[Politics] God(s)

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

does not the philosophical work of Confucius have the same ethos and values of the Judo-Christian / Islamic religions without there being a need for a supreme being

Who cares?

Belief systems are just a substitute for thinking for one's self, and doing proper research when unsure.

Confucius he say, give me your money and I'll sort you out, me old son.
No thanks

I appreciate you are sticking the boot into deity solutions, but fatuous readymades come in secular colours too.
Even if most of it is reasonable common sense.
"After a Big Shit, wipe your arse and wash your hands before trying the bacon butty solution to the problems of today." Etc.

I am thinking of starting a company that explains to people how to use logical analysis to deal with life.
And the answer, very often, is leave it for now, till you have sufficient info to trigger a decision

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

No I'm not.
I'm not interested in any of the religions, these are all man's interpretation of the belief in a creator.

My definition of God is was the creation of the universe deliberate or not?

I suspect not, but I'm not sure that can be proven one way or the other.

Chinny recon?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I had an 'interesting' conversation once with a chippy little prick who accused me of deferring to science as using science as my belief system.

He tried to explain that my hypothesis testing with the aim of disproving a hypothesis by experiment and unbiased reasoning was simply my belief system.

I came close to punching the twat hard in the face then announcing that his bloody nose and the passage of events were merely what he believed.

But I decided to move on.
Probably tutting.

 

[Eeyore]

I've recently been made more aware that the way we all experience the world varies incredibly widely. Hearing and then reading about aphantasia and how it wasn't really discovered until the late 19th century and then not particularly researched until the 21st century made me think about how little we question whether our own perceptions are experienced by others in the same way. I never understood that, where I was 'seeing' things in my mind in the abstract, without any visual imagery, others were having a totally different experience, some even being able to re-run and watch full movies in their heads.

There was an article in the Guardian last week that discussed inner monologues and this made me realise that some people actually 'hear' thoughts, some in their own voices, some in other voices. Once again this was completely foreign to me. Although I understand the concept, I have not experienced it and have little perception of how differently even those closest to me are experiencing their inner world, let alone reacting with the material world.

When you add life experience to this you can go down the Dawkins route and argue that religion is passed on from parents to children and that there are heavy societal and familial pressures to follow the religion of your peers, or you could appreciate the more fundamental truth that we will all prioritise our perceptions, lives and relationships over what may be provably true.

In other words, God(s) exist for some of us and not for others. In answering the question, perception will always outrank empirical truth. We'll never reach a consensus, so arguing our corner is less important than accepting this and finding common ground that helps us live together. This has to include ensuring that freedom of religion is enshrined in all societies and that total separation of church and state is sacrosanct.

As a non believer, I lean towards Hitchens view (He uses the word 'toys'. Apologies to those who do not like this choice of word.):

"I'm perfectly happy for people to have these toys, and to play with them at home, and hug them to themselves and so on, and to share them with other people who come around and play with the toys. So that's absolutely fine. They are not to make me play with these toys. I will not play with the toys. Don't bring the toys to my house, don't say my children must play with these toys."

My word. I suppose it's something that folk don't discuss. I've used an inner dialogue since forever. Often splitting myself into the third person. It's how I've often got through tricky periods. I can't understand the concept of not having it. But then again, I've never been someone else.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Not read all the posts yet. Prefer at first to post without influence.

Have to say I agree with the "comforting untruth" view on God and written religion (Kurt Vonnegut?).

It's nice to think that when someone you love dies that they meet up with their lost loved ones, and that you also will meet up with them again at some stage.

My best friend killed herself and I wonder if we will meet again and if so will she still be 31 (time of death) .. but what if I'm lucky to live to 80 and when we meet I'm 80 and she's 31 ... that would be a bit weird... and awkward. Can't get my head around it. Then I realise it may well be comforting... but it's just nonsense, like you say to kids to protect them from harsh realities of life.

I believe there may be a God, there maybe even be a rebirth into an animal or bird or something,.or we're just part of the wind, but that would be unconscious and we wouldn't be aware of it - same as we weren't aware of life now before our birth.

Written religion is garbage in my opinion but I wouldn't ridicule anyone for believing. In fact, sometimes they have an advantage over me in that they have a certain "relaxation" in that it's all God's Will what happens to them. As I said, a comforting untruth if you can buy into it. I can't.

You raise many interesting points.

When someone dies "they meet up with their lost loved ones". On what basis does anyone believe that? If the bible, where does it say that?

If there is life after death, does our body somehow reappear? There are problems with identity based on the atoms that make up our body if that is the case. And if our body does not reappear, how does our identity cross the divide from life to death to the after-life?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

No. I’m not religious in the slightest. But I can see the value in it.

 

[Triggaaar]

No. I’m not religious in the slightest. But I can see the value in.

finishing sentences?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

finishing sentences?

I have now edited it.

 

[Eeyore]

You don't need to. Religious people say that religious people are wrong.

Christians say Muslims are wrong, who say that Hindus are wrong, who say that Buddhists are wrong, who say that Zoroastrians are wrong. And there are hundreds of Christian denominations, many of whom say that other Christian denominations are wrong. So either most religious believers are wrong - or all of them are. (Unless you are a supporter of John Hick's Religious Pluralism, in which case we can have a different discussion.)

The only thing that everyone has ever done with any perfection is be wrong.

 

[pigbite]

They also don’t have to be mutually exclusive as some atheists claim.

Science provides the observational framework which religion has to operate in but it is not able to even answer if the universe had a beginning yet. If science proves that the universe is eternal then we could legitimately ask what purpose is there for a creator God?

Brian Cox has my kind of approach as a scientist - great humility and in awe of nature!

Science may never really answer the question and even if it appeared to then you'd still have the issues around hard solipsism and the concept of how can we really be sure anything is real, we're not brains in vats/alien experiments/a software model etc. That is another subject and one I tend to ignore for practical purposes since everyone on earth accepts the presupposition that we are living in a shared reality just by doing stuff like eating.

The point is that the god of gaps approach flies in the face of every logical approach to how most of us work out how we know what we know and what position we take on knowledge. Generally we are happy to say "I don't know" if we don't have enough evidence for a claim and the bigger the claim the more evidence we tend to require. But religion has created this niche where special pleading works - the harder it is for us to understand something then the more likely it is that some kind of supernatural intervention is involved, but all of this is without ANY empirical evidence the supernatural exists, how it might interact with the physical world, if any kind of deity or deities inhabit the supernatural world, how one or more deities might be maniest, what it's nature might be, how it communicate with us, how we know it's absolutely some kind of God, what it wishes may be, how we can be sure we have interpreted those wishes, or even where it came from. Plus, the god shaped hole that we've had for this to fit in has got progressively smaller over time precisely because the scientific method has helped us understand the natural world we live in.

There is so much heavy lifting that has to be done just to get you to point where this apparently simple claim that maybe it was God wot dun it that I just don't know why it's even a thing in a supposedly enlightened age.

 

[wolfie]

I'm dyslexic and believe in my dog.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

There is no God.

Like most of us I have friends who are religious to varying degrees. One actually turns up on a Sunday, in the magic castle and talks about his imaginary friend. He is a wonderful bloke and the church is very lucky to have him.

I think the need for religion is based on a desire to understand one’s place in the universe, to be of worth, important if you like. Being the creation of a God, in his image, makes one special. It helps with the ‘why am I here’ argument.
I on the other hand realise that the universe could not give a toss about me. To the universe I‘m as insignificant as a grain of sand on a beach somewhere and I don’t register but i’m happy with that.

The other reason is that if your life is an awful experience, having the promise of eternal life in paradise as a reward will somehow make life more bearable …

Saying all of that I wouldn’t dream of trying to convert anyone to atheism. Whatever floats your boat. I do however object to being criticised for being an athiest. I find many religious people very, very intolerant and many seem to take breaking the Ten Commandments as a challenge.

 

[Jackthelad]

Yes I could never get my head around atheism. My brother is one of those angry fedora wearing militant atheists so family meets ups are interesting. I’m fairly cynical with the future of my faith Christianity I think it will tiny in the coming decades or it will be replaced by something else that doesn’t do love thy neighbour.

 

[OzMike]

One of my clients is quite a nasty person and often says horrible things.
I noticed religious icons and ornaments etc littered around her house.
I asked her if she was just a collector of this type of stuff and she vigourously explained how she was a believer and went to church every Sunday.
I hinted at ĥow someone with such beliefs can address people the way she does, as politely as I could and her reply was that it was ok, as she goes to confession every weekend.
She believes that you can be as nasty as you like all week, as long ad you go and confess it all, so the slate is wiped clean for another week.
Rather odd ?

 

[Cotton Socks]

No offence meant to anyone.