New here

[rayne]

Originally Posted by lol@u

Mmm now here I was being polite .... I was actually asked to be careful with my emoticon use so I didnt offend ... But yes I forgot free speech , well go ahead if it makes you feel superior in some small pathetic way
mock my faith, call it stupid
You know if it is just luck chance coincidence then I must be a very very lucky woman & Im ok with that its working for me.

I noticed alot of people here say they celebrate the christian festival of Christmas ......

Isnt that a bit hypocritical?

excuse me ALOT hypocritical?????

"No I dont believe in god or Jesus but pass the ham & give me a gift "

A true athiest would shun all religious festivals not just the ones out of his or her postcode

I'll counter that statement with - so do many religious-in-name-only people. My partner and I don't celebrate christmas, we have no connection to the religious side of the holiday. However the ham is wonderful and we make a "tree" out of books and hang Halloween decorations off it because taking from the pagan rituals and turning into something unique ours is fun and Halloween is cool. We do buy each other a present because - we're greedy. Many people part-take in the commercial, ritual side but not the monotheist religious celebration.

Besides christianity took the concept of christmas from many places, why not do the same thing with christmas?

[Blue Lightning]

Hi lol@u! I'm late to this thread, but I've just read it. A belated welcome! And I wish you well

[Goldenmane]

Originally Posted by lol@u

Maybe that is the problem I cant seem to separate my self from my ideas & beliefs The two have grown together my ideals are part of who I am they are my moral compass my reason for doing things the way I do in the manner I do them or not do them.
I like the way I am
Is this wrong?

I think I forgot to say this yesterday: The above is a very important post.

I can argue that your ideas (not ideals) are not who you are - your ideals, well, they are much more bound up in that. Ideas and ideals are not identical.

But your ideals, if they are your reason for doing things the way you do? Well, I would not necessarily argue that was wrong. But you can be damn sure I'll argue that in that case, either your ideals are fucked up, or your manner of putting them into practice is lacking.

In that case, of course, you will feel even more persecuted by me. That, I'm afraid, I can't help.

Oh, and the important thing? The important thing is that you started to question your own views.

[BlueDevil]

Originally Posted by lol@u

Maybe that is the difference between those with faith & those without!!!
Because I cant distance myself from my ideals I think that is impossible !!
seriously! They are a part of me not something I can just step away from.

Firstly - I have some confusion over your use of the term ideals (ideas?), but will move on.

The point I was trying to make is that human beings are very complex and their 'self' consists of many different behaviours, thoughts, ideas, emotions etc. We can't define ourselves or others in terms of just one (or a few traits). As an analogy it wouldn't be correct to call a bag of fruit apples if the bag contained a mixture of apples, pears, oranges etc. There is clearly more to the bag of fruit than just apples.

I may refer to myself as an atheist, but that is only one aspect to me, and I really shouldn't 'label' myself in that way, as it may be misconstrued to define me. Atheism is only one aspect of many traits that I have. It is convenient language wise to say "I am an atheist", but it would be more accurate to say "I am a person with an atheistic viewpoint"

Following on from this, if someone does a stupid thing, we shouldn't call them stupid because that is only one aspect of their behaviour. So it would be true to say that someone acted stupidly but not to say they are stupid. As an example, suppose someone who was generally regarded as very intelligent did something really stupid. Would it be accurate to say they are a stupid person? If Einstein did something really silly (as he inevitably would have during his life) does that make him a stupid person?

This leads back into the point we have been making about it being okay to attack other people's ideas but not the person themselves. Just to make up an example, what if Einstein believed that an alien called Xenu visited the earth 75 million years ago and stacked billions of his people around volcanoes and killed them with hydrogen bombs. Depite this rather odd belief this brilliant scientist still devises many ground breaking scientific theories. Would it be accurate to call him a stupid person. Or would it not ne more accurate to simply describe him as a person who holds a stupid idea? The point is that Einstein is much more than this one silly idea, and shouldn't be defined by that one characteristic (keeping in mind of course that I have completely made up the example of Einstein believing in Xenu for the sake of illustration). So it would be quite okay to challenge Einstein's silly idea, and to do so vigorously, as this is not an attack on him as a person but rather a call for him to justify or provide evidence for his strange belief.

Similarly we could say that your faith is only one aspect of your behaviour/ideas. It is not your 'entirety'. Even if it is an important aspect of your life it is still only one component of the many characteristics that make up your 'self'. It should not form a component of your self esteem. If it does then you are in trouble should your faith waver or be demonstrated to be in error. Then you lose not only your faith but also your self esteem. This may be one reason why people cling to their faith even despite overwhelming evidence that faith is not a good thing. Such people realise that if they were to admit their faith was a failure then they too would be a failure in their eyes (which or course they aren't). And when people challenge your belief in faith they are challenging just that one idea, not you as a person.

Hope my ranting makes some sort of sense!

[Goldenmane]

Newton's a better example. Numerology, astrology, alchemy... he was into a lot of bullshit.

But he also did some fucking awesome work on optics, and inventing the calculus, and his laws of motion...

[BlueDevil]

Originally Posted by Goldenmane

Newton's a better example. Numerology, astrology, alchemy... he was into a lot of bullshit.

But he also did some fucking awesome work on optics, and inventing the calculus, and his laws of motion...

Ahh...good point. I shall keep him in mind as an example for future use so I don't have to make one up!

[Revren]

Originally Posted by lol@u

I noticed alot of people here say they celebrate the christian festival of Christmas ......

Isnt that a bit hypocritical?

excuse me ALOT hypocritical?????

"No I dont believe in god or Jesus but pass the ham & give me a gift "

A true athiest would shun all religious festivals not just the ones out of his or her postcode

A bit late in the thread now but using your logic, you could argue that:
Queen's Birthday is for monarchists only.
Labour day is for union employees only.
Melbourne Cup is for equestrians only.
and so on.

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by Goldenmane

Newton's a better example. Numerology, astrology, alchemy... he was into a lot of bullshit.

But he also did some fucking awesome work on optics, and inventing the calculus, and his laws of motion...

In retrospect Newton's attempts at alchemy were [perhaps] not so dumb-he just did not have access to the necessary tools, like a nuclear reactor. How was he to know that his experiments in optics for example, would be more sucessful than his exploration of alchemy, a priori ??
Considering what was known in his time playing with alchemy might be just as logical as messing with prisms. Thus I do not accept you claim that "...he was into a lot of bullshit". Certain investigations in science were easier than others, and dependent on the technology available at the time. The phenomena that were easier to test using the available technology, were the ones he had more success with. This is true even today. You need summat like a LHC to even think about practical testing for Higgs Bosons.

[Goldenmane]

Good point.

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by Goldenmane

Good point.

More than a good point, u iz owned!