I’m still here

Ok Ok, i know it’s been a long time since I posted – what can I say. But i’m still out there reading all the blogs and listening to all the free thinking podcasts, its just I haven’t been finding the time to post here – but more to come shortly.

A Definition of Atheism ?

I haven’t posted in a while  but I still intend to post here when I can.

In my job I volunteered to be part of the faith and belief network, they are currently trying to come up with a short description of different beliefs and what they mean.  This is the one they came up with for Atheism:

Atheism

 

Atheism is not a religion system or a belief in the conventional sense. It can be described as a person who does not believe in a god, gods or other deity figures.

Unlike Descartes, who used the notion of God to affirm existence, an Atheist is a person who will not use God to explain or validate the existence of man or the Universe. Atheist views can range from non belief in religion to secularism to rationalism.

 

Beliefs and Practice

 

Unlike religion, the concept of belief in a religious system is absent. The only belief in this regard can be that which is put forward, is that which determines that religion is unnecessary or God does not exist. The belief that God does not exist could be a personal one or one which arises out of doctrine. Atheists could argue that the existence of God, as presented in many religions has not conclusively been proven. A further belief could be that Sciences have pointed out that the Universe is older than the Biblical version of events that brought the Universe into existence.

 

A further argument that can be put forward is the Darwin’s theory of evolution chases human origin to a different source to many ideas put forward in religion.

 

Non belief is a right also. Whilst religious tolerance and respect is always worth striving for, the respect an opinion on non religious views is also a valid viewpoint also.

 

This was my response:

 

With regard to the description of Atheism there was one line where I think we may need some clarification:

“The belief that God does not exist could be a personal one or one which arises out of doctrine”

Atheism doesn’t advocate any world view, it simply states a position with regard to the arguments made for theism by the religious. There are no texts that atheists are expected to adhere to, so I’m not sure you could describe it as a belief that arises out of doctrine.

Doctrine is generally considered to be a set of rules or principles that a believer in a particular faith or idea must adhere to. I would argue that this isn’t the case with Atheism.

So, what do you think of their definition of Atheism ? Let me know if there is anything else you can see wrong with it.

 

 

 

Letter to Iris Robinson

For those of you not from Northern Ireland, Iris Robinson is a local assembly member from the DUP (Ian Paisleys party).

She has recently had some very disturbing things to say about Homosexuality

This was a letter I saw posted on William Crawleys blog. I’ve read the quotes before elsewhere but it was funny to see it directed at a local politician.

Dear Mrs Robinson,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your appearances on the Steve Nolan Show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that (Leviticus 18:22) clearly states it to be an abomination.

End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in (Exodus 21:7). In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. (Lev. 25:44) states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to the Irish, but not Scots. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Scottish people?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. (Exodus 35:2) clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

7. (Lev. 21:20) States that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by (Lev. 19:27). How should they die?

 

 

 9. I know from (Lev. 11:6-8 ) that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 

Here be Dragons

This is a video by Brian Dunning of Skeptoid.com.  Brian was looking for pictures for the movie so I sent him a picture of faith healers in Coleraine and it made it in to the movie!!! it’s at 3.06 if your interested – the video is definitley worth watching anyway. Also check out the podcast at skeptoid.com

Germaine Greer – The Decline of Chistian Ethics

Some interesting points made by Germaine Greer on todays any questions.

 

A discussion with a believer (part 3)

This is a continuation of a previous post on a discussion I have been having with a friend about religion, firstly LW’s response to my previous comments:

LW-

Ok…I’m going to have to do this bit by bit…the singularity:

Indeed it is a seemingly simple beginning, & I agree with you about evolution etc, but the point is, where did the singularity come from in the first place? As I said ealrier, nothing existed before the singularity & it can’t therefore just simultaneously burst into being. I concede that the idea of an all-knowing God doesn’t fit with Dawkins’ model, which is why I have the alternative ‘alien’ theory.

I notice that you make a distinction between a ‘God’ & a ‘God’ who impacts on our daily lives…this I find interesting. I was approaching this from the angle of ‘one God fits all’ so to speak.

Certainly, if you look at it from the point of view that there is no one or nothing to impact on our daily lives, then it would be possible to argue for the inexistence of a creating ‘God’ as what would be the point & your stance is entirely justified. (not that it’s not in any case…I’m figuring this out as I type)

But, just to throw this out there, what is so extraordinary about someone who is, at the very least, interested in our daily lives? Humans are social creatures & are interested in what goes on in the world & how other people are getting along, so why sould some form of ‘God’ not do the same? Is ‘God’ the ultimate Anthropologist?

Which brings me nicely onto my next point. I agree, again, that the religion that people are brought up with is usually the 1 they adhere to, but of course this is not always the case. As you say though, this is usually heavily influenced by social/political/economic factors, but then, what isn’t?

I accept that God, at least in a Christian sense, has most likely been created in our own image, but then as the phrase goes “until the lions have their historians, tales of hunting will always glorify the hunter.”

What I mean to say by that is that the Bible was written by people so, perhaps, in order to make the things contained in it seem more accesible/relevant/applicable etc, they may well have taken their visions/the big scary ‘God monster’ and given it a more human-like form. As you rightly point out though, religion is created based on the needs of society so it would seem antural that ‘God’ would be created in our own image as, while religion is created based on the needs of society, it is also created to perpetuate a certain set of values and norms and maintain said society.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s irrelevant/wrong though.

Of course, picking and choosing just the nice bits from the Bible isn’t exactly subscribing to the religion, but then, I think you;d need to look at the time in which the Bible was written, to put the things in it into contextand then of course you need to take into account the fact that the world has changed. Hence, certain aspects of the Bible such as the stoning of non-believers have been dropped becuase they aren’t really applicable anymore. There is some flexibility, although yes, I see that those who have blind faith in their religionwould cling to ancient beliefs no matter what. All things are relative I suppose.

I’m going to leave the science thing alone becuase I can’t explain exactly what I’m trying to get to, and I don;t think we’re ever going to agree on that!

Indeed the endless quest for truth and knowledge is what makes life worth living! My point was, that it is that that gives our lives meaning, whether we find that truth or not!

Of course we can be ethical human beings without faith in ‘God’, I didn’t intend to suggest anything to the contrary.

Perhaps ‘God’ is natural and not supernatural. I just liked the quote as it implies tolerance for all and advocates the idea of finding peace with oneself and our fellow human beings.

So, lastly, why do I think faith is necesary? So many reasons.

To start with, ‘God’ is almost always mentioned in assocaition with death. As humans, we fear death as it is the last great unknown. Subscribing to religion, having faith in ‘God’ helps to ease this fear. We know that our bodies will rot and we will never live again, but our soul, the essence of who we are, the people we have worked so hard to be over the course of our lives, will ‘live’ on. We have not therefore lived for nothing. As an aside, a book you may find interesting is one I read recently called “The Five People you MEet in Heaven” by Mitch Albon. It’s quite a nice little book anyway, but it fits our topic quite nicely.

So, why else?

On an everyday level, personally, I like to feel that I am not entirely alone, even when there is no one with me. I am, to be fair, a somewhat solitary person – perhaps I’ve been a bit to independent in my life – but I rarely feel alone.

This is because I feel that there is always someone or something looking out for me. I realise that perhaps this feeling is simply my inner consciousness & during the more difficult periods of my life the things I have dreamed or reasoned through ‘hearing’ this other ‘being’ have just been me telling myself to pull myself together, but there is something more to it than that, something intangible that I wouldn’t like to try and capture with words.

Alternatively, I also attribute bad luck or annoying things to the doing of a ‘God’ who seems to hate me sometimes. This perhaps is an unwillingness to accept my own faults or that sometimes there are just bad days, but there is another reason for this. By attributing bad luck to something else other than myself, I find that I can put my life into someone else’s hands & I can hope that tomorrow will be a better day. In fact, it is easier to believe that tomorrow will be a better day if I’m not responsbile for it…

I don’t see that having faith necessarily means we are ethical beings & conversely that a lack of faith suggests that we are immoral & incosiderate of our fellow beings.

For me, faith is akin to hope, it is comforting, it absolves me of my responsibilities when I can’t cope with the idea that (sometimes) I’m a rubbish human being, it facilitates self-reflection, it encourages tolerance, it keeps me from becoming too depressed by the world and the terrible things that humans do to each other, it gives me self-belief when all I want to do is give up, it calms me when there is nothing I can do about a situation and all I can say is “I’ll just have to wait & see/hope etc”, it helps me put my life and the things that happen in it into context in terms of ‘the bigger picture’, it allows me to accet that there are some things over which I have no control, it is an explanation for the good and bad things that happen when there’s no other explanation.

All of the above is of course on a personal level, but I’m sure there are things there that other people could relate too.

Anyway.

That is my reply for the moment…It is now 10.10 p.m and I’m finally going to go have dinner.

I look forward to your response.

OB –

Hi Lucy, hows things – its been a while since i commented but here are some more thoughts for you.
You asked

“what is so extraordinairy about a god that shows an interest in our everyday lives.”

Well, if you accept the idea of a god then it makes complete sense, but only within the framework that you have already set up for yourself by believing in that god in the first place.

“it would seem natural that ‘God’ would be created in our own image as, while religion is created based on the needs of society, it is also created to perpetuate a certain set of values and norms and maintain said society.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s irrelevant/wrong though.”

I wouldn’t say that religion is irrelevant, Christianity has been the main basis of Western Culture. Ancient Cultures understood the world through story telling, and, as i think i said previously, christianity was largely a re-telling of earlier myths. Giving your a history / politics / philosophy a narrative context makes it a lot more palatable to the listening masses.
As allegory you could argue that the bible has some merit, but that tells us nothing about the accuracy of its contents.
Yes, the bible is contextual – but it is still meant to be the one true word, and it still doesn’t provide us with a scrap of evidence for the supernatural.

“We know that our bodies will rot and we will never live again, but our soul, the essence of who we are, the people we have worked so hard to be over the course of our lives, will ‘live’ on”

you say that our bodies will rot but our soul will live on – how do you know? Our very “essence” may continue in the memories of people we leave behind, but that is no reason to think we maintain any sort of consciousness when we die.

I think the personal god you describe is basically your conscience. Self reflection / tolerance and all the other things you described are all things that can be achieved without faith.
Mark Twain said faith is believing what you know aint so.
you accept that there are things over which you have no control, so where does faith in a supernatural being fit in to this picture?
How does god help you explain the unexplainable in your life?
Sometimes people and life are unpredictable, and ultimately the only meaning that life has is the one that we give it.
I would describe myself as a humanist and generally most people are living by the same moral standards which have evolved over generations of personal relationships.
Since taking an interest in free thinking and scepticism, I feel more strongly that humanity is worth believing in.

You don’t need god to be good!

I was working in a local park the other weekend which had just been re-developed and was looking very neat and tidy for a change. Several local artists had been invited to exhibit their work on the park railings – we’re talking more Lowry than Banksy here – they were mainly all in their 60’s or 70’s. I got talking to one of the artists about how nice the park looked, he agreed but said that there had already been a bit of graffiti on one of the monuments – and what a shame it was that there weren’t more Christians as there would be less anti social behaviour.

As I was employed to be there I didn’t want to start a big debate with the man, but looking back maybe I should have challenged him on this. A lot of Christians seem to associate being Christian with being good, but as I said in a previous post about “good living” this isn’t always the case. But it’s this assumption that atheists can’t be good people that should probably be challenged more often, and I regret not saying something now.

Our sense of ethics and morality come from many places and have evolved in a similar way to our physical selves. From the very first time one of our ancestors punched someone else, and that other person punched him back people have realised that there are consequences to our actions. People learn from experience, education and peer pressure about what are acceptable ways to behave in this society, and most of us live by the rules.

To think that an ancient text which is the revealed wisdom of a vindictive hateful god, is the basis of our moral identity is nonsense. Christians, like the rest of us, are shaped and moulded by society’s mores, and will only cite scripture when it supports these already well established shared standards. And it’s the same tired old verses that get trotted out about loving thy neighbour etc. We rarely hear Christians advocating the stoning of adulterers.

Oh well, next time I’ll say something.

New Sins

The Catholic Church had apparently updated it’s 7 deadly sins this week. But later in the week it turns out that it was just a senior Vatican official who was just talking about a re-interpretation of the original 7 rather than a new set of commandments sent from on high.

I’m not going to bore you with the details of these new interpretations of the 7 deadly sins as I’m sure you’ve read them elsewhere, but it interests me to know how these decisions are made.

Presumably by a committee of old men sitting in the Vatican, and I’m sure this has been true right back to the foundation of the church. It’s just with the older dictates of the church people seem happy to think about these as revealed wisdom, not just man made decisions which they patently are.

Sticking with the Catholic Church, a member of the Irish Atheists forum atheist.ie managed to register the domain name Catholic.ie – check out this video they have on the home page.

Last night I saw Derren Brown performing in Belfast. For those of you who haven’t heard of him you should really check out some of his stuff on you tube.

I highly recommend his book also, which for me really brought home the importance of critical thinking and scepticism.  He always says that his shows are “magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship”, and has been criticised for not being honest about how the tricks are done, but he does say he is honest about his dishonesty – afterall he is a magician, I think we can allow him a few secrets.

Offensive Clothing?

 

I have recently joined the Religion and Belief Network at my work to put the atheist / humanist point of view forward. One of the first issues raised involved the “Jesus Loves You Belt”

Here was the Dilemma:

“A colleague has approached me to express his concern over an item of clothing worn by a team leader in the office. The item is a belt which has the words “JESUS LOVES YOU” studded into it. As a Christian, he finds this inappropriate and offensive. As far as he is aware the person in question does not wear the belt as an expression of their faith but as a fashion accessory. I would be interested to know what my colleagues’ on the network view of this is?”

 This was my response:

This would be a difficult one to judge without knowing the views of the individual wearing the belt.

If there has been a history of conflict between these 2 individuals then it could be construed as a deliberately provocative act.  If there has been no history of conflict then we are still not in a position to judge as we do not know if it is an expression of faith or not. 

If we can establish that it is an expression of faith then I don’t think we have a problem. If we can establish that it isn’t an expression of faith and is just a fashion accessory then we have to consider the individuals freedom of expression.

If we are allowed to wear religious symbols in the work place, then surely this should extend to those of no faith as well.  But on the other hand this belt couldn’t really be seen as a symbol of the individuals lack of faith (like the atheist “a” symbol) and it could be seen as a facetious attack on the Christian faith. 

So to take a more pragmatic approach, and emphasising cooperation and respect between those of different beliefs, the individual could be approached at line manager level to see whether s/he would consider not wearing the belt.  

It is important to emphasise that this isn’t a political correctness issue. The department shouldn’t be stipulating what any individual chooses to wear. But we have to respect that someone has taken offence and deal with this type of incident on a case by case basis. Hopefully the individual concerned will be gracious enough to accept that the item of clothing has caused offence and agree not to wear it.

So, the Jesus belt – a crime against religion or just a crime against fashion?

Happy Darwin Day!

Haven’t posted in a while so I thought i’d just pop in to say Happy Darwin Day! More posts soon hopefully.