Irwin's on about United. 
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
Irwin's on about United.
Ah makes sense.
The one true God...
Amen!
Oh good god, now the Catholic League wants to have a word with Bill Maher.
Catholics need to know just how far Time Warner is prepared to play the role of spectator. Does stewardship not count at all? HBO has been contacted many times, but nothing changes.... The time has come for someone in a position of responsibility to sit down and have a serious talk with this man.
This coming from a group that's been deeming us living sinners and threatening to castigate us to an afterlife of eternal hell if we don't buy into their "faith" of the 2000 year old biblical bollocks? feck off!
Catholics need to know just how far Time Warner is prepared to play the role of spectator. Does stewardship not count at all? HBO has been contacted many times, but nothing changes.... The time has come for someone in a position of responsibility to sit down and have a serious talk with this man.
This coming from a group that's been deeming us living sinners and threatening to castigate us to an afterlife of eternal hell if we don't buy into their "faith" of the 2000 year old biblical bollocks? feck off!
Those are some crappy columns (Lean and Hussain's), Walter.
Greenwald's too, for that matter. His point seems to be "it's okay to criticize religion, but it's not okay to focus more criticism on Islam than on the others." Absurd.
Hitchens tended to be quite even handed with his criticisms - Catholics, Protestants, Muslims etc. Greenwald (if its Glenn (aka Mrs Plechazunga) we're referring to ) is quite even handed as well imo.
Mrs. Plech?
I don't know what you mean by evenhanded. He continuously demonstrates that he either a) has not understood many of the arguments (probably because he's been content with fishing out a few quotes and not bothered about the context), or b) has understood them, but deliberately misrepresents them. The former seems probable given that he endorsed Hussain's ridiculous column (which, by the way, has been thoroughly dissected and discredited here.)
He also seems to be baffled that anyone could possibly think that Islam is a bigger problem and more worthy of criticism these days than other religions. Not to mention his apparent masochism and outright contempt for Western civilization. This is coming from a gay man who'd be murdered in many Islamic countries for no other reason than his sexual orientation. It's astonishing.
Harris does come across as a bit petulant in that e-mail exchange (even though the Lean and Hussain pieces were absolute trash), but I suppose that I'd be pretty pissed as well.
I don't know what you mean by evenhanded. He continuously demonstrates that he either a) has not understood many of the arguments (probably because he's been content with fishing out a few quotes and not bothered about the context), or b) has understood them, but deliberately misrepresents them. The former seems probable given that he endorsed Hussain's ridiculous column (which, by the way, has been thoroughly dissected and discredited here.)
He also seems to be baffled that anyone could possibly think that Islam is a bigger problem and more worthy of criticism these days than other religions. Not to mention his apparent masochism and outright contempt for Western civilization. This is coming from a gay man who'd be murdered in many Islamic countries for no other reason than his sexual orientation. It's astonishing.
Harris does come across as a bit petulant in that e-mail exchange (even though the Lean and Hussain pieces were absolute trash), but I suppose that I'd be pretty pissed as well.
I knew you'd enjoy them.
Sammy boy's aggressive tone in the email correspondence is funny whether one agrees with him or not.
I'm not the biggest fan of Sam Harris, but I can understand why he's so upset here. It's also worth mentioning that the exchange was a private one, before they agreed to show it to the public. People usually moderate themselves more when speaking in public than private.
Yey, thanks, Sal.
Today in the train, a Muslim man insisted that I shouldn't listen to music, cause it can damage my brain and it is a sin. I wasn't interested in debating with him, cause I was tired, I knew that a debate wouldn't do anything good (he surely would have been terrified if I told him that I am an atheist) and he was over 200cm tall, but what the feck is their problem. I was listening with headphones. No-one is telling fanatic religious retards to not believe in their religion, but why they insist to give unwanted advice.
You mean why did one dude insist...
It is not the only time this shit has happened to me. And I know other similar cases.
I know about cases when athiests spat at muslims for no good reason, why are you all the same?
I'm no Muslim, or any religion for that matter, but for you to associate any form of morality, in favor of religious, or non religious people for that matter, is incredibly naive.
I know some Muslims that are amazing people, would do anything for you. And I know some Muslims that are complete twats. The same goes with people from all walks of life.
Atheism, the newest religion. The movement that has become the very thing it hates.
They all read from the same set of texts. They all worship the same man. They all believe that, theirs is the right way. They ridicule people who don't agree and they all believe in one, undisputed creator.
Atheists.
They all read from the same set of texts. They all worship the same man. They all believe that, theirs is the right way. They ridicule people who don't agree and they all believe in one, undisputed creator.
Atheists.
Of course, I never generalized and said that people of a particular religion are twats/stupid, hell, my parents are Muslim. Some of my best friends are Muslim, and I have others who are Catholic.
I just shared a story that happened yesterday, and that in fact had happened times before to me or some friends I know. I know that to a religious people it is good if they share vies of his/her religion, and they will be rewarded by that, but to non-religious people this is annoying. I generally don't say to strangers that the beard is unaesthetic for example. Generally I don't give unwanted advice to complete strangers that most likely I will never meet again, and I expect in return the same. While I respect others religion, I expect that the others will respect the need of not being religious.
So wrong with these sentences.
He's a wahabi.
Thank God I'm an atheist.
This "feud" ended up on HuffPost Live 
No Harris or Greenwald though, but Hussain is there (and makes a fool of himself).
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/se...rris-richard-dawkins/51658aac02a76018a30001ed
No Harris or Greenwald though, but Hussain is there (and makes a fool of himself).http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/se...rris-richard-dawkins/51658aac02a76018a30001ed
World-renowned Turkish pianist Fazil Say has been given a suspended 10-month jail sentence for insulting Muslim values.
An Istanbul court found Say guilty over a series of posts on the social networking site Twitter.
Say was not in court for the sentencing. But he denied the charges, saying they were politically motivated.
The case renewed concern about the influence of religion on politics in Turkey.
Pointing to the prosecution of several artists and intellectuals for voicing their views, critics have accused the governing AK Party of undermining Turkey's secular values and pandering to Islamists.
Prosecutors had brought the charges against Mr Say last June. He could have faced a maximum sentence of 18 months in prison.
The indictment against him cited some tweets, including a retweet by Mr Say which says: "I am not sure if you have also realised it, but if there's a louse, a non-entity, a lowlife, a thief or a fool, it's always an Allah-ist."
Mr Say has previously said he was "amazed" at the charges.
Mr Say, 43, has played with the New York Philharmonic, the Berlin Symphony Orchestra and others, and has served as a cultural ambassador for the EU.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22151212
Some of the tweets:
"I am not sure if you have also realised it, but if there's a louse, a non-entity, a lowlife, a thief or a fool, it's always an Allah-ist."
"Why such haste? Have you got a mistress waiting or a raki on the table?" Raki is a traditional alcoholic drink made with aniseed. Islam forbids alcohol and many Islamists consider the remarks unacceptable.
An Istanbul court found Say guilty over a series of posts on the social networking site Twitter.
Say was not in court for the sentencing. But he denied the charges, saying they were politically motivated.
The case renewed concern about the influence of religion on politics in Turkey.
Pointing to the prosecution of several artists and intellectuals for voicing their views, critics have accused the governing AK Party of undermining Turkey's secular values and pandering to Islamists.
Prosecutors had brought the charges against Mr Say last June. He could have faced a maximum sentence of 18 months in prison.
The indictment against him cited some tweets, including a retweet by Mr Say which says: "I am not sure if you have also realised it, but if there's a louse, a non-entity, a lowlife, a thief or a fool, it's always an Allah-ist."
Mr Say has previously said he was "amazed" at the charges.
Mr Say, 43, has played with the New York Philharmonic, the Berlin Symphony Orchestra and others, and has served as a cultural ambassador for the EU.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22151212
Some of the tweets:
"I am not sure if you have also realised it, but if there's a louse, a non-entity, a lowlife, a thief or a fool, it's always an Allah-ist."
"Why such haste? Have you got a mistress waiting or a raki on the table?" Raki is a traditional alcoholic drink made with aniseed. Islam forbids alcohol and many Islamists consider the remarks unacceptable.
I feel stupid for just realising but all our countries are still run by religious fanatics.
I thought any religious reference by Governments, leaders etc... was just pandering to the religious but it is the opposite. They actually mean it and a lot more besides!
I thought any religious reference by Governments, leaders etc... was just pandering to the religious but it is the opposite. They actually mean it and a lot more besides!
I gave Catholicism a trial period while dating a bird a couple months back. I noticed how cult-like their rituals were and I had massive philosophical conflicts internally while listening to the clergy read scriptures and all.
I eventually spoke with a youth director at the church and was aghast at why she home-schools her kids (so she can openly teach religion). She claims that being educated and a science teacher (I saw no credentials but very well) that she can prove the existence of God. I was like, "Right on."
But the last internal conflict was listening to the priest, an educated and seemingly wise man from my hour long chat with him on a prior day, talk about The History Channel's upcoming series The Bible. How he mentioned to the congregation that the ark is a true story, how Genesis is 100% truth, etc. just left me speechless. It was at that time I exited the mass and haven't looked back.
I eventually spoke with a youth director at the church and was aghast at why she home-schools her kids (so she can openly teach religion). She claims that being educated and a science teacher (I saw no credentials but very well) that she can prove the existence of God. I was like, "Right on."
But the last internal conflict was listening to the priest, an educated and seemingly wise man from my hour long chat with him on a prior day, talk about The History Channel's upcoming series The Bible. How he mentioned to the congregation that the ark is a true story, how Genesis is 100% truth, etc. just left me speechless. It was at that time I exited the mass and haven't looked back.
I wonder what you'll do when you give the Church of Scientology a try?
Killing in the name of Religion, from the time of Crusades is just plain sick. It's equally as bad as killing in the name of countries. fecking random lines in the world map.
Killing in the name of Religion, from the time of Crusades is just plain sick. It's equally as bad as killing in the name of countries. fecking random lines in the world map.
I wasn't fearful of Catholicism stealing my wages and forcing me into labor.
Does the phrase 'religious fanatic' continue to hold any meaning? I'm tired of hearing it because I believe it's religions safety catch. The so called fanatics are doing no different to 'moderate' Muslims, they're simply cherry picking parts of the text and following it to the word. The only difference is which pages they choose to pay attention to. Obviously the outcome is different but in terms of following religious scripture are the fanatics any different to the moderates?
I don't think religion is bad. The way it is being used is what makes it bad. Don't blame the tool for the weilder.
Principles: For me, I would like to think, all religions are built on the principle of being good. Call it the Hindu Dharma or Christian Commandments or Buddhist Karma...it all sets out a set of primciples that are supposed to make humanity better.
Why is it needed? Tell a person he should be good and live by a good set of principles...and the obvious question is, why should I? What do I get by avoiding all those attractive and enticing 'bad' things? My belief is that religion provides a means to answer these by introducing the concepts of heaven and hell. Without a stick the carrot will be abused. Paint a picrure of being roasted alive in hell vs palying fiddles in heaven...it gives them a sense of purpose to be good.
Why is it mishandled? Most religions talk about good and bad, but rarely accurately define on who/what is good or bad. Ofcourse there can never be specific formula that gives you an output...and this inherant inconsistency in understanding is what causes confusion. Moreover it is a highly addictive power base. There are always unsatisfied people everywhere. They are willing to be led to a "easy route" to salvation. This blind hope fuelled madness is the bane of all that a true religion should stand for. The other distinction that makes a religion bad is the way it is enforced. Rather by choice, when it is enforced without choice (as in crusades or jihad), it becomes hard to accept.
Principles: For me, I would like to think, all religions are built on the principle of being good. Call it the Hindu Dharma or Christian Commandments or Buddhist Karma...it all sets out a set of primciples that are supposed to make humanity better.
Why is it needed? Tell a person he should be good and live by a good set of principles...and the obvious question is, why should I? What do I get by avoiding all those attractive and enticing 'bad' things? My belief is that religion provides a means to answer these by introducing the concepts of heaven and hell. Without a stick the carrot will be abused. Paint a picrure of being roasted alive in hell vs palying fiddles in heaven...it gives them a sense of purpose to be good.
Why is it mishandled? Most religions talk about good and bad, but rarely accurately define on who/what is good or bad. Ofcourse there can never be specific formula that gives you an output...and this inherant inconsistency in understanding is what causes confusion. Moreover it is a highly addictive power base. There are always unsatisfied people everywhere. They are willing to be led to a "easy route" to salvation. This blind hope fuelled madness is the bane of all that a true religion should stand for. The other distinction that makes a religion bad is the way it is enforced. Rather by choice, when it is enforced without choice (as in crusades or jihad), it becomes hard to accept.
Most people being that consequentialist point up. That in terms of the goodness of outcomes, religion does breed moral behaviour. That said, if you accept the premise that it such a system of beliefs are anachronistic and intellectually unbecoming, then it's easy to see that religion causes a hell of a lot of problems. I just don't buy that whole Dostoyevsky spiel about our morals being located in our belief in a God. I mean secular morality is a thing isn't it?
Yeah and I haven't really read the entire thread so if this is out of place, just ignore it.
Yeah and I haven't really read the entire thread so if this is out of place, just ignore it.
I agree with your post, and I would probably add 2 more points
1) Misinterpretation by Man - The Bible/Mormon Book of Scripture/Torah/Quran or any other scripture which is supposed to contain the word of God, is interpreted by a man/group of men and women and there is bound to be a lot of trouble in understanding the objectivity. For instance, Earth being the center of the Universe, Jihad/Killing for a cause have all been directly due to somebody wrongly understanding what's written in the text.
2) Changing times - The new testament contains a bunch of letters from Paul, which is supposed to lay down the law for the early church and these were basically a code of conduct written for about 2000 years ago. Those words have to be taken into context of what it means to people today.
'Why should I' is definitely not the obvious question, it's a natural instinct for most of us.If your inckination is to question why you should be good then I agree, you do need some kind of moral guidance. Just pick a better one, like the law or parental guidance.
We can't keep saying that religion isn't to blame and that man is mishandling it. We've been claiming this for thousands of years, millions of humans have apparently misinterpreted the scripture. Perhaps it's time you opened your mind to notion of the holy books being fundamentally flawed.
Just for the sake of balance, it's also true that religion helped millions of people to lead a moral life as well.
At best, religion gives people bad reasons to be good where good reasons are actually available.
Fruit Cake's post is riddled with nonsense, and is an insult to humanity (and especially nonbelievers).
I'm sorry, what are the good reasons?
There is no insult either posted, nor intended. I was just mentioning a reason for religions existence as a tool. As a strong willed stout hearted non believer, if you feel the tool is not necessary, then please feel to live by your choice. Just stop trashing people who may find it useful.
Religion was created by people, so it's success or failure rests on the creators not the tool. As ff mentions, the context is lost or misrepresented. Blind faith is harmful and that is what is religion is being twisted into.
I was born religious, but now am not. Haven't been to a place of worship in years. Not even on festivals. But I still believe in the core principles of it. We have laws and punishments in real life. Think of religion as a spiritual extrapolation for those who need it!
I'm not arguing if the reasons are good or bad. But it's true that religion, whatever be it, has helped millions lead a happy and contended life, without causing grief and strife to humanity in general.
Again, this is for the sake of balance, for every bomb blast and killing done by a religious fanatic, there's another who believes religion is the reason for his serenity.