Southerly: The Problem With Religion
172 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
People do say this, don't they? But I don't find any evidence ever offered beyond "this looks like that, therefore this is a copy of that". The same argument is used by people who believe in Atlantis, using pyramids in Mexico and Egypt, so it's a bad type of argument on the face of it.
I don't have a general view on this. I would only plead for caution, and specifics. You will quickly find that actual evidence -- rather than supposed parallels -- is rather hard to come by.
I'm going to surrender on the Mithras stuff, because I am clearly outclassed and outgunned.
However, I will point out that I didn't actually make the 'this, therefore definitely that' argument. In scientific terms: I'm noticing what I think are interesting parallels and coincidences, and hypothesising that there may, somewhere, be a common root or roots. But that's a big step away from saying that there is a common root.
The Swedish vikings sailing down the rivers of Russia is a phenomenon ca. 1000 AD, not 1AD, tho.
We know that they were travelling in large parties along reasonably well established roots, with their own boats ca. 1000AD. But it's not beyond possibility that individuals or smaller groups were travelling, or at least spreading stories, well before that, no? As you point out, a lot more evidence would be needed to prove the case conclusively, but it's interesting picking out the coincidences and common threads without putting on a tinfoil hat and becoming a full-fledged Atlantean.
It's quite interesting how many apparently disparate cultures have a big flood as part of their mythology, for example.
-
No doubt because so many cultures have their basis in agri-culture on floodplains - they tend to be fertile, well watered, easily culturivated. And then along comes a big flood. Then a bigger one. After that it doesn't take much imagination to imagine a still bigger one, a legend is born.
On the micro scale, my family has such a legend - great-great-grandparents and first few of their children were flooded out in the big flood of the Waipaoa River in 1876, the baby sleeping in a flax basket = authentic wahakura floated away, but was retrievedunharmed if not still asleep by a young Maori woman who could swim whereas the parents could not. All then made their way to high ground (just happening to go by the name of Roseland Hotel) by boat, no doubt with pairs of pigs, dogs, rats etc aboard, but obviously the unicorns were drowned. So not a suitable basis for a religion.
-
that 'lest we forget' will turn into just another emptily, thoughtlessly parroted phrase, devoid of meaning.
You'd think the origin of those white poppies was closer to "lest we forget" - but the recent loud denouncing in some quarters is very much of an inflexible religious tone. Sacrilege.
-
agri-culture on floodplains
I think you're onto something - remember being told that the Nile's priests used the annual flood as a major source of power. Worked OK most of the time though every now and then a major drought eroded the faith of their believers that offering virgins and coins would bring a good harvest.
-
Roger Pearse -kia ora.
Atheism is a religious position only inasmuch an atheist excludes all religions(deities) or any religious perspective from it's view of the world-as-we-know-it-Any definition of atheism that treats it as other than a religious position is rather silly, surely? These definitions all seem to be invented for the convenience of atheists.
There is no real purpose in playing games with words. Atheism is one of the possible views people have; and only one. Every set of views must offer a validation for itself, I would have thought. We can't very well allow any political or religious position to try to keep themselves off the table and away from examination.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
-
I will give that even the most vociferous Atheist, hell bent on getting you thinking really hard about something they think it's a waste of the world's time to think about, is nowhere near as annoying as proselytizing Christians
The idea that atheists want to encourage thought is mildly amusing. If you hold most atheists up to the light, they come out with streams of excuses about how atheism isn't a religion, doesn't have to prove anything, etc, etc, and change the subject quickly back to "why Christainity is shit".
Enough atheist propaganda. Atheism isn't about thinking, as any acquaintance with them shows. It's about convenience.
-
Generalizations like this take us little distance along the road to understanding, it's not the religion/ the political party/ the sales company that is at fault, as much as it is that this or the other person who wants to alter another's belief system/ political leanings/ patio in a forceful and unwelcome manner is a
dick.
Best use of the carriage return that I've seen outside of the works of ee cummings. I take my hat off to you.
-
Any definition of atheism that treats it as other than a religious position is rather silly, surely? These definitions all seem to be invented for the convenience of atheists.
There's more than one definition of atheism? And all these alternate definitions have been invented by atheist? for their convenience?
The idea that atheists want to encourage thought is mildly amusing. If you hold most atheists up to the light, ........blah ....blah...........blah why Christainity is shit".
Enough atheist propaganda. Atheism isn't about thinking, as any acquaintance with them shows. It's about convenience.Boy you are so far off the mark, for a well educated person, and veering dangerously close to lunacy.
Questioning the beliefs handed down to us from a couple of
millennia of dubious reasoning is not encouraging thought?
What a bizarre assertion.
Atheism is about convenience?
Good lord man what are you on?Chris
Horrendous atrocities committed in the PRC back in the day to stifle religion, resulted in significantly limited freedom of public expression of religion (particularly with reference to these Abrahamic religions which are undeniably the prime focus of this thread) that have been allowed to reemerge, producing an environment where belief systems remain in the only place they're of any practical benefit, ie. in peoples' own minds.
PRC, Are you talking about the People Republic of China?
Do you have anything that might resemble evidence for your assertions above? There is presently an awful lot of publicity around events the the RCC, that would suggest that beliefs left alone in peoples minds festered and erupted in very corrosive ways. Of no benefit at all.And as an aside as an atheist Im not to keen on Hinduism, all that caste stuff. And although I have come to reject all the supernatural add on elements to Buddhism, I find a daily mindfulness of breathing meditation helps me with my day. But thats a story for another day.
-
andin, indeed. Roger's starting to make me feel like an enabler. It probably hasn't come through that clearly in what I'm saying that I generally think Atheists are actually right, what they believe is the most likely hypothesis. But there's what you believe, and how you go about using that, which set up important distinctions within sweeping belief groups. To tar everyone 'religious' with the same intolerant brush can be hypocritical. But definitely a lot of religious people are highly intolerant. I don't have any stories in my life like the one about the Jehovah's Witness outcast with respect to Atheists oppressing their children.
-
Couple of Woody Allen quotes, to lighten the mood:
"To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition."
"I'm an Atheist, my wife's agnostic. We had huge fights over which religion not to bring our kids up in"
-
Enough atheist propaganda. Atheism isn't about thinking, as any acquaintance with them shows. It's about convenience.
So Roger,what propaganda do you follow? How convenient is that for you? How selective is your study with that religion and how do you deduce that, which must have "gross factual errors"?
-
"I'm an Atheist, my wife's agnostic. We had huge fights over which religion not to bring our kids up in"
True story, my man's mum couldn't make her mind up, then decided Agnostic. They went to an Anglican church once a fortnight. :)
-
Enough atheist propaganda. Atheism isn't about thinking, as any acquaintance with them shows. It's about convenience.
Roger, I'd like to present you with the Please Do Keep Talking Award for Pwn Goal of the Week. None of us could do your position as much of a disservice as you are.
-
Generalizations like this take us little distance along the road to understanding, it's not the religion/ the political party/ the sales company that is at fault, as much as it is that this or the other person who wants to alter another's belief system/ political leanings/ patio in a forceful and unwelcome manner is a
dick.
What's the point of all this superior a priori knowledge if you don't foist it upon the ignorant masses?
Yeah, what Chris said.
Then again, absence of proof is not proof of absence. William Cowper. He was a poet, and as Bjork said 'you can't trust a poet'.
-
absence of proof is not proof of absence
Sure, then again personally if I said I was agnostic I'd be lying, because I honestly do not believe that if there's any thiing in the universe that comes close to fitting a definition of any god of ours, we could in any way apprehend it. I get that it's a belief, but I don't find it incoherent or entirely unsubstantiated.
I also don't proselitise for atheism. Mostly because it's pointless.
-
Completely off topic, but in a "thinking Atheist" kinda way, and I am being lazy looking for the Avatar disputes tribunal thread. Doing my usual ANZAC (cant get behind any reverence of war) watch a movie at Midnight, I decided I wanted to see "The Hurt Locker" for two reasons, that are this. My friend was Sub-Editor and won an Oscar, and I only found out this week and, well, it's my friend,and frankly, I was shocked.
So I'd have to think, having now seen it, (yes,yes, I know we Atheists aren't supposed to ) that, thought it was bollocks really. It reminds me of how the "The Blair Witch Project" got attention and then completely disappointed me also.I mean, Tin tin has better adventures, and if Hurt Locker was anything, it was budget. Pointless characters, suspense at the beginning to be let down with predictable ground hog day outcomes.
Right as you were. -
Anyone else blanch at radio news reports this morning of (for the first time, we were informed by RNZ) "uniformed school children marching with veterans?"
If you peer into the pre-dawn shadows of that sickening sight it wouldn't have been hard to see the grim reaper chuckling happily away to himself as he sharpened his scythe.
-
Damn straight Tom.
Good morning Andin, thanks for your reply.
Horrendous atrocities committed in the PRC back in the day to stifle religion,resulted in significantly limited freedom of public expression of religion
Here's a reasonable overview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_ChinaThe People's Republic of China was established in 1949. Its government is officially atheist, which viewed religion as emblematic of feudalism and foreign colonialism.
Do you have anything that might resemble evidence for your assertions above?
Sorry, no Andin. My dish is but persuasive language with a sprinkling of anecdote, I'm not pigeon holing anyone here, I'm not trying to make a case that
Christians are far too accustomed to calling this bluff.
Or any other stereotype. Merely that this seems more likely related to the locale, the respective personalities involved and our various bents, mightily affected by education.
I could have installed a CCTV camera to prove that not a single religious/ atheist devotee has come to my door to proselytize me over the past 7 years. In fact no one has come to my door at all, except that one old guy in 2007 (when I used to sleep with door unlocked) who came inside to deliver my mail.†
Similarly I could have carried a camera around to prove no attempt has been made to convert me on the street. But the startling lack of that sort of thing negates the purpose somewhat. Similarly of the 1000s of students who I've broached the notion of God and religion with, I could have kept record of the fact that only one of those students ever made an attempt to proselytize or even promote his religious/spiritual/ superstitious beliefs in my presence.
To quote him;
"I believe I can fly"
but I've never seen him fly, despite his passionate rendition via R Kelly.
This anecdotal evidence contrasts glaringly with experiences living in NZ and the UK. I'm involved in this discussion not to prove a point, but to raise doubt and encourage skepticism, to question whether these negative traits being posited are those of the religious, or of religious people in certain regions and are not more so just traits of people and human institutions in general.
I'm satisfied with the lack of religious persuasion I'm presented with to the extent that I'm prepared to question the stereotypes. Beyond that I have little to offer. besides the fact that I find these types of arguments lack the more refined form of civility I've grown accustomed to*
There is presently an awful lot of publicity around events the the RCC, that would suggest that beliefs left alone in peoples minds festered and erupted in very corrosive ways. Of no benefit at all.
I'd need an example to address that. Certainly the mental health sector is ineffectual. But if you are making the claim that absence of religious beliefs left alone in peoples minds festered and erupted in very corrosive ways then how is that not a criticism of your own belief? Have you found your atheism has caused you to fester and corrode? I doubt detailed self analysis would present such a finding.
*To address the initial post in a little more detail.
without wanting to undermine the downright hilarity, merely to iterate a pointI've always thought that the problem with religion (and especially Christianity) is that it's so very loud.
as is sport
an unhappy Christian would begin pacing the graveyard around midnight, shouting for hours on end: "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?"
a Christian was dealing with mental health issues
No, I offer them a nice cup of tea, and take their damned pamphlet
David is a nice guy but perhaps more accommodating than he'd like to be, arguably related to the fact that charity is one of the fundamentals of Christianity as presented in The Parable of the Good Simaritan and that these values permeate our western culture and by proxy consciousness at its most fundamental level.
In fact, I was once so polite to an American Mormon that he wept with gratitude,
This can be gratifying.
My Glaswegian anarchist grandfather was surprisingly keen on door-knocking proselytizers,
David's grandfather found arguing with Christians to be good sport. and was an anarchist.
and so he turned them into goats.
he would not shy away from winning an argument by confounding the opposition.
Another problem I have with religion is its unnecessary complexity.
David finds religion complex. But using Bennifer or Brangelina as reference points, he will not shy away from successfully trivializing others' belief.
and so on.
'The Problem with Religion' works because
1. It is very funny
2 It is a popularized stance.if this were an attack on feminism thinly veiled under the title 'The Problem with -isms', or an attack on homosexuality titled 'The Problem with Sexuality', all hell would break loose.
But consider how impolite religious believers can be.
Or anyone for that matter.
I don't really have much of a habit of making connections between what people attest to believe and the religious badge they wear, because when all is said and done the prime recourse of religion beyond the walls of the mind is as a means of social identification and self classification.
-
-
I don't have any stories in my life like the one about the Jehovah's Witness outcast with respect to Atheists oppressing their children.
My great grandfather was kicked off the farm and disinherited for voting Labour, does that say more about The National Party, National Party supporters, or his parents?
-
. . . does that say more about The National Party, National Party supporters, or his parents?
As the National Party was founded in 1936, kind of late for great-grandfatherly stuff, I'm guessing the parents. What do I win?
-
No he wasn't so young when this happened. So he went off and fought in the war with his son at the age of 37. He wasn't a kid like Ben's example, but it was the depression. The comparison is to highlight the fundamentalism.
-
The National Party officially formed in May 1936, but its roots go considerably further back. The party came about as the result of a merger between the United Party (known as the Liberal Party until 1927, except for a short period between 1925 and 1927 when it used the name "National Party") and the Reform Party. The United Party gained its main support from the cities, and drew upon businesses for money and upon middle class electors for votes, while the Reform Party had a rural base and received substantial support from farmers, who then formed a substantial proportion of the population.
Historically, the Liberal and Reform parties had competed against each other, but from 1931 until 1935 a coalition between the United and Reform parties held power in New Zealand. The coalition went into the 1935 election under the title of the "National Political Federation", a name adopted to indicate that the grouping intended to represent New Zealanders from all backgrounds (in contrast to the previous situation, where United served city-dwellers and Reform served farmers). However, because of the effects of the Great Depression and a perception that the existing coalition government had handled the situation poorly, the National Political Federation lost heavily in 1935 to the Labour Party, the rise of which had originally prompted the alliance.
A new party, called the New Zealand National Party, formed at a meeting held in Wellington on May 13 and 14, 1936. Erstwhile members of the United and Reform parties made up the bulk of the new party.
-
What do I win?
My further respect.
-
I honestly do not believe that if there's any thing in the universe that comes close to fitting a definition of any god of ours, we could in any way apprehend it.
Word to that. The limits of our perception are not known, and therefore the possibilities are endless. I think. Maybe.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.