More religion bashing

[Macky]

invoking Hitler in an argument is poor reasoning

Yes, it certainly is, but to be fair, it wasn't BM who brought Hitler into the debate.

 

[Darth Vodka]

I'd have Christianity down as MicroSoft, Islam is more like Apple

i have Catholicism as Microsoft...

it goes down on you all the time..but you always feel guilty

 

[FIF]

So people start believing these things as fact, and those people who take these beliefs to extremes commit the aforementioned horrors. I'm not suggesting Mrs DV is akin to a murderous African tribal leader or a Scientologist, but if she had morals which were, shall we say, less desirable, she'd have in her head a justification for indefensible acts.

This is where I have a problem with your thought process. It isn't religion that does that it's a person's disposition and the person whether religious or atheist can still go to these extremes.

You seem to be saying because someone is religious they will and because they aren't they won't - I'm sure you're not saying it but that's how your argument sounds. I'm saying extreme horrors are committed by people whether religious or not.

 

[FIF]

What's wrong with being nice because it's the right thing to do? Why do we need a book full of nonsense to tell us that?

There is no problem but what's the problem with believing that God exists and being nice. The book wasn't nonsense for the time period when it was written (the original story etc..) remember most people couldn't read and were taught in this way. You could say the same about philosophy and other concurrent subjects.

Remember you can't prove that a God doesn't exist no matter how much you believe that.

(disclaimer: I'm not claiming that God exists nor am I backing many of the forms of religious education)

 

[FIF]

So do you really think all the Irish terrorists would have killed as many people if it wasn't for religion?

Do you really think so many people in the middle east would blow themselves up with the intention of taking with them as many people as possible if it wasn't for religion?

When people take the stuff in the bible and koran literally and base their life on it, it makes them do bad things. When people are indoctrinated with this belief from a young age they don't realise what they're doing is wrong, they think they're doing "god's" work.

Of course I don't think they all would but there is a lot more to the Irish problem than religion and I feel both terrorist sides are more than happy to kill in order to maintain their power structure and control of drugs/prostitution etc...

again of course not but desperate situations lead to desperate measures, religion is then used as a prop.

If somebody raped and tortured my wife and kids, I would go to great lengths to make them suffer. It wouldn't worry me to say it was for religious reasons and the "legal" side wouldn't worry me at all.

When some people take the books literally and base their lives on it, it makes them do good things.

Indoctrination is never good but the argument here is religion. If we were arguing against indoctrination I wouldn't have written nearly as much. Indoctrination is about personal power not about theological issues.

 

[FIF]

from this i've just realised i'm a thick twat and need a new women to immerse my dick in instead of reading debates i dont understand.

but hey it wasted a good 10 mins at work so thanks a lot. better than working!

fixed

 

[FIF]

I'd have Christianity down as MicroSoft, Islam is more like Apple

Wouldn't Christianity be better portrayed as Virgin?

 

[enderby fox]

fixed

cheers for that. your not wrong

 

[Blue Maniac]

I hate to disagree with anyone whose sig demonstrates what an utter **** Richard Littlejohn is, but still:

Hitler was evil because of his beliefs?

not his actions?

i'm sorry for your confusion...but invoking Hitler in an argument is poor reasoning

Did his beliefs not have an effect on his actions?

a lot of people believe things as beliefs and don't care much for facts

Which is the whole problem.

i have Catholicism as Microsoft...

it goes down on you all the time..but you always feel guilty

This is where I have a problem with your thought process. It isn't religion that does that it's a person's disposition and the person whether religious or atheist can still go to these extremes.

You seem to be saying because someone is religious they will and because they aren't they won't - I'm sure you're not saying it but that's how your argument sounds. I'm saying extreme horrors are committed by people whether religious or not.

Undoubtedly they are, yes. But are you not prepared to admit that people who think they are doing "God's work" (a phrase I believe Jeff used earlier) have the greater propensity to take this behaviour further?

There is no problem but what's the problem with believing that God exists and being nice.

I'm sorry you don't see a problem with believing something that is self-evidently false.

The book wasn't nonsense for the time period when it was written (the original story etc..)

Er, yes it was. It was always made up. Time hasn't magically turned it into lies, the fact that it was made up at the very beginning did that perfectly well.

Remember you can't prove that a God doesn't exist no matter how much you believe that.

No, but the fact that someone once said it is not reason enough to believe it. You can't prove that there's not an exact replica of a McDonalds on Pluto, but I bet there's not one.

When some people take the books literally and base their lives on it, it makes them do good things.

It also makes them stone to death anyone who works on a Sunday.

Indoctrination is about personal power

As opposed to Christianity or Islam, which of course are nice cooperative organisations where everyone's equal?

 

[Darth Vodka]

Did his beliefs not have an effect on his actions?

did i say they didn't?

i said he is judged by his actions not his beliefs

 

[FIF]

Undoubtedly they are, yes. But are you not prepared to admit that people who think they are doing "God's work" (a phrase I believe Jeff used earlier) have the greater propensity to take this behaviour further?

No, I think the propensity is innate and makes no difference whether they are religious or not.

I'm sorry you don't see a problem with believing something that is self-evidently false.

Well it may be false, I don't know but even if it was I don't see it as a problem. Do you think letting your children (I presume you don't have any yet but it's hypothetical) believe in Santa or letting your children think you are a great person or letting your children believe they are safe in the house is wrong?

Er, yes it was. It was always made up. Time hasn't magically turned it into lies, the fact that it was made up at the very beginning did that perfectly well.

I think you missed my point, the book was a teaching tool. I do realise that it's not true. i think it should be modernised if it is to continue to be used as a teaching tool.

No, but the fact that someone once said it is not reason enough to believe it. You can't prove that there's not an exact replica of a McDonalds on Pluto, but I bet there's not one.

Many people and some of the greatest minds of their times, which doesn't excuse the fact that they couls all be wrong.

It also makes them stone to death anyone who works on a Sunday.

That's poor, you can do better. I've seen video of non-religious youths kick a youth to death in the streets of England

As opposed to Christianity or Islam, which of course are nice cooperative organisations where everyone's equal?

Again I'm not defending religions, I dislike most things about organised religions. I am attacking the idea that non-religious people act any differently.

 

[Blue Maniac]

did i say they didn't?

i said he is judged by his actions not his beliefs

And my contention was that he should be judged on both his actions and the beliefs that resulted in those actions. His authorisation of the Holocaust was not independent of his hatred of Jews. The fact that the Catholic church complied and assisted with it (and other acts of genocide since) seems to be ignored by a lot of people, and guess what their motivation was?

 

[Macky]

No, I think the propensity is innate and makes no difference whether they are religious or not.

But you stated earlier that you believe that religion can cause people to do good

 

[FIF]

But you stated earlier that you believe that religion can cause people to do good

I also think that non-religious people can do good.

 

[Blue Maniac]

No, I think the propensity is innate and makes no difference whether they are religious or not.

Then you must have missed a lot of news reports about religiously motivated acts of war. While the capacity for evil is undoubtedly there (perhaps in everyone), religious people seem to have this idea that because their evil is religiously motivated it's somehow more justified than anybody else's. It isn't. Murder is murder, genocide will always be genocide.

Well it may be false, I don't know but even if it was I don't see it as a problem. Do you think letting your children (I presume you don't have any yet but it's hypothetical) believe in Santa or letting your children think you are a great person or letting your children believe they are safe in the house is wrong?

Belief in Santa is usually discarded when children reach a certain age. How is telling kids that they'll burn in the fiery depths of hell if they don't behave exactly how Jesus wants comparable to encouraging them to be good so a fat bloke will drop off a Nintendo Wii at Christmas? As it happens, my daughter turned 10 last week. She believes in Jesus (thanks to her mother) but not Santa, but I'd much rather it was the other way round.

I think you missed my point, the book was a teaching tool. I do realise that it's not true. i think it should be modernised if it is to continue to be used as a teaching tool.

It seems you've missed the point. The book was an indoctrination document. I know you realise it's not true, but there are a worrying number of people who don't know this. And if by 'modernised' you mean 'changed completely into a story about wizards or a talking dog or something', then I agree.

Many people and some of the greatest minds of their times, which doesn't excuse the fact that they could all be wrong.

But not Newton, Einstein, Russell, Dawkins, Hawking, Lincoln, Huxley (Thomas Henry and Aldous), Asimov, Darwin, Galileo, van Gogh, Edison, Freud, Wilde... Today, less than 7% of America's scientists believe in a personal god.

That's poor, you can do better. I've seen video of non-religious youths kick a youth to death in the streets of England

Fortunately, I don't need to do better. Genesis explicitly states that those who work on the Sabbath should be killed. Since your assertion was that 'When some people take the books literally and base their lives on it, it makes them do good things', I think I've successfully argued the exact opposite. Furthermore, the youths in the video you watched were not motivated by a lack of religion. I'd put money on drink or boredom.

Again I'm not defending religions, I dislike most things about organised religions. I am attacking the idea that non-religious people act any differently.

But you're missing the crucial point here - religion is unnecessary, and it causes deaths. Surely - surely - we can agree on that at least.

I also think that non-religious people can do good.

Like me and you :icon_bigg

 

[FIF]

I.....must......stop.

 

[Blue Maniac]

I.....must......stop.

:icon_bigg

 

[Dour]

But not Newton, Einstein, Russell, Dawkins, Hawking, Lincoln, Huxley (Thomas Henry and Aldous), Asimov, Darwin, Galileo, van Gogh, Edison, Freud, Wilde...

At a first glance, you're outright wrong on at least two of those, and partially on at least 2 others. And utterly wrong to describe Dawkins as anything near a great mind.

 

[Blue Maniac]

At a first glance, you're outright wrong on at least two of those, and partially on at least 2 others.

This isn't a list of atheists, it's intended a list of people who do not or did not blindly believe whatever was told them (which, let's be honest, is what we were talking about). So tell me, where have I erred?

And utterly wrong to describe Dawkins as anything near a great mind.

Richard Dawkins, the most accomplished and respected evolutionary biologist of our time? You're right, he's an idiot :icon_bigg

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Richard Dawkins is a twat, and proved that fundamentalist athiests can be just as annoying as fundamentalist religious types. However, he's not likely to kill others or go on about how gays and single parents are the spawn of satan and should be hung.