Tuesday, 21 October 2008
The Atheist bus :
I found this while browsing another forum and i feel the need to comment on it.
Richard Dawkins publiclly endorse the Atheist Bus to the tune of 5,500 quid.
Big bloody deal.
I dont need to be cheered up by a fucking advertising slogan thanks.
I am already happy and i dont believe in organised religion and i dont live in fear so i am not going to donate to this.
I dont follow anyone not even Richard Dawkins.
Being an agnostic [while dismissing organised religion but acknowledging the metaphysical] is like being inbetween 2 warring factions.
The very first time i went into a church that i was forced to attend at school it felt alien to me and i instinctivlely knew that it was a lie.It felt alien to me and as soon as something has a religious tone then i automatically have an aversion to it.
Glad i am not from a religious family but my mum was commenting that i am like a christian without being a Christian or something like that.
I guess i just like a clean conscience but i have done some not so good things in my time of which i shall not speak.
Being a part of nature and consciously participating in it is the only religion i need.
I dont necessarily feel 100% human and never have and i dont need the support of a man made construct like religion to explain my existence thanks and never will.
Being connected to the flow of the universe as well.
I dont have a problem with Humanism but i do have a very big problem speciesism.
I cannot stand Speciesism and have no time for it.
This bus is advertising Atheism.
"stop worrying and enjoy your life "
"Phew well thats alright then after all !!! No more worries about eternal damnation from now on thanks to the positive message of the Atheist buses !!!...I am SO happy !!! ... Hi Ho Hi ho Its off to work i go tra la la la la... I love it !! Its brilliant !!! "
I think most people just like the irreverence of it.
I also have a little bit of problem with the school of Richard Dawkins.
The only problem i have with Richard Dawkins and the pseudo religion that he has created is that you cannot from a philosophical point of view claim that there is NO god.
"Probably no god "
If Richard Dawkins is saying that then the bus should be called the Agnostics bus NOT the Atheists bus.
The majority of the comments ignore or dismiss the "Probably" bit of the slogan and construe it as Atheism.
It seems like Richard Dawkins etc are admitting the possibilty that they dont really know for sure so they just say probably while the whole of their argument is against the idea of "God" in the context of organised religion
You can quite rightly say that there is a 99.9% probability against but you cannot deny the .1 % chance or possibility that there is a god.
That is the point of view of an agnostic and that is the only way to view the subject.
You cannot deny the .1 % chance that there might be as it is unknowable.
Plain and simple.
I am an agnostic not an Atheist.
to be an Atheist is to deny the possibility and that is NOT the point of view of an individual with an open mind.
My mind is open yet i have no time for organised religion which is a controlling mechanism.
I have my own spiritual beliefs that dont really fit into any belief system except maybe Paganism but i dont feel the need to worship anyone or anything.
I suppose i feel like i am a being that is deeply connected to the natural world and the cycles of nature.I feel at home in nature and i have some fairly wacky theories about reincarnation.I have certain reasons for saying this which are partly from experience and partly from the point of view of genetic memory which is just a theory.I am not going to divulge exactly what those beliefs are as they are deeply personal and i am not opening myself up to potential ridicule.All i can say is this reality is not all there is.
Thats what i think.
Never mind all that.
I can appreciate the atheists point of view but i dont get on that well with it because it is ultimatly Nihilistic.I live then die and thats it.I cant really follow that 100% because it doesnt fit my point of view completely and doesnt cover it adequatly simply because it refuses to acknowledge the 1 percent chance that this might not be all there is.
It just totally rules out all of the metaphysical because there is no scientific evidence for any of it and has or hasnt been explained by science or cant be.
Thats the nature of science.Its constantly evolving .
If mans understanding of reality and matter and all the rest of it was fully understood then science would be redundant.Not nearly enough is known about reality to be 100% certain that the metaphysical does not exist and i will argue that point and win with Richard Dawkins anytime if he chose to dogmatically dismiss it.
I have my reasons from personal experience to know not believe that there is more to reality than you take for granted.thats if personal experience counts for anything.
I would say it does count for something.
Hallucinating they will say and all the rest.
Heard it all before.
Hallucination means something generated within the brain rather than the brain perceiving something that is external although the latter is possible of course.In my case i am certain this wasnt the case.Its more a case of just having a wider perception of reality than most .There is not enough known about how the brain works to be 100% certain that all that you can see , touch and hear is all that is.
Personally i dont mind either way but to not have the open minded attitude that this may not be it is just silly and it becomes a religion in itself.
I know very well that there is no GOD in the typical sense.
I have no fear of consequence in the afterlife.
However i have my own code of conduct and there are things i will not do no matter what and just because Richard Dawkins says "dont worry , there is no god ,enjoy yourself " does not mean i am suddenly going to enjoy sleeping with a woman who is married for example or i am going to enjoy murder or i am going to enjoy whatever because of no consequence later.
I suppose knowing the difference between right and wrong and cause and effect should be enough to stop one from straying from the path.
The controlling mechanism is self imposed through free will and choice rather than from a bullshit religion.
I am responsible for myself and i make my own choices but choices and conduct are subject to the nature of the individual.My nature happens to be good which saves an awful lot of bother .
Saying "There is no god , dont worry , enjoy yourself " is a mixed message that isnt all good .I say this because of the enjoy yourself bit.
I am already enjoying myself and always have done.What does enjoy yourself mean exactly ?
Enjoy life ?
Enjoy yourself without consequence ?
Not so good unless you act responsibly towards others.
Humanism claims to offer a universal moral code of conduct but it doesnt touch on subjects close to my heart as well unfortunatly and views those things as being superfluous .
I would be an optimistic humanist but i am not hopelessly naive.
Human nature = Shit generally speaking.
I dont see Atheism being the solution to problems or the British Humanist Association having the answer because there are loads of people who are atheists already doing what they like and enjoying themselves and they dont give a shit about Humanism.
Just as many are religious and they do what they are told to do by the Koran for example so saying that Religion is the cause of the worlds problems or a large amount of them and thinking that if you remove religion from the equation and we all live happily ever after is hopelessly naive.
This is Richard Dawkins main angle.
He has just successfully identified and written about a problem and a symptom of human nature buy offering something else to believe in.the good thing about it though is it doesnt advocate killing in the name of etc like religion does.
But it wont stop the killing .
Its human nature.
Fundraising Page Image
About the charity : British Humanist Association British Humanist Association
The British Humanist Association represents the interests of the large and growing population of ethically concerned but non-religious people in the UK Our Vision is a world without religious privilege or discrimination, where people are free to live good lives on the basis of reason, experience and shared human values.
Charity Registration No 285987
It aint going to happen.
I already live a good life on the basis of reason , experience and shared human values although i dont know many humans with my values.
I am free already.
Thinking is also an anathema to Atheists as well.
The agnostic is willing to acommodate both points of view even after they have dismissed the woolly thinking of organised religion.
The agnostic recognises those mechanisms as evil or in the case of christianity in its pure sense it isnt evil but has evolved into something that is or Paganism that in its pure form sees all life as sacred but it slowly became warped and sacrificed life in rituals etc.
Atheism and the church of richard Dawkins is really just another point of view that has a stronger argument than religion will ever have but its not enough on its own.not for myself anyway.
I dont have a need to believe in the metaphysical.
If it can be proved not to exist then fine.
I wont argue but i need evidence.
There is no evidence for or against so i rest my case and win .
The debate is over unless there is compelling evidence for or against the metaphysical.
Does evidence for the Metaphysical have to be physical ?
Something that isnt physical in the normal sense cannot provide physical evidence.
I have astrally projected for example but i cant prove it .
All i have is my word.
Others who dismiss it and question either my word or my judgement insult my intelligence and my integrity.
I am in a losing situation but i dont have a right to be believed by everyone.They can believe what they like but i dont like my integrity being question if i give my word to be true.
Would Richard Dawkins take the metaphysical more seriously if he had himself experienced astral projection or something similar ?
Big subject but this ends before i get sucked into it even more.
Perhaps the unknowable cannot be explained by science.
Personally i think it can but not yet.
Physics will hopefully.
Atheism is an open ended argument that cant be won because it doesnt know.
If atheists become dogmatic then they lose the argument as well.
Atheism is a belief system based on science but its too polarised as everything usually is .
Richard Dawkins is on his own little pseudo religous crusade anyway and i cant stand hypocrites.
Buy my books
Buy my books
"I am right "
"You are wrong "
"I am right "
"You are wrong "
If there are open minded atheists then they are agnostics not atheists.
Pressure group Christian Voice sound like they are full of shit hypocrites.
Posted by Peter Wolf at 11:11