|McGonagall Posted on 01/09/2011 21:01|
...the root of all evil. Discuss.
|littlejimmy Posted on 01/09/2011 21:02|
the opiate of the massifs.
|Dave_ Posted on 01/09/2011 21:02|
fairy tales for grown ups.
|cigarettes_and_alcohol Posted on 01/09/2011 21:02|
.... a load of bollox invented to control and fool the masses
|ThumbSprain Posted on 01/09/2011 21:15|
....Never having to even try to prove the existence of a deity that you use to control peoples lives.
|atkingson Posted on 01/09/2011 21:16|
Ignorant and hides the truth.
|swordtrombonefish Posted on 01/09/2011 21:17|
|Dave_ Posted on 01/09/2011 21:20|
a comfort blanket for adults.
|Boromart Posted on 01/09/2011 21:27|
|McGonagall Posted on 01/09/2011 21:29|
But, how to get rid once and for all whilst preserving some kind of essential moral/ethical standards?
|red_shamrock Posted on 01/09/2011 21:30|
Is as bad as politics.
|atkingson Posted on 01/09/2011 21:30|
'how to get rid once and for all whilst preserving some kind of essential moral/ethical standards?'
The new world order should cover that: ask Plaz for more detail on that though
|Corcaigh_the_Cat Posted on 01/09/2011 21:30|
|Boromart Posted on 01/09/2011 21:34|
"whilst preserving some kind of essential moral/ethical standards" - studies show that religion does very poor job of offering a moral compass, in fact atheist (due to them tending to be more educated in general) have a far better moral compass.
|McGonagall Posted on 01/09/2011 21:37|
Corcaigh, but education is riddled with religion. I know lots of teachers who are rationalists but they are required by the system presently in place to conform to an essentially deistic explanation of things.
|red_shamrock Posted on 01/09/2011 21:37|
Atheists.... as bad as politicians and religous people.
|Boromart Posted on 01/09/2011 21:38|
|red_shamrock Posted on 01/09/2011 21:41|
There`s always some bugger telling us how to think and how it should be, and its generally a form of control.
|Boromart Posted on 01/09/2011 21:47|
atheism isn't an organisation that tells you how to think. that's why they are often referred to as 'free thinkers'.
|Chris_From_Pitchside Posted on 01/09/2011 21:58|
not worth the hoo-ha that it creates.
Believe what you want but don't go mental about it.
|mr_maz Posted on 01/09/2011 22:01|
Religion is...different sides of the same page
|red_shamrock Posted on 01/09/2011 22:02|
they generally tell you how they feel about things, and then tell you how you should think.
Isnt there an organised Atheist league in the UK?
Organised people generally beleive in something and then want people to follow..its as bad as a Church.
|mr_maz Posted on 01/09/2011 22:02|
Religion is... a good idea corrupted by mankind
|atkingson Posted on 01/09/2011 22:02|
athiests want to prove to everyone that there isn't a god and then pish take anyone who believes in god. Trust me they are just as bad as religious people in a sense.
|LoonyLeftie Posted on 01/09/2011 22:04|
... an incredible force for good when placed in the right hands; an incredible force for evil when placed in the wrong hands. I believe that there are more of the former than the latter. Shame that over the last decade in particular the latter have been able to shout a lot louder.
|Boromart Posted on 01/09/2011 22:05|
|Bororeturn1 Posted on 01/09/2011 22:06|
I was brought up a catholic, went to church & stopped. Yours views on religion change & you question, god, jesus etc..............however must admit theres times in my life i find difficult & I pray
dont want to be too heavy but its strange how you think naw its just life & thats it no god or afterlife etc....but then you find yourself praying for help......strange.
|TheSmogMonster Posted on 01/09/2011 22:06|
"Isnt there an organised Atheist league in the UK?"
It sits in the same hall as the league of super evil I believe.
|atkingson Posted on 01/09/2011 22:08|
I'm actually an agnostic and I believe the creator(or creators) of this universe are impossible to know about. In fact, I have no idea what it is that has created this world.
Professors like Stephen Hawkings call themselves athiests but I see them more like agnostics because they themselves are notr sure whether there is a creator like god or not.
|red_shamrock Posted on 01/09/2011 22:09|
Its probably Bugger Hall they sit in
|FC_Twente_Bensons Posted on 01/09/2011 22:09|
sigh..... trying for a ton are we?
|TheSmogMonster Posted on 01/09/2011 22:09|
Yeah but that's probably because you don't know what the words mean extra g.
|atkingson Posted on 01/09/2011 22:14|
|McGonagall Posted on 01/09/2011 22:16|
Chris, "believe what you want but don't go mental about it" seems to sum up the problem we are facing.
"Believe what you want" suggests that, basically anything, no matter how bizarre or irrational is acceptable; that all beliefs are basically on a par.
If someone said to you that the sun was a god riding across the sky in a golden chariot you'd probably tell him, in no uncertain terms, to, er...think again.
Your liberal notion that anyone's beliefs are as good as anyone else's is one of the reasons why we haven't progressed in this matter.
|Boromart Posted on 01/09/2011 22:18|
Hawkins has never stated his religion definitevly but the closing section of a Brief History of Time indicates that he may be a Theist.
Maybe you are thinking of Richard Dawkins, he has labelled himself a "De Facto Atheist", i.e. It cannot ever be absolutely proven that a god doesn't exist, but there is zero evidence so it is almost certain there is no God.
|badger_627 Posted on 01/09/2011 22:18|
How to maintain a moral/ethical viewpoint without religion? Quite easy I think, most people want to be good and have a sense of community and belonging.
I work in a very religious school and wider community, and find that the 'devoutness' of people has no bearing on ethical/moral standards. Plenty of people in churchs/religions, etc treat people awfully and vice versa.
I have a lower opinion of organised religion with every day that passes.
|red_shamrock Posted on 01/09/2011 22:19|
Its always raining, Sun god what a load of old tosh..like Politics Religion and Atheism.
|Boromart Posted on 01/09/2011 22:21|
badger_627, our morals and ethics come from 1,000s of yours of being social animals.
We rely on each other to survive, and our actions may often seem altruistic but good deeds to those around us will likely lead to good deeds towards us in the future. It's no different to the behaviour of apes or a pack of dogs.
|atkingson Posted on 01/09/2011 22:22|
Some outlandish theories like holographic principle suggest that the creators of this universe are actually ourselves in 2D.
That this universe is a 3D projection of a 2D world at the edge of the universe:if a theory like this was proved to be true then it would be the end of religion altogether.
|Boromart Posted on 01/09/2011 22:25|
shamrock that seems very lazy. You are saying that both Religion (Organised Theism) and Atheism are 'tosh'. So are you saying EVERYTHING is Tosh or that only non-organised theism is not Tosh? Either way it seems completely nonsensical.
|red_shamrock Posted on 01/09/2011 22:26|
And they have the WWF and the RSPCA...more organizations, telling us how to behave etc blah.
|jimmy_james Posted on 01/09/2011 22:27|
Do you know that
Jesus was not a Christian.
Abraham was not a Jew.
Mohammad was not a Muslim.
All were very good people but none was self-important.
|red_shamrock Posted on 01/09/2011 22:28|
Perhaps its just freedom of thought.
Hey Atko thats pretty outlandish that idea.
|joshie Posted on 01/09/2011 22:29|
McGonagall, which belief systems, in your opinion, are better than anyone else's?
|Boromart Posted on 01/09/2011 22:33|
well most people have the freedom of thought...its only politics and religion out of those three groups of people who have leveraged a longterm situation to influence our lives for their gain. Other than a few authors making a bit of money there isn't really money to be made by 'atheist organisations'. It is actually costing the people involved in the promotion of atheism, in terms of time and money and receiving hassle and threats in some parts of the world.
|red_shamrock Posted on 01/09/2011 22:38|
They must have very strong convictions, costing them time in their life,money and danger. This sounds fanatical almost.
|spurticus Posted on 01/09/2011 22:38|
The love of money is the root of all evil, every FU(KER knows that.......discuss !!!!!
Some of the most religious people have the least money !!!!!! DISCUSS
|Boromart Posted on 01/09/2011 22:43|
"Some of the most religious people have the least money !!!!!! DISCUSS" -- many of the richest people are religious - the royal family, the catholic church, american evangilist TV priests etc. These are th eones that enforce control. The poor are the ones that are being controlled.
Atheists tend to be fairly well off, because they tend to be white collar and well educated. These are the ones tthat have broken free of the shackles of control enforced by rich organisations like the CoE and Vatican.
|Boromart Posted on 01/09/2011 22:47|
shamrock they might have strong convictions but they dont fly planes into buildings in the name of that conviction. So daft to label them fanatics.
|atkingson Posted on 01/09/2011 22:50|
Maybe all belief systems are just a way of controlling us.
|The_same_as_before Posted on 01/09/2011 22:59|
My best friend
|Boromart Posted on 01/09/2011 23:04|
correct Extra G, science, proof and atheism (or De Facto Agnosticism if you prefer too be more accurate) are the future, the only way to rid us of the shackles of control by belief systems, the only way to be truly free
|stevestrange Posted on 01/09/2011 23:04|
...essential to modern lif
|TeessideBranca86 Posted on 01/09/2011 23:59|
I'm not religious at all but atheists who openly slate other people's views annoy me as much as religious fanatics.
Contrary to popular belief you can disagree with something without constantly slagging it off.
|lapennabianca Posted on 02/09/2011 00:03|
To call anything 'the root of all evil' is a simplification. People, regardless of their beliefs are capable of acts of extreme cruelty and kindness. I think where religion is involved it requires responsibility from those who are capable of influence, as, due to the pretty fundamental existential issues involved, people are going to take what the Pope/ayatollah/dalai lama says quite seriously. Sadly this responsibility has been sorely lacking quite often, but that is not to say that the acts of charity performed by religious organisations around the world should go unnoticed.
|McGonagall Posted on 02/09/2011 13:15|
Joshie, sorry it's taken so long to get back to your question but I haven't been on here for a while.
IMHO, I believe that all deistic or absolutist systems are not only wrong but ultimately damaging to society. I also believe that the current crop of books by people by people like Dawkins and Hitchens aren't much help in this matter.
Oddly enough, the most constructive observations come, I think, from imaginative writers like Ian McEwan who builds all of his novels around a profound moral dliemma.
The one book which puts the matter in a nutshell I think is Kazuo Ishiguro's "Remains of the Day" which was made into a popular film a few years ago. It's about a man who is so crippled by his inherited sense of duty to his Master that he ignores his deeper duty to his dying father and denies himself the one chance of real love in his life because it seems to go against the poisonous ethical system he has inherited.
I honestly don't think it's beyond our capabilities to come up with a simple, rationalist system based on respect for life and all other people but we'd have to give up our ghosties and ghoulies first.
|JonMc Posted on 02/09/2011 14:23|
Good post Mr McGonagall and I agree wholeheartedly - apart from the final sentence.
I think there is room for both but whenever words of wisom are passed to us, attributed from the likes of Muhammad and Jesus, instead of listening to what they actually say they become the cornerstone of control freaks who use them for their own agenda.
|Tom_Fun Posted on 02/09/2011 14:26|
...never having to say you're sorry.
|MawTheMerrier Posted on 02/09/2011 14:28|
.... man made.
|lapennabianca Posted on 02/09/2011 14:33|
McGonagall - In The Remains of the Day his father has the same ethical system and Stevens cites that night it as one of his most proud moments. Essentially you saying he neglected his duty to his dying father is imposing your moral system upon his, without taking into account his own feelings on the subject. Stevens sees his duty to his master as the most important thing in his life, not to his father, the same reason he denied himself love with Miss Kenton. This 'dignity' a butler has is his sense of identity. By saying he 'ignored a deeper duty to his father' is essentially stripping him of his own self created means of identity, which is wehre I think the root of the whole religion/atheism argument lies, everybody thinks their way is the best.
|Holgatewall Posted on 02/09/2011 14:34|
OK for others if that is their thing.
count me out
|saaam121 Posted on 02/09/2011 15:00|
this sums my views up
|09_dave_09 Posted on 02/09/2011 16:09|
Religion hinders scientific growth, represses women and sexual identities of millions. Truly archaic notion that if people follow for moral code or fear of what's next prove their naivety and undeveloped character. Faith is saying I am unwilling to accept proof as it makes me face questions that im afraid of.
|The_same_as_before Posted on 02/09/2011 16:12|
I believe in the one holy apostolic church. Why does that do peoples head in?
|09_dave_09 Posted on 02/09/2011 16:15|
It doesn't do my head in just instantly tells me that your not a logical person and although you probably are a nice chap I consider my self on a higher intellectual level to anyone who believes in a magic man in the sky without any proof of him, it whatever.
|The_same_as_before Posted on 02/09/2011 16:16|
That's all right then, Sir.
|ron_manager Posted on 02/09/2011 16:29|
|JonMc Posted on 02/09/2011 16:53|
Religion hinders scientific growth? What a load of nonsense. So much for being a logical person and an intellectual or did you just copy and paste that from a 'free thinking' site?
|daniboy Posted on 02/09/2011 16:57|
the worst discussed topic on this board giving the amount of atheists on here
|09_dave_09 Posted on 02/09/2011 17:52|
No I didnt paste that from any site why is it beyond your comprehension that someone can have ones own thought. Of course religion has hindered science over the years. The pope still wont endorse contraception for gods sake not trusting in science to stop aids and population problems but in his boss in the clouds. Jonmc you are clown shoes.
|JonMc Posted on 02/09/2011 18:04|
No but you most certainly are wearing them today. Ancient muslim technology was astounding at the turn of the first millenium and Virasena, a Jainist, was developing logarithms in the 8th century.
All of them comitted atheists, obviously.
As for HIV, it was interesting to read that in our increasingly secular society the rate is increasing in Britain to which the gvt is contemplating yet another hard hitting campaign in order to stem the rise.
You don't seem to be very logical in your workings dave.
As an edit you might want to look up Jainism and what it contributes to the world of thought.
|09_dave_09 Posted on 02/09/2011 18:11|
Very Logical proof based logic in fact. Agree Muslim history shows a lot of scientific stronghold but that's one religion of hundreds and considering its head start it hasnt been at the front of scientific research since then. What you find that religious bodies will support science when it doesn't contradict any of their teachings. Im sure iv read that 30% of Americans believe still that the world is 5000 years old because of their faith if that isn't holding back science what is.
|The_same_as_before Posted on 02/09/2011 18:15|
And to think you are off higher intelligence than me.
|JonMc Posted on 02/09/2011 18:17|
But that's one religion.
I've given you two. Now then, do you want to re-evaluate your blanket statement that religion hinders scientific growth...in the interests of logic, like. Or should we agree that when a badly run religious institution gains too much political control it's short sightedness can become damaging to scientific advancement.
Or shall we move onto those well known atheists, The Romans, who like the Japanese after them were masters of developing existing technology.
|09_dave_09 Posted on 02/09/2011 18:21|
No idea only did one IQ test 4 years ago and got 136 which is in a high percentile but I said higher intellectual level. If you believe in a person in the sky that controls everything then I dont understand how I cant be.
|The_same_as_before Posted on 02/09/2011 18:23|
He could be hiding in a super black hole
|09_dave_09 Posted on 02/09/2011 18:23|
Which religion funds any of the worlds international organisations for science CERN etc?
Ill tell you none.
|JonMc Posted on 02/09/2011 18:24|
Carol Voderman has a large IQ and she's hopeless. Bonny mind, but hopeless.
|The_same_as_before Posted on 02/09/2011 18:28|
They didn't fund the 2 atom bombs that landed on two major cities in Japan either. I suppose you could blame religion for the cultural revolution and the russian pogroms though
|09_dave_09 Posted on 02/09/2011 18:30|
Maybe I fall into that category
I dont hold it against people with faith in fact in some ways I envy them. But out of all my friends with faith none of them were brought up in an atheist family then chose a religion. They all just carried on with the religion their parents told them to follow as a child. Just trained behaviour plain to see the biggest evidence of this for me is my muslim friends. Of course there is exceptions but very few.
|The_same_as_before Posted on 02/09/2011 18:32|
Is atheism a bit like non alcoholic lager?
|09_dave_09 Posted on 02/09/2011 18:34|
In what sense if anything atheism is the adult drink as it doesnt really on a crutch and religion is fizzy blue pop that kids like because of its colour.
|badger_627 Posted on 02/09/2011 18:37|
Religion hinders scientific growth? In the current climate, religion has far too much say over the implementation of scientific breakthroughs or the funding of research.
Under Bush, the US government banned stem cell research due to pressure from the Christian right. As a consequence, the whole process has been delayed, given the money available in the US scientific community compared to others.
In the past, scientific breakthroughs were often made by religious people, mainly because most people were religious; at least outwardly.
I know its only one example, but the Catholic churches refusal to allow/sanction the use of condoms to stop the spread of AIDS and other diseases is appalling in this day and age. Millions and millions of lives affected.
|The_same_as_before Posted on 02/09/2011 18:41|
The catholic church cannot stop me doing anything. I am against Abortion iI would never ever tell a girl what to do. The church advises,
|09_dave_09 Posted on 02/09/2011 18:45|
By not following the catholic church are you catholic.
|JonMc Posted on 02/09/2011 18:45|
'I know its only one example, but the Catholic churches refusal to allow/sanction the use of condoms to stop the spread of AIDS and other diseases is appalling in this day and age. Millions and millions of lives affected.'
And again I point you in the direction of rising HIV levels in our increasingly secular society.
The Catholic Church is right IMO to point out that abstinence is the surest way of all but eliminating HIV within a couple of generations. We might not like the answer but that's not their fault.
|The_same_as_before Posted on 02/09/2011 18:46|
See above, one holy apostolic church.
|gibbosalegend Posted on 02/09/2011 18:47|
the cause of all the XXXXXX that goes on in the world!!
|09_dave_09 Posted on 02/09/2011 18:48|
Abstinence goes against human instinct and has proved test case africa that it doesnt work. It could be argued that HIV cases in our country are rising due to the larger immigration from parts of the world where HIV is a major problem .
|The_same_as_before Posted on 02/09/2011 18:48|
Apart from the use of nuclear weapons andstalinism and maoism
|JonMc Posted on 02/09/2011 18:50|
'By not following the catholic church are you catholic.'
Absolutely. The Catholic Church is the people who attend and who give their time to the church - the same as any church.
I'm no believer but my family are and as my sis says 'My faith does not depend on old men wearing funny hats.'
The good catholic folk should revolt and take their church back. They have the power and they should use it.
|09_dave_09 Posted on 02/09/2011 18:51|
Humans are bad people we could go onto countless occasions when religion has be the cause of deaths or wars.
|The_same_as_before Posted on 02/09/2011 18:51|
I have sussed who you are. Welcome back youhavebeen missed
|superstu Posted on 02/09/2011 18:54|
"Or shall we move onto those well known atheists, The Romans, who like the Japanese after them were masters of developing existing technology."
The Romans weren't atheists, they were polytheists and then Christians.
|09_dave_09 Posted on 02/09/2011 18:55|
sussed who I am? never changed my name on here.
|JonMc Posted on 02/09/2011 18:57|
'Abstinence goes against human instinct and has proved test case africa that it doesnt work. It could be argued that HIV cases in our country are rising due to the larger immigration from parts of the world where HIV is a major problem.'
Abstinance does work. There is little correlation between religion and HIV numbers in Africa but what correlation there is suggests that the higher the catholic numbers, the lower the HIV rates.
HIV rates in GB are increasing due to immigration but also due to the growing trend of sexual/economic exploitation of countries in east asia.
|JonMc Posted on 02/09/2011 19:00|
'Humans are bad people we could go onto countless occasions when religion has be the cause of deaths or wars.'
I don't get how you hop from humans are bad people and the blindly lay the problem at the feet of the religious.
Even The Crusades were as much a part of land grabbing and profiteering as much as they were a religious construct. Indeed more so.
|The_same_as_before Posted on 02/09/2011 19:02|
He has higher intelligence than you, it's a matter ofunderstanding
|09_dave_09 Posted on 02/09/2011 19:03|
No I didnt mean that jonmc I meant to show that bringing occasions of killings or war etc is easy in every argument. I thought we were having good dialogue my statement was meant to show it works both ways.
|JonMc Posted on 02/09/2011 19:05|
Ah. My appologies.
|McGonagall Posted on 02/09/2011 19:31|
lapennabianca, I take your point but, with respect, I think you've missed Ishiguro's central objective. As you, no doubt, know Ishiguro was born in Nagasaki when it was being rebuilt after it had been destroyed by the atomic bomb.
His earliest novels which are set in Japan are attempts to explore why this should have come about. He bravely blames it not on Western imperialism but upon Japan's own unflinching moral/religious system based on ancient Bushido/Samurai absolutist principles.
In "The Remains of the Day" which is set in England, the Butler, Stevens, a simple but good man clings on to his deep quasi-religious belief that his Master (an Anglicised Samurai warrior) must be right because he is upper-class and ends up leading a pointless life. The ultimate irony is, of course, that his beloved Master is a Nazi sympathiser.
This one of the reasons why I believe it is better to read imaginative writers rather than polemicists like Dawkins.
|ZippytheHippy Posted on 02/09/2011 20:23|
Bored with this type of thread YAWN
|McGonagall Posted on 02/09/2011 20:34|
Zippy, you could always go back to picking fluff from your belly-button or trying a shower.
|InMoggaITrust Posted on 02/09/2011 20:48|
Nahhhh, ignorance is the root/cause of almost all evil...
Although it must be said, the deeply religious are usually very ignorant
|The_same_as_before Posted on 02/09/2011 21:14|
|InMoggaITrust Posted on 03/09/2011 04:30|
You're welcome the deeply religious usually believe in a lot the rubbish in religious texts. The bible for example failing to acknowledge the existence of dinosaurs? Completely ignorant of the factual information at their disposal. I could go on, that is but the most obvious example of the ignorance of the deeply religious.... imho anyway
|stan007 Posted on 03/09/2011 04:34|
having such a forceful and closed opinion about believing in nothing is just as bad as believing in something...
atheism is... ?
|stan007 Posted on 03/09/2011 04:36|
as for the catholic church... it aint the place to go if you are looking for religion!
|ZippytheHippy Posted on 03/09/2011 09:11|
Atheism can be as much a religion as can be materialism as both could be described as the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
Religion and belief in a God are two very different things.
For example Richard Dawkins is as much a religious zealot as the pope.
These threads are pointless and serve only to massage the fragile egos of the “members” on here who feel a need to express there atheism by deriding others. The only reason I can come up with as to why they would want to belittle others beliefs is uncertainty in their own?
|09_dave_09 Posted on 03/09/2011 11:15|
I woulod say its less about the ego and more about wasting time in my case.
|superstu Posted on 03/09/2011 11:26|
"Atheism can be as much a religion as can be materialism as both could be described as the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith."
What ritual observance of faith do atheists practice then?
If you happen to be a religious sort, not just you zippythehippy, but anyone, defend being religious instead of trying to convince yourself that atheists are some frothing at the mouth pitchfork mob.
|JonMc Posted on 03/09/2011 11:48|
The shouty atheists are very much part of the pitchfork mob imo, every bit as much as the shouty religionists are. For all their professed allegiance to truth and logic they use lies and half truths to put their case. We've seen it on this thread - religion hinders scientific growth (historically it didn't), religion is the cause of wars (even The Crusades were as much profiteering as they were religious), Catholicism causes the spread of HIV (it doesn't, it just attacks HIV from a different point of view).
Yes religion has played it's part in destructivness but no more so than other factors - history is brutal.
Atheists also are developing their own creeds. I once got into this debate in a pub and I referenced Russel's cosmic teapot. You should have heard the giggles because I got the word cosmic wrong - apparently it's a celestial teapot and God forbid I forget THAT again.
We're also seeing atheists describe themselves as 'militant' in their actions. Some are even willing to break the law for atheism.
Good people are good people and arseholes are arseholes be they religious or atheist.
|Boromart Posted on 03/09/2011 12:02|
"The catholic church cannot stop me doing anything. I am against Abortion iI would never ever tell a girl what to do. The church advises,"
Advises? I prefer the word 'pressures', via threats of burning in hell for eternity, which is apparently quite a long time.
|Boromart Posted on 03/09/2011 12:05|
"There is little correlation between religion and HIV numbers in Africa but what correlation there is suggests that the higher the catholic numbers, the lower the HIV rates."
Sorry but that is bollix. The trend is in relation to EDUCATION, not in relation to an individual religion.
HIV rises in the poorest and least educated countries and areas within countries.
|JonMc Posted on 03/09/2011 12:09|
Agreed Boromart and that should be the role of The Vatican, to be a pressure group in the mould of Greenpeace but without the hellfire scare tactics. The Vatican needs to grow up and learn to meet half way, just as their congregations have already grown up and learned to compromise.
And I do believe that I used 'Little correlation' to describe Africa and HIV but to hear some atheists bang on you would think that catholicism is spreading HIV. It isn't just as much as blindly throwing condoms at HIV won't stop it either.
Education is the key, you're perfectly right but just as The vatican needs to accept that condoms are a help in prevention the rest of the worls also needs to accept that promoting abstinence and fidelity are also important tools in stemming the tide.
|superstu Posted on 03/09/2011 12:10|
"religion hinders scientific growth (historically it didn't)"
Look up why the dark ages is called the dark ages. I agree anyone claiming "all religions have always hindered all scientific growth" is incorrect. But, some religions have hindered some scientific growth. Don't deny it, you look silly.
"religion is the cause of wars (even The Crusades were as much profiteering as they were religious)"
Religion IS the cause of some wars. Again, why bother denying it?
"Catholicism causes the spread of HIV (it doesn't, it just attacks HIV from a different point of view)."
Catholicism obviously hasn't caused the spread of HIV in Africa but it hasn't really helped has it? Yes of course abstinence works. Condoms work too. Any rational, thinking person would suggest both as good ways of avoiding AIDS. Instead the Catholic church in a number of countries around Africa have flat out lied about condoms.
On your second point you've answered it yourself. Arseholes are arseholes. It has nothing to do with being an atheist. Anyone getting shirty about cosmic/celestial probably doesn't understand what the point of the analogy is anyway.
I've never seen an atheist describe themselves as 'militant'. I've only seen people like Richard Littlejohn describe atheists as 'militant' or 'agressive'.
"Some are even willing to break the law for atheism."
I don't know what you're referring to there. I'll be surprised if anyone has committed a crime directly because of their atheism. Whereas stuff like this > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7708169.stm
does happen because people are taken in by their religion.
It's a cliche but you're right good people are good people, arseholes are arseholes - the problem a lot of people have is religion makes good people act like arseholes.
|Boromart Posted on 03/09/2011 12:19|
JonMc, sorry to pick on you but there is some real bollix in your posts.
"For all their professed allegiance to truth and logic they use lies and half truths to put their case."
There are always some people on both sides that wil misconstrue or misunderstand something. The thing with atheism is that it is a personal thing there are no organisations controlling us, so of course some people will make some daft statements. Whereas religious shouty people will quote statements derived from public church statements that have been 'marketed' to defeat atheism and are as bad as any political speach you can find.
"We've seen it on this thread - religion hinders scientific growth (historically it didn't)"
It didnt stop scientific growth, you rightly point out some things that did occur. But just looking at Darwin, scared to release his findings on The origin of Species. having to do his work in isolation for fear of the effects on religion. Even now brilliant female minds in some arab countries are not allowed to 'work' in science, because religion dictates that they are subservient to their man. So looking at ALL the evidence, it has certainly hindered, but what is obvious is that mans will is to discover and understand, regardless of what religions say.
"religion is the cause of wars (even The Crusades were as much profiteering as they were religious)"
That is a re-writing of history. Religion has been something to differentiate yourself from other 'tribes' and has been used many times as an excuse to kill. From Iraq to the Balkans, from the Jews in WWII to The Crusades. It has been used as an excuse. Not to say that other excuses wouldn't be found, but it has been used as an excuse.
"Catholicism causes the spread of HIV (it doesn't"
The growth of HIV in Africa under the 'teachings' of the catholic church has been an absolute failure. Many people have dies, the misteachings that condoms can actually spread aids makes it even worse.
"Yes religion has played it's part in destructivness but no more so than other factors - history is brutal." - of course there are other factors, but that does not absolve ORGANISED religion and those who control and profit from it.
"Atheists also are developing their own creeds. I once got into this debate in a pub and I referenced Russel's cosmic teapot. You should have heard the giggles because I got the word cosmic wrong - apparently it's a celestial teapot and God forbid I forget THAT again. "
Load of bollix, Atheism isn't a 'creed', there are no people controlling it, it is just a natural rejection of belief systems and an adoption of a scientific stance.
"We're also seeing atheists describe themselves as 'militant' in their actions. Some are even willing to break the law for atheism." -- who exactly? I have never seen this.
|JonMc Posted on 03/09/2011 12:21|
I haven't denied anything. I'm just trying to put things in their proper context.
I've already stated that destruction is inevitable when badly run religious groups gain too much political power - I really don't see how I can be fairer than that.
Now I'm not saying old harry is about to fly planes into buildings but it is interesting that the language and frame of reference is being used. But then again - flying planes into buildings is as much the result of cutural fears as it is religiously motivated.
|Link: Harry Taylor. Militant atheist.|
|MawTheMerrier Posted on 03/09/2011 12:22|
Was a very interesting article about leprosy in yesterdays Times, which exposes the myth that Religion is a good thing. In Afghanistan, they believe Leprosy is punishment by this "God" bloke for some sin, and they hide any relative who develop the disease. This delays treatment for this very curable disease and so causes such preventable misery.
|Billy_Ashcrofts_Pants Posted on 03/09/2011 12:24|
...man made. Developed to strike fear into the people at large and make them easier to control. Now it's losing it's appeal they use false flag terror attacks and concoct bogus terror threats. What do they do?...strike fear into the people at large and make them easier to control.
What next when people stop believing the terrorist XXXXXX? Aliens?...plagues?...should be interesting.
|superstu Posted on 03/09/2011 12:29|
"but it is interesting that the language and frame of reference is being used."
I've read your attached article. Where is that language/frame of reference being used other than by you?
|JonMc Posted on 03/09/2011 12:34|
But just looking at Darwin, scared to release his findings on The origin of Species. having to do his work in isolation for fear of the effects on religion. Even now brilliant female minds in some arab countries are not allowed to 'work' in science, because religion dictates that they are subservient to their man. So looking at ALL the evidence, it has certainly hindered, but what is obvious is that mans will is to discover and understand, regardless of what religions say.
Religious groups weren't upset at The Origin of Species at all though. They accepted it at the time. And I've already answered the Islam/women debate. Mohammad never said that it should be that way - the idea was was hijacked and used culturally for the purposes of others, just as science was hijacked and used to 'prove' that the Irish were as subhuman as 'negroes' after the famine and subsequent emmigration.
|Link: Science proving that the Irish were subhuman.|
|JonMc Posted on 03/09/2011 12:37|
Judge James said: "Not only have you shown no remorse for what you did, but even now you continue to maintain that you have done nothing wrong and say that whenever you feel like it you intend to do the same thing again in the future."
Harry taylor does indeed see himself as a militant.
|JonMc Posted on 03/09/2011 12:50|
My final say on the matter - I have a garden to see to.
More people are killed nowadays for money and economic reasons than for religious reasons but I don't see anyone complaining about capitalism.
|superstu Posted on 03/09/2011 12:54|
I don't understand why you're placing so much importance on this Harry Taylor bloke. So what he says he's militant. He's obviously an utter fruitloop. How do you get from one weirdo drawing pictures of jesus having sex to thinking atheists are all blood thirsty zealots?
If you really don't think anyone complains about capitalism you probably are this Harry Taylor weirdo.
|junkyard_angel Posted on 03/09/2011 12:54|
Jonmc: "I don't see anyone complaining about capitalism."
Religion is fear of death.
|r00fie Posted on 03/09/2011 12:55|
.........a cigar called Hamlet
|JonMc Posted on 03/09/2011 12:56|
I'm as much trapped in a capitalist system as a JonMc would have been trapped by a theocratic system 500yrs ago. Neither of us could/can do anything about it.
|09_dave_09 Posted on 03/09/2011 12:57|
Dont know many atheist world leaders so you could argue that most wars are created by religious types.
|stan007 Posted on 03/09/2011 13:07|
I am not going to defend religion as I am not particularly religious...
however this religion causes all wars thing is a bit of a myth...
World War I, Vietnam, American Civil War, Spanish Civil War, Falklands, Russia in Afghanistan, 1st Iraq War and I could go on...
wars are more likely to be caused by political ideology and economic greed!
|ron_manager Posted on 03/09/2011 13:14|
While Stan your statment has some truth, I would argue religion or an ideology set the scene for controlling the masses. WWI is an example of this. Nearly all the countries who particpated were deeply religous and saw their respective kings as "demi gods" an example of this would be the czars of Russia.
|The_same_as_before Posted on 03/09/2011 13:40|
That's a pretty poor link.
Boro, I do like your threads after your piissed
|ZippytheHippy Posted on 03/09/2011 14:10|
Atheistic dogma has been responsible for more deaths through war than any religion. Now I am not religious but I like to be balanced
As has been mentioned umpteen times by No9 in the 20th century more people have been killed by “non religious” ideology than in the 2000 years before in the name of so called religion.
Congo Free State (1886-1908) 3,000,000
WW1 15 000 000 (Add another 13-15mill civilians)
Russian Civil War 9,000,000
Stalin's regime best guess 20,000,000
Moa best guess 40,000,000
The list goes on and on before we get to the 21st century add another 20,000,000 plus in various wars, pogroms and genocides.
What do all these estimated 188,000,000 plus million deaths have in common? Nowt to do with religion unless you accept that atheism is a religion that is?
|superstu Posted on 03/09/2011 14:12|
"What do all these estimated 188,000,000 plus million deaths have in common? Nowt to do with religion unless you accept that atheism is a religion that is?"
Atheism is not a religion. It is also not an umbrella term for everything that is "nowt to do with religion". None of those wars occurred because of atheism. You're talking garbage.
|ZippytheHippy Posted on 03/09/2011 14:13|
So Stalin, Lenin & Moa were card carrying members of the Catholic Womens league?
|superstu Posted on 03/09/2011 14:14|
Yeah. That's what I was saying there. That Stalin and Lenin and Moa were card carrying members of the Catholic Womens league.
|ZippytheHippy Posted on 03/09/2011 14:15|
|superstu Posted on 03/09/2011 14:15|
Go on then. Explain how WW2 was an atheist conflict.
|junkyard_angel Posted on 03/09/2011 14:19|
Zippy, just because a conflict wasn't a religious war, doesn't mean that it was fought in the name of atheism. It's a very weak argument that you have there so I would ease up on the clown insults.
|ZippytheHippy Posted on 03/09/2011 14:19|
Was it a religous one?
No like all wars it was caused by greed in the broadest sense going back to the original post
"religion the root of all evil"
simple answer No
or put another way
"Atheism the root of all evil"
"Atheism is not a religion. It is also not an umbrella term for everything " Niether is relgion an umberella term for everything that is evil in the world.
As I said in my first post this is a pointless debate that is always reduced to a "mines bigger than yours" thread.
|superstu Posted on 03/09/2011 14:20|
What do you call a hippy's wife?
|ZippytheHippy Posted on 03/09/2011 14:22|
In my case........
Yes great one I will do as you say.
|superstu Posted on 03/09/2011 14:22|
"As I said in my first post this is a pointless debate that is always reduced to a "mines bigger than yours" thread."
Except you're the one reducing it to that when you make statements like -
"Atheistic dogma has been responsible for more deaths through war than any religion."
And then use WW2 as your evidence.
|superstu Posted on 03/09/2011 14:23|
Why couldn't the lifeguard save the hippy?
He was too far out man!
|ZippytheHippy Posted on 03/09/2011 14:24|
My post was pointing out that religon is not responsible for every death that happens nor every war that happens. Perhaps i did not get that across if so then it is I that is the
|ThePrisoner Posted on 03/09/2011 14:46|
I have heard of 'wars of religion' (French civil wars, Germany 30 years War etc) but I have never heard of the 'wars of atheism'. I assume they would be betwen nations who have differences on the way the non-existence of a divine being should be expressed.? Or summat.
|ron_manager Posted on 03/09/2011 15:00|
Zippy WWI I was not an atheistic war but an Imperialistic Christian war - FACT
WWII wasn't an atheistic war. All of the Facist states in Europe were Catholic, you could almost say preprogrammed to willingly follow were other nations may question.
Contrary to popular myth Hitler was not an atheist and the Wermacht used the statement "god with us" -FACT. Hardly the words of a despotic leader. True stalin was without doubt an atheist but it was his fanatical ideology that killed people not the fact he did not believe in god. Mao also was an atheist but it could be argued that he brought up as a budhist which is very different from the monotheist religions of the westeren world that place humans and particualry white Christian humans above all other humans and animals.
Balance Zippy is not about always sitting on the fence but being aware of the facts and making a choice based on those facts. you have not read enough on the subject and it appears your historical knowledge is basic. Believe you me the conquest of the Americas by particualry the Catholics of Spain killed far more than the holocaust.
|JonMc Posted on 03/09/2011 15:18|
But neither were the wars of religion about any religious difference of faith. It's not the best name for these conflicts but it is obvious and convenient.
As I said earlier, religion and excessive political power don't go well together. At that time religion WAS politics and when the old order was challenged by calvinism it created a power vacuum which ended up being settled by various noble houses stepping up to the plate to increase their wealth, power influence. It's a bit like Northern ireland - a divide along religios lines? Certainly but like the Irish problem, the conflicts were not about my God is better than your god. They were about the right to own land, the right of self determination.
I agree that atheism doesn't cause war but again as I said earlier, money and the accumulation of power and wealth most certainly do but we never question the capilaist system that feeds these conflicts.
Capitalism is the reason why half the world is obese whilst the other half is starving to death but no one ever questions it. Why not? We're still banging on about how evil religion was when it was intertwined with politics and the world lived under theocratic rule but now that the ground has shifted and the world lives under the rule of capitalist structures they are never taken to task. We all still want to buy that house and have that new car. I'm sure that if the vatican were still controlling world affairs there'd be a lot to be said.
Double standards if you ask me.
|ron_manager Posted on 03/09/2011 15:27|
Human greed John I agree is the cause of the problem. An interesting fact I read about neolithic man is that they have found few skeletons showing evidence of death through conflict, whereas skeletons found after man had started farming and domesticating animals the number increases dramatically. It shows clearly to me that when we were hunter gatherers we moved around only eating and carrying what we needed. As soon as we started settling we increased our need for more goods. One only has to look at the Native American indians and people of the Pacific island to see that there notion of ownership and property is far different from that of the western montheist influenced culture.
|JonMc Posted on 03/09/2011 15:31|
Indeed Ron. Indeed.
|McGonagall Posted on 03/09/2011 18:01|
I know it's a bit late in the day but I think the original post should have read, Religion is the root of all Confusion. This thread, fascinating and informative though it is, has gone all around the houses and yet I still feel...well, confused.
Earlier on in the thread I suggested something to the effect that it's surely not beyond our capabilities to come up with a simple, secular ethical system which doesn't involve references to spooks, fairies and old men with long white beards.
The political scientist Bernard Crick once defined politics as, "the creative conciliation of conflicting interests". It is, I believe, one of the most radical and important statements ever uttered by a human being but, of course, it was ignored by all those in power who had vested interests to preserve.
Were it form the cornerstone of our civilisation, I honestly believe we could begin to move out of the dark ages.
|ron_manager Posted on 03/09/2011 18:49|
Appologies McGonagall for the diversion back to original sentiment. I will try to sum up my thoughts succinctly.
We have and do live in a world were most people by far believe in a god or gods. Our whole recorded human history is littered with decaying gods and gods that still live in the present. Without doubt religion can give man a place in society, a meaning to exsist and a warmth about the future, like a cosy blanket for a child, but I am not a child.
Conversly this ability to give comfort and security to the indvidual allows man though religon to control the masses for the inviduals benefit.Usually greed, power and selfishness. Would the world be better without this.
I am a proud atheist and would like to live in a world were man based the important decisions in life on reason, logic and scientific method (we do this all the time - trial and error to most of us). I think religion impinges on this. It wraps the world up nicely in a parcel and to paraphrase Bills Hicks almost seems to say: "Go home humans, you have nothing to worry about". It debases the human abilities, changing for example the skills of the medical profession at saving the life of say a baby into "a miracle". It is not a miracle but 100s of years of science and the dedication of individuals to there profession.
But my wish can never happen in my life time and I suspect in a 1000 years god and gods will still be as prelevant as they are today. They feed into the human need for security and in many ways the basic human needs of warmth and sustinence could also include belief in the future. Religion gives that to people in a nicely packaged parcel.
|Dibzzz Posted on 03/09/2011 18:59|
......a load of shyte.
|ron_manager Posted on 03/09/2011 19:00|
Brilliant Dibzz, truly brilliant. You should be proud of yourself
|McGonagall Posted on 03/09/2011 19:25|
Would you like expand on that Dibzzz. The whole debate's shyte or are you just in a bad mood?
|Boromart Posted on 04/09/2011 11:36|
"Religious groups weren't upset at The Origin of Species at all though. They accepted it at the time. And I've already answered the Islam/women debate. Mohammad never said that it should be that way - the idea was was hijacked and used culturally for the purposes of others, just as science was hijacked and used to 'prove' that the Irish were as subhuman as 'negroes' after the famine and subsequent emmigration."
If it isn't factually correct then it isn't science. I would say that was underhand politics attempting to disguise as science. No scientist would have come to that conclusion.
|Boromart Posted on 04/09/2011 11:38|
"More people are killed nowadays for money and economic reasons than for religious reasons but I don't see anyone complaining about capitalism"
You must have missed the worldwide revulsion and in some cases semi-revolution via rioting towards the greed and mismanagement of the global financial system. Or even the marches against the war on Iraq and any underlying economic gains that might have driven it.
|ron_manager Posted on 04/09/2011 11:41|
"Religious groups weren't upset at The Origin of Species at all though"
That is not strictly true though Jon as the contemporary illustration shows.
|Link: Monkey man|
|Boromart Posted on 04/09/2011 11:44|
ZippytheHippy , that must be the daftest post I have read on here.
It is irrelevant how many people died at teh hands of atheists (in the context of this thread). None of those wars you listed were driven by atheists looking to eradicate all that did not believe there hatred of theism.
You are also factually incorrect in the wars you list. Although they maybe were not fought for a religion, there were still persecutions of one religion by another. E.g. WWII German catholics slaughtering Jews.
|flaps Posted on 04/09/2011 11:45|
No it's people, not religion.
|Boromart Posted on 04/09/2011 11:53|
The evidence points to JonMc being an avid reader of religious 'pseudo-scienctific' statements. The catholic church in particular have a large budget for posting bollix as fact to try and defend against the growing atheism. They see it as the biggest threat to their continued wealth that they have ever faced. They have some very clever people 'marketing' religion, but you only need to scratch the surface to see that it is nothing more than a veneer of science covering an old fashioned core of bollix.
|JonMc Posted on 04/09/2011 12:34|
The evidence points to JonMc having a history degree.
Having being raised in a Catholic family I have many issues with The Vatican, not the Catholic Church - the church are the people who attend even though The Vatican would probably have issues with my statement.
And Ron. Even Stephen fry agrees with me that the churches took OoS in it's stride upon its release.
And boromart - At that time that is what science did. It might be seen as bad science now but back then people actually believed that stuff...to a degree. You're right though. As I said initially, science was hijacked by folk with an agenda but that's the way of the world. Just as the words of Mohammad have been hijacked by groups for their agenda.
And I have missed nothing. There are some small 'anarchist' groups who rail against the system but the rest of us (and even many of them) are sheep who simply follow the leader. And yes, I include myself in that category. If the world is going to change something radical will have to be done with capitalism.
|ron_manager Posted on 04/09/2011 12:56|
Are you sure Jon as I distinctly remeber reading there was curate who challenged Darwins theories and dismissed the ideas and encoraged the caricatures of Darwin as an ape. I will try to recall his name or the book I read it in.
|number9 Posted on 04/09/2011 13:01|
Completly different from belief in God. So is Religon the root of all evil?
As long as man has the capacity to commit evil acts perhaps it is?
|JonMc Posted on 04/09/2011 13:01|
Aye. I'm sure mate. There will always be exceptions but in the main religion just went down the intelligent design route.
|ron_manager Posted on 04/09/2011 13:14|
For Jon Mc.....
Bishop Samuel Wilberforce
|JonMc Posted on 04/09/2011 13:52|
Aye. I remember him. Is it from my father or mother's side that I'm descended from an ape?
As far as natural history of the era goes though it was the CoE clerical 'scientists' (I think that's what they were called) that sat in the high chair and they had long since decided that science was just 'God's plan'. Liberal christians of the day also supported OoS.
OoS though can't just be viewed as an issue of its owm. There was a massive struggle going on as to who should be in charge of education and clerics/bishops who might otherwise have been in favour of the book saw it as a threat to their position and (again iirc) argued against it publically but were sympathetic in private over a nice dinner with a good bottle.
|ron_manager Posted on 04/09/2011 14:05|
Thanks Jon that is very interesting information.
|atkingson Posted on 04/09/2011 14:58|
To all fools of all belief systems etc - this is where you came from >>
|McGonagall Posted on 04/09/2011 15:01|
That's not Thornaby, extra G.
|atkingson Posted on 04/09/2011 15:04|
Yes but that's the primate you descended from.
|McGonagall Posted on 04/09/2011 15:17|
Looks nowt like our dad.
|number9 Posted on 04/09/2011 16:56|
In your opinion that is