Dawkins net.

I haven't joined the forum but I visit the site often to watch videos

I'm an atheistic leaning agnostic.

I like Dawkins.

But, hmm, how shall I put this.

I think a lot of people who attach themselves to what should be a free thinking outlook, tend to be a bit over zealous and basically sometimes veer into assholery.

I just feel like many people who would define themselves as skeptics (I would) or define themselves as atheist (I would), use it as some kind of stick and then define anybody who believes in Christ, Muhammed or whatever as mentally inferior.

They go into sneering territory and I really ######6 dislike it.

I don't think Dawkins himself does this, actually some people rail against him solely because of his accent, but he's not sneering in the slightest - he's just calling things as he sees them. Simple.

Other people though....

ALSO

quick point: i've encountered the same from the opposite side.

On two occasions, I've had religious people say the following to me after I expressed my rationale for not believing in an interventionist god:

"I feel sorry for you"

Hmm.

*gathers self*

Patronising pricks.

faux wrote:I'm an atheistic leaning agnostic.

I like Dawkins.

But, hmm, how shall I put this.

I think a lot of people who attach themselves to what should be a free thinking outlook, tend to be a bit over zealous and basically sometimes veer into assholery.

I just feel like many people who would define themselves as skeptics (I would) or define themselves as atheist (I would), use it as some kind of stick and then define anybody who believes in Christ, Muhammed or whatever as mentally inferior.

They go into sneering territory and I really ######6 dislike it.

I don't think Dawkins himself does this, actually some people rail against him solely because of his accent, but he's not sneering in the slightest - he's just calling things as he sees them. Simple.

Other people though....

ALSO

quick point: i've encountered the same from the opposite side.

On two occasions, I've had religious people say the following to me after I expressed my rationale for not believing in an interventionist god:

"I feel sorry for you"

Hmm.

*gathers self*

Patronising pricks.

I can agree with you on that. I'm also an agnostic atheist though I sometimes swing to agnostic pantheism and it seems that a lot of atheists fail to see how others think and judge religious ones for being narrow-minded or whatever. This is not necessarily true as there are highly educated people who are religious, even among scientists (though a big minority) and to them religion gives them comfort in being part of a major group. Also the various masses and gatherings religions have are much more social and deep than scientific ones

Personally, I don't have a problem with people believing in something they can't prove or disprove but one should always be cautious about how far he goes with his religious statements and believes as the dark side of it lurks just around the corner and it's often difficult to detect it.

As for the "I feel sorry for you" you should fire back by saying "I feel sorry for you too as you seem to be sucked into something you'll never prove no matter how much you believe in it"

I'm leaning towards Buddhism, but the things I don't understand about religions:

- why do most religious people feel the need to pass there religion as a prerequisite for life towards others? and feel their religion is 'superior' to other ways of thinking?

- why all the rules and boundaries? even Buddhism loses my interest after splitting into sub-religions, each creating there own rules based on the basic morals from the origin (imho, in disregard to the fact that it should accessible to anyone).

JackBrace wrote:I'm leaning towards Buddhism, but the things I don't understand about religions:

- why do most religious people feel the need to pass there religion as a prerequisite for life towards others? and feel their religion is 'superior' to other ways of thinking?

- why all the rules and boundaries? even Buddhism loses my interest after splitting into sub-religions, each creating there own rules based on the basic morals from the origin (imho, in disregard to the fact that it should accessible to anyone).

Well it sort of depends on the religion. Any established religion will have establishment values that kind of hinder free thought. But this isn't always the case. I think it's best to only use the term "religion" to describe the abrahamic religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Hinduism and Buddhism for example are really just catch-all terms by the West to describe these various traditions.....even though each hindu and buddhist sect is a different set of codes unto themselves. And the principles of these religions are far too different than the abrahamic religions....as concepts such as faith and obedience aren't so prevalent at their core. Believing something just for the sake of believing....as Dawkins pointed out....is often discouraged in these traditions as well.

I think Alan Watts discussed the differences between abrahamic religions and eastern religions quite well. Eastern religions aren't necessarily about obedience to a certain deity or set of principles.....what's really the most important is personal enlightenment for the "self" (or non-self in buddhism). And contrary to popular belief....there are atheistic schools of hinduism as there are theistic schools of buddhism.....even though both religions have been described as the opposite mentioned here often (hinduism being theistic and buddhism being atheistic).

The best thing to do is not label yourself anything and just take the good and relevant from these spiritual traditions and apply them to your life. I think a lot of buddhist and hindu teachings describe reality very well but obviously the superstitious beliefs can be discarded. Many other aspects definitely fit a freethinking worldview.