Are you religious?

[Dwarf]

But the desire to sustain and enrich life has rarely stemmed initially from unbelief or the nihilist tendencies of their ilk.

I take it that you use nihilism in the pejorative and that you define it as the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. If so, you assume, therefore, that only the believer has the ability to have moral principles, or to enrich life, or to sustain life, or have a meaning for life? In which case you are very wrong and very blinkered. The only part of your statement that is correct is the rejection of religious beliefs.

...

Whoever we are it is difficult for us to say that our moral schema isn't informed in large part by the Western Protestant milieu.

My overall thrust is that to construct atheistic worldviews (which came to the boil in the 19th C.) as distinct from a Christian journey, is virtually impossible. The Christian believer and person of unbelief have both journeyed alongside each other in the West.

I suspect many of us think deeply about 'truth' and our 'hard positions' are veneers over considerable 'messy self enquiry'. We are all people of doubt, fear, anxiety, angst... and if authentic searching meaningfully for 'truth'.

Few Christians appear to live the life of Paul I note.

Hmmm. That is a point, the atheist couldn't exist in his present form without the believer. Both have travelled together and been influenced by the other.

That few Christians appear to live the life of Paul I note and agree with. But shouldn't they be trying to live the life of Jesus? Paul after all never knew Jesus and was simply giving his interpretation of what he meant, and therefore imperfectly. Surely the true Christian should go directly to the original? 'Rise up and follow me'.
To my mind the structure of the Church is based far too much on the beliefs of people like Paul, Ignaeus and Augustine who at the end of the day were merely saying how Christianity worked for them. I prefer the original works.

[Dwarf]

Don't worry about it - he's incorrect.

It does bother me though. Cuddles is normally capable of making rational points, in this case I haven't a clue about what he means.

Ask yourself why BB made the remark that he did. In what way does it contribute to the discussion? Do you think it forms part of any rational analysis? Is it relevant?

What effect do you think it would have on the average reader? Do you think it would be seen as supportive, neutral or something else? Do you think it possible that somebody might reasonably see it as a attack on somebody by implicitly accusing them of hypocrisy (by association if not by attributing something to the individual)? By extension, could it be as a direct attack on the credibility of that individual and any arguments they might make?

The gentle hypocrisy of the self-appointed righteous. But you probably won't see it as that though.

That's probably because I try not to attribute such things to people.

However, I am glad to see that you act upon on the principle of confession being good for the soul (even though you don't have one).

It seems that he well might have one after all. These words from Marcus Aurelius the mystic Roman Emperor who apparently was done over by his son who ended up getting it up him by Russel Crowe in the Arena.
Translated from the original for those whose latin is a tad rusty.

“You are forgetting too, the closeness of man’s brotherhood with his kind; a brotherhood not of blood or common seed, but of intelligence; and that this intelligence in every man is God, an emanation from the deity. You forget that nothing is properly a man’s own, for even his child, his dody, his soul itself, all come from this same God; also that all things depend upon opinion; also, that the passing moment is all that a man can ever live or lose.”

I don’t necessarily identify with all of that though I think that the last phrase is very true and deep whether atheist or believer.
I also think that the bit about emanation puts the last bit by Exbluejob into the frame. By only accepting what is proven by scientific method surely is an attitude. Although as a measure of the physical universe I agree it is the way. However if the ‘God experience’ is something that happens to an individual as an internal experience, the feeling of emanation which I understand automatically, then how could it be measurable by the scientific method?
I can understand and vocalise to a point, but have little idea of science, if then a scientific orienated bloke wants to understand, how about suggesting ways to scientifically define that. I have no burden of proof because I am not trying to convince anybody, but in order to put that to a scientific testing I would need help rather than a “It’s up to you” attitude.

[Excognito]

"If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defence of its existence. Otherwise I have no reason to listen to you"

What do *you* think that means?

[Cuddles]

i am interested that Marcus Aurelius thinks even our "dodies" are of spiritual significance...i usually just flush mine away.

There is no imperative on me to follow the scientific method at all. For example i might choose instead a cartesian method based on my ability to think. You would however not accept the existence of something I could not prove by the scientific method. Fair enough.

Bit bored now...this debate is becoming a he say/she say again and quite moribund.

[Excognito]

* Excognito recently posted a message in which he not only said that I was an atheist but that I should stop masquerading as an agnostic. How very strange. A look through the thread will show that I have always identified as an atheist and never claimed to be an agnostic. My mistake was to sneak in my saying that I am an atheist by writing it down on a publicly accessible website and never once saying that I‘m an agnostic.

No. I didn't say you were masquerading as an agnostic. What I said was:

Yes, you do have a religious world view. You're an atheist (and don't try hiding behind any technical definition of agnosticism - your argumental history on this thread demonstrates, at Clapham Omnibus level, that you are a functional atheist). You have effectively stated that religion is either a matter of education or of psychology.

a. I do not keep track of who exactly claims what in detail. I do know that some, as Sticky has confirmed, define themselves as agnostic.

b. I did not claim that you had stated you were agnostic. I clearly stated you were an atheist and referred to your history on this thread. However, people, well some people, are capable of changing their minds, or adopting stances from a debating point of view. I therefore took account of the possibility that you *might* claim that, technically, you were agnostic rather than atheist and gave my opinion of such a claim.

Isn't that a little bit like calling not collecting stamps as a hobby?

A little bit? maybe. But not in the way you probably intend. If you've never heard of stamp-collecting, then it might be legitimate to say that you don't have a world-view of stamp collecting. But if know something of stamp-collecting and think that stamp-collectors are a bunch of sad, anorak-wearing, oddballs who need to get a life, then you have a world-view of stamp-collecting and stamp-collectors.

Similarly, if somebody is an atheist in the sense that religion is something they've never heard of or been involved with in any meaningful sense, then they could reasonably be said to have no religious world-view. However, if somebody is an atheist who has actively participated in a debate about religion, then it is unreasonable to claim that they have no world-view on the subject - they clearly do.

So atheism has a "World-View" on religion does it? I suppose it might if you use "World-View" in the same way that I would use "opinion". Does it matter?

BTW, change of emphasis noted.

What makes you think I'm using 'world-view' to mean merely 'opinion'? Do you know what a world-view is, Sticky?

[BoomShackerLacker]

Whoever we are it is difficult for us to say that our moral schema isn't informed in large part by the Western Protestant milieu.

That moral schema is not and was never the preserve of the christian - it was around way before christianity was even considered. Our moral schema comes from far more than the Western Protestant milieu - the catholics, romans, greeks and vikings, for e.g., had a fair bit to do with it.

And none of it has any bearing on the central core of faith - the existence of god.

Each of your posts consists of re-phrasing the posters' original posts into a new construction so you can bash it whilst wearing your leopard skin. Poor form, albeit consistent. You're the archetypal "anti" but far from l'engagement. That is you're only here to pitch for your team.

[billybongo]

Whoever we are it is difficult for us to say that our moral schema isn't informed in large part by the Western Protestant milieu.

That moral schema is not and was never the preserve of the christian - it was around way before christianity was even considered. Our moral schema comes from far more than the Western Protestant milieu - the catholics, romans, greeks and vikings, for e.g., had a fair bit to do with it.

And none of it has any bearing on the central core of faith - the existence of god.

Each of your posts consists of re-phrasing the posters' original posts into a new construction so you can bash it whilst wearing your leopard skin. Poor form, albeit consistent. You're the archetypal "anti" but far from l'engagement. That is you're only here to pitch for your team.

And each of yours consists of wild statements of inaccuracy and presupposition that are have no founding and thus deserved to be torn to pieces. I am anti your utterly preposterous statements that have nothing to support them and are put forward in the blind assumption that your version of events is utterly correct and with very little thought behind them except that which has been drummed into your head by your priests and your upbringing - and so, yes, I have posted the last few comments in response to your arrogant assumptions that you make that do not reflect reality and are founded in what I regard as the ludicrous notion of religion, in your case christianity.

And you too are the archetypal anti - you're position is 'anti' reality. Your decision making process requires you to base your beliefs on nothing more than faith - that is anti-logical etc. Nothing wrong in that per se, but it is a flawed position and one that deserves to have each argument for it tested to extremis.

Your response is typical of the pious, irritation that someone has the gall to suggest you are wrong and to point out the flaws in your arguments. You cannot post statements like yours on a thread like this without expecting them to be knocked unless they are plausible, reasonable comments. By and large yours aren't, so expect them to be knocked or don't post or have big enough shoulders to be able to absorb criticism without whinging.

As for only pitching for my team - of course - there aren't many neutral observers batting for both sides.

As for wearing a leopard skin - are you painting a picture of me as a drummer, an essex trollop or a caveman with primitive beliefs?

[BoomShackerLacker]

But the desire to sustain and enrich life has rarely stemmed initially from unbelief or the nihilist tendencies of their ilk.

I take it that you use nihilism in the pejorative and that you define it as the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. If so, you assume, therefore, that only the believer has the ability to have moral principles, or to enrich life, or to sustain life, or have a meaning for life? In which case you are very wrong and very blinkered. The only part of your statement that is correct is the rejection of religious beliefs.

...

Whoever we are it is difficult for us to say that our moral schema isn't informed in large part by the Western Protestant milieu.

My overall thrust is that to construct atheistic worldviews (which came to the boil in the 19th C.) as distinct from a Christian journey, is virtually impossible. The Christian believer and person of unbelief have both journeyed alongside each other in the West.

I suspect many of us think deeply about 'truth' and our 'hard positions' are veneers over considerable 'messy self enquiry'. We are all people of doubt, fear, anxiety, angst... and if authentic searching meaningfully for 'truth'.

Few Christians appear to live the life of Paul I note.

Hmmm. That is a point, the atheist couldn't exist in his present form without the believer. Both have travelled together and been influenced by the other.

That few Christians appear to live the life of Paul I note and agree with. But shouldn't they be trying to live the life of Jesus? Paul after all never knew Jesus and was simply giving his interpretation of what he meant, and therefore imperfectly. Surely the true Christian should go directly to the original? 'Rise up and follow me'.
To my mind the structure of the Church is based far too much on the beliefs of people like Paul, Ignaeus and Augustine who at the end of the day were merely saying how Christianity worked for them. I prefer the original works.

Agree. All is fizz and bluster until we come to the person of Christ. I chose Paul because he was a Pharisee, and violent persecutor of Christians and was an intellectual of some ability; and was transformed by faith in Christ. Far from the nominal churchianity that was Christendom.

In my mind Christ remains the main question above all. There are no seven eighths here. How the church reflects this or limits it is interesting. And we can ask how well Paul reflected Christ too?

[Spot_the_Dog]

Couple of points:

With not one single shred of evidence to support the claims of any of the gods actually existing, isn't it pointless to debate religion until proof is produced (if it ever is?)

Also, if religion actually cared for its followers, surely after a few deaths in its name, it would have had the moral decency to shut up shop?

[billybongo]

Couple of points:

With not one single shred of evidence to support the claims of any of the gods actually existing, isn't it pointless to debate religion until proof is produced (if it ever is?)

Also, if religion actually cared for its followers, surely after a few deaths in its name, it would have had the moral decency to shut up shop?

Don't confuse morality and religion - the two are totally separate.