[Closed] Archbishop Rowan Williams

Oxfam: Oxfam originated as a church affiliated food aid program in Melbourne.

Save the Children: Historians have since connected the overwhelming success of Save Our Children with the organization of conservative Christian participation in political processes

I will give you the Red Cross, as even though a lot of founders (and funders) were staunch Christians, they understood that the organisation needed to be politically, nationality and religiously independent in order to function effectively.

Oxfam was originally a Quaker organisation, and from Oxford.
[b]Ox[/b]ford Committee for [b]Fam[/b]ine Relief

Oxfam invented oats?

Yeah you can provide extreme examples, but the majority of religious people have nothing to do with that. I dunno, I'm not saying I'm sure about it - I just wonder what is there left in society that goes against the might of advertising, big business etc that encourages us to be selfish materialistic arseholes.

It’s easy ([i]very, very[/i] easy) to pick holes in the Christian doctrine, and I’m sure it’s the same in other religions. There are so many inconsistencies and contradictions that anyone who’s a believer should be seriously questioning what it is that they purport to support.

The vast majority of people who call themselves Christians and who attend church regularly have no real idea about their own religion. They go along with the idea that stealing from people is bad, being nasty is, y’know, not really a good idea, and that we should probably give money to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

But that’s not specific to Christianity (other religions are available). It’s just basic humanity. Look at what Leviticus says, for example, and ask Christians to support that, and they’d almost all refuse to. But there it is, part of your religion. Right there, it states, categorically, that homosexuality is banned, and that gays should be put to death. It also states that Christians shouldn’t eat pork or shellfish, that you can keep slaves....lots of other stuff that virtually no-one whould go along with. So do you just accept the bits you like and say that the rest is wrong? If you take the stance that it was interpreted by men, and that times have changed, then you’ve got a problem as well, because that means that anything's up for grabs.

Ask most Christians – churchgoing Christians – to name you the Ten Commandments, and they’d typically get about half. A survey I saw maybe a decade ago reckoned that only around 25% of Christian clergy could name them all.

So what you have is an Archbishop criticising a government, based on the fact that he’s got 2-3m supporters, despite the fact that 90+% of said supporters have little real idea of what their religion really stands for. Other than ‘Jesus was a kinda nice guy’.

Not that I disagree with him, but I don't think his views should hold any more sway than anyone else

I agree his views shouldn't hold any more sway than any other head of voluntarily charitable organisation with over 3 million active members, which owns large chunks of the UKs infrastructure, national monuments and countryside.

richc - Member

"Seem to". Good enough for me.

Ah, the typical Atheist argument of 'prove it'.

I am not sure if its just me but it just seem to be used to stifle discussion/action to me, as when you have to prove and qualify everything nothing ever happens .... Seems to be the ideal religion for apathetic's or lawyers to me

😆

Facts stifle debate? Brilliant.

Oxfam: Oxfam originated as a church affiliated food aid program in Melbourne.

Not according to this

which state that it was fouding in the UK in 1942 and has no religious affiliations.

Save the Children: Historians have since connected the overwhelming success of Save Our Children with the organization of conservative Christian participation in political processes

Part of the Save the Children websiste states that they have no religious affiliation

http://www.savethechildren.net/alliance/about_us/1919_supporters.html?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=500&width=700

What historians have connected that charity to is irrelevant, they have no religious affiliation.

I will give you the Red Cross,

how very gracious of you.

Ah, the typical Atheist argument of 'prove it'.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I am not sure if its just me but it just seem to be used to stifle discussion/action to me, as when you have to prove and qualify everything nothing ever happens

I think it's just you, unless of course you think that all the advancements made in science all of which will have been suject to the statement 'prove it' didn't happen.

Demanding unquantifiable or available facts do, yes, as it falls back to two people shouting 'prove it' at each other.

Life ain't black and white, and if you have to absolutely define everything before you will start an intelligent conversation you ain't going to be saying much.

For example:

Person 1: Good morning.
Person 2: Prove it.

which state that it was fouding in the UK in 1942 and has no religious affiliations

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get_involved/work_with_us/trustees/history_of_oxfam.html

[img] [/img]

oh [i]Rowan[/i] Williams...

[img] [/img]
oh Rowan Williams...

Gary Streeter described Williams' piece in the New Statesman as a "party political rant".

Does anyone remember if The Archbishop ranted at the last government in this way? (hint: oh yes he did) If so, what 'party' is he ranting for? Try as I might I can't reconcile very many conventional C of E values with NuLab either, nor with much of what they did in government. 😕

Oxfam link:> http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get_involved/work_with_us/trustees/history_of_oxfam.html
/p>

Extract: Members of the Society of Friends (the Quakers) were to play a significant part in Oxfam’s development.

A lot of these Charities have to prove independence in order to be effective, hence breaking ties with any Belief / Country or Ideology.

However to disregard the influence of Religion on why they were created in the first place seem naive especially considering the strong beliefs of the founding members, in an ideal world, leaders of oppressive regimes wouldn't care who is helping them, and what they believe in. However we don't so these organisations need to be independent, in order to help as many people as they can.

My argument, against the doing nothing unless you prove it first applies to Science as well, for example we known how to use Quantum Mechanics to navigate submarines and create microchips however Science cannot 'prove' how it works, they just know it does.

I seem to recall that beardy had a thing or two to say about Iraq to Blair.

At least he's consistent, and it has to be said, bang on on both counts.

Anyone who's prepared to use his position to challenge either of those monumentally arrogant, power-crazed loons is alright by me

Life ain't black and white, and if you have to absolutely define everything before you will start an intelligent conversation you ain't going to be saying much.

For example:

Person 1: Good morning.
Person 2: Prove it.

That has to be the most laughably weak strawman argument I have ever come across. No really well done on that.

Prove it

Prove it

Ah, the typical Atheist argument of 'prove it'.
You say that like it's a bad thing.

Bad? Arguable. It is hideously limited though.

The 'prove it' brigade are like those people who always go out to the same restaurant and always order the same dish...

molgrips - Member

Ah, the typical Atheist argument of 'prove it'.
You say that like it's a bad thing.

Bad? Arguable. It is hideously limited though.

The 'prove it' brigade are like those people who always go out to the same restaurant and always order the same dish...

Could you expand on both points please?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Oh..... 😳

It is hideously limited though.

Is it? In what way do you find it limiting?

It was quite effective in demonstrating that Oxfam didn't originate in Melbourne.

Extract: Members of the Society of Friends (the Quakers) were to play a significant part in Oxfam’s development.

Oh and that's cherry picking quotations too. If you read the whole of that part of the website you will find that [i]some[/i] of the founding memebers seem to have clear religious affiliations but the same cannot be said about all of them. To use this as part of an argument to demonstrate that it has it's foundations in religion is flawed.

Prove it

Prove it

Prove what exactly? Your inability to form or respond appropriately to reasoned arguments? You're doing a prefectly good of that, you really don't need any help from me.

richc - Member
No but they seem to fund a hell of a lot more aid charities than any [b]Atheist organisations[/b].

Atheist organisations?

Have a flick through the local paper and you'll see plenty of people raising money for charity who aren't doing it because of religious belief OR because they belong to these mystical atheist organisations.

Perhaps when I raised money for TUSK last year, I should have nailed my colours to the mast and announced that I was doing it because of my membership of an atheist organisation?

Is my workplace an atheist organisation? I'd guess that it is because it's not a religious organisation. There's plenty of money raised there.

You know those 1000s of people who run the London Marathon every year - how many are doing it through a religious group and how many through 'atheist organisations'?

Do you need me to carry on to see how ridiculous your argument is?

You don't need to prove or disprove this - just open your eyes.

By the way atheist has a small A for very obvious reasons.

Prove what exactly? Your inability to form or respond appropriately to reasoned arguments? You're doing a prefectly good of that, you really don't need any help from me.

Well at least you finally got my point about about how stupid the 'Prove It' response is, so in answer to your previous comment: 'You say that like it's a bad thing' we seem to agree that answering 'Prove it' to anything/everything is a stupid response.

Could you expand on both points please?

A philosophy based on evidence and proof is only one possible way of thinking.

There are others.

It's like asking someone what the best film in the world is.

[img] [/img]

Oh.. Rowan [i]Williams[/i]

Ah, the typical Atheist argument of 'prove it'.

For the 100000th time belief in God is not the same thing as the belief in biblical inerrancy.

makes more sense [b]to me[/b] than having faith.

FTFY.

'You say that like it's a bad thing' we seem to agree that answering 'Prove it' to anything/everything is a stupid response.

Well you might as well have said responding with "belgium" (apologies to Douglas Adams) to anything someone says is a stupid response. You made a specific claim (in fact you have made several falsifiable (sp) statements on this thread without any proof) and in that situation it is perfectly resonable to reply with "prove it". Instead of entering into an actual debate and backing up your claim, you insisted on putting up a series of strawman arguments in a rather weak attempt to support your position.

Incidently it isn't an athiest position to ask for claims to be proven, it's more of a rationalist position. There are many irrational athiests just as there are rational thiests. Sadly on the basis of what you have posted here you certinaly don't belong to the latter group.

Nothing wrong with faith in my opinion, life without a belief in anything (and I don't just mean god) would be a pretty miserable existence as there are only two facts that everyone agrees on. 1. you were born, and 2. you will die. Everything else is a bun fight.

My argument/irritation with the 'Prove it' brigade, is unless you can prove it without a shadow of a doubt, then it doesn't exist. Which is stupid as we know about lots of things that we cannot prove (yet).

Finally; I thought that most Religions (bar the nutters, and both sides have plenty of loony's) all agree with the Theory of evolution, geological record etc. The bit where it gets interesting is what started it all, as I said earlier, if we are random, where is everyone else? and that doesn't even address the chicken and egg dilemma of DNA which came first the proteins or nucleic acids.

Ask most Christians – churchgoing Christians – to name you the Ten Commandments, and they’d typically get about half. A survey I saw maybe a decade ago reckoned that only around 25% of Christian clergy could name them all.

In all fairness the 10 commandments are judaism not Christianity. Christianity still thinks the Old testament is important but that the new testament has replaced it. This is the closest in the new testaments I reckon :

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." [Matt22:37-40]

Jesus(ie Christianity) was nt all that big on commandments to be fair ie

"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27)

Also in response to the first point I reckon most Jews probably could recite the ten commandments. Both Jews and Muslims are very keen on learning the law/bible/quran, Christianity from its birth was very much more about the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. So its probably a good thing that those Christains you mention earlier cant recite the 10 commandments.

I rode through Parliment Sq t'other day, still have a few tents there with protesters in scattered around. No one was awake though, does that mean they don't have an opinion or the right to be heard?
Archy B simply placed a moral argument in front of some blunted instruments of our civic society that fail to understand what it actually is that the people want, and need, in this ere' society of ours.

My argument/irritation with the 'Prove it' brigade, is unless you can prove it without a shadow of a doubt, then it doesn't exist.

What annoys me about them is that they seem to think that proof is the only thing that should be important.

Also in response to the first point I reckon most Jews probably could recite the ten commandments. Both Jews and Muslims are very keen on learning the law/bible/quran, Christianity from its birth was very much more about the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. So its probably a good thing that those Christains you mention earlier cant recite the 10 commandments

Whoah, steady on! You're getting dangerously close to an open minded and intelligent assessment of the situation there!

My argument/irritation with the 'Prove it' brigade, is unless you can prove it without a shadow of a doubt, then it doesn't exist. Which is stupid as we know about lots of things that we cannot prove (yet).

I've never met anyone with that sort of attitude and you were the only one on this thread that presented this as a view point. All you appear to do whenever your statements are challenged is to change the topic and ignore legitamte criticism.

The bit where it gets interesting is what started it all, as I said earlier, if we are random, where is everyone else?

Why does something (or someone) have to have started it all? Just because something is improbable doesn't make it impossible. If by everyone else you mean life on other planets then ffs give us a chance. We've only been going into space for 50 years and the universe is a pretty big place.

and that doesn't even address the chicken and egg dilemma of DNA which came first the proteins or nucleic acids.

I have no idea. But just because I don't know it doesn't make it unknowable and doesn't require the invention of a supernatural being. Besides even if you do invoke a supernatural being there remains the question how that being was created. The only two answers to that question that I've come across are "they always existed" (a cop out) or the equivalent of "turtles all the way down" which is nonsensical.

Christianity from its birth was very much more about the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. So its probably a good thing that those Christains you mention earlier cant recite the 10 commandments

Sounds more like post hoc rationalisation to me.

My argument/irritation with the 'Prove it' brigade, is unless you can prove it without a shadow of a doubt, then it doesn't exist. Which is stupid as we know about lots of things that we cannot prove (yet)

Thats really not true most rational people realise that we don't know every thing. We use evidence to to home in on the truth at the moment that truth is changing all the time. The idea is to build up evidence and get closer to the truth.

What rational people don't do is decide something is true because of a "feeling" or because they like the sound of it. There is no verifiable evidence of the existence of a god NONE. In the whole history of mankind no one has been able to provide a shred of verifiable evidence. That is why rational people dismiss god. On the other hand we may be way off with the big bang theory but at least there is some verifiable evidence that supports it (galaxy's moving away from each other for one) in the future evidence my refute it then we will use that to come up with another theory and if that theory says god created the universe then I will kneel in the pew on Sunday with the rest of the congregation. Until then I will ride my bike 🙂

Christianity still thinks the Old testament is important but that the new testament has replaced it.

That's one of the more sweeping statements I've heard. And there are many millions of Christians who'd completely disagree with your assertion.

Hi. Sorry I'm late. I wasn't going to join in, but people are still saying things like:

if we are just a random occurrence as Atheists think

which is untrue twice.

1: Evolution is not "random".

2: Atheists do not think that it is.

And, let's not pick on xtianity, that's just bullying.

We should remember that ALL religions are equally ridiculous. 🙂

The only two answers to that question that I've come across are "they always existed" (a cop out) or the equivalent of "turtles all the way down" which is nonsensical

I agree with this, but the same argument seems to make sense for a non-thestic view to me.

Not to sure what the latest thinking is on the start of everything but I remember reading something in this book ->

[url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Never-Ending-Days-Being-Dead/dp/057122055X ]click here[/url]

About the reason that there is something rather than nothing is because it is because given infintite time(except there was no time before the big band obviously) and fluctuations in an empty void it is likely that is more energetically stable to have something rather than nothing hence something becomes into existences.

But it just seems to be the same arugment to me.

What was their before the world ? An empty space slow collecting enough material in the solar system to form a planet. What was there before the solar system ? A high density glump of matter left over from the irregularities of the big band. What was there before the big bang ? A possibly another big bang possibly an empty void with random fluctuations that meant that something must exist. What was there before the void, hmm we dont know yet but its stuff all the way back.

At the moment I just cant comprehend this stuff and frankly a god is a good as explanation as any. In that I cant understand it.

At the moment I just cant comprehend this stuff and frankly a god is a good as explanation as any

"We do not know what existed, if anything, before the big bang".

"Complexity is evolved from simplicity".

You find these things hard to understand? So hard, it seems, that you prefer to ascribe the actions of a mysterious invisible fairy to it...

Whilst I think of it, and as a resource to help any struggling like "scu98rkr", I offer the following encouragement - atheism has become globally represented...

Perhaps to some people that we are here, that is proof enough that there is something else.

Science doesn't know how we are here, and if we are random (evolution isn't random, the creation of DNA might have been) why it hasn't happened elsewhere that we can detect.

Also as far as rationality, the world isn't rational so why do you think that dealing with it in a rational way, would make it make any sense? Have you read into quantum physics? if not have a quick read about quantum tunnelling and the zeno effect, that's not rational or possible according to classic physics but it happens and we don't know why.

And, let's not pick on xtianity, that's just bullying.

We should remember that ALL religions are equally ridiculous

I completely agree - I know only one religion, however, so I can only comment on theat one. And I reserve the same level of scepticism for those who worship at the shrine of moly-coagulated uni-striped oxyacetylene-coated speaker cable as I do for any other religion.

I suppose I''ll have to say it again, for the hard of reading:

Evolution is not random. It is also a demonstrable fact.

Perhaps to some people that we are here, that is proof enough that there is something else.

I see. A teapot is proof that there are uncorns. Genius.

Science doesn't know how we are here

Yes it does. See above.