Jerry Springer The Opera and religious zealots.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
.... I have no problem with people believing in god, magic, pixies, hobbits or elves - all of which I consider about as equally likely to exist (or not).

---

Stephen - That's a bit disrespectful, don't you think? Not that you think that, but the pointed way that you put it. We should all respect each others views whether we believe in God or whether we don't. Respect for one another is probably the key to most of it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
Stephen - That's a bit disrespectful, don't you think? Not that you think that, but the pointed way that you put it. We should all respect each others views whether we believe in God or whether we don't. Respect for one another is probably the key to most of it.

---

I do agree with you about respect - that's why I was pointing out that I have no problems with anyone who wants to believe whatever they like. I have friends who believe in all the things I listed (even hobbits!).

I'm not sure what's disrespectful about it? Perhaps the fact I put god in the list? But to me, there is no difference; it's all unsubstantiated and unlikely. Or was it another part of the post you had an issue with?

I don't usually see much respect from believers in god for for non-believers. Matthew seems to assume, for example, that atheists can have no moral values and that religious people occupy some sort of moral 'high ground'. My moral behaviour may be the result of an artifact of evolution; I have no problems with that, but it's no less real to me than that that of a religious person.

Stephen

Our moral behaviour is just a function of who we are; I can't see it makes any difference whatsoever where we think we came from. So yeah, I agree with you. Oh...and I think you know exactly what sounded disrespectful.
Also, it doesn't matter what anyone else says and whether you feel provoked - which was my point that upset Steve M at the top of page 5. Saying "Well, but they said this first" isn't really rising above it.

[This message was edited by Rasher on Tue 11 January 2005 at 12:06.]

I suppose also that what I said at the top of page 5 could be seen as being disrespectful to Christians and I didn't mean that - I should have put "Christian" meaning those who claim they are, but whose actions (ie supporting the war in Iraq) would suggest they are otherwise.
Phew...

Respect, Rasher.......



Stephen

PS I thought that JS-TO was pretty good, especially the swap between acts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
Also, it doesn't matter what anyone else says and whether you feel provoked - which was my point that upset Steve M at the top of page 5. Saying "Well, but they said this first" isn't really rising above it.

---

Rasher,

I don't really understand what you're saying here. If you're referring to your post where you quoted some Commandments, made up some 'Christian answers' and then effectively criticized Christians for 'fucking about with the commandments to make them mean whatever you want them to mean', then let me assure you that I wasn't upset in the slightest. I just thought that it was a piss-poor argument.

Steve M

As an evangelical atheist I reserve the right to come to your door and demand you don't believe!

Religion is mass hysteria as a result of brainwashing children through fear.

Access to religious teachings should be limited to the over 21's. Anything else is abuse and severe mental cruelty.

A church is a corrupt financial institution deigned to control the poor and the gullible and benefit the rich and powerful.

I have held these beliefs for many years and nothing has swayed my beliefs one iota.

May your god go with you.........

Nime

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nime:
Religion is mass hysteria as a result of brainwashing children through fear.

---

The children at our local infant school were terrified when they put on their performance of 'Danger Mouse', this year's nativity play. At the carol service that followed a couple of days later they were still peeing themselves with fear.

Steve M

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:
....let me assure you that I wasn't upset in the slightest. I just thought that it was a piss-poor argument.
Steve M

---

I'm pleased that you're not upset, and yes, it was a piss-poor argument. It was only really a reply to Mick's Iraq war quandry.
Moving on..............

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nime:
Religion is mass hysteria as a result of brainwashing children through fear.
Access to religious teachings should be limited to the over 21's. Anything else is abuse and severe mental cruelty.
A church is a corrupt financial institution deigned to control the poor and the gullible and benefit the rich and powerful.

---

Fair enough, but it all sounds very paranoid to me. I can't agree as it was never intended to be like this. Maybe something got screwed in the process somewhere (if that's what you think), but no religion set out to be anything other than a spritual guide for the good. It isn't God and religion at fault, just some misguided people who practice it and screw it for everyone. That's just life, and the same for everything from football to house buying.
Which is where, I think, this thread started.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin-W:

An admittedly extreme example, but these guys pose as big a threat to freedom and decency as the extreme right wing of Islam...

http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/default.asp

Kevin

---

Kevin -- These are the people you should be worrying about, and This should scare you shitless!


Cheers,

Tim

People like this who refer to the Tsunami to get a laugh are sick. I'm sure Christians are able not to be provoked by this, but to make fun of the countless drowning children is beyond contempt.
You're right Tim. Very scary; but not funny.

I've just stumbled across this and thought that people here might find it interesting, in view of the discussion that we've been having. Other than that, I make no judgements about it.

The case for Judeo-Christian values - Dennis Prager

The case for Judeo-Christian values: Part II

Steve M

Religion, maths, science, music, architecture, medicine and engineering (amongst many others)are all belief systems.

Unlike religion many people over the ages have attempted to improve what went before. They stood on the shoulders of giants and did what they could. Many are remembered for their part in increasing our understanding and honing our skills and knowledge to the level we enjoy today.

With regards to religion the pure thinking, almost rediculously simple answers to the important questions about stone-age life have since resulted in a total corruption of those early, crystal clear thoughts. Where each man and woman was in charge of their destiny and their care of their fellow human beings.

But with religion any tom, dick and harry can make his own interpretation without the need for education, qualifications, intelligence, thought, skill, sanity or the slightest need for study of what has gone before.

No new discoveries in two thousand years? Except for the constant, endless greed of man.

No new theories except for how to make a quick buck from the gullible.

No new formulaæ except how to control the poor and illiterate for gain and almost unlimited power. While the pious idle in vast palaces, in golden robes covered in precious stones and are driven in luxury limousines and fly in private jets all paid for by peasants and the working and under-classes worldwide.

No new laws except how to amass wealth and property while endlessly ignoring "the rules" themselves.

No new insights except for taking out insurance against being sued for male child rape two decades ahead of the shit seriously hitting the fan.

No new methods except how to scar, stone, maim, shoot and torture women to keep them in their place. Underfoot.

No new rules except for total, unquestioning belief in crackpot religious leaders indulging in child sex, multiple partners, the collection of weapons large and small and of mass destruction, blind acceptance of mass suicide and mass murder, world hatred, de-humanisation of any other religion and non-believers or non-group members, the collection of fleets of Rolls Royces and jewellery, spending one's life with an arm in the air until it withers, crawling miles on hands and knees, self flagellating, fighting religious wars, carrying out hideous torture and killing for alleged blasphemy, witch burning and drowning, denying human beings the freedom to love each other and control family sizes so that the mother survives middle age, killing millions by refusing them the ability to protect themselves when their partner has aid/HIV and insists on sex, murdering untold millions in their own god's name .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................
Nime

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nime:
Religion, maths, science, music, architecture, medicine and engineering (amongst many others)are all belief systems.

Unlike religion many people over the ages have attempted to improve what went before. They stood on the shoulders of giants and did what they could. Many are remembered for their part in increasing our understanding and honing our skills and knowledge to the level we enjoy today.

With regards to religion the pure thinking, almost rediculously simple answers to the important questions about stone-age life have since resulted in a total corruption of those early, crystal clear thoughts. Where each man and woman was in charge of their destiny and their care of their fellow human beings.

But with religion any tom, dick and harry can make his own interpretation without the need for education, qualifications, intelligence, thought, skill, sanity or the slightest need for study of what has gone before.

No new discoveries in two thousand years? Except for the constant, endless greed of man.

---

It's clear from the above that you have very little understanding of the discourse and debate that has accompanied the evolution of Christianity or Judaism over many hundreds of years.

Just about everything that you wrote beyond what I have quoted above is not, in my view, worthy of comment.

Steve M

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:
It's clear from the above that you have very little understanding of the discourse and debate that has accompanied the evolution of Christianity or Judaism over many hundreds of years.

Just about everything that you wrote beyond what I have quoted above is not, in my view, worthy of comment.

---

Sniff, sniff

Steve, I've just read Nime's entire post and find it to be an eloquent, yet angry, challenge to your belief system.

Your response was patronising to say the least. Try adopting a little discourse yourself for a change.

Actually what I really mean is, grow up ffs.

JR

quote:

---

Originally posted by JonR:
Steve, I've just read Nime's _entire_ post and find it to be an eloquent, yet angry, challenge to your belief system.

---

I disagreed with the statements he made. What to you seems angry seems puerile to me. So what?

And I seriously doubt whether you have any idea of my belief system.

quote:

---

Your response was patronising to say the least. Try adopting a little discourse yourself for a change.

Actually what I really mean is, grow up ffs.

---

Sniff, sniff

Steve M

I'll take that as a decline of my invitation then.

What a shame.

JR

Jon,

I reserve the right to respond to posts and posters in a variety of different ways, including on occasion in a manner that you might find patronising.

Your remark "Try adopting a little discourse yourself for a change" implied that I don't normally enter into discourse on this forum. Is that what you think? If so, why should you care whether or not I 'decline your invitation'? In any case, I'm not even certain what invitation I've declined. Was it to 'grow up ffs' or to 'adopt a little discourse'?

There was an invitation implicit in my post too. I'll clarify it. You've said that you find Nime's post a challenge to my belief system. In what way?

Steve M

Sorry Steve

I'm alrady struggling with English and Danish.

I'm afraid I don't now enough Ostrich to hold a decent discussion.

Nime

I didn't have the time to watch all of the Jerry Springer opera at the time, so watched the rest last night.
An interesting idea of comedy I suppose and nothing worthy of banning for any reason that I can see. I saw it through but admit to wishing that it would hurry up and end.
I seriously worried for the health of that fat guy more than anything, and when my mind started wandering I was trying to visualise David Soul in the Starsky & Hutch days, but couldn't.
If it was great art, I could understand the justification for rocking the boat on religion, but I don't think it was worthy of that. Started off being entertaining and new, but I got bored.
We are still talking about the show, I hope?...

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:
Jon,

I reserve the right to respond to posts and posters in a variety of different ways, including on occasion in a manner that you might find patronising.

Your remark "Try adopting a little discourse yourself for a change" implied that I don't normally enter into discourse on this forum. Is that what you think? If so, why should you care whether or not I 'decline your invitation'? In any case, I'm not even certain what invitation I've declined. Was it to 'grow up ffs' or to 'adopt a little discourse'?

There was an invitation implicit in my post too. I'll clarify it. You've said that you find Nime's post a challenge to my belief system. In what way?

---

Steve,

Having had a chance to err... 'reflect' overnight I'd like firstly to apologise to you for my earlier outburst (standard defence = 'it woz one of thoze nites, honest guv' ). I guess that what I'm trying to say is that I thought that Nime had posted some genuinely provocative and thought-provoking views about the effects, as he sees it, of religeon on the world today and with you being someone who professes a genuine interest in all things religeous, I suppose I expected you to take his argument on in a way that would, in my own very humble opinion, inform the debate as it were.

However I realise I could have just said this rather than go on a high-horse-bearing rant.

Further, my remark about adopting a little discourse was careless use of language - of course you engage in discourse on these forums all the time. Which is a good thing! Even though I probably find myself in disagreement with you 90% of the time! I should have said that I am interested in how you might respond, on a line for line basis, to Nime's comments. I was disappointed that you instead chose to dismiss his arguments as puerile and not worthy of comment and feel this is a shame. However I expressed my disappointment inappropriately and for that I apologise.

Finally when I said 'belief system' I just meant your ideas and beliefs about religeon and its effects, as you see them, on the world today.

If the above does not sufficently clarify things please let me know.

Regards,

JR

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nime:
I'm alrady struggling with English and Danish.

---

Jeg finde også dansk meget svært at tale og at skrive!

JR

quote:

---

Originally posted by JonR:
Having had a chance to err... 'reflect' overnight I'd like firstly to apologise to you for my earlier outburst (standard defence = 'it woz one of thoze nites, honest guv' ). I guess that what I'm trying to say is that I thought that Nime had posted some genuinely provocative and thought-provoking views about the effects, as he sees it, of religeon on the world today and with you being someone who professes a genuine interest in all things religeous, I suppose I expected you to take his argument on in a way that would, in my own very humble opinion, inform the debate as it were.

---

JonR, Nime,

Having done some reflecting myself, I too must confess that my response to Nime's 2nd post was over-the-top and inappropriate. For this I apologize. I just wanted to say that there has been considerable evolution in the Jewish religion and in Christianity, too - just compare Christianity now, with how it was a few hundred years ago.

The latter part of Nime's post was mostly concerned, I suspect, with non Judeo-Christian religions - wasn't it Bagwhan (Osho) with all the Rolls Royces? Islamic fascism is a problem but I tend to go with the views of Daniel Pipes when he makes a distinction between moderate and fundamentalist Islam. There's no danger in the former.

I have stated my strongly held view that people should be free to believe and practise whatever religion they choose (whether we think that their beliefs are nonsense or not). I should have added the proviso that such beliefs and practices should not be to the detriment of non-believers.

Steve M

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew T:
And I find the killing of unborn babies offensive, seems that most of this enlightened society doesn't.

---

This has been on mind since Matthew posted it. I would like to open up this particular issue again.

I believe that the 'religious' view is clear. At some point during its development, the foetus gains its 'humanity'. After this 'soul point', it must be considered as fully human and any attempts to abort it are considered to be murder. The position of some religions is that this 'soul point' occurs at conception and thus all abortion is not to be permitted.

What is the atheist's view?

Clearly, there is no 'soul point' and therefore no specific point at which the foetus may be considered to become a human being (unless it's at birth). Can we not therefore consider that the foetus is always a human being?

What is the atheist's justification for abortion?

Steve M