Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

God?

13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just because we can come up with a question doesn't mean the question makes sense. I could equally ask "What is the meaning of yellow?" There's nothing profound about it.

    The "meaning of life" is simply a loaded question that presupposes an intelligent creator, since to have a meaning, you need to have something/one with intentions. That's why we can ask about the meaning of a painting, but we can't ask about the meaning of a tree.

    I really liked this thought provoking, original post :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I like the church, the best thing about it is the lovely people you meet there.

    The pope is a very bad role model, he lives a existence none of us would wish for ourselves or our children, he has not lived a normal life and cannot give good advice about life, in any case, he is just a man, and the church is just a building, I could blow up a church and urinate on a sacred statue which has been desecrated and you would realise, that's just a piece of stone.

    My point being, that the belief you have inside yourself is all that is important, if you have faith, that is all you need, I never used to believe but do have faith now. Having a experience with a spirit which was shared with another person who described the exact same experience to me before I opened my mouth convinced me that there are definitely different life forms on this planet, but that's a whole notha story...

    The original point about the bad Things on earth, trouble is, people have free will, otherwise we would be mindless controlled beings, and peace has never been a nature state of humanity at any point in the history of humans.

    Peace is not a natural state of humanity... (sad but true)

    I do not see why its hard to believe that earth/life is a natural occurance.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you're one these "new atheism" types (where you spend more of your time actively mocking, criticising and verbally attacking religious types and telling them that they're 'wrong' than just getting on with life) then I guess this won't matter one bit to you but I think it's important to point out a very common misconception about those that follow any 'higher being'.

    Just because someone considers themselves a Christian, a Catholic, Mormon, JW, Muslim, Hindu etc does not mean they believe and agree with everything that their faith teaches.

    Part of this misconception is that if we fail to believe something written in some 'holy book' then we are doomed to eternal whatever. Not so. Yes there are some branches of faiths than insist you take each word as law but they are the minority.

    For example I'm a Christian. My mother is Catholic. Generally we don't talk about religion as there is lots on Catholicism I disagree with and in any case, things in the bible we would disagree on. One of the guys I carpool with is also a Christian and we have different views of potential life on other planets. It doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong.

    So to have a go at any Christians you meet online, in real life etc because of some crappy proclamation from the idiots at Westboro, or something that the Vatican decrees (they only speak for Catholics btw, Christians do not recognise or acknowledge its 'authority') is pretty much pointless.

    My views on gay marriage for instance differ from those of some Christians I know - by and large we keep such matters to ourselves.

    Nobody has to believe, live and let live, peace to all :)

    Except politicians :grump:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    If you're one these "new atheism" types (where you spend more of your time actively mocking, criticising and verbally attacking religious types and telling them that they're 'wrong' than just getting on with life) then I guess this won't matter one bit to you but I think it's important to point out a very common misconception about those that follow any 'higher being'.

    There are around 6000 gods currently worshipped in the world today, mostly worshipped by people who were BORN into that faith, and all disagreeing with the others as being in possession of the truth. Christianity alone is said to have around 41000 denominations!

    The main reason that atheists attack or mock religion, with exceptions, is because of the insistence of faiths that their views, 'substantiated' only by their various 'holy' books, should be upheld in secular law, such as anti-homosexuality, abortion, teaching intelligent design in schools etc

    This cannot be tolerated.

    I'm an atheist. Do I believe there is a god? No. Do I KNOW there is no god? Definitely not - but I don't believe that he holds form in the way that current religions present him. So I know I might be wrong about the existence of a god, but I am 100% CERTAIN that the Christian, Muslim, Hindu god(s) do not exist. There is no proof of their existence apart from a furry/fluffy feeling people get in their bellies about him.
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Just because someone considers themselves a Christian, a Catholic, Mormon, JW, Muslim, Hindu etc does not mean they believe and agree with everything that their faith teaches. texts,

    I'd ask then, what is the point of being in that faith? It's just cherry picking from what is supposed to be the divinely inspired word of God. By rejecting parts of the bible, for instance, that you disagree with, you are almost creating a new denomination yourself. Either it's all the word of God or it isn't - because where does the truth end and the falsehoods start? It all becomes a blur.
    CM Punk wrote: »
    One of the guys I carpool with is also a Christian and we have different views of potential life on other planets. It doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong.

    Well, it does mean that really. One of you IS wrong - but we just don't KNOW it yet. Because the scientific evidence has not yet been discovered for life on other planets, doesn't make one of those stances less true. Australia was still the biggest island on the planet even before humans discovered it. Our lack of knowledge did not make the fact untrue.

    CM Punk wrote: »
    Nobody has to believe, live and let live, peace to all :)

    Now that is a first class sentiment and I wholeheartedly agree. :)

    I would have no objection to any religion as long as they do not try to distort the facts of science, history etc to uphold their beliefs and indoctrinate school children with non-science, or impose their 'moral code' on the rest of society.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru

    The main reason that atheists attack or mock religion, with exceptions, is because of the insistence of faiths that their views, 'substantiated' only by their various 'holy' books, should be upheld in secular law, such as anti-homosexuality, abortion, teaching intelligent design in schools etc

    This cannot be tolerated.

    As you appear to be a 'moderate' atheist I can understand you having that view as you wouldn't be on the recieving end of some of the acid being spat out by some militant atheists. Their problem is they simply cannot tolerate people having views they do not agree with themselves, especially after being told their their beliefs are "wrong".
    I'm an atheist. Do I believe there is a god? No. Do I KNOW there is no god? Definitely not - but I don't believe that he holds form in the way that current religions present him. So I know I might be wrong about the existence of a god, but I am 100% CERTAIN that the Christian, Muslim, Hindu god(s) do not exist. There is no proof of their existence apart from a furry/fluffy feeling people get in their bellies about him.

    This is where most theological debates fall down. I understand that most atheists are of the view that they will not believe in something unless evidence is supplied. OK I get that and I obviously wouldn't criticise it however it show a misunderstanding of faith. Faith is something that has no evidence otherwise it can no longer be described as 'faith'. Again I understand someone not being able to get their head around the idea of relying on something that cannot be scientifically proven but again it's evidence vs. belief.
    I'd ask then, what is the point of being in that faith?

    Why not? People make life choices all the time, I'm not sure many get questioned for them all. It's possible someone may not agree with everything Catholicism teaches but are happy with most of it so they associate themselves with it.
    It's just cherry picking from what is supposed to be the divinely inspired word of God. By rejecting parts of the bible, for instance, that you disagree with, you are almost creating a new denomination yourself. Either it's all the word of God or it isn't - because where does the truth end and the falsehoods start? It all becomes a blur.

    I disagree with your use of the words "cherry-picking" and its potentially negative undertone - what I do is use context, something that Dawkins and co hate doing. For example I do not think slavery is or was a good thing *however* in biblical times it was a job for many people of the day. similar I suppose to bar work, waiting tables, shop work etc of today however when we talk about slavery these days we automatically conjour up images of people toiling in fields being whipped by their masters etc. I'm not saying that didn't happen in biblical times but any use of the word 'slavery' in the bible shouldn't automatically be taken in a cruel sense.

    Also with certain acts being punishable by stoning to death. I don't condone that obviously. But the bible was written in times when that was considered punishment for many 'crimes'. No I am not defending or justifying it but again giving it some context. Much of the bible was written given examples of how the world was back then.

    Also I believe God is infallible but man is - and the bible was written by man. This is why if I'm given a passage from it I try to look at the bigger picture rather than saying "Here, this line PROVES God is nasty" etc.

    Well, it does mean that really. One of you IS wrong - but we just don't KNOW it yet. Because the scientific evidence has not yet been discovered for life on other planets, doesn't make one of those stances less true. Australia was still the biggest island on the planet even before humans discovered it. Our lack of knowledge did not make the fact untrue.

    I'm talking morally - he and I won't have an arguement saying "I'm right and you're wrong".
    Now that is a first class sentiment and I wholeheartedly agree. :)

    Good!
    I would have no objection to any religion as long as they do not try to distort the facts of science, history etc to uphold their beliefs and indoctrinate school children with non-science, or impose their 'moral code' on the rest of society.

    To be honest I don't know of many denominations that actively try to distort facts or history on any large scale. Remember, one member of a beliefs system does not necessarily speak for all its followers. For example you're an atheist - should I assume that you're as arrogant and ignorant as Ricky Gervais? Of course not.

    'Imposing a moral code' is a tough one. Religious leaders can speak out about certain issues (as is their right) but that doesn't mean they are trying to impose it on society any more than Dawkins does when he speak out against religion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    As you appear to be a 'moderate' atheist I can understand you having that view as you wouldn't be on the recieving end of some of the acid being spat out by some militant atheists. Their problem is they simply cannot tolerate people having views they do not agree with themselves, especially after being told their their beliefs are "wrong".

    Thank you for your very well presented reply and I appreciate that you have not identified any tone in my writing as being antagonistic. :)

    I am, indeed, a moderate atheist whereby I only 'attack' religion where religious views, based on nothing more than 'faith', override the freedoms of others or, for instance, ignore scientific fact which sits uncomfortably with what they may believe. However, I do not attack religion for the sake of cheapo thrills. I am very pleased that people may take comfort in their faith - but it doesn't mean that they should impose their religious views on a secular society.

    Theists are up in arms about 'militant atheists' but for hundreds of years, atheists and other opposites to Christianity, have been persecuted, tortured and killed for thinking differently, even when they have been correct on matters such as science. There are plenty of horrid Christians on Twitter too, for example, that espouse hatred and death to atheists, even TODAY.
    CM Punk wrote: »

    This is where most theological debates fall down. I understand that most atheists are of the view that they will not believe in something unless evidence is supplied. OK I get that and I obviously wouldn't criticise it however it show a misunderstanding of faith. Faith is something that has no evidence otherwise it can no longer be described as 'faith'. Again I understand someone not being able to get their head around the idea of relying on something that cannot be scientifically proven but again it's evidence vs. belief.

    I come from a Christian upbringing and lived as a committed Christian up until my mid twenties, so I understand the meaning and importance of 'faith' and can get my head around evidence vs. belief. How I lost my faith/belief is a different story so I won't bore you with the details - unless you are specifically interested. :)

    Using your correct definition of faith ("Faith is something that has no evidence"), you worship in faith a god that to most of humanity on the planet, has made no impact in the misery of their lives. You're likely a Christian because you have a Christian background - yet other religions, many even older than Christianity, feel the same way about their faith as you do. Who is right and who is wrong?

    You may argue 'let them believe what they want because I know what I believe'. That's all well and good until your faith (i.e. lack of evidence) stops two people, who love each other, from living a full life because they happen to be of the same sex. You personally might agree that gay people ought to be allowed to have the same rights as heterosexuals ... but you're flying in the face of common Christian thought and the words of the Bible.

    CM Punk wrote: »
    Why not? People make life choices all the time, I'm not sure many get questioned for them all. It's possible someone may not agree with everything Catholicism teaches but are happy with most of it so they associate themselves with it.

    Because Catholic catechism clearly states and teaches how a true Catholic should think and act. If you disagree, you are not a true Catholic. All they are doing is appeasing their conscience about their faith by choosing to select and follow the bits that they like (hence the 'cherry-picking' allusion) and convincing themselves that they are 'still Catholic' to ensure eternal salvation.

    CM Punk wrote: »
    For example I do not think slavery is or was a good thing *however* in biblical times it was a job for many people of the day. similar I suppose to bar work, waiting tables, shop work etc of today however when we talk about slavery these days we automatically conjour up images of people toiling in fields being whipped by their masters etc. I'm not saying that didn't happen in biblical times but any use of the word 'slavery' in the bible shouldn't automatically be taken in a cruel sense.

    Also with certain acts being punishable by stoning to death. I don't condone that obviously. But the bible was written in times when that was considered punishment for many 'crimes'. No I am not defending or justifying it but again giving it some context. Much of the bible was written given examples of how the world was back then.

    So one might understand that God made himself only relevant to the past? How does an omnipotent, omnipresent deity (who knows what the future world will be like), not include moral judgements on such important things, like slavery?

    To me, it's a general cop-out to give an all-knowing and all-powerful God the ability to squirm his way out of proclaiming against such fundamental evil. Why did he not insist that slaves were freed? If slavery was acceptable in those days, it doesn't mean it's any less evil than slavery today.

    Referring to Islam, for example, does having sex with a 9 year old become acceptable because it was 'acceptable' back then? No. We are horrified of this - yet Muslims pardon Muhammed because it was the 'norm' back then. Likewise, if God's morality is eternal, he should have made clear moral judgements about slavery in the Bible.
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Also I believe God is infallible but man is - and the bible was written by man. This is why if I'm given a passage from it I try to look at the bigger picture rather than saying "Here, this line PROVES God is nasty" etc.

    How does one discern between what is man's word - and God's word? Jesus himself said that the Old Testament, with all the irregularities and contradictions we can read now, was to be upheld in every way. So Jesus thought the Old Testament was clearly God's word.

    In the New Testament, we have irregularities and contradictions too. Of course, in those days, most people were illiterate and so they could never read the writings themselves, but relied on patriarchal, powerful priests who had no inclination to change the status quo of their influence.

    Where does the truth start and the falsehoods end? Only two of the Gospels actually contain an account of Jesus' virgin birth ... so what happened to the story in the other two alleged eye-witness accounts? The virgin birth is critical to Christianity.

    However, ....

    I fear that I may SEEM like I am trying to 'convert' you and it's my fault that this conversation has digressed. I'm aplogise.

    Basically, the main gist of my message is that there are horrid atheists out there, as there are horrid Christians etc but I think 'attacks' on religion will decrease when religion steps back from dictating to the secular majority.

    I'll piss off now. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thank you for your very well presented reply and I appreciate that you have not identified any tone in my writing as being antagonistic. :)

    Welcome! I treat respect with respect :)
    I am, indeed, a moderate atheist whereby I only 'attack' religion where religious views, based on nothing more than 'faith', override the freedoms of others or, for instance, ignore scientific fact which sits uncomfortably with what they may believe. However, I do not attack religion for the sake of cheapo thrills. I am very pleased that people may take comfort in their faith - but it doesn't mean that they should impose their religious views on a secular society.

    Your approach is quite refreshing from that of some from recent years...
    Theists are up in arms about 'militant atheists' but for hundreds of years, atheists and other opposites to Christianity, have been persecuted, tortured and killed for thinking differently, even when they have been correct on matters such as science. There are plenty of horrid Christians on Twitter too, for example, that espouse hatred and death to atheists, even TODAY.

    That's absolutely true of course and cannot be denied by anyone with an ounce of self-respect. However I try to shy away from the "I'll treat them how they've treated us" notion. If someone (individual or a collective) behave in a repugnant manner then I'd rather shy away from lowering myself to their level or 'teaching them a lesson'. My 'favourite' militant anti-religionists are the ones who are tired of having religious views rammed down their throat yet think nothing of telling them "There is no God, you're all wrong" etc. The irony (not to mention extreme double standards) is delicious. I'm not knocking them for it as such, if Gervais, Dawkins etc want to act that way then I support them completely, as long as they acknowledge their double standards and hypocrisy.
    Using your correct definition of faith ("Faith is something that has no evidence"), you worship in faith a god that to most of humanity on the planet, has made no impact in the misery of their lives.

    I know Wikipedia isn't always a completely reliable source but from there...
    The CIA's World Factbook gives the world population as 7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 33.39% (of which Roman Catholic 18.85%, Protestant 8.15%, Orthodox 4.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.74%, Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01%. (2010 est.).

    I'd say a form of deity likely to have have had some kind of impact on most of the planet. Note that I'm not saying that's evidence of a deity's existence, just the impact.

    You're likely a Christian because you have a Christian background - yet other religions, many even older than Christianity, feel the same way about their faith as you do. Who is right and who is wrong?

    You know what they say about assumptions ;)

    In answer to your second point, in MY eyes then I am right, however that doesn't mean I have the right (or inclination) to tell others that their beliefs (or lack thereof) are wrong. My OH follows the Hindu faith - we get along just fine. I don't see part of following a faith being the need to tell others that they are wrong. If someone asks me with genuine interest (as opposed to the militant atheist tactic of using hidden questions in order to back someone in to a corner and mock) I'll be happy to answer but I don't approach anyone about it.
    You may argue 'let them believe what they want because I know what I believe'. That's all well and good until your faith (i.e. lack of evidence) stops two people, who love each other, from living a full life because they happen to be of the same sex. You personally might agree that gay people ought to be allowed to have the same rights as heterosexuals ... but you're flying in the face of common Christian thought and the words of the Bible.

    As far as I know I've not imposed on anybody's freedom (other than criminals but that's a different story). I'm not pro gay marriage or against it, I just don't have an opinion however if it affected someone close to me then that may well differ. Again it's down to context. The bible does not specifically state 2 men or 2 women cannot get married. It does state that marriage is between a man and a woman (as the original idea of marriage was to produce children) but that does not by default state that gay marriage is against God's law. That's not me 'cherry-picking' or anything, just using context and common sense where possible - I believe God would be aware that some couples are not biologically able to have children however during biblical times society was massively anti-gay which is why I feel it was written in that way.

    Interestingly enough, and to clarify a massive atheist misconception, the bible does NOT say gays should be stoned to death, killed, beaten up etc. What it speaks against is 'gay sex', and that's spoken of in the same tone as adulterous sex between straights. So to put it in context albeit as an extreme, a straight bloke who wanted to do another guy just to try it would, in biblical time if the letter of the law was followed, would have been punished in the same way as 2 practising homosexuals or a man and woman committing adultery.

    NOTE!! I am not trying to justify any of this, just providing a little clarity from the usual "God hates fags" crap.

    Because Catholic catechism clearly states and teaches how a true Catholic should think and act. If you disagree, you are not a true Catholic. All they are doing is appeasing their conscience about their faith by choosing to select and follow the bits that they like (hence the 'cherry-picking' allusion) and convincing themselves that they are 'still Catholic' to ensure eternal salvation.

    Not quite - Catholicism accepts moral failure which is why they offer 'confession' however I am otherwise greatly critical of Catholicism. To me it's like a Workingmen's Club, if you don't follow the rules laid down by the committee then you're out. That's not how I feel it should be. A Catholic church service tends to be very solumn, almost like a funeral. I don't get it, if you've been offered salvation (providing you believe in it of course) then shouldn't you be celebrating it? My church is a 'happy-clappy' type. Much more joyfull and dare I say it....fun?
    So one might understand that God made himself only relevant to the past? How does an omnipotent, omnipresent deity (who knows what the future world will be like), not include moral judgements on such important things, like slavery?

    Not really, God's law always has and always will apply but it was the bible was written in a time when society could be quite barbaric and excessively patriarchal, much more than could be said of now. One example of change is that the death penalty in most countries has been all been eradicated or rare.
    To me, it's a general cop-out to give an all-knowing and all-powerful God the ability to squirm his way out of proclaiming against such fundamental evil. Why did he not insist that slaves were freed? If slavery was acceptable in those days, it doesn't mean it's any less evil than slavery today.

    I think you've misunderstood what I said earlier - back in those days slavery didn't have the connotations it has today. Put simply, people like farm-hands, labourers, market-sellers, builders, 'butlers', cleaners, handymen, gardeners etc were all classed as 'slaves' as that was the word used to describe many manual workers. Again I stress I won't deny that many were used cruelly and inhumanely but that's not necessarily what the bible is referring to when that word crops up.
    Referring to Islam, for example, does having sex with a 9 year old become acceptable because it was 'acceptable' back then? No. We are horrified of this - yet Muslims pardon Muhammed because it was the 'norm' back then. Likewise, if God's morality is eternal, he should have made clear moral judgements about slavery in the Bible.

    Can't really answer that as I don't know much about Islam...
    How does one discern between what is man's word - and God's word? Jesus himself said that the Old Testament, with all the irregularities and contradictions we can read now, was to be upheld in every way. So Jesus thought the Old Testament was clearly God's word.

    In the New Testament, we have irregularities and contradictions too. Of course, in those days, most people were illiterate and so they could never read the writings themselves, but relied on patriarchal, powerful priests who had no inclination to change the status quo of their influence.

    I think you'll find that most (if not all) supposed 'contradictions' are based on someone 'cherry-picking' a passage out of context. What Jesus says in scripture wasn't really against what was attributed to God in the OT - but just put in a different way as it was apparent that man was generally ignoring the original messages. Incidentally whereas Jesus never said anything about gays, he seemed pretty much in favour of committed, loving monogomous relationship and to be honest that's the way I tend to lean as well.
    Where does the truth start and the falsehoods end? Only two of the Gospels actually contain an account of Jesus' virgin birth ... so what happened to the story in the other two alleged eye-witness accounts? The virgin birth is critical to Christianity.

    I'm not going to tell you because....a) I don't know, I just my commone sense and (this word again....) context, and b) I have no intentions of telling you or anyone else what to think about what is right/wrong in the bible. I may consider someothing to be right but there's no expectation for you to agree (or even care...).

    However, ....
    I fear that I may SEEM like I am trying to 'convert' you and it's my fault that this conversation has digressed. I'm aplogise.

    No need - You'd have to try a LOT harder than that ;)
    Basically, the main gist of my message is that there are horrid atheists out there, as there are horrid Christians etc but I think 'attacks' on religion will decrease when religion steps back from dictating to the secular majority.

    May I have a try of that? There are no bad religions, faiths or beliefs, just bad PEOPLE.
    I'll piss off now. :)

    Ok! Off ya piss :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Debate is wonderful - but I fear we may tire out fellow board users so I won't counter post .. :)
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Ok! Off ya piss :)

    Erm .. which way to the Gents? Lol!

    Have a great weekend. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If someone gets something good from religion and it adds something positive to their life, it can only be a good thing, they may not believe that Jonah lived in the mouth of a whale and take all things literal from the bible etc but who cares, I pray for a future where noone argues about religion and is just, nice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bettyboo wrote: »
    If someone gets something good from religion and it adds something positive to their life, it can only be a good thing, they may not believe that Jonah lived in the mouth of a whale and take all things literal from the bible etc but who cares, I pray for a future where noone argues about religion and is just, nice.

    I know. I'm not really religious at all but I like going to the C of E church here, especially when I'm homesick. I was brought up going to church every sunday and I find all the family words and hymns and practices really comforting, even if I don't really believe in a lot of it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bettyboo wrote: »
    I pray for a future where noone argues about religion and is just, nice.

    For the past 2000 years at least, prayer has been pretty inefficient. :(

    "Two working hands accomplishes much more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "New Atheists" are just the regular old atheists who can now, thanks to the sacrifices of past secularists, say what they think regarding religion. Unless they're a Danish cartoonist. Or a crazy Qu'ran burning Christian pastor. Or maybe a woman in a most Muslim majority country. Or anyone who publicly questions the canard "Islam is a region of peace". Or an author of fiction in the 80s.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "New Atheists" are just the regular old atheists who can now, thanks to the sacrifices of past secularists, say what they think regarding religion. Unless they're a Danish cartoonist. Or a crazy Qu'ran burning Christian pastor. Or maybe a woman in a most Muslim majority country. Or anyone who publicly questions the canard "Islam is a region of peace". Or an author of fiction in the 80s.

    :lol::d:lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    :lol::d:lol:

    I would assume that he's referring to people such as Dolet and Lyszczynski, who were killed for being atheists.

    Pre 1800s atheists were branded heretics and hounded as such by the likes of the Spanish Inquisition. To be accused of atheism was a charge that people felt the need to defend themselves against.

    So yes, there have been sacrifices and people brave enough to stand by their atheist stance until it became acceptable.

    There is a long, long history of religious nutbars attacking those who professed to not believe in a God. Starting with Socrates.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Precisely. A little history might benefit CM Punk - though there's plenty of theocracy to admonish if one takes a look around today.

    Organised religion hasn't modernised itself; it's been dragged kicking and screaming in the direction of modernity by secular societies evolving around it. Left to its own devices it hides child rapists. Which begs the question: who is it hiding them from? The secular and democratic societies in which it finds itself.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nobody will suggest that some people with faith have not caused suffering for some of those without it.

    Let's say the modern times, over the last 50 years, How much 'sacrifice' (as opposed to inconvenience) has atheism had to make?

    And are you seriously suggesting the mocking and insulting attitudes of "new atheism" justifies that?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes actually. Seeing as almost all suffering ever has been at the result of religion. It's hardly onerous to have to deal with people calling you a moron for having an imaginary friend.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Yes actually. Seeing as almost all suffering ever has been at the result of religion.

    Utter bullshit and typical 'new atheism' rhetoric. So no suffering has been brought on by greed, racism, politics etc?
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    It's hardly onerous to have to deal with people calling you a moron for having an imaginary friend.


    So rather than showing you're the better person by ignoring it you prefer to stoop down to the level of those from decades and centuries gone by? That's cool, your choice but at least acknowledge your hypocrisy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hypocrisy - The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behaviour does not conform; pretence.

    Also, I said ALMOST ALL.

    Maybe you should a) read more carefully and b) use words for which you know the meaning.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Hypocrisy - The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behaviour does not conform; pretence.

    Also, I said ALMOST ALL.

    Maybe you should a) read more carefully and b) use words for which you know the meaning.

    Thanks but I know the meaning of the word and despite my ADHD I can read pretty well. So let me throw that one back at you: "almost all". Care to quantify that? If you can't then would you agree the use of those words was at best unwise, at worst emotive?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, I wouldn't care to quantify it, it's empirical evidence, because history is a sense of perspective. I can think of plenty of wars that were the result of greed, but maybe the greed wouldn't have been so significant if monarchs hadn't worked on the premise of their own Divine right to rule, that lasted until the 1600s before it started to fall out of favour. Richard Dawkins says that, 'Religion causes wars by generating certainty.' and I personally agree

    However, there's always the crusades, slavery, burning heretics & homophobia that can be laid squarely at the feet of major organised religion without any realistic argument.

    With less certainty there's personal suffering in the form of guilt (from sin), fear of the afterlife, superstition, and prejudice against others.

    Religion has given very little good to the world, that which it has, are things that may not have existed in the first place without it.

    PS. Clearly you don't know what hypocrisy means, because I have never claimed to hold to any moral ground that wouldn't allow me to be mean to people I don't like. Frankly, there are people I don't think I'd cross the road to piss on if they were on fire because of the way they've treated me. My moral high ground is that I probably wouldn't have set them on fire in the first place.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Let's say the modern times, over the last 50 years, How much 'sacrifice' (as opposed to inconvenience) has atheism had to make?

    Kurt Westergaard and the 100 odd people killed in the rioting and embassy burnings because of a cartoon.

    There were multiple attempts to censor Jerry Springer the Opera, culminating in an appeal to the high court over blasphemy.
    CM Punk wrote: »
    And are you seriously suggesting the mocking and insulting attitudes of "new atheism" justifies that?

    So after centuries of killings, torture, oppression, and censorship you feel that being mocked is too heavy a price to pay?

    Atheists don't protest outside churches the way that some religious groups protest outside abortion clinics. Atheists don't protest outside Songs of Praise the way that groups protested Jerry Springer the Opera.

    Religious people are not some oppressed minority. They are the establishment and are not some precious resource that is immune to mocking.

    Believe what you want. Worship what you want. Just don't labour under the delusion that anyone has to respect your beliefs or that they can't be made fun of.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    No, I wouldn't care to quantify it, it's empirical evidence, because history is a sense of perspective. I can think of plenty of wars that were the result of greed, but maybe the greed wouldn't have been so significant if monarchs hadn't worked on the premise of their own Divine right to rule, that lasted until the 1600s before it started to fall out of favour. Richard Dawkins says that, 'Religion causes wars by generating certainty.' and I personally agree

    And I personally don't - religion doesn't cause wars. It may well be the excuse and used as a catalyst but religion has been the excuse just as much as greed, racism etc.

    Infinite wrote:
    Kurt Westergaard and the 100 odd people killed in the rioting and embassy burnings because of a cartoon.

    There were multiple attempts to censor Jerry Springer the Opera, culminating in an appeal to the high court over blasphemy.

    Hardly a sacrifice - I'm not justifying the actions of the protestors, personally I think they ought to lighten up. But a 'sacrifice'? No way. If you deliberately provoke someone with the intention of winding them up then you can't complain about the fall-out. This is why I believe the Westboro idiots are just that. They give us ALL a bad name because 'new atheism' dictates we all agree with them. Arse-gravy.
    Infinite wrote:
    So after centuries of killings, torture, oppression, and censorship you feel that being mocked is too heavy a price to pay?

    Yes. Why take the piss out of me and what I believe when I have no say in the actions committed by those born before me?
    Infinite wrote:
    Atheists don't protest outside churches the way that some religious groups protest outside abortion clinics. Atheists don't protest outside Songs of Praise the way that groups protested Jerry Springer the Opera.

    Christians don't set up twitter and facebook accounts purely to attack, threaten and take the piss out of those that don't agree with them.
    Infinite wrote:
    Believe what you want. Worship what you want. Just don't labour under the delusion that anyone has to respect your beliefs or that they can't be made fun of.

    I'm cool with that as long as you acknowledge the double standards of mocking me and my beliefs due to the actions of others when my beliefs have absolutely NO impact on your your family, your friends or your life in any way, shape or form.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Infinite. wrote: »
    Believe what you want. Worship what you want. Just don't labour under the delusion that anyone has to respect your beliefs or that they can't be made fun of.

    I think the problem is that sometimes there's a fine line between mocking a belief and undermining a person. You have the right to offend me, I have the right to find that annoying, or complain, or whatever. But when people use the beliefs of others to question their credibility (when I have time I'll look up that Dawkins tweet saying a journalist shouldn't be believed because he's a Muslim and thus accepts as truth that a prophet was raised into heaven on a winged horse) then you're on dodgy ground and it's intellectually dishonest to dismiss religious people as stupid.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    piccolo wrote: »
    I think the problem is that sometimes there's a fine line between mocking a belief and undermining a person. You have the right to offend me, I have the right to find that annoying, or complain, or whatever. But when people use the beliefs of others to question their credibility (when I have time I'll look up that Dawkins tweet saying a journalist shouldn't be believed because he's a Muslim and thus accepts as truth that a prophet was raised into heaven on a winged horse) then you're on dodgy ground and it's intellectually dishonest to dismiss religious people as stupid.

    This. Spot-on.

    Just to clarify, I have nothing against atheism (not that I'd expect to be taken seriously if I did), personally I couldn't care. I have nothing against gay marriage - my only moral standing on relationships is monogamy, truth, honesty and love - and I do NOT think that just because someone is religious that they're a good or better person than someone without. Do I think I'm a 'good' person? No way. Some atheists I know I consider to be 'better' people than me. And neither will I deny that faith, religion and beliefs have caused some atrocities over the years. But such trouble occurred long before 'religion'.

    What I object to is the type of atheism that either mocks religion purely because it's considered disagreeable or because of what happened 100s of years ago. I acknowledge it, where possible offer some kind of explanation (NOT excuse) for it but refuse to accept the arrogance of those who think they have the right to criticise me and and my faith because of it. I had no say in what happened so take your double standards elsewhere. Protest is fine (again, not that I expect anyone to care if I disagreed) as is healthy debate but mocking, attacking etc especially when one of your (not you personally) apparent bugbears about religion is those that evangelise and "try to ram their beliefs down my throat" is pure hypocrisy. Again I have nothing against that - as long as 'new atheism' types acknowledge it as such.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I promised to link to Dawkins' comment on Mehdi Hassan and the winged horse.

    Here is Dawkins' article that clarifies both what the tweet said and what he intended.

    As I said above, it is ok that he sees a paradox between what he thinks is a daft set of beliefs and the evidence that Mr. Hassan is an excellent journalist. But the way he expressed it on Twitter (in his own words), "sound[ed] horribly like a call for New Statesman to sack him, and it is not surprising that it was taken in that way and became controversial".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    piccolo wrote: »

    Here is Dawkins' article that clarifies both what the tweet said and what he intended.

    THAT is the attitude that pisses me-the f***-off and shows Dawkins for the type of person he really is. His fake veil of "honest debate through intellect" is a sham and is the type of 'new atheism' I can't stand.

    I've also experienced attitudes like that. "How can you take his views on life/parenting/science/drugs/politics/marriage/etc seriously? He's a Christian". Utter arse-gravy.

    Obviously I don't think all atheists have that view but many do and see nothing wrong with it. Delicious irony.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Hardly a sacrifice - I'm not justifying the actions of the protestors, personally I think they ought to lighten up. But a 'sacrifice'? No way. If you deliberately provoke someone with the intention of winding them up then you can't complain about the fall-out. This is why I believe the Westboro idiots are just that. They give us ALL a bad name because 'new atheism' dictates we all agree with them. Arse-gravy.

    You were the one who shifted the goal post to only include the last fifty years. I would say having to be under constant police protection for the rest of your life purely because of a drawing is very much a sacrifice. And it's still extreme censorship. Like wise, Stewart Lee had his ability to provide for his family and a lot of money taken from him because of a joke about Jesus. They made sacrifices in an attempt for prove that religion is absolutely something that can be joked about and not a special precious case.
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Yes. Why take the piss out of me and what I believe when I have no say in the actions committed by those born before me?

    You have chosen to believe. People are allowed to make fun of that. People take the piss out of everything. Why are your beliefs protected from that? Making fun of something has always been a way to rob it of power. Again, the various churches in this country are the establishment and have had power for centuries. They still have political influence. If it wasn't for the mocking of religion and standing against it then there would still be atheist being branded as heretics. It's the equivalent of someone breaking your windows and then launching into a sermon about how we should all respect people's property when they see you picking up a rock.
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Christians don't set up twitter and facebook accounts purely to attack, threaten and take the piss out of those that don't agree with them.

    Oh come on. We're also not talking about Christians exclusively.

    CM Punk wrote: »
    I'm cool with that as long as you acknowledge the double standards of mocking me and my beliefs due to the actions of others when my beliefs have absolutely NO impact on your your family, your friends or your life in any way, shape or form.

    It's not a double standard. It would be a double standard if I got offended because you made fun of me for being an atheist. When churches and religious pressure groups stop exerting an influence on politics, then I'll concede that people's beliefs don't impact on my life or my family. When men in funny hats stop using their beliefs as a way to affect the lives of those who are not involved with their church then I'll accept that beliefs have no influence.
    piccolo wrote: »
    I think the problem is that sometimes there's a fine line between mocking a belief and undermining a person. You have the right to offend me, I have the right to find that annoying, or complain, or whatever. But when people use the beliefs of others to question their credibility (when I have time I'll look up that Dawkins tweet saying a journalist shouldn't be believed because he's a Muslim and thus accepts as truth that a prophet was raised into heaven on a winged horse) then you're on dodgy ground and it's intellectually dishonest to dismiss religious people as stupid.

    Well yes, if you go down the path of "what would they know, they're a MORMON!" then you are a bit of a dick.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Infinite. wrote: »
    You were the one who shifted the goal post to only include the last fifty years. I would say having to be under constant police protection for the rest of your life purely because of a drawing is very much a sacrifice. And it's still extreme censorship. Like wise, Stewart Lee had his ability to provide for his family and a lot of money taken from him because of a joke about Jesus. They made sacrifices in an attempt for prove that religion is absolutely something that can be joked about and not a special precious case.

    I used the past 50 years as a reference purely because of how society has generally changed for the better in that time-frame. Did Lee make a joke as a 'sacrifice' or because he's a comedian and knew it would get publicity? I'm not saying he asked for it (certainly not) but again if you're going to provoke then regardless of whether the backlash is justified you cannot say you weren't prepared for it.
    Infinite. wrote: »
    You have chosen to believe. People are allowed to make fun of that. People take the piss out of everything. Why are your beliefs protected from that? Making fun of something has always been a way to rob it of power. Again, the various churches in this country are the establishment and have had power for centuries. They still have political influence. If it wasn't for the mocking of religion and standing against it then there would still be atheist being branded as heretics. It's the equivalent of someone breaking your windows and then launching into a sermon about how we should all respect people's property when they see you picking up a rock.

    You've missed the point. I'm not saying you (generically, not personally) shouldn't take the piss. Let me make this clear again, my objection is those that take the piss/attack/mock/whatever me and my beliefs because of what happened in the past and that I have no control over. If I have prevented any gay couples from getting married, gone across Muslim lands to reclaim them and kill along the way etc then yes, aim your sights at me. In fact if you can show where me and my beliefs have seriously infringed on anyone's life and rights then go right ahead (unless you believe my driving to church has added to pollution in the environment etc).
    Infinite. wrote: »
    Oh come on. We're also not talking about Christians exclusively.

    True but whereas many atheists use generalisations, I chose to stick to what I know. I don't know that much about other faiths which is why only refer to my own.
    Infinite. wrote: »
    It's not a double standard. It would be a double standard if I got offended because you made fun of me for being an atheist. When churches and religious pressure groups stop exerting an influence on politics, then I'll concede that people's beliefs don't impact on my life or my family. When men in funny hats stop using their beliefs as a way to affect the lives of those who are not involved with their church then I'll accept that beliefs have no influence.

    If you object to being approached on the street or being door-knocked by evangelists, whilst telling people online or whatever that there is no God, it's rubbish etc (which of course is your right) then yes, THAT is double standards. I've not tried to change or affect your life in any way. If you said to me that it's all BS and that I'm stupid to believe then yes, that would be a double standard as well.
    Infinite. wrote: »
    Well yes, if you go down the path of "what would they know, they're a MORMON!" then you are a bit of a dick.

    A bit of a Dick Dawkins, perhaps? ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CM Punk wrote: »
    Infinite wrote:
    Kurt Westergaard and the 100 odd people killed in the rioting and embassy burnings because of a cartoon.

    There were multiple attempts to censor Jerry Springer the Opera, culminating in an appeal to the high court over blasphemy.

    Hardly a sacrifice - I'm not justifying the actions of the protestors, personally I think they ought to lighten up. But a 'sacrifice'? No way. If you deliberately provoke someone with the intention of winding them up then you can't complain about the fall-out. This is why I believe the Westboro idiots are just that. They give us ALL a bad name because 'new atheism' dictates we all agree with them. Arse-gravy.

    This is where you've had you moral intuitions completely destroyed. You think the response to the killing of innocent civilians - for this is what the embassy workers were - due to a free press in a secular and democratic nation publishing a cartoon, is to call for the murderers to 'lighten up'? You think a cartoon is a provocation to murder? You've lost your moral marbles.
Sign In or Register to comment.