Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.3K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 28 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 351 Fun & Games
- 79 BA Predictor Threads
- 26 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 275 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 105 Current West Ham
- 196 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 10 PL2 & Academy
- 31 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 22 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 373 Match Threads
- 49 MOTM
- 8 West Ham Nostalgia
- 34 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 34 Transfers
- 45 Transfer Speculation
- 85 Completed Transfers
- 51 Internationals
- 44 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 102 Football Chatter
- 41 Football Chatter
- 256 Other Teams & Matches
- 23 Other Players & Staff
Comments
And a religious "core teaching" is the interpretation/opinion of the author?
Well, I guess we differ in our understanding then, and no amount of to-ing and fro-ing will change that.
If religion was not there bad people would choose something else to justify their 'cause'.
Might be worth reading the following:
The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy – Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot
Grey
I was not trying to say that Mrs G was indoctrinated, I was making the point that there is a difference between the indoctrination of children into religious belief, and the indoctrination of older people into political views. Political differences do cause wars, but at least the merits of a man made political belief system can be challenged by argument, but - to a person of faith - there is an in/out mode of thought going on - you cant 'sort of' believe.
Faith is the surrender of the mind and reason, it's the negation of the only thing as humans that makes us different from other animals.
That is definitely my last word - I should not post on Religon - sorry all ;fishslap
It's not representative at all of anything really apart from maybe representative of nut jobs. That nut jobs will go to any length to make their point - if indeed he was trying to make a point on Wednesday.
and be happy to be alive .
Not as late as the other (also man made) Mormons or Scientology - but there you go... ;wink
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
I didn't bother with Stalin or Pol Pot, if he can't even get his facts straight on Hitler there's little chance he's going to be any more reliable on them.
Regardless of what you (or Hitchens or Dawkins or anyone else) may think, it is possible for intelligent, rational people to have a religious faith.
Your insistence that by admitting a faith I am admitting to being stupid and gullible is pretty offensive.
I didn't bother with Stalin or Pol Pot, if he can't even get his facts straight on Hitler there's little chance he's going to be any more reliable on them.
So what about all the actual quotes in the article or are those all just made up and never actually said?
So 'reason' isn't quite the only thing ....
No one can stop someone self-identifying with a religion.
What you can do is show that that self-identification, and the beliefs stated by an individual, do not fairly represent the core values of a particular faith.
Here's what I see as a fundamental difference in world views:
Having had a quick look at that article, I think it might as well have been written in green ink, and is little short of ranting.
However, I don't assume that because that person is claiming to be an atheist that he is representative of atheists in general.
Similarly, if someone claims to be of a faith, and commits an atrocity, i don't assume that is the fault of the faith in question.
I didn't bother with Stalin or Pol Pot, if he can't even get his facts straight on Hitler there's little chance he's going to be any more reliable on them.
Can you link me the details of being used on their belts before the second world war. I have had a quick look around, which I admit at the moment is limited to Wikipedia, so not the best source ever, and although the term Gott Mit Uns was around before WW2. It states it was at that point it was at this put on their belts.
While faith obviously is an in/out situation, how that faith plays out, what might be called the practising of your religion (daily life, moral codes, behaviour etc) is a man-made system and can be challenged by argument.
Indeed, it has been. And the evidence is that (for example) Christians all have the same faith, but belong to different (or no) churches. And there is dsagreement amongst them on may aspects of morality, behaviour etc - and which is challenged by argument all the time.
But when two people can point to parts of a religious text and use it to justify their actions how can you say what is or isn't the core values of the faith.
Just because you, the general you, not you specifically, want the text and faith to be nice and kind doesn't mean that that is the core value.
Because someone else may want that religion to be violence and killing and can just as easily find those parts which support that view, that is something which is present in all current day religions. There are more than enough passaged in the official texts which support multiple different views of "core values"
If there is an almighty for these religions then he/she/it needs to do something about sending out a rev 2 or 3 of the texts because there are currently far to many people doing what they like in the name of their "God"
I'm not a Hitler expert
I used to be a Christian now I'm an atheist
I'm off to Dagenham to see my Mum then I'm off down the pub to meet my mate who I've known for 45 years.
Bye, bye, everyone, try not to start a religious war while I'm away....
There is nothing to say that someone who believes in a God won't hurt others who also believe in that God. The child abuse in the Catholic church for example shows that just believing in God doesn't make you suddenly really care for those who believe the same.
Hitler, was happy to persecute anyone or group of people who stood in his way, doesn't make him an atheist just because some of those where also Christian.
I'm not a Hitler expert either, but currently, with just a small amount of checking the statement, that it was the soldiers from WW2 who wore the slogan on their belts, even though it was in use before, so therefore it was a correct statement. Unless you have evidence that shows that to be incorrect.
Enjoy your beer
Christianity was preached for around 50 years with no texts whatsoever.
The central belief was preached and passed on orally.
The religious texts associated with Christianity reflect the deposit of faith, they don't introduce it.
Pointing to a single passage in a single text and saying 'aha!' really isn't how it works.
I get that you are vehemently anti-religion, so I'm not sure we can get much further.
You'll think what you think regardless of anything I type.
Who adds, after his name 'author' in brackets, just in case we didn't get it. ;lol
I got as far as the 'final nail in the rotting coffin'.
Regardless of what you (or Hitchens or Dawkins or anyone else) may think, it is possible for intelligent, rational people to have a religious faith.
Grey
I dont want to fall out with you - but I have to not give an inch on this, and take up a contrary position. By the way - I'm not smug, or self satisfied, but if I am offensive to people who believe in Fairies then crack on, thats me - I'm fed up with this stuff.
I think that if you claim to be truly rational, then a religious faith is out of the question, by the very nature of a belief in a idea that cannot be proven to be true, and who's source material I will say again is a collection of self help manuals for middle eastern tribesmen in the fertile crescent in the bronze age. I do reference the authors you say ( and others) as they argue from a modern scientific and fact based view point of probability, (and they also articulate it better than I can) after years of research.
Religons are all man made and therefore should be subject to extreme scrutiny by a rational being, unless you are prepared to countenance the 20th hand reports/ravings of ancient people who claimed to have seen visions, or claim to have met prophets or messiahs who were manifestly human beings just like them. Then subjected to filtering, review and change in the Rennaissance, and the revisions of the printers and clergy of the day. They also cannot all be literally true, so whatever 'tribe' you identify with, there will have to be a conflict over who has the mandate for the true 'spoken' word of any deity. So there you go - conflict from day 1.
The written texts in the 'Holy' books are therefore not the unfiltered word of any deity, and to hold a belief in them is not rational.
Also to have an opinion that without the so called civilising effect of religion we would all be savages is also untrue.
Lets agree to disagree - but lets not jump on people who think that we are better off without Zealots ( as was my original post) people committing atrocities driven by a so called religious calling - and for the record, the Christian Right in the States scares me to death as well - and they've got even bigger toys to play with..
What I find irritating/insulting is your insistence that only you, and those who agree with you, have the right to call yourself rational, and that by assumption, as a person of faith, I am a gullible half-wit.