If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Let's just jump in with both feet eh? Much easier.
I was referring to the Jerry Springer opera. The death of those that died in the riots about the cartoon is inexcusable. But to knock Islam in general for it is also inexcusable. By all means attack those responsible for the deaths and violence (in fact I'd join you) but the generalisations that New Atheism is so fond of is never going to be a good thing and is simply lazy.
In any case I would still say that those 'offended' by the cartoons ought to have lightened up. It was designed to provoke a reaction and they played right in to the artist's plans. The better option would have been to retain a dignified silence.
That's not a trick question, I just want to see if I have the general gist of it. Not judging or anything, it's a free world etc.
I’m not against religions, per se. I’m against bad ideology that leads to suffering. And religion, both in the past and present, fulfils that criteria.
That sort of criticism I can get along with, although I disagree with the sentiment. Religion *can* fulfill that criteria but so can bad politics etc.
My understanding is that Islam gets such a bad name due to it being prevalent in third-world and developing countries that have always had a broken and often-considered barbaric and lawless society. Britain, on the whole is free from such extremism on such a large scale. My 3 years living in Leicester taught me that the vast majority of Islamics had a live and let live attitude. Nobody tried to convert me, give me hassle or threaten a jihad on my lily-white arse.
Certainly the 20th century and the oil rush hasn't been kind to the middle east.
If someone's criticism is that a particular religion has been slow in adapting to the times then I'd agree there's a valid case for that. Again I can only speak with any kind of authority about Christianity so that's what I'll focus on: our lot may well have been slow to adapt however this has changed in the past few decades. OK I'll agree that any change has been slow but there is a definite 'revolution' going on. Some denominations are rigid in not permitting gay marriage, women priests etc for example. OK that doesn't reflect society today however many ARE moving in that direction. Again, it can be argued that such change is very slow as we're not there yet but if you consider how staunch these denominations were against such change in the past, the fact many are closer to allowing it is indicative of a modernisation-of-sorts. Sadly it is VERY slow but they're getting there.
I've never heard an atheist argue that all religious folk are evil or dangerous or likely to explode themselves on public transport. It's patently obvious this isn't the case. But I'd argue that the moderate religious folk are having to ignore vast swathes of their religious texts and preachings in order to be moderate. I've read the religious texts. They're not paragons of pacifism and compassion; they have an unhealthy fixation with various situations you should commit murder for other people's perceived religious transgressions.
However put in to context, stoning to death was the punishment for many crimes of that time. About other cultures, the Romans used fear of death as their punishment, it was quite widespread at the time.
Note that I'm not saying not being a virgin on the wedding night is acceptable excuse for any sort of punishment, or that death by stoning is by any way acceptable. But it's another example where atheists cherry-pick sections of the bible without context.
And given that the Bible, an allegedly divinely-inspired text, doesn't stand out from the morality of its day, and is often found advocating far worse morality than was contemporarily available, why on Earth should I - or anyone else for that matter - take anything it says seriously? Let alone start to embark on the project of ordering my life around it.
However, if what you mean by 'context' is 'here's a book from a barbarous dessert tribe that's full of barbarism' then I agree. That is the context in which this, at best, very ordinary, and at worst, terrifyingly sadist, book was crafted.
I'll play along. Scripture at the time decreed that her not being a virgin on her wedding night was a sin/crime. Society at the time (independent of religion) decided that the punishment for many crimes was stoning to death.
Look, if some atheists have the attitude of "THIS is why your beliefs are wrong and MINE are right" then all the power to them - but I don't work that way. You're asking me to somehow make the bible more agreeable to you and I refuse on two counts. 1) why the hell should I? I'm not telling you what you or anyone else should believe. I offer explanations, not excuses. if you or anyone else won't accept them then I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, and 2) you've clearly already made up your mind about religion, if I was the type to try to impose my beliefs on you then I'd be wasting my time.
The whole point of my participating in this thread was not to tell anyone "No, your views are wrong". I'll leave that to the anti-religionists, all the power to them. What I do is point out where "new atheism" has double standards and is no better or worse than the evangelicals it claims to despise.
Wrong. Scripture explicitly says she should be stoned to death
Polite response, let's aim it back at you.
Wrong. Stoning to death at the time was considered by society to be punishment for certain crimes. Thus was included in scripture.
Do you still mug old ladies? (also I object to you trying to push your beliefs on me, please could you do that elsewhere, thanks)
If you are picking and choosing (as a Christian) from the Bible, because some of it's right and some of it's wrong (or true and not true) you are exactly the same as an atheist with humanist morals. At least atheists are brave enough to admit we cherry pick our morals.
Whilst acknowledging that the UK doesn't have (and never had) a 'right of free speech', I agree with your sentiment and hope you apply it should you ever feel annoyed at someone professing their religious beliefs in public.
Your right to believe that, I'm not knocking you for it, that's between you and God.
I bet that gives you enormous satisfaction. I have never claimed otherwise that some of Christianity requires modernisation and some of the 'old ideals' are out-dated. The difference is that I'm able to STFU about it.
If you want to "STFU" about it, feel free, this whole thread is about beliefs, and the forum is about debate. Frankly I am pretty satisfied with my religious/irreligious/a-religious position, mainly because it makes it super easy to changed my mind based on scientific evidence.
ETA: Just so you know, UK is under the human rights act, and article 10 defends freedom of expression.
I'm pleased for you.
Right. You go on Twitter and exercise your 'freedom of expression' about how you "know" that Rolf Harris is guilty of all the allegations made about him as see how far that freedom gets you.
In fact why not go one better - why not tell the world on Twitter that you "know" Mark Bridger is guilty of the murder of April Jones then email the judge of the ongoing case a link to it. Freedom of speech, right?
Do they? If you admit you cherry-pick your morals, that negates any basis for your morality beyond "coz I think so". More sophisticated athiests tend to argue their morality has an inherent, universal logic...