[Closed] Has anyone been on the Alpha Course?

is there a place of worship/belonging for stoic hedonsists?

Isn't that Ibiza?

No, I didn't think all the comments weren't offensive (and I said that) but this is a public forum and unfortunately there will always be people who do just throw insults - that doesn't mean that all the comments were insulting or abusive, mine included (despite being included in BD's list...)

Bikingcatastrophe - Member

is there a place of worship/belonging for stoic hedonsists?

Isn't that Ibiza?

What, like God is a DJ sort of thing? 🙂

I think Mr Woppit is Richard Dawkins.

that doesn't mean that all the comments were insulting or abusive, mine included (despite being included in BD's list...)

Which one was yours?

no but do you honestly think none of them are offensive?

Theres an old saying (dont know the source)

"If you dont like your beliefs being laughed at you shouldnt have such funny beliefs"

I think Mr Woppit is Richard Dawkins.

Nah, Dawkins is far more reasonable, unless to happen to be a young earth/intelligent design pushing fundie, or a c*ck like Cormac Murphy-O'Connor

Been scanning this one periodically and I think for those who are protecting that it has not been rude or insensitive are being a tad disingenuous. For those that have a faith, of whatever variety, it is a personal thing. Many of those who do have a faith have had experiences that are not easily explained and would appear to fit with their beliefs. For example, it is not unusual these days in Africa to hear of people being raised from the dead after apparently days of being "dead like". I'm sure there will be sceptics who won't believe or will find some scientific explanation. Maybe there is. Maybe there isn't. But to start calling people stupid, impressionable, brainless is not really a very rational argument is it? Maybe it is something that you cannot suscribe to but does that give you permission to disrespect someone else? As someone else suggested, perhaps you are not so very sure of your own beliefs or yet found a way to deal with your anger issues. Or perhaps, discovering that maybe when left to our own devices society struggles to develop a set of principles to live by that help us to understand what is an acceptable way to behave with other people, what constitutes respect and tolerance. If we summed up the STW collective vision of values from the past few weeks it would include:

Nutting someone
Weeing in shoes because someone did something you don't like
Accusing people of believing in fairy tales because they believe something that doesn't fit with your personal agenda or beliefs
It's ok to keep something that has been sent to you in error (aka stealing)
etc

Ok, so some of it is a bit tongue in cheek, but not exactly inspiring stuff is it?

And then, back to the OP. Sure, why not give it a go. What's the worst thing that will happen? You lose an evening a week for a few weeks. In return you get a free meal and a chance to ask interesting questions and see what sort of answers you get. Is the Alpha course a vehicle for converting people? In a way, yes it is, of course it is. But the goal of the Alpha course is to give people an open forum to discuss the issues that crop up in life and to see what Christianity has to say about it. If you don't think you are interested in that then don't go. Just like the TV. If there's something on you don't like then switch channels or switch off. Not exactly difficult is it?

Anyway, I have fed the troll for now. 😉

I think it was inevitable that this thread would turn into a debate on the wider merits of religion, but lot of those comments quoted by BD were made in relation to the OP, i.e. what do people think of the Alpha Course. Here's a quote from one of the "offensive" people:

let's be clear about Alpha. It is not a service to society provided by the church to allow us to think neutrally about the big issues. It is an evangelical tool. If it didn't have a positive conversion rate it would have been dropped long ago. It's no better that a scientologists 'personality test' or time-share sales (in the hereafter).

That sounds spot on to me, along with the description of them as "bottom feeders". Read the Jon Ronson article where the Alpha guy is bragging about how many prison ministries they have. Religion has an immediate, easy appeal to people who are in difficult circumstances and that's why stuff like Alpha gets peoples' backs up - it offers a panacea but no guarantee of real support.

Mine was the last one about funny clothes IIRC

[i]That sounds spot on to me[/i]

I agree. It has the beautiful merit of addressing the question actually asked, without calling anyone a fool. 🙂

For example, it is not unusual these days in Africa to hear of people being raised from the dead after apparently days of being "dead like". I'm sure there will be sceptics who won't believe or will find some scientific explanation. Maybe there is. Maybe there isn't. But to start calling people stupid, impressionable, brainless is not really a very rational argument is it?

Leaving aside those pesky scientists and their habit of explaining stuff!
There are lots of "things" "heard" from Africa particularly regarding black magic etc. A considerable amount of them involve hurting people! Are these people "impressionable" or "brainless" or is it OK to call some people who partake in barbaric rituals these things but not those that have similarly unprovable beliefs?
I wont comment on your "rational argument" comment, maybe you want to re-think it.

Removed, as I promised myself I'd never get involved with one of these threads again.

Not sure I understand what I need to be rethinking. Calling people stupid is not a rational argument. And neither is just saying "no it isn't" - to quote a well known sketch about arguments. And I'm also not quite sure where your black magic comment comes into the mix. Maybe a different conversation? I don't recall writing anything about black magic or barbaric rituals.

is it OK to call some people who partake in barbaric rituals these things but not those that have similarly unprovable beliefs?

I think you have pretty much hit the nail on the head there surfer ........although I'm not entirely certain you meant to.

The OP [b]didn't[/b] say :

"I'm considering attending an Alpha course, it will [i]'involve hurting people in barbaric rituals'[/i], what do you all think of that ?"

I think its all become a bit surreal!

Surely people should take critical comments about their beliefs as a test of faith rather than an insult ? After all, if one can prove it, it stops being a belief, so there's bound to be scope for questioning.

People call me stupid and worse all the time but I never take it to heart - it's quite funny :o)

tolerance, great word often used, seldom practiced and always expected of others not ourselves.

People call me stupid and worse all the time but I never take it to heart - it's quite funny :o)

Though this thread has been tedious in the extreme, [b]your[/b] comments - or, at least, some of them - SFB have been rather interesting.

Just for a bit of balance, like. You brainless, brainwashed idiot with immaginary friends. 😉

But the goal of the Alpha course is to give people an open forum to discuss the issues that crop up in life and to see what Christianity has to say about it.

It's not. The goal of the Alpha course is to convert people to christianity.

To claim otherwise is just plain wrong.

p.s. Bear Grylls is a fraud.

brainwashed idiot with immaginary friends

now hang on, I didn't say you could slag off my [b]friends[/b] 🙁

I'm still fervently waiting for ernie to tell us why his beliefs are superior and what metric he applies...

Surely people should take critical comments about their beliefs as a test of faith rather than an insult?

There's a difference between critical comments about beliefs and name calling.

People call me stupid and worse all the time but I never take it to heart

You haven't figured out that not everyone is the same then ?

That's why I'm happy to call [i]you[/i] a ****, despite not dreaming of calling some other people that (in this case, I think you're a thick ****)

I find the clue is in how people behave. Generally speaking, people who are [i]likely[/i] to take offence, don't dish it out - LoulaBella for example.

Of course there are always exceptions ..... if I recall correctly, Mr Woppit complained on this thread that someone had been abusive towards him.

But generally speaking the rule applies .......... see if you can figure it out SFB

oh, and I was thinking about the power of prayer over dinner, and wondered if it might actually work more or less as claimed. Perhaps if you have enough faith either in god/s, or prayer itself or whatever, something may happen. I find psychokinesis somewhat more probable than gods, as at least it's being done by someone I can [b]see[/b], even if the mechanism is unclear.

don't dish it out - LoulaBella for example.

Not quite true, strictly speaking.

There's a difference between critical comments about beliefs and name calling.

but why should this topic be different to any other where we feel free to poke fun ?

You haven't figured out that not everyone is the same then ?

given that my last remark to you was that perhaps your beliefs were best suited to you but that people are different people I think we can say that I do know that.

I understand that some people are more sensitive than others, but really that's their responsibilty. If they choose to be insulted they only have themselves to blame, when they could just as easily laugh it off, or turn the other cheek as recommended by that Jesus bloke.

I seem to remember her calling MrWoppit a c--t (fair enough IMO, although he's posted a lot of comments that I would agree with in this thread), and she's also implied that all atheists are either hypocrites for using a word they don't mean, or have crap sex. Which is ironic, because if I wanted to put the crimp in my sex life, religion would come a close second behind moving back in with my parents. 🙂

Not quite true, strictly speaking.

OK, choose another example if you wish........ will SimonRalli do ? I wouldn't dream of insulting him.

OK, choose another example if you wish........ will SimonRalli do ? I wouldn't dream of insulting him

It wasnt my wish!

consider the lilies

surfer - Member

I think its all become a bit surreal!

Something else we can agree on surfer. I find it completely unreal that this pointless thread (apart from the OP which was a legit question) has in 3 days, surpassed in size, petesgaff's thread.

I find it completely unreal that this pointless thread

how can it be pointless if people post so enthusiastically ? And however unsubstatiated our beliefs (or failings to believe) may be, they do strongly influence how we live and behave

I find it completely unreal that this pointless thread (apart from the OP which was a legit question)

So if no-one had replied it would be less pointless?

I'm annoyed that the "swivel eyed loons" tag has been taken down, by the way.

Bear Grylls - a fraud?

Surely not? What is your evidence?

But he said we should follow him into the wilderness?

Out of interest which is more deplorable, some 'nasty words' said by a few 'atheists' on an internet thread or the millions of people who have been killed through the ages by people fighting over their sort of fairy tale being the right one and someone else's being wrong?

I'm struggling to think of an occasion when a few 'nasty words' has led to the deaths of millions but I'm sure I could pull out a few examples of people's unflinching devotion to some religious clap trap adding to an already impressive body count.

Ultimately this is the reason that I detest organised religion, the lives that are taken in its name. Having dealt with the consequences of people believing that they were 'protecting' the christians of Europe (which I considered myself one at the time, having been brought up CofE) from invasion by slaughtering innocent civilians who happened to be muslims in a place called Gornji Vakuf I 'lost' my faith, completely and utterly.

People have argued to me that religion/religious people do a lot but is it stuff that wouldn't happen without religion? Do atheists not give to charity? Are atheists not 'good neighbours'? Yes religion/religious people do good but the religions they believe in are often used as a reason to do so much bad, and considering what a vicious and war-like species we can be having another excuse to kill each other is hardly a good thing.

When all is said and done having faith is a good thing, but that faith doesn't need to be directed towards some make-believe omnipresent being. That faith would be better directed towards your fellow man, your family and your friends. Make the most of this life rather than spend it racking up credits towards one you believe is awaiting you when you die.

Not quite true, strictly speaking.

OK, choose another example if you wish........ will SimonRalli do ? I wouldn't dream of insulting him.

Eh? Sorry to be dim, but I am genuinely not too sure why my name has been raised! Is someone saying I insulted them, or is someone saying I may have taken offence?

If someone does feel offended by anything I have written, I do sincerly apologise. As far as I can see I feel I have raised issues of holes in the current state of knowledge of science while still fully supporting the biological evidence for evolution, as opposed to pointing out anything personally. Anyone who knows me would know I would feel terrible about making a personal comment about someone.

When all is said and done having faith is a good thing

disagree - instead of relying on guesswork, use observation, deduction and experiment. Have faith in yourself perhaps as you can be reasonably sure you are actually there.

Eh? Sorry to be dim, but I am genuinely not too sure why my name has been raised! Is someone saying I insulted them, or is someone saying I may have taken offence?

I think you were being held up as an example of a reasonable poster who wouldn't say anything to insult anyone else. 😀

Simon, you are being identified as someone who does not dish out, and does not deserve, abuse of any kind. It is a form of compliment I think. 🙂

Eh? Sorry to be dim, but I am genuinely not too sure why my name has been raised!

I gave [i]you[/i] as an example of someone who I wouldn't dream of insulting. If you couldn't figure that out, then you obviously are dim ...... you daft docile div.

Oh bollox.............[i]now[/i] look what you made me do 😐

As regards whether or not God (in any form) exists, the reality is that if He does then we will only know for sure when we die, and if there's no life after death then we'll never know.

On one hand all logical, scientific evidence does back up the athiests' case. On the other hand the fact that billions of people over the millenia have had faith does possibly point to the existence of superior being, and that religion is in essence mankind trying to interpret something he can never fully understand.

So having put myself on a fence in the middle of the debate, I'd then like to say that one thing that does strike me about this thread (and others like it) is that invariably many of the athiests descend into childish name calling and abuse. All the comments about "brainless", "fairy tales", "easily led", "can't think for themselves", "imaginary friends" etc. It's as if they have the need to be abusive to someone, and religious folk are an easy target. I also suspect they get quite annoyed by the fact the vast majority of religious folk won't take the bait, and refuse to be offended by them.

All the Christian (and Muslim) people I know are quite happy to have their views and beliefs questioned. However they in turn don't tend to descend to the infantile level of some of their abusers. I have to admit that seeing the approach taken by the two sides (tolerant understanding versus silly insults) does make me wonder who exactly has the better life. I'd hate to hate like that, if you see what I mean.

the reality is that if He does then we will only know for sure when we die, and if there's no life after death then we'll never know.

that's one interpretation - or it might be that god/s have just allotted us this span and you vanish utterly. Also the number of people believing a thing doesn't influence its truthfulness, unless, as I have been given to speculate, we are all god, and whatever we happen to believe is actually so.

I had been under the impression the insults were reasonably balanced, but I shall think on modifying my approach in future to what I can plausibly justify.

I suppose what's lurking in my mind is that - were gods to have created us, shouldn't we be grateful for the incontravertably real life we have [b]now[/b] rather than ungratefully subsuming it into a mere preparation for some other form of supposedly better life to follow ? Is this that we have so awful, and just a veiled exam for the real thing ? Why not live this life to the best of one's ability and take any subsequent existence as a bonus should it eventuate ?

All the Christian (and Muslim) people I know are quite happy to have their views and beliefs questioned. However they in turn don't tend to descend to the infantile level of some of their abusers.

There's a possibility that they choose to rise above it and there's also the possibility that it's hard to ridicule a rationalist argument even if it's delivered in a childish manner. I've no idea which is more probable BTW.

Went to a heart breaking funeral recently, the bloke who died was a dyed in the wool atheist and his wife was a devout Christian. Both were/are the nicest, kindest people you could hope to meet. They had an agreement that if she died, he'd get to arrange a Humanist funeral, and if he went a Christian one. During the funeral the priest said that because John didn't believe in god, there was no guarantee that he would get to heaven, and Anne would have to come to terms with this.
It just struck me as an awful thing to say at such time, so i'm inclined to think that atheists don't have the monopoly on childishness.

as I have been given to speculate, we are all god

[url=

man and woman is a star.[/url]

[i]that's one interpretation - or it might be that god/s have just allotted us this span and you vanish utterly. Also the number of people believing a thing doesn't influence its truthfulness, unless, as I have been given to speculate, we are all god, and whatever we happen to believe is actually so. [/i]

Indeed, that may well be the case. Who knows. It could even be the case that what we think of as "God" is actually the collective conscience of mankind, which would a bit of a turnaround.

[i]Why not live this life to the best of one's ability and take any subsequent existence as a bonus should it eventuate ? [/i]

Most religious folk I know do do that. As do many athiests too. The people that don't make the most of this life aren't in either of those camps. They are (I reckon) the ones that spend their lives slumped in front of brainless TV munching junk food and swilling lager. Not that there's anything wrong with doing that every now and again mind you.

[i]It just struck me as an awful thing to say at such time, so i'm inclined to think that atheists don't have the monopoly on childishness.[/i]

Very true, they certainly don't. However looking back through this thread it's fair to say that the vast bulk of the childish insults and abuse does come from the athiest camp. Obviously they aren't all like that, but sadly many are.

They are (I reckon) the ones that spend their lives slumped in front of brainless TV munching junk food and swilling lager.

Your prejudice is showing. Had you ever considered that that might be the correct thing to do as this is heaven to a former, now forgotten life in which you did the right thing ? Or perhaps there are an infinite number of stacked heavens, each with different requirements?

Yes. Elvis really is dead. 🙂

kennyp - Member
As regards whether or not God (in any form) exists, the reality is that if He does then we will only know for sure when we die, and if there's no life after death then we'll never know.

On one hand all logical, scientific evidence does back up the athiests' case. On the other hand the fact that billions of people over the millenia have had faith does possibly point to the existence of superior being, and that religion is in essence mankind trying to interpret something he can never fully understand.

But there are a lot of different gods worshipped, so at the End of Times (if you want to believe in that), Christians have got about the same chance of everlasting life as atheists. It would be a bummer to be backing the wrong horse all your life, wouldn't it?

All the Christian (and Muslim) people I know are quite happy to have their views and beliefs questioned. However they in turn don't tend to descend to the infantile level of some of their abusers. I have to admit that seeing the approach taken by the two sides (tolerant understanding versus silly insults) does make me wonder who exactly has the better life. I'd hate to hate like that, if you see what I mean.

I don't think you are really on the fence at all, are you?

If someone does feel offended by anything I have written, I do sincerly apologise. As far as I can see I feel I have raised issues of holes in the current state of knowledge of science while still fully supporting the biological evidence for evolution, as opposed to pointing out anything personally. Anyone who knows me would know I would feel terrible about making a personal comment about someone.

Simon, you may be the Messiah but you are a very naughty boy! 😆

I don't think you are really on the fence at all, are you?

My thoughts exactly or as Bob would say "you just want to be on the side thats winning"?

Going for the 1000 posts are we?

Put a sock in it everyone.

All the Christian (and Muslim) people I know are quite happy to have their views and beliefs questioned. However they in turn don't tend to descend to the infantile level of some of their abusers.

And I'd also ask, am I unusual in that the religion of people who surround me NEVER becomes an issue?

I don't feel the need to question the faith of colleagues, etc. Does it happen a lot in other parts of the country?

[i]But there are a lot of different gods worshipped, so at the End of Times (if you want to believe in that), Christians have got about the same chance of everlasting life as atheists. It would be a bummer to be backing the wrong horse all your life, wouldn't it?[/i]

That depends on whether there were any consequences in "backing the wrong horse". Instead, what about the possibility that when you die you end up with the afterlife you believe in? Maybe athiests just vanish, Christians live forever in heaven and Vikings go to Valhalla? Probably not, but we'll never know. And maybe people "back a horse" because they believe it's the right thing to do in this life, rather than planning for the afterlife?

[i]I don't think you are really on the fence at all, are you? [/i]

I'm genuinely not sure. There's part of me says that science explains everything, that we get one life and that we're nothing more than a load of molecules that move around and ride bikes. On the other hand.....the fact billions of people believe in "something" (even if they can't agree exactly what) does make me wonder.

[i] don't feel the need to question the faith of colleagues, etc. Does it happen a lot in other parts of the country? [/i]

Well it happens a lot on this forum.

lol, kennyp.

My 5 yr old daughter keeps coming home from school telling me about how Jesus is the son of God, etc. (This in a school with 50% Muslim kids).

To keep things balanced I'll gently try and tell her about other faiths, that people do make stories up, some people don't believe in God etc.

My favourite was a discussion about heaven, where I explained that I preferred the Viking heaven where I could just drink beer for eternity. Cue puzzled look on 5yr olds face.

I've been thinking about the 'fairy tale' thing, and realised that in normal life, we are used to people trying to pull the wool over our eyes, usually to gain some advantage, so any statement made to us is filtered for credibility. We're used to politicians lying to us (in fact, that may be their main function), journalists ditto, advertisers hyping their products, con men, shysters etc etc, and we're often understandably scathing about their stories and lies - but suddenly, when it comes to religion, we're supposed to suspend our critical faculties and 'respect' what we would otherwise castigate so as not to cause offense. For me it's just another set of implausible stories and not a special case, and while people are free to adopt them if they wish, it doesn't entitle them different treatment.

...it doesn't entitle them different treatment.

So why are you treating them different then ? ...............Hypocrite.

The OP asked a pretty straightforward question. Your level of input in this 14 page thread has been frankly quite staggering. What other question would you dedicate so much time to answering ?

Would you have had so much input if the guy had asked a straightforward political question ? No.
Would you have had so much input if the guy had asked for cooking suggestions ? No.

But because the guy asked a question concerning 'religion', you've gone completely over the top, prattling on for days. You obviously treat religion quite different to any other subject.

And despite dedicating the last few days of your life to the question, you have had nothing constructive to contribute - have you ever been on an Alpha course ? Were you disappointed ? Well ?

No, despite [i]claiming[/i] not to treat people's religious views differently, you obviously do. Hypocrite.

So why are you treating them different then ? ...............Hypocrite.

thanks for pointing that out, I never would have realised 🙂

You obviously treat religion quite different to any other subject.

it may have escaped your notice that religion is an abstract concept, not a person. I'm interested in natural philosophy.

And despite dedicating the last few days of your life to the question, you have had nothing constructive to contribute

constructive ? What are we making ? You're entitled to your opinion of my posts, but I don't see why they would have any more value than anyone else's

No, despite claiming not to treat people's religious views differently, you obviously do. Hypocrite.

well, from where I am it seems to me I'm levelling exactly the same degree of scepticism I do towards crank lengths, hifi cables, nutrition, rights of way, wars, expensive bikes and many other topics I can't remember right now. Perhaps one's philospophy of life, whether involving beings which cannot be directly perceived or not, is more important than some of those other matters and deserves more attention ?

[edit] I apologise for the flippant 'constructing what?' remark. What we're constructing is an argument, and despite many of my points not being addressed, it has helped me to understand my position more clearly as I thought it through. So perhaps this is an online omega class ?

have you ever been on an Alpha course ? Were you disappointed ? Well ?

sorry, I forgot to answer. No, of course not, I prefer to work things out for myself.

well, from where I am it seems to me I'm levelling exactly the same degree of scepticism I do towards.......blah, blah, blah

No you don't. Why don't you show the 'same degree of scepticism' towards people's political views as you do towards their religious views ? You claim to be an 'anarchist', and yet you never have a pop at me politically, despite the fact that an ocean separates us, how come ? Of course if I were to make a comment concerning religion, you would be straight in there.

You clearly go completely over the top when attacking people's religious views, in comparison with how you challenge other views they might hold. Fine. But don't come out with all this "I'm morally superior, holier than thou, I treat people's religious views the same as any other opinion they might have" bullshit. You obviously don't.

Still, if you needed this thread to 'understand your own position more clearly' then that speaks volumes 8)

But don't come out with all this "I'm morally superior, holier than thou, I treat people's religious views the same as any other opinion they might have" bullshit. You obviously don't.

I never claimed superiority, and certainly not holiness, I'm starkly profane. I reiterate that I think I do treat them with the same degree of scepticism, but at the same time, religious opinions seem to diverge most strongly from observable reality*. When people claim to be able to feel a big difference between 170mm and 175mm cranks (though I cannot) at least there is physical thing that can be measured. Whereas the number of gods is anybody's guess as we have no way to tell.

*inasmuch as that means anything

Still, if you needed this thread to 'understand your own position more clearly' then that speaks volumes

it speaks to the fact that my mind is not made up for good and all and I'm willing to consider new possibilities

OK........

BTW, just for the record, I [u]do not[/u] treat people's religion (or lack of religion) the same as any other opinion or view which they might hold (but of course I never claimed that I did) I consider it to be their own personal choice which has nothing to do with me.

For example, if I found myself in the company of a Muslim, I would not challenge their religion (I might ask them plenty of questions though, if they were happy to answer them) But if that individual were to inform me they were of the opinion that David Cameron would make an excellent PM, I might well vigorously challenge them on that. I treat people's personal religious beliefs (or lack of) and life choices, with a respect which I don't necessarily extend to other considerations. Basically, because it has bugger all to do with me.

simon ernie get a room for FFS you two would argue over anything as you have amply demonstarted. Now back on the off topic topic (ignoring SFB v Ernie)

tolerant understanding[religion] versus silly insults[atheists]

You should read the books the tolerant understanding people follow and see what they really say happens to those who dont follow either their God or rules. It does fall somewhat short of tolerance. Try going to church or mosque join in and then confess to being Gay if you want to really feel their love.
There have been some petty insults but it is difficult to not poke fun at people who believe [b]without any tangibile proof whatsoever[/b]in what their book says. Watch wogan interview David Icke to see how people react when the "religion" falls outside cultural norms.

If someone came on here and claimed the earth was flat (or worse that Brant made bad bikes ) they would get a similiar level of ridicule.

[img] [/img]
Look at the kitten and calm down.

[img] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01478/t8_1478838a.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01478/t8_1478838a.jp g"/> [/img]

Peoples personal beliefs are fine, don't bother me at all. If you want to believe in God, Allah, Jehovah, Shiva, Ganesha et al or whoever, in private, knock yourself out.

I have a problem when this stuff starts to impinge on the rest of us, like the fact that you can't get any shopping from the supermarket after 4 in the afternoon on a sunday. Or people like Nadine Dorries, and her US Pro-life inspired and funded antics in proposing various amendments on the abortion and embryology bill. Why should religious leaders get on things like Newsnight saying that things like "Stemcell research is bad, mkay", purely on the basis that they are self appointed representatives of some higher being.

Having people trying to save me etc is just as personally annoying as I'm sure atheists/agnostic trying to do the reverse is. And then you get prats like Cormac Murphy-O'Connor saying that, in his opinion, Atheists aren't fully human, which is a bit more worrying than any number of Christopher Hitchens calling the religious credulous fools.

Try going to church or mosque join in and then confess to being Gay

You really don't get it ........ do you ? The bit about about it being none of your business I mean.

Religions can make up any rules they want ...........no matter are absurd or ridiculous. It's [i]their[/i] religion.

The Catholic church won't allow women to become priests, which suggests sexual prejudice. But unless you happen to be a female Catholic who wants to be a priest, then it's got **** all to do with you. And even then it would only be between you, and the Catholic church ...... no one else.

Quite frankly I can't believe the gall of some people who feel they have a right to tell religions how they should organise. Who feel that they are entitled to have an opinion on things which don't in anyway concern them. Specially when those people are fundamentally opposed to all the beliefs the religion stands for.

My local mosque could pass a rule stating that no man under 5 foot 5, or with ginger hair, is allowed to lead friday prayers. [u]And I could not care less[/u]. Why the **** should I ? It's not my religion. They can make up whatever silly rules they want.

khegs - the Dawkinists are really scraping the barrel, trawling through things said by clerics so that they can be used out of context - do they not have anything better to bash religion with ? Sounds like desperation to me.

I guess that if Cormac Murphy-O'Connor had said that to be "fully alive", you needed to be a Christian, then the Dawkinists would have claimed he was saying that atheists were half dead, ffs.

BTW, a quick google suggests that he is not the only Catholic cleric to have said that. Archbishop Nichols (whoever he is) has said :

[i]"There had been moments when I'd come to understand that if we want to be fully alive, fully human, then the best path is to follow the call of the Lord, who is the fullness of humanity, who is our manifesto of what it means to be a human being."[/i]

Until I hear a Catholic cleric saying that atheists are sub-human and should be dragged out of their homes and shot, I won't be unduly worried. In the meantime khegs, if you are unhappy with what Catholic bishops are saying, I suggest that you register your disapproval by not attending mass next sunday.

My jaw dropped when I read ernie's piece above - he seems to be saying that religions should be entitled to any form of prejudice and it would be no one else's business ?

I suppose the Catholic church [b]was[/b] immune from prosecution for child abuse for a long while, so maybe it's not so outlandish...

he seems to be saying that religions should be entitled to any form of prejudice and it would be no one else's business ?

In a nutshell, yes. Don't like the religion ? Go and find another one......or maybe you could start your own ? 💡

There's no 'immunity from prosecution for child abuse'. You daft dipstick.

Here SFB, do you think the Catholic Church is prejudice against sinners ? I mean, all that stuff telling them about burning in Hell like. Maybe an adulterer could take them to court ? After all, adultery isn't illegal ..... is it ? 😕

Quite frankly I can't believe the gall of some people who feel they have a right to tell religions how they should organise. Who feel that they are entitled to have an opinion on things which don't in anyway concern them.

What, like most church leaders?

khegs - the Dawkinists are really scraping the barrel, trawling through things said by clerics so that they can be used out of context - do they not have anything better to bash religion with ? Sounds like desperation to me.

Sorry, I have been quite polite (I think, you may disagree) thus far, but **** off, this was the, at the time, most senior Catholic cleric in the UK, speaking on the Today programme, which is hardly the most obscure little backwater for comment in the world. Below is a full transcript of what he said, with the question he was answering, to avoid an accusation of bias.

Roger Bolton – a lot of church leaders speaking on national matters sound rather defensive but you’ve gone on the attack because you’ve talked about secularists having an “impoverished understanding of what it is to be human” they might find that quite offensive mightn’t they?

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor - I think what I said was true, of course whether a person is atheist or any other...there is in fact, in my view, something not totally human, if they leave out the transcendent. If they leave out an aspect of what I believe everyone was made for, which is, uh, a search for transcendent meaning, we call it God. Now if you say that has no place, then I feel that it is a diminishment of what it is to be a human, because to be human in the sense I believe humanity is directed because made by God, I think if you leave that out then you are not fully human.

Full transcript of what he said, on the Today program on Radio 4.

Imagine what would have happened if you had substituted Atheists as the subject matter for the ethnic minority of your choice, or Muslims/Hindus/Christians etc.

In the meantime khegs, if you are unhappy with what Catholic bishops are saying, I suggest that you register your disapproval by not attending mass next sunday.

Given that Church organisations campaign against thedistribution of condoms in Africa, and other iniitiatives that are trying to prevent the spread of AIDS, and against stem-cell research which has the potential to substantially materially improve the lives of millions if the advances it promises come to fruition, no, somehow I don't think I'll leave it at avoiding church on a sunday. These people (Christian/Moslem/Jewish/Hindu or whatever) have the potential to affect my life negatively, because of their beliefs, what gives them the ****ing right?

I prefer to believe what I see than to see what I believe.

Though I do worry about 'religious zealots' trashing the world as they use religion as a vehicle to move the impressionable masses. Poor sods.

[img] [/img]

Guess the well known phrase or saying...

which is hardly the most obscure little backwater for comment in the world.........

There was no mention of "obscure little backwater". There was a mention however, of "scraping the barrel, trawling through things said by clerics". And nothing in your last post suggests otherwise. A quick google appears to show that whilst the quote does not appear to have been widely (if at all) reported by the press, it has sent the Dawkinists on the internet into a lather of indignation.

I have no problem with the quote. So he says that, 'to be fully human you have to be a Christian', so what ? He clearly feels that Atheists don't lead fulfilling lives. Presumably many Atheists think that Christians are wasting their lives. I don't have any problem with that - why should anyone ? I'm not going to comment about what he didn't say btw.

what gives them the **** right?

They have the same right as anyone else. When Muslims/Hindus/Christians/Jewish get two votes in elections, come back and see me ..... and I'll review the situation.

On the Cormac Murphy thing, I definitely rmemeber it being reported in the Grauniad

They have the same right as anyone else. When Muslims/Hindus/Christians/Jewish get two votes in elections, come back and see me ..... and I'll review the situation.

So you aren't bothered about the Catholic church, and other religious organisations, pressuring MPs to take a "pro-life" stance on abortion and to ban stem-cell research, or the fact the the CofE get to have 26 bishops in the House of Lords?

[img] [/img]

Guess the well known phrase or saying...

Too many cooks spoil the broth?

holier than thou

i found that quite funny (in context)

[i]My local mosque could pass a rule stating that no man under 5 foot 5, or with ginger hair, is allowed to lead friday prayers. And I could not care less. Why the **** should I ? It's not my religion. They can make up whatever silly rules they want.[/i]

Quite right Ernie. Though presumably your view would change if you lived in country that wasn't as secular as this?