insulting religions

[IneedAgoldenNickname]

Hi, I've never posted on this topic before, I tend to hang out in aibu, but don't want to start a bun fight!

So, I am a liberal Christian. I firmly believe that everyone had to right to believe (or not) whatever they want, provided that belief doesn't hurt anyone else.

Earlier today I posted a lighthearted status on Facebook, which had led to me being called mindless, stupid, stuck up, thinking I'm better than everyone else. I've been told God is a c**t (sorry I hate that word so much I won't type it) and that the Bible is only God for loo roll!

I'm just really angry that people think its ok to insult me/my religion like that, when I haven't once preached or insulted others.

Obviously the easy solution would be to delete them off of Facebook, but they are people I get on with other wise.

Don't really know the point of my post, just hoping id feel better writing it down.

"Oh come on Cote! You asked me to explain, which I did and now you've gone all silent! "

Err... excuse me for having a life as well as responsibilities like school pick-ups, bathtime, dinner, etc If I knew you were holding your breath for my response, I guess I could have come back sooner. Alternatively, you could get a life

Personally I would like Pan to come across a little more lovingly.

And breathes!!!

Nope. you're right Cote - I have no life right now beyond cleaning the bath. Living in he moment. It's it's turn to have it's soul cleansed.

So. Out with it. I believe the discussion was on the nature of existence?

Besides, you didn't explain anything. Not in any way that makes sense, anyway.

"I'd think 'existence' is based primarily on perception and experience.'

That is a strange thought and it is worrying that you seem to think it is a valid one.

Something exists or it doesn't, regardless of whether you perceive/experience it or not. This table exists in front of me whether I perceive it or not. The tree falls on a desert island even if there is a living being there to see & hear it fall or not.

Maybe we are living in a universe that was consciously created by a deity. Or maybe our universe just happened on its own. Your "perception" and experiences have nothing to do with which of these are true.

Oh - analysing? Great analysing skills - no attempt at rebuttal, just a comparison to Eddie Izzard. Did you learn to do that at university?

Anyway - I was explaining something illustratively. It was an example of the kinds of arguments that are called "Special Pleading". The fact that this particular logical fallacy has it's own name does tend to imply, doesn't it, that this kind of debate happens a lot? (Or is that logic lost on you too?)

Avuncular You raise really interesting points and I, for one, would love to properly answer. But I can't right now, so will be back later if that's OK.

Except I will say that no one (as far as I'm aware) thinks you should do anything, least of all "embrace atheism". I'm happy to explain exactly why I'm an atheist and not a theist - and address the issue of why we atheists can still see reasons to be "good" even though we don't believe in god.

I am now off to watch Eastenders on BBCi read Sartre.

I don't believe in organised religion as this thread is a perfect illustration of how it divides people. I believe in Sceince. We still have much to learn and explain though.
I also believe we are spiritual beings and this part of us transcends the physical matter that science suggests constitutes our whole. I believe I have a soul and that like attracts like, so what comes around goes around. Certain posters on here should bare this in mind. Just sayin' like...

..... but Science can very definitely be found in the room marked 'God'

Cote - yes, take your point. But, with respect it still sounds like you haven't left the school physics lab. From lots of people's POV existence is a concept of experience and perception - to do with, as I said, how we interpret the world. Yes trees fall, tables exist, but those aren't the game-changing issues that affect people's beliefs and actions, are they?

Ellie - no, the logic is really easy to grasp. But one of the comical gifts of E.I is presenting an argument designed by himself where he takes both positions. It isn't really 'scientific' is it?

Avuncular - well, I do about 100 miles per week in heavy traffic. Most folk are really fine. I think drivers get a bit sick of bikists who are suicide jockeys and weave around and do daft things.

Avuncular - re "Defensive Driving could I suppose be redefined as "Looking out for No 2's"

Are you talking about dog poo? Or does No 1 & No 2 refer to something other than pee & poo?

"Road users are sometimes 'atheist' in the sense that they ignore the rule/ commandment/ general social principle that we should treat one another in the way that we would like others to treat us."

Why on earth would you think atheists don't treat each other with this very basic standard of decent behaviour? I am genuinely surprised why you would think this.

Ellie thank you. I can wait. Must also go now - found an infallible cure for MN addiction - DW starting striptease in front of me (Name change now inevitable!)

Avuncular - you seem to have some odd ideas about 'atheists'. As as already been said somewhere on this thread, I'm sure, they aren't a homogenous group -they're just anyone who doesn't believe in any deities. The atheists I know are interested in living ethical lives - the Golden rule (or refinements thereof) is widespread through many cultures. While I may think that humankind has risen out of random activity, and that the universe has no inherent purpose or design - we have evolved to be sentient creatures who can create our own meaning and purpose, have developed societal rules and ethics which enable us to live together. Which is wonderful but not miraculous. There is every reason to keep societal rules of the Golden rule variety - its an entirely reasonable thing if you value living in a decent society.

A subset of the atheists I know are Buddhists. Others would identify as humanists. Both very positive worldviews IME. Then again, I found being a Christian a positive experience - until I realised I no longer believed in God which was a bit of a showstopper - which suggests to me that whether or not you have a positive or negative approach to life is mostly about who you are.

On drivers - I think Avuncular may be using the term 'atheist' when he means 'amoral'. The two have nothing in common except their prefix.

Cote what is the logical and reasoned foundation for atheists - or anyone else for that matter - to adopt a basic standard of ordinary decent behaviour towards other people?

Gone ......

Pan - re "Cote - yes, [I] take your point."

Good. So you agree with me that existence of something has nothing to do with whether or not you perceive or experience it.

"with respect it still sounds like you haven't left the school physics lab"

Is that how you call rational people? If so, thanks.

"From lots of people's POV existence is a concept of experience and perception"

I remember reading about this in baby development books. Like, when they close their eyes and think mummy is gone.

I'm really worried about you that you would think this is a common understanding for normal people over the age of 1.

"Yes trees fall, tables exist, but those aren't the game-changing issues that affect people's beliefs and actions, are they?"

The importance of something has no relevance to the question of whether or not it exists. Think about it. This plastic bottle has very little importance in my life, it doesn't affect my beliefs and actions. It exists or doesn't, irrespective of whether/how I perceive it. The laws of the country I live in have very significant importance in my life, and definitely affect the way I live. Still, they exist or they don't, irrespective of whether/how I perceive them.

In other words, something isn't more likely to exist because you assign more importance to the idea of it.

"what is the logical and reasoned foundation for atheists to adopt a basic standard of ordinary decent behaviour towards other people?"

I want to live in a community with fellow human beings, rather than be alone. This means that I forego the freedom to do whatever I want whenever I want to do it, and accept that my freedom ends where another person's begins.

Also, I would like to think that I am a good person, so I don't hurt others and generally treat them the way that I would like them to treat me back. I don't know about heaven and hell, but on this world, you do get treated the way you deserve by people who know you.

I know that I have shortcomings and I have tried over long years to overcome them. Some, I have succeeded with and some I haven't, but I keep trying.

I honestly don't understand why you think any of the above has to be related to belief in a deity and an organised religion.

But cote I'm sure I read an article in New Scientist about how certain sub atomic particles behave differently when directly observed. The author was talking about how they needed to observe indirectly due to waves becoming particles when exposed to the photons used in looking at them. Or something? I'm not clever enough to explain it in detail but am sure google can.
Anyway this surely proves that perception is not as clear cut as we think. If perception/observation can change the fabric of reality then what else have we still to discover?

..... but Science can very definitely be found in the room marked 'God'
nope. That's just a word trick.

"I'm sure I read an article in New Scientist about how certain sub atomic particles behave differently when directly observed"

I knew someone would quote quantum physics

You are talking about subatomic particles who are so very small that the instruments we use to view them changes their energy states. Say, you are shining a light on it. The photon you are sending its way will quite possibly interact with it and change its path.

We rely mostly on bouncing stuff off things to perceive them - we bounce sound waves off surfaces to hear, we bounce light (photons) off things to see them. This can cause problems when what we are trying to "see" is so small that it can be affected by the bouncing of these things.

"Anyway this surely proves that perception is not as clear cut as we think."

Without meaning to offend you, all the above example proves is that you haven't spent a few minutes to understand it. Not that there is a problem with the world's understanding of the concept of perception.

Observation doesn't change the fact of something's existence (or not). The mountain exits even if I'm blind and can't perceive it. Alternatively, even if I am delusional and see a mountain where none exists, that doesn't mean there is a mountain there. Existence and perception are two very different things, and they don't necessarily go together.

"If perception/observation can change the fabric of reality then what else have we still to discover?"

That is a complete misunderstanding. As I explained above, observation doesn't change "the fabric of reality".

Anyway, unless you are arguing God is small and insignificant like an electron, I don't see the significance of talking about difficulties of observing sub-atomic particles.

oh Cote - you seem to be still focussed on what the 1yr old sees, and interprets. Like the school physics lab you've obv never left. I like to think I worry about your development as an adult though naturally I don't because I don't have a link to you but I am sure you're making your own way in life sans a spiritual dimension, which is your choice.

Overall though, I am massively attracted by the practice of self-reflection and the things that you (Cote) and others use to make themselves being a 'better person'. If that results in a 'good outcome' then fine - naming it as being nearer to a perfection (God) then I don't really care for practical purposes.

For me ( no I don't call myself a Christian) it's a pleasant struggle, determining what is part of the physical observances, which is pretty clear ( trees, tables, phosphorous etc) and how I 'better myself' which is largely through contemplation of who I am. I suspect most people do this. They are just put off from calling it 'prayer', or 'spiritual reflection', or 'contemplation'.

"Science can very definitely be found in the room marked 'God' "??

What an odd, puzzling assertion, and which totally ignores so much which has been said and asked on this thread already. Which God? Why? How do you know 'very definitely' ?

As for what is a "logical and reasoned foundation for atheists to adopt a basic standard of ordinary decent behaviour towards other people"... Where do you start? How about wanting to be treated by others the way you treat them, for a start? wanting to live in a civilised society? The underlying implication of the question - that you can't be moral and good without some religious framework or worship of a deity underpinning it, and that atheists are less moral than the religious - is, again, frankly just odd. And demonstrably untrue.

Pan, do you do things like, trying to have more patience, be less angry, be kinder to people etc?

amillionyears - well yes, of course. But it's usually much more than that.

Being angry or impatient, or kinder is a judgement. If you are angry/impatient/kinder to people for the right reasons, over the right issues, to the right extent and express these things appropriately then it's healthy to feel those things and express them. That's basic stuff, n'est-ce pas?

Perception and thought are part of the fabric of reality.

When you see something, hear something or think about something - anything, including 'spiritual reflection' something really happens in your brain. Chemical changes happen, ions move...real, observable events, which we are just beginning to be able to observe. Buddhist monks are happy to have brain imaging done which shows that meditation has a physical effect on the brain.

If I imagine a unicorn....the unicorn does not exist, but the thought does. Something actually went on in my head when I did that - I don't know what or how - but even the primitive scanners we have now would have detected something.

Way earlier on this thread, in a different context I mentioned how its been scientifically shown that some people really do perceive 'auras' - the aura has no real existence, but the perception of it really does exist.

That's what I meant about everything that exists being 'in the room of science' .

Pan - Your replies have very little to do with what I write to you. I actually wonder at this point if you understand my posts at all.

"you seem to be still focussed on what the 1yr old sees, and interprets."

I'm not the one who thinks objects might disappear if she doesn't perceive them. Or come into existence if she thinks she perceives them. That is you.

"Like the school physics lab you've obv never left."

You seem to think that is a clever rebuttal, but it's not. Nobody is in a physics lab, nobody is at school.

And that is all you managed to say in response to my posts. Well, that's a bit sad but I guess not everyone can manage intellectual challenges.

Anyway, have fun believing what you feel determines the existence of stuff