[Closed] Creationist religious nutjob on R4 "One to One 9.30am"

I know of at least on deputy head of catholic school who is gay and lives with another woman. They were probably the same/similar generation to your aunt.

I genuinely despise the church's attitude towards homosexuality and predjudice, but as I'm sure you're aware what happens 'on the ground' sometimes bears little relation to the official line.

Another example of believers not [i]really[/i] believing? At least [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church ]fundamentalists[/url] have the courage of their convictions? 😉

TuckerUK - Member
Just had a skim, and someone posted (along the lines of ) 'Religion, give it a try, what's to lose?'

Well a fair bit actually. I don't support homophobia, child genital mutilation, the suppression of females, I didn't think much of Hitler, I don't agree with that bloke who's top banana of that Christian church banning contraception so leading to millions dying of AIDS...and all of these I'd be supporting if I joined up.

I'll quote Steven Weinberg "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.”

Well I don't support a lot of that either, nor do I support popular atheist politically correct views, the promotion of 'do whatever thou wilt being the whole of the law' to quote a popular satanist view from the thirties and forties, nor do I support the active promotion of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, or free sex for everyone in the classroom a la female teacher sacked just recently, each to our own, but it ducks the point I'm making, which is being an Atheist is just as bad as being a God botherer to those of us who really could give a **** about what you are or think and just want to get on with our lives without having any of it thrust down our throats, or our kids bought up to some artificially made up set of values to suit current trends and fads.
The Christian Religion for all it's faults tells a fairy tale like Father Christmas to kids to give a reasonable set of guidelines by which to conduct yourself, which as soon as you're old enough you can choose as most of us do, to totally ignore.
Islam on the other hand is a far more dangerous outfit and should be fought, not taught at every turn (my opinion sorry you won't change it by arguing with me).
Atheism is total bollox and achieves nothing, so is no more than pointless posturing on behalf of pseuds, who gives a **** if you don't believe anything, we don't care what you think.

Agnosticism as I said is what we all are simply because we don't know, no-one knows how can they we don't really even know what gravity really is or how electricity is generated by magnetism, what force gives that power exactly?

All are beliefs to a degree, but only the latter has any logic to get you through all this, so wait and see, sooner or later we're all going to find out, or not.

Buddism by the way is a branch of the Hindu religion which if you had to pick one would probably be my choice being as all encompassing as it is and accepting.

The Christian Religion for all it's faults tells a fairy tale like Father Christmas to kids to give a reasonable set of guidelines by which to conduct yourself

Drown animals who don't do as they're told, slavery is ok, stone your daughter to death if she won't marry her racist.

Good people were banned for less argumentative behaviour than this thread.

Sad, really.

Lots of churchgoing athiests of that generation Mike.
Breaking social taboos wasn't as easy.

They both temporarily moved to New Zealand in the 50's - my aunt wrote to her sister to describe a party they had been to and the different nationalities of guests they'd met.
She received a reply imploring her to come home asap 😀 .

I genuinely despise the church's attitude towards homosexuality and predjudice, but as I'm sure you're aware what happens 'on the ground' sometimes bears little relation to the official line.

And what the official line is is often different than what appears in the dail mail. Remember that the vote on women bishops wasn't defeated by the 'officials' of the church who were very much in favour but rather by the house of laity (spelling?) who are selected from amongst the 'ordinary' members of the church and are meant to represent them but rarely do.

Keep it up, I like the way this is all going now.

nor do I support popular atheist politically correct views,

There's no such thing "atheist politically correct views," just people's politically correct views. Atheism isn't a political party.

nor do I support the active promotion of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice,

There is no "active promotion of homosexuality." No-one is going around shouting "have you tried being gay? It's ace, join us!"

Also, it is not a lifestyle choice, any more than being male or brown is.

being an Atheist is just as bad as being a God botherer to those of us who really could give a **** about what you are or think and just want to get on with our lives without having any of it thrust down our throats

No-one thrust this thread down your throat, you actively chose to read it.

which as soon as you're old enough you can choose as most of us do, to totally ignore.

Really? That kid that died recently in the UK from having his foreskin hacked off at his Christian parents request can chose when he's old enough?

All are beliefs to a degree...

Atheism is not a belief (to [u]any[/u] degree), it's the polar opposite.

CaptainFlashheart - Member

Good people were banned for less argumentative behaviour than this thread.

Sad, really.

Grow up and stop behaving like a petulant child.

Oooh, touchy. 🙂

Grow up and stop behaving like a petulant child.

+1 This thread has been far from argumentative, especially considering the emotive topic. Even Mr W has been relatively unargumentative 🙂

Also, did CFH just question a moderation decision? 😉

You were banned for acting like this:

as far as I'm aware.

Complain to the mods if you have a problem instead of coming on here and taking it out on others.

Was I referring to me being banned? No. Just that this topic has been hammered over so often it's rather dull, IMHO. I assume I am allowed to make such a comment. It's dull. You may disagree, but I wanted to state my opinion.

igrf - Member

All are beliefs to a degree

Atheism is a belief in the same way that not throwing a javelin is a sport.

I've just had a word with God and he reckons this thread has some life left in it yet

😀

It has been hammered over, but has the Agnostic view ever been fundamentally hammered home as I'm trying to do, sorry if that last post came over ranty it wasn't intended to, but I'm just trying to illustrate that to some the Atheist view is equally as boring as that of God Botherers.

It's Jews by the way that insist on circumcision not Christians.

I still see this as a well humoured discussion hence joining albeit late in the thread.

Was I referring to me being banned? No. Just that this topic has been hammered over so often it's rather dull, IMHO. I assume I am allowed to make such a comment. It's dull. You may disagree, but I wanted to state my opinion.

That's your belief 😆

😆 500!

I'm just trying to illustrate that to some the Atheist view is equally as boring as that of God Botherers.

And? People aren't atheists because they think it'll interest people. You can be as bored by it as you like, no skin off our noses.

It's Jews by the way that insist on circumcision not Christians.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20503660 ]And Nigerian Christians, it would seem[/url]. How very sad 🙁

Was I referring to me being banned? No. Just that this topic has been hammered over so often it's rather dull, IMHO.

It has, but rarely has it being as civilised and open a discussion as this, I think this discussion has already got further than any before. We may even get to the Gnostic Heresy with a bad God!

has the Agnostic view ever been fundamentally hammered home as I'm trying to do

I think it [i]has[/i] been discussed earlier. To add another quote:

"I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

Hence, Dawkins' agnostic "sliding scale" discussed earlier.

Apologies to Cougar and any others. The more vocal atheists would hold to a mechanistic view. I shouldn't have assumed all on this thread would as well. Given the dozen or so pages mostly ridiculing belief in the supernatural you'll have to forgive me for being surprised at your willingness to accept the possibility of "more."

I'm sometimes tempted to have a chat with the religious door-knockers but always think better of it and tell them that I've got my own beliefs thank you very much. Anyone ever had a proper chat with them without succumbing to insults or shoving them out of the door? I think I would struggle to hold myself together but it would be interesting. Think I'll probably just stick to reading threads like these though...

It's Jews by the way that insist on circumcision not Christians.

Oh dear. You need to do some more research. Ever wondered why genital mutilation is so widespread in the less educated parts of the US? The same parts that are deeply religious? Christianity has been promoting genital mutilation far and wide.

Well a fair bit actually. I don't support homophobia, child genital mutilation, the suppression of females, I didn't think much of Hitler, I don't agree with that bloke who's top banana of that Christian church banning contraception so leading to millions dying of AIDS...and all of these I'd be supporting if I joined up.

Oh dear, so many misconceptions here.

didn't think much of Hitler

Can you think of any religion which perhaps might not have been so keen on Hitler either? Clue: It's one of the monotheistic ones.

I don't agree with that bloke who's top banana of that Christian church banning contraception so leading to millions dying of AIDS

Are you conflating Catholicism and Christianity? Also there is no evidential link between the catholic teaching on contraception and the incidence of Aids, in Africa or anywhere else.
I also assume you must then approve of the church's teaching against adultery and sex outside of marriage which would greatly reduce the incidence of Aids in Africa, if followed?

Christianity has been promoting genital mutilation far and wide.

Show us!

Read page one, read a bit in the middle, read this page. Do we know the answer yet?
Perhaps someone could do an excel table possibly with a chart.

"I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God.

But no one can prove there isn't an elephant that turns pink and flies around in circles but only when not being watched or recorded!

Being unable to prove something doesn't exists does not in any way shape or form give support for that thing.

Another question folks. I don't believe in God as described in the bible, in fact I don't believe in anything much, except that we should all be jolly nice to each other. However, I do feel slightly uncomfortable and vaguely guilty by saying that. There is part of me that feels wrong for not believing. Is this feeling what gets people going, or keeps them going with religion do you think?

Show us!

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20503660 ]Good old missionaries[/url]

Are you conflating Catholicism and Christianity?

A quick Google shows that there are 2.1bn Christians in the world and 1.1bn Roman Catholics. So, a majority of Christians are Roman Catholics.

We're getting into the realms of "oh but not all [i]x[/i] believe this", which is part of what makes it so impossible to 'argue' religion.

Charlie, I try not to speak on a subject I know faff all about (hint).

""Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Biblical circumcision begins with Abraham. No American government should restrict this historic tradition. Essential religious liberties are at stake."

The National Association of Evangelicals

But no one can prove there isn't an elephant that turns pink and flies around in circles but only when not being watched or recorded!

Being unable to prove something doesn't exists does not in any way shape or form give support for that thing.

That's what the second part of my quote was for. It was Bertrand Russell who said it, by the way, and it's saying the same thing Dawkins says on the subject of whether he's an atheist or an agnostic.

It wasn't really aimed at you mike, just righting that wrong.

Bertrand Russel said what (do love a good quote, I save them for future use, sad or what?)?

A quick Google shows that there are 2.1bn Christians in the world and 1.1bn Roman Catholics. So, a majority of Christians are Roman Catholics.

We're getting into the realms of "oh but not all x believe this", which is part of what makes it so impossible to 'argue' religion.

You still can't treat them as all the same, and further ,if you do, you (or others) cannot then use example of charisamtic and evangelical churches to argue against Christianity in general. Most more vocal christians you meet will not be Catholic. But this may be a separate thread as creationism is not part of the catholic doctrine.

That's what the second part of my quote was for. It was Bertrand Russell who said it, by the way, and it's saying the same thing Dawkins says on the subject of whether he's an atheist or an agnostic.

And this is part of my issue with Dawkins, he doesn't say anything which has not been said and refined by many others before him. Yet,there seem to be a generation who hold him in high esteem.

Bertrand Russell said: "I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

He said something similar in conjunction with his famous teapot: "I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely."

You still can't treat them as all the same, and further ,if you do, you (or others) cannot then use example of charisamtic and evangelical churches to argue against Christianity in general. Most more vocal christians you meet will not be Catholic. But this may be a separate thread as creationism is not part of the catholic doctrine.

The thread's rather moved on from creationism...

Perhaps when the various Christian churches have decided what is definitely true, we can start debating specifics? I'm reminded of [url= http://searchingforgrace.com/webcomic/being-a-biblical-christian/ ]this cartoon[/url] doing the rounds on Facebook at the moment.

Charlie, I try not to speak on a subject I know faff all about (hint).

Sorry, you need to be more explicit here. Are you suggesting i know faff all about religions?

""Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Biblical circumcision begins with Abraham. No American government should restrict this historic tradition. Essential religious liberties are at stake."

The National Association of Evangelicals

Once again, with the minority fringe groups which pretty much only exist in one country. Hardly, warrant to say that this represents christianity as a whole

Perhaps when the various Christian churches have decided what is definitely true, we can start debating specifics

Or we can debate the specifics, independent of religion.

Perhaps when the various Christian churches have decided what is definitely true, we can start debating specifics?

That's a bit unreasonable coming from a forum that can't even agree on whether 26" or 29" wheels are better....

Or we can debate the specifics, independent of religion.

So we can debate specifics of religions without using specific religions as examples?

Well, if the alternative is waiting for all religions to agree, or overgeneralising to the extent that it is meaningless, then that seems like our best option.

Remember, you didn't want to talk about specific religions because about half the Christians are Catholic

CFH, earlier...

Couldn't resist... 😀

CharlieMungus - Member
I also assume you must then approve of the church's teaching against adultery and sex outside of marriage which would greatly reduce the incidence of Aids in Africa, if followed?

This demonstrates one of the great tactics of organised religion:
Demonise and make people feel guilty for something that's an intrinsic part of human nature.

As to circumcision, it was extremely prevalent in the Catholic church during the first half of the last century.
Pretty much the norm in cerain areas.

This demonstrates one of the great tactics of organised religion:
Demonise and make people feel guilty for something that's an intrinsic part of human nature.

It certainly seems to be the case that teaching abstinence doesn't stop people from having sex, regardless of the religion or culture of those involved. Educating and empowering women has been shown to work, but religion isn't too keen on that.

Sorry, you'll need to explain a bit more for me, you mean having multiple sexual partners is a part of humn nature?

Yes. Have you met people?

Evolutionarily speaking, the best way for a man's genes to continue is to knock up as many women as possible.

IANAEB

Well, i guess it's a side issue, but we aren't really driven by that imperative anymore, which is why we tend to have largely setlled into monogamous societies, for the last thousands of years. But, int the aids context,it does make a lot of sense. But the larger issue here is at Africa isn't really a Catholic place, there are lots of other religions which are more prevalent there, even within the catholics, African catholics, like most other catholics, don't really follow the teaching on contraception or many other specifics anyway. WHO data does not show particulalrly high incidence of Aids in african coutreis with large catholic populations. catholicism is uncorrelated to incidence of Aids.

we aren't really driven by that imperative anymore

Not in provincial town centres on a weekend 🙂

WHO data does not show particulalrly high incidence of Aids in african coutreis with large catholic populations. catholicism is uncorrelated to incidence of Aids.

If that's true, great.

Sorry, you'll need to explain a bit more for me, you mean having multiple sexual partners is a part of humn nature?

Well if we take history as any guide, it would certainly appear to be the case.

Polygamy has been widely practiced by many civilizations for as long as records have been kept.

And if you could point to a time in human evolution when prostitution and adultery were not practiced, I'd be very surprised indeed.

It seems not everyone thinks the Catholic church is blameless on HIV/AIDS in Africa: http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/11/bad-science-pope-anti-condom

I don't support homophobia, child genital mutilation, the suppression of females

Neither do many Christians.

You must've heard in the news recently Christians arguing about women bishops and homosexuality. That should demonstrate to you that not all Christians have the same point of view on these things and many others.

The fact that many non-christians are homophobic and sexist etc etc should also be significant.

Mike, it is true. I went to find the data specifically because it is so often used as condemnation of the CC.

polygamous societies have existed for a long time, but always notable because they were unusual

yes prostitutes have always existed too. But generally used by a minority of men. Also the idea that the demonisation of 'human nature' with regard to prostitutes is a Christian seems strange to me. In most societies regardless of religous beliefs, visiting hookers is generally frowned upon the demonisation seems societal, rather than religious or do you believe that all societies, even this one on STW is shaped by relion?

No mike, really. Easy data to find. Look for incidence of aids and plot against percentage catholic population.

polygamous societies have existed for a long time, but always notable because they were unusual

Really?

A quick look at the main Wiki article on Polygamy would suggest you're wrong:

Modern day:

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.

As to the historical perspective, you would also appear to be wrong - polygamy would seem to be the preferred system for the majority of humanity for the majority of recorded history.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
[i]Epicurus [341–270 B.C.][/i]

Works for me.

So, if the Roman Catholic church aren't to blame for Aids in Africa, that just leaves the child abusing, Nazi sympathising, Galileo denouncing, Spanish inquisitioning, etc.

Here's one: why did Jesus have to die for our sins? Why not a paper cut or a stubbed toe?

With whom was the deal arranged?

I won't spring to the defence of the Catholic Church.

I would separate one specific religion from the concept of religion.

Are you using that data to say that most of the world is polygamous? That's over 80% of the world!

was someone earlier suggesting that most atheist arguments are a bit outdated? As opposed to the hip upto date churches ideas?

It's Jews by the way that insist on circumcision not Christians.

Not in America. I looked into this a while back. From memory, in the Western world male circumcision rate is about 10%, apart for the USA where it's about 90%. Genital mutilation is commonplace because 'everyone else does it'.

Apologies to Cougar and any others.

this topic has been hammered over so often it's rather dull, IMHO.

So why choose to take part? Who's forcing you to read it? If it bores you, bugger off somewhere else.

Are you using that data to say that most of the world is polygamous? That's over 80% of the world!

bit of a weird one polygamy my upbringing and the society I live in shaped me to be a [i]monogamy good polygamy bad[/i] kind of person but how much of that is down to abrahamic religion shaping our society? I reckon there's definitely too much emphasis on sex, again dunno if that's a leftover from religion, probably. It's certainly one of the most (if not [b]the[/b] most) fun activities going but it's not the most important thing in the world is it? I'd be pretty pissed off if my wife had sex with someone else but thinking rationally about it we've both had sex with other people before we met, it's a fun thing to do, you don't have to be in love with the other person to enjoy it, so what's the big deal with monogamy? If you're one of those people who doesn't like sex that much and you'd prefer to go for a bike ride or have a nice cup of tea, is bike riding/tea drinking now more important to you? Should your wife start getting angsty if you go on an STW forum ride or nip down to the local tea rooms for a pot of tea and slice of cake with friends?

I've used mono/polygamy here but I'm not specifically talking about married people so I probably mean mono/polyamorous

[i]polyamorous [/i]

Is this loved up parrot a Christian?

Morning all. Day three!!

I've noticed, during catch-up, that one recurring couplet amongst the regular churn of repetitions is the following:

(Theist) "Atheism is a belief system too".

(Atheist): "Atheism is not a belief system". (Usually followed by an amusing explanation like the "stamp collecting" or "javelin throwing" quip).

Then - a little further on - guess what? (Theist): "Atheism is a belief system too".

It could be that this is partly a product of the fact that people read the arguments selectively, or join the thread some pages in and don't realise that the point has already been made, but it's been repeated so many times in previous threads on the same subject that I can only stand back in wonder at the incredibly dense piece of hardwood that this particular nail seems unable to penetrate, even though the hammer is so simple and efficient a tool...

Right. Off we go, then. 😀

Nearly 550 posts, and not locked? Must be some sort of record?

The above figs on polygamy include countries where it is practiced.
So that would include the UK, for example, as we welcome people from abroad who are already in a polygamous marriage, which seems fine to me.

Interesting isn't it?

"bit of a weird one polygamy my upbringing and the society I live in shaped me to be a monogamy good polygamy bad kind of person but how much of that is down to abrahamic religion shaping our society? "

Nah it's not a religous thing, just commen sense.

Would you want to live with more than one women ?? 😆

just remembered abrahamic relates to OT which iirc used to have a bit of polygamy going on. Hmm
[i][url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity#Early_church_period ]Jewish polygamy clashed with Roman monogamy at the time of the early church:[/url][/i]
so seems to be [i]some[/i] influence from other societies.

Some interesting stuff here, even if only scanned most of it Rusty Spanner those figures on polygamy are very interesting. What do they mean by societies? It looks like almost all societies are polygamous in some way or other. Such a strange result! What is the story behind it?

I thought Abrahamic meant the religions which held Abraham as a leader of some sort, basically Christian, Jewish and Muslim. They don't all hold to the OT do they?

Atheism is a belief system too

Though, it looks like th point is being made that those who are atheist are happy enough to believe in other things which they do not really understand and have not seen evidence for but will accept it because of their framework of how the world works.

I just googled polygamy and then spent the rest of the evening following the links from the wiki page!
Must remember to clear the search history before Ms S gets ideas. 🙂

Sure, there's lots we still don't know in the world and many aspects of science is still at theory stage.

This is where many Theist seem to get confused about science... Not all of science is Theory, much of it is Fact. A Theory is just someone's idea ((belief based on calculation or supposition) but once that theory can stand the test of experimentation and is found to be reproducible and repeatable it is then a FACT.

Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant and does not stop it being a Fact.

Atheism is specifically not about belief or faith, it is specifically about evidence based facts.

I just googled polygamy and then spent the rest of the evening following the links from the wiki page!

Ok, so it might yet be a minority sport?

Atheism is specifically not about belief or faith, it is specifically about evidence based facts.

I'm not sure those two bits necessarily go together

I thought Abrahamic meant the religions which held Abraham as a leader of some sort, basically Christian, Jewish and Muslim. They don't all hold to the OT do they?

(Most) Christians hold to some of the OT, but say some bits are cultural or historical and so don't apply, or were superseded by something in the NT.

A cynic might wonder about some of this.

(Most) Christians hold to some of the OT, but say some bits are cultural or historical and so don't apply, or were superseded by something in the NT.

A cynic might wonder about some of this

seems to me they might be thinking about their religion, not just blindly accepting, that's a good thing right?

Singletracked I just put that in as I was expecting someone to say "aha but judaism is abrahamic and it has a history of polygamy" from the wiki page it seems it might have been a societal shift to monogamy rather than specifically religious, the english 673 synod decided on monogamy but what were their motives? also mentions some christians still argue about whether NT rules polygamy in or out.

Ok, so it might yet be a minority sport?