Along with the other trends in following I mentioned recently, I feel that I have to mention something else that is beginning to reappear at a rather alarming rate. I have noticed that some followers and commenters lately have been of the ‘Bible-bashing’ variety.
Personally, I do not think that blogging is the place to expound your religious ideas, or attempt to convert those who do not share them. I don’t mean those general bloggers who also mention going to church, attending Easter services, or enjoying a family christening. You know the sort I mean.
Their blogs are full of fire and brimstone, thanking the Lord for everything that happened, including that morning’s sunrise. They often blame natural disasters and terrorist incidents on God’s displeasure, and warn that only bad things will happen unless we all start to believe in the same things as them. These blogs are often disguised. They have innocuous names that do not mention religion, or gods. Click on the blog to leave a ‘thank you’ for following, and you will see that it is comprised almost entirely of fiery scripture quotes, and entreaties for you to do things like ‘follow the right path.’
They mean the same path as them, of course.
I have no issues with religious people. Many find real comfort from their religion, and it helps them lead a happier life. Some take inspiration from religion to do good things, and others are peaceful and contemplative because of their beliefs. I would not use this blog to attack them, and I certainly would not use it to try to stop them believing in their gods. On the other hand, as an atheist I do not appreciate being lectured to about something I have no interest in.
I know, I don’t have to read them. And I don’t. But I do not like the way that they ‘sneak in’ by commenting on posts, and by having blog names that disguise their true purpose. So, at the risk of upsetting some genuine people, and perhaps losing many potential new ‘followers’, I have this to say to them.
1) If you are a fundamentalist religious person, please ignore my blog.
2) Do not like or comment on my posts as a way of getting me to look at your own blog.
3) Please do not follow my blog in the hope of being followed back. It will never happen.
4) Use a title for your blog that gives you away for what you are, instead of concealing the fact.
5) Enjoy your religion. Say your prayers and thanks. Go to your meetings, or whatever it is you do.
Believe in what you want to believe, and live a long and happy life. But just leave the rest of us alone to follow a different path. The one we have chosen.
Comments
Welcome here and thanks. Good to see another enlightened spirit :)
At a certain age you shouldn't need guidance anymore. If you do, something went wrong ;)
Religions are usually taught to childern because they lack the ablity to spot its deficiencies. The are taught they are the chosen ones with all others as bad. Can you seriosuly think this can bode well? Are there wars about who has the better superbeing? Instead of having to put up with inadaquate answers from a cleric, decide for youself what is true. Superbeing stories from the past are unprovable. It is difficult to beleive in superbeings when you study where we came from. The idea of superbeings may please the feeble minded, but hardly compete with facts.
I will reiterate what I said in the blog post. It is not my intention to try to stop people believing in anything they like. I am just tired of those who think it is perfectly OK to pretend to like posts on my blog, or to comment on posts by way of some kind of subterfuge.
If you really believe in what you are on about, then call your blog something appropriate, like "Believe what I believe, or perish in the flames of Hell".
Something like that...
Best wishes to you all. Pete.
Regards, Pete.
In the real sense that I reject hierarchy yes. Atheist and anarchist. The first is logic and realistic for me, the second a nice illusion.....
Sorry to confuse the replies and comments. I am new here, and still trying to discover how it works...Apologies, Pete.
Of course, I am not religious, but it does occur to me that Jesus started life as a Jew, as did his disciples.
And from what I have seen (at least in England) there are plenty of churches that have not been destroyed by anyone, let alone Jewish people.
Happy to have you on board! I think it would be difficult to be an atheist, with all of the evidence of an Almighty Creator, unless, of course, you weren't aware of the evidence. :) The best atheists can say, scientifically, is "We don't know." Science cannot disprove God. Yet, existence of God is the best explanation for the creation of the universe out of nothing. (See the Big Bang theory, created by Fr. Georges Lemaitre.) Keep in mind that when serious people talk about God, we're not talking about someone living in the clouds. Human language, when insufficient, often uses metaphors, etc., to explain things that can't be fully explained with language. We do this with children, when we're trying to teach them. What serious believers mean, when they refer to God, is as St. Thomas Aquinas said, "Imsum esse subsistens" or the very act of being itself. In other words, everything that exists, exists in, with, and through God, who willed it into being...out of nothing. But, a blog is very insufficient to properly cover this topic...
What do you think happens when we die? There have been some serious studies of what is referred to as "near death experiences" where folks medically die (no heart activity, no brain activity, eyes fixed and dilated, etc.), that give strong evidence that we continue to exist after our death. Not just one or two cases, but thousands, with common experiences. Many can not be explained except in terms that we exist after death. For example, people blind from birth, with no color reference whatsoever, die, come back, and report in a referential way, color. For example, "The doctor's shirt was the same color as the nurse's eyes."
Don't shortchange yourself. There's a lot more to our existence as humans than just this life and this earth. :)
Evidence ? It's not the best explanation for a 'creation' but the simplest one :) Where is the proof that it came out of nothing ? Is "nothing" nothing ? Maybe what we perceive as nothing is simply out of reach for our senses and tools.
But that doesn't mean there's a creator. And that creator would require something that created it and and and....
So what is "nothing" ?
BTW: A creator is human arguing and does not apply to nature. That's our problem. We apparently can't get out of that scheme.
But it's also childish to say that I have no interest in one of life's great questions, maybe the greatest question. What is the source of my authority to speak on any subject? Isn't that what these religious fanatics are saying? Here is my source, it is THE source, no other source needed.
And I say, a source is a source of course of course, and no one can show you a talking source, unless the source is the source you force from your own talking head.
I do believe in God, an all-powerful being, but this God is not an idiot. He doesn't write scripts for a living. From what I understand about this being (he/she/it/indeterminate it) is it created logic for us to use in our quest for understanding and I don't care if someone believes or doesn't believe in ghosts, fairies, God, whatever, as long as they believe in logic. That's what really scares me in the modern world, the lack of the ability of most people I meet to be able to argue logically. Beetlelypete, your logic is noted.
I'm happy to see you're alive and well! Science says that the universe isn't but about 13-14 billion years old. Before that, there was nothing. Read George Lemaitre's Big Bang theory. It basically holds that the universe basically just "appeared." There is also a plethora of evidence that not only was the universe "created" but it was created by an intelligent being. Intelligent design explains how the entire universe "fits" all together. It cannot be that the entire, integrated universe accidentally happened, out of nothingness. It was clearly designed. I think there's a lot more information out there that can be easily had. But none of it points to an accidental universe. :)
Don't let the lions and hyenas get you!
Thanks for that :) Even though we're on different sides on this. You'd be a good discussion partner for my Muslim business partner. He's a devout muslim and I accept that no problem since he's open to everything and sees his religion in tune with the great philosophers.
Talk about metaphores ;)
Just hang in some more. We don't have only god and Trump to offer...
If you want to intrigue your Muslim partner, ask him, "just out of curiosity" why Jesus is mentioned in the Koran more than Mohammed (25 vs 5), and why the Virgin Mary is only woman mentioned by name in the Koran. See what he says... ;)
Thre is no evidence anywhere of a superbeing making things up for us, the evolution of life-forms is there for you to study if you want.
Life for most is a struggle, and allways ends the same way, If there were superbeings doing this, they woyld be very cruel for providing environments so hostile. I could easily make up a far more comfortable world for all, -better than any superbeing, making me suerior to any 'superbeing'
No proff of any kind, outside is own made-up texts, show the existance of any superbeing, no matter how 'tear-jerking' the texts appear. Peripheral proof, comming from other quarters is used to validae many historical stories, the superbeing ones do not have this.
Humans, different from other animals made of the same stuff: they demand explanations, As I said before, observation an measurement can be used to provide this, no intervention by superbeings required.
Irational belief, perhaps, is a kind of mental illness, abandoning the evidenc of ones own eyes and following dictates that cannot be validated.
Francis Bacon.
Philosophy in religion is accepted and useful but we don't need fairytales constructed around it to make it understandable for illiterates LOL
Means that philosophy itself is largely sufficient.
You certainly can prove a negative. If, for example, I said there was a peach somewhere in the universe with a football clearly emblazoned on it, you could disprove it by looking everywhere in the universe that it could possibly be, and upon not finding it, prove that it doesn't exist. A lot of work, but theoretically, that's how it can be done.
Now, I hope you've had physics. This will make a lot more sense to you, if you have. The problem of disproving God is harder than disproving a peach as per my example. God transcends (is beyond) the universe, but science can only gather data from observing what is within the universe. Therefore, we must recognize that the Scientific Method (and therefore, science) cannot be used to disprove God.
Science can provide evidence that there is a limit to past time, implying our universe had a beginning. Prior to a beginning, the universe (and even physical time itself) did not exist—it was literally nothing. When the universe was nothing (before the beginning), it could not have moved itself from nothingness to something, because it was nothing and capable of only doing... nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything.
If we don’t sneak something into nothing, then the only thing nothing can do is... nothing. Therefore, something else--beyond the universe—would have to have moved the universe from nothing to something. Many physicists and philosophers call this a Creator or God.
From all of this comes Lemaître’s conclusion that an initial “Creationlike” event must have taken place. He proposed that the universe came from an initial point that he referred to as the “Primeval Atom”.. It would later become known as, “The Big Bang Theory.” Prior to Lemaître’s discovery, Einstein, and other scientists, believed the universe was in a static state (neither expanding nor contracting) and had been so forever. Proving the universe is expanding also proved it could not be infinite time back to the beginning of the universe. Edwin Hubble’s use of red shifting verified Lemaître’s discovery of an expanding universe. Penzias’ and Wilson’s discovered a universal radiation (from the Big Bang) which further verifies Lemaître’s theory. This is also confirmed by more recent data from the two COBE satellites, the WMAP satellite, and the Planck satellite. Even Einstein eventually endorsed Lemaitre's theory.
So, if there really is a beginning to physical reality, what are the consequences? First, prior to the beginning of our universe – and all the other cosmologies mentioned above – physical reality would have been nothing. Secondly, if we don’t sneak something into nothing, then nothing can only do nothing. Therefore, physical reality could not have moved itself from nothing to something. So, where does that leave us? It seems very likely that something else – something transcendent – would have to have created physical reality out of nothing. This we call a Creator or God
Do you want me to continue...? It'll be long...
Not just no but fuck no. You entirely missed the author's point - he, like the preponderance of us, is sick of thumpers like you and your banging on about your mythological nonsense.
I can make up a superbeing...just like that... the "Wetaxis fof Frubly" I would like you to now prove it doesnt exist. well, get on with it... look, loooooook.. -see how absurd that appears.
Observation and measurement, currently know as science, formely the 'natural sciences' is all we have to understand the universe we live in. Earlier generations may have been satified with "God did it" , this no longer satisfies the need for explantions. amongst thinkers. .Aguing with other "god did it's" they tend to follow the same trick, think they grasp some popular-sciencey sounding thing they have lightly read, then think the missing parts postied PROVE a superbeing. Absurd.
(and yes I have a science study backgroud, all the people you quote have nothing to say about superbeings in their work, speculation afterwrds is not science). Current ideas about multiverses and other things are pure speculation without any proof of any kind to date.
The fact is we are probably alone in the universe, there is no evidence to support any other conclusion, only speculation Being lone is not the end, it means we can rise to study , understand and explain.
The O-N-L-Y proof would be you perhaps beaming one here and , er say, reconstructing a dead person. I might have Randi to check for tricks still.
I am sorry you have reigion, considering you and I have nearly the same brain, and we are both capable of thinking.
I've been working on a documentary to explain the basic nature of science, and its relation to truth and religion and its relationship to truth. Its got animations, experiments, etc all to demonstrate accepted philosophy of science. It will be ready in about 3 weeks.
In it I prove that the world cannot exist as we see it, using science and math (simple stuff) to place a Kantian limit on science in discerning truth. I will do a post on it when its done on here.