Iran, again

[Azarkon]

We come to the paradox, then, that the lack of doctrine is itself a doctrine.

 

"Atheists," to use your definition, might not abide by any single set of doctrines, but to claim that you live by no doctrines is, I think, impossible. For example: how do you structure your life? How do you live day by day? If you abide by the laws set by your country, why? If you don't, why not? We all operate on principles, and those principles are founded upon ideologies. If I act onto my fellow man as I would they act onto me, that itself is an ideology as ancient as man.

 

The point you're getting at, I think, is that atheism is not the same as theism. I don't disagree, but I think that the state of non-belief is ultimately an irony, as those who claim to possess it still, nevertheless, live by other principles. As such, I don't think that the distinction here should be drawn across theism vs. atheism, but how *much* beliefs and dotrines mean to you. The "natural state" that you speak of, to me, is then not chaos - but indifference.

[Baley]

Heh. I don't think I have ever called myself free of all doctrines or ideologies, I am probably less their prisoner than the average Joe, but free of them I am not.

 

My point was that atheism as a natural state does not enforce a doctrine. Religion does.

 

To be an atheist in *my* truest sense, and let's be honest here my day to day philosophy is incredibly self-centred, one has to follow the simple "belief" in the non-existence of man-made gods. Once you add other convictions to this belief, and I'm not talking about building an ideology around it, more in the sense of militant elements, you become more than just an atheist, you still remain an atheist, that's still fundamentally part of you, but you evolve outside these original boundaries.

 

I suppose we all build or borrow certain principles. For all we've got really are laws, we depend on them to function in the human society. I'm not rejecting laws or claiming that an atheist must do such a thing, no, what I'm saying is that atheism does not father laws. At least *my* atheism doesn't. And here we are back at the concept of the self. It's funny in a way.

 

Perhaps because I wish not decide if the universe of chaos is better than the universe of order. Because I'm happy living somewhere in the middle.

[Azarkon]

Indecision or indifference, then?

[Baley]

A little bit of both I suppose, but at the movement I'm leading towards contentment. I've stopped being dissatisfied with my life a long time ago, and in that I have found peace of mind.

[Azarkon]

:D

[julianw]

A River in Egypt

Your mind is 16% manipulated, 48% rigidly unbending, and 53% in denial. 

Oh okay, so your mind is fairly flexible and free from external control. (At least, as much as anyone can be.) Trouble is, you're fooling yourself! You lie to yourself so much that if it was a relationship, you'd dump yourself. Or maybe you're just female. Go on, deny it. 

 

I am not a female! Stupid test...

 

@Baley - Very interesting post. Though you are an atheist, I found your following approach to religion more sound than many of the religious: "But the truth is simple. My soul has never felt God. And I shall certainly rather trust my soul than some old drunken preachers stranded on a mountain's top." Your morals and ideologies are derived from within. There is a similar saying in Chinese: Were there no morals before Confuscius? (Bad translation...) Therefore, I disagree that religions are creations of men. I think men merely compile and organize them. Disagree?

[Cantousent]

It's like that old saying, I went to a fight and a soccer match broke out.

 

I went to a political discussion and a religious discussion broke out.

 

Anyhow, I appreciate Baley's candid approach. It gives an account of his perspective without insulting mine. Oh, he still presumes that my God is man-made, but I don't find that offensive because it's manifestly clear that his concern lies more with how he sees the world than with how I see it.

[Azarkon]

Pluralist vs. Universalist, I reckon.

 

Seems to me that the problem with religious fanaticism has more to do with its intolerance of another point of view and the zealotry to act upon that insistence, than with the specificities of the religion itself. Of course, that at times manifests itself in the teachings of the religion, but given Christianity's changes over the course of history, I reckon that religious doctrine is perfectly capable of adaptation - if the will is there.

 

On the other hand, if you're against religion because you believe that religion is inherently harmful, then you're pretty much intolerant of it.

 

As such, I am highly cynical of antitheism, which in my view can easily lead to anti-religion prosecution.

Edited May 22, 2006 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

So... short answer is... the newspaper got it wrong, and the law encourages islamic dress for Iranian muslims?

 

In light of this neat conclusion, and the fact that ongoing discussion appears to be about religion rather than Iran, I declare this thread 32% off-topic, 37% tedious, and 100% sexy.

 

*gong*