The Good News Only - thread...

Unkraut

Regular
Have you ever even read any Marx?
Yes. I did Das Kapital when doing German - amongst other key texts in German thought. So I had seminars, background reading and might have done an essay. Can't remember - the only way to find out is mouldering in the loft somewhere.

I found it interesting.
 

Unkraut

Regular
It's [religion] all about human, very often male egos, and their certainties about their chosen supernatural beings or prophets or political theorists who know the one 'true way'
That criticism is valid unless the supernatural being actually exists.
Fwiw I have no 'religious' beliefs but I have plenty of humanist spiritual ones
If you don't mind going into a lay-by, I've noticed you bring this thought up before. I take it you mean by no religious beliefs you say there is no God. If that is the case, how can you have spiritual beliefs? Surely an atheistic universe is material only, these usually go together, it doesn't leave room for anything spiritual which is by definition non-material; the end of physical life is the end of existence.

I visited the lost gardens of Heligan (fascinating place!) and bought Tim Smit's history of how it was restored - very interesting read. In it he has a chapter where he engaged the local vicar to 'exorcise' the place due to weird things happening. (I'm not altogether surprised at this - it wouldn't surprise me if some of those restoring the place believe they have been guided by the long-dead gardeners there.) In a later chapter he discusses why he thinks we live in a material only world. What struck me was that these two views of the world cannot be simultaneously true. I can only think he hadn't given much thought to this.
 
OP
OP
mudsticks

mudsticks

Über Member
That criticism is valid unless the supernatural being actually exists.

If you don't mind going into a lay-by, I've noticed you bring this thought up before. I take it you mean by no religious beliefs you say there is no God. If that is the case, how can you have spiritual beliefs? Surely an atheistic universe is material only, these usually go together, it doesn't leave room for anything spiritual which is by definition non-material; the end of physical life is the end of existence.

I visited the lost gardens of Heligan (fascinating place!) and bought Tim Smit's history of how it was restored - very interesting read. In it he has a chapter where he engaged the local vicar to 'exorcise' the place due to weird things happening. (I'm not altogether surprised at this - it wouldn't surprise me if some of those restoring the place believe they have been guided by the long-dead gardeners there.) In a later chapter he discusses why he thinks we live in a material only world. What struck me was that these two views of the world cannot be simultaneously true. I can only think he hadn't given much thought to this.

I don't believe in a 'god' in the way that the various god and goddess type figures are generally constructed by self referential human mind.
i'm more about human spirit, and indeed life force in all things.

It's interesting how those types of deities always to end up cheerleading and justifying the humans who are already overmighty - you know divine rights of kings - the patriachy - that kind of thing.

Which came first, the god? Or the human instinct to control others through invoking the ire of these outside forces .??


It's very possible to feel and connect the individual human spirit with what one conceives to be a universal consciousness or life spirit, through meditation and other practices, without having an imagined deity


There's plenty room for the spiritual , without having a external or personified deity to worship.

Buddhists for instance, do it all the time..

Although I can quite understand how and why people imagine up these deities to give a hook to hang the practice on, and to create allegories and support for a moral point.

Not such a terrible thing to do, if it leads to them behaving well towards their fellow creatures, its when they start using their particular 'mascot' to justify very poor behaviours.

Atheist is not a label I would attach to myself.

But at the same time I've met plenty of people who would call themselves atheists whose moral compass is perfectly sound.

I had a very nice lunch with Tim Smit over union business one time.

Lovely chap, but not really an 'instinctive' gardener - or necessarily a deep thinker, but hes got a lot done no doubt about it .


There are other people in I'd call in for advice on trees and the management of their life force, long before he.

He also struck me as a belt and braces type of person, so I could imagine he might give the old exorcism thing a go, in addition to all other options, to nominally chase away the disgruntled spirits of previous head gardeners, or even evil pixies from the pineapple house...
The human mind is as we know deeply suggestible.

And it makes for a good story as well - we all love a good story...

The Eden project is worth a look too.

No idea which particular creation myth they nicked that name from...:rolleyes:
 

matticus

Active Member
It's interesting how those types of deities always to end up cheerleading and justifying the humans who are already overmighty - you know divine rights of kings - the patriachy - that kind of thing.

Which came first, the god? Or the human instinct to control others through invoking the ire of these outside forces .??
99% of atheist/secular structures/hierarchies do exactly the same thing - so I'd suggest it is human nature to blame.
 
OP
OP
mudsticks

mudsticks

Über Member
99% of atheist/secular structures/hierarchies do exactly the same thing - so I'd suggest it is human nature to blame.
I would agree - and its humans with their 'tendencies' that have 'created' religion, religious doctrine , political doctrines too.

Often with at least one eye (conscious or otherwise) on self advancement - retention of power and control.

So we have to look honestly towards our own tendencies - in order to develop understanding, self awareness, self knowledge, self realisation even - so we can observe our actions - and the outcomes of those actions - and progress with head and heart from there --

Rather than relying on doctrines from outside of ourselves, whether religious or political, to slavishly follow..
 

icowden

Regular


As a counterbalance:-

Too often, the BBC has seemed to confuse ‘balance’ with ‘impartiality’.

There is no obligation on the BBC to balance truth with falsehood, nor to include an opposing view every time a contributor suggests that genocide is evil or that rape can never be justified.

The BBC should never give the impression that it is impartial between good and evil, or between freedom and servitude – but it can sometimes be extremely difficult to steer a proper path.
https://pressgazette.co.uk/robin-lu...uld-never-be-impartial-between-good-and-evil/
 

swansonj

Regular

Well, I'm sorry, I read that yesterday and thought it was pretty sensible. Of course, deciding what is "due weight" and "very occasionally" is going to be a subjective judgement call, but I for one don't want the BBC only reporting whatever is the current scientific consensus and dismissing other views. And I say that as someone who, in a previous life, appeared on the BBC to defend the current scientific consensus (not, I hasten to reassure you, on whether the earth is flat, but on something else).

Maybe flat earth wasn't the best example for him to use, that really is 100% one way and 0% the other way, but on issues that are 95%/5% or 99%/1%, it makes for a healthier society and a healthier scientific process if that 5% or 1% is not totally denied coverage.
 

Adam4868

Senior Member
Well, I'm sorry, I read that yesterday and thought it was pretty sensible. Of course, deciding what is "due weight" and "very occasionally" is going to be a subjective judgement call, but I for one don't want the BBC only reporting whatever is the current scientific consensus and dismissing other views. And I say that as someone who, in a previous life, appeared on the BBC to defend the current scientific consensus (not, I hasten to reassure you, on whether the earth is flat, but on something else).

Maybe flat earth wasn't the best example for him to use, that really is 100% one way and 0% the other way, but on issues that are 95%/5% or 99%/1%, it makes for a healthier society and a healthier scientific process if that 5% or 1% is not totally denied coverage.
Im more of the problem is every time you give media coverage to a crank/dick you build their credibility, they then exploit that on social media...as in Farage/Robinson insert any right wing cranks etc.Even climate change deniers,anti vaxers...Who build a following, and then that is used to justify more media slots.Dangerous as far as I'm concerned.
I'd prefer for the BBC to report the truth where possible.
But I get where your coming from.
 

icowden

Regular
Dangerous as far as I'm concerned.
I'd prefer for the BBC to report the truth where possible.
But I get where your coming from.
The problem is that you then get the BBC inviting on Alan Dershowitz or members of the Maxwell family to talk about how she isn't really a child trafficker. That doesn't seem to have been extended to the Rotherham Child Trafficking gang.

They might have apologised, but they really do need to get to grips with the fact that just because someone is wealthy and white they should somehow have right of reply.
 

Adam4868

Senior Member
The problem is that you then get the BBC inviting on Alan Dershowitz or members of the Maxwell family to talk about how she isn't really a child trafficker. That doesn't seem to have been extended to the Rotherham Child Trafficking gang.

They might have apologised, but they really do need to get to grips with the fact that just because someone is wealthy and white they should somehow have right of reply.
Totally agree !
 
Top Bottom