Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.5K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 34 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 415 Fun & Games
- 111 BA Predictor Threads
- 34 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 299 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 117 Current West Ham
- 200 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 12 PL2 & Academy
- 32 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 27 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 401 Match Threads
- 72 MOTM
- 9 West Ham Nostalgia
- 35 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 37 Transfers
- 46 Transfer Speculation
- 87 Completed Transfers
- 55 Internationals
- 48 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 121 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 270 Other Teams & Matches
- 26 Other Players & Staff
Comments
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
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 .
― 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'.
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.
;sofa
I rather think you missed the point of what he was saying.
He' saying 1 person who does a bad thing doesn't represent all other people who are, in 1 respect only, like him.
And so it is a perfectly workable analogy,
would you prefer it if he had said .... than the person who killed Jo Cox is representative of right-wing white men?
I suppose that without an analogy, he was saying not all Muslims are terrorists.
Seems perfectly obvious. Just a shame it needs saying.
I get his point but it still makes no sense. His saying it's nothing to do with religion fine but then talks about Yorkshire as a comparison. But you can't compare a religion with a county.
What he should have said is:the person who carried out the London attack is no more representative of Muslims than the person who killed Joe cox is representative of Christians.
I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with his comments by the way just that it's an unusual comparison.