Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just had to say that the British Humanist Association has recently updated its website.


Oh and incidentally, I went to a church school, and I have worked in a funeral directors. And having witnessed many different faiths in how they deal with their loved ones after death I was quite shocked! Quite apart from the money spent (I'll have it NOW please) my "belief" is there is no god and after we die just like chickens or ants or any other living thing, we're meat.

It's uniquely human to want to believe that this can't be it, but if we made more of "it" together then we'd be happier and more content with what "it" is. Just my idea! Have a happy day then, the good news is that it is now all the way up to three degrees hot!

PR:

"It's uniquely human to want to believe that this can't be it, but if we made more of "it" together then we'd be happier and more content with what "it" is. Just my idea! Have a happy day then, the good news is that it is now all the way up to three degrees hot!"


Who knows? When I saw my Darling Mum lying cold in the Mortuary in 1996.Cold and hard and remembered all the life and vitality and goodness in her,I thought that Heart,Soul,Mind,Spirit surely must have gone somewhere(hopefully to a "better" place) and the contrast was so great to that lifeless shell lying in front of me.


Who knows?

A propensity to spirituality is apparently a genetic trait which suggests that it goes right back to something and clearly serves some purpose?


Do domesticated animals think we actually are gods then? (cats excluded, and in the case of Ancient Egyptians turned 180 degrees)

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A propensity to spirituality is apparently a

> genetic trait which suggests that it goes right

> back to something and clearly serves some

> purpose?


You can easily imagine a scenario where some tribes or villages were religious and others weren't, hence possibly resulting in this sort of genetic imprint... and of course religion played an important part in society for a long time. But that doesn't mean that it still should.


It's a mistake to assume that genetic traits serve a useful purpose. How about medical conditions and allergies which are genetic - what useful purpose do they serve? Natural selection hasn't ironed out all our imperfections.

Very fair points Jeremy, though I was wondering if it was pre-human. Chimps for instance have strong social bonds, I wonder if this may be influenced by this trait, in which case Huguenot's question becomes interesting, do chimps go to heaven?


Err, not that a genetic propensity to spirituality (or a specific release of chemicals to certain parts of the brain as it's otherwise known) equates to the actual existence of a God of course ;-))

mockney piers Wrote:


> Do domesticated animals think we actually are gods

> then? (cats excluded, and in the case of Ancient

> Egyptians turned 180 degrees)



I don't thinnk so but let me tell you this. I had a very domesticated cat once...could do the washing up, the ironing, change a plug, set the table for dinner. Poor little got run over by a car whilst out doing the shopping. I miss that cat.

Tony London Suburbs.

You wrote: "

Who knows? When I saw my Darling Mum lying cold in the Mortuary in 1996.Cold and hard and remembered all the life and vitality and goodness in her,I thought that Heart,Soul,Mind,Spirit surely must have gone somewhere(hopefully to a "better" place) and the contrast was so great to that lifeless shell lying in front of me." in response to my feeling that after we are dead we are just meat. I apologise profusely to you and all others I may have been insensitive to. Humanist celebrants tend towards saying that the person lives on as a memory in those of us they came into contact with.

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Keef Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > There is a school of thought that there are 2

> > Gods, the vengeful OT one, and the nice "turn

> the

> > other cheek" NT one.

>

> A early case of good cop bad cop methinks.



Surely the good guy and the bad guy are God and the Devil.


Its interesting to think how the idea of God arose in the first place? If we believe in Darwin etc then we were once slime, then some time later monkeys and after that humans. Early humans (being recently monkeys) had little or no rules perhaps and as we developed the early humans probably lived by a "law of the jungle" mentality, before some decent (probably older chap) decided thunder meant someone was not happy - we should be scared of that someone - and behave better in future.


I suggest if there had been no thunder there may not ever have been the concept of god.


This is just part of the thought process I used to go through at Mass on a Sunday morning, before I concluded there was no God and jacked the whole thing in and made the golf course my church.


Life's full of big chouices and that was my best so far.

PeckhamRose Wrote:

Tony London Suburbs. You wrote: "

Who knows? When I saw my Darling Mum lying cold in the Mortuary in 1996.Cold and hard and remembered all the life and vitality and goodness in her,I thought that Heart,Soul,Mind,Spirit surely must have gone somewhere(hopefully to a "better" place) and the contrast was so great to that lifeless shell lying in front of me." in response to my feeling that after we are dead we are just meat. > I apologise profusely to you and all others I may have been insensitive to. Humanist celebrants tend towards saying that the person lives on as a memory in those of us they came into contact with.


Thanks PR but there's no need!(tu)

I,truly,did not give it a single thought.I was just saying what I feel completely oblivious to any other comment,

Thanks again anyway.;-)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I went to France recently and in the city I visited there were large billboards on the main streets urging people to stop their dogs from messing on the streets and in a little park a sign said something to the effect that this park was built for your enjoyment not as a dumping ground for dog mess. There were also big signs about not fly tipping. I wonder if councils are too worried about offending dog owners by making a fuss about this major problem. I was a dog owner for many years, got free bags from the council and there were even bins around then.
    • I was also woken by this. It happened in two bursts, which felt even more anti social.
    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...