CrackpotForeigner Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 As silly as religion is, there is the possibility that we're replacing worship of gods with worship of wealth, which is likely to be more destructive in the long run. As a society, we have ALWAYS been obsessed with wealth, whether we are religious or not. This may or may not be a bad thing, depending on your political stance - but either way, that is not the same as "worshipping" it. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever actually believed that wealth was an invisible supernatural being that needed to be appeased by singing songs to it, etc. Wealth does at least demonstrably exist. All true, but my point was really that in a world without religion, people can no longer pat themselves on the back for living according to god's will, and are maybe left only with their bank balance as a gauge of their worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 5, 2012 Author VT Supporter Share Posted September 5, 2012 As silly as religion is, there is the possibility that we're replacing worship of gods with worship of wealth, which is likely to be more destructive in the long run. As a society, we have ALWAYS been obsessed with wealth, whether we are religious or not. This may or may not be a bad thing, depending on your political stance - but either way, that is not the same as "worshipping" it. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever actually believed that wealth was an invisible supernatural being that needed to be appeased by singing songs to it, etc. Wealth does at least demonstrably exist. All true, but my point was really that in a world without religion, people can no longer pat themselves on the back for living according to god's will, and are maybe left only with their bank balance as a gauge of their worth. I prefer that, there's less room for hypocrisy. There used to be the poor and pious, and the rich and pious, the latter claiming that God had ordained their wealth and success. We still have a few poor and pious, but nobody takes the rich and pious (Tony Blair, anyone?) too seriously now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 As for the second bit (as much as I roundly agree), paging Levi to the thread for a 1500 word article on why agnosticism is the only 'not stupid' choice That'd be an article preaching to the choir though, although I'd argue it's not really a choice, you're either agnostic, or you're brain damaged. Saying you're agnostic is like saying "I don't know if this coin is going to land on heads or tails" anyone who says otherwise is full of shit, or trying to con you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 5, 2012 Author VT Supporter Share Posted September 5, 2012 Saying you're agnostic is like saying "I don't know if this coin is going to land on heads or tails" anyone who says otherwise is full of shit, or trying to con you. Actually, that is an excellent analogy. I shall steal it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted September 5, 2012 Administrator Share Posted September 5, 2012 There used to be the poor and pious, and the rich and pious, the latter claiming that God had ordained their wealth and success. We still have a few poor and pious, but nobody takes the rich and pious (Tony Blair, anyone?) too seriously now. I'd prefer that the people seeking wealth are doing it openly and in public, as opposed to religions tithing the poor through their protection racket (which should be criminal). That religions spend their state benefits and tax breaks to surround themselves in opulence is frankly offensive, and certainly immoral. That they get additional sections in law just because they are religions is offensive. Faith schools are allowed to discriminate against their employees based on which fairy tale they believe. How can that be acceptable? And I'm well aware corporations also take advantage of tax breaks, but they are (quite rightly) criticised for doing so. Why do religions get such an easy ride? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever actually believed that wealth was an invisible supernatural being that needed to be appeased by singing songs to it, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Just watching "married to the moonies" on 4 Another bonkers cult ... No sex before marriage ( stunts your growth dont you know :shock:) , no alcohol .... How on earth does anyone sign up for this drivel ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Taking things in a slightly different direction, have you ever wondered why we are who we are? Why we were born into the family we were and why we were born in the land we were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 7, 2012 Moderator Share Posted September 7, 2012 Taking things in a slightly different direction, have you ever wondered why we are who we are? Why we were born into the family we were and why we were born in the land we were. No why would you? Daddy's sperm reached mummy's egg. That's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 7, 2012 Author VT Supporter Share Posted September 7, 2012 Taking things in a slightly different direction, have you ever wondered why we are who we are? Why we were born into the family we were and why we were born in the land we were. When we developed intelligence it was a definite evolutionary advantage to be obsessed with causality. Asking WHY things happened helped us to useful knowledge about the world around us. One interesting side effect of this is that we tried (and still do) to apply it to EVERYTHING. So, while asking why an apple falls from a tree is an entirely appropriate question, we find it difficult to accept that asking why we are here, or what the universe is "for" - is not. There are some questions which simply have no answers. It's not simply that we cannot know the answers, it actually that the questions are in effect meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I'm Agnostic. I'm someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities. I use the term in it's popular sense, like many a great mind have before me. Strictly speaking incorrect I suppose, if you believe the meaning of words can't change through popular use. I won't get anal about labels, they do a very poor job of defining such complexities anyway. Ideas are more important. I hate it when someone calls themselves agnostic, because what they really mean is "I'm atheist, but I'm too much of a pussy to want to tell people that I don't believe in God". What utter drivel. Have you asked these people? It's what you think, not a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted September 8, 2012 Administrator Share Posted September 8, 2012 I hate it when someone calls themselves agnostic, because what they really mean is "I'm atheist, but I'm too much of a pussy to want to tell people that I don't believe in God". What utter drivel. Have you asked these people? It's what you think, not a fact. If you allow the possibility that there are no gods, you are an atheist and it's simply a matter of degree. Whether you are agnostic or not is completely unrelated. The definition of "agnostic" might be changing with misuse, but "atheist" still means the same thing. Atheism is a spectrum from weak ("I'm not sure whether there is a god") to strong ("There is no god"). If your personal vocabulary defines "agnostic" to mean the same as "weak atheist" then I'm afraid what you quoted is not drivel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 There is but one god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I hate it when someone calls themselves agnostic, because what they really mean is "I'm atheist, but I'm too much of a pussy to want to tell people that I don't believe in God". What utter drivel. Have you asked these people? It's what you think, not a fact. If you allow the possibility that there are no gods, you are an atheist and it's simply a matter of degree. Whether you are agnostic or not is completely unrelated. The definition of "agnostic" might be changing with misuse, but "atheist" still means the same thing. Atheism is a spectrum from weak ("I'm not sure whether there is a god") to strong ("There is no god"). If your personal vocabulary defines "agnostic" to mean the same as "weak atheist" then I'm afraid what you quoted is not drivel.It is drivel. The statement that people are 'too pussy' to admit they're Atheist is frankly arrogant and patronising. And like I said, I'm not concerned with labels, they do a poor job of defining complex ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted September 8, 2012 Administrator Share Posted September 8, 2012 Atheist is a really clear definition though. It's someone that do some degree, doesn't accept that god(s) are real. That's it. You stated you are not sure that god exists, therefore you are an atheist. That's just a fact based on your statement. Why do you not accept that label? I could understand it if you have your own personal definition of atheist. Please can you describe what you think atheist means? You have capitalised it, does that imply you feel it is a proper noun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Taking things in a slightly different direction, have you ever wondered why we are who we are? Why we were born into the family we were and why we were born in the land we were. No why would you? Daddy's sperm reached mummy's egg. That's it. Oh come on, there is more to it then that. That is too simplistic. Why were you Bickster born where you were. You could of been born in Africa, you don't choose what or where you were born into. When you think about it, it is extraordinary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 It's someone that do some degree, doesn't accept that god(s) are real. What if that someone in question is unsure about the existence of gods? (I don't mean unsure in the "I have no evidence for fairies" sense, I mean someone who's really on the fence) Based on your definition, he can't be an atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted September 8, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted September 8, 2012 Why does there need to be a why? There isn't a why. It's a question without an answer, because the question is meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Taking things in a slightly different direction, have you ever wondered why we are who we are? Why we were born into the family we were and why we were born in the land we were. No why would you? Daddy's sperm reached mummy's egg. That's it. Oh come on, there is more to it then that. That is too simplistic. Why were you Bickster born where you were. You could have been born in Africa, you don't choose what or where you were born into. When you think about it, it is extraordinary. I'd surmise that it's the same reason people win the lottery - chance. Ergo, nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veloman Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 There is but one god. Is that Robert Palmer ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts