is your own - I am an agnostic. I am personally confident that there is no logical explanation for the existence of a monotheistic, all-powerful and ever-present 'God'* - that is not to say, however, that there is an illogical explanation that is quite simply beyond me, and/or everyone else. So yes, I'm "too dumb to be an atheist", but only to the same extent that every human is.



*For what it's worth, this sort of athe/agnosticism does not imply a big black hole where the heart should be. Spinoza has a model of pantheism which I find persuasive, which simply asserts that all existence is God ("God is Nature and Nature is God"). This God is not an agent of any sort, has no 'will' - in this view, something is not right or wrong, or good or bad - it simply is.

Yes I do like pantheism, it was where I was heading theologically before I headed for the hills. I also was into dialectical theism, which acknowledges the dichotomy of belief in a supernatural God. Such as God is all loving yet there is suffering, omnipotent yet limited by deeds etc. It seems an honest attempt to reconcile some of the incongruent aspect of Christianity. Ultimately it was the bible the was the biggest obstacle to genuine faith for me. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts from the Christian's on this. The considering of the bible as the ' word of God ' was impossible to justify in my view. Although I'm sure my views are largely irrelevant now to any theists in my unbelief.