[quote=“Chris”][quote=“Fortigurn”][quote=“Chris”]“So stop worrying and enjoy your life”?
What doubts can one have about a friendly reminder to enjoy life?[/quote]
That’s not the context in which it’s placed. The context in which it’s placed is that as long as there’s no God, you have nothing to worry about.[/quote]
No, that’s not what it means. It means you don’t have to worry about making a misstep and being sent to hell by an angry god, or waste time and energy praying or attending church in an attempt to win enough piety points to get into heaven.
Instead, you can live your life.[/quote]
Has the thought ever occured to you that, for some people, that is life? By choice?
I have trouble understanding how you can talk of ‘piety points’ and ‘waste time and energy praying’ and think you are making an argument against religion. You are making an argument against yourself alone because you are, basically, disrespecting the way in which others choose to live their life. You haven’t the slightest clue what praying means to some people. You haven’t got the foggiest of the importance of God and religion in some people’s lives. Instead, you proclaim that it is a burden, a disease, something which people allow into their lives only because they do not know any better.
I am Catholic, by choice, and both my parents are not - in fact, they are devoted atheists. I made a choice one day and that is how I live my life. Are you arguing otherwise? Am I not free? Am I not able to enjoy myself?
[quote]A circumstance of birth, which many times dictates what particular religion one adheres to, is not a factor that demands respect. Nor is a ‘choice’ to follow centuries old mythology a means to earn respect. If a religion holds to certain tenets, it is not the obligation of all humans on the globe to treat these beliefs with reverence. Religious beliefs are a personal matter that do not require all to pay heed, only the believers, and trying to impose your beliefs on others only indicates a level of insecurity with knowing there are those who think differently than you. A secular society endorses no religion, or lack of religion, it is neutral in the area of faith leaving open the choice of beliefs to the individual… not the state.
Respect your own faith and show it reverence by keeping it a private matter, doing so will illustrate you are confident and secure in your beliefs without the insecure need to ask others to conform as well.[/quote]
Sure, some people choose to believe in a religion, and live their lives accordingly. But many do not: they may have doubts, but it’s the only life they know because of family or school environment. In other words, they were born into their religion; they didn’t choose it. The sign lets people know there’s an alternative, and that not believing in God is OK.
Hey, if you choose your religion, that’s fine by me. I have no objection.
[quote=“Quentin”]That “probably” makes it an agnostic, not atheist, slogan.
A genuinely atheist slogan would say, “There is no God.”[/quote]
Indeed. Although…
[quote=“DutchMan”]
What saves the London Atheist bus from the ominous advertising standards committee is the word “probably”
They were told that Carlsberg could get away with “probably the best beer in the world”, so they figured they do the same.[/quote]
Or perhaps, as Quentin wrote later in his post, the majority of people who see that message are indifferent agnostics, and the British Humanist Association wants to avoid inviting the accusation of being “just as bad” as the god-botherers whose absolutist pronouncements they want to redress.
[quote=“Maoman”][quote][color=#FF0080][b]However the Methodist Church said it thanked Professor Dawkins for encouraging a “continued interest in God”.
Spirituality and discipleship officer Rev Jenny Ellis said: “This campaign will be a good thing if it gets people to engage with the deepest questions of life.”
She added: “Christianity is for people who aren’t afraid to think about life and meaning.”[/b][/color][/quote]
Yeah, I’m with the Methodist Church on this one. It’s a good campaign, and people should be encouraged to think about “big picture” issues.[/quote]
I agree with this, though there’s an immense gulf between encouraging people to think and succeeding in prompting real thought.
[quote=“Chris”]No, that’s not what it means. It means you don’t have to worry about making a misstep and being sent to hell by an angry god, or waste time and energy praying or attending church in an attempt to win enough piety points to get into heaven.
Instead, you can live your life.[/quote]
What is the functional difference between that and what I said?
[quote=“Quentin”]That “probably” makes it an agnostic, not atheist, slogan.
A genuinely atheist slogan would say, “There is no God.”
The vast majority of people are agnostics, whether they realize it or not. Most people aren’t militant atheists or theists. They’re most indifferent. They don’t give religion very much thought.[/quote]
True, but when people evangelize as these people are, they’re not indifferent. They have a view they believe is right, and they are attempting to convert. It’s an unavoidable dynamic of conviction.
Yes.
[quote=“DutchMan”]What saves the London Atheist bus from the ominous advertising standards committee is the word “probably”
They were told that Carlsberg could get away with “probably the best beer in the world”, so they figured they do the same.[/quote]
What saves the ‘Jesus saves’ bus is the phrase ‘Jesus said’.
This slogan is deeply offensive, and fails to respect Britain’s religious diversity. They should add something about Buddha probably being rubbish too.
So it’s okay to buy an ad that says “Satan rules! Rock and roll!” but not one that says “Muhammad was a child molester.” (Would it help if I add the word “probably”?)
I thought there was some disagreement among atheists as to whether “God” is verbal nonsense, definitely untrue, or factually obscure and in any case ethically irrelevant.
The religious response should steal a line from my mother: “Why don’t you be a Unitarian? They don’t have to believe in anything!”
We agree with the sentiment, and give this campaign our total support. Thus spake Rael.
So what’s next–denying the Holy Spirit?
Or how’s this for an advertising slogan: “Stop thinking about religion.”
That bus is definitely rapture-ready. But the Jesus one will careen off the road when the driver disappears to be with Jesus in the clouds.
I have long desired to lead a campaign against qigong, traditional Chinese medicine, and other local superstitions. Where to start…?
So, does this mean the Da Vinci Code was true or not?
True, but when people evangelize as these people are, they’re not indifferent. They have a view they believe is right, and they are attempting to convert. It’s an unavoidable dynamic of conviction.
[/quote]
Whoa, how does that last sentence follow?[/quote]
Do you mean that you’re disputing the proposition that conviction in a certain viewpoint leads people to share that view with others?
I find it pretty rude to infer that people of faith are somehow experiencing some kind of diminished quality of life due to their belief.
For every poor soul for whom belief represents some kind of crushing weight from which they require deliverance (which is probably a lot more indicative of mental/emotional unhealthiness than anything else), there are hundreds and thousands whose trust in a higher power is their reason for enjoying life on a daily basis.
Because, contrary to the non-stop attestations of a few very vocal regular posters to this forum, a belief in an afterlife does not constitute a default existence in which all day every day is spent bent double under crushing anxiety that one is facing eternal damnation. Those who are prone to such an outlook would doubtless find another reason for feeling the same way if they didn’t have religion to provide it for them.
On a related note, shouldn’t there be a thread for Anti-Religion & Dubious Spirituality in addition to this one?
This is like a bunch of guys who hate kids haunting the Parenting forum.
Most of what goes on here doesn’t even rate as discussion, just the same old posters shitting all over anyone who believes in anything (although I must say the Buddhists get a fairly light load, comparatively, and the Sikhs seem to be impervious), and the same old posters who DO believe in something end up trying to prove the unprovable and defend the indefensible.
No wonder I never fucking come in here.
I don’t think people of faith necessarily have a diminished quality of life due to their belief. They may rest easier at night, and live longer (due to less stress and a community of similarly believing people who support them), “knowing” that this hard time on earth is only a prelude to perfect bliss in an afterlife. But that doesn’t make what they believe true. Placebo effect + support = cure?
I don’t think they are always out to convert. Sometimes they just want acceptance or a bit more tolerance.
In North America, atheists are treated with less respect and trust than gays or any other minority. Nonbelievers are ostrasized from communities, and in many places, atheism is akin to satanic worship. Trust me, there are millions of closet atheists that just don’t feel safe/comfortable to come out yet.
If you are born into Islam and reject it, how should your brothers and sisters treat you (assuming they follow the Koran)? The Koran is clear that they must be killed.
I believe the Bible is clear enough about how to treat non-believers. In this age when modern man knows that much of what is written in the Bible is very, very, very, very unlikely, it seems a shame that non-religious people get so little acceptance.
People in Europe and North America are increasingly identifying themselves as non-religious. But denominations with apocalyptic beliefs seem to be gathering more followers. Is Sarah Palin one of these people that thinks Jesus is going to come down in her lifetime to save the good? (I’ve heard that almost half of the US population believes this is likely-I’m aware that nowhere near 50% are end-timers) "I think the “end times” / strong fundamentalists people could be quite dangerous if they are in power. And that is the case if they are Christian or Muslim.
I hear people talking about how the KMT didn’t really take care of Taiwan from '49 to the 80s because they viewed Taiwan as a temporary resting spot that they could trash.
Is there maybe a connection with people who say, “Inshah Allah”, or “God will answer our prayers” to view Earth as a temporary address? Maybe we don’t need to solve (environmental and other) Earth’s problems; we’ll just hope that things will just work themselves out, or be sorted out by God?
True, but when people evangelize as these people are, they’re not indifferent. They have a view they believe is right, and they are attempting to convert. It’s an unavoidable dynamic of conviction.
[/quote]
Whoa, how does that last sentence follow?[/quote]
Do you mean that you’re disputing the proposition that conviction in a certain viewpoint leads people to share that view with others?[/quote]
Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness called a “psychosis” in which a person cannot tell what is real from what is imagined. The main feature of this disorder is the presence of delusions, which are unshakable beliefs in something untrue.
“Unshakable beliefs in something that is not true” . . .
Ya see, believers say that’s the atheists, but the non-believers say that’s the religious people.
FWIW, my mother and eldest sister are devout Catholics. My sister is very intelligent, happy, and emotionally secure. I have more respect for her than anyone. My mom is my mom . . . what can I say. I have NO interest in converting either one to atheism.
Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness called a “psychosis” in which a person cannot tell what is real from what is imagined. The main feature of this disorder is the presence of delusions, which are unshakable beliefs in something untrue.
“Unshakable beliefs is something that is not true” . . .
Ya see, believers say that’s the atheists, but the non-believers say that’s the religious people.[/quote]
Sorry, where did that come from?
Who here ever said that atheists were delusional?
I said that people who are miserable in their religiousness were likely of a personality type to be miserable anyway, and I would consider that anyone with a predilection for being miserable, irrespective of circumstance, has some sort of behavioral/perceptional anomaly.
This is what I was referring to earlier about why this thread is so fucked.
On one side, there’s a group who fervently, vociferously demand that everyone think like them (that there’s no higher power), and that anyone who DOESN’T think like them (that there IS a higher power) is a fuckwit/retard/simpleton/spaz/infant etc.
On the other side, there’s a group who are somehow being compelled to defend their beliefs, nay, defend the FACT that they even HAVE beliefs, employing logic, reason, and common courtesy.
Well, let me be the first.
Here’s the deal. Atheists? Agnostics? Listen up:
You’re all fucked.
You’re knee-jerk pseudo-Nietzscheite wannabes.
You show a stunning lack of intellectual range.
Your complete inability to conduct even the most rudimentary level of critical analysis puts you firmly on the level of a 7th grade Taipei public school girl.
And most of you suffer from severe sexual dysfunctionality.
What a crock of shit.
How do I put an entire forum on Ignore?
[quote=the chief-“Who here ever said that atheists were delusional?”[/quote]
I said believers say atheists are delusional and vice versa.
Let’s just use the word crazy.
So, “Unshakable beliefs in something that is not true”
just means “That crazy person believes (or refuses to believe) something that isn’t (or is) true, and you can’t change his mind.”
The chief is right; the people that would write endlessly on the topic are usually at the far ends of the spectrum. There will likely be no conversions of these people, but let 'em talk.
There are plenty of fence-sitters out there that may learn from Fortigurn how to defend their religion or even proselytize, as well as some people who may feel that disbelief is now an option, or that non-believers should at least be tolerated.
Cheers to the Chief for snot-klapping everyone about the ears.
Who the fuck wants to be an atheist in any case? Giving yourself a little name that defines you in terms of what you AREN’T rather than what you are… Idiots. Do you go around consciously reminding yourself on a daily basis that you live your life according to not believing in a god or gods?
Talk about selling yourself short.
Imagine if I spoke about myself in terms of how I’m not from Zimbabwe. Or Australia. Fucking stupid, wouldn’t you say? Just like the politics forums!!!
Republican: Well, at least I don’t wankwankwank!!
Democrat: Yeah, well we’ve never slurpslurpslurped!
Okay, fuck, whatever! Could you please stop talking about yourself in terms of the other guy, and instead focus on some positive traits about yourslf (and no, making the other guy look bad doesn’t make you look good… trust me on this)
Personally, it seems as though I am a secular humanist (at least, after a brief foray around the possibilities offered up by Wikipedia this struck me as the most recognisable, but it all honesty I could barely care enough to go and check) - apparently this shares some similarities with atheism in that I don’t believe in superstitions, faeries, the healing powers of crystals, some voodoo force creating the universe and some other stuff - but at the same time isn’t as ludicrously confining as atheism.
If you don’t share my views, then you must now please call yourself asecular humanists. I don’t care what you DO believe, only that you DON’T believe the same as me, and so you shall be named accordingly.
A popular but inaccurate description of the facts. The correlation between religious belief and happiness and positive life outcomes is more complex than this. Ironically, many atheists argue that atheists are happier because their epistemology provides more confidence in the future, but there is no hard evidence to support this claim.
Of course it doesn’t.
No. And in this case it’s more like ‘cure + support = cure’. The fact is that a lot of religions involve risk minimization strategies and sound psychology which contributes effectively to better life outcomes and increased happiness.
We’re not talking about converting yet. We’re talking about evangelism (evangelism /= conversion).
True, but that’s clearly not the aim of this message.
In the extremes of the Bible Belt perhaps, or Way Down South. Generally, I think people in North America couldn’t care less about what others believe.
If you’re only talking about North America, I think you’d have difficulty substantiating those claims with evidence.
Can you explain why so many Muslims don’t kill family members who reject Islam?
Could you provide all the quotes from the Bible which you believe describe how to treat non-believers, and explain how you understand them to apply to those who follow the Bible today?
How many countries have you lived in? How do you find Taiwan, for example? Canada? New Zealand? England? Australia? Japan? Korea? China?
True.
Interesting. Statistics please.
Well if the US had a properly enforced separation of church and state, this wouldn’t be a problem. It’s easy to do, you simply have to deny religious people a role in the political process. Some religious groups deliberately abstain from involvement in the political process anyway, such as my own denomination. We don’t believe religious people have any business being involved in the politics of the secular state.
[quote]I hear people talking about how the KMT didn’t really take care of Taiwan from '49 to the 80s because they viewed Taiwan as a temporary resting spot that they could trash.
Is there maybe a connection with people who say, “Inshah Allah”, or “God will answer our prayers” to view Earth as a temporary address? Maybe we don’t need to solve (environmental and other) Earth’s problems; we’ll just hope that things will just work themselves out, or be sorted out by God?[/quote]
There’s plenty of data with which to evaluate such a question, so you shouldn’t have too many problems coming up with a reliable answer. A quick glance at Amazon turns up a number of works on the topic which provide an abundance of useful data.
From my study of this subject, religious people are extremely likely to be very involved with environmental issues. Some useful sources:
[quote=“In Religion Is the Preservation of the World”]In his book A Greener Faith, Gottlieb offers a descriptive analysis of contemporary “religious environmentalism,” positing that religion holds the key to managing and solving the current environmental crisis. Intended for the general reader, this book details the major strains of thought within religious environmentalism and the unique contributions religion has made (and can make) to the environmental movement.
Gottlieb’s central argument is that religion, which once largely neglected nature and uncritically favored industrial civilization, is now a “leading voice” that urges followers “to respect the earth, love our nonhuman as well as our human neighbors, and think deeply about our social policies and economic priorities” (p. 9). In this book, religion is certainly not the problem, but is instead a useful and effective solution.[/quote]
[quote=“Culture and public goods: The case of religion and the voluntary provision of environmental quality”]Using data from approximately 13,000 individuals in 14 different OECD regions, we find that culture, as expressed by religious beliefs, generates public goods contributions. We characterize individuals into systems of religious beliefs using latent class analysis and find that some types of beliefs influence pro-environment behaviors and attitudes, even after controlling for religious affiliation, political views and activism, and socio-demographic characteristics.
We find a role for beliefs that is separate from social capital accumulated via membership in church groups and church attendance. Finally, we make a methodological contribution by showing that the use of latent class analysis to describe systems of beliefs yields more meaningful interpretations than the standard approach of dummy variables for specific beliefs.[/quote]
More available on request.
On what grounds are you disputing it?
[quote=“zender”]The chief is right; the people that would write endlessly on the topic are usually at the far ends of the spectrum. There will likely be no conversions of these people, but let 'em talk.
There are plenty of fence-sitters out there that may learn from Fortigurn how to defend their religion or even proselytize, as well as some people who may feel that disbelief is now an option, or that non-believers should at least be tolerated.[/quote]
That’s a very reasonable comment. I for one am not attempting to convert anyone. I am simply enjoying the exchange of views.
