mailto: blog -at- heyrick -dot- eu

Work woes redux

Following on from yesterday's entry, I was speaking to somebody who would prefer not to be mentioned. She said, basically, that's how it is. We have our little slots, we fit into our little slots, and as far as anything else goes, just close your eyes and take no notice of it.
So, I shall perform my job. Nothing less, nothing more.

But answer me this, is this a sane way to run a company? Good grief. I could see, if I had one iota of influence, epic disagreements between myself and the current management. Not because I want to stir things up, but my belief is to have anybody contributing what they can for the good of the final product. Management, on the other hand, seems more concerned with the hierarchy, who can talk to who, and putting us all in neat little categories. Well, I say, when company 'X' decides to stock our products, will they be looking at the chain of command or will they be looking at the products that roll out the door? Everything that happens in the building, every good and bad green-hat decision, late days, exploding yogurt machines, the put-in-a-box machine eating its boxes... none of that matters (except to us) so long as a good product rolls out the door at the time expected. But, I digress. It so obviously is none of my concern. Nothing, nothing at all.

Funny, I see it as their loss.

But I bet they don't see it at all.


Agnosticism vs atheism had a hot-topic question on the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Funny how muddled the definitions can be, and how when you get religion involved, people seem worryingly quick to lose their rationality!

Of course I commented. ☺

What a bizarre set of definitions backed up by ill-informed opinion and muddling of definitions.
Basic religious doctrine is theistic, in cases like Christianity it is mono-theistic (there is only one God). Atheists are the same, but in the opposite sense (there is no God). Both cases have to support their arguments with something in legal terms known as "the burden of proof". Prove there is a God. Alternatively, prove there is not a God. The middle ground is called Agnosticism. Agnostics, which is how I would define myself. MikeP, please pay attention:

I have, as have many agnostics, looked at a number of belief systems and found them to be wanting. My personal opinion is that many of them are oppressive and mysogonistic while proclaiming great things about love. They don't add up. Though from a socialogical viewpoint religion is a fascinating topic, so many beliefs, so many differences, so many willing to actually kill another man over a difference in a story that may or may not have any grounding in reality. Why are there so many religions? Why are there so many quirks? Take a look at Christianity from the extreme (Amish, I might suggest) to the lackadaisical (insert your own preferred 'soft' group here). How do they actually differ? Wars have been waged between Protestants and Catholics. Um, both have God, Jesus, Moses… what's the difference exactly? And why is it such a difference as to overrule the "thou shalt not kill" commandment?

I believe. I believe in science. I believe in what I can see, touch, measure, feel. If I was smart enough, I would dedicate the rest of my life to trying to discover where we came from. You, MikeP, would appear to be writing your comment upon the principle of "all of the answers are in the bible". No, no they aren't. There is nothing that explains why we're born, do stuff, get old, fall apart, then die. Not us, but everything. Every tree and bug and microbe. If you take into account everything on the planet, unimaginable numbers of things are born and equally unimaginable numbers of things die. Every day. What's the point? Is there some lesson in futility we are supposed to learn? And why have we been so far unsuccessful in detecting life in outer space. Are we it? The vast plethora of little glowing dots in the night sky and there's NOTHING? So why here? Why us? Like I said, if I had a brain like Stephen Hawking, I would set my life's work to be trying to fathom some sort of answer. Perhaps. If I even knew the question.

Is there a higher being? In agnostic fashion I would like to say that there is no evidence. Being agnostic does not mean "it is impossible to know", it means "not proven". My own personal thoughts on the matter swing to the "possibly" side of "not proven". There seem to be too many things, to much cleverness and oh-my-goodness factor in mathematics to be "oh, it just happened like that". Okay, so maybe it did. But so much of it smacks of being designed. But, if it was designed, who or what is the designer? I would love to know the answer to that question, even if it turns out that the design was itself the designer (say, random collections of atoms come together in a way that can only form one pattern). Hence the "not proven".

You want to talk to me about how the universe was created? Go for it. All I will ask of you is substantive evidence. But you will fail. I know you will fail because of the many religions on this planet, for if there was one true proveable God (or whatever), we'd all believe in that.

You can delude yourself into thinking we think ignorance is bliss. It isn't correct, unless you've met some really stupid cretins who think they'd call themselves "agnostic" because it is a cool sounding word.

I will lay awake at night puzzling over stuff like this while others comfort themselves with scripture, and yet others light candles, chant over beads, ring bells, and whatever else it is that brings hope to your life. For that reason I would be happy to never know a definitive answer, for as stupid as we are as a species to slaughter one another for a mere difference of opinion, in a million quiet corners around the world people's beliefs bring them hope in situations that would otherwise be without hope. Maybe that is the truth of religions that one day we will come to understand – it isn't about how we feel about our concept of supreme being, it is about how we truly feel about ourselves.

You can read the full definition (if I can bring myself to call it that) and the replies in the hot-word topic "How to atheism and agnosticism differ?".

And, for what it is worth, I have already commented on the positiveatheism site deliberately bending the definition of what an atheist is, in my 22nd November 2009 entry.


Your comments:

Please note that while I check this page every so often, I am not able to control what users write; therefore I disclaim all liability for unpleasant and/or infringing and/or defamatory material. Undesired content will be removed as soon as it is noticed. By leaving a comment, you agree not to post material that is illegal or in bad taste, and you should be aware that the time and your IP address are both recorded, should it be necessary to find out who you are. Oh, and don't bother trying to inline HTML. I'm not that stupid! ☺ ADDING COMMENTS DOES NOT WORK IF READING TRANSLATED VERSIONS.
You can now follow comment additions with the comment RSS feed. This is distinct from the b.log RSS feed, so you can subscribe to one or both as you wish.

No comments yet...

Add a comment (v0.11) [help?] . . . try the comment feed!
Your name
Your email (optional)
Validation Are you real? Please type 14697 backwards.
Your comment
French flagSpanish flagJapanese flag
«   September 2010   »

(Felicity? Marte? Find out!)

Last 5 entries

List all b.log entries

Return to the site index



Search Rick's b.log!

PS: Don't try to be clever.
It's a simple substring match.


Last read at 05:25 on 2024/04/25.

QR code

Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional
Valid CSS
Valid RSS 2.0


© 2010 Rick Murray
This web page is licenced for your personal, private, non-commercial use only. No automated processing by advertising systems is permitted.
RIPA notice: No consent is given for interception of page transmission.


Have you noticed the watermarks on pictures?
Next entry - 2010/10/04
Return to top of page