Whilst I subsrcibe to no religions myself, I do not entirely endorse gep's view, sincerely held though it is as well as being the consequence of no small amount of thought. What bugs me is not religions per se as much as some of those who not merely subscribe to them but also slavishly accept everything that they tell them without due consideration of "the facts" and what we know and can discover. That the Christian religion in the West has given rise to so many tens of thousands of hours of wonderful music ought alone to suggest that it's not all bad news! The other bad thing is when behaviour of various anti-human kinds is conducted under the name of a religion, as we can see today from the widespread outright condemnation of many Muslims the world over of the behaviour of IS and various other so-called "Islamic" terrorist organisations (not that the Christians were much better in the days of the Crusades many centuries ago). Religion as something to substitute for reality and in which to function complacently and smugly is something for which I have no time whatsoever; religion as something with which to beat others over the heads invites nothing but contempt from me.
Anyway, all of that's rather a long way from anyone's "love life"...
Best,
Alistair
Perhaps I should elucidate. When I say ‘religion’, I mean any
system of belief (or thought) that tries to influence, regulate or steer how and what anyone (or everyone) should think or believe. Any individual that adheres to any belief-system might be called religious, but as such does not epitomise the religion he or she adheres to. One may only need to notice the various (often diametrical or even incongruous) differences between worshippers attending a single church. One may condemn pre- or extra-marital sex in the extreme (while possibly exercising it at the same, well, slightly later, time), another may not see all that bad in it, the next may advise against it but not condemn anyone doing different, etc.. So ‘Roman Catholic’ is a religion, but that does say much (or anything) about anyone who feels drawn to it, or is a member of it. Then there are quite a few people who are religious but no not adhere to any single system, or any system whatsoever.
Let me state four ‘rules of engagement’ is try my best to adhere to in life (with me being a orthodox atheist, I don’t have nor could have any
morals, according to some).
1) Each individual is basically absolutely equal to any other individual. What matters is how anyone behaves when it comes in dealing (in the widest sense of the word) with other humans.
2) Each individual has an utterly, completely and unlimited freedom of conscience, viz, each individual is utterly free to think (believe) what he or she wants or does.
3) Each individual is free to say what he wishes to say, only limited when it comes to curtailing, or endeavour to curtail, or call to curtail, in any way either 1) or 2) or 3) or 4) (see below).
4) Each individual is free to do (i.e. live his or her life) in any way he or she wants to, only limited by curtailing in any way the same right of everybody else (hence act against either 1), 2), 3) or 4).
Extreme example. If you would ask me re 2): ‘imagine anyone being of the
opinion all Jews should be eradicated, should he or she be free to have such an opinion, or voice it?’. Well, no matter how utterly horrendous I would find such an opinion, or how sick to the stomach it would make me feel to hear it: yes. I do not, cannot and want not to control the inside of anyone’s brain or thoughts. Moreover, silencing such a person would not make his or her thoughts go away (possibly it would only strengthen them). I can quite (or possibly not) imagine how insulting it might be to a Jew hearing such an opinion.
I would find it insulting.
But nobody own another person’s thoughts. If I were to claim the right to curb anyone’s thoughts, then what would I have to say against anyone willing to curb my thoughts (see 1))! Now the difference is when anyone with such an opinion calling to action. That would violate points 1) and 4). If someone like that would not wish to shake hands with a Jew (say at work) when meeting him, ditto. Because then it is about how you act in relation to someone. And that
is bound to limits.
I can quite imagine people being quite angry or even insulted by my line of thinking here. And I’ll readily admit it takes some long and hard thoughts to get to grips with the above.
I’m having difficulties at times adhering to those ‘rules’. Imagine – I’m rather too short for my weight – anyone stating, in a full canteen and at the top of his voice, how he gets nauseated by the sheer sight of my shape. Would that get to me? Yes, it would. However, I would then try to get to grips with points 2) and 3), and try to realise that such an action would say a great deal about the caller, but nothing about me, because the caller would value me based on how I look rather than what I am (or do). So when the steam in my head dissipates, I would try and realise that the person and his opinions have, for me, so little value that he would need to work very hard and long indeed to try and raise himself sufficiently to get on the bottom on the list of people I do not care about whatsoever. Oh, and quite possibly I might give him a piece of my mind regarding something he
does in a way that might ‘tickle’ him, and see how he reacts to that (probably explosive), because after all I am human….
But returning to religion (remember: the system is what I mean). Have a look again at points 1) through 4). How many, if any, would agree to them? Despite the fact that within every religion there may well be quite some individuals who agree to them. I think one of the things the Age of Enlightenment has brought (since then, and only in part, I feel) about is exactly these four points. And such is the reason why, everywhere these points come more to the fore, religion (the system) wanes.
Alistair’s point about people slavishly following any religion of thought system is a very valid and important one. I fear it is even an increasingly valid and urgent one, since I feel that, increasingly, people are letting their thinking being done by others (‘follow the leader, latest fad, hype, ‘thrill’, gossip, whatever’) or other things (“it’s on the Internet!”) rather than taking the trouble to do their own. You only have to see the news to see and/or hear the latest ‘public uproar’ about this or nothing. The one things religions did in the past is at least do some
channelizing; we live in an age where never before so much information has been so easily available to so many people. You’d think you’d get people who are getting smarter by the day, if not minute. But what you see is every reason to think that we’ve come a long way indeed since crawling down from the trees. DOWN, that is. Please do tell me, exactly what is a brain
for? Keeping the ears apart? Cooling the blood?
Religion (in part the system) does have some good things, yes; one need only to look at the works of art it brought about. Or, on another level, has made very many people selflessly help many other people in need or distress, often with danger to their own wellbeing, health or even life (the
real charity therefor, not the public one). All that is regardless of which religion, and hence, I feel, not an integral part of religion (which is usually all for charity, assuming it be seen who gives, that due public gratefulness is returned, and that it is in control it gets only to the ‘right’ kind of people).
So no, I am not in any way against anyone believing (in) anything (or not). Although personal I do find it a tad arrogant to believe that an entity capable of creating the whole of this universe from a whim and wink is completely interested in any exceedingly ephemeral spark of – admittedly interesting – chemistry on a mote of dust in an utterly insignificant corner of that universe. But please anyone just believe what you want, or feel happy with, or find consolance in. Just don’t set up a system trying to forcibly inflict, regulate, pre- or proscribe any thoughts or believes in anyone, not even yourself. Argumentation, yes; force, no.
But since this thread is about ‘tell me about your lovelife’, I will briefly turn to that. Well, if you have read all the above, how many people do you think are capable of any steady sort of lovelife with me? Not even I myself…
All best,
gep
Topic: Tell me about your love life