Light sensors cause religious row

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Story here.

Maybe they should just move?

Oh, I missed lots , it's moved on rather quick.

Must type faster...

TheUnstrungHarp, the thread was suddenly moving fast so you probably missed some bits. There was talk of people who called themselves agnostics who were actual devout and so on. Apparently agnostics can be at either extreme (hence the colorful way of describing extemists)

You mean rhubarb's description of her dh, onagar?

Lupus - most people recognise that all faiths have at their core a common sense of the divine, even while the expression of this varies wildly. Unlike the Loch Ness Monster, it is a metaphysical concept and doesn't submit to rational examination, so cannot be proven. Many of the specific claims of individual religions and branches of religions do of course belong in the physical world, and do submit to rational examination. So as rationalists we might say with some assurance that some particular miracle of healing did not occur, just as we might say that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, but we cannot say with the same assurance that there is no divinity. We might discount the concept of divinity as having no meaning within our framework of understanding, but we would have to acknowledge that as mp says, this viewpoint is historically extraordinary.

TheUnstrungHarp, no what happened was that Rhubard posted suggesting that OlympedeGouges had left MN because of the disrespect shown her beliefs. When we all pointed out that OlympedeGouges claimed to be agnostic we were told that an agnostic might be a devout believer.

Hence the bit about it not being in someone's best interest to mislead people as to their position if they hope for special treatment.

That may not have happened of course. It was what Rhubarb thought might have happened.

I think this was my problem with mp's use of "extraordinary" - being historically unusual is not the same thing. I could argue that people have always invented gods because they need them, in the same way that they have always invented stories of demons, witches and child-stealing bogeymen - doesn't mean any of them are real. They are all "extraordinary" because they don't belong in the rational world.

I'm sorry onagar, I don't understand who you think was "misleading people" or "hoping for special treatment".

The 'sense of the divine' theory (for which I see no evidence) would at best only prove that people feel 'a sense of the devine'.

Interesting perhaps, but nothing there suggests that there is a divine or that it has anything whatsoever to do with any or all of a multitude of religion.

TheUnstrungHarp, what can I say? read the whole thread. It will all make sense in context.

What do you mean by the "sense of the 'divine' theory"? .

I have read the whole thread. I still don't understand who you are referring to.

You raised it, UnstrungHarp! What do you mean by it?

What do you mean by "What do you mean by the "sense of the 'divine' theory"?" ?

I see no evidence that there is a common sense of the divine. If everyone did feel/see it the only way to connect it to religion would be to say "it does cos I say so"

What do you mean I raised it? If you mean that I observed that the concept of divinity is common to all religions, that is not a theory, nor have I drawn any conclusions from it. Onagar however has apparently spotted a theory to do with the sense of the divine, and I am interested to know what it is.

OK. So how would you define religion, without reference to the concept of divinity?

Does anyone else think the viewpoint is historically extraordinary because we did not know then what we know now? There were many things which were believed historically which do not stand up with the development of our understanding of the world.

People were afraid for their souls historically, hell was a reality, education was scarce, religion had even more power and influence than it does today. It was a way of life, and not doubted because of fear or a lack of understanding, or the simple reason that nothing else could be conceived of (please don't misunderstand me to be saying that todays believers are in any way ignorant etc). The opening of other possibilities than a creator, and the lack of punishment for not believing are reason enough for the modern increase(if that is the case)of atheism.

It cannot be said to be right because it occupies so much of our history. If that were the case, there would be some terrible things still happening nowadays!

Where's Lucia39 when you need her?

You used your 'observed concept of divinity' to make a rule of what counted as religion and what didn't.

In my opinion religion has two roots( remember you asked). In individuals it's a need for a parent figure to take ultimate responsibility in a difficult world. In most cases people don't need their god to do very much. They just need to feel he has their back if things go wrong.

In my opinion organised religion is about having power and control over other people.

I regard the first as somewhat unhealthy for the individual and the second as unhealthy for society.

Poppity - nobody has said that religion or a belief in a god is "right" because of its historical prevalence, just that it is ordinary or usual. It may well be that we in the secular West in the 20th/21st Centuries are uniquely enlightened. I think it's probably too early to say.

Lots of people would argue that Poppity, but nonetheless, the religious inclination persists, despite scientific advancement... Yes religion has declined considerably since the enlightenment, but the impulse is still there... in Glastonbury, it's almost as though the enlightenment never happened. Why should the urge to pursue the divine continue, when there is no reason for it?

Now, I know this is an old chestnut, but isn't it just a bit convenient that

'it is a metaphysical concept and doesn't submit to rational examination, so cannot be proven'

End of argument, basically. Where can you go from there? You can't tell me it doesn't exist because you can't prove it doesn't exist. So it does, I know it to be true.

I'm all up for people believing, but it rankles when attempts are made to justify it by twisting things.

Why should the urge to pursue the divine continue>>
Because we left home and suddenly had to look after ourselves.

I'm not even taking the piss. I think that most of us share that sense of loss of certainty and protection.

Oh, I live near Glastonbury too, and if you are talking divine in that sense, I think that is part of a lifestyle choice, one that I spent most of my teens and early twenties in actually. It is different to mainstream religion in the same way as your chiropractor's(?) belief in fairies.

No-one said it was right maybe, but it was implied.

i have missed the last great tranche of posts so forgive me if i'm not up to speed on this thread, but i have been wondering...do all you "religion = superstition = nonsense and therefore it's fine to treat it with ridicule and with scorn" lobby have no imaginative or spiritual lives? are your lives all 100% concrete and factual?? if so, poor you.

Well, yes, poppity, I think there is nowhere that particular argument can go. Did you find an implication in my post that as you put it: "You can't tell me it doesn't exist because you can't prove it doesn't exist. So it does, I know it to be true."? Because that certainly isn't my viewpoint. As I said earlier, I have drawn no conclusions whatsoever.