Jump to content

Ahhh, religion... Ahhhh, Islam


Crab Lungs

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19311098

 

The sooner religion as a whole is forgotten, the better...

 

Wouldn't make a blind bit of difference if religion disappeared. A lot of these incidents are as much if not more to do with culture as opposed to religion. And CB Saint is spot on.

 

Also people's general ignorance of different religions/cultures is a big factor, only yesterday whilst watching the Saints game did Nasri I think? lift his shirt and reveal 'Eid Mubarak' when City scored one of their goals, only for the Sky commentator to say something along the lines of "The authorities don't take too kindly to players making political statements" :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't make a blind bit of difference if religion disappeared. A lot of these incidents are as much if not more to do with culture as opposed to religion. And CB Saint is spot on.

 

Also people's general ignorance of different religions/cultures is a big factor, only yesterday whilst watching the Saints game did Nasri I think? lift his shirt and reveal 'Eid Mubarak' when City scored one of their goals, only for the Sky commentator to say something along the lines of "The authorities don't take too kindly to players making political statements" :facepalm:

 

To be fair to Tyler, he said 'the Premier League don't take kindly to messages [in general]'. He don't say anything about politics. He obviously didn't know what it meant, but neither did I - as I'm not a muslim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....and politics

 

Politics will never be forgotten. We all have political views whether with a small or large P. The fact that people with a particular set of values choose to congegrate in one political party or another is irrelevant. Nearly every decision or viewpoint people make in life is driven by their political values.

 

"The singular politic first attested in English 1430 and comes from Middle French politique, in turn from Latin politicus,[4] which is the latinisation of the Greek πολιτικός (politikos), meaning amongst others "of, for, or relating to citizens", "civil", "civic", "belonging to the state",[5] in turn from πολίτης (polites), "citizen"[6] and that from πόλις (polis), "city"."

 

 

Thanks Wiki :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't make a blind bit of difference if religion disappeared. A lot of these incidents are as much if not more to do with culture as opposed to religion. And CB Saint is spot on.

 

Also people's general ignorance of different religions/cultures is a big factor, only yesterday whilst watching the Saints game did Nasri I think? lift his shirt and reveal 'Eid Mubarak' when City scored one of their goals, only for the Sky commentator to say something along the lines of "The authorities don't take too kindly to players making political statements" :facepalm:

 

Wonder what the commentator will say if Sir Rickie scores on Boxing Day and flashes his cheeky Merry Xmas boxers???

 

And as you say whilst wrapped up in religion, so many of these issues/stories are more cultural/tribal/historic legacies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19311098

 

The sooner religion as a whole is forgotten, the better...

 

hmmm.

 

Which is another extremely good reason why the entire Arab Spring issue may one day turn out to have been not that well thought out.

 

And that's it from me on this particular thread methinks.

 

Eid Mubarak one and all. Hope you're enjoying the holiday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trouble is every sect, religion, organisation, community, football team has it's lunatic fringe. If they wern't creating trouble under the guise of religion, they would find another outlet for their bile.

 

This is a massive misconception which is causing a lot of trouble and misunderstanding when it comes to religion.

 

Essentially what you're saying is that no, religion isn't really the motivation for these atrocities, which it quite straightforwardly is.

 

Going back to 9/11 just as an example. All 19 of the hijackers had degrees, 15 of them I believe had PHDs, Bin Laden was a Billionaire who gave up a life of luxury to live in a cave in Afghanistan turning his back on Saudi Arabia for letting kuffar too near the holy sites of Islam in the form of US military bases.

 

Religion is the direct cause and motivation for a great many atrocities IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT (as many muslims unfortunately do) however politically correct you'd like to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

woooo hot button topic indeed.

 

@Rasiak -9-

 

Remember, even a wise man can be hoodwinked if he is devoted enough in a concept.

 

The way I see it, Islam is about what? 600 years younger than Christianity, now what in the name of Christianity were we doing 600 years ago? plus, from a personal point of view I have, in no small part, Abu al-Qasim Khalaf ibn al-Abbas Al-Zahrawi, an Arab muslim physician to thank for being alive today and that's just one of the truely brilliant advancements made to medicine by muslim scientists over the years.

Edited by Hockey_saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not even going to dignify this with a reply. I'm just going to quote and bolden it and ask that you have a little think about what you've just said.

 

Thats an interesting point, its worth you having a little think yourself. Atheism is a belief system in that you choose to follow a particular belief, ie that there are no Gods, or any equivalent of them. It is a specific belief in itself, therefore no different to a religious belief, and there are indeed fanatical atheists as wade garrett suggests, Richard Dawkins being a prime mainstream example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats an interesting point, its worth you having a little think yourself. Atheism is a belief system in that you choose to follow a particular belief, ie that there are no Gods, or any equivalent of them. It is a specific belief in itself, therefore no different to a religious belief, and there are indeed fanatical atheists as wade garrett suggests, Richard Dawkins being a prime mainstream example.

 

No atheism is not "a belief" it is just an absence of belief. Equating it to religion is just lazy. Dawkins advocated stoning or execution in the name of atheism lately? Thought not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No atheism is not "a belief" it is just an absence of belief. Equating it to religion is just lazy. Dawkins advocated stoning or execution in the name of atheism lately? Thought not.

 

 

The "theism" part is a bit of a giveaway....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not even going to dignify this with a reply. I'm just going to quote and bolden it and ask that you have a little think about what you've just said.

 

Perhaps "fanatic" is the wrong word, but "condescending arse" might be an appropriate substitute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats an interesting point, its worth you having a little think yourself. Atheism is a belief system in that you choose to follow a particular belief, ie that there are no Gods, or any equivalent of them. It is a specific belief in itself, therefore no different to a religious belief, and there are indeed fanatical atheists as wade garrett suggests, Richard Dawkins being a prime mainstream example.
What a horrendously incorrect post in so many ways. Atheism a belief system? Atheism simply means a lack of belief in any deity or supernatural god. So how is it a belief system? Would you also say that not believing in the Easter bunny is a belief system? Would you say that people who do not believe in the Easter bunny are "fanatical"? How about people who don't believe in leprechauns? Fanatical loonies? "Those darned leprechaun deniers! They're all fanatical extremists I tell you! Down with their beliefs!" Anyone who says that atheism is a belief system, or that it's no different to religion, or anyone who says that certain atheists are "extremists" or act according to the "atheistic beliefs" are well and truly misguided. It's not a religion. It's exactly the opposite of a religion. Do not tar all us agnostics with your holy nonsensical brush.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a horrendously incorrect post in so many ways. Atheism a belief system? Atheism simply means a lack of belief in any deity or supernatural god. So how is it a belief system? Would you also say that not believing in the Easter bunny is a belief system? Would you say that people who do not believe in the Easter bunny are "fanatical"? How about people who don't believe in leprechauns? Fanatical loonies? "Those darned leprechaun deniers! They're all fanatical extremists I tell you! Down with their beliefs!" Anyone who says that atheism is a belief system, or that it's no different to religion, or anyone who says that certain atheists are "extremists" or act according to the "atheistic beliefs" are well and truly misguided. It's not a religion. It's exactly the opposite of a religion. Do not tar all us agnostics with your holy nonsensical brush.

 

Atheism is, specifically, the rejection of a belief in god(s). As it is impossible to actually know, 100%, that god either does or doesn't exist, and neither can be proved, it follows that you can only believe that they do or don't based on science, teachings, and personal opinion and experience. Nobody can say with absolute certainty that god(s) do not exist, but we are free to believe that. I didn't mention agnostics, btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a fascinating debate, and one for which I feel the answer lies in semantics and the observer's perspective.

 

What a horrendously incorrect post in so many ways. Atheism a belief system? Atheism simply means a lack of belief in any deity or supernatural god. So how is it a belief system? Would you also say that not believing in the Easter bunny is a belief system? Would you say that people who do not believe in the Easter bunny are "fanatical"? How about people who don't believe in leprechauns? Fanatical loonies? "Those darned leprechaun deniers! They're all fanatical extremists I tell you! Down with their beliefs!" Anyone who says that atheism is a belief system, or that it's no different to religion, or anyone who says that certain atheists are "extremists" or act according to the "atheistic beliefs" are well and truly misguided. It's not a religion. It's exactly the opposite of a religion. Do not tar all us agnostics with your holy nonsensical brush.

 

I'd always seen agnostics as different from atheists to be honest but you appear to be conflating them here. To me, you either BELIEVE that there is no God/are no god/s (atheist) or you BELIEVE that we can't know whether there is a God/are gods (agnostic).

 

Which is it for you niceandfriendly because I'm not sure you can hold both positions.

 

Or do I have my definitions wrong? Or have I misinterpreted you?

 

No atheism is not "a belief" it is just an absence of belief. Equating it to religion is just lazy. Dawkins advocated stoning or execution in the name of atheism lately? Thought not.

 

Well anothersaintinsouthsea, if equating atheism and religion is lazy, what is the use of the suggestion that unless someone advocates stoning or execution they can't be fanatical?

 

I think Dawkins is as close to a fanatical atheist as you are going to get. And I think that atheism is the absence of belief in a God/god not necessarily the absence of belief itself. It is a stance on deism - a belief in a position on deism perhaps.

 

Thats an interesting point, its worth you having a little think yourself. Atheism is a belief system in that you choose to follow a particular belief, ie that there are no Gods, or any equivalent of them. It is a specific belief in itself, therefore no different to a religious belief, and there are indeed fanatical atheists as wade garrett suggests, Richard Dawkins being a prime mainstream example.

 

You're standing on interesting semantic ground their scotty mate. It's an interesting perspective.

 

If anything defines atheism, it surely is the lack of a belief in God/gods.

 

If one were to take the stance that we don't know whether God or gods exist (agnostic), then from that perspective an atheist is exhibiting "belief"; I might even go so far as to say "faith".

 

I guess that is true of someone of faith looking at an atheist too. From their perspective the atheist is exhibiting a belief - one that they presumably feel is misguided and incorrect.

 

A belief system though? Hmm, not sure I'd go that far. That is unless we see science, which to my understanding is the bible for many/most atheists, as their religion and scientific rigour as their god.

 

But then I think we're probably going a little far there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a fascinating debate, and one for which I feel the answer lies in semantics and the observer's perspective.

 

 

 

I'd always seen agnostics as different from atheists to be honest but you appear to be conflating them here. To me, you either BELIEVE that there is no God/are no god/s (atheist) or you BELIEVE that we can't know whether there is a God/are gods (agnostic).

 

Which is it for you niceandfriendly because I'm not sure you can hold both positions.

 

Or do I have my definitions wrong? Or have I misinterpreted you?

 

 

 

Well anothersaintinsouthsea, if equating atheism and religion is lazy, what is the use of the suggestion that unless someone advocates stoning or execution they can't be fanatical?

 

I think Dawkins is as close to a fanatical atheist as you are going to get. And I think that atheism is the absence of belief in a God/god not necessarily the absence of belief itself. It is a stance on deism - a belief in a position on deism perhaps.

 

 

 

You're standing on interesting semantic ground their scotty mate. It's an interesting perspective.

 

If anything defines atheism, it surely is the lack of a belief in God/gods.

 

If one were to take the stance that we don't know whether God or gods exist (agnostic), then from that perspective an atheist is exhibiting "belief"; I might even go so far as to say "faith".

 

I guess that is true of someone of faith looking at an atheist too. From their perspective the atheist is exhibiting a belief - one that they presumably feel is misguided and incorrect.

 

A belief system though? Hmm, not sure I'd go that far. That is unless we see science, which to my understanding is the bible for many/most atheists, as their religion and scientific rigour as their god.

 

But then I think we're probably going a little far there.

 

While Wiki isn't the fount of all knowledge, this is its opening line on the subject;

 

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."

 

That is, in itself, a belief. I would argue that atheists, by specifically rejecting the idea of deities, are no different to those who specifically believe in them. My own position is that I haven't got a f*cking clue, any more than anyone else; I am not in any way religious, I dont pray or go to any church, but I accept the possibility that there may be something beyond what we can perceive physically, and also accept that our physical existence may be all there is. I'll find out when I die, just like everyone else will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The writer Harlen Ellison once postulated that God can only exist while mankind continues to believe in him - in which case he must be on his deathbed if this nation is any guide.

 

Like Harlen I'm not a religious man because, as I see it, religion doesn't nearly explain the world in all its unfathomable complexity. To me the Universe seems a utterly indifferent place where life on Earth in all its magnificent diversity is the remarkable - but rationally explainable - result of the remorseless processes of physics, evolution, and the happenstance of this planets favorable orbit. Were some cosmic disaster to overwhelm our 'Island Earth' tomorrow then I expect no all powerful God Figure to come to our rescue, just as no divine being intervened to save Europe's Jewry from the horror of the concentration camps or the innocent victims of Rwanda's genocide. This is the hard reality of our existence is it not ?

 

But our religions are truly remarkable achievements of the Human intellect that atheists casually dismiss at their peril. Anyone with even the sketchiest knowledge of the New Testament or the Koran should understand what monumental works of philosophy they are. Yes they are contradictory at times, and they have been misused by those intent on exploiting them for their own ends, but that should not blind us to their central message of love and forgiveness. I say the awesome wisdom of our ancestors as exhibited in the great religions, the fact they understood so very much about what it means to be a moral Human Being hint at the heights we as a species might one day scale.

 

What contradictions we are - so very wise but still so needful in nature, so humane yet capable of such utterly cruelty as well. In some ways humanity already resembles the capricious old Gods on Mt Olympus. Is that all we can ever be ?

Edited by CHAPEL END CHARLIE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Wiki isn't the fount of all knowledge, this is its opening line on the subject;

 

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."

 

That is, in itself, a belief. I would argue that atheists, by specifically rejecting the idea of deities, are no different to those who specifically believe in them. My own position is that I haven't got a f*cking clue, any more than anyone else; I am not in any way religious, I dont pray or go to any church, but I accept the possibility that there may be something beyond what we can perceive physically, and also accept that our physical existence may be all there is. I'll find out when I die, just like everyone else will.

 

Would you describe yourself as an agnostic then?

 

I wouldn't disagree with any of the above scotty.

 

It was the atheism as a belief system part that I couldn't quite stretch to.

 

A belief system to me suggests a complex set of self-enforcing beliefs and rituals. Science is the closest I can get to those beliefs and rituals in an atheist context. But I'm not sure I'd describe science as a belief system.

 

Where do you stand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The writer Harlen Ellison once postulated that God can only exist while mankind continues to believe in him - in which case he must be on his deathbed if this nation is any guide.

 

Like Harlen I'm not a religious man because, as I see it, religion doesn't nearly explain the world in all its unfathomable complexity. To me the Universe seems a utterly indifferent place where life on Earth in all its magnificent diversity is the remarkable - but rationally explainable - result of the remorseless processes of physics, evolution, and the happenstance of this planets favorable orbit. Were some cosmic disaster to overwhelm our 'Island Earth' tomorrow then I expect no all powerful God Figure to come to our rescue, just as no divine being intervened to save Europe's Jewry from the horror of the concentration camps or the innocent victims of Rwanda's genocide. This is the hard reality of our existence is it not ?

 

But our religions are truly remarkable achievements of the Human intellect that atheists casually dismiss at their peril. Anyone with even the sketchiest knowledge of the New Testament or the Koran should understand what monumental works of philosophy they are. Yes they are contradictory at times, and they have been misused by those intent on exploiting them for their own ends, but that should not blind us to their central message of love and forgiveness. I say the awesome wisdom of our ancestors as exhibited in the great religions, the fact they understood so very much about what it means to be a moral Human Being hint at the heights we as a species might one day scale.

 

What contradictions we are - so very wise but still so needful in nature, so humane yet capable of such utterly cruelty as well. In some ways humanity already resembles the capricious old Gods on Mt Olympus. Is that all we can ever be ?

 

Excellent post. Enjoyed reading that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you describe yourself as an agnostic then?

 

I wouldn't disagree with any of the above scotty.

 

It was the atheism as a belief system part that I couldn't quite stretch to.

 

A belief system to me suggests a complex set of self-enforcing beliefs and rituals. Science is the closest I can get to those beliefs and rituals in an atheist context. But I'm not sure I'd describe science as a belief system.

 

Where do you stand?

 

Well Bletchy, I would describe myself as a "Haven't got a clue-ist". How about you?

 

The thing that gets my goat whenever this subject crops up, on this forum and others, is the notion people have that we can prove or disprove the existence of anything beyond what we can directly perceive or show by experiment. Always strikes me as monumentally arrogant tbh, how can anybody know for sure what is outside our sphere of knowledge or capacity to know? I somehow think it unlikely that mankind is the beacon of all understanding about the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO there's no difference between an atheist and agnostic except the latter is more open to the possibility that there might be a God. Even the "fanatic" Dawkins says that he's only 99% sure there is no God.

 

The trouble is that you can't prove a negative, you can only weigh up the probabilities. The belief in a God is based upon faith. An absence of belief in many is based on a consideration of the various arguments, evidence (or lack of), and probabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Bletchy, I would describe myself as a "Haven't got a clue-ist". How about you?

 

The thing that gets my goat whenever this subject crops up, on this forum and others, is the notion people have that we can prove or disprove the existence of anything beyond what we can directly perceive or show by experiment. Always strikes me as monumentally arrogant tbh, how can anybody know for sure what is outside our sphere of knowledge or capacity to know? I somehow think it unlikely that mankind is the beacon of all understanding about the universe.

 

That's the problem with you haven't-got-a-clueists, you're all the same. Coming over here, trying to not convert us all to your non-beliefs and confused certainty.

 

I'd say I'm an atheist in that I'm not able to support any of the belief systems that I've looked at.

 

I'm an agnostic in that I can't discount the possibility that my atheism could be misplaced.

 

I'm a christian with a small c in that I like to live my life by values coincidentally similar to those held by many Christians.

Edited by saintbletch
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The writer Harlen Ellison once postulated that God can only exist while mankind continues to believe in him - in which case he must be on his deathbed if this nation is any guide.

 

Like Harlen I'm not a religious man because, as I see it, religion doesn't nearly explain the world in all its unfathomable complexity. To me the Universe seems a utterly indifferent place where life on Earth in all its magnificent diversity is the remarkable - but rationally explainable - result of the remorseless processes of physics, evolution, and the happenstance of this planets favorable orbit. Were some cosmic disaster to overwhelm our 'Island Earth' tomorrow then I expect no all powerful God Figure to come to our rescue, just as no divine being intervened to save Europe's Jewry from the horror of the concentration camps or the innocent victims of Rwanda's genocide. This is the hard reality of our existence is it not ?

 

But our religions are truly remarkable achievements of the Human intellect that atheists casually dismiss at their peril. Anyone with even the sketchiest knowledge of the New Testament or the Koran should understand what monumental works of philosophy they are. Yes they are contradictory at times, and they have been misused by those intent on exploiting them for their own ends, but that should not blind us to their central message of love and forgiveness. I say the awesome wisdom of our ancestors as exhibited in the great religions, the fact they understood so very much about what it means to be a moral Human Being hint at the heights we as a species might one day scale.What contradictions we are - so very wise but still so needful in nature, so humane yet capable of such utterly cruelty as well. In some ways humanity already resembles the capricious old Gods on Mt Olympus. Is that all we can ever be ?

 

Great post - I only wish I had the prose or intellect to write so eloquently on the subject! I am an atheist - comming to that conclusion after a Catholic childhood and the liberation afforded by science, knowledge and hopefully reason. As a biologist with a strong evolutionary bent, science provides the rational for how belief and 'faith' could become so important to early society - not the usual simplistic view that fear of the unknown drove imagination of superior beings or some sort of order directed from above or below, but right back to the simple concepts of Natural selection and anisogamy - Anisogamy descripes the difference between male and female gametes or reproductive cells (sprem and egg). It is because of this that we have evolved so many of our behaviours and emotions - given that our genetic 'virus' we carry is hell bent on reproducing itself, females are limited by the number of offspring they can carry in a life time, Males by the number of females they can impregnate! (not that this is an excuse worth testing out with the Mrs - may fall on death ears:scared::D)... but because it takes many years for children to reach maturity and pass on your genes themselves, and that in teh early years it wa sclear that these offspring stood a better chance of suvival if two or more adults stuck around, like other animals we evolved pair bonding and the emotions that come with it - move on a geological 'years' and we have ecolved into societies and given this combination of biological driver (need to reproduce) juxtaposed with our emotional needs - you can see that some sort of order might be necessary for it to work harmoniously - and give you genes a chance of a next generation - eg you survive, your kids survive, are not murdered or maimed or reduced in in genetic quality through 'inbreeding' etc - The best thinkers recognised these issues and drew up rules by which a society would function - a philosophy if you like - and whilst natural selection does not work at society level, only on the individual, (although some have since argued this point) - the benefits in organisation for all individuals paid dividends - I suspect that thos eearly law masters felt comelled to add a bit of mysticism to the 'rules' to ensure the points were made - afterall 'gods' law was probably easier to reinforce than an old mans, especially when backed up by examples of how angry He could get if they were not followed as they pointed to the erupting volcano! .... the rest as they say is history, but it is interesting that IMHO the seeds of religion, are based on the philosophy you describe, itself based the need for an organised and chaos free society... which in turn was driven by an evolutionary pressure to ensure maximum survival of the genetic material... nice little anecdote for when next in discussion with the creationists I always find. :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect the values of the major religions and would love to have a strong faith. I struggle with the Ark and other parts of the Old Testament though and that dilutes the strength of my belief. I do think that life is such a miracle in itself that science cannot possibly proviode answers to everything; particularly the emotional and spiritual elements. What really irks me is when people who have no faith try to ridicule those that do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm agnostic about God to roughly the same degree that I'm agnostic about my chances of survival if I chop my own head off. Thats a different type of Agnosticism to which that many people hold and to all intents and purposes is Atheism. Lets not get to bogged down with semantics though!

 

Back to the original point, there are some nasty characters about irrespective, however religion does seem to play some role in justifying some horrific acts in the perpetrators mind. I feel we could do without that in the world.

 

On the flip side, I just don't buy the argument that society in some way needs religion to provide morality. People just need open-minded education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect the values of the major religions and would love to have a strong faith. I struggle with the Ark and other parts of the Old Testament though and that dilutes the strength of my belief. I do think that life is such a miracle in itself that science cannot possibly proviode answers to everything; particularly the emotional and spiritual elements. What really irks me is when people who have no faith try to ridicule those that do.

 

Thing is its not about trying to ridicule or mock faith, but to maybe challenge the need for it? I respect everyones right to chose the life they want to leed, but given that most religeous doctrine includes a huge amount about 'spreading the word' and usually accompanied with 'fill the coffers' - I dont see why relgion should have the exclusive right to spread their word - and demand that their children only hear one side and are forced to beleive when they they do not have access to all opinion.

 

Thing is science and evolution CAN and does explain life - and all the emotions and behaviours we witness in humans - its just that the explanation leaves many very cold and thining 'there msut be more to it than that' - but why? The 'miracle' if you like is in the wonder of the univers and in the science itself - how each one of our cells has 'engines' that began as parasitic bacteria - our mitochondria - theis is facinatiing and amazing in itself...

 

Its naturally important to differentiate between blind faith of the organised political monstrocities that the religions have become and those who have genuine faith that they say helps them and guides them - I will not be one of thos ethat says they are stupid or idiotic for believing in mumbo jumbo, but I would ask teh question of why they NEED this faith - when the wonder, beauty and and down right jaminess of having been born to a dody that can think, reason, love etc should be more than enough to spark an interest and love of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect the values of the major religions and would love to have a strong faith. I struggle with the Ark and other parts of the Old Testament though and that dilutes the strength of my belief. I do think that life is such a miracle in itself that science cannot possibly proviode answers to everything; particularly the emotional and spiritual elements. What really irks me is when people who have no faith try to ridicule those that do.

 

Or try to belittle them as unintelligent. I'm not deeply religious myself but I do have an open mind and I don't think that everyone knows all the answers. Just because someone has a strong faith does not mean they are stupid. In most believers it is something I admire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that religion has done a lot of good around the world, and continues to do so.

 

ahr ... I would say that this is more down to teh individuals involved form mother teresa etc - a wonderful human being, who I believe would have been that compassionate without religion - and there are many who would argue that even though the money of the church enable her work, that the missonary' purpose was not driven by compassion, but by recruitment - it takes nothing away form those who dedicated their lives to helping others with health, education, sustince etc, but teh chruch was not just doing this for compassionate reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or try to belittle them as unintelligent. I'm not deeply religious myself but I do have an open mind and I don't think that everyone knows all the answers. Just because someone has a strong faith does not mean they are stupid. In most believers it is something I admire.

 

I know the examples make it look like its mocking or trying to make thso eof deep faith appear silly, but its only because they illustrate the argument so well - Belieth or faith in something you cannot provide any evidence for, has no rational basis, IS no different from kids believing in the Easter Bunny or Santa - they are told to be good or Santa wont come, and as they grow up they realise its not true - With the concept of God, the teaching of young children to the 'indoctrination' levels of some religions is abusive as its often teaching through fear of what happens if you stray form a set path... is that right? How many of thos ethat have 'faith' do so because of that upbringing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is its not about trying to ridicule or mock faith, but to maybe challenge the need for it? I respect everyones right to chose the life they want to leed, but given that most religeous doctrine includes a huge amount about 'spreading the word' and usually accompanied with 'fill the coffers' - I dont see why relgion should have the exclusive right to spread their word - and demand that their children only hear one side and are forced to beleive when they they do not have access to all opinion.

 

Thing is science and evolution CAN and does explain life - and all the emotions and behaviours we witness in humans - its just that the explanation leaves many very cold and thining 'there msut be more to it than that' - but why? The 'miracle' if you like is in the wonder of the univers and in the science itself - how each one of our cells has 'engines' that began as parasitic bacteria - our mitochondria - theis is facinatiing and amazing in itself...

 

Its naturally important to differentiate between blind faith of the organised political monstrocities that the religions have become and those who have genuine faith that they say helps them and guides them - I will not be one of thos ethat says they are stupid or idiotic for believing in mumbo jumbo, but I would ask teh question of why they NEED this faith - when the wonder, beauty and and down right jaminess of having been born to a dody that can think, reason, love etc should be more than enough to spark an interest and love of life.

 

You enter a whole new debate about the role of the State and its involvement in how people bring up their children. I want my children to be taught Christian values and then when they are 14 they can take it and get confirmed or leave it and not. I find it rather creepy when people think they should be teaching my children something else.

 

Science goes some way to explaining the world around us but falls well short of explaining everything. Scientific believes also change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You enter a whole new debate about the role of the State and its involvement in how people bring up their children. I want my children to be taught Christian values and then when they are 14 they can take it and get confirmed or leave it and not. I find it rather creepy when people think they should be teaching my children something else.

 

Science goes some way to explaining the world around us but falls well short of explaining everything. Scientific believes also change.

 

1. Scientific 'beliefs' do not evolve - Science is not about beliefs - its about tested hypotheses and when a hypothesis has been tested so many times independently and found to give consistent results it becomes a theory - other hypotheses may come to replace it - as you say oits always about moving FORWARD not being stick at any one point - How many religeons can say the same? None, unless you invent a new one like say Scientology?

 

2. Creepy when someone is telling you how to ediucate your kids? give over - the Government does that all the time with the national curriculum... This point was about how its important to teach children all aspects not just one side.

 

3. Chrsitian values - its only christians that have claimed ownership of 'values' in this way - the values you mean, of kindness, honesty, graft, charity etc the good things are not exclusive to christians - but to any decent human being - relgions have 'adopted these values because to those old philosophers they were the right way to ensure a civilised and ordered society - I find it a bit insulting when Christians claim ownership of simply good values that they did not invent....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the examples make it look like its mocking or trying to make thso eof deep faith appear silly' date=' but its only because they illustrate the argument so well - Belieth or faith in something you cannot provide any evidence for, has no rational basis, IS no different from kids believing in the Easter Bunny or Santa - they are told to be good or Santa wont come, and as they grow up they realise its not true - With the concept of God, the teaching of young children to the 'indoctrination' levels of some religions is abusive as its often teaching through fear of what happens if you stray form a set path... is that right? How many of thos ethat have 'faith' do so because of that upbringing?[/quote']

 

Why are you talking about people who have been indoctrinated into a faith? What relevance does that have to what I was saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You enter a whole new debate about the role of the State and its involvement in how people bring up their children. I want my children to be taught Christian values and then when they are 14 they can take it and get confirmed or leave it and not. I find it rather creepy when people think they should be teaching my children something else.

 

Science goes some way to explaining the world around us but falls well short of explaining everything. Scientific believes also change.

 

Thats a point where imho some organised religions cross the line. Franks Cousin has already mentioned the stifling oppression of catholicism, and obviously the bandwagon jumping of radical islam resulting in terrorist attacks supposedly justified by the koran, or someone's interpretation of it. You could also argue that the crusades were not dissimilar, looting and colonisation carried out under the flag of a religion that was diametrically opposed to such things. The one that I detest more than any other is the jehovahs witness cult. A good friend of mine, probably the most placid, unflappable guy I ever met, was deeply upset by a "friend" of his explaining to him the way things "are" according to that religion (and I use the term loosely.) Being the sort of bloke he his, he listened patiently without telling his friend to stfu, then said "well thats all very interesting, but its really not the way I see things and its not for me." At which point his "friend" informed him that although he had previously had an excuse because of his ignorance, he had now been told the real truth and had no option but to join the cult. If he didn't, he will be punished and condemned to the fiery pits of hell, etc etc. My mate was upset enough to phone me at 3am, he was in such a state that I ended up driving over there to calm him down. Utter c*nts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})