Jealous of the Ned Flanders?

Tefal said:
The interesting thing is he doesn't do it though ;)

While it would be "good" the gain isn't worth the effort.
Click to expand...

I sometimes help people, but I rarely go out of my way to help a stranger. I have never bought a freezing homeless person a coffee, campagned for charity and rarely donate to charity.

I guess I'm just lazy.
 
Jealous of Ned Flanders? Nope, but do I believe in god? I can’t say either way, so guess I’m an agnostic.

I do have a belief that religion is more likely something created by mankind, rather than something handed down by a supreme being and then interpreted by mankind. To me religion is nothing more than a way to control people:

For example, the dark ages (if that’s a correct period of time for this? Who cares it’s just and example), the general populous were probably fearful of the unknown and therefore more likely to submit to the ideas of religion, thus it snowballs from there and leaves us to thank religion for a chequered history.

In this day and age we have science and things that bring these ideas into refute, and in absence of any tangible evidence, many people start to question; some to the point where they flatly refuse to accept the idea of a god.

So as the years roll by, I think there will be a rise of people who simply label themselves as ‘no religion’.

Just my view on the subject of religion :)

Scort.
 
Tefal said:
1: why even bring it up then?


2: oh dear...
Click to expand...

1 Proof was being asked for manipulation of people by a person, using God as a driving force. I could go into the whole Christian thing but that was easier.

2 Indeed. I do like to keep an open mind to possibilities.

God could have indeed farted the entire Universe out his bottom. Hopefully some of the stuff they are doing with the LHC will perhaps answer some of these questions.
 
The thing is, someone needs to invent God before one can disbelieve in it, thus its not blind faith to disbelieve, only to believe.

And from my quick read through this thread, very few/none of the people contributing to the discussion are saying they believe god doesn't exist, only that they disbelieve in him. Thus no blind faith.
 
This sort of topic irritates me. Too much mixing of philosophy and plain language leading to confusion.

I keep thinking that nothing exists unless there is evidence that it exists. There is no evidence that god exists, therefore I can say that there is no god, without this being a matter of blind faith. Is this some sort of realism? Not really sure. Clearly I'm no philosopher.
 
Why would he feel like everything will be fine because God is apparently watching over him? It's not like nothing bad has never happened to anyone religious.

Also what is this about 'the lords plan'? It seems to imply that everything that happens is God's doing, which also implies that he does not have free will. Would that not worry him that he has no control over his life? Or say if he was in a bad situation or anyone he loved/cared for in a bad situation, there was nothing he could do about it apart from what is in the lord's plan? Or that he couldn't stop anything bad from happening beforehand? Especially bearing in mind my first point. If the lord's plan does exist, then it certainly doesn't mean eveything will be fine for you. What if in the lord's plan, his family is tortured and murdered infront of him? What if in the lord's plan later in his life he becomes an atheist, and then goes to hell to suffer for eternity. It's quite possible, these things have happened and will happen again. But it's ok, it's all part of the lord's plan right? :confused: Why would that inspire a sense of comfort?
 
Last edited:
to the op:

why would you be envious of your neighbors mild form of insanity ?

religeon is nothing more than a public display of weakness of the mind and delusion... if it were not so established most religeous people would be on medication to cure them :)
 
Flukester said:
to the op:

why would you be envious of your neighbors mild form of insanity ?

religeon is nothing more than a public display of weakness of the mind and delusion... if it were not so established most religeous people would be on medication to cure them :)
Click to expand...

I don't want to be insane! I don't think religious people qualify as being insane when the world has serial killers and men that lock their families in basements for years on end. I'd just like the comfort that he has, the whole "everything will be okay because the God is watching over me". And I wouldn't say it's weakness of the mind either, I don't believe the bible as I can only assume the chinese whispers effect happened but the guy who wrote that made a lot of people happy. To a mind not bombarded with science (i.e. mine!) the bible can provide answers for a lot of things. Answers are good, and even if it isn't the correct one what really matters is that it put them at ease. I would love to think my friend who passed away is kicking it back in heaven having the time of his afterlife but I can't. My answer is it all ended for him and that's **** compared to the heaven line.
 
Subterranean said:
The thing is, someone needs to invent God before one can disbelieve in it, thus its not blind faith to disbelieve, only to believe.
Click to expand...

I was thinking much the same.

If you define an atheist as someone who doesn't believe in god and then accuse them of having a religion because of "their blind faith in there being no god", then where does this put the (hypothetical) man who is born and raised and manages to reach adulthood with no mention whatsoever of god or creation or questions about how the universe and us came in to being.

If you can imagine such a person then you have to accept that the idea of god would be totally alien to him, simply because he has never questioned life/death/existence etc.

He would by definition be an atheist because he doesn't believe in god - but only because the idea has never been floated to him and he has never come up with it by himself.

However to then accuse him of being religious and having blind faith in his atheism is also grossly incorrect because he doesn't know his is atheist - or even what one is.

Something to think about anyway...

:D
 
Last edited:
I feel sorry for ned flanders, he's a essentially a good guy but dumb as **** and gullible.

I don't rule out a higher being but I don't believe. I have no reason to believe either way. I do truely feel sorry for those committed to their religion blindly because I feel it restricts the fun they have and the quality of living.
 
I'm an agnostic athiest and I'm not jealous of the person in the OP.

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
George Bernard Shaw
 
Subterranean said:
The thing is, someone needs to invent God before one can disbelieve in it, thus its not blind faith to disbelieve, only to believe.
Click to expand...

That assumes that God is a human construct, which is another untestable hypothesis.

And also, I mentioned before that plenty of people of religious persuasion, if not the majority, would not claim to follow blind faith. For whatever reason, they have a desire to follow their way of life and the free will to abandon it if they choose to.

And from my quick read through this thread, very few/none of the people contributing to the discussion are saying they believe god doesn't exist, only that they disbelieve in him. Thus no blind faith.
Click to expand...

If that's your interpretation of "don't believe/disbelieve" then you're correct, yes.

drizzy said:
This sort of topic irritates me. Too much mixing of philosophy and plain language leading to confusion.

I keep thinking that nothing exists unless there is evidence that it exists. There is no evidence that god exists, therefore I can say that there is no god, without this being a matter of blind faith.Is this some sort of realism? Not really sure. Clearly I'm no philosopher.
Click to expand...

It's some sort of faith. You can never say "God doesn't exist" without making a sort of leap of faith. To avoid faith altogether you'd need to say "I don't know if God exists, but he probably doesn't."
Flukester said:
to the op:

why would you be envious of your neighbors mild form of insanity ?

religeon is nothing more than a public display of weakness of the mind and delusion... if it were not so established most religeous people would be on medication to cure them :)
Click to expand...

Well, thanks for that comprehensive character assessment of me. I appreciate you're fully able to understand my motivations for accepting that I can't explain everything I experience, and that events in my life point to there being more to it than a pointless existence. I'll stay away from your medication thanks.

In what way am I weak and deluded?
 
I don't believe there is a God, but I don't consider that lack of belief to be 'blind faith', I hold it in the same regard as Aliens on earth, fairies at the bottom of the garden, santa claus and so on. I am more inclined to disbelieve something so paradoxical as a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient being without evidence.

Religion is defined as 'a belief' or 'a set of beliefs', I don't belive that a set of disbeliefs would qualify.
 
i know what you mean - ignorance is bliss and all that.

but, i think i'd rather have the unpleasant truth than the pleasant lie - i guess that why i'm a depressed scientist ;)
 
MattU said:
I don't believe there is a God, but I don't consider that lack of belief to be 'blind faith', I hold it in the same regard as Aliens on earth, fairies at the bottom of the garden, santa claus and so on. I am more inclined to disbelieve something so paradoxical as a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient being without evidence.

Religion is defined as 'a belief' or 'a set of beliefs', I don't belive that a set of disbeliefs would qualify.
Click to expand...

The Santa Claus example i like, is it a blind leap of faith to say he does not exist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom