Atheism thread

[Norm]

Now, I could be wrong here as it's been a long time since I was interested in the bible (not as a believer, more a curious onlooker) but the idea that Mary was a virgin could just be a mis-translation from the original. I believe that the original word used in Greek could be interpretated as either virgin or young woman. 

 

If memory serves me right, there's quite a few bits of the bible that are poorly translated and can change the meaning or at least give rise to looking at it differently when looked at through the original text. 

 

Another reason why I find UAs and my in-laws version of Christianity better than Alfas. They're more along the lines of "Jesus was a good guy, let's be more like him." as opposed to the bible being the literal word of God. (Don't take that as belittling your belief or JC, UA, I'm sure we had this conversation before. Not my intent.) I will say, I respect Alfa's view even if I don't agree with it. 

 

If your church tells you something is a sin, then just because society tells you that something is acceptable, doesn't mean you change it. If God is real and your religion is right, **** what anyone else says. 

[shaun.lawson]

5 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

"Jesus was a good guy, let's be more like him."

 

I like this. Essentially, it's why I'll always defend religious moderates. Their faith does them good, often leads to them doing good in their community and so forth, and does no harm to others. All of which is a fundamentally good thing.

[hughesie27]

3 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

I like this. Essentially, it's why I'll always defend religious moderates. Their faith does them good, often leads to them doing good in their community and so forth, and does no harm to others. All of which is a fundamentally good thing.

The problem arises when the definition and morality of a "good thing" varies between individuals and groups.

[shaun.lawson]

Just now, hughesie27 said:

The problem arises when the definition and morality of a "good thing" varies between individuals and groups.

 

Very true. 

[Sidelight]

37 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

Now, I could be wrong here as it's been a long time since I was interested in the bible (not as a believer, more a curious onlooker) but the idea that Mary was a virgin could just be a mis-translation from the original. I believe that the original word used in Greek could be interpretated as either virgin or young woman. 

 

If memory serves me right, there's quite a few bits of the bible that are poorly translated and can change the meaning or at least give rise to looking at it differently when looked at through the original text. 

 

Another reason why I find UAs and my in-laws version of Christianity better than Alfas. They're more along the lines of "Jesus was a good guy, let's be more like him." as opposed to the bible being the literal word of God. (Don't take that as belittling your belief or JC, UA, I'm sure we had this conversation before. Not my intent.) I will say, I respect Alfa's view even if I don't agree with it. 

 

If your church tells you something is a sin, then just because society tells you that something is acceptable, doesn't mean you change it. If God is real and your religion is right, **** what anyone else says. 

Your honesty and decency are refreshing.

[Governor Tarkin]

54 minutes ago, alfajambo said:

Your honesty and decency are refreshing.

 

Norm?

Decent?

 

 

 

[Ulysses]

 

7 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

Norm?

Decent?

 

 

 

 

 

I think hughesie27 captured the essence of the problem when he said:

 

1 hour ago, hughesie27 said:

The problem arises when the definition and morality of a "good thing" varies between individuals and groups.

 

[Sidelight]

2 hours ago, Normthebarman said:

Now, I could be wrong here as it's been a long time since I was interested in the bible (not as a believer, more a curious onlooker) but the idea that Mary was a virgin could just be a mis-translation from the original. I believe that the original word used in Greek could be interpretated as either virgin or young woman. 

 

If memory serves me right, there's quite a few bits of the bible that are poorly translated and can change the meaning or at least give rise to looking at it differently when looked at through the original text. 

 

Another reason why I find UAs and my in-laws version of Christianity better than Alfas. They're more along the lines of "Jesus was a good guy, let's be more like him." as opposed to the bible being the literal word of God. (Don't take that as belittling your belief or JC, UA, I'm sure we had this conversation before. Not my intent.) I will say, I respect Alfa's view even if I don't agree with it. 

 

If your church tells you something is a sin, then just because society tells you that something is acceptable, doesn't mean you change it. If God is real and your religion is right, **** what anyone else says. 

I don’t write this to cause offence to anyone. The rendering is simple.

Christianity is built on, centred on the person of Jesus Christ and the relationship a person has with him.

Jesus in his life made some extraordinary claims, not least him being the Son of God.

He also fully accepted the Old Testament as the Word of God.

If as many Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then you simply cannot remove/alter, redefine sections of the text because it doesn’t suit.

Creation in 6 days, the text is clear it means six 24 hr periods. The best Hebrew scholars agree on that. However the world says that can’t be, and many Christians agree. Let’s rip it out and call it poetry they say.

Adam and Eve, made on day six. You can’t be serious. Rip it out.

Noah’s ‘Worldwide Flood’, uniformist-evolution says ‘no way’. Rip it out and call it a myth.

Jesus born from a virgin. It’s just a story. Rip it out.

The miracles of Jesus. They are just exaggerated stories. Science can explain then any way. Rip then out.

The Resurrection of Christ. It’s symbolic, it didn’t happen like it says in the bible. Rip it out.

Jesus Christ will return soon. We are still waiting. Rip it out.

The Bible claims to be the Word of God, when you start to rip out and redefine the pages that you don’t like, what are you left with?

When Jesus Christ died on the cross the world was split apart. People had the choice to make, to accept the redeeming message of Christ or reject it. A free choice to make.

Likewise people can accept the Bible as the Word of God or reject it. But to change it is not an option.

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by alfajambo

[Ulysses]

15 minutes ago, alfajambo said:

 

Adam and Eve, made on day six. You can’t be serious. Rip it out.

 

I wouldn't suggest editing the document for a moment.  But you have to understand that when the document was written, the people who wrote it might possibly have confused the number 6 with the number 5,040,376,950,000 (or thereabouts). 

 

It was on the 5,040,400,000,000th day, give or take a couple of million days, that the first human was created.  A lot of stuff had to go down first; you know how it is.

 

We actually can't say for sure whether the first human was a boy or a girl, though some sources suggest that there is more likelihood it was a girl (something to do with mitochondrial DNA).  Either way the person wouldn't have been called Adam or Eve, because those words only came into existence about 190,000-200,000 years or so after that.

[Ray Gin]

38 minutes ago, alfajambo said:

I don’t write this to cause offence to anyone. The rendering is simple.

Christianity is built on, centred on the person of Jesus Christ and the relationship a person has with him.

Jesus in his life made some extraordinary claims, not least him being the Son of God.

He also fully accepted the Old Testament as the Word of God.

If as many Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then you simply cannot remove/alter, redefine sections of the text because it doesn’t suit.

Creation in 6 days, the text is clear it means six 24 hr periods. The best Hebrew scholars agree on that. However the world says that can’t be, and many Christians agree. Let’s rip it out and call it poetry they say.

Adam and Eve, made on day six. You can’t be serious. Rip it out.

Noah’s ‘Worldwide Flood’, uniformist-evolution says ‘no way’. Rip it out and call it a myth.

Jesus born from a virgin. It’s just a story. Rip it out.

The miracles of Jesus. They are just exaggerated stories. Science can explain then any way. Rip then out.

The Resurrection of Christ. It’s symbolic, it didn’t happen like it says in the bible. Rip it out.

Jesus Christ will return soon. We are still waiting. Rip it out.

The Bible claims to be the Word of God, when you start to rip out and redefine the pages that you don’t like, what are you left with?

When Jesus Christ died on the cross the world was split apart. People had the choice to make, to accept the redeeming message of Christ or reject it. A free choice to make.

Likewise people can accept the Bible as the Word of God or reject it. But to change it is not an option.

 

 

So you actually believe all that stuff?

 

And that Noah was 900 years old?

 

Plus the guy who lived inside a whale for 3 days.

 

[Unknown user]

48 minutes ago, alfajambo said:

I don’t write this to cause offence to anyone. The rendering is simple.

Christianity is built on, centred on the person of Jesus Christ and the relationship a person has with him.

Jesus in his life made some extraordinary claims, not least him being the Son of God.

He also fully accepted the Old Testament as the Word of God.

If as many Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then you simply cannot remove/alter, redefine sections of the text because it doesn’t suit.

Creation in 6 days, the text is clear it means six 24 hr periods. The best Hebrew scholars agree on that. However the world says that can’t be, and many Christians agree. Let’s rip it out and call it poetry they say.

Adam and Eve, made on day six. You can’t be serious. Rip it out.

Noah’s ‘Worldwide Flood’, uniformist-evolution says ‘no way’. Rip it out and call it a myth.

Jesus born from a virgin. It’s just a story. Rip it out.

The miracles of Jesus. They are just exaggerated stories. Science can explain then any way. Rip then out.

The Resurrection of Christ. It’s symbolic, it didn’t happen like it says in the bible. Rip it out.

Jesus Christ will return soon. We are still waiting. Rip it out.

The Bible claims to be the Word of God, when you start to rip out and redefine the pages that you don’t like, what are you left with?

When Jesus Christ died on the cross the world was split apart. People had the choice to make, to accept the redeeming message of Christ or reject it. A free choice to make.

Likewise people can accept the Bible as the Word of God or reject it. But to change it is not an option.

 

You and Bill Hicks agree on this point at least, but changing it and interpreting it is indeed an option, just one that you don't like. 

 

Fundamentalism can be very dangerous, in all religions, as it leads to inflexible viewpoints - there is literally no persuading a fundamentalist, as you know yourself

[Justin Z]

5 hours ago, Smithee said:

You and Bill Hicks agree on this point at least, but changing it and interpreting it is indeed an option, just one that you don't like. 

 

Fundamentalism can be very dangerous, in all religions, as it leads to inflexible viewpoints - there is literally no persuading a fundamentalist, as you know yourself

 

No to mention there isn't a snowball's that any extant writing we possess in the modern day is the pure original writing. They have all been copied, altered, redacted . . .  ad nauseam.

 

Hell, even the mere act of translation is still changing the original written document.

 

Fundamentalism is a disease of the mind.

[Norm]

9 hours ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

Norm?

Decent?

 

 

 

Hey! That's...... That's....... Nah, you got me there. 

[Norm]

9 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

 

I think hughesie27 captured the essence of the problem when he said:

The problem arises when the definition and morality of a "good thing" varies between individuals and groups.

 

Also true, although a problem that affects atheists as much as religious folk. 

[Unknown user]

3 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

No to mention there isn't a snowball's that any extant writing we possess in the modern day is the pure original writing. They have all been copied, altered, redacted . . .  ad nauseam.

 

Hell, even the mere act of translation is still changing the original written document.

 

Fundamentalism is a disease of the mind.

Yep, it's practically impossible to translate any lengthy text precisely, even without mistakes. Two different guys will come up with two different versions, something I hadn't appreciated til I was learning dutch myself - languages never directly translate for long, they work in different ways. 

 

I have to wonder, if new discoveries were made, ancient texts found, and it could be proved that the original texts had been translated incorrectly, would fundamentalists accept what the original texts say over what they've lived their lives by?

[Governor Tarkin]

3 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

I have to wonder, if new discoveries were made, ancient texts found, and it could be proved that the original texts had been translated incorrectly, would fundamentalists accept what the original texts say over what they've lived their lives by?

 

We'd have ourselves a good old-fashioned schism.

Possibly a bloody one.

[Justin Z]

No retranslation needed here though. Ooft. You forget just how depraved a character the god in these stories is until you go back and have a look again.

 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by Justin Z

[LesJambes]

13 hours ago, Smithee said:

Yep, it's practically impossible to translate any lengthy text precisely, even without mistakes. Two different guys will come up with two different versions, something I hadn't appreciated til I was learning dutch myself - languages never directly translate for long, they work in different ways. 

 

I have to wonder, if new discoveries were made, ancient texts found, and it could be proved that the original texts had been translated incorrectly, would fundamentalists accept what the original texts say over what they've lived their lives by?

That happened with the dead sea scrolls. For the most part I think they just ignored them, or called them fake.

[Ulysses]

16 hours ago, Smithee said:

Yep, it's practically impossible to translate any lengthy text precisely, even without mistakes.

 

Or even a short piece.

 

In English, you might say "the only way to get there is on foot".

 

You can't say that in Irish.  There are words, and you can say them directly as a translation, but they are meaningless.  In Irish, the right way of saying that is "ní féidir dul ann ach é a shiúil".  If you translate that back into English directly, it reads "you cannot go there but by walking it".  If I said that in English you'd know what I mean - but it's lousy English.

[shaun.lawson]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Or even a short piece.

 

In English, you might say "the only way to get there is on foot".

 

You can't say that in Irish.  There are words, and you can say them directly as a translation, but they are meaningless.  In Irish, the right way of saying that is "ní féidir dul ann ach é a shiúil".  If you translate that back into English directly, it reads "you cannot go there but by walking it".  If I said that in English you'd know what I mean - but it's lousy English.

 

Which rather neatly sums up the nightmare my students face. I do translation exercises with them - English to Spanish and back to English - to see what's going on in their heads, what grammatical issues and blocks they have. As you say, little of it ultimately makes sense. 

[Unknown user]

15 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Or even a short piece.

 

In English, you might say "the only way to get there is on foot".

 

You can't say that in Irish.  There are words, and you can say them directly as a translation, but they are meaningless.  In Irish, the right way of saying that is "ní féidir dul ann ach é a shiúil".  If you translate that back into English directly, it reads "you cannot go there but by walking it".  If I said that in English you'd know what I mean - but it's lousy English.

Exactly, you can't translate word for word so you just have to try and nail the meaning, and hope there are no idioms! (My favourite idiom in dutch btw, their version of nit-picking - it translates to ant-****ing)

[Justin Z]

I'd never seen this before . . .

 

'Duck Dynasty' star fantasizes about the rape and murder of an atheist family

 

Sometimes I feel like the best part of being away from the United States is being away from the far-too-large swath of people that are like this. It's honestly shit being an atheist in the US. It's getting better, but it's still far from good.

[Maple Leaf]

20 hours ago, Justin Z said:

I'd never seen this before . . .

 

'Duck Dynasty' star fantasizes about the rape and murder of an atheist family

 

Sometimes I feel like the best part of being away from the United States is being away from the far-too-large swath of people that are like this. It's honestly shit being an atheist in the US. It's getting better, but it's still far from good.

 

George Bush senior, when he was President, said that atheists are not real American citizens.

 

Chuck Norris has said that he would like to tattoo the foreheads of all atheists with the words "In God we trust".

 

I'm guessing that tolerance isn't a value they consider important.

[Justin Z]

Never have I seen a group so outwardly strident and yet so obviously insecure (about what, I wonder?) as American Evangelical Christians.

[Justin Z]

Another nice meme for the "two sides of the same coin" crowd.

 

[Ulysses]

22 hours ago, Smithee said:

 (My favourite idiom in dutch btw, their version of nit-picking - it translates to ant-****ing)

 

[shaun.lawson]

2 hours ago, Justin Z said:

Another nice meme for the "two sides of the same coin" crowd.

 

 

Meh. A meme is a meme is a meme. I'd encourage critical thinking in anyone about almost anything; but I'd never encourage acting superior to others and looking down on them because of their (by and large, harmless) faith system. 

 

Do I believe in God? The simple answer is I don't know, and will never know until I'm gone. I'm very comfortable with that; there are some things in life (and death) which I don't want to know. But I will never believe that science explains everything in this world. I think there's plenty of mystery, spirituality and the unexplained. Even, on the odd occasion, magic.

 

My ex-girlfriend has been through the most horrendous trauma at different points in her life. Her religious background clearly messed her up to an extent - but by the same token, if it wasn't for her relationship with and faith in God, she wouldn't be here. She'd never have got through it. The same applies with all sorts of people all over the world: her faith was what gave her the belief and motivation to carry on and endure.

 

Uruguay is by far the most irreligious country in South America. I'm simultaneously very proud of its secular, moderate traditions, but also aware of a flipside: because Uruguayans suffer from a profound identity crisis. It's the only country in Latin America to have killed all its indigenous people - and the vast majority of people here are descended from Spain or Italy. Given how few people internationally have even heard of Uruguay, when you combine these factors together, Uruguayans essentially don't know who they are. And they don't have the religion which might give them the sense of identity and belonging they clearly lack... so football is the national religion instead. Without football, goodness knows what they'd do.

 

Identity and belonging are vital to anyone. We all have varying forms of it. Yet that's what faith gives so many. We European sceptics or non-believers are very much in a global minority on matters of religion; sorry, but this doesn't make us better or smarter. It just makes us different. And when I've observed so many young or middle-aged Britons get falling down incapable on a regular basis - when I note just how prevalent mental illness has become in the so-called First World - I find myself noting just how empty so many people's lives seem to be. 

 

Believe in what you want; don't believe in what you want. But don't look down on things you don't or choose not to understand. Moderate atheists don't feel the need to shout from the rooftops about how awful religion is, because they're comfortable with themselves and their beliefs. Extreme atheists are rather different - and all too often, it is indeed like looking in a mirror.

[LesJambes]

9 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Meh. A meme is a meme is a meme. I'd encourage critical thinking in anyone about almost anything; but I'd never encourage acting superior to others and looking down on them because of their (by and large, harmless) faith system. 

 

Do I believe in God? The simple answer is I don't know, and will never know until I'm gone. I'm very comfortable with that; there are some things in life (and death) which I don't want to know. But I will never believe that science explains everything in this world. I think there's plenty of mystery, spirituality and the unexplained. Even, on the odd occasion, magic.

 

My ex-girlfriend has been through the most horrendous trauma at different points in her life. Her religious background clearly messed her up to an extent - but by the same token, if it wasn't for her relationship with and faith in God, she wouldn't be here. She'd never have got through it. The same applies with all sorts of people all over the world: her faith was what gave her the belief and motivation to carry on and endure.

 

Uruguay is by far the most irreligious country in South America. I'm simultaneously very proud of its secular, moderate traditions, but also aware of a flipside: because Uruguayans suffer from a profound identity crisis. It's the only country in Latin America to have killed all its indigenous people - and the vast majority of people here are descended from Spain or Italy. Given how few people internationally have even heard of Uruguay, when you combine these factors together, Uruguayans essentially don't know who they are. And they don't have the religion which might give them the sense of identity and belonging they clearly lack... so football is the national religion instead. Without football, goodness knows what they'd do.

 

Identity and belonging are vital to anyone. We all have varying forms of it. Yet that's what faith gives so many. We European sceptics or non-believers are very much in a global minority on matters of religion; sorry, but this doesn't make us better or smarter. It just makes us different. And when I've observed so many young or middle-aged Britons get falling down incapable on a regular basis - when I note just how prevalent mental illness has become in the so-called First World - I find myself noting just how empty so many people's lives seem to be. 

 

Believe in what you want; don't believe in what you want. But don't look down on things you don't or choose not to understand. Moderate atheists don't feel the need to shout from the rooftops about how awful religion is, because they're comfortable with themselves and their beliefs. Extreme atheists are rather different - and all too often, it is indeed like looking in a mirror.

Here is your Humanitarian of the Decade Award, congratulations to you!
?

 

[LesJambes]

TRIGGER WARNING: here are more of those nasty memes that some find so offensive. If you are of a sensitive nature please feel free to avert your gaze, or avoid this thread entirely.

 

[Justin Z]

I do honestly wish I could take the same stance as you about the innocuity of religion. It would mean not being an antitheist, which would be a nicer position to hold. But given experience, personal and otherwise, that's not possible.

 

Dare I say it, your girlfriend very well may have gotten through without belief in an imaginary being just fine. Since she was one way, and not another, there's really no way for us to know. I have known suicidal believers and nonbelievers. From what I've seen, belief in a deity has nothing to do with helping someone to cope with anything, and nonbelievers find something else to be their "rock". Either way, both sets of experience are anecdotal red herrings, and yours is also a sort of fallacious appeal to pity/relief of misery. Each represents but one tiny aspect of the overall effect magical beliefs (or the lack thereof) have on the world. My contention remains that the net effect is measurable, and negative, and whether a single person you know has remained alive because of it does next to nothing to affect that contention one way or another. Obviously I am glad for you and for your girlfriend, but it doesn't change that using her as an example is a logical fallacy.

 

Likewise, your contention about identities and Uruguay. Lots of sources of identity exist. Religion is not necessary for identity. And indeed, you even said, "goodness knows what they might do", which is exactly the same, correct response to the question about your girlfriend's tribulations--we don't know, but based on the available evidence, I continue to contend they would find another identity.

 

1If demanding evidence for beliefs makes me or any other skeptic "better" than someone who professes evidence-free beliefs, from dowsing to crystal healing, well then I guess we're better. But neither I nor the meme have said something like that. My beef is with magical, uncritical thinking, not the masses who engage in it. Their leaders, sure, f*** them, especially those who know exactly what they're doing, from William Lane Craig to David Avocado Wolfe.

 

Finally, "Moderate atheists don't feel the need to shout from the rooftops about how awful religion is, because they're comfortable with themselves and their beliefs" is quite an ad hominem dressed as a non-sequitur. Based on what I've read from you in the past few days, I'm confident you're capable of far better than that.

[Norm]

13 hours ago, Justin Z said:

Another nice meme for the "two sides of the same coin" crowd.

 

From what I can gather from a report in the news today, according to the pope, no one is eternally tortured. Hell does not exist. Non believers just disappear in to nothingness, which is pretty much what we thought would happen. 

 

And as I understand it, if the pope says this, it has to be true. According to Catholics anyway. So yay! Even if I am wrong and the Catholic religion is true, I'm still not burning for eternity. Which will be nice. 

 

Be even nicer if they could stop tamperfering with kids though. 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Normthebarman

[LesJambes]

2 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

From what I can gather from a report in the news today, according to the pope, no one is eternally tortured. Hell does not exist. Non believers just disappear in to nothingness, which is pretty much what we thought would happen. 

 

And as I understand it, if the pope says this, it has to be true. According to Catholics anyway. So yay! Even if I am wrong and the Catholic religion is true, I'm still not burning for eternity. Which will be nice. 

 

Be even nicer if they could stop tamperfering with kids though. 

He was kind enough to say atheists don't lack morals as well. Nice to know the Nazi-collaborating pedophile protecting cult doesn't think we're all evil anymore!  I can sleep soundly at nights now knowing that!  

[Justin Z]

Just now, Normthebarman said:

From what I can gather from a report in the news today, according to the pope no one is eternally tortured. Hell does not exist. None believers just disappear in to nothingness, which is pretty much what we thought would happen. 

 

And as I understand it, if the pope says this, it has to be true. According to Catholics anyway. So yay! Even if I am wrong and the Catholic religion is true, I'm still not burning for eternity. Which will be nice. 

 

Nice! What a relief. We can all breathe easier now.

 

Nice change from last month where the Vatican announced a week-long conference on exorcisms and demonic possession . . .

 

One of the organizers of the Sicily gathering, Friar Beningo Palilla, told Vatican Radio there are some 500,000 cases requiring exorcism in Italy each year.

He blames the increase in recent years on a growing number of people seeking the services of fortune tellers and Tarot readers. Such practices "open the door to the devil and to possession," he said.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Normthebarman said:

From what I can gather from a report in the news today, according to the pope no one is eternally tortured. Hell does not exist. None believers just disappear in to nothingness, which is pretty much what we thought would happen. 

 

And as I understand it, if the pope says this, it has to be true. According to Catholics anyway. So yay! Even if I am wrong and the Catholic religion is true, I'm still not burning for eternity. Which will be nice. 

Yeah I was reading this too, and as you say the pope is God's representative on earth and his word is gospel. The only thing is that it's reported by a retired newspaper editor who still has a column, and from memory as he didn't take notes or record the conversation. 

[Justin Z]

Just now, LesJambes said:

He was kind enough to say atheists don't lack morals as well. Nice to know the Nazi-collaborating pedophile protecting cult doesn't think we're all evil anymore!  I can sleep soundly at nights now knowing that!  

 

To be fair, I mostly like Francis, but that's on a comparative scale for measuring popes, and it's not like it's terribly difficult to get very high up that list if you're even half-decent.

[Ray Gin]

 

10 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Uruguay is by far the most irreligious country in South America. I'm simultaneously very proud of its secular, moderate traditions, but also aware of a flipside: because Uruguayans suffer from a profound identity crisis. It's the only country in Latin America to have killed all its indigenous people - and the vast majority of people here are descended from Spain or Italy. Given how few people internationally have even heard of Uruguay, when you combine these factors together, Uruguayans essentially don't know who they are. And they don't have the religion which might give them the sense of identity and belonging they clearly lack... so football is the national religion instead. Without football, goodness knows what they'd do.

 

Congratulations on one of the most absurd justifications for religion I have heard. People don't know who they are otherwise.

 

 

[LesJambes]

 

1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

Congratulations on one of the most absurd justifications for religion I have heard. People don't know who they are otherwise.

 

 

Maybe Scientologists or the People's Temple can move in on this vaccuum of national identity and give them a real purpose and meaning in life!

[Ray Gin]

1 hour ago, LesJambes said:

 

Maybe Scientologists or the People's Temple can move in on this vaccuum of national identity and give them a real purpose and meaning in life!

 

As a religion free man who isn't sure if he's Scottish, British or European maybe they can rescue me, I'm in absolute turmoil here. 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Sorry to have stepped out of this thread for a bit (tho maybe you're not... :lol:), too much going on at work and some really good stuff came up that I want to treat fairly and I haven't had the time to devote to it.

 

Hope everyone has either a good Friday or a Good Friday, as they so choose.

[LesJambes]

1 hour ago, Ugly American said:

Sorry to have stepped out of this thread for a bit (tho maybe you're not... :lol:), too much going on at work and some really good stuff came up that I want to treat fairly and I haven't had the time to devote to it.

 

Hope everyone has either a good Friday or a Good Friday, as they so choose.

Well I for one am giddy with anticipation for your next tome on the benefits of theocracy and the evils of secularism.

[Gorgiewave]

Shaun's favourite worksheet at his school:

 

[shaun.lawson]

8 hours ago, Justin Z said:

I do honestly wish I could take the same stance as you about the innocuity of religion. It would mean not being an antitheist, which would be a nicer position to hold. But given experience, personal and otherwise, that's not possible.

 

Dare I say it, your girlfriend very well may have gotten through without belief in an imaginary being just fine. Since she was one way, and not another, there's really no way for us to know. I have known suicidal believers and nonbelievers. From what I've seen, belief in a deity has nothing to do with helping someone to cope with anything, and nonbelievers find something else to be their "rock". Either way, both sets of experience are anecdotal red herrings, and yours is also a sort of fallacious appeal to pity/relief of misery. Each represents but one tiny aspect of the overall effect magical beliefs (or the lack thereof) have on the world. My contention remains that the net effect is measurable, and negative, and whether a single person you know has remained alive because of it does next to nothing to affect that contention one way or another. Obviously I am glad for you and for your girlfriend, but it doesn't change that using her as an example is a logical fallacy.

 

Likewise, your contention about identities and Uruguay. Lots of sources of identity exist. Religion is not necessary for identity. And indeed, you even said, "goodness knows what they might do", which is exactly the same, correct response to the question about your girlfriend's tribulations--we don't know, but based on the available evidence, I continue to contend they would find another identity.

 

1If demanding evidence for beliefs makes me or any other skeptic "better" than someone who professes evidence-free beliefs, from dowsing to crystal healing, well then I guess we're better. But neither I nor the meme have said something like that. My beef is with magical, uncritical thinking, not the masses who engage in it. Their leaders, sure, f*** them, especially those who know exactly what they're doing, from William Lane Craig to David Avocado Wolfe.

 

Finally, "Moderate atheists don't feel the need to shout from the rooftops about how awful religion is, because they're comfortable with themselves and their beliefs" is quite an ad hominem dressed as a non-sequitur. Based on what I've read from you in the past few days, I'm confident you're capable of far better than that.

 

 

Well no, no it isn't. When I referred to "extreme atheists", I didn't mean you. It was your choice to impute that I did. I have a problem with interfering intolerance of most things. 

 

Experience - mostly personal - is usually what informs most of our worldviews. You've experienced the thick end of the wedge in the US: a bizarre country, which claims to be religious while practicing pretty much the complete opposite of Christ's teachings. I've experienced an entirely secular background in the UK, before mostly (but not solely) in my job as a teacher, going on to meet many of the best people I've ever met, both there and where I live now. 

 

In particular, these people included Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis I taught at a shambolic, disgraceful school near Oxford. Most of them were believers; most of them were kind, gentle, generous to a tee. 7 years on, I'm still in touch with a few of them. And their humility would put most Britons to shame. 

 

Atheists often refer to themselves as "humanists". I'm a humanist too; just a different kind. I'd sum up my humanism as: "I want human beings to have the chance to be happy. And I especially want human beings experiencing adversity to be understood and empathised with". Most of the world's believers grow up in horrendously poor places. There is no doubt in my mind that their belief is what enables them to embrace these often horribly difficult circumstances - yet the response of too many in the West is to judge them. Just as, in our increasingly irreligious society, we Britons increasingly judge and stigmatise our own poor, unemployed, infirm, disabled, refugees, or immigrants. That's a society gone very very wrong. 

 

It's gone so wrong that even "do-gooders" is employed as a perjorative term. What - so we'd prefer "do-badders" instead? A genuine Christian country takes care of its underprivileged. We don't - we actually scorn and attack them instead, in a society which celebrates and encourages selfishness. And we think we're better?

 

Lastly, on my ex-girlfriend: no, it's not a "logical fallacy" or a "red herring" at all. She's a human being. Real human stories are what matter to me. "Net effects" (based, as far as I can see, on nothing more than your own personal experience) do not. 

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

8 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

Congratulations on one of the most absurd justifications for religion I have heard. People don't know who they are otherwise.

 

 

 

That's not a problem that British (or Scottish) people face because Britain and Scotland are famous around the world. Uruguay is not. When abroad, Uruguayans are frequently asked: "Uruguay? Is that in Argentina? Africa?" Hence, to some extent, their adulation for Luis Suarez, because he's done more than any other Uruguayan to end that.

 

If it wasn't for football, no-one would've heard of Uruguay. But everyone needs a sense of identity. As religion has faded in Europe, football has become ever more popular instead - and that's not a coincidence. 

 

- Blind faith.

- No control over the outcome.

- Gathering every other weekend to sing songs, point fingers at and in the worst cases, physically attack those who believe in something else.

- Worship of various individuals - before turning on and accusing them of treachery if they move to another church.

- A common sense of brother and sisterhood.

- Accusing other believers of not having strong enough beliefs (which we see on this forum every single day).

- Ruptures between those with most blind faith and those with least.

 

And so on, and so on.

[Justin Z]

22 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

Well no, no it isn't. When I referred to "extreme atheists", I didn't mean you. It was your choice to impute that I did. I have a problem with interfering intolerance of most things.

 

I appreciate that, but for clarity I didn't think you specifically meant me anyway--that's not the impression I've gotten of you as a person and a debater. But it was still an ad hom in the end, even if not directed at me.

 

23 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

Experience - mostly personal - is usually what informs most of our worldviews. You've experienced the thick end of the wedge in the US: a bizarre country, which claims to be religious while practicing pretty much the complete opposite of Christ's teachings. I've experienced an entirely secular background in the UK, before mostly (but not solely) in my job as a teacher, going on to meet many of the best people I've ever met, both there and where I live now.

 

That's absolutely true but also something I try (and often fail) to avoid. I feel it best to have a holistic view of the entire question, where possible. I'm obviously going to have bias coming from the States, as you said. But, well, there are plenty of places outside my personal experience that do affect my overall understanding of the issue. Muslim apostates who fear for their lives are a sad example out of many.

 

26 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

In particular, these people included Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis I taught at a shambolic, disgraceful school near Oxford. Most of them were believers; most of them were kind, gentle, generous to a tee. 7 years on, I'm still in touch with a few of them. And their humility would put most Britons to shame.

 

To be fair, this isn't difficult. And I say that as a Yank! As a total tangent, I have kind of naturally deconstructed Scottish identity from British, and generally speaking, those traits which are unique to Scots I tend to enjoy a lot more. You're simply "my kind of people". Everyone's different of course, but Scotland and Scottish attitudes make me feel infinitely more at ease than the more generalised/assimilated "British" ones.

 

28 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

It's gone so wrong that even "do-gooders" is employed as a perjorative term. What - so we'd prefer "do-badders" instead? A genuine Christian country takes care of its underprivileged. We don't - we actually scorn and attack them instead, in a society which celebrates and encourages selfishness. And we think we're better?

 

This is also kind of a digression but you're right, it's terribly sad. SJW is another one. It's these sorts of attitudes that led me to leave the US in the first place--mainly because I'm a quitter. But no seriously . . . It's better in Scotland but still in need of massive improvement.

 

29 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

Lastly, on my ex-girlfriend: no, it's not a "logical fallacy" or a "red herring" at all. She's a human being. Real human stories are what matter to me. "Net effects" (based, as far as I can see, on nothing more than your own personal experience) do not.

 

As a person with a sociology-based undergrad degree, I have an especially warm place for personal stories and their impact on our understanding of humanity as a whole. But they're still anecdotal. My comment on your girlfriend's circumstances wasn't meant as an attack or even a criticism, mild or otherwise. My objection is the level/weight you seem to be giving it (and understandably so, to be clear), as to whether the hegemony of religion and magical thinking, worldwide, is a good thing or not. It still begs the question--it inherently assumes she'd have had nothing else to "hold onto", and that only religion could provide that. There is so much unsaid premise built into it, that properly analysed I don't think it does anything for your argument.

 

As an aside, but a related one because of your other post--having spoken to multiple people of Latvian descent in Scotland, they blame Christianity in large part for a serious loss of their own cultural identity. They long for the days of their animistic, pagan religion and traditions. And I mean, can you blame them? Look at this woman wearing a traditional flower wreath during the Summer Solstice celebrations . . .

 

The Baltic Crusades destroyed a lot of this for centuries. Thankfully they can now harken back to it, but the point I'm making here is that it's not like it's practised religion for them now. It's history and identity--the religious aspect of it is 100% irrelevant and entirely unnecessary for it to form a basis for their continued identity. As a new country, Uruguay faces different identity challenges. But just like I said before, I think it's question begging to presume religion holds some sort of unique ability to convey any kind of cultural identity anywhere.

[Ulysses]

9 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

Congratulations on one of the most absurd justifications for religion I have heard. People don't know who they are otherwise.

 

 

 

 

One imagines that Uruguayans killed all their indigenous people with a passion and intensity few other South American colonial interlopers could match. 

[shaun.lawson]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

One imagines that Uruguayans killed all their indigenous people with a passion and intensity few other South American colonial interlopers could match. 

 

They sure did.  And they commemorate those they slaughtered with said passion and intensity by having the Estadio Charrua (named after the indigenous people) in the middle of the Parque Rivera (named after the general who was more responsible than anyone else for, er, killing them). 

 

As with many things about Uruguay, it's all very .

[shaun.lawson]

Really enjoyable post Justin, thanks hugely for that. I have nothing to add to it really - except to say, thanks for the kind words, provoking my thoughts and the background on Latvia, which is very interesting.

 

Incidentally, I should clarify that I'm not Scottish. The image below should give you some idea of what some people have told me I sound like.

 

[ri Alban]

Happy Easter!

 

Please try not to choke on your eggs.

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43601925

 

These believers don't seem to have much faith in their god helping them, now? Hope they spend the rest of their lives in extreme pain.

[The_razors_edge]

6 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Happy Easter!

 

Please try not to choke on your eggs.