Will Europeans rid themselves of ignorance?

[foggypane]

There is no duty to laugh at people and call them names. Let people get on with their own lifestyels and get on with yours. We only have a duty to make sure people don't fuck around with each other's freedoms, andf that people have their basic needs met. There is no duty to go round attacking people and being a pain inthe arse. You think that because you don't belong to an organised church that you don't hold at least some irrational beliefs or views which can't be proved logically, but most people in fact do. Even jolly good, humanist secular things like "human rights" aren't provable by logic alone - they require belief and faith to some extent. The same thing can be said about every ideology and system of ethics, and a vast amount of cultural norms as well. For example you can't prove that a certain 'age of consent' is correct using logic alone, yet most people will have strong beliefs about this. Everyone has their own beliefs. You should just be a bit more honest and self-aware about what your's actually are. Everything that could be used to attack religions you don't like could be used against your own beliefs and lifestyle choices, so you should not rush to be authoritarian or fall into a false certainty about your own rationalism.

There is a duty to resist orthodxies that have malign effects. The way religion is granted respect, even reverence, and woven into the fabric of our country is not justifiable.
I'm not talking about the way that religion can't be 'proved by logic' although obviously it can't. I'm talking about the way that religion, despite this very big and important fact, is deferred to in public life. Why vicars on the radio? Why faith schools with state money? Why, in short, do religions have the ability (waning in UK but they are always after more) to - using your phrase - fuck around with my freedoms?

Religious input into legislation still goes on. Religion is a powerful driver in world politics, not least in the American right. Religious groups constantly attack freedom of speech - this latest nonsense over cartoons follows the Sikhs closing a play in Brum and the Christian attack on 'jerry springer'. Small examples these last two, granted, but symptomatic. In my own town, the first civil partnership between 2 men was marred by christian protest.

These things are not legitimate.

I am well aware that I have some irrational beliefs. I hold dear the notion that the Stranglers will re-form in the original line up, and sweep to chart domination.

You will note, though, that I don't lobby the Government for laws that will make this happen, I don't picket or threaten rival bands, and I don't hold angry protests in central London.

Everything that could be used to attack religions you don't like could be used against your own beliefs and lifestyle choices,

No. What I attack in religion, and I admit I didn't make it clear until your post prompted me to, is it's innate tendency towards control. This is innate because a) religions prosletyse (mostly) and b) they think they are right, and want to save you, or some such.

Well, I am more than happy for the Mormons (eg) to do their thing. When they knock on my door they can expect a hearty 'fuck off' for their cheek. Extrapolating, the same applies to any attempt by any religion to have any effect on my life.

I don't throw my strongly held and robust opinions at people unless invited - these boards contain enough apologists for religion for me to feel justified in having a quick pop at them.

 

[rich!]

People don't tend to knock on vicars' doors and say "good morning vicar, you believe in a load of codswallop, goodbye" but then that would be a bit of an odd thing to do.

Actually, it sounds like a good idea.

"You admit to belief in a cannibalistic religion most of whose sacred texts were made up 100-200 years after the events they purport to describe. Why should we allow you to work with children?"

 

[kakuma]

sounds like a great idea to me

nice way to kill the time between running out of cider and pub opening hours

 

[foggypane]

Look, you obviously know nothing at all about religion. Right? Good, so what on *earth* gives you the urge to come on here spouting the kind of rubbish you do with such confidence? Atheist nutters like you are an odd phenomenon indeed.

Is this ironic or are you really this much of a tit?

 

[phildwyer]

Is this ironic or are you really this much of a tit?

I'm quite serious. Have you ever studied religion, or even looked into it? If not, and from your "its all made up" statement I assume that you haven't, then why do you feel the need to come on here and loudly proclaim its all a load of crap? This is odd behavior indeed, and it is very common today. To me it represents a kind of mass social psychosis.

 

[foggypane]

I'm quite serious. Have you ever studied religion, or even looked into it? If not, and from your "its all made up" statement I assume that you haven't, then why do you feel the need to come on here and loudly proclaim its all a load of crap? This is odd behavior indeed, and it is very common today. To me it represents a kind of mass social psychosis.

Well it is all made up. Obviously. Or maybe god really does speak to people. I don't know, just as no one else does. But I really would bet (indeed I am betting ) my eternal soul that it's balls. Given that no one knows if it is true or not, it seems odd to proclaim that it's not a load of crap.

 

[Hanfstaengl]

I'm quite serious. Have you ever studied religion, or even looked into it? If not, and from your "its all made up" statement I assume that you haven't, then why do you feel the need to come on here and loudly proclaim its all a load of crap? This is odd behavior indeed, and it is very common today. To me it represents a kind of mass social psychosis.

But, is it not high time that European Governments ditched religion and took on the Islamic Fundamentalists with a clean bill of health?

 

[phildwyer]

Well it is all made up. Obviously.

What do you mean "it is all made up?" That is a silly, simplistic thing to say.

 

[nick1181]

We've got about 2000 years of really unpleasant history to learn from about how difficult it is to stop people being religious. It really is one of those "scratch it and it will get worse" situations.

I think it's really important to keep it out of politics though - something incredibly difficult to do because on a level, that's what religion is for. It is a political instrument. That's why Christianity is still with us - not because the Bible's such a great book, but because it's been woven into the European power structure since the Roman Empire decided it was holy.

For what it's worth, I'm sick to death of religious stupidity. Every time you turn on the news there's a load of gratuitous insanity and suffering going on, and somewhere in the background will be someone who's a) utterly convinced they're right because b) they've got God on their side.

I've always disliked religion though so what do I know. To me religion has always seemed kindof unclean. To me it's all shades of idolotry, and power corrupts absolutely.

 

[phildwyer]

We've got about 2000 years of really unpleasant history to learn from about how difficult it is to stop people being religious.

Right. We assume that you are under the impression that the history of religion begins with Christianity. Correct?

 

[nick1181]

Right. We assume that you are under the impression that the history of religion begins with Christianity. Correct?

Don't be a twat phil.

 

[kakuma]

like everything, you get out what you put in

 

[phildwyer]

Don't be a twat phil.

Why did you say "2,000 years" then? To me that indicates ignorance of 4,000 years of documented religious history. Am I wrong?

 

[nick1181]

Yea, you're wrong. You're also a wanker.

You're deliberately missing the point to try to make yourself look clever at someone else's expense.

Still, I'm here to learn. Please fill us all in on the history of religious repression, starting from about 4000 year ago - up to about 2000 years ago. To be fair, the only thing I can think of off the top of my head was the business surrounding Akhenaton which was in the middleish of the highly weird 18th Dynasty - about 1300 BC I think.

So what else was there Phil? Educate me.

Please bear in mind though, that even if you did read some books about this when you were a student, you're still a twat.

 

[Binkie]

Atheists might not all be rational all of the time on every subject, but at least they're free of the irrationality of religious superstition. However, when you're brought up with a dogma drummed into you, told you must have faith, and have your innocent enquiries called blasphemous, you could be forgiven for giving in and conforming and joining the mob. So much for Christianity. It's clear that some of the other religions are just as damaging to the human spirit.

 

[phildwyer]

Yea, you're wrong. You're also a wanker.

You're deliberately missing the point to try to make yourself look clever at someone else's expense.

Still, I'm here to learn. Please fill us all in on the history of religious repression, starting from about 4000 year ago - up to about 2000 years ago. To be fair, the only thing I can think of off the top of my head was the business surrounding Akhenaton which was in the middleish of the highly weird 18th Dynasty - about 1300 BC I think.

So what else was there Phil? Educate me.

Please bear in mind though, that even if you did read some books about this when you were a student, you're still a twat.

"When I was a student" heh heh. You fool. I'm not going to fill you in on the world religions of 6,000 BC to the present, you should find them out for yourself. Preferably *before* you come on here and make a prat of yourself by dismissing "religion" before you know *any* fucking thing about it. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[foggypane]

...........Preferably *before* you come on here and make a prat of yourself by dismissing "religion" before you know *any* fucking thing about it. Wouldn't you agree?

The essential thing to know about religion is that it is not trustworthy. By that I mean that, even though (ok, ok) one doesn't know whether it is 'made up' or not, there is no way of knowing if this is so or if it is 'true'. Theological arguments, from big (why does god allow suffering?) to small (and just how many angels can dance on a pinhead?) are effectively meaningless, except as an intellectual exercise.

The thing that nearly everyone has some direct personal experience of is how relegion affects the world, which is largely by sustained and serious attempts to make people conform.

So, given that religion is untrustworthy and tries to affect people's freedom, attacking it is hardly making a prat of oneself. I don't need to know the subtle variations between different brands of Islam or Christianity to know that they can shove it up their arses. Keep it off my street, out of my face, off my telly and out of my government. Keep it in your head and your house.

 

[dylanredefined]

who gives a flying fuck about the irrational beliefs of the ancients .
We have enough idiots causing trouble for precived insults to their beliefs .
I hope the flying spagehti monster eats them all

 

[nick1181]

"When I was a student" heh heh. You fool. I'm not going to fill you in on the world religions of 6,000 BC to the present, you should find them out for yourself. Preferably *before* you come on here and make a prat of yourself by dismissing "religion" before you know *any* fucking thing about it. Wouldn't you agree?

That's because you can't.

You made a pathetic attempt at point scoring and you failed.

The thing is though Phil, even if you could demonstrate how clever and knowledgeable you are, you'd still come across as being a bit of a twat. That's the sort of thing that twats do.

 

[foggypane]

It is worth quoting here the definition of an "open society". It might explain where I am coming from:


I suppose that this means that the state should be "agnostic" about religion and other such beliefs. It should allow all its citizens to live the lifestyle they choose and avoid taking sides or getting in the way of people following the lifestyles and beliefs of their choice. Obviously they should step in where those beliefs impact negatively on other people.

Your paragraphs largely cancels itself out.

If the state 'allows all it's citizens (this isn't the UK then btw) to live the lifestyle they choose' but should also 'step in where those beliefs impact negatively on others' then how can you have religious freedom? Many religions have a duty to proselytize and to 'bear witness'. This means, for example, christian pickets of gay partnership ceremonies, muslim protests at cartoons, catholic groups trying to interfere in the law surrounding abortion, buddhists roaming the streets in gangs, beating people up. At least, they said they were Buddhists..... maybe I misheard. I digress.

Religion has no place in public life. Quite the contrary, religion is so potentially dangerous that the state has a duty, it's primary duty of protecting 'citizens', to step in and regulate it. No church indoctrination schools, no baptism, no enforced religious practises. And while we're on, no tax breaks, no religious leaders legislating or lobbying, no restricted drinking on a Sunday. Oh, we got that last one didn't we? A good start.

 

[phildwyer]

The essential thing to know about religion is that it is not trustworthy. By that I mean that, even though (ok, ok) one doesn't know whether it is 'made up' or not, there is no way of knowing if this is so or if it is 'true'.

Yes there is: logic.

 

[foggypane]

Without wanting to start a thousand-post nightmare, how exactly can you use logic to show whether there is or is not a god? Or whether you go to hell for fornicating? don't religions rather rely on faith over proof - that's their clever circular argument. Once you are in the circle of faith you don't need proof, and the fact that you can't prove it doesn't matter, because you have faith.

 

[phildwyer]

Without wanting to start a thousand-post nightmare, how exactly can you use logic to show whether there is or is not a god? Or whether you go to hell for fornicating? don't religions rather rely on faith over proof - that's their clever circular argument. Once you are in the circle of faith you don't need proof, and the fact that you can't prove it doesn't matter, because you have faith.

No, religions don't rely on faith. They rely on reason--the monotheistic ones anyway. But it is true that most believers in religion accept it on faith, because they don't have the time or the education to grasp the rational arguments. Precisely the same, of course, is true of most believers in science. How many of the idiots you see here jumping up and down with outrage over Intelligent Design do you think have actually read Darwin?

 

[foggypane]

Monotheistic religions rely on reason?

(note to mods: there's no smiley marked 'derisive laughter', nor one marked 'pitying shake of head'.)

I think you will find, on close examination, they rely on guesswork and a shrewd grasp of human nature.


edited to add: I'm just off to church.

 

[phildwyer]

Monotheistic religions rely on reason?

Yes Darling, they do. As you would be aware of you'd bothered to find out anything at all about them before coming on here to decalre what a load of rubbish they are. Shall we begin by discussing the syncretism between the Platonic Demiurge and the Johannite Logos? Thought not. Look, all I'm saying is take the trouble to find out a little information about your subject before shooting your mouth off.

 

[foggypane]

Dont wave your religion top trumps at me you prat.

You, like every other person on the planet, have no idea whether there is a god or not.

The existence or otherwise of Mr. G would be, and please forgive my lack of specific subject knowledge here, a fairly vital component in theistic religions, no?

So all the poncing around about Platonic Demiurges (whose second album I found quite enjoyable btw) is not really in the realms of 'reason', is it, unless you are comfortable with 'reason' being based on an assumption in the first place. It all makes good sense within it's own terms of reference, but not in the wider sense. Like a very good house built on sand.

 

[phildwyer]

So all the poncing around about Platonic Demiurges (whose second album I found quite enjoyable btw) is not really in the realms of 'reason', is it, unless you are comfortable with 'reason' being based on an assumption in the first place.

Well yes, as a mater of fact, it is. The word "Logos" *means* "reason," and has served as the standard by which Western thought defines that term. It is also the word used for God in John 1:1. But you're not interested in any of that high-falutin' book-larning, are you? You just *know* religion is a load of rubbish. *How* do you know this without ever reading any books on the subject, fool?

 

[foggypane]

I could spend my entire life reading Harry Potter and it would still be fiction.

Religion is not founded upon reason, it's founded upon assumptions and faith.

You must know this. Or do you think it is all historically verifiable and scientifically testable? Is testable even a word?

You can bang on, you dreary monk, all you like, but you are fully aware of this.

That's why it is fundamentally silly. It should not play any part in public life. It's a private matter for people who don't mind wasting their time on it.

 

[foggypane]

Owww! Fuck! I Just Got Struck By Lightning!!!!!

 

[phildwyer]

Religion is not founded upon reason, it's founded upon assumptions and faith.

That is absolute rubbish. I challenge you to find a single theologian of a monotheistic religion who holds this position. You might as well admit now that you don't know what you're talking about. Although it always interests me to see what wacky claims the atheist nutters will come out with next.