LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
I agree with that Chich.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
200+ Nigerian schoolgirls kindapped - culprits selling them £7 each
- Thread starter Craig_J
- Start date
I agree with that Chich.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Just to add the Nigerian President has the most wonderful name of any president I have ever heard of. They should give it to Cameron at the next election he will need it haha.
I do not want this topic to go off topic, I really hope these children are returned to there families, I can not begin to imagine what there parents are going through.
I do not want this topic to go off topic, I really hope these children are returned to there families, I can not begin to imagine what there parents are going through.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
As I said the other week I do not mind eating Halal meat now I know how it is killed. I do care about animal welfare and I will always eat meat, my opinion is that halal is not overly cruel. But I do think people should have the right to know what there eating and decide on the own conscious. After the amount of beers I had tonight after the cup final I am looking at our dog and wondering what he tastes like.
Wag your tail at me like that you little **** and your going in the oven haha.
JerusalemMan
Chris Perry
A Christian fundamentalist? Didn't he have Invictus read at his execution rather than the Bible? He was raised a Catholic as a kid but lost his faith, ultimately saying he was an agnostic. Hardly a hard-core religious nut. No, his motivation for his crime wasn't religious
I think what would 'make me happy' is less of the moral equivalence that somehow equates the monsters currently in many parts of the world committing grave crimes proudly motivated by Islam with that as their driving force with some vague argument that you get much the same with groups from other religions. Or equating it with forced individual examples like McVeigh.
I see the twisting of Islam, being as it is a younger, rawer religion with conflict at it's very heart as being more dangerous and therefore not equivalent to Judaism or Hinduism.
That's a good start, yes. Now we just need one of every other faith to do the same and we might get somewhere.
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
:lol:
I agree and disagree with you to a point. I actually feel most, if not all faiths/religions have intentions of enlightenment and purity of soul in their essence. Amended doctrines, ignorance of other peoples beliefs/the enforcement of one faiths beliefs on others and manipulation of teachings cause evil in my opinion. Every religion has to answer for this.
I have to strongly disagree with this.
Religions were invented to allow the control of the public before police forces and judicial systems were there to do so. All the ones I know of are actively set against the freedom of thought and choice for the individual.
Whilst we can disagree on the intention of various texts (which to me seem almost unilaterally violent in their intention), they all create an environment where individual thought is restricted (if not banned) and the power of the select few becomes supreme and inevitable.
The fact that religions were never created to make people 'good' or 'moral' has been shown time and time again where the results of tests such as the trolley problem have the same results for religious and atheist groups.
In fact, the only time the two groups tend to veer apart is when the questions are about those unlike oneself (religion, race, nationality, etc) where the atheist groups tend to have more compassion for those unlike themselves.
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
I agree with pretty much all of that Scara and I've misinterpreted myself or at least lazily touched upon my opinions.
Off to a gig now but will reply fully to explain soon.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
To a large extent I agree with you.
However I don't think it should be ignored that a widespread cultural belief that faith (belief without evidence) in GHod is a virtue and that ancient, brutal, immoral texts are either inspired by or written by such a GHod figure could have played a significant part in the development of figures like these. Thus the religious angle is well worth discussing.
What is mainstream within Islam? What percentage of muslims worldwide believe that apostasy is punishable by death, or punishable at all? What percentage of muslims worldwide believe that women are worth less than men?
Who is the authority on what interpretation of the holy texts is the accepted one?
“All religions, all faiths are equal glimpses of the same untruth. They all involve the same surrender of reason, they all involve the same contempt for evidence and they all involve the idea that one must respect someone for saying 'I'll believe anything I'm told'.”
-Christopher Hitchens
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
The apostasy issue is not a Quranic issue from my limited knolwedge and I have heard from many scholars that it isn't punishable by death.
No muslim should believe a woman is worth less than a man. There is a whole chapter dedicated to Mary in the Quran. I certainly do not believe this and I do not know anyone who does.
What I would say is that religion is a powerful tool. We know the catholic church forbidding contraception has probably got some responsibility for the spread of Aids in parts of Africa. We know the Taliban forbade womens education. I cannot defend any of these as a theist but I do not think the problem is with theism. This is due to having seen communism oppress people to unbelieveable levels and its basis isn't theism.
The fact is any ideology, religous or not can be used for evil if enough people buy in to it. Where these ideologies become dangerous is when cults like Al Qaeda develop and commit crimes in the ideologies name.
The criminals are bad people and they come from all sorts of religions and persuasions, why they are evil is the big question.
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
George Bush said GHod told him to end tyranny in Iraq. He is a Christian. We can debate the legality of that war but the fact is it was illegal by international law and it has killed alot of people.
In Burma bhuddishts are ethnic cleansing muslims according to many - read here - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/14/leaders-stop-genocide-rohingya-burma
Christian Militias in CAR (Central African Republic) ethnic cleansing muslims here - http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/cent...thnic-cleansing-sectarian-violence-2014-02-12
In India Hindus massacred muslims in the Gujuraat massacre with the support of the now leader Modi.
I do not blame those religions at all. I believe bad people do things from all backgrounds.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
You brought up mainstream as a reason why the Muslim angle of this story wasn't all that relevant. I really don't think you can claim that what I brought up isn't mainstream, at least many places in the world.
There's certainly a lot of oppression that hasn't been theistically based, but I don't see how this is an excuse for theism. I don't think it's been claimed by many that theism is the only source of oppression, torture, bigotry, etc. And when you have to retreat to "Communism was no better" you're running really short on good arguments. (I know that's not directly what you said).
Most ideologies can probably be used for evil, this doesn't mean that there's not a difference between them. That doesn't mean that some ideologies aren't worse than others. Unless you're retreating to moral relativism this seems pretty obvious to me.
"The sleep of reason produces monsters." And to me theism seems wholly unreasonable. Of course most theists are good people, just like most people in general are good people. And freedom or religion is one of the pillars of a well functioning state (as illustrated by most Muslim states). But I do believe that humanity would be better off if more people moved away from religion.
No argument from me here. Ther answer isn't in another religion.
Right now Islam gets most of the criticism though, because it's lagging behind some of those other religions in catching up to modern society. You don't have to go far back in history for that to be different I think, and historically Christianity has been no better.
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
I think the new atheist phalanx really do push the "theism is the source of all evil" to some extent. Dawkins is a prime example. He really has become a bigot on the issue in my opinion.
My argument for theism is down to the basis that I reject the whole big bang and evolution independent of a superior force. I am not stupid enough to reject evolution. It is real and evident. But our existence is miraculous. This is a huge discussion though and probably needs it's own thread and for me to have some more time to post on it. And probably courage too. I can imagine my position on creationism will get taken to task by some on here lol.
My argument for theism is down to the basis that I reject the whole big bang and evolution independent of a superior force. I am not stupid enough to reject evolution. It is real and evident. But our existence is miraculous. This is a huge discussion though and probably needs it's own thread and for me to have some more time to post on it. And probably courage too. I can imagine my position on creationism will get taken to task by some on here lol.
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
BE, like I said to Scara, maybe I misrepresented myself in my last post. I don't follow religion, but I do believe Jesus, Mohammed, Guru Nanak et al tried to enlighten us through a message of love and compassion for all beings. WE converted that to a form of control and mass obedience via doctrine and religion.
In lieu of a full answer as I am on a bus typing this going home from an awesome celebration of metal music, I'll leave this for your viewing pleasure. I expect ridicule and I expect many won't be able to stomach watching it in full, but the guy does talk some semblance of common sense.
http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphys...ll-brand-destroys-everything-were-being-told/
In lieu of a full answer as I am on a bus typing this going home from an awesome celebration of metal music, I'll leave this for your viewing pleasure. I expect ridicule and I expect many won't be able to stomach watching it in full, but the guy does talk some semblance of common sense.
http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphys...ll-brand-destroys-everything-were-being-told/
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I will say at the very least that if you'll get insulted or hurt by people arguing against you it's probably a bad idea
I like Dawkins, although I'm not his biggest fan. Most of what he says seems accurate enough to me. Most of the new atheists are critical of a host of other things not directly related to religion too though so I'm not entirely sure they're pushing "theism is the source of all evil." More "theism is the biggest current source of evil", or at least that's my impression. I've never read or seen anything from him that made him look like a bigot to me, but I'm aware that the image painted of him by many in the press is that of an "islamophobe". To me it seems that most people who are actively and honestly critical of religion in public sooner or later get that kind of stuff thrown at them though. Dawkins is at the very best a poor man's Christopher Hitchens though, if you want the atheist side of the argument presented to you for the sake of intellectual honesty or genuine curiosity that's who you should read imo, if you haven't already.
About the scientific theories you mention. My very short take on that is that even if the rather convincing scientific evidence wasn't there and the only thing I could say about the questions of the expansion and size of the universe and massive variation in species was "I don't know" no theistic explanation would gain any validity. No evidence has been presented, no rational argument exists. "I don't know, thus Islam" is no more valid than "I don't know, thus Thor". The furthest your (unsupported) claim about our miraculous existence gets you if it was proven to be true would be deism.
What theists optimistically calls an explanation usually explains nothing. "Got did it" holds absolutely no explanatory power, it's not testable, it gives us nothing other than perhaps quenching our thirst for knowledge without actually giving us any information we can use (I obviously don't see that as a good thing).
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
I will say at the very least that if you'll get insulted or hurt by people arguing against you it's probably a bad idea
I like Dawkins, although I'm not his biggest fan. Most of what he says seems accurate enough to me. Most of the new atheists are critical of a host of other things not directly related to religion too though so I'm not entirely sure they're pushing "theism is the source of all evil." More "theism is the biggest current source of evil", or at least that's my impression. I've never read or seen anything from him that made him look like a bigot to me, but I'm aware that the image painted of him by many in the press is that of an "islamophobe". To me it seems that most people who are actively and honestly critical of religion in public sooner or later get that kind of stuff thrown at them though. Dawkins is at the very best a poor man's Christopher Hitchens though, if you want the atheist side of the argument presented to you for the sake of intellectual honesty or genuine curiosity that's who you should read imo, if you haven't already.
About the scientific theories you mention. My very short take on that is that even if the rather convincing scientific evidence wasn't there and the only thing I could say about the questions of the expansion and size of the universe and massive variation in species was "I don't know" no theistic explanation would gain any validity. No evidence has been presented, no rational argument exists. "I don't know, thus Islam" is no more valid than "I don't know, thus Thor". The furthest your (unsupported) claim about our miraculous existence gets you if it was proven to be true would be deism.
What theists optimistically calls an explanation usually explains nothing. "Got did it" holds absolutely no explanatory power, it's not testable, it gives us nothing other than perhaps quenching our thirst for knowledge without actually giving us any information we can use (I obviously don't see that as a good thing).
Getting hurt by some replies is probably my biggest fear. Why I try not to get involved. But I will reply to this post properly soon mate.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Glad you had an enjoyable night at a concert
I lasted just over 5 minutes though that. The time it took until he used the word quantum. Perhaps one day I will gain an understanding of quantum physics, but I have absolutely no reason to think that it will be from Russel Brand. He obviously doesn't understand it either, yet he has no problems speaking with enthusiasm as if this supports his argument. This kind of arrogance is a massive red flag to me.
Some of the things he speaks of makes sense to me, he seems like a decent human being. He seems clueless about science though. He harps on about the limitations of our 5 senses, seemingly (blissfully?) ignorant of the fact that we have quite a few more than 5. He talks about the limitations of the eye, and he's right that we can't see infrared or ultraviolet, or microwaves for that matter. But guess what, we can still detect it, thanks to science. Listen to Lawrence Krauss talk 5 minutes about the cosmic background radiation. Or google 'infrared nasa pictures'. He's clearly ignorant and he only has a stage because of the fame he claims we should ignore.
Forms of meditation have been clinically proven to be effective for several psychological issues, but you wouldn't know it from homeopathy listening to him because he seems to show no interest in separating fact from fiction.
This is going off topic, but this is random so why not. But if we are to continue might I ask ever so carefully for a definition of energy, frequency and spiritual because I don't think Russel Brand and I use the same dictionary.
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
Glad you had an enjoyable night at a concert
I lasted just over 5 minutes though that. The time it took until he used the word quantum. Perhaps one day I will gain an understanding of quantum physics, but I have absolutely no reason to think that it will be from Russel Brand. He obviously doesn't understand it either, yet he has no problems speaking with enthusiasm as if this supports his argument. This kind of arrogance is a massive red flag to me.
Some of the things he speaks of makes sense to me, he seems like a decent human being. He seems clueless about science though. He harps on about the limitations of our 5 senses, seemingly (blissfully?) ignorant of the fact that we have quite a few more than 5. He talks about the limitations of the eye, and he's right that we can't see infrared or ultraviolet, or microwaves for that matter. But guess what, we can still detect it, thanks to science. Listen to Lawrence Krauss talk 5 minutes about the cosmic background radiation. Or google 'infrared nasa pictures'. He's clearly ignorant and he only has a stage because of the fame he claims we should ignore.
Forms of meditation have been clinically proven to be effective for several psychological issues, but you wouldn't know it from homeopathy listening to him because he seems to show no interest in separating fact from fiction.
This is going off topic, but this is random so why not. But if we are to continue might I ask ever so carefully for a definition of energy, frequency and spiritual because I don't think Russel Brand and I use the same dictionary.
Thanks
it was awesome, my mates band got through to the final of a competition to play Bloodstock.I take all of your observations with awe and respect because I myself am not knowledgeable enough to break down what he says in parts with such clarity.
I watched that video not believing that Brand is trying to portray an absolution of truth with his views, as passionate and definable as they are. But I do believe he is trying to promote an absolution of love, some parts primitive and certainly fallible, but love is the underlying message. Leading to my original post that the message one can take from history's prophets was not intended to be defined by religion, but by not behaving like a c**t
Really going massively off-topic here so apologies. I'd love to discuss this further in a new thread with you BE. And I use the word discuss rather than debate because through posters like yourself, Dubai and Hootnow, I feel like I am always learning through personal exchanges and your interactions with others. Apart from your views on bacon. Al Quinoa is watching you.
Dawkins is a dingdong - as an atheist I can and will happily say that. It doesn't make any of what he says less true though.
He seems to feel that there's some need to fight fire with fire, that the fervour of a handful of religious simpletons needs to be somehow balanced with equally angry opinions. What he doesn't realise is that these people can't be convinced and that they're doing a perfectly good job of making themselves look ridiculous - he doesn't help the cause by pointing and laughing.
I respect the fight he's fighting and the dedication he gives it, I just don't agree with the way he fights it.
Superted
Jonathan Woodgate
I agree with this, in that Dawkins is as bad as those he criticises. It's an easy argument to have over religious people, that science and reason make a mockery over religion.
What he forgets though is that for religious people, the world isn't defined by what we know, and it's arrogant to think that we know everything.
Also, I'm pretty sure there wasn't a boy named Jonah who lived inside a whale, or a fellow named Noah who had a boat with 2 of every animal, even those that eat each other.
It's the moral message of those that people believe in, not that it actually happened.
But what gets my goat, why doesn't he go to Native Americans and tell them their traditions are a load of hogwash. The indigenous Australians believe a frog swallowed all the water in the world, then burped it out and that's why we have oceans. Ludicrous - so why not take them to task. "No you idiots, a frog's mouth is far too small to hold all the ocean's water. It would also be very salty. Now sit there while I continue to tell you how clever I am".
Christians are just an easy target and to be fair, you get a good response out of them too.