Thursday 12 August 2010
Wordpress
Please note that I'm no longer blogging here. I am now blogging on all topics at http://aguynamedguyuk.wordpress.com
Sunday 23 May 2010
A rejection of atheism
These days I find myself less and less willing to identify myself as an atheist. On my personal journey of discovery, I have developed my own opinions and beliefs that don't fit any more into atheism than they do into any of the mainstream religions.
Central to those beliefs is my own personal outlook on life, and the understanding that a person has a right to draw to their own conclusions, no matter how crazy or radical they may appear to other people. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not for one moment advocating extremism or any form of brainwashing - far from it. What I am advocating is that behind every person's beliefs there is a thought pattern and a process that got them there. This process is called life.
Though I cast judgement on people as much as the next person, I constantly find myself wishing I didn't. My own prejudices often find me silently questioning people's intelligence when they tell me of their religious beliefs, but given my knowledge of psychological development, I realise that this is a fault on my part.
I started this blog in order to put down my findings and experiences as I searched for meaning in my life, and in no way do I want to use this blog to evangelically preach to you or tell you what you should or shouldn't be doing. Everyone is on their own journey and will reach various destinations at different times. However, what I would like to do is tell you where I am right now and how I got there.
Good or bad, the things that make you you are there for a reason. You may not realise the reasons, but they are there and you can find them if you look hard enough. Recently I found peace within myself, and this is a large part of the reason why. In my case I started receiving counselling, and this has significantly helped me to understand myself. I've always considered myself to be a relatively "normal" person - nothing particularly bad has ever happened to me; I've never experienced anything particularly traumatic; I've never been seriously ill or hurt; I've never lost anyone that I've truly loved. Despite that, something wasn't right. I initially realised this when I went on a course to learn basic counselling skills, so I was fortunate in being able to identify the type of counselling that I needed.
Now whether or not you "believe" in counselling or not, the point is that this has worked for me. Recently a friend of mine suggested that she removed a black cloud through a specific strand of Buddhism, and of course many people suggest that they have found inner peace by committing their lives to God.
Regardless of anyone's opinion on these paths, they are valid for the individual concerned. Indeed, who are we to say that ANY path is not valid? Humans instinctively know the difference between right and wrong, so if a person can find their own peace in their own way and it does not infringe on another's basic human rights, surely that is a good thing? Casting judgement on one's inner peace (something of which I am often guilty) is arrogant at best, ignorant at worst.
This is something of which atheists are often guilty. A few months ago I contacted someone who was putting together a band/stage show based around atheistic beliefs.The plan was to offend every religion in existence - "I won't be happy unless we've offended everyone in the room" he said. Now initially I thought this could be good fun and I suggested that we target atheists too, in order to not prejudice anyone. He agreed. However, recently I realised that; 1. I have no desire to be in a band any more (that's another story); and 2. I don't like offending people. Now anyone who knows me will know that this isn't some namby-pamby politically-correct stance. My reason for this is simply that I'm starting to understand how people develop their thought patterns, and challenging their beliefs in an unstructured, insecure environment is actually very irresponsible and potentially damaging.
So I have decided to reject the label of "atheist", though I will no doubt use it from time to time in conversation as the closest term to describe my beliefs. I have actually decided to reject all labels - atheist, agnostic, pantheist, humanist, individualist - to describe my religious beliefs. To me, use of these labels - somewhat ironically in the instance of the latter - actually belittles any suggestion that you have developed your beliefs individually.
Central to those beliefs is my own personal outlook on life, and the understanding that a person has a right to draw to their own conclusions, no matter how crazy or radical they may appear to other people. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not for one moment advocating extremism or any form of brainwashing - far from it. What I am advocating is that behind every person's beliefs there is a thought pattern and a process that got them there. This process is called life.
Though I cast judgement on people as much as the next person, I constantly find myself wishing I didn't. My own prejudices often find me silently questioning people's intelligence when they tell me of their religious beliefs, but given my knowledge of psychological development, I realise that this is a fault on my part.
I started this blog in order to put down my findings and experiences as I searched for meaning in my life, and in no way do I want to use this blog to evangelically preach to you or tell you what you should or shouldn't be doing. Everyone is on their own journey and will reach various destinations at different times. However, what I would like to do is tell you where I am right now and how I got there.
Good or bad, the things that make you you are there for a reason. You may not realise the reasons, but they are there and you can find them if you look hard enough. Recently I found peace within myself, and this is a large part of the reason why. In my case I started receiving counselling, and this has significantly helped me to understand myself. I've always considered myself to be a relatively "normal" person - nothing particularly bad has ever happened to me; I've never experienced anything particularly traumatic; I've never been seriously ill or hurt; I've never lost anyone that I've truly loved. Despite that, something wasn't right. I initially realised this when I went on a course to learn basic counselling skills, so I was fortunate in being able to identify the type of counselling that I needed.
Now whether or not you "believe" in counselling or not, the point is that this has worked for me. Recently a friend of mine suggested that she removed a black cloud through a specific strand of Buddhism, and of course many people suggest that they have found inner peace by committing their lives to God.
Regardless of anyone's opinion on these paths, they are valid for the individual concerned. Indeed, who are we to say that ANY path is not valid? Humans instinctively know the difference between right and wrong, so if a person can find their own peace in their own way and it does not infringe on another's basic human rights, surely that is a good thing? Casting judgement on one's inner peace (something of which I am often guilty) is arrogant at best, ignorant at worst.
This is something of which atheists are often guilty. A few months ago I contacted someone who was putting together a band/stage show based around atheistic beliefs.The plan was to offend every religion in existence - "I won't be happy unless we've offended everyone in the room" he said. Now initially I thought this could be good fun and I suggested that we target atheists too, in order to not prejudice anyone. He agreed. However, recently I realised that; 1. I have no desire to be in a band any more (that's another story); and 2. I don't like offending people. Now anyone who knows me will know that this isn't some namby-pamby politically-correct stance. My reason for this is simply that I'm starting to understand how people develop their thought patterns, and challenging their beliefs in an unstructured, insecure environment is actually very irresponsible and potentially damaging.
So I have decided to reject the label of "atheist", though I will no doubt use it from time to time in conversation as the closest term to describe my beliefs. I have actually decided to reject all labels - atheist, agnostic, pantheist, humanist, individualist - to describe my religious beliefs. To me, use of these labels - somewhat ironically in the instance of the latter - actually belittles any suggestion that you have developed your beliefs individually.
Monday 1 February 2010
You have to laugh...
From the Facebook fan page We can find 1,000,000 people who don't believe in Evolution before June:
The only conclusion I can draw is that these are uneducated, brainwashed children.
THAT'S what scares me.
Topic: Evolution vs Creation
Post 1: we know that Creation is the right one but debate it here
Post 2: If evolution were real, why can't trees run away when somebody tries to chop one down? It's obvious that God meant for us to cut down all the trees for making boats and things.
Post 3: yeah that's right.
Post 4: If evolution was real then it makes no sense why there are different creatures. I mean, if we all came from a blob, then why would the blobs turn into different creatures? Wouldn't the creatures all become the same thing while figuring out how to survive?
Post 5: Before Darwin died he admitted he was wrong and God was right.
The only conclusion I can draw is that these are uneducated, brainwashed children.
THAT'S what scares me.
Friday 29 January 2010
The Bible: A History (Channel 4)
I've just watched The Bible: A History on 4 On Demand. An incredibly enjoyable programme presented by Howard Jacobson. The programme focussed on Genesis 1.
Jacobson discussed several concerns throughout the programme that I have discussed here previously, such as the aggressive nature of the New Atheist (I have to confess that I am not happy that he appeared to be tarring all atheists with the same brush in this programme), but for me the biggest missed opportunity for supporting atheism came at the end of the show.
Now I should point out that Jacobson declared himself early on in the programme as someone who was neither religious nor an atheist, and I appreciate that a TV programme needs to be structured and concluded inside 50 minutes. However this programme actually asked more questions than it answered.
It started so promisingly, with a trip to Jerusalem to investigate the origins of the Bible. The conclusion was drawn that Genesis 1 was written approximately 600 years after Moses. The rationale behind the continued belief in one god after the Jews had suffered at the hands of the Babylonians was at best unclear and at worst very weak. The catastrophe had apparently proved to them that the whole world was under the command of God and this actually strengthened their beliefs, after some degree of questioning them.
He then moved on to talk to Professor AC Grayling, who did his best to perpetuate the myth that all atheists are irrational fundamentalists.
But the most disappointing aspect for me was the conclusion. Jacobson concluded that Genesis should not be read literally, and was open to interpretation. Surely this is the strongest argument against the Bible? The convenience that any of the stories in the book can be interpreted any literal or theological terms is what makes it all too convenient for me. Could this god not have been a little clearer with his messages?
Unfortunately Jacobson does not address this point. This was the first in a series, I will continue to watch in the hope that this will be addressed at some point.
All in all though, a pleasant programme that shared many of my feelings on this voyage of discovery.
Jacobson discussed several concerns throughout the programme that I have discussed here previously, such as the aggressive nature of the New Atheist (I have to confess that I am not happy that he appeared to be tarring all atheists with the same brush in this programme), but for me the biggest missed opportunity for supporting atheism came at the end of the show.
Now I should point out that Jacobson declared himself early on in the programme as someone who was neither religious nor an atheist, and I appreciate that a TV programme needs to be structured and concluded inside 50 minutes. However this programme actually asked more questions than it answered.
It started so promisingly, with a trip to Jerusalem to investigate the origins of the Bible. The conclusion was drawn that Genesis 1 was written approximately 600 years after Moses. The rationale behind the continued belief in one god after the Jews had suffered at the hands of the Babylonians was at best unclear and at worst very weak. The catastrophe had apparently proved to them that the whole world was under the command of God and this actually strengthened their beliefs, after some degree of questioning them.
He then moved on to talk to Professor AC Grayling, who did his best to perpetuate the myth that all atheists are irrational fundamentalists.
But the most disappointing aspect for me was the conclusion. Jacobson concluded that Genesis should not be read literally, and was open to interpretation. Surely this is the strongest argument against the Bible? The convenience that any of the stories in the book can be interpreted any literal or theological terms is what makes it all too convenient for me. Could this god not have been a little clearer with his messages?
Unfortunately Jacobson does not address this point. This was the first in a series, I will continue to watch in the hope that this will be addressed at some point.
All in all though, a pleasant programme that shared many of my feelings on this voyage of discovery.
Sunday 25 October 2009
Left wing, right wing, Christianity, atheism, BNP...
A few articles have made me chuckle this week. With all the furore surrounding Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time, I found this article resonated well with my thoughts on fundamental atheism. Here we have a despicable, poisonous, racist, individual on a political debate show for the first time, but anyone who saw the programme will understand why support within the British public has increased. The man was berated. No policies were discussed, no constructive debate was encouraged, and Griffin was forced to spend the entire programme defending himself.
Are you listening, "new atheists"? You see what's happened there? Common opinion would be that the left wing were in the right, but the aggression and facetiousness with which the subject was handled has done them no good at all. This is how I see the aggression of fundamentalist atheists. It's exactly the same as evangelical Christians. If you try to force something down someone's throat, they will instinctively try to reject it. The choice of whether to be religious or not is an entirely personal one.
However, Christians, you don't get off lightly either. If you want to throw Hitler at atheists, we'd like to present you with Mr Griffin as your very own little Hitler.
Are you listening, "new atheists"? You see what's happened there? Common opinion would be that the left wing were in the right, but the aggression and facetiousness with which the subject was handled has done them no good at all. This is how I see the aggression of fundamentalist atheists. It's exactly the same as evangelical Christians. If you try to force something down someone's throat, they will instinctively try to reject it. The choice of whether to be religious or not is an entirely personal one.
However, Christians, you don't get off lightly either. If you want to throw Hitler at atheists, we'd like to present you with Mr Griffin as your very own little Hitler.
Sunday 4 October 2009
Siding with the other team
A rare one for you here - I'm going to side with the Christians for a moment. Take a look at this article:
Cheerleaders' Bible Banners Banned
I picked this up from another of my atheist "friends" tweeting away on twitter. Seriously, when I read things like this I can see why people go with religion - it can be a much friendlier option.
I'm seriously disgusted at this banner being forbidden, for two reasons. Firstly, and most obviously, it contravenes the right to free speech. Secondly, the team and their coach can choose to use whatever they like as motivation. Would the argument have even been presented if the team had used words of Martin Luther King, Abraham Washington, Bill Hicks etc? I seriously doubt it. Even as staunch atheist I can see that parts of the Bible can have motivational effects on those that appreciate it.
The so-called "new atheists" need to take a long, hard look at themselves. All they are doing is giving atheists a bad name, in the same way that evangelists can form the basis of our perception of religion. You know those arguments thrown at atheists about Hitler, Stalin etc.? Well, you're simply fuelling the fire for them. If I was asked whether or not I want to live in a society governed by these fools or Christians, I take Christians every time. The irony is that every time come across one of these people, they're usually wound up into such a frenzy that they negate their arguments by being completely closed to discussion around what they are saying.
This works both ways. When you see an evangalist in the street, they will never consider what you have to say because they are coming from a presupposed standpoint. Likewise when you try to discuss the finer details of the Bible (in context, I should add) with a "new atheist", they are totally oblivious to fact because they have their own presuppositions. Therefore I have very little time for either the evangelist or the "new atheist".
The journey within religion is a voyage of entirely personal discovery, all I ask for is considered debate.
Cheerleaders' Bible Banners Banned
I picked this up from another of my atheist "friends" tweeting away on twitter. Seriously, when I read things like this I can see why people go with religion - it can be a much friendlier option.
I'm seriously disgusted at this banner being forbidden, for two reasons. Firstly, and most obviously, it contravenes the right to free speech. Secondly, the team and their coach can choose to use whatever they like as motivation. Would the argument have even been presented if the team had used words of Martin Luther King, Abraham Washington, Bill Hicks etc? I seriously doubt it. Even as staunch atheist I can see that parts of the Bible can have motivational effects on those that appreciate it.
The so-called "new atheists" need to take a long, hard look at themselves. All they are doing is giving atheists a bad name, in the same way that evangelists can form the basis of our perception of religion. You know those arguments thrown at atheists about Hitler, Stalin etc.? Well, you're simply fuelling the fire for them. If I was asked whether or not I want to live in a society governed by these fools or Christians, I take Christians every time. The irony is that every time come across one of these people, they're usually wound up into such a frenzy that they negate their arguments by being completely closed to discussion around what they are saying.
This works both ways. When you see an evangalist in the street, they will never consider what you have to say because they are coming from a presupposed standpoint. Likewise when you try to discuss the finer details of the Bible (in context, I should add) with a "new atheist", they are totally oblivious to fact because they have their own presuppositions. Therefore I have very little time for either the evangelist or the "new atheist".
The journey within religion is a voyage of entirely personal discovery, all I ask for is considered debate.
Sunday 20 September 2009
Morality vs Atheism
The suggestion from many Christians that a secular state would be dangerous due to the lack of an absolute morality is one that bugs me greatly. I find the argument entirely preposterous, and indeed damaging to the human psyche.
Even if I was to make a great concession and suggest that the argument for heaven and hell was true, you would still have bad people doing bad things. We know that we (as humans) will go to prison if we commit crimes, and yet people still do so. If we knew for certain that sinners go to hell, this acts is a strong argument to suggest that it would not alter our behaviour. People would still be convinced that they could get away with it, and others simply would not be able to help themselves.
A question that I would like to put to Christians is this: If you were to discover for certain that there is no God, would you decide that murder was acceptable?
Furthermore, to suggest that humans have morals purely on the existence of an absolute morality is doing the race a great disservice. In one of the few highlights of The God Delusion, Dawkins gives a good explanation of a Darwinian evolution of morality. Ultimately, morality can be accurately illustrated to have survived through kin altruism, reciprocative altruism and reputation.
Contrast that with comments made by this lady:
Tell me - would you rather be cared for by somebody who enjoyed caring for people, or someone who thought it their duty?
Hospitals are already full of individuals who are simply going about their job because it's what they are paid to do. It's not necessarily a bad thing (I don't know about you, but I don't particularly want my doctor becoming emotionally involved) but in the overall morality picture it's a pretty big smudge on the reputation of religion.
In Darwinian theory there is no absolute morality. There is no need for an absolute morality. Natual selection takes care of morality for us.
Even if I was to make a great concession and suggest that the argument for heaven and hell was true, you would still have bad people doing bad things. We know that we (as humans) will go to prison if we commit crimes, and yet people still do so. If we knew for certain that sinners go to hell, this acts is a strong argument to suggest that it would not alter our behaviour. People would still be convinced that they could get away with it, and others simply would not be able to help themselves.
A question that I would like to put to Christians is this: If you were to discover for certain that there is no God, would you decide that murder was acceptable?
Furthermore, to suggest that humans have morals purely on the existence of an absolute morality is doing the race a great disservice. In one of the few highlights of The God Delusion, Dawkins gives a good explanation of a Darwinian evolution of morality. Ultimately, morality can be accurately illustrated to have survived through kin altruism, reciprocative altruism and reputation.
Contrast that with comments made by this lady:
"Everyone I have ever worked with has clearly known I am a Christian - it is what motivates me to care for others," she said.Am I the only person who finds that a little disturbing? A nurse, whose only motivation for caring for others is because of her Christian duty?
Tell me - would you rather be cared for by somebody who enjoyed caring for people, or someone who thought it their duty?
Hospitals are already full of individuals who are simply going about their job because it's what they are paid to do. It's not necessarily a bad thing (I don't know about you, but I don't particularly want my doctor becoming emotionally involved) but in the overall morality picture it's a pretty big smudge on the reputation of religion.
In Darwinian theory there is no absolute morality. There is no need for an absolute morality. Natual selection takes care of morality for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
