Religion survives by indoctrination of children shocker...

Ah, you would say that

Mike

We are both atheists but I sense we have no real common ground.

I do think you are confusing religion (as in the structures and organisations) with faith and spirituality in a number of parts of your posts.

You keep talking about 'truth' as an absolute (quote: because a lot of people believe in something this does not make it true). Faith is utterly true to those who believe and nothing you or I can say will make it otherwise. These threads have also amply demonstated that no argument will shake your own philosophies!

I'll duck out now.

Bruce

Hmm. A religion that has no "faith" requirement would be an unusual creature indeed.

People of "faith" often claim "truth" and yet always seem unable to support this "truth" with any evidence.

A scientific "truth" is always underpinned by demonstrable evidence, however. ie: The cause of cancers. The structure of the solar system. The cyclical purpose of clorophyll in tree leaves and so on.

It is clear to me that a religion is a structuralisation that underpins a "faith" of some particular kind (there are many, conflicting types) that has no inherently demonstrable truth, but merely a psychological condition that seems bought about by an emotional reaction to a story or set of myths.

No-one has yet, despite much prompting, managed to explain what is meant by "spirituality".

'bye! And may your lack of god (to paraphrase a now dead comedian of note) go with you.

Hello Davie; long time no see.

Hi Mike. Yes, it's been a while. Too many lists, not enough discussion. But I've started to dip my toes back in the water...

Another thought on this whole debate: If you live in the States and don't buy into the prevalent interpretation of Christianity (i.e. that promulgated by loud, intolerant, overbearing wingnuts), you start to feel very jaundiced very quickly.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
Hmm. A religion that has no "faith" requirement would be an unusual creature indeed.[QUOTE]

Wot like Buddhism? Not much faith required there AFAIK, leastways not in Theravadan Buddhism.

quote:

A scientific "truth" is always underpinned by demonstrable evidence, however. ie: The cause of cancers. The structure of the solar system. The cyclical purpose of clorophyll in tree leaves and so on.

Wot, like string theory or the Higgs Bosun?

quote:

No-one has yet, despite much prompting, managed to explain what is meant by "spirituality".

Living one's life with pure moral discipline so as not to make the world a worse place with an eye to gaining a better afterlife/rebirth?

1: Bhuddism: does not recognise a deity, therefore requires no faith in one, but does require faith in "karma" and so forth. Unproveable concept not supported by evidence. Also, like other religions, is homophobic.

2: No; like the cause of cancers, the structure of the solar system and the cyclical purpose of clorophyll in tree leaves.

3: That sounds to me more like a set of ethical precepts.

PS: predicated on attaining an imaginary status, of course...

quote:

Also, like other religions, is homophobic

Christianity takes the view, "hate the Sin, love the Sinner."

This does not de facto make Christians homophobic, altough they may be, coincidentally. Much like Atheists.

The idea that the evidentually natural condition of being gay is a "sin", is rooted in ignorance and bigotry.

Homophobic, in this instance.

Occasionally, natural justice seems to rear it's head as in the case of Mrs Robinson, who sought to suggest that homosexuality is an "illness" that can be "cured" because god, apparently, hates fags.

To see a disgusting bigots like her hoist by their own petard in public, is extremly amusing and most welcome.

PS: Sorry about the sloppy edit on the last sentence from singular to plural...

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
The idea that the evidentually natural condition of being gay is a "sin", is rooted in ignorance and bigotry.

Homophobic, in this instance.

I did wonder if "hate the sin, love the Sinner" would be too subtle for you, to be honest. Then again, you may be deliberately missing the point.

Simpler ( maybe ) anaology: I may hate tap dancing. You may be a tap dancer, but you are not "tap dancing" per se and this would be no reason to dislike you.

The sin is not the Sinner.

There is no "sin". This is just an excuse for the religious bigot to justify it's bigotry.

Pathetic.

"Recite this mantra daily
There is no God, it doesn't matter who I have sex with as long as we are consenting adults.
There is no God, masturbation is not wrong nor will it send you blind
There is no God, my daughter's / sister's virginity or lack of, is her affair and hers only
There is no God, if I'm going to have hang ups about my bride's virginity she has an equal right to have hang ups about mine.
There is no God, but if I get legless and start stripping in public it will end up on you tube and that might not be a good idea."

I hear the gnashing of teeth.

Yes, me too. One often hears these days from the faithful, wailing about how they'e all being sidelined or offended by vocal atheism. Welcome to the 21st cntury - you've no longer a monopoly on media domination.

Dan Dennett:

"Religious no longer a protected class

Q: Is there widespread media bias against Christianity? Against evangelicals such as Brit Hume and Sarah Palin? Against public figures who speak openly and directly about their faith? Against people who believe as you do?

There is no media bias against Christianity. If it appears to some people that there is, it is probably because after decades of hyper-diplomacy and a generally accepted mutual understanding that religion was not to be criticized, we have finally begun breaking through that taboo and are beginning to see candid discussions of the varieties of religious folly in American life. Activities that would be condemned by all if they were not cloaked in the protective mantle of religion are beginning to be subjected to proper scrutiny.

There is still a lot to accomplish however. We need to change the prevailing assumptions in the same way that public opinion has been reversed on drunk driving. When I was young, drunk drivers tended to be excused because, after all, they were drunk! Today, happily, we hold them doubly culpable for any misdeeds they commit while under the influence.

I look forward to the day when violence done under the influence of religious passion is considered more dishonorable, more shameful, than crimes of avarice, and is punished accordingly, and religious leaders who incite such acts are regarded with the same contempt that we reserve for bartenders who send dangerously disabled people out onto the highways.

I also look forward to the day when pastors who abuse the authority of their pulpits by misinforming their congregations about science, about public health, about global warming, about evolution must answer to the charge of dishonesty. Telling pious lies to trusting children is a form of abuse, plain and simple. If quacks and bunko artists can be convicted of fraud for selling worthless cures, why not clergy for making their living off unsupported claims of miracle cures and the efficacy of prayer?

The double standard that exempts religious activities from almost all standards of accountability should be dismantled once and for all. I don't see bankers or stockbrokers wringing their hands because the media is biased against them; they know that their recent activities have earned them an unwanted place in the spotlight of public attention and criticism, and they get no free pass, especially given their power. Religious leaders and apologists should accept that since their institutions are so influential in American life, we have the right to hold their every move up to the light. If they detect that the media are giving them a harder time today than in the past, that is because the bias that protected religion from scrutiny is beginning to dissolve. High time. "

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
There is no "sin". This is just an excuse for the religious bigot to justify it's bigotry.

Pathetic.

Mike, should a certain religion view that a certain course of action is and always has been a sin, then for the followers of that religion, it is a sin. Eating pork, for example. Murder, lust, gluttony and all that good stuff.

You are either really missing the point or do not have the intellect to recognise that sin is not the Sinner. Christianity, AIUI, does preach forgiveness of sins so I'm not sure how this fits in with the Mondo Dudley world view of the Religious.

You would seem to have some bigotry yourself, a bizarre mocking hatred of those who chose to follow some kind of Faith.

What part of "sex is not a sin" is it that you don't understand?

The invention of the "sin" of homosexuality is entirely bogus. These people (you people?) merely use it to disguise their bigotry against something they've been TAUGHT to loathe, as if there were something loathsome about what people share with each other consensually which is nothing to do with anyone else...

That last sentence was, of course, a reiteration of a point made previously because YOU DON'T SEEM TO BE ABLE TO GET IT.

Oh, and PLEASE spare me the pompous "do not have the intellect" blah di blah.

If I were gay, I might think a suitable rejoinder was to tell the "hate the sinners" to go fuck themselves, frankly.

No offense.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:

Oh, and PLEASE spare me the pompous "do not have the intellect" blah di blah.

Despite your protestations, your comment:

quote:

If I were gay, I might think a suitable rejoinder was to tell the "hate the sinners" to go fuck themselves, frankly.

No offense.

is somewhat bizarre as what I've said, three times now, is the Christian pov "hate the sin, love the Sinner."

At no stage have I said anything about hating the Sinner.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
1: Bhuddism ... does require faith in "karma" and so forth. Unproveable concept not supported by evidence. Also, like other religions, is homophobic.

Buddhism requires practice, not faith. The Dalai Lama says something like, If science shows Buddhism to be wrong, choose science. Also, the Buddha is said to have told people, Don't believe this is so because I said it was so: try it it, and if doesn't work for you, don't do it.

Neither Christianity nor Buddhism (as I understand them) is homophobic per se. It's a question of interpretation. There are many openly gay Christians, though admittedly not in the foaming-at-the-mouth sects. Homophobia, and hate in general, is absent in all mainstream Buddhism, certainly as practiced in the West.

But I couldn't agree with you more about Mrs. Robinson and other hypocrites, "religious" or otherwise.

quote:

as what I've said, three times now, is the Christian pov "hate the sin, love the Sinner."

As what I've said, three times now, is that "sin" is a nonsense invented by religious bigots to displace attention from their homophobia. There is no sin. There is no god. Religious people are bigots who like to act as if this displacement of so called "sinner" to so called "sin" makes it O.K. because they smile lot and like to appear holier-than-thou.

Creeps.

"The Dalai Lama was more specific in a meeting with Buddhist leaders and human rights activists in San Francisco in 1997, where he commented that all forms of sex other than penile-vaginal sex are prohibited for Buddhists, whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals. At a press conference the day before the meeting, he said, "From a Buddhist point of view, [gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct."

Ignorant bigot.

Some evidence of nice xtians tolerating sinners:

http://americansfortruth.com/n...g-homosexuality.html

http://www.christiantoday.com/...y.training/23180.htm

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

[quote]Religious people are bigots who like to act as if.....[quote]

You come across as totally and utterly intollerant of anything you don't consider to be "right".

In my opinion, you present yourself as the aetheist equivalent of a religious fundamentalist bigot.

That is not a compliment.

Perhaps it would be better if you presented your true colours?

Cheers

Don

Dear Mike,

Are you someone on the thick end of homophobia by any chance?

I think you will find homophobia in secularist and unworthy theist people alike, even so.

Perhaps some unworthy theist has been quite cruel to you over some "sin," and perhaps that really is begining to get to he root of your hardline, when correctly they shold have advised you to pray and repent. Presuming to judge would be a wrong thing for someone to do. God is the judge in such issues and individuals keep their peace with the Almighty by repentance assuming that they accept this is a good thing ...

A good Christian should abhor the sin and should still love the sinner, at least as I was taught.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
["The Dalai Lama was more specific in a meeting with Buddhist leaders and human rights activists in San Francisco in 1997, where he commented that all forms of sex other than penile-vaginal sex are prohibited for Buddhists, whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals. At a press conference the day before the meeting, he said, "From a Buddhist point of view, [gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct."

Ignorant bigot.

I think you re the only person I have come across who has called the Dalai Lama an ignorant bigot.

What an intolerant person you are, to criticise something with which you do not agree. If Buddhists say its sexual misconduct from a Buddhist point of view, then guess what? From a Buddhist pov, its sexual misconduct.

I suspect that, from a Christian pov sex with minors is sexual misconduct; does that make Christians ignorant bigots?

Mike, I've actually looked at the link that started you off on this whole shebang; got you wound up enough to castigate Christians etc.

It is actually about the Taliban brainwashing children into becoming suicide bombers, which is hardly a credible argument for backing up the title of this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:

quote:

as what I've said, three times now, is the Christian pov "hate the sin, love the Sinner."

As what I've said, three times now,

Not sure I've actually read that three times, there is a lot of white noise in your posts. I've made the comment very recently but it does seem to have been ignored by you.

quote:

"sin" is a nonsense invented by religious bigots to displace attention from their homophobia. There is no sin.

Mike, if Christians can "forgive" homosexual acts which they deem to be sinful, and accept the homosexual, that is to say the person, how can this be homophobic?

AFAICT Christians have no issue with gays per se, just homosexual acts. I hope this is not too subtle for you. As for "There is no sin", what about murder, lust envy, greed, etyc? Sure I'vce asked this above.

quote:

There is no god. Religious people are bigots who like to act as if this displacement of so called "sinner" to so called "sin" makes it O.K. because they smile lot and like to appear holier-than-thou.

So you are not able to tolerate the religious. I refer you to your view of the Dalai Lama.