Topic: Atheism

[Mutton Geoff]

No. They're religious fundamentalists. They are quite capable of arriving at zealotry and sectarian violence on their own.

History has shown many zealots in all religions before them , which is why i go for a way of living my life as i wish rather being told how to live it.

[TepidT2O]

Buddhism isn't a religion...

[The Gulleysucker]

If (and that's a very big if of truly galactic proportions..) I was ever to succumb to a religion, I think Jainism has its attractions.

According to Jainism, the universe was never created, nor will it ever cease to exist. It is independent and self-sufficient, does not require a creator, nor any superior power to govern it, nor a judge nor destroyer.[167][237] In this belief, it is distinct from the monotheistic Abrahamic religions, it is similar to Buddhism, and it shares premises with the non-theistic part of the spectrum of diverse beliefs found in different traditions within Hindu philosophy and distinct from theistic Hindu traditions.[238]

Jain texts reject the idea of a creator, ruler or destroyer God and postulate an eternal universe. However, Jainism believes in the world of gods and hell beings who are born and who die to be reborn like living beings in the earthly realm of existence.[239][240] Those souls who live in the body of a god, do so because of their positive karma. They have metamorphic body, that is they are believed in Jain thought to be able to change their body at will. The gods live a life of happiness, fun and frolic, whose wishes are automatically fulfilled.[241] They also possess a more transcendent knowledge about material things and can anticipate events in the human realms.[241] However, once their past karmic merit is exhausted, the souls leave the "god body" and are reborn again as humans, animals or other beings

It's the non-violence to all living things that I find most attractive.

The last day involves a focused prayer/meditation session known as Samvatsari. Jains consider this as a day of atonement, granting forgiveness to others, seeking forgiveness from all living beings, physically or mentally asking for forgiveness, resolving to treat everyone in the world as friends.[110] Forgiveness is asked by saying Micchami Dukkadam or Khamat Khamna to others, which means, "If I have offended you in any way, knowingly or unknowingly, in thought, word or action, then I seek your forgiveness." The literal meaning of Paryushana is "abiding" or "coming together"

[RedRabbit]

Pretty much the only religion where you'd like a fundamentalist to be your neighbour.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

If more people ate cheese and ketchup on toast, we'd all be happy.

[TepidT2O]

[vagabond]

If more people ate cheese and ketchup on toast, we'd all be happy.

Ketchup on toast sounds awful. But I respect your right to eat what you like.

[Yorkykopite]

The world would certainly become a happier place if more people ate bacon.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

The world would certainly become a happier place if more people ate bacon.

Bacon is a waste of sausages

[TepidT2O]

Bacon is a waste of sausages

Oh yes yes yes, so so the right answer..

[vagabond]

The world would certainly become a happier place if more people ate bacon.

Probably true in the short term. But then we'd all die from the climate changes an extra 100 billion pigs will generate to feed us all.

[Yorkykopite]

Oh yes yes yes, so so the right answer..

Neither have much on a slow-roasted pork belly.

I have a vision of the Middle East in a hundred years time with millions of people barbecuing pork ribs every Friday.

They say I'm a dreamer......

[Conocinico]

"If I have offended you in any way, knowingly or unknowingly, in thought, word or action, then I seek your forgiveness."

They sound like a bunch of pussies.

[Lfsea]

If (and that's a very big if of truly galactic proportions..) I was ever to succumb to a religion, I think Jainism has its attractions.

According to Jainism, the universe was never created, nor will it ever cease to exist. It is independent and self-sufficient, does not require a creator, nor any superior power to govern it, nor a judge nor destroyer.[167][237] In this belief, it is distinct from the monotheistic Abrahamic religions, it is similar to Buddhism, and it shares premises with the non-theistic part of the spectrum of diverse beliefs found in different traditions within Hindu philosophy and distinct from theistic Hindu traditions.[238]

Jain texts reject the idea of a creator, ruler or destroyer God and postulate an eternal universe. However, Jainism believes in the world of gods and hell beings who are born and who die to be reborn like living beings in the earthly realm of existence.[239][240] Those souls who live in the body of a god, do so because of their positive karma. They have metamorphic body, that is they are believed in Jain thought to be able to change their body at will. The gods live a life of happiness, fun and frolic, whose wishes are automatically fulfilled.[241] They also possess a more transcendent knowledge about material things and can anticipate events in the human realms.[241] However, once their past karmic merit is exhausted, the souls leave the "god body" and are reborn again as humans, animals or other beings

It's the non-violence to all living things that I find most attractive.

The last day involves a focused prayer/meditation session known as Samvatsari. Jains consider this as a day of atonement, granting forgiveness to others, seeking forgiveness from all living beings, physically or mentally asking for forgiveness, resolving to treat everyone in the world as friends.[110] Forgiveness is asked by saying Micchami Dukkadam or Khamat Khamna to others, which means, "If I have offended you in any way, knowingly or unknowingly, in thought, word or action, then I seek your forgiveness." The literal meaning of Paryushana is "abiding" or "coming together"

Was sat at the back of an Emirates flight to Chennai a few years back. They'd run out of all the standard meal trays and only had Jain left. Being a curious sort, I took it on anyway.

The meal consisted of a bowl of Okra, a tub of water and a sloppy wheat custard and was the single most hideous meal I've ever eaten - and bear in mind I had a chocolate pudding in Athens in 1995 that was blended with cigarette butts. And for that reason, I'm out.

[J_Kopite]

A friend of mine from a Jain family had a go at me once because I swatted a fly away on a balmy night in her apartment, all religion has the potential to do mad things to people.

[Mutton Geoff]

Buddhism isn't a religion...

Which is why I prefer it, Religions > wars, persecution, unhealthy doctrines, bigotry, I could go on but you get the gist! Just my opinion and not putting down people who are religious ! Oh and never mind Sausages Black Puddings are king.

[TepidT2O]

Which is why I prefer it, Religions > wars, persecution, unhealthy doctrines, bigotry, I could go on but you get the gist! Just my opinion and not putting down people who are religious ! Oh and never mind Sausages Black Puddings are king.

Neither are Hinduism or Sikhism ... our western (west ish anyway) concept of monotheistic religion was somewhat shoehorned on to eastern practices to help us understand them, they're not really a suitable fit though, but I guess we're stuck with them now.

[The Gulleysucker]

.....The meal consisted of a bowl of Okra, a tub of water and a sloppy wheat custard and was the single most hideous meal I've ever eaten...

You sort of get used to being served that level of haute cuisine after a while when your wife is Scottish....

[zero zero]

We'll have achieved some kind of brilliant world when everyone can think what they like without getting shite about it from someone else.

I believe the poster below could benefit from your tolerant example:

If you go to the US at the moment given this shithouse in charge then you're a c*nt. Simple as.

Can't see it ever happening. The Atheists seem as hell bent on intolerance as the Religious.

Clearly. Though I think the inability to see one's own faults and to "practice what you preach" on the part of the religious might also play a part.

[classycarra]

I believe the poster below could benefit from your tolerant example:Clearly. Though I think the inability to see one's own faults and to "practice what you preach" on the part of the religious might also play a part.

That post was the first thing I thought of on reading Andy's dreams of a tolerant world!

[zero zero]

No. They're religious fundamentalists.

You ducked the question last time I asked, so again, what is a Buddhist fundamentalist? To me, it's an oxymoron. A fundamental of Buddhism is to Follow the Middle Path, ie moderation

They are quite capable of arriving at zealotry and sectarian violence on their own.

Not sure what you mean here

Buddhism isn't a religion...

Buddhists think it is. Don't we get a say in this?

[Corkboy]

You ducked the question last time I asked, so again, what is a Buddhist fundamentalist? To me, it's an oxymoron. A fundamental of Buddhism is to Follow the Middle Path, ie moderation

And a fundamental tenet of Christianity is love thy neighbour. They're not very good at it, though.

[zero zero]

And a fundamental tenet of Christianity is love thy neighbour. They're not very good at it, though.

I'd agree. Turning the other cheek seems to be in short supply, historically at least.

[Yorkykopite]

I'd agree. Turning the other cheek seems to be in short supply, historically at least.

There are occasions when it's stupid and self-defeating to turn the other cheek. Would you agree?

[zero zero]

There are occasions when it's stupid and self-defeating to turn the other cheek. Would you agree?

Of course. There would be no Buddhist majority countries left in the world had they religiously stuck to the 1st precept: «pānātipātā veramaṇi sikkhāpadaṃ samādhiyāmi.»

I will abstain from being harmful to living beings.

My point was that those religions that possess the concept of holy wars find it hard to say that turning the other cheek, or peace, for that matter central to their belief system.

[thejbs]

There's that weird hypocrisy in the bible where it encourages both turning the other cheek and bloody vengeance.

[The Gulleysucker]

There's that weird hypocrisy in the bible where it encourages both turning the other cheek and bloody vengeance.

It's been a long time, but I recall a distinction always being made in Catholicism between the Old (ie bloody vengeance and a tendancy to smitin' and a smotin') and the New (turn the other cheek) testaments.

Can't quite remember the finer details and it may well just have been the teachers we had at the time, it was the early to mid 60's when things were in a state of flux in Catholicism worldwide, but there was a typical Catholic teachings convenience (maybe just a reticence on the part of our particular teachers) to try and avoid the details and contradictary implications of the older and somewhat more awkward stuff.

We were certainly taught that the important stuff was more the teachings of Jesus rather than the old Testament, which was always to be treated in a more circumspect way, and by the time we were 11 or so, increasingly taught or it was suggested that the Old was certainly not to be regarded as either historically accurate or a reliable indicator of the word of God.

We only really covered just a very few highly selective bits of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Joshua and Judges from the Old, enough to get by in a shallow Q&A/University Challenge/crossword answer type level, whereas most of the New was delved into in some detail and discussed.

I expect others may well have had different experiences though, largely dependent on the flavour of Catholicism and the evangelical fervour of their particular teachers or school...

[So… Howard Philips]

It's been a long time, but I recall a distinction always being made in Catholicism between the Old (ie bloody vengeance and a tendancy to smitin' and a smotin') and the New (turn the other cheek) testaments.

Can't quite remember the finer details and it may well just have been the teachers we had at the time, it was the early to mid 60's when things were in a state of flux in Catholicism worldwide, but there was a typical Catholic teachings convenience (maybe just a reticence on the part of our particular teachers) to try and avoid the details and contradictary implications of the older and somewhat more awkward stuff.

We were certainly taught that the important stuff was more the teachings of Jesus rather than the old Testament, which was always to be treated in a more circumspect way, and by the time we were 11 or so, increasingly taught or it was suggested that the Old was certainly not to be regarded as either historically accurate or a reliable indicator of the word of God.

We only really covered just a very few highly selective bits of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Joshua and Judges from the Old, enough to get by in a shallow Q&A/University Challenge/crossword answer type level, whereas most of the New was delved into in some detail and discussed.

I expect others may well have had different experiences though, largely dependent on the flavour of Catholicism and the evangelical fervour of their particular teachers or school...

I went to a Christian Brothers school in the 1960s and some of the older Irish brothers were very much in the Father Jack school of Old Testament smitin' and smitin', particularly the young souls in their care.

However the younger brothers, probably influenced by a South American brother, were more concerned with how the New Testament fitted in with liberation theology.

Pretty radical but that was 1967 for you.

[The Gulleysucker]

I went to a Christian Brothers school

SEC?

[redbyrdz]

It's been a long time, but I recall a distinction always being made in Catholicism between the Old (ie bloody vengeance and a tendancy to smitin' and a smotin') and the New (turn the other cheek) testaments.

Can't quite remember the finer details and it may well just have been the teachers we had at the time, it was the early to mid 60's when things were in a state of flux in Catholicism worldwide, but there was a typical Catholic teachings convenience (maybe just a reticence on the part of our particular teachers) to try and avoid the details and contradictary implications of the older and somewhat more awkward stuff.

We were certainly taught that the important stuff was more the teachings of Jesus rather than the old Testament, which was always to be treated in a more circumspect way, and by the time we were 11 or so, increasingly taught or it was suggested that the Old was certainly not to be regarded as either historically accurate or a reliable indicator of the word of God.

We only really covered just a very few highly selective bits of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Joshua and Judges from the Old, enough to get by in a shallow Q&A/University Challenge/crossword answer type level, whereas most of the New was delved into in some detail and discussed.

I expect others may well have had different experiences though, largely dependent on the flavour of Catholicism and the evangelical fervour of their particular teachers or school...

AFAIK Christianity starts with the teachings of Jesus, which isn't really until the NT. The OT is shared theological history with Judaism. I think one of the central pieces for Jesus to set out his new teachings is in the Sermon on the Mount, where he re-interprets much of the older stuff. However, its important to realise that they didn't discard the old stuff, it is still there.

[The Gulleysucker]

..... However, its important to realise that they didn't discard the old stuff, it is still there.

It could be claimed that it made conversion to the 'New' faith easier.

[So… Howard Philips]

SEC?

Yes.

I still remember some of the school song but cannot recall Pythagoras's theorem to save my life.

[redbyrdz]

It could be claimed that it made conversion to the 'New' faith easier.

Historically, that made sense - it was what everyone knew and believed in, so it was needed as a reference point. The question is why it is still there today.

[The Gulleysucker]

Snap...
I'm guessing you must have been referring to Chincotta re Liberation theory?
He was very young during my time there. Never taught by him, I only used to only see him in the stationary room handing out Jotters etc but he seemed very different to the older Brothers.
I was in the Coffey and Mao era.

[So… Howard Philips]

Snap...
I'm guessing you must have been referring to Chincotta re Liberation theory?
He was very young during my time there. Never taught by him, I only used to only see him in the stationary room handing out Jotters etc but he seemed very different to the older Brothers.
I was in the Coffey and Mao era.

Same here.

Brother Beattie, aka Rasputin, was deputy head.

Mao did look like Mao.

[Rush 82]

I'm atheist, and I'm immoral I guess the bible-bashers have got me there!

What time do we burn you at the stake?

[electricghost]

Christians usually tend to place their focus on the NT, but the NT doesn't make any sense without the OT, original sin being an example.

If you ask most Christians if they follow the 10 commandments they will usually say yes, that is from the OT. There is the usually cherry picking that goes on with any religion in an attempt to discard the particularly awful bits.

[Yorkykopite]

There is the usually cherry picking that goes on with any religion in an attempt to discard the particularly awful bits.

Bring on the cherry picking.  So long as the cherry pickers acknowledge that this is what they are doing we can begin to progress and make the world a safer place.

I know that this is a hard thing to ask of most devout believers because it involves them having to acknowledge that parts of their beloved scripture are rubbish, violent, misogynistic, racist, plainly anachronistic and that they need to be jettisoned. That very process (i.e. Editing) tends, by its very nature, to cast doubt on the divine and immaculate nature of their holy books. But it is necessary if religion, especially monotheistic religion, is to be de-fanged and become "safe" in the modern world.

By contrast all attempts to prove that there is a single essence (however inscrutable) to the Bible or the Koran are futile and dangerous - dangerous because they are bound to lead to violent clashes between sects about who has got the interpretation right. And dangerous because men who believe all wisdom can be contained in a single book become so full of self-congratulation (which is what extreme piety is) that they nearly always turn violent, or justify violence. History shows that to be true.

Start cherry picking I say to the believers. And, more importantly, admit you're doing it.

[Corkboy]

Bring on the cherry picking.  So long as the cherry pickers acknowledge that this is what they are doing

Fat chance. They'll come up with concepts like exegesis and hermeneutics, and say it's all about context, as if words had a different meaning if you look at them extra closely.

[Yorkykopite]

Fat chance. They'll come up with concepts like exegesis and hermeneutics, and say it's all about context, as if words had a different meaning if you look at them extra closely.

Well one could argue that the recent history of Christianity - at least in democratic countries - has been to cherry-pick like mad. As a consequence you see less warlike leaders of the Church of England than you did in days of yore. And it's doubtful that the Inquisition will be back (although perhaps one should always expect it). Christianity may be a fabrication from beginning to end but once its ideas are 'cherry picked' you can certainly make something decent and civilised out of it, even if what remains is obvious and banal.

Though I know what you mean about the exegesis etc. My favourite one at the moment was one offered up by a chap in these pages not so long ago when he was defending the Koranic passage that allows (encourages?) husbands to beat wives with sticks - sometimes pre-emptively. He said it wasn't really "sticks" but "long grasses". "Bamboo?" someone asked. "Oh, no, more wavy, slender, feathery grasses than bamboo". One was left with the feeling that this Koranic 'punishment' was actually more of a loving, even semi-erotic, uxorious ritual.  He, of course, had read the text with greater 'scholarship' than the thousands of Muslim wife-beaters who read the same words but lacked 'exegesis'.

Whereas the cherry-picker would just scrap that verse altogether as medieval and plainly not appropriate for a more enlightened and less savage age as the one that gave birth to Mohammed.