The Political Thread

[Robin Low]

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved, but... Why would a loving creator give us a choice whether to believe or not, when the wrong choice leads to eternal agony?

Because it's not about the belief, it's about what you do - hence my suggestion that the bible is a test, with a mix of good and bad ideas.

Anne Widdicombe would disagree with my thesis, but she's horrible and is choosing the bad ideas, so to hell with her. Literally, one hopes.

Regards.

Robin

[Robin Low]

Please be advised, I have no formal theological training, so my thoughts may not be a route into Heaven.

Regards,

Robin

[IndigoPrime]

I don't really see it as a problem

Again, just my examples from earlier showcase why it is a problem. A child in floods of tears because a teacher said their father was going to hell. My kid having her head muddled with bullshit at the age of five, because the curriculum demands it. And this stuff does stick with people. I know several people who've been messed up by even the British level of religious indoctrination at school — that shit sticks with you. Perhaps it didn't with you — great! — but that's not the case for everyone.

hence my suggestion that the bible is a test, with a mix of good and bad ideas.

That's a nice way to look at it, but it's fundamentally a rulebook, and although the bare basics ("be nice to one another") are good, there is a lot of really abhorrent, nasty shit in the Bible.

I'm in favour of a certain amount of religious studies at school, but as a critical historical/social subject, freed from any sense of accuracy. Because the basic fundamentals of the Bible item from writings many decades after the event. These have subsequently been edited, often for overtly political reasons, a number of times, which in itself is deeply problematic, and needs to be fully addressed in schooling, right from the start. Instead, my kid's being told some bloke came back from the dead, not that it's a story with any number of explanations beyond "sort of a zombie, but a good one".

[Funt Solo]

Not simply no evidence, but no possibility of evidence.

You can presumably see why I've never bought into it. For me, a lack of evidence suggests the non-existence of an afterlife. I simply can't comprehend why anyone would take a complete lack of evidence to mean the opposite.

And the mystical answer of "it's a test of your free will, and you're failing" is, like, well, it's playground logic, isn't it?

Scrote A: "I have magic powers that can destroy trees!"
Scrote B: "Go on, then: show me."
Scrote A: "I don't want to right now."

I don't see how we get from there to belief that Scrote A has magic powers.

[Funt Solo]

I should also say that I really appreciate the open dialogue on this forum and if I'm being too robust or insistent with my arguments, please let me know. Also feel free to PM me.

I'd much rather try to dial myself back a bit than upset anyone. I've had a boarder tell me they don't come here anymore because of my style and so I'm trying not to be too abrasive: I offered to back off from them completely.

If it was just me shouting in an empty room, I'd hate that.

[TordelBack]

These seem rather charitable readings of the Fall. The choice that Adam and Eve made wasn't between right and wrong, it was between obedience and disobedience. They didn't have any knowledge of right and wrong / good and evil (the latter apparently including nakedness) until they disobeyed God and ate from the Tree of Knowledge: original sin is disobedience to an omnipotent dictator, benevolent or otherwise, not choosing to commit any act of evil.

In committing this first sin they corrupted themselves and the world and condemned themselves and their descendants to pain and death (until Jesus fixed the death part, if you're of a Christian bent). These were the consequences of not doing what God had ordered, not a conscious informed choice of right and wrong.

So the lesson of Genesis, and most of the Old Testament, is not "do the right thing or suffer the consequences", it's "do what you're told or die". To which I say, piss off.

[IndigoPrime]

Oh, but don't forget: everything wrong with the world is down to Eve; Adam was being good, and so man's suffering is down to women! Women are bad! That's a recurring theme throughout the Bible, bar Mary getting retconned into being a literal virgin rather than just a young girl (as she was originally, with a... suspiciously old Joseph).

[Rately]

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved, but... Why would a loving creator give us a choice whether to believe or not, when the wrong choice leads to eternal agony?

Because it's not about the belief, it's about what you do - hence my suggestion that the bible is a test, with a mix of good and bad ideas.

Anne Widdicombe would disagree with my thesis, but she's horrible and is choosing the bad ideas, so to hell with her. Literally, one hopes.

Regards.

Robin

Ann Widdecombe the perfect example of someone who thumps the Bible, can quote from it with no bother, but seemingly hasn't taken on-board any of its more basic lessons. As you say, Robin, she picks and chooses to fit her own prejudices and bigotry. Her comments on AIDs recently show the true person.

I'm an atheist, and I'm more Christian than she is.

[sheridan]

Cheers Funt, glad I didn't cause offence.  I do find the ceremony you describe fairly chilling - I'd heard a while ago it's a relatively recent introduction into schools but had shut the whole thing out of my mind.

Yeah - always seems really fascist when I get reminded of it (having just watched the Man in the High Castle TV adaptation).

My primary school principal, by the way, was an unmarried ex-Christian Brother and a violent psychopath - most teachers hadn't quite adjusted to the corporal punishment ban, but this prick smashed heads off radiators for talking in class. I heard he was eventually given a thorough hiding by local parents and I'm afraid, for all my pacifist tendencies, I was pleased to hear it.

Seems to me that only the most committed pacifists would shed a tear at a child abuser getting a taste of the treatment they mete out...

[sheridan]

I suppose what irks me is the arrogant side of national pride in general. Like when George W claimed that his enemies-du-jour 'hate us for our freedom' - I seriously doubt it was jealousy that drove the terrorist attacks.

...and nothing to do with proxy wars which had effectively "bombed them back to the stone age".  The single biggest cause of anti-Western terrorism is the resentment caused by Western governments (not the only cause, but if the UK and US didn't gallivant around the world expecting everyone else to capitulate to their demands the world would be a substantially more peaceful place).

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Just to pick up on comparing the US with an authoritarian dictatorship, their law enforcement regularly gets away with murdering citizens. I've been trying to think of a case of that happening here (Northern Ireland), and I'm not saying it hasn't happened, it probably has, but I can't think of an example off the top of my head, and my google-fu is just bringing up examples of PSNI officers getting murdered. There's certainly no video evidence of it happening. If there was such a video, of say a group of PSNI officers suffocating a cuffed suspect to death (just a random example), I doubt the local media would be trying to give context that justified it (actually the Belfast Telegraph might, for the clicks).

[sheridan]

...I'm quite proud of the fact that I'm familiar with the stories and characters from the bible. I know people who are equally proud of their atheism, but sadly it's often coupled with ignorance of the very thing they don't believe in.

Much the same thoughts here (although you don't have to know about a thing to justifying not believing in a thing - lack of belief is a priori).

To play *hah* devil's advocate for a moment - as an atheist should I learn more about the christian bible because I live in a christian country or the Bhagavata Purana and Qurʼān because those are the two dominant religions in my neighbourhood?




















p.s. as far as learning about religion goes I'm more interested in the wide range of beliefs from prehistory to the present rather than focusing on any one religion, as long as that one religion doesn't try to stop me living my life.  I don't see why I should be restricted from going shopping because somebody else believes, erm, something about sky fairy needing a breather after six days of work or something?

[Robin Low]

Again, just my examples from earlier showcase why it is a problem. A child in floods of tears because a teacher said their father was going to hell.

Good god (ahem) what kind of school is your child at? I mean, I went to a school labelled as a Church school and other half and my mum both went to convent schools, but I don't think they encountered anything like that. Hell, it was a nun who told my mother "not to put her faith in the infallibility of printed matter"!

And this stuff does stick with people. I know several people who've been messed up by even the British level of religious indoctrination at school — that shit sticks with you. Perhaps it didn't with you — great! — but that's not the case for everyone.

It's one of those things I wouldn't be absolutist about ('different folks, different strokes'), but I'm honestly surprised, and saddened, if a school was that damaging.

For my/our limited experience, more than anything their Catholic schools instilled a sense of personal discipline: responsibility, organisation, focus... time-management! You'd get non-religious people wanting their kids at religious schools for that reason. My other half went on a management course once, and the first thing everyone had to do was fill out a questionnaire about attitudes. The course leader looked at her answers, then looked at her and asked, "Religious or military?"

Mind you, she's just told me she once had a statue of St. Edmund full of arrows pointed out to her as an aspiration figure. As a logical child, her first thought was 'but I don't know anyone with arrows', which sounds reminiscent of the old Dave Allen routine.

Her bother, however, manged to get to his teens without knowing what Easter was all about, which deserves some kind of award for resistance.

hence my suggestion that the bible is a test, with a mix of good and bad ideas.

That's a nice way to look at it, but it's fundamentally a rulebook, and although the bare basics ("be nice to one another") are good, there is a lot of really abhorrent, nasty shit in the Bible.

Thanks - the only way I could accept the bible as a guide to life would be by seeing it as a test not a rulebook. Not so much bothered about the nasty shit, as, well, that's the world.

I'm in favour of a certain amount of religious studies at school, but as a critical historical/social subject, freed from any sense of accuracy. Because the basic fundamentals of the Bible item from writings many decades after the event. These have subsequently been edited, often for overtly political reasons, a number of times, which in itself is deeply problematic, and needs to be fully addressed in schooling, right from the start. Instead, my kid's being told some bloke came back from the dead, not that it's a story with any number of explanations beyond "sort of a zombie, but a good one".

I appreciate how much this bothers you, but unless your offspring is clearly being affected I'd say don't let it get to you - there's already enough to stressed about. I'm far more bothered by advertising and crap on YouTube... though I imagine these are on your bugbear list too.

Regards,

Robin

[Robin Low]

Not simply no evidence, but no possibility of evidence.

You can presumably see why I've never bought into it. For me, a lack of evidence suggests the non-existence of an afterlife. I simply can't comprehend why anyone would take a complete lack of evidence to mean the opposite.

For me, it's simple fear of death. The prospect of unfeeling, unthinking oblivion is not something I'm happy to accept.

I suppose I also need something that I hope is going to validate my personal sense of morality.

I often joke that the reason I believe in god is the same reason I believe in ghosts, UFOs and the Loch Ness monster: they make the world just that much more interesting. Stephen Fry can cream in his pants listening to Brian Cox blandly waffling on about the wonders of the universe and pretend he's clever... but I get to be a professional scientist and also believe in all sorts of interesting weird shit without any of it affecting my life in away at all... apart from occasionally getting involved in hopeless internet debates.

And then there's the vengeance angle - how many of us are really comfortable with the idea that Trump will almost inevitably go to his grave after a life of callous privilege without being called to account?

And the mystical answer of "it's a test of your free will, and you're failing" is, like, well, it's playground logic, isn't it?

Something else to remember is that it's god who's should be making the judgement here, and then only in the afterlife. Religious leaders can advise, guide, lead by example, offer interpretation and so on, but they should not dictate or impose - that erodes free will.

Regards,

Robin

[Robin Low]

To play *hah* devil's advocate for a moment - as an atheist should I learn more about the christian bible because I live in a christian country or the Bhagavata Purana and Qurʼān because those are the two dominant religions in my neighbourhood?

If you've got the time, sure, all three. I would, but unfortunately, my reading is dominated by fiction and I've barely dented my Very Short Introduction to... collection and I really need to get around to reading some more Ronald Hutton. I have to hope for an afterlife where I can catch up with all the non-fiction... or fiction... or...

Regards,

Robin