Religion

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

Do you believe?

Yes, I am very religious
9
12%
Yes, but not in a big way
7
10%
Unsure, I am agnostic
12
16%
No, I am an atheist
45
62%
 
Total votes: 73

Junaid Mubeen
Series 59 Champion
Posts: 574
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:26 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Junaid Mubeen » Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:38 am

Jon Corby wrote:Well I'm working in English, that's all I have. I don't think my offerings are any more tenuous than most of the crap on that website. And I'm certainly not employing that "exact mechanism" - I'm not offering one interpretation as a correct one :? You confuse me.
Well, you do seem to be choosing any interpretation that suits your contradiction claims in the same way that they are choosing an interpretation (not necessarily unique) to suit their miracle claims.
Jon Corby wrote:
Junaid Mubeen wrote:Since I'm short on time I'll just say this: Relativity.
I'll respond with: cop-out. Your interpretation accepts any period of time. There's no relevance to the "six ages" is there? Is there any implication that Earth was created (some considerable time) after the universe too? Can't recall seeing any yet.
Again, there are some explanations, not that I necessarily agree with them, to explain the 6-stage process in which the universe was created, starting with the Big Bang (which by the way, is very much supported by the Qur'an). Yes, my interpretaion accepts any period of time. I believe that God exists out of time and space and so when there is mention of 6 stages, or even days if you wish, in the context of creating the universe, it can be relative to just about anything. Cop-out: sure. Contradiction: nuh-uh. Your last point: I'm not entirely sure so I'll get back to you but even supposing not, since when is omission a contradiction?
Jon Corby wrote:
Junaid Mubeen wrote:For now I refer you to [30:1-4]. Choose whichever translation you wish; I think the meaning will be clear. I find it inconceivable that someone trying to convince the world his words are divine would put something like this out there, in a time frame that could easily refute his authenticity within a matter of years. So was he just incredibly lucky, or perhaps a fortune teller?
That's pretty good, but I don't see the "time frame that could easily refute his authenticity" that you mention. If victory hadn't followed within 9 years of that defeat, presumably this would be left on the "prophecies yet to be fulfilled" pile. Also it's nice that 3-9 years literally means 3-9 years in this case :)
Well, since the revelations came within the Prophet's (pbuh) lifetime (obviously) it's fair to assume that any short term prediction would be a huge gamble if made up. To make a prediction that precise for an event to occur in the next 3-9 years is setting yourself up for an epic fail, especially given the odds. Since this is now in the context of present time (well, 1400 years ago now), there is no discrepancy over the meaning of 'years'. Not least because the Arabic word for 'year' as used here is unambiguous.

My last post for a while...off home for a while. Thanks for the chat and back soon I hope :)

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7924
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Religion

Post by Jon Corby » Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:56 am

Junaid Mubeen wrote:Well, you do seem to be choosing any interpretation that suits your contradiction claims in the same way that they are choosing an interpretation (not necessarily unique) to suit their miracle claims.
I'm not! I haven't claimed any contradictions, I'm just trying to say that the verses are open to different interpretations.
Junaid Mubeen wrote:Contradiction: nuh-uh. Your last point: I'm not entirely sure so I'll get back to you but even supposing not, since when is omission a contradiction?
Sorry, I should have been clearer - not just omission, but suggestive of the opposite. The verses I've seen on that site which claim to support Big Bang tend to speak of The Heavens & Earth being created at the same time, stuff like they were originally sewn together and then rent asunder, or something. I just wondered if there was a clear stance.
Junaid Mubeen wrote:Well, since the revelations came within the Prophet's (pbuh) lifetime (obviously) it's fair to assume that any short term prediction would be a huge gamble if made up.
My point is - why do you say it's such a short term prediction? I just read it as "3-9 years after getting a right kicking, the Romans will be victorious again". We can wait forever for it to be fulfilled. Personally I reckon it's on about Italy avenging their 1998 QF defeat at the hands of France by beating them to win the World Cup 8 years later.

Chris Corby
Devotee
Posts: 593
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:54 pm
Location: Farnborough, Hampshire

Re: Religion

Post by Chris Corby » Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:41 am

Sorry Junaid, a simple typing error. You know I know your name, especially as I spelt it right earlier and further down - I am not Des O' Connor! But I am leaving the debate now, it seems more fitting to have this discussion face to face round a table in a bar rather than on here. Jono yawned a good while back..........



Late edit: You could read The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin to see a scientific explanation of where we came from but I recommend the four minute speed version - the video of "Right Here Right Now" by Fatboy Slim.
Last edited by Chris Corby on Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Kieran Child
Enthusiast
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:48 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Kieran Child » Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:02 pm

Some of you may know the atheist busses: "there probably is no god"
And a few of you may know that they were countered with christian busses: "there definitely is a god"
And both sides complained to the Advertising Standards Authority accusing the other of incorrect facts.

This left the ASA having to make an official statement on whether or not there is a god.

3 points for the person who knows what they ruled.

User avatar
Derek Hazell
Kiloposter
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:52 am
Location: Swindon
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Derek Hazell » Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:05 pm

Kieran Child wrote:Some of you may know the atheist busses: "there probably is no god"
And a few of you may know that they were countered with christian busses: "there definitely is a god"
And both sides complained to the Advertising Standards Authority accusing the other of incorrect facts.

This left the ASA having to make an official statement on whether or not there is a god.

3 points for the person who knows what they ruled.
I don't know that, but I do know one important point about this - the lady who started the whole "atheist bus" campaign was a former Countdown contestant, Ariane Sherine!
Living life in a gyratory circus kind of way.

Martin Smith
Acolyte
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:12 pm
Location: Eastbourne

Re: Religion

Post by Martin Smith » Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:59 pm

My relationship with religion has always been difficult. I was raised in a Catholic household, although my dad isn't from a Catholic background and only converted shortly before my parents divorced (ironically). I did believe it all as a kid, but without really questioning it, but in my teens I drifted away from it, but without ever truly disregarding the rules and guidances of it. At university this especially became a problem - I found myself defending arguments I didn't truly believe in myself. Gradually I've come to see myself as an agnostic who leans towards atheism, although I will probably never lose some of the traits of Catholicism, which i guess are more pronounced when living in such a non-Catholic and largely secular land. I call myself a 'recovering Catholic', because I think it will always affect my thought patterns and circumstances.

Interestingly, Dawkins enjoys singing Christmas carols and regards Jesus as his favourite historical figure, so i think it's important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Religion can be a very effective comfort, and can motivate people into positive behaviour away from gambling/chemical abuse.promiscuity etc, so I don't think it's completely without merit, even if (assuming that there's no God) I've arguably experienced the worst of it.

User avatar
John Bosley
Enthusiast
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: Huddersfield

Re: Religion

Post by John Bosley » Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:43 pm

John Bosley wrote:........... sites of interest (if you are interested) -
http://www.thinkhumanism.com
http://www.secularism.org.uk
http://www.humanism.org.uk
- just received my weekly 'Newsline' from the National Secular Society - well worth a read. All you need is to pop your email into the secularism site above.
Penn and Teller in trouble again for being nasty to the Vatican - Bishops not wanted in the House of Lords etc

Jennifer Turner
Acolyte
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: East Hell

Re: Religion

Post by Jennifer Turner » Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:14 pm

Kieran Child wrote:Some of you may know the atheist busses: "there probably is no god"
And a few of you may know that they were countered with christian busses: "there definitely is a god"
And both sides complained to the Advertising Standards Authority accusing the other of incorrect facts.

This left the ASA having to make an official statement on whether or not there is a god.

3 points for the person who knows what they ruled.
They said "we don't care, now please everybody go away and stop bothering us". Not in exactly those words, though. Also, the "there definitely is a god" ones were placed by a political party, and it turns out that legally, political parties can say pretty much anything they like in advertisements and the ASA can't touch them.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Charlie Reams » Fri Sep 04, 2009 6:14 pm

Jennifer Turner wrote: They said "we don't care, now please everybody go away and stop bothering us". Not in exactly those words, though. Also, the "there definitely is a god" ones were placed by a political party, and it turns out that legally, political parties can say pretty much anything they like in advertisements and the ASA can't touch them.
Sweet.

*forms the "ASA is run by paedophile Jews" party*

David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Religion

Post by David O'Donnell » Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:38 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Jennifer Turner wrote: They said "we don't care, now please everybody go away and stop bothering us". Not in exactly those words, though. Also, the "there definitely is a god" ones were placed by a political party, and it turns out that legally, political parties can say pretty much anything they like in advertisements and the ASA can't touch them.
Sweet.

*forms the "ASA is run by paedophile Jews" party*
Please don't be flippant and lead this important thread into dissolution - the ASA aren't Jewish.

User avatar
George Jenkins
Enthusiast
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:55 am

Re: Religion

Post by George Jenkins » Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:21 pm

Martin Smith wrote:My relationship with religion has always been difficult. I was raised in a Catholic household, although my dad isn't from a Catholic background and only converted shortly before my parents divorced (ironically). I did believe it all as a kid, but without really questioning it, but in my teens I drifted away from it, but without ever truly disregarding the rules and guidances of it. At university this especially became a problem - I found myself defending arguments I didn't truly believe in myself. Gradually I've come to see myself as an agnostic who leans towards atheism, although I will probably never lose some of the traits of Catholicism, which i guess are more pronounced when living in such a non-Catholic and largely secular land. I call myself a 'recovering Catholic', because I think it will always affect my thought patterns and circumstances.

Interestingly, Dawkins enjoys singing Christmas carols and regards Jesus as his favourite historical figure, so i think it's important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Religion can be a very effective comfort, and can motivate people into positive behaviour away from gambling/chemical abuse.promiscuity etc, so I don't think it's completely without merit, even if (assuming that there's no God) I've arguably experienced the worst of it.
Congratulations Martin of coming into the light and escaping from that murderous organisation called religion. You need to go just one step further and dump what you call the traits of Catholicism, although I don't know quite what you mean by that statement. Millions of intelligent people don't need religion to help avoid gambling and drugs etc. I encourage my Wife to gamble (bingo) because it gives her the chance of social contact with other elderly ladies, and I often have £20 notes thrown in my direction. Once, she won £1500. She gave me £500, and I bought a lovely air rifle. The pigeon population in our gardens has reduced dramatically by more than 2,500 in a year, But If I was mentally weak and believed in a god, I would have to regard all that vermin as god's dickie birds, and carry on washing my windows every day. Regarding this god who nobody has ever seen, if I said that I have a group of little fairies complete with little wings who dance for me at the bottom of my garden, do you think that I would soon get a visit from the men with white coats. In that case, why don't they see about vicars and priests? (you know, the ones who like little boys that we hear about) for perpetuating mythology as truth.

User avatar
Ben Hunter
Kiloposter
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
Location: S Yorks

Re: Religion

Post by Ben Hunter » Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:40 pm

George Jenkins wrote:why don't they see about vicars and priests? (you know, the ones who like little boys that we hear about) for perpetuating mythology as truth.
:lol:

User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Religion

Post by Michael Wallace » Sun Sep 13, 2009 1:09 pm

It occurred to me some of you may not have had the pleasure of zoo race yet.

User avatar
Mikey Lear
Rookie
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Mikey Lear » Sun Sep 13, 2009 4:59 pm

I've been going on a pilgrimage for the last 7 months to Jerusalem. So I ticked "Super Religious Weirdo". Before I left I wrote sort of an essay on the current state of my theology. It's unedited and not very tidily put together, but I think the ideas in it are consistent, or at least consistent enough for me, and I also think it's something new. Almost certainly it isn't, but I don't read many books so I don't know whose ideas I've ripped off.
Jon Corby wrote: As I said earlier, if anyone has any evidence to support a belief in God, I'm all for considering it. As yet I haven't seen any that is remotely persuasive. A thread on a Countdown forum seems an unlikely place for some to emerge...
Weirdly, I'd been thinking of this forum as a good place to test my ideas. There are some well-read people here and no one shies away from a little healthy debate. However I'm a little wary of it because what I've written is fairly personal and among the pretty sharp tongued crowd here, I'm sure there are some people who see me as a bit of a chump. So I'll just give you a little background and then if you want to read what I've written you can write to me on mikey.lear (that's gmail).

After a period of dissecting my (fairly traditional, slightly happy-clappy, Christian) faith and finding myself more and more confused, I eventually ended up believing almost nothing. That seriously undermined a big part of my life so I was concerned to start believing again, but I couldn't do that with any integrity in the way that other people in church do. So I started from very basic principles to rebuild Christianity. I was aiming for Christianity because that's where I'd come from and I like the religion, but naturally what I've ended up with isn't quite like Christianity as everyone here understands it. However, I feel like concepts which were totally confusing to me before - faith, God, prayer, sin and, to some extent, heaven - I can now explain. At least to myself.

So this might be of interest to anyone in a similar position - who wants to believe in God but finds themselves incredulous - or to anyone who considers themselves an expert atheist debunker of religious idiots who wants what may prove to be a slightly different challenge. If you're the latter category, I'd certainly prefer it if you fully understood Hume's problem of Induction because I'm no good at explaining it.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8806
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Sep 13, 2009 9:42 pm

What annoys me about a lot of religious people is how sycophantic they are. Even if there is a god type character that has created us, why should we then have to worhsip him like he's some sort of err... god? If he's got all these extra powers that we haven't, that's the only reason he's managed to create the universe and we haven't. Who's to say that he's done more with what he's got than any of us? And I know I'm picking on the only person that's particularly defended religion on here, but isn't saying "pbuh" every time you mention Mohammed going a bit far? I don't say "twat" every time I mention Simon Cowell.

User avatar
Richard Brittain
Series Champ
Posts: 399
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:11 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Religion

Post by Richard Brittain » Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:23 pm

No offence, but debates about religion on the internet always fail. God doesn't like computers.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Ian Volante » Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:11 pm

Richard Brittain wrote:No offence, but debates about religion on the internet always fail. God doesn't like computers.
How would you define success? This is one of the better ones I've seen.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Richard Brittain
Series Champ
Posts: 399
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:11 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Religion

Post by Richard Brittain » Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:28 pm

I'd define success as based around number of conversions to the truth, though I understand other people would define it in a more willy-nilly objective way ("this discussion has revealed some really interesting viewpoints and opinions on both sides, and that's a wonderful thing for diversity" etc). Though, I've only read 2 or 3 posts in this thread; but I felt a bad vibe from it which transcended the literary data.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Charlie Reams » Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:41 pm

Richard Brittain wrote:objective
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Ian Volante » Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:03 pm

Richard Brittain wrote:I'd define success as based around number of conversions to the truth, though I understand other people would define it in a more willy-nilly objective way ("this discussion has revealed some really interesting viewpoints and opinions on both sides, and that's a wonderful thing for diversity" etc). Though, I've only read 2 or 3 posts in this thread; but I felt a bad vibe from it which transcended the literary data.
2 or 3 out of 260? I'm not exactly the most in-depth of readers on things on which I espouse opinions, but that does seem somewhat scant coverage.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Rosemary Roberts
Devotee
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Rosemary Roberts » Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:35 pm

Richard Brittain wrote:I've only read 2 or 3 posts in this thread; but I felt a bad vibe from it which transcended the literary data.
If your bad vibes are that insistent maybe you should see an exorcist.

Although I suspect you are really saying "I read a few posts and began to fear that I might be forced to consider a rational viewpoint." Clear thinking does take a lot of people that way - it scares them.

User avatar
Richard Brittain
Series Champ
Posts: 399
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:11 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Religion

Post by Richard Brittain » Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:37 pm

:)

User avatar
George Jenkins
Enthusiast
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:55 am

Re: Religion

Post by George Jenkins » Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:49 pm

Richard Brittain wrote::)
There are two simple words that describe religion that cannot be denied by anyone. MASS MURDER.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8806
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:51 pm

Richard Brittain wrote:I'd define success as based around number of conversions to the truth, though I understand other people would define it in a more willy-nilly objective way ("this discussion has revealed some really interesting viewpoints and opinions on both sides, and that's a wonderful thing for diversity" etc). Though, I've only read 2 or 3 posts in this thread; but I felt a bad vibe from it which transcended the literary data.
I quite like this post.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Ian Volante » Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:26 pm

George Jenkins wrote:
Richard Brittain wrote::)
There are two simple words that describe religion that cannot be denied by anyone. MASS MURDER.
I'd rather say that the problem is that people are stupid.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7924
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Religion

Post by Jon Corby » Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:42 pm

George Jenkins wrote:
Richard Brittain wrote::)
There are two simple words that describe religion that cannot be denied by anyone. MASS MURDER.
I thought they just sang hymns and lit candles and shit at Mass. My eyes have been opened :shock:

User avatar
George Jenkins
Enthusiast
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:55 am

Re: Religion

Post by George Jenkins » Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:25 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
George Jenkins wrote:
Richard Brittain wrote::)
There are two simple words that describe religion that cannot be denied by anyone. MASS MURDER.
I thought they just sang hymns and lit candles and shit at Mass. My eyes have been opened :shock:
That's only an act they put on to hide their true purpose. But seriously Jon. I suppose you've read about the Witchfinder General appointed by Cromwell to hunt down the Witches. He toured the land Hanging old ladies, who were obviously Satan's servants. they were poor uneducated peasants, and he was paid a set sum of money for every one. He made a mistake when he tried to hang the Wife of a rich man, so Cromwell sacked him. He retired to a country mansion, a very rich man, living on the precedes of murder. That is only one example of religious murder, so religious people must condone murder in the name of religion, or else they wouldn't have anything to do with religion, would they?

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Charlie Reams » Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:36 am

George Jenkins wrote: That is only one example of religious murder, so religious people must condone murder in the name of religion, or else they wouldn't have anything to do with religion, would they?
I like football but I don't condone football violence. I like water but I don't condone water wars. I don't like cricket, no, I love it.

For full rhetorical effect please invent your own examples, it should take you all of 30 seconds to figure out why this argument is not sensible.

User avatar
Sue Sanders
Kiloposter
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 10:29 pm
Location: Whitstable Kent

Re: Religion

Post by Sue Sanders » Tue Sep 15, 2009 10:41 am

George, I understand where you're coming from. And a history of persecution of those who believe differently, whilst it may seem irrelevent today, actually only reared its ugly head in the last century with the treatment of the Jews.
'This one goes up to eleven'
Fool's top.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Charlie Reams » Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:12 am

Sue Sanders wrote:George, I understand where you're coming from. And a history of persecution of those who believe differently, whilst it may seem irrelevent today, actually only reared its ugly head in the last century with the treatment of the Jews.
I'm a bit unclear what you're saying. Are you claiming that religious persecution only existed in the last century? Or are you claiming that the Jews were the only religious group persecuted in the last century? In either case this is untrue. Also George was talking about persecution by people of a given religion, not against them. Somewhat tangentially, the persecution of the Jews by the Nazis was largely racial rather than religious, since non-practising Jews were equally targeted, so the example is also not relevant.

User avatar
Sue Sanders
Kiloposter
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 10:29 pm
Location: Whitstable Kent

Re: Religion

Post by Sue Sanders » Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:41 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
Sue Sanders wrote:George, I understand where you're coming from. And a history of persecution of those who believe differently, whilst it may seem irrelevent today, actually only reared its ugly head in the last century with the treatment of the Jews.
I'm a bit unclear what you're saying. Are you claiming that religious persecution only existed in the last century? Or are you claiming that the Jews were the only religious group persecuted in the last century? In either case this is untrue. Also George was talking about persecution by people of a given religion, not against them. Somewhat tangentially, the persecution of the Jews by the Nazis was largely racial rather than religious, since non-practising Jews were equally targeted, so the example is also not relevant.
Those two questions don't need answering really, do they Charlie? And I personally think that the history of the Jews is easily muddled between race and religion - and when people are being turned against people, logic goes out the window as human nature looks for justification for following tyrants like sheep.

I also wanted to respond to George because I thought you were rude.
'This one goes up to eleven'
Fool's top.

User avatar
George Jenkins
Enthusiast
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:55 am

Re: Religion

Post by George Jenkins » Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:44 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
George Jenkins wrote: That is only one example of religious murder, so religious people must condone murder in the name of religion, or else they wouldn't have anything to do with religion, would they?
I like football but I don't condone football violence. I like water but I don't condone water wars. I don't like cricket, no, I love it.

For full rhetorical effect please invent your own examples, it should take you all of 30 seconds to figure out why this argument is not sensible.
A good try Charlie, but I don't have to invent examples of religious murder, it's written in history. And you can't compare Football hooliganism with religious murder. We have the Law to deal with hooligans, but in centuries past, there was no Law to protect different orders of religion. Except the one created by Cromwell. That one gave the right to a Protestant to kill a Catholic if attacked
by him. That was because of the number of Protestants being killed by roving gangs of Catholics. That Law has never been rescinded. And as to present day religious people, they read the bible, don't they? Therefor they condone murder, because it's all in there.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Charlie Reams » Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:28 pm

Sue Sanders wrote:Those two questions don't need answering really, do they Charlie?
I thought I was being charitable by allowing you to clarify your point, whatever it was (I'm still not sure).
Sue Sanders wrote:And I personally think that the history of the Jews is easily muddled between race and religion - and when people are being turned against people, logic goes out the window as human nature looks for justification for following tyrants like sheep.
Sure.
Sue Sanders wrote:I also wanted to respond to George because I thought you were rude.
Is it rude to point out that someone is being logically and factually inaccurate? I personally do not think it is.
George Jenkins wrote:A good try Charlie, but I don't have to invent examples of religious murder, it's written in history. And you can't compare Football hooliganism with religious murder. We have the Law to deal with hooligans, but in centuries past, there was no Law to protect different orders of religion.
Clearly the history of religion has some bad aspects, as well as some good ones, and no sensible person would deny that. Should we reject a concept because of its bad history? I can't see any argument for that, but I would be willing to listen if you were to provide one.
George Jenkins wrote:And as to present day religious people, they read the bible, don't they? Therefor they condone murder, because it's all in there.
Now you're just being silly. I read Hansel and Gretel, does that mean I condone eating children?

User avatar
George Jenkins
Enthusiast
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:55 am

Re: Religion

Post by George Jenkins » Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:44 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Sue Sanders wrote:Those two questions don't need answering really, do they Charlie?
I thought I was being charitable by allowing you to clarify your point, whatever it was (I'm still not sure).
Sue Sanders wrote:And I personally think that the history of the Jews is easily muddled between race and religion - and when people are being turned against people, logic goes out the window as human nature looks for justification for following tyrants like sheep.
Sure.
Sue Sanders wrote:I also wanted to respond to George because I thought you were rude.
Is it rude to point out that someone is being logically and factually inaccurate? I personally do not think it is.
George Jenkins wrote:A good try Charlie, but I don't have to invent examples of religious murder, it's written in history. And you can't compare Football hooliganism with religious murder. We have the Law to deal with hooligans, but in centuries past, there was no Law to protect different orders of religion.
Clearly the history of religion has some bad aspects, as well as some good ones, and no sensible person would deny that. Should we reject a concept because of its bad history? I can't see any argument for that, but I would be willing to listen if you were to provide one.
George Jenkins wrote:And as to present day religious people, they read the bible, don't they? Therefor they condone murder, because it's all in there.
Now you're just being silly. I read Hansel and Gretel, does that mean I condone eating children?
It seems that you are clutching at straws Charlie, or perhaps we are enjoying a good argument. Hansel and Gretel is fiction, as is the Bible, but the story of Hansel and Gretel is not used to control the minds of millions of people over the centuries, or as an excuse for murder. I remember a cartoon in a newspaper soon after India gained independence. A young woman with a baby is running into the British Commissioners office. She is pursued by a bearded Indian swinging a scimitar. She is screaming "Masser". But the office is empty, and only the ex-Commissioners Pith helmet is in the desk. It was estimated that more than a million people were massacred because they were of the wrong religion. By the way, what facts did I get wrong? I'm always willing to learn.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Charlie Reams » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:11 pm

George Jenkins wrote:It seems that you are clutching at straws Charlie, or perhaps we are enjoying a good argument. Hansel and Gretel is fiction, as is the Bible, but the story of Hansel and Gretel is not used to control the minds of millions of people over the centuries, or as an excuse for murder. I remember a cartoon in a newspaper soon after India gained independence. A young woman with a baby is running into the British Commissioners office. She is pursued by a bearded Indian swinging a scimitar. She is screaming "Masser". But the office is empty, and only the ex-Commissioners Pith helmet is in the desk. It was estimated that more than a million people were massacred because they were of the wrong religion. By the way, what facts did I get wrong? I'm always willing to learn.
I have no idea whether your facts on Indian independence are correct, so I'll just repeat my earlier point, which you have thus far ignored:

Clearly the history of religion has some bad aspects, as well as some good ones, and no sensible person would deny that. Should we reject a concept because of its bad history? I can't see any argument for that, but I would be willing to listen if you were to provide one.

User avatar
Sue Sanders
Kiloposter
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 10:29 pm
Location: Whitstable Kent

Re: Religion

Post by Sue Sanders » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:57 pm

Is it rude to point out that someone is being logically and factually inaccurate? I personally do not think it is.
The rudeness is in the presentation.
Last edited by Sue Sanders on Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:19 pm, edited 4 times in total.
'This one goes up to eleven'
Fool's top.

User avatar
Kieran Child
Enthusiast
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:48 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Kieran Child » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:58 pm

In coding, the / thingy always means an end of something. So put normal what you want at the start, and then the same with the / at the end.
[/lesson]

User avatar
Sue Sanders
Kiloposter
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 10:29 pm
Location: Whitstable Kent

Re: Religion

Post by Sue Sanders » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:08 pm

Thanks - bugger, thought I 'd got the qoutes sussed. Hey I'm on telly right now!!! Perfect Recall C4
'This one goes up to eleven'
Fool's top.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Ian Volante » Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:08 pm

Sue Sanders wrote:Thanks - bugger, thought I 'd got the qoutes sussed. Hey I'm on telly right now!!! Perfect Recall C4
Ha, so you are! (I'm looking at +1).
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Charlie Reams » Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:43 pm

Sue Sanders wrote:
Is it rude to point out that someone is being logically and factually inaccurate? I personally do not think it is.
The rudeness is in the presentation.
Maybe I didn't make it clear enough that I also don't give a shit if you think I'm rude.

User avatar
Derek Hazell
Kiloposter
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:52 am
Location: Swindon
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Derek Hazell » Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:47 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:Maybe I didn't make it clear enough that I also don't give a shit if you think I'm rude.
It's a little-known fact, but that's what Jesus used to say to his flock!
Living life in a gyratory circus kind of way.

User avatar
Sue Sanders
Kiloposter
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 10:29 pm
Location: Whitstable Kent

Re: Religion

Post by Sue Sanders » Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:55 pm

Derek Hazell wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:Maybe I didn't make it clear enough that I also don't give a shit if you think I'm rude.
It's a little-known fact, but that's what Jesus used to say to his flock!

;) Ha, and Jesus was probably quite a tortured soul wasn't he?
'This one goes up to eleven'
Fool's top.

User avatar
George Jenkins
Enthusiast
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:55 am

Re: Religion

Post by George Jenkins » Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:22 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
George Jenkins wrote:It seems that you are clutching at straws Charlie, or perhaps we are enjoying a good argument. Hansel and Gretel is fiction, as is the Bible, but the story of Hansel and Gretel is not used to control the minds of millions of people over the centuries, or as an excuse for murder. I remember a cartoon in a newspaper soon after India gained independence. A young woman with a baby is running into the British Commissioners office. She is pursued by a bearded Indian swinging a scimitar. She is screaming "Masser". But the office is empty, and only the ex-Commissioners Pith helmet is in the desk. It was estimated that more than a million people were massacred because they were of the wrong religion. By the way, what facts did I get wrong? I'm always willing to learn.
I have no idea whether your facts on Indian independence are correct, so I'll just repeat my earlier point, which you have thus far ignored:

Clearly the history of religion has some bad aspects, as well as some good ones, and no sensible person would deny that. Should we reject a concept because of its bad history? I can't see any argument for that, but I would be willing to listen if you were to provide one.
Charlie, I can't understand how a murderous organisation can claim to have some good points. It's like saying that if I was a serial killer and got caught, I would get off scot free if I convinced the Jury that I was kind to animals. Perhaps you mean that old ladies are comforted by thinking they will go to heaven when they die, but that's hardly a reason to excuse the killing. Regarding your rudeness, it doesn't bother me at all. I recognise that different generations have different attitudes, but your rudeness does weaken your argument. Assuming that Jesus really did exist, was it true that he said? " the man who does not hate his Wife and children, and his Mother and Father, will not be my deciple. If that was true, it seems that he was a nasty little Bastard, wasn't he.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Charlie Reams » Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:13 pm

George Jenkins wrote:Charlie, I can't understand how a murderous organisation can claim to have some good points. It's like saying that if I was a serial killer and got caught, I would get off scot free if I convinced the Jury that I was kind to animals. Perhaps you mean that old ladies are comforted by thinking they will go to heaven when they die, but that's hardly a reason to excuse the killing. Regarding your rudeness, it doesn't bother me at all. I recognise that different generations have different attitudes, but your rudeness does weaken your argument. Assuming that Jesus really did exist, was it true that he said? " the man who does not hate his Wife and children, and his Mother and Father, will not be my deciple. If that was true, it seems that he was a nasty little Bastard, wasn't he.
Let's say that it turned out that some fan of Newton was a serial child molester and murderer. Would that have any impact on whether gravity is true? Obviously not. Same goes for fans of Jesus, Mohammed and Jim Jones. You must criticise the ideas themselves, not merely those people who (claim to) agree with them.

The amusing thing that you appear to have overlooked is that I am a staunch atheist. But phony arguments don't help anyone.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8806
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:02 pm

I don't think this has been mentioned on here (I'm not checking) but quite a lot of religious people who happen to be of the same religion as their parents, or the predominant religion where they live, often deny that this is anything to do with it. You'll often hear the story of someone who wasn't really religious when they were younger or turned away from it in their teens, but then decided to look objectively at the situation or had some big revelation and they became religious again. But the fact that it was the religion they grew up around was definitely irrelevant - the whole thing was a coincidence or something.

User avatar
George Jenkins
Enthusiast
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:55 am

Re: Religion

Post by George Jenkins » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:58 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
George Jenkins wrote:Charlie, I can't understand how a murderous organisation can claim to have some good points. It's like saying that if I was a serial killer and got caught, I would get off scot free if I convinced the Jury that I was kind to animals. Perhaps you mean that old ladies are comforted by thinking they will go to heaven when they die, but that's hardly a reason to excuse the killing. Regarding your rudeness, it doesn't bother me at all. I recognise that different generations have different attitudes, but your rudeness does weaken your argument. Assuming that Jesus really did exist, was it true that he said? " the man who does not hate his Wife and children, and his Mother and Father, will not be my deciple. If that was true, it seems that he was a nasty little Bastard, wasn't he.
Let's say that it turned out that some fan of Newton was a serial child molester and murderer. Would that have any impact on whether gravity is true? Obviously not. Same goes for fans of Jesus, Mohammed and Jim Jones. You must criticise the ideas themselves, not merely those people who (claim to) agree with them.

The amusing thing that you appear to have overlooked is that I am a staunch atheist. But phony arguments don't help anyone.
I don't quite follow you reasoning Charlie. Ideas don't kill people, belief in god doesn't kill people. But people used that belief with the full backing of the State to kill non-believers, or members of a different religion. It happened, so what's phony about that. I knew you were an atheist, and just think of us living in an earlier age. We'd be both stuck on top of a bonfire and it would be people who would set light to us in order to cleanse our souls.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Charlie Reams » Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:47 pm

George Jenkins wrote:I don't quite follow you reasoning Charlie. Ideas don't kill people, belief in god doesn't kill people. But people used that belief with the full backing of the State to kill non-believers, or members of a different religion. It happened, so what's phony about that. I knew you were an atheist, and just think of us living in an earlier age. We'd be both stuck on top of a bonfire and it would be people who would set light to us in order to cleanse our souls.
I understand what you're saying. Many bad things have been done in the name of religion, in the past, present and no doubt the future. But, so have many good things, such as the Red Cross, the civilizing influence of Christianity in Europe and the inspiration of much of the great art, not to mention the more mundane stuff. However the real point is that none of these historical facts make the slightest bit of difference to whether God is out there, on which point I can say only that I have no need of that hypothesis.

User avatar
George Jenkins
Enthusiast
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:55 am

Re: Religion

Post by George Jenkins » Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:08 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
George Jenkins wrote:I don't quite follow you reasoning Charlie. Ideas don't kill people, belief in god doesn't kill people. But people used that belief with the full backing of the State to kill non-believers, or members of a different religion. It happened, so what's phony about that. I knew you were an atheist, and just think of us living in an earlier age. We'd be both stuck on top of a bonfire and it would be people who would set light to us in order to cleanse our souls.
I understand what you're saying. Many bad things have been done in the name of religion, in the past, present and no doubt the future. But, so have many good things, such as the Red Cross, the civilizing influence of Christianity in Europe and the inspiration of much of the great art, not to mention the more mundane stuff. However the real point is that none of these historical facts make the slightest bit of difference to whether God is out there, on which point I can say only that I have no need of that hypothesis.
I have to agree with those points you mention Charlie.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Charlie Reams » Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:41 am

George Jenkins wrote: I have to agree with those points you mention Charlie.
Wait, this isn't supposed to happen. Burn the heretics!

User avatar
George Jenkins
Enthusiast
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:55 am

Re: Religion

Post by George Jenkins » Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:07 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
George Jenkins wrote: I have to agree with those points you mention Charlie.
Wait, this isn't supposed to happen. Burn the heretics!
O.k, we'll go together. But won't this Forum be a quiet after we've gone?

Martin Smith
Acolyte
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:12 pm
Location: Eastbourne

Re: Religion

Post by Martin Smith » Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:15 am

A lot of it comes down to free will. The percentage of Muslims who blow themselves up or fly planes into buildings, and of Christians who burnt witches or rant in the street is minute compared to those who simply life a normal productive life. Religious people are over-represented in charitable work too. If someone is so troubled that their most likely outcomes in life are drug addict and religious zealot, I'd rather they were the latter.

I'll reiterate that I'm not religious myself - I find it possibel that a conscious force of some description has created or influenced life on this planet, but I don't translate that into the Bible or the Catholic Church being right. I'd just note that almost the entire world has created religions, and they have been a comforting and motivating force for the majority of people they touch, even post-Darwin.

As for Newton - Gravity has caused far more deaths than religion, but we don't hold Newton responsible for those....

User avatar
Kieran Child
Enthusiast
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:48 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Kieran Child » Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:23 am

Have you any evidence for free will?

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7468
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Matt Morrison » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:11 pm

Am I the only one who finds it utterly impossible to read 'Witchfinder General' without thinking about the Paedofinder General from Monkey Dust?

Jimmy Gough
Devotee
Posts: 876
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Eastbourne

Re: Religion

Post by Jimmy Gough » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:13 pm

Kieran Child wrote:Have you any evidence for free will?
Free Willy?

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Charlie Reams » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:20 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:Am I the only one who finds it utterly impossible to read 'Witchfinder General' without thinking about the Paedofinder General from Monkey Dust?
It's almost like one is a homage to the other! (I'm not sure which way round.)

User avatar
Kieran Child
Enthusiast
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:48 pm

Re: Religion

Post by Kieran Child » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:24 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:Am I the only one who finds it utterly impossible to read 'Witchfinder General' without thinking about the Paedofinder General from Monkey Dust?
Monkey Dust was win. Have 3 points.

User avatar
Richard Brittain
Series Champ
Posts: 399
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:11 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Religion

Post by Richard Brittain » Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:31 pm

GOD PUNISHES.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Ian Volante » Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:51 pm

Image
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7468
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Matt Morrison » Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:45 pm

Who thinks of kittens when they masturbate? That's weird.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Ian Volante » Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:51 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:Who thinks of kittens when they masturbate? That's weird.
Nowt like a ginger pussy to help me along. :roll:
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests