- This topic has 162 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 10 months ago by
.
-
3 users thanked author for this post.
‘My interpretation is that JI accepts the scientific findings, like the age of the Earth, but sees it as guidance from God.’
Ah, that I understand. Is that a fair reflection of your thinking JI?
1 user thanked author for this post.
I mean irritation towards JI.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Questioning his post and expressing my opinion is not done for the purpose of irritating JI.
Constant talk of mockery, irritation, ganging up, personal abuse is irritating me!!!!
If people don’t agree with your point of view deal with it.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Made that clear Heath 😀
1 user thanked author for this post.
I wasn’t suggesting your post was a ‘wrong un’ JI. Yes, I might have a look again at some point but tbh, if I need to work harder to understand concepts, I’m not sure I’m really inclined to, at this stage of my life. That goes for both Philosophy and Theology concepts btw. More interested in concepts that are easier to understand quickly. Then again, I’m not searching for some absolute truth.
1 user thanked author for this post.
“You didn’t say why it seems self evident to you from that experience that there can be no Creator.”
Because in the Abrahamic religions the universe is earth-centric. “Heretics” were burned at the stake for declaring that the Earth orbited the Sun.
That and the fact that the age of the Earth is set at around 6-7,000 years.
As I said previously it is nonsense. The creation story was a simple explanation to placate people who were by our modern day standards unintelligent and superstitious.
We’ve moved on from that. We shouldn’t in 2023 be believing Bible stories any more than we do Greek or Norse mythology.
Religious texts generally give finite explanations. We know that science is not finite and that we are learning and expanding our knowledge all the time.
Just don’t get why religion is still a thing.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Totally agree with the penultimate paragraph
1 user thanked author for this post.
Really, all this wriggling and twisting to explain why we shouldn’t be concerned with what the bible doesn’t say about dinosaurs or fossils! It really is comical.
Much of it is like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. In fact, if we took the word God out of many of these comments you could be forgiven for thinking the author was a raving loony, with post after post of intensely written guff.
Each to their own, but religion always was a human construct to explain the universe to people who didn’t know any better.
So, what to do? Here’s a suggestion. Most people don’t question the reality they inhabit, or why they see things the way they do, but they should. Why? Because it’s enlightening.
For example, JI, do you ever open your mind and ask yourself questions about why you think the way you do? For example, how reliable are the sources and people who tell you about what’s going on in the world? (Or for that matter, who or what led you to think that someone like Biden is your candidate for Idiot of the Year?)
Do you ever wonder why so many people just think that all religions were just made up; that they are exotic fabrications to explain life, death, disease, suffering, using the best information the society had at the time? That religion was just a way to answer the huge, troubling mysteries, which badly needed a comforting explanation?
Well, with the rise of science and knowledge of evolution, many now don’t see any need to believe in a god. They see ‘holy’ books of all religions for what they are – just made up stories which were created to comfort the masses.
BPG the same – if you only get your information from the popular press and the Church, it’s not surprising you think the way you do. So, if someone comes along and gives you a scientific explanation of the universe, it makes you feel silly. It puts your beliefs under serious threat, so you feel cross with them and either criticise them or ignore them. But you shouldn’t, because by interrogating your own beliefs, asking questions, reading, talking to a variety of intelligent people, you could learn something.
Of course, if you’ve been steeped in religion since birth, it must be so much more difficult to renounce your god, and on a par with leaving a cult. But, help is available. Here’s an example…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovering_from_Religion
OK must go and wash my hair, got a flat earth soc. meet tonight.
4 users thanked author for this post.
I don’t think the talk of loony views is understanding of the human condition really. Many people want to feel comfort and a purpose in life, and religion fills that for some. I don’t like it when bpg and others make out this is the only possible way for a fulfilling life, but it obviously does for some.
The need for comfort and desire to see loved ones again is very real and an understandable feeling. I don’t think it’s comparable to flat Earth for this reason, and while I may agree that I don’t find Christianity or other religion to be evidence based or necessarily rational, it is part of a common human desire for understanding and feeling of fulfilment. Even if we don’t agree with the beliefs we can understand the desire, surely, with empathy? Inability to comprehend the beliefs in the literal Biblical claims is understandable, as is seeing a move to describe Biblical teachings as metaphorical to be a bit wishy washy. However, surely the underlying motivations to do this aren’t.
It’s not just religion which is irrational. Humans as a whole are often irrational. I don’t think anyone here is without irrational beliefs, and I include myself in that. All ideology is an uneven fit for how humans behave. Communism and small state libertarianism are two examples I can think of which fit this perfectly. Their adherents seem adamant that they can solve the world’s problems, yet their cognitive dissonance prevents them from seeing how harmful this can be. Communism fails to understand that humans have individual needs and that not everything can be explained by the poor being done over by the bourgeoisie; greed can exist at all levels. Small state libertarianism assumes common sense and people’s own knowledge leads to a greater society. Yet it fails to understand that an individual’s decision impacts others (which is why a critique of libertarians often centres around selfishness; their fight for rights is often based on their own individual need, to the lack of care for others), that some people won’t take others into account for important decisions to the detriment of the whole and that some people won’t go with the evidence based position, which can have hugely negative impacts on society.
Given all this, I cannot be too harsh on theists for believing. Just so long as they don’t push their ideology on others and expect debate when they say stuff like God is the source of morality, I am fine.
An interesting video on this to finish off:
1 user thanked author for this post.
Sidey, you’re heading down the same path as religion.
That is, trying to categorise everything. You can’t neatly pigeon-hole everyone’s ideals and beliefs.
If people just concentrated on being themselves instead of thinking they had to follow some pre-defined course then we may all get on better.
The worst people are those who not only believe they should be following a pre-defined course but expect others to do the same.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Am I? I completely accept that not everything can be pigeon holed.
However, I would argue the opposite. I accept there are generalisations above. Some things are more irrational or rational than others, not everyone would put comfort as the reason for their faith. However, my comments are aimed at those who don’t seem to understand why someone like JI may choose a religious path, even if it seems irrational, and a lot of it does appear to be ridicule because of a failing to understand why someone might still believe.
I have let it known that I am an atheist. I have argued with bpg about his own rigid fundamentalism several times before and I have with JI on things like abortion. I stand by my opposition to what I see as controlling aspects of religion which affect others. However, I don’t think some of the comments above are about that. They seem to be dismissive and ignorant of why some people might believe. Despite disagreements on faith I feel like we can understand why someone believes, based on a human desire to feel connected with others, wanting something more and connection. Faith gives that. Just because it’s not for me, or others, it doesn’t mean some can’t get a lot out of it.
I would say my position is not religious at all. I am sceptical of all ideology. Religions like Christianity and Islam. Political ideologies like communism or fascism. More moderate positions too. It’s these things which cloud people’s minds and cause them to act in manners we’d see as inappropriate, through a belief it’s for the greater good. However, I realise that we need to have some guiding principles in how we want society to be, politically, so having a political ideology you generally subscribe to is hard to avoid. Similar applies for others when it comes to religion. It’s not a necessity for a moral life, you can find purpose without it, but it is one avenue for some to find purpose. So long as they don’t infringe upon others I am fine with it.
My objections to the above is that calling JI’s beliefs fairy stories and loony is antagonistic and ignorant of why people like JI believe. Yes, In theory I agree with such statements, because I don’t believe the Biblical story to be an accurate representation of the world, but it often hides a lack of empathy for or understanding as to why some believe. Maybe this is a little politically correct of me, but I think it would be better for a unity with as many people as possible, so long as they’re decent in spirit (not meant religiously here). If I was to set off against everyone who believed in things I find disagreeable I’d have few friends, colleagues or allies.
I agree that some people are beyond comradeship and hold too many objectionable views or personality traits to be close to in any way, and sometimes any unification of humanity is sometimes hindered by others’ actions (as I have discussed with JI earlier in this very thread). Life is full of paradoxes and we do have limits. However, I think such limits should be minimised.
I am sorry if this is preachy, but one paradox in this is that I accept no-one is perfect, let alone me. I fail to be an ideal match for my principles, as outlined above, just like anyone.
1 user thanked author for this post.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.