The great Church debate!

quote:

Originally posted by novelty:

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
What do five questions marks in a row mean?

Do they add usefully to the discussion?

If you would explain the meaning then perhaps the discussion would be enhanced. Otherwise they are without point, IMO

ATB from George

I read it as a nice way of saying the quoted text is bollocks.

Yes, I thought it rather obvious too.

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
What do five questions marks in a row mean?

Do they add usefully to the discussion?

If you would explain the meaning then perhaps the discussion would be enhanced. Otherwise they are without point, IMO

ATB from George

Ok George. They express my enormous disbelief at the absurd nonsense dross that theists pronounce seemingly from planet gagawonky.

Even though I know it's coming I'm always staggered at the monstrous imbecility.

That better?


ATB, Paul.

Thanks for clarifying ...

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:

quote:

Originally posted by Svetty:
Some religious fanatics have done terrible things motivated by their faith...

And some atheist fanatics have done terrible things motivated by their atheism.

In fact the worst atrocities in the history of the world - idividually and cumulatively - have been committed by fanatical athiests.

?????

You need to read some history as well as science?

Have a degree in History and a well fed passion for it.

If you insist on making such super-sweeping statements, then, to be taken seriously, you must provide genuine and unassailable examples.

A statement like yours is just begging to be mugged.

Stalin, Nazism etc will mean something to you then. Sorry that the larget genocides in history - each individually and added together - didn't speak for themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:

quote:

Originally posted by Svetty:
Some religious fanatics have done terrible things motivated by their faith...

And some atheist fanatics have done terrible things motivated by their atheism.

In fact the worst atrocities in the history of the world - idividually and cumulatively - have been committed by fanatical athiests.

?????

You need to read some history as well as science?

Have a degree in History and a well fed passion for it.

If you insist on making such super-sweeping statements, then, to be taken seriously, you must provide genuine and unassailable examples.

A statement like yours is just begging to be mugged.

Stalin, Nazism etc will mean something to you then. Sorry that the larget genocides in history - each individually and added together - didn't speak for themselves.

Pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaase!

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
What do five questions marks in a row mean?

Do they add usefully to the discussion?

If you would explain the meaning then perhaps the discussion would be enhanced. Otherwise they are without point, IMO

ATB from George

Ok George. They express my enormous disbelief at the absurd nonsense dross that theists pronounce seemingly from planet gagawonky.

Even though I know it's coming I'm always staggered at the monstrous imbecility.

That better?


ATB, Paul.

Thanks for clarifying ...

Most, and always, very welcome.

quote:

Pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaase!

Paul, for someone who claims to be a defender of reason you are behaving in a most juvenile manner, which does no credit to the secularist cause. Throughout this thread you have made snide remarks and implied that anyone who defends faith must be a "monstrous imbecile" from the planet "gagawonky". The contrats with your supposed commitment to rational debate could not be starker. I fear that you have learned all the wrong lessons from your hero Dawkins.

JWM's point about the atrocities committed in the name of Communism or Fascism seems relevant and not obviosly stupid. It also links directly with the thought that if we did not have religion we would find something else to motivate our baser deeds. When you're not snarking you make some good points, so how about a sensible response?

Regards
Nigel

Hitler was brought up a Catholic, was supported by the Catholic Church (which turned the other way during his atrocities without a hint of opprobrium) and even invented his own "religion" based on twiffle about the superiority of "Aryans" and bits of operas by Wagner. Not an Atheist.

Stalin. A sociopathic lunatic who would have done what he did whayever his beliefs. He didn't kill anybody in the "name of" atheism - he did it to preserve his grip on power.

Similarly Mao, Pol Pot and any other raving nutter who was ever allowed to take over and slaughter their own countrymen.

They most categorically DID NOT do ANY of it "in the name of Atheism".

Religion, on the other hand, has a god that sanctions murder if you don't accept "his" (it's always a "he") loving fatherly-ness...

quote:

They most categorically DID NOT do ANY of it "in the name of Atheism".

Of course they didn't. Nor do the faithful commit evil acts in the name of religion in general - it is always for the sake of Allah, to promote or defend Catholicism, or for some other *specific* creed. My claim iis that if these religions did not exist, people would find other excuses for their barbarity.

Hitler: for the sake of the Aryan race, or the Fatherland
Mao: for the Cultural Revolution and the Communist Party
Stalin: again, for the Communist Party, or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat
etc

Typically these excuses cluster around ideas of national, ethnic, social or political identity. Wherever there is an opportunity to build a "we are good; they are bad" mindset, in other words.

It's all very well calling these people sociopaths and nutters but you could just as easily say the same of the individuals who committed atrocities in the name of their faith - they were raving nutters who would have done what they did anyway (just under a different pretext).

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
Hitler was brought up a Catholic, was supported by the Catholic Church (which turned the other way during his atrocities without a hint of opprobrium) and even invented his own "religion" based on twiffle about the superiority of "Aryans" and bits of operas by Wagner. Not an Atheist.

At one point Hitler used Catholicism try and drum up support - despite being anti-catholic and anti-church. We've had this discussion in another thread.

quote:

Stalin. A sociopathic lunatic who would have done what he did whayever his beliefs. He didn't kill anybody in the "name of" atheism - he did it to preserve his grip on power.

Please keep to the original point. If he truly respected God and His wishes then Stalin would not have committed mass genocide in the first place.

quote:

Similarly Mao, Pol Pot and any other raving nutter who was ever allowed to take over and slaughter their own countrymen.

They most categorically DID NOT do ANY of it "in the name of Atheism".

But they were out-of-step of God's wishes (Re: 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule...) And doesn't Communism pride itself in its atheistic stance - enough to blind itself to God and his will, particularly when it is convenient?

quote:

Religion, on the other hand, has a god that sanctions murder if you don't accept "his" (it's always a "he") loving fatherly-ness...

Did you know that "He" was used in the context of a paternal Jewish society - and is used more as a theme than a gender?

Regarding the supposition that God still sanctions "murder" - you really need to be more specific and contextualise with the overall storyline.

Andrew Randle

quote:

If he truly respected God and His wishes then Stalin would not have committed mass genocide in the first place.

If he truly respected the rights of his fellow humans to live without oppression and torture, is more to the point. Did you miss the argument that acts of kindness and charity are committed by those with no claims to religiosity whatsoever, or have you conveniently forgotten that evidence in the light of your overriding imperative to support the non-existent?

I assume that you are aware by now that I am an Atheist. It is beyond my understanding, therefore, why you seek to sway me by talking ad neauseum about "god" and "his" supposed wishes and requirements.

I think I'll just leave you to weeble away amongst yourselves in the home for the terminally gaga.

You could always pray for me, I suppose. Although it's a way of doing nothing and thinking that you're still helping, at least it'll stop you whining about your imaginary and invisible Big Daddy in the Sky for a bit, I guess.

Mike

I don't see any personal jibes or insults in Andrew's post. Yours is full of them. You do the atheist cause no favours, and are not the upholder of reasoned debate you like to think you are.

You can't have it both ways: insisting that good deeds can be carried out by people without religious convictions (I agree) but not accepting that other ideologies (nationalism, political creeds, etc) can motivate evil deeds. I think the reason you are leaving us to "weeble away" is that you know you are wrong on this specific point and are not gracious enough to admit it.

How about a reasoned, insult-free, response to my post about Hitler etc?

Regards
Nigel

Just wondering Mike, are you capable of being any more patronising?

And perhaps whilst you're at it you could give us the scientific proof or formula for beauty? And no, 'in the eye of the beholder' won't be precise enough.

Whatever. (Stifles a yawn. Finds something better to do).

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
Whatever. (Stifles a yawn. Finds something better to do).

OK. But in refusing to engage reasonably with moderate Christians, and people like me who are sympathetic to the idea of faith without wishing to convert anyone (how could I, having no fixed religion?) you have shown yourself to be as bad as the dogmatic theists you evidently despise.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
Whatever. (Stifles a yawn. Finds something better to do).

Dear Mike,

Come on man! This kind of thing is loosing you the argument! I am sure you have it in you to be both more logical and polite.

Best wishes from George

Lost...

'I'm right'

'No, I'm right because....'

'No, you're wrong because and I'm right because....'

Ad nauseam

quote:

Originally posted by Svetty:
'I'm right'

'No, I'm right because....'

'No, you're wrong because and I'm right because....'

Ad nauseam

Spot on Svetty!

This is the very reason why I hesitated before posting on this thread in the first place. The faithful and the atheists will of course remain unmoved. It would of course be tempting to list atrocities that have been perpetrated in the name of religion and here are a few examples:

The Crusades, the dark ages, burning of witches, 9-11, the London bombings, the "troubles" in Ireland etc etc. Additionally some religions are misogynistic, anti-Semitic, homophobic and think that all non-believers will burn in hell. Then there is the huge amount of harm that the Catholic church has perpetrated by refusing to accept that contraception is acceptable to God.

However, going down the "your atrocity is bigger than mine" route achieves nothing, but before I leave the debate to continue, I would make the following points:

1. It seems to be the law today that religious faith must be respected. I do not subscribe to this because I believe that respect is something that should be earned and is not a right.

2. It seems to be a common fallacy amongst the faithful that morality can only arise from religion. This is clearly nonsense. I do not need God to tell me that it is wrong to kill, steal etc.

3. JWM - We don't need a scientific formula for beauty. Atheists are perfectly capable of appreciating beauty and the wonder of the Universe. We're human not alien.

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:
3. JWM - We don't need a scientific formula for beauty. Atheists are perfectly capable of appreciating beauty and the wonder of the Universe. We're human not alien.

Sorry, not good enough, sidestepping.

The instance of 'beauty' demonstrates in way that even athiests can understand that some things that are very real are simply beyond scientific formula.

By the way, the way 'science' has been put forward here and so often by secularists, is solely as a very positive thing (proving) and in a rather triumphalist way. But of course much of science in fact depends on the negative (disproving). Apophatic science. Scientific knowledge is of itself temporary.

I see no conflict or contradiction between science and religious faith. And this is a venerable and ancient position. In the history of humankind many of the greatest scientists along the way have been people of faith. These have seen science - a position I would share - as an exploration of creation. Science helps us understand laws and mechanisms that make things 'tick', but not the great 'why' questions, without which are thus rather flat and two-dimensional.

It is patronising and puerile to simply see and describe issues of 'faith' as negatives, and much of the cliched examples that are given are in reality more to do with tribalism than anything, which would be there quite without a 'religious' label attached to them.

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:
3. JWM - We don't need a scientific formula for beauty. Atheists are perfectly capable of appreciating beauty and the wonder of the Universe. We're human not alien.

Sorry, not good enough, sidestepping.

The instance of 'beauty' demonstrates in way that even athiests can understand that some things that are very real are simply beyond scientific formula or evidence.

JWM,

No it's not sidestepping. We recognise human emotion - it's evidence based. We are also not arrogant enough to believe that science has all of the answers - we leave that to the religious. However, as rational people (mainly), atheists choose not to believe that which there is no reason to believe.

Finally, I resent the "even atheists can understand" comment.

I am genuinely sorry if I have made you feel resentment at - presumably - being misrepresented.

But perhaps you can begin to understand how I feel then?

And the 'beauty' question is a very serious one. Because there is disagreement about where beauty exists and where id doesn't. And it is cannot be pinned down to scientific formula or proven scientifically (except, perhaps by measuring someone's physiology in response to it), and - to get any kind of handle on it - can only be described in terms about how it makes you feel and by analogy, and yet it is very real.

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:
It is patronising and puerile to simply see and describe issues of 'faith' as negatives, and much of the cliched examples that are given are in reality more to do with tribalism than anything, which would be there quite without a 'religious' label attached to them.

JWM,

You seem to have edited your post since I first read it. The "cliched examples" I gave were simply to match the equally cliched examples that you gave (which are also in reality more to do with tribalism than the "atheist" label you attached). However, I think that on balance, religion has done far more harm than good.

quote:

The "cliched examples" I gave were simply to match the equally cliched examples that you gave (which are also in reality more to do with tribalism than the "atheist" label you attached).

Trev, doesn't this show that the real problem is tribalism rather than religion per se? Religion can provide an excuse to indulge in tribalism - but so can over-zealous identification with one's country, race or political organisation. I see no reason why an atheist can't accept this, so I'm not sure why Mike D refused to engage with my earlier posts on this thread.

I appreciate the effort you've made to argue your case without resorting to personal attacks and cheap jibes, even though it's clear you feel strongly about the issue.

For my part, I am starting to question the purpose of posting any more on this topic. I am comfortable with the accommodation I have made, and continue to develop, with the idea of faith. I also have unbounded admiration and respect for the achievements of science, having studied physics at University level. I have no wish to convert anyone to religion. It just irks me when I am accused (not by you) of being an imbecile, simply because I do not dismiss the idea of faith out of hand. But life is too short to worry about such things, eh?

Regards
Nigel

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:

quote:

The "cliched examples" I gave were simply to match the equally cliched examples that you gave (which are also in reality more to do with tribalism than the "atheist" label you attached).

Trev, doesn't this show that the real problem is tribalism rather than religion per se? Religion can provide an excuse to indulge in tribalism - but so can over-zealous identification with one's country, race or political organisation. I see no reason why an atheist can't accept this, so I'm not sure why Mike D refused to engage with my earlier posts on this thread.

I appreciate the effort you've made to argue your case without resorting to personal attacks and cheap jibes, even though it's clear you feel strongly about the issue.

For my part, I am starting to question the purpose of posting any more on this topic. I am comfortable with the accommodation I have made, and continue to develop, with the idea of faith. I also have unbounded admiration and respect for the achievements of science, having studied physics at University level. I have no wish to convert anyone to religion. It just irks me when I am accused (not by you) of being an imbecile, simply because I do not dismiss the idea of faith out of hand. But life is too short to worry about such things, eh?

Regards
Nigel

Nigel,

Thanks for that. I agree entirely with your point of view about tribalism and the rest of your very thoughtful and well reasoned post. If people have chosen faith that's their choice and I respect that choice even though I do not understand the logic of it.

My worry at the moment is that the edges of religion and tribalism have become so blurred that it's hard to tell the difference - and that's when it becomes dangerous.

All the best,
Trev

Beauty is like morality.

It can only be identified by the most advanced life forms.

It requires an understanding of morality and faith to really perceive beauty!