On a similar vein how about Free Will?
There's no scientific evidence of it's existence, but would you class a belief in it as gibberish?
Depends upon how you define free will, surely. Our behaviour and responses are a result of our genes and our environment.
FFS you used to be killed for blaspheming or denying their was a god
Not just denying there was a god, but believing that there was a different one. In the name of enlightenment and spreading the good word, Europe marched into other continents committing genocide against peoples who didn't convert. How many Incas do you see these days? That Andrew Marr bloke was talking about it on the tellybox a couple of days back, fascinating stuff.
Of course, that's all ancient history, and I'm not suggesting that we should be damning current theists for the sins of their ancestors (even if some strains would do it to themselves, Original Sin and all that). But even then, it's not all that long ago that Xtians were at each others' throats for worshipping the same god in a slightly different way.
“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.” - Hitchens.
Fundamentalists would be far fewer in number and far less visible if it were not for the huge body of moderate believers that distort reality sufficiently to create an environment in which extremist views can exist. The fundamentalists are only able to exist because otherwise normal people believe in 'some' of the stories that provide the common basis for a religion.
I do not understand how any moderate, modern, vaguely intelligent Christian can cope with knowing that the institutions that they support have been (and continue to be) so destructive, malevolent and divisive to the people that they claim to be able to 'save'. Moral authorities like the Churches should be held to a higher standard than individuals and they have dismally failed to meet the standards of decency required by normal secular human beings.
Religion has no place in this world and it is our duty to fight it with truth, reason and logic. In that at least we would be morally head and shoulders above the institutions who we are historically capable of horrific acts of cruelty to those who did not offer themselves and their wealth to the service of the Church.
molgrips
"Whoah there, back up. Do you think that I am a religious person who is against gay marriage? Cos I'm not."
Fine .. I'll edit that to
"The fact that [religious people] don't like it, and that [their] main defence is to demand "respect" (meaning silence from [their] critics) is not our problem."
If all you want is to agree that we should be excellent to one another, then I agree 🙂
But (and theres always a but 🙂 )it does depend on the context in which people "mention it in passing".
It's hard to say without examples but if someone mentions it in the same way that they might mention being a trainspotter, birdwatcher, or singlespeeder, then fine.
But if they mention it as a surrogate for "I/We are special" or "You're morally degenerate" or to in any way protect their views from critical analysis then all bets are off.
Perhaps its because a lot of the "anti's" on here have been religious at some point themselves. As a result, they (we) recognise that religious people tend not to mention it at all unless they are trying to make some sort of point (however subtle).
paddy power doing odds on the next head honcho in da vatican .
baffling smoke signals, in the city of inequity -- lee perry
Yet christians, catholics included, use quotes from the old testament to justify their stance.
Fewer catholics I should imagin
One day I'm going to sit down with a christian, a bible and some highlighters so they can show me which bits are literally true, which bits are allegorical and which bits can be discarded altogether.
What the results you get will depend very much on the denomination of Christian you sit down with and then vary within that to
“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.” - Hitchens.
Beautiful. (Christopher, of course. Not his idiot High-Church brother.)
The gay thing has been a religious issue for quite a while, about time it was repealed don't you think?
Can you clarify what you mean by repealed, specifically in this context?
What is it you actually want repealed and from where?
Anyway, she recently surfaced into this debate by saying that atheists "can't argue for the existence or non-existence of god because they don't have any theology, poor lambs."A remarkable statement for being both stupid and patronising both at the same time
I'm not claiming that there is a causal relationship between intelligence and Catholicism. Ok, you have an example of a catholic who said something daft. That doesn't undermine the intelligence of other Catholics.
Not his idiot High-Church brother
Seriouisly? You think you are smarter than Peter Hitchens?
Seriouisly? You think you are smarter than Peter Hitchens?
I think he's got more of an idea about that than you do...
I'll happily criticise the catholic church in particular on it's stance and teachings on homosexuality, contraception, divorce and most of all on the fact that it's whole basis is a non falsifiable premise,
Ok, but first you would need to show that you understand what it's teachings are in these areas. The Catholic church teachings, not the statements of some of its bishops or priests or even the pope, the Church teachings.
i'm off to the bookies......
first you would need to show that you understand what it's teachings are in these areas.
We've had a few anecdotal examples of their teachings by church-goers on this very thread.
I appreciate that under normal circumstances anecdotes aren't really evidence, but given that we're discussing religion I think we can allow it as it's greater proof than we're used to dealing with. (-:
More seriously; are you actually suggesting that our understanding of the churches' views on same-sex marriage are in fact woefully inaccurate?
[quote=Cougar ]it's not all that long ago that Xtians were at each others' throats for worshipping the same god in a slightly different way.
Last Saturday night in fact. In Glasgow.
Catholic church teachings, not the statements of some of its bishops or priests or even the pope, the Church teachings.
Doesn't the church teach that the pope is infallible? - Genuine question BTW.
I think that's a monumentally arrogant stance, TBH. You're assuming that a position of atheism is a position of ignorance, which may be true for some but most certainly isn't a blanket statement you can apply to everyone.
Amusingly, atheism is a position of ignorance.
Some people are happy to hold their hands up and comfortably state that they do not know the reason for existence (if there is one), these people are atheists.
Some people are terrified of that thought and simply refuse to admit the possibility of it and invent/latch onto the crutch that is god.
I use the word invent as THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT A GOD EXISTS.
More seriously; are you actually suggesting that our understanding of the churches' views on same-sex marriage are in fact woefully inaccurate?
Which church? Catholic church, no, probably not. Why don't you tell me what your understanding of it is, and where you got that information?
Nevertheless, that wasn't one of the issues that was mentioned. I think there may be some 'misconceptions' around some of the other issues
*EDIT* Though it does interest me why there is such emphasis on the teachings of the Churches, Catholic or otherwise, by people for whom religion is largely irrelevant when in fact they live in a country, with a democratic process, which also forbids same sex marriage. Surely that would be the greater issue
[quote=miketually ]
One day I'm going to sit down with a christian, a bible and some highlighters so they can show me which bits are literally true, which bits are allegorical and which bits can be discarded altogether.
Amusingly, atheism is a position of ignorance.
Nonsense.
Some people are happy to hold their hands up and comfortably state that they do not know the reason for existence (if there is one), these people are atheists.
No, these people are Agnostics.
Which church?
The one that's whispering in the Government's ear.
Why don't you tell me what your understanding of it is, and where you got that information?
Most recently, a letter received from her local MP by a user of this very forum, stating that he didn't want to support changing marriage laws for fear of upsetting the church. Perhaps he's misguided as well.
I don't have a long list of citations and dated references, sorry. I didn't know there was going to be a test.
Oooh still going on. I wonder how people feel about this douchebaggery-in-the-name-of-religion:
"I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that's something God intended to happen."
-- http://news.sky.com/story/1001896/republican-rape-baby-is-gift-from-god
Which church?
The one that's whispering in the Government's ear.
Just say it, go on. Why so coy?
Most recently, a letter received from her local MP by a user of this very forum, stating that he didn't want to support changing marriage laws for fear of upsetting the church. Perhaps he's misguided as well.
Can i just clarify. Your understanding of this unnamed church's teaching on gay marriage, is based on what you read on this forum about a letter a letter written by an MP to a person on this forum?
May i suggest you look for some better sources?
I don't have a long list of citations and dated references, sorry. I didn't know there was going to be a test.
Not a test, only that I would expect you to have actually found out about something before you criticised it
Though it does interest me why there is such emphasis on the teachings of the Churches, Catholic or otherwise, by people for whom religion is largely irrelevant when in fact they live in a country, with a democratic process, which also forbids same sex marriage. Surely that would be the greater issue
Because the church carries power within the government. Without this intervention, that law would be considerably easier to revoke.
Here's a question, because you were asking about misconceptions. Can you educate me as to which Christian churches officially support same-sex marriage?
Doesn't the church teach that the pope is infallible? - Genuine question BTW.
Only in the very rare case of ex-cathedra statements, well other bits as well I think, but this is the only relevant one, I think
Are they always nice to us or to non believers
Mostly, they are, yes.
Junkyard - let me put it another way.
What's wrong with simply being wrong?
Here's a question, because you were asking about misconceptions. Can you educate me as to which Christian churches officially support same-sex marriage?
Nope
*edit* but here's a list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches
Because the church carries power within the government. Without this intervention, that law would be considerably easier to revoke.
Right, so because your government won't change the law, you blame 'the church'?
That's easy
What's wrong with simply being wrong?
When wrong constitutes 'educating' people about how condoms are against god, I would say pretty damn wrong. Reprehensible in fact.
That's easy
Well, it's factual. It's far from easy.
When wrong constitutes 'educating' people about how condoms are against god, I would say pretty damn wrong. Reprehensible in fact.
And when it involves prejudice against a group of people who would quite like the same rights as everyone else.
When wrong constitutes 'educating' people about how condoms are against god, I would say pretty damn wrong. Reprehensible in fact.
Who does this?
That's easy
Well, it's factual. It's far from easy.
You live in a democracy. If you don't like it work to change it. But change that first before you try to change the churches' views.
Who does this?
Christian missionaries in Africa, for a start.
When wrong constitutes 'educating' people about how condoms are against god, I would say pretty damn wrong. Reprehensible in fact.
You're conflating many issues.
The church does stuff, religious people do stuff, but that's not in any way the same thing as believing in God.
Anti gay rights, anti condom etc etc are all very demonstrably wrong because they have serious negative consequences. However these are things that PEOPLE do in the NAME of God.
If I believe the moon is made of cheese, why on earth would you try and persuade me otherwise?
If I try and get vulnerable old women to hand over cash to fund my cheese moon mission, that's clearly wrong. But that's a different action and issue.
That's why I asked what's wrong with [i]simply being wrong[/i]?
If you don't like it work to change it.
What exactly do you think we're doing?
However these are things that PEOPLE do in the NAME of God.
As opposed to what, exactly? Gibbons? Lamp-posts?
We wouldn't choose a house or car on such flimsy knowledge but most people seem happy to write off religion as man-made nonsense without ever making a proper effort to find out what it's really all about for themselves, first hand.
Hmmm, I suspect many (most?) of us were brought up in a manner which fairly well indoctrinated us into religion.
The points have never heard properly raised or answered by Christians who are against homosexuality, is what about all the other stuff in the bible that has now been conveniently forgotten/ignored because it's irrelevant or just daft in the modern world? Why is homosexuality such a major issue? There's really not much about it in the bible is there?
Surely any sensible person can see that there were some rules which at the time might have been considered useful for 'survival of the tribe' but are now completely outdated.
And ditch_jockey's comments about only doing good things for religious reasons is pretty telling IMO. Why do you have to have religion to tell you to be a decent person?
Or indeed gibbons up lamp posts....
If you don't like it work to change it.
What exactly do you think we're doing?
I think you're arguing the toss on an Internet forum. Did you vote? Did you vote for a party whose views on same-sex marriage reflected your own?
Christian missionaries in Africa, for a start.
Really? Where? What kind of Christians? Evidence?
I think you're arguing the toss on an Internet forum. Did you vote? Did you vote for a party whose views on same-sex marriage reflected your own?
Good point, well made. However, it's perhaps arguably more productive for me to challenge prejudiced views held by people in my immediate circle of influence than simply registering a single vote which will get lost amongst millions. The crux is that millions of people are being treated as inferior citizens with fewer rights, and that isn't right. Would they be best served by us nodding and smiling and keeping quiet? That's how we got into this mess in the first place.
Also, the medium isn't relevant. Does the fact that it's on the Internet inherently devalue the discussion? Would it have more credibility in a national newspaper or on a TV channel?
But change that first before you try to change the churches' views.
This task would be made easier if the church minded its own business, something that they have failed to do
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-19386655
Also, the medium isn't relevant. Does the fact that it's on the Internet inherently devalue the discussion?
Yes
Really? Where? What kind of Christians? Evidence?
How about the last Pope, does he count as a Christian? He gave a speech in Africa saying condoms were sinful and they should prevent the spread of HIV by not having sex.
Didn't the current one also say something about it being ok to use condoms but only if you were a prostitute, or something? I may be misremembering, I'd have to look it up.
However, it's perhaps arguably more productive for me to challenge prejudiced views held by people in my immediate circle of influence than simply registering a single vote which will get lost amongst millions.
This, I think is a very salient point. People, and in particular peoples behaviour and prejudices are "heavy", they have a lot of inertia and are difficult to change. Legislation on the other hand is easier and far more simple to sort out. Low level challenging of unacceptable behaviour by respected peers and equals is arguably going to effect a bigger change in a shorter period than voting for the appropriate party who will then change the law.
From the above (emphasis mine),
In September 1990, John Paul II visited the small town of Mwanza, in northern Tanzania, and gave a speech that many believe set the tone for the AIDS crisis in Africa. Being unequivocal, [b]he told his audience that condoms were a sin in any circumstances.[/b] He lauded family values and praised fidelity and abstinence as the only true ways to combat the disease.In December 1995, the Pontifical Council for the Family issued guidelines saying that [b]parents must also reject the promotion of so-called "safe sex" or "safer sex"[/b], a dangerous and immoral policy based on the deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against AIDS.
In March 2009, the Pope [Benedict] was sharply criticized after he stated that "if there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behaviour], [b]the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it[/b]"
...
in response to the charge that "It is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms", Pope Benedict stated:
"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality. "
Are we suggesting that the Vatican's views can be safely ignored for the purposes of discussing Xtianity as a whole, now?
