Don’t understand athiests. To believe in the
existance of something requires faith. To deny
the existance of something completely requires
faith. Bad as each other really.

it’s not a wholly unreasonable argument but if you believe it, it leads to you also believing to some extent in the existence of Santa, the toothfairy, etc 😉

For me, probably the only issue I have is that some atheists use the position to attack religious people rather than the organisations.

some atheists are cocks just like a normal cross section of people so that’s hardly a surprise is it?

Aye, but if they were agnostics they wouldn’t give a shit either way 😉

I love a bit of gospel me.. I always weep with joy when I watch Sister Act..

I wholly believe that the purveyors of musical religious worship are truly onto something.. I love music.. I particularly enjoy a well constructed set of dance music and the uplifting spiritualised sensation that it can bring..

If there was ever anything that could rejuvinate the morale of the woefully unfulfilled then it is the coming together as a group to sing away ones sorrows and dance away the stresses of day to day to life.. to lose ones self within the rhythm of the tribal drum..

Whether you worship God, truth, alcohol, love, money, material possessions, knowledge, power or simply the act of worship itself.. you could do a lot worse for yourself than a good old fashioned knees up once a week..

fill yer boots I reckon.. let the rhythm move you

I’m not a catholic and most of the people where I live are not either. But we do live in a catholic country and are quite keen on traditions.
Semana Santa probably being the highlight.
A week long parade of pomp and contemplation. Each night there are marches arround the streets, with catholic statues, some very old, and lavish flowers and decorations. Sometimes more than one per night. The last day has all parades, roman soldiers on horses, flowers and incense come together for 10 to 12 hours. Some people even drag out the sofas and chairs to watch and sometimes sing.
It is a fantastic spectacle to watch and the music might be quite morose but is fantastic to hear live.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlrIkQVJOpU[/video]

Being an athiest or humanist just means you have an open mind, see the world as it is, without inserting superstition into any holes in the picture.

To paraphrase Dara O’Briain; just because we don’t know everything, doesn’t mean we get to make shit up.

As for the OP: I don’t see an issue with appreciating music or architecture irrespective of whether you share their beliefs. I’m quite partial to a bit of Amy Lee, for instance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0162zbx/Holy_Flying_Circus/

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1KZKZs-2YM&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL31C784DC9B6E64F6[/video]
.
Have you seen the light?

I like churches, paintings, music… all sorts of stuff, lots of it commissioned in the name of religion. I also quite like some church services, like weddings (apart from the misogynist bits and the promising to smite people bits).

I’m an atheist.

I fail to see the hypocrisy. I like a load of art and engineering that were created by humans. The fact that those humans were on the payroll of some apparently deluded, religious people doesn’t bother me one jot.

Religion shouldn’t be allowed to claim a monopoly on culture, just because they have been one of the biggest arts funders of all time. Lots of arts projects are funded by supermarkets and oil companies these days; am I supposed to ignore them too because I go to Waitrose instead of Tesco and I ride a bike to work instead of driving everywhere?

Oh, and the religious ceremony bit – those are a load of quaint traditions made up by people and our culture is steeped in them. Why should I be excluded just because I reject the premise that a big bloke in the sky is outside of the rules of physics?

In short, all culture is the doing of mankind, their beliefs at the time of inspiration possibly added to the richness of their creations, or just increased their target market. Their motivation doesn’t matter though; if it is good, I like it.

Dave

Nah mate, dont tie yourself in knots. Being an athiest or humanist just means you have an open mind, see the world as it is, without inserting superstition into any holes in the picture.

No. God can’t come into the picture with atheists. To deny without proof requires faith, as does believing without proof. Agnostic’s have an open mind. God’s existence is improbable, but without proof either way, can’t be ruled out.
Any position other than agnostic I see as a bit of a logic fail. Having said that, I dedicate hours of my life to getting fitter but still enjoy a good sheesha, who am I to judge?

fourbanger – Member

Don’t understand athiests.

QFT.

God’s existence is improbable, but without proof either way, can’t be ruled out.

I don’t know any Atheist who rules out the possibility of god(s) completely, I know I don’t.

Oh and the B Minor mass. Genius.

God’s existence is improbable, but without proof either way, can’t be ruled out.

The existence of tiny invisible unicorns living in my skirting boards is improbable, but without proof either way, can’t be ruled out. Anyone here now unicorn-agnostic?

Just because we can’t rule out the existence of something doesn’t mean we have to give equal credence to every half-baked crackpot theory that someone comes up with. The problem with the premise that ‘we can’t rule out the existence of god(s)’ is that it assumes that there is a valid reason for entertaining the idea in the first place; this premise is flawed (and disingenuous).

I don’t know any Atheist who rules out the possibility of god(s) completely,

Well, now you do.

The default assumption should surely be something does not exist , until it is proven/sincerely believed that it does.

I thought it was us atheists who were meant to be militant and failing to understand the logic/beliefs of theists. Judged from this thread you’d think it was the other way round…

For the record – I love tons of religious inspired art and music, but am an atheist. I’ve sung in the Bach St Matthew Passion, the Mozart requiem, the Brahms requiem etc etc… you don’t need the belief to appreciate this stuff.

The context then was that a lot of great art was produced under religious patronage or direction, partly because religious organisations held a lot of the power and the money and the keys to education. They were the prevailing elite with the money (taken from tithed peasants etc etc) – that’s all…

I don’t know any Atheist who rules out the possibility of god(s) completely,

And another.

Atheist – means “no god” surely. Agnostics are people who are not sure.

Agnostics are people who are not sure.

Or people who don’t care. It makes no difference to me whether god exists or not.

I was going to weigh in with my two-penno’rth, but Cougar just said it all, very precisely and with great clarity.

Anyway, when I do it, people are “offended” apparently, so I’d best not eh?

Atheism. The clue is in the name.

What amuses me about atheists, is that they define themselves in terms of their non-belief in the very God/s that they don’t believe in!

Atheist = ‘without God‘.

Which proves that God must exist, in order for you not to believe in it! 😀

A bit like how ‘amoral’ is ‘without morals’; ie to be without something.

If there is, as you assert, indeed ‘no God’, then why do some of you get so het up banging on about it?

No. What some of you actually are, is simply anti-religion really. Cos you can no more disprove the existence of God, than anyone can prove it.

Dislike/fear/hatred of religion is understandable and fine. I don’t like custard.

But just about every thread on this subject invariable descends into atheists arrogantly sneering at anyone who might possibly have views different to their own. No sorrty but it’s true. I’ve never seen anyone ‘religious’ tear inot others’ beliefs on here. The worst zealots on here (apart from 29er/hybrid riders) are in fact the athesists.

Personally I quite like the fact that Humanity’s desire to find answers has created so much in terms of art, music, architecture etc. Much of it motivated by religion. Some of the greatest buildings, works of art and pieces of music have been religious in their intent.

so yeah, if you’re one of those atheists that are zealously opposed to any form of religion or concept of God, and claim that religion/belief in God aint’ produced nuffink good, then you must have a very limited amount of stuffs in life you can actually enjoy.

Live and let live, innit? I’m not religious, but I love many religious things. Love going somewhere like the British, looking at all sorts of wonderful religious artefacts. Love hearing a bit of Bach etc. Love a nice El Greco or Michalangelo etc.

Religion’s overall a Good Thing in my book. Zealotry is not. In any form.

Oh, and as for the ‘Science trumps Religion’ thing; I find it utterly preposterous that people can be so narrow-minded and self-absorbed to think that what we as a species understand about our universe and why we’re all here an ting, is in any way universally significant given the infinitesimally teeny tiny level of our actual ‘knowledge’. Come on. If the universe is indeed so mind-bogglingly massive, how can we actually know anything about it much beyond our own planet? Simple answer is, given yer ‘scientific model’ of working stuff out, we know less than bugger all in real terms. 😀

Wrong Elf.

Atheists get defined by others; its a label, its a convienient boogeyman for the religious to use because they cannot accept any questioning.

Rational debate about the subject is impossible because religion is not rational.

Rational debate about the subject is impossible because religion Fred is not rational.

FT (as they say) FY

Interesting Elfin…. I’d say the theists and atheists can be equally dogmatic and tedious. Nice primary school debating trick btw… 😉 Someone who doesn’t believe in father Xmas does not therefore prove the existence of father Xmas…

Yes – lots of great works of art have been commissioned organised and paid for by Religion. Lots of great works of art have been commissioned and paid for by less than nice kings, dictators and politicians. And much of the art produced is not necessarily an expression of belief on the part of the musician, architect or artist in either the religion or the dictator… After all lots of landscapes, portraits, buildings and pieces of music have been produced for non-religious commissions without needing to evoke an inspiration by a higher power as an essential element. I’ve done my time trailing round masses of “painted by the yard” religious paintings in Italy. The Giottos and Fra Angelicos amongst these are the exception not the rule. Artists were doing a job. They needed dosh. Churches had the dosh. The money, not the belief, was the motivation mostly I suspect.

Read Vasari?

Wrong Elf.

Don’t be daft, that’s not scientifically possible as you well know.

Atheists get defined by others; its a label, its a convienient boogeyman for the religious to use because they cannot accept any questioning.

So why accept a label ‘others’ have given you? Pish- youse call yourselves atheists don’t start crying.

Wopster; if being ‘rational’ meant I’d end up anything like you, I’d rather be stark, staring mayd, quite frankly. 😐

Predictable bit of ad hominem btw. Actually I made you post that, as I can control your mind.

I know you’re out of your depth, and I know you resort to that childish nonsense when you realise you’ve backed the wrong side in an argument.

More thought, less Muller rice…

What amuses me about atheists, is that they define themselves in terms of their non-belief in the very God/s that they don’t believe in!

I’m not defining me; you are. The term is just that, it’s a convenient term. You could perhaps use ‘humanist’ or ‘secular’ or ‘sceptic’ or something, though they’re not exactly as precise.

But just about every thread on this subject invariable descends into atheists arrogantly sneering at anyone who might possibly have views different to their own.

So you say, but up until your post no-one was doing any sneering, and the start of the atheism / theism was sparked by a comment that “I don’t understand atheists”. Oh, the ironing.

Nice primary school debating trick btw…

Well, let’s be honest; these ‘discussions’ seldom rise above playground level, do they? 😆

They needed dosh. Churches had the dosh.

I don’t see yer Hawkings and Dawkins stumping up owt for the sake of art….

Lots of great works of art have been commissioned and paid for by less than nice kings, dictators and politicians

The World’s most popular car was commissioned by Adolf Hitler.

The World’s most overrated baynd were ‘bigger than Jesus’ apparently….

You could perhaps use ‘humanist’ or ‘secular’ or ‘sceptic’ or something, though they’re not exactly as precise.

None of them are anywhere near accurate, either. 🙄

Youse call yourselves atheists. Not others. Stop moaning about it, or invent a new name for your own religion, innit, if you’re feeling left out and alienated. 😉

I know you’re out of your depth, and I know you resort to that childish nonsense when you realise you’ve backed the wrong side in an argument.

You genuinely, genuinely cannot do any better than that, can you? Pathetic.

So predictable. So, so predictable. Like candy from a baby… 😆

Blah blah blah. Random selection of facts, smiley face.

Out
Of
Your
Depth.

No. God can’t come into the picture with atheists. To deny without proof requires faith, as does believing without proof. Agnostic’s have an open mind. God’s existence is improbable, but without proof either way, can’t be ruled out.

Which is exactly why most athiests dont rule out entirely the existence of god. Richard Dawkins plots out a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is absolute faith and 7 is absolute certainty of no god. He puts himself as a 6. Reasonable position?

Ok then; please explain just how and why you are sooo much more intelligent and knowledgeable etc.

Off you go. I’m going to do me supper, I expect at least a thousand words by the time I get back.

So why accept a label ‘others’ have given you?

Convenience. Seems the only person to have a problem with it is your good self, and I’m comfortable with that.

The term does not dictate behaviour (or belief) as you seem to be implying, but vice versa.

For example, I’m a vegetarian. I hear people say sometimes, “I can’t eat that because I’m vegetarian,” but this is a fallacious statement. (That’s not to say it’s not without merit; it’s actually a succinct way of explaining my dietary choices.) But in fact it’s not that I don’t eat meat because I’m vegetarian at all, rather that I’m vegetarian because I don’t eat meat.

I cant bring myself to read a word of Fred/Rudeboy/Elf on a thread about religion. Has he picked a side and started throwing abuse, or would we say he’s weighing up the evidence before making a considered contribution?

I’ll tell the coastguard you’ll be in the kitchen.

I don’t see yer Hawkings and Dawkins stumping up owt for the sake of art….

That’s because they don’t need to use opulence as a show of power.

Youse call yourselves atheists. Not others. Stop moaning about it, or invent a new name for your own religion, innit, if you’re feeling left out and alienated.

Again, no-one was moaning about it until you rocked up. I feel neither ‘left out’ nor ‘alienated’, quite the opposite really. I can get on with living my life without having to worry about hailing Mary or kneeling Eastwards on a bit of rug every five minutes.

or invent a new name for your own religion

An example of Fred’s inability to argue rationally.

Seems obvious, but perhaps it needs underlining for our “type-first-think-later” chum:

We’re atheists – we don’t have a religion…

An example of Fred’s inability to argue rationally.

I suspect that he’s perfectly capable of arguing rationally. He just chooses not to because it’s more fun to make inflammatory comments and then watch everyone get in a tizz about it. Again.

… and almost too easy:

But just about every thread on this subject invariable descends into atheists arrogantly sneering at anyone who might possibly have views different to their own.

then

You genuinely, genuinely cannot do any better than that, can you? Pathetic.

Cougar said:

I suspect that he’s perfectly capable of arguing rationally. He just chooses not to because it’s more fun to make inflammatory comments and then watch everyone get in a tizz about it. Again.

In which case, under the forum rules, he should be banned. Again. Mods, please…

Northwind, care to put me right? 😉

😆

Woppit; fancy discussing it over a pint? 😉

You talk about ‘rational debate’, and you post crap like this? All you’ve done is attempt to insult and belittle me. Why? Does it make you feel better, in your narrow-minded insecure little worlds?

The biggest irony is, that you criticise religion because you feel followers want to assume superiority over others, yet all you can do is attempt to make yourselves look superior to others. What a bunch of jokers. 😆

‘Ooh look at me I’m an atheist I’m so clever I’m much more cleverer than other people what think differently to myself!’

Whatever, Girlfriends. Whatever…

In which case, under the forum rules, he should be banned. Again. Mods, please…

Hmm, yeah, silence those you don’t agree with. Gutless and cowardly. 🙄

Rational debate about the subject is impossible because religion Fred is not rational.

Personal insult. Now, what was that Forum Rule about not saying owt to someone you woon’t say to their face? 😐

Fancy a pint sometime?

Pasta’s done. Where’s that essay? 😕

In which case, under the forum rules, he should be banned

I actually meant it as a compliment. If we blindly swallow what others say without any critical thinking, then the failing is ours, not theirs.