Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

"Secularism is a religion...Atheism is a religion"


Guest Kyelo

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 425
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin

What rubbish

Really?

Then please do tell me what leads people in the modern world to have a belief in god aside from the existence of an existing belief in god by other people? :lol:

While there were god beliefs that pre-date Christianity and the like, there's certainly no cultural-leading of people towards them because our culture labels them as wacky. And so modern culture should do, because those wacky ideas existed only to explain the unexplainable.

So there is only the ongoing beliefs, which all stem (for Christianity) from that bible that people choose to believe parts of while dismissing the others - which of course means they have no greater rationale for the parts they choose to believe as there is for the parts they choose to not believe.

The god idea is one of suggestion, nowt more - but a suggestion whose source is dismissed by believers no less than it's accepted (aside from with fundamentalists).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Well faith in "god" didn't come from the bible... So it kind of rubbishes what you are saying Neil...

In all modern senses it has.

Your belief in god has its origin in the people you've met who take their belief in god from the bible (no different to how mine did when I had god belief). There is only suggestion, a suggestion which for 'white British' people comes directly from the bible over countless generations - at first all taken without question, with the questioning of it increasing over the time that other discoveries and facts have proven parts to be false.

The idea of there being a god has been suggested to you by society since your birth, and it's massively the probability that you unquestionably accepted it as true no differently as you did other things which were said to you as a child.

Those people who properly question what has been suggested to them reject it on the exact same basis as they accept or reject other ideas - those with a reasonable basis in facts tend to get (re-)accepted while those without any reasonable basis in facts get rejected.

There is of course no basis in facts for any god idea.

We used to believe that a monarch was god's representative on earth, because that's what people told us. Then we wised up.

We used to believe that there was nothing wrong with slavery, because that's what people told us. Then we wised up.

We used to believe that to be gay was wrong because that's what people told us. Then we wised up.

Etc, etc, etc.

Those with a god belief have yet to wise up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the Bible is held up as an authority, both as evidence for God's existence and as a teaching guide. It's the Book of truth, isn't it?

So if it counts as evidence for God's existence, then you can't just discount bits of it that are contradictory or inconvenient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

So if it counts as evidence for God's existence, then you can't just discount bits of it that are contradictory or inconvenient.

and if it's not the evidence for god's existence, what is there to plant the idea of god in someone's mind?

For the likes of Oaf that is very definitely the suggestion of a god from someone who does take the 'evidence' of the bible as the evidence of god's existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the Bible is held up as an authority, both as evidence for God's existence and as a teaching guide. It's the Book of truth, isn't it?

So if it counts as evidence for God's existence, then you can't just discount bits of it that are contradictory or inconvenient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

So does all non belief start with the various religous texts, not just the bible?

I can't speak for others, but my own non-belief is from facts.

I could believe that I had a Ferrari parked outside my house. When I go outside there is no Ferrari, and so I don't believe that there is one.

I could believe that I had a campervan parked outside my house. When I go outside there is a campervan, and so I believe that there is one.

This is what we all do for everything .... except for those people with a belief in god, who hold that belief despite the complete absence of any facts to back up their belief. There is only the suggestion that was put into their mind as an infant that there is a god - and that suggestion also often comes with a "and this is to never be questioned" subtitle.

Even if a believer does question it, they never throw off the suggestion that's been made to them an an infant.

That god belief is irrational on all the normal basis that a person uses to go thru their life. It only stands up to any rational scrutiny by applying a completely different rationale to the idea than would be applied for anything else.

Unless .... the god believers want to accept that the Spaghetti Monster is as valid a god as their own god - which they never do, and so prove their own irrationality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Who said its evidence for God's existence ? I don't think its really "evidence" of his existence...

So the question needs to be asked: what is it that led you to conclude that there is a god?

And the answer is: the suggestion of others that there is a god. Which is as weak as it gets, and something you wouldn't accept as a basis for any other belief you might have.

There is nothing else that causes you to have that belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at it like this. Deism and Pantheism are very hard to argue against from a scripture point of view but Abrahamic religions can be. They have many mistakes, contradictions and in some cases completely made up lies. If one piece of it can be shown to be wrong the entire thing can be, if there are doubts over its authenticity then the basis for the entire religion is in doubt ergo the beliefs/gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak for others, but my own non-belief is from facts.

I could believe that I had a Ferrari parked outside my house. When I go outside there is no Ferrari, and so I don't believe that there is one.

I could believe that I had a campervan parked outside my house. When I go outside there is a campervan, and so I believe that there is one.

This is what we all do for everything .... except for those people with a belief in god, who hold that belief despite the complete absence of any facts to back up their belief. There is only the suggestion that was put into their mind as an infant that there is a god - and that suggestion also often comes with a "and this is to never be questioned" subtitle.

Even if a believer does question it, they never throw off the suggestion that's been made to them an an infant.

That god belief is irrational on all the normal basis that a person uses to go thru their life. It only stands up to any rational scrutiny by applying a completely different rationale to the idea than would be applied for anything else.

Unless .... the god believers want to accept that the Spaghetti Monster is as valid a god as their own god - which they never do, and so prove their own irrationality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I asked, as earlier people people were saying that belief always started with the bible so just wondering if the same was true of in reverse, although you have to take in all texts. more a random late night question really

I'd say for 99.99% of non-believers their non-belief starts with from religious text.

A child starts with an empty screen. The idea of a god is very very likely to be planted in there at some point (it's an idea that's almost impossible to avoid in almost all places on earth). So for a person to arrive at the idea of no-god they have to consider the idea of a god to then reject it.

After all, if the idea of a god has never occurred to you, it's not too likely that (as a child) you'd make up the idea from nothing of there being no god.

We don't consider what there isn't, we only ever consider what there is or might be; to arrive at any idea of something that isn't we work from an idea of what is or might be to arrive at that nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at it like this. Deism and Pantheism are very hard to argue against from a scripture point of view but Abrahamic religions can be. They have many mistakes, contradictions and in some cases completely made up lies. If one piece of it can be shown to be wrong the entire thing can be, if there are doubts over its authenticity then the basis for the entire religion is in doubt ergo the beliefs/gods.

Edited by The Nal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Explaining what causes you to have "faith" is the hardiest thing in the world...

Your easy answer is I have been brained washed by others while the reality, or least my understand of the reality, is far more complex...

Its more a feeling deep down... I couldn't accurately explain it... Mock away if you wish... Its not going to change much...

Oh, I get that "feeling deep down", I've experienced it myself.

But I've concluded it's simply a self-generated answer for the unexplained, to cause us not to fear the things that are beyond our comprehension - after all, there's the facts to back that up. For example...

Before we understood how the sun "rises" (a word we still cling on to for it, despite knowing it's wrong :lol:) in the sky, there was the idea of 'someone' pushing it up into the sky. That 'someone' was a god in 'pagan' beliefs, and became the Christian god in (what became) Christian beliefs.

Eventually, with better information available to us, the idea of a 'god' pushing it into the sky died out.... but the Abrahamic myth then changed things so that 'god' became responsible for the mechanisms that puts it into the sky rather than doing it himself.

And that above is, in a nutshell, the whole history of religious beliefs. Weird ideas with a basis of nothing are replaced by solid facts, which causes the religion to change its message to fit the new facts, and everyone pretends that it always approached things in that new way. It's actually quite laughable that people continue to go along with it.

What was it that research that the Mail wrote about said? That people with low childhood intelligence have irrational fears that lead them to be socially conservative. Here's betting that the same correlation can be found with religious beliefs - after all, they're simply the demonstration of a fear caused by irrational thought.

What is beyond doubt is that the idea of a god was suggested to you before you thought of it yourself.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Explaining what causes you to have "faith" is the hardiest thing in the world...

Your easy answer is I have been brained washed by others while the reality, or least my understand of the reality, is far more complex...

Its more a feeling deep down... I couldn't accurately explain it... Mock away if you wish... Its not going to change much...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or to put it another way:

Imagine you live in a society that doesn't have religion, and everyone except you only believes in the physical world. You become convinced that there's a supreme being, who's invisible, who created the Universe, who's omnipotent and omniscient, and benevolent.

You're positive this being exists, but when you tell anyone, they ask you to prove it. They run tests on you, and can't find anything wrong with your perception or your brain, at least physically.

Nobody accepts your story, because there's no external evidence for it, just a feeling you have.

without social acceptance of your belief, you'd likely rationalise it as a delusion, and even if you were convinced, your society would probably label you as psychotic and try to treat you.

at the moment, your belief is supported by the beliefs of others who believe the same, and a social protection that isn't accorded to similar beliefs. And by a book that shows that your beliefs have been around for thousands of years.

But take that away, and how could you tell that what you believe is the truth and not an illusion?

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

The thing about low intelligence is funny.

Considering you suggested that its mostly well off middle class people who are going church and doing well for themselves. I wonder what sort of level of intelligence that places on you :)

I ain't well off, I ain't middle class, I don't go to church and I ain't doing well for myself.

Sounds like I'm very very safe. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Ah, well. Never mind, hey.
    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...