By the hammer of Thor! :O

I don't think I do.

So we can agree to disagree, there.

Besides, is it perhaps not just so absurd that it almost warrants being mocked at times?

Is religion beyond having a joke aimed at it?

That is the sort of thinking that leads to the persecution of anyone that is deemed to antagonise religous fundamentalists.

Such as those who wanted to KILL Salman Rushdie.

For writing a novel!

Yeah Well Fine Then wrote:

17 wrote:If you don't touch it, you won't be effected by it? Tell me this.. Did you ever touch it?

Touch what, mate?

Religion?

Nope. Never at any time in my life.

Excellent, lol I was hoping that was the case, so, would you say it hasn't effected you, at all?

Yeah Well Fine Then wrote:I don't think I do.

So we can agree to disagree, there.

Besides, is it perhaps not just so absurd that it almost warrants being mocked at times?

Is religion beyond having a joke aimed at it?

That is the sort of thinking that leads to the persecution of anyone that is deemed to antagonise religous fundamentalists.

Such as those who wanted to KILL Salman Rushdie.

For writing a novel!

That's just someone that takes themselves too seriously.

Agreed to disagree.

Mate, all the desert religions, in their OWN holy books, all of them have passages which threaten violence to the infidel, the gentile, and so on.

Now, since thoes books are meant to be works that are the 'word' of god', and since theists believe those books (since they believe god), then how can a theist who decides that the word of god has to be taken, not in part, but in whole, condemn those that DO carry out death to infidels, etc? It could be argued that those engaging in such acts are actually, like it or not, really carry out the word of god, on ALL levels, rather than cherry picking the fuzzy one's, the feel good one's, the one's that suit them.

17 wrote:

Yeah Well Fine Then wrote:

17 wrote:If you don't touch it, you won't be effected by it? Tell me this.. Did you ever touch it?

Touch what, mate?

Religion?

Nope. Never at any time in my life.

Excellent, lol I was hoping that was the case, so, would you say it hasn't effected you, at all?

Not being religous?

Well, I can't say what effect it might have had on me, since I have never really be drawn to it, but I suspect what would happen is that I would either become ostracised from a local church, for challenging their comfort zone, or I would be unable to pretend to myself that I believed the stuff, I would feel fraud.

Yeah Well Fine Then wrote:Mate, all the desert religions, in their OWN holy books, all of them have passages which threaten violence to the infidel, the gentile, and so on.

Now, since thoes books are meant to be works that are the 'word' of god', and since theists believe those books (since they believe god), then how can a theist who decides that the word of god has to be taken, not in part, but in whole, condemn those that DO carry out death to infidels, etc? It could be argued that those engaging in such acts are actually, like it or not, really carry out the word of god, on ALL levels, rather than cherry picking the fuzzy one's, the feel good one's, the one's that suit them.

Yes, but they evolve like everything else. You'll find the majority are more intelligent than to burn the heretic.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Yeah Well Fine Then wrote:Mate, all the desert religions, in their OWN holy books, all of them have passages which threaten violence to the infidel, the gentile, and so on.

Now, since thoes books are meant to be works that are the 'word' of god', and since theists believe those books (since they believe god), then how can a theist who decides that the word of god has to be taken, not in part, but in whole, condemn those that DO carry out death to infidels, etc? It could be argued that those engaging in such acts are actually, like it or not, really carry out the word of god, on ALL levels, rather than cherry picking the fuzzy one's, the feel good one's, the one's that suit them.

Yes, but they evolve like everything else. You'll find the majority are more intelligent than to burn the heretic.

They 'evolve'?

An interesting choice of word.

What I am saying is that from the religous perspective, the word of god, as written in their books, is not something that was ever meant to be shifted, altered, changed, or 'evolved'.

It was intended as a constant.

Therefore, either one has to accept all of it, without factoring out the parts that are not palatable, or they reject it.

There should be no middle ground with the word of god, right?

What I am saying is that from the religous perspective, the word of god, as written in their books, is not something that was ever meant to be shifted, altered, changed, or 'evolved'.

It was intended as a constant.

Would you care to verify that?

Ask any believer.

Is the word of god contained in the bible?

Should the word of god ever be deviated from and/or modified, just to suit modern life?

Ask those two questions to any believer, and see what you come back with.

Then what does the Vatican Council do?

Exactly what you've said doesn't happen...

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Then what does the Vatican Council do?

Exactly what you've said doesn't happen...

In what way?

They apply the messages in the bible to modern day.

The bible is like Aesop's Fables. All gotta meaning, and a little story to go with it.

But millions of people still DO perpetuate many debunked myths of the bible as historical events, rather than allegories.

They really do think there was an Adam and Eve, therefore, not accepting the evolutionary evidence, which is now overwhelming.

They really do believe that jesus was gods son, but also his own father(!), and that he died on the cross, then rose, like a zombie would, after three days, before ascending into the 'heavens'.

They do not care for little things like evidence to support their world view, are they too arrogant to do this? When science makes a claim, it is expected to be able to support that with evidence, and peer reviewed testing.

We must be respectful of a person, but not their religion, automatically.

You don't need to respect my politics, and I would be fine with that, even if I believed in them with a passion.

And if you desired to parody the politcal party that I liked most, then that would be fine as well, I would not be so precious as to chuck my toys out of the pram.

Anyway, one cannot assert that it is not religion but man that is at fault.

Without man, there would be no religion.

Not many locusts or spiders tend to go along to church!

Millions of people believe in fairies aswell...

Right, religions were started as a way to deny ones mortality. If someone can't handle death, fine.

My whole point was that it doesn't matter what people believe as long as they do good by themselves and everyone else. Some were born to lead, most were born to follow. If everyone is happy, then that's fine.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Millions of people believe in fairies aswell....

Yes they do.

And personal angels who guide them through life.

And so on.

And to all of them, I would say what I would say to anyone of the Abrahamic faiths, esp - please let me see some evidence of what you are proposing as fact, otherwise please do not propose it as fact.

I think that you would support that, do you not? That information put into the public domain, esp that for children, should be factual and evidence based?

This isn't about saying that religous people cannot do good acts, of course they can, and they do.

Nor do I suggest that non religous people cannot do bad, of course they can.

But historically, no one has ever gone to war in the name of atheism. There have however been many wars (seen as 'just' by those of faith), that have been done in the name of religion.

And I reiterate my earlier point.

Christians sometimes get highly strung if they feel ((key word is 'they'), that what is written is somehow an insult to THEM personally (it usually is never intended as such, but the uber religous become neurotic..).

Yet, guess who are behind a lot of those organisations that 'rescue' people from (non Christian) 'cults'.

Yup, you got it, the religionists, the right wing Chritians, they are the one's behind such groups.

Let's face it, reason they do it is that they see they have lost one of their flock, and must do all they can to retrieve that person back into their Christian cult, which is really what it is.

Those that get most offended are often Christians who would happy rip the piss out of someone who believed in those fairies that you mentioned.

That is my point.

They cannot do that, then wring their hands when it is done to them, true?

I think we are saying the same thing, some of them are shits. I'm only adding that they tarnish the rest...

And to all of them, I would say what I would say to anyone of the Abrahamic faiths, esp - please let me see some evidence of what you are proposing as fact, otherwise please do not propose it as fact.

You realise you'd have to write off alot of science aswell with that...

No, because science never asserts something as fact, at least not without reasonable evidence, and peer reviewed study and testing.

Science has been wrong (sic) in the past, of course, and that is the beauty of it. Religion takes a rigid position, one in which it never really moves with the times, even if it alludes to.

Religions in the West are desperate to try to keep up with the times, even if it means abandonment/loosening of some of their principles. This is esp true of the Catholic church, who realise that their once vice like grip on places such as Latin America, are being challenged, not just by atheism, but by the appearance of other religions.

Tired of the oppressive and guilt heavy burden of Catholicism, many in Latin America have turned to other religions, more suited to their 'needs'.

Finding a religion, if you are not already unfortunate enough to be born into one, is like shopping at ASDA, mate.

People just go around, have a look, pick the one that most reflects them.

That would be my amateur psychological theory on why people gravitate toward certain religions.

The disciplinarian and old fashioned may select Islam, the quiet of nature may select Buddism, and so on.

Of course, there are exceptions, deviations, but as a general rule of thumb, I would say it was pretty sound.

How many forums/sites do you go to that are connected with religion?

hahaha...

I like the number 17

17 wrote:How many forums/sites do you go to that are connected with religion?

I try to avoid those that are too rabid, of which there are many.

But I go to one that would fall into what you call 'connected with religion'.

You are on that site also, but it is quite tame there, when you then read a neo con/slash christian site from the US.

It is only then that the penny drops that many of those behind their PC, those who would claim to revere Jesus, actually act in a manner which is totally the opposite to how Jesus was meant to have lived his life.

Try asking one if they are a supporter of the word of Jesus, and when they say yes, then ask them if they have given all their material possesions away to the poor, as Jesus instructed.

After all, if they are genuinely wishing to live a life as close to their prophet as possible, surely that would be a must? But they don't and they wouldn't, quite the opposite, in fact, you often find them to be the most miserly, and least charitable.

Or ask them if they love the word of Jesus, and when the reply that they do, then ask why they support invasions during which tens of thousands of children die.

I cannot imagine the Jesus of the NT being a man who would have ANY truck with that, yet somehow, these people, of which there are many, cannot see that they are walking hypocrites.

Of course, when challenged about it, they fall back on the convenient excuse that yes, they are sinning, but we are ALL sinners, so hey, it sort of excuses what they do, as far as they are concerned, that is how they can balance their belief in a non materialistic pacifist like Jesus, with aggressive, warring, and material love.

So you're comparison of Crystal meth with religion can't be that accurate? Because, you haven't touched it, yet you are (you may not see it.. but, you is lol) very effected by it... Sometimes, we just don't, notice things that others looking from another position can see.. So I thought I'd make you aware of that.

17 wrote:So you're comparison of Crystal meth with religion can't be that accurate? Because, you haven't touched it, yet you are (you may not see it.. but, you is lol) very effected by it... Sometimes, we just don't, notice things that others looking from another position can see.. So I thought I'd make you aware of that.

It was an analogy mate, not really intended as a direct comparison.

Besids, it still holds good. I have never tried Crystal Meth, but have seen sufficient numbers lost to it, and how they are affected by it, to know I wouldn't want to indulge. I have seen also the many negative effects of religion, therefore, it is a reasonable analogy.

I am always happy to discuss 'gods', in the same way that I would discuss things like the possibility of alien life, for example.

Now, with that, I do happen to think that mathematically speaking, there is a good chance of other life forms on other planets.

However.... I would stop short of believing it to be FACT, and would certainly not promote it as such in schools etc, unless I had some tangible evidence to support the assertion. That seems fair enough to me.

Else, why not simply think of something, anything, and teach that as 'fact', to children? It would be wrong, would it not, to teach our children, in phyics, that spontanius human combustion is a 'fact'. It isn't. It is a theory, and not in the scientific sense, either.

Likewise, it is wrong to teach children that some invisible 'thing' created us, when it cannot be shown to be factual.

Same thing..

But you said if you don't touch it, you are in no way effected by it, and you are so.... It just came across as strange..

17 wrote:But you said if you don't touch it, you are in no way effected by it, and you are so.... It just came across as strange..

You don't need to personally take heroin or crack to be effected by the social erosion it causes, mate.

Hope that clarifies it.

Yeah Well Fine Then wrote:Can believing what is essentially a mass delusion ever be a progressive thing, though? For society. I don't think that it can.

Ok, let's look at some examples. The Romans created central heating, roads, indoor plumbing, and elected government among a few things. They were also a largely religious society.

The Greeks created coined money, possibly maps (that one is still up in the air), thermometers, and improved the tumbler lock to name a few. They also made numerous advances in medicine and pharmacology. They too were a religious society.

I think it's only certain religious beliefs that may inhibit a society from being progressive, not all.