Oxford university runs courses on Catholic apologism, I don't think that cheapens all their degrees. Of course, 'creationism science' nonsense, but I don't think that takes away from all the other courses.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
We're singing from the same hymn sheet (if you pardon the pun
), in terms of children being exposed / told, what to believe & what traditions they must get onboard with, but as you get older you learn to question life in general, & religion is no different, probably more so if i'm being honest if your brought up in a religious environment like i was - i'm Irish afterall... and i was even an alter-boy - a pretty shit one i might add. Brutal to be honest. I think it was the first job i got sacked from, spent most of the time laughing & messing that the Priest wasnt amused whatsoever. Fair enough. He was an even shitter Priest than i was an Alter-boy by all accounts!I said you were being contradictory (as highlighted) by saying people should have the freedom to believe what they want to, but then you said that you hoped that religion crumbled type of thing. I suppose i was wrong saying that & i apologise. I just seen problematics in the second part of the statement, that kinda irked me that you were on one hand showing acceptance to a persons beliefs, then hoping that world came crashing down on that belief. Didnt think you needed to state the obvious & come out with that. It was nailed on thats how you think & crossed out your respect a persons beliefs line.
I dont see or know, how Religion affects you so personally. Rational logic / thinkin is all & good, but every race of people throughout an eternity has had an inner belief that there's more to the elements all around us, thats what makes the world unique & the most popular subject of discussion too. People use drugs to explore the outter world because they're bored of their environment. Some folk just get involved in religion or support City or Liverpool (twisted fecks).
How can you disprove the existence of God or a persons soul by the way? Surely you have to be dead to conclude that argument, so who knows, its all about faith. You've heard numerous stories about comin back from the dead etc.. Have you also heard the stories about a persons weight always drops by 7 ounces (i think) when they pass away, supposedly the souls weight. I'm no religious nut, but i do find religion fascinating to a certain extent, its alot less taxing than the Thiago "will he or wont he sign" thread thats for sure.. That 70-odd virgins etc.. thingy is very interesting also. Whats not to like about that?!
Because good parents have terribly weak relationships with their kids
The point stands and you are still an arrogant and offensive idiot. Your sense of superiority is as huge as it is illfounded.
Because good parents have terribly weak relationships with their kids
The point stands and you are still an arrogant and offensive idiot. Your sense of superiority is as huge as it is illfounded.
Your last sentence is exactly the phrase many posters on here would describe you with.
Just dont go to that University. Its obvious they're full of brain-washing twats that base their lives upon a book thats been re-written / interpreted for reasons only they know.
Nothing wrong with believing in God though, organised religion is the problem, but is also the solution to many peoples problems & gives them direction - hopefully in the best kind of way. Its sadly not always the case though. I'd love to attend a Baptist gathering - that looks like fun with all the singing & dancing etc.. I've an interest in what makes people tick & those folk seem to have alot of fun without being right-wing bible-thumpers!
I dig peoples grievances with religion - i have grievances aswell - who hasnt about any aspect of life?! But there's equally as many people involved in organised religion that are genuinely kind & loving people, as there are in heathenville
My family are pretty die-hard Catholics, so i know the shit folk have problems with, but i respect their views & chuckle inside sometimes at what they say. I dare not speak up though or i'd have the stare of doom by many. I think its funnier saying nothin to be honest, but i have to say that they're really loving people & would do anything for anyone, because they believe thats what Jesus would do.
Been dying to tell my Jesus joke (not mine of course) for feck knows how many years now, but i've always wimped out. Here goes:
"I found Jesus yesterday!"
"Really?"
"Yeah he was hiding behind the sofa the whole time the rascal.."
Always makes me laugh anyway
First, it's not based on just a "personal observation".. Most atheists I know (apart from the people on this board, who are seemingly blinded by their stubbornness and hate) admit that the relations among family members in religious societies are stronger than atheist societies. Second, don't you think that a person who lived in both societies will be in a better position to judge something than a person who only lived in one?
I agree that I haven't given an objective evidence yet to support my claim (although it's not actually "mine"), but let's just agree to disagree now about this issue, because it's very clear that you're deliberately trying to change the subject of the discussion, and I don't want to debate with 10 people about 10 issues at the same time, it's practically impossible.. Besides, this has never been among the main issues we're discussing, and it doesn't have real consequences on the major issues we're discussing, regardless.
Highly secular/atheistic countries (like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Canada etc.) tend to score highest (or around the top) on just about any ranking worth talking about (infant mortality, education, crime, HDI, democracy, women's rights etc.).
Thank you. Just seen your post. I've never given religion the credit for that, let alone saying that it's necessarily or always a good thing.. What you said could very well be a logical explanation, but it could also be something they inherited from their ancestors, even before Islam came along.
How do you know that I do nothing about it? Did I say this? Can you quote me please?
Being consistently wrong about everything will do that to you.
So why did you bring it up?
Who is in a better position to decide if the punishment suit the law they broke or not you think, you or the judge? The first statement is exactly the case with me.
Don't put words in my mouth. I told you I don't know if they're going to go to hell or not. That's for God to decide.. However, if they indeed end up in hell, then I do believe in this case that they have done something wrong enough for them to deserve it, as much as it would hurt me now to think of it.
You consider it a character form a book. For me, he's the creator of everything, and the judge in this case. You don't even love the judge (in court) as much as you love your parents, but you would still agree with him if he puts your parents in jail according to the law.
Also, since when did emotions start to become an "evidence"?! I'm actually surprised that people who are advocates for science and evidence are debating like this..
Are you serious, or just trying to be sarcastic? Because you're completely wrong.
So we should teach all kids about religion and science from the start, right?
Teach kids about religion in classes about religion, yeah. Just ensure they know it has no basis in fact and is founded on faith. And is certainly without any scientific merit.
I'd rather children were taught philosophy rather than religion, but if religious theism is to have it's own dedicated classes, anti-theistic objections should also be pointed out to them.
Well you can't force them to say what you want to say about religion anyway, just like nobody will force the scientists to say what they want to say about science.. But I totally agree with this..
And in fact, it's actually like that in most religious countries. Kids do start studying science along with religion, or even actually at a younger age..
Ok, expand on this then please, because I don't know this either.
How's heaven for the women? Do they get a batallion of hot young stallions aswell?
Also, what happens to infidels according to the Quran? Does every single one of us go to hell?
Anyway, let me bring up another question now..
Do you believe that Napoleon Bonaparte existed?
Do you believe that Napoleon Bonaparte existed?
Dont see why you differentiated between both types as regard to parenting Wibs, if you didnt believe Christians were shit parents compared to Atheists?! Also, thats maybe because you've got a bee in your bonnet, thus being very critical. No-one should tell you you're wrong with what you said either though, because thats your opinion & the experiences you have or impressions you've built along the way.
Bad parenting is terrible & soul destroying for anyone tryin to grow. Folk should always question themselves & are they doing the right thing & if they just so happen to be Christian they should ask themselves - "what would Jesus do..?" Guarantee you that a bad parent Christian wont give a flying, same as an Atheist parent. Always right mentality - even goin against their beliefs..
What, you mean the guy who lead a country, was met by thousands of people and didn't make us aware of his existence by secretly revealing himself through prophets who were definitely telling the truth? Let me guess, you're going to try and compare that to the "can't see god" question? Because that would be silly, Danny.
What, that short-arsed big noser?
Of course he did - sure he was in "Bill & Teds Excellent Adventure". Thats a true story is it not?
I'm leaving this thread at the first mention of Santa Claus.
He's still real to me goddamn it! :cry:
He's still real to me goddamn it! :cry:
Nah, that wanker never gave me the nuclear bomb I wanted when I was 5.
Heaven for the women is just like it is for men, and by the way, all those "descriptions" about heaven are just metaphors, as the Quran also mentions, because people won't understand if he's to describe how it looks literally..
There are verses that talk about women (the virgins) and verses that talk about young men, but sex has actually never been mentioned in both cases.. There are many differences in the interpretations of the exact meaning of those verses, but it doesn't really represent a crucial point for most Muslims (the details). All we know that it will be much better than any pleasure anybody could get on Earth, and we don't really care much about the details, because there is no way to be sure about the exact details, let alone being able to understand it even if we were told how it is really there.
Every single person will be judged according to his deeds. There are different levels of hell and different levels of heaven. I really don't know where every single one of you will go, and by the way, many Muslims could go to hell as well..
So, rather than getting virgins, do women get 72 practiced men with cocks just the way they like them?
My religious joke (overheard a while back)...
Woman was asked by another woman if she had a relationship with Jesus.
The woman responded, "Yes, but he said it was only sexual."
Woman was asked by another woman if she had a relationship with Jesus.
The woman responded, "Yes, but he said it was only sexual."
Thanks for the answers Danny, I won't bother you any longer.
Thanks for the answers Danny, I won't bother you any longer.
I'm not bothered at all.. You're welcome.
What I hope is that with an increase in critical thinking and reliance on science, people will accept less religions' versions of reality (creationism, hell and heaven,...) and rely more on what is proven scientifically. This will naturally lead to those religions having less influence on people as their gospel will not be as easily accepted. The key here is that anything that is not proven yet by science is unknown to us. We don't need to make up additional theories to explain things which we don't understand yet. Of course this applies to the public sphere : when you are in your house, do whatever you want ! This applies even more to Abrahamic religions which have an imperialist touch to them and stress on the fact that they are the only true words of some God.We're singing from the same hymn sheet (if you pardon the pun
I said you were being contradictory (as highlighted) by saying people should have the freedom to believe what they want to, but then you said that you hoped that religion crumbled type of thing. I suppose i was wrong saying that & i apologise. I just seen problematics in the second part of the statement, that kinda irked me that you were on one hand showing acceptance to a persons beliefs, then hoping that world came crashing down on that belief. Didnt think you needed to state the obvious & come out with that. It was nailed on thats how you think & crossed out your respect a persons beliefs line.
Because those civilizations were not as advanced as ours in terms of understanding the world surrounding them. We have made tremendous progress and we have a better view and explanation of many natural phenomena. Our knowledge is far from complete which makes scientific research an exciting domain. Whenever something becomes clearer to us, there is no need anymore to make up beliefs to explain things. As for the things we don't know, some of us accept the fact that "we just don't know yet" and some of us look for "explanations" that are not based on scientific proof which means that there as many "explanations" as people out there to formulate them. No one is pushing you to adhere to any of these schools but in the public sphere we must go with the former alternative. We must be neutral and limit ourselves to what has been proven.
We are not trying to disprove the existence of God in the same way as we would not try to disprove the existence of fairies. We are trying to limit oursleves to what stems from logical reasoning and scientific proofs. When science does not have the answers, we are satisfied with answering : "We don't know". Other people refuse this answer and choose to believe in supernatural things but then anyone can come up with anything : a God, a fairy, a nuclear cheese, whatever they want ! In this case, they are the ones that need to prove that what they are believing in exists. Otherwise, it has nothing to do in the public scene and should be kept to themselves.
Hey Danny, talk to us about "Fitrah" in Islam. What does it mean exactly ?
Yeah but that's just more unsupported meaningless bollox of the sort that has been argued cogently against.
What do you mean exactly? Are you talking about the "fitrah" that is related to fasting in Ramadan?
As much I don't really have a problem with people asking questions about Islam, I'd really appreciate it if you actually have a point behind your question.. Because if you don't believe in the whole thing, and you're not going anywhere with these questions in term of proving/disproving religions, then I'm not sure it would be worth it, and I don't even think it fits in this thread..
What - are you trying to say man, that Fairies dont exist?
I wouldnt chop a Fairy tree thats for sure. Thats the tree in the middle of a field on its own, that every farmer avoids like the friggin plague. I still get the creeps when i see one. In Ireland - we're steeped in superstition, same as the Banchee myth / story. I guess that comes from the Pagan background, which is ironic that we historically worship, but at the same time believe in a Pagan understanding..
Very well written what you said by the way man. Most folk are all or nothing, but i'm somewhere in between. I believe in God, but trust science equally because science is physical, belief is a spiritual mindset, but i couldnt have one without the other. To me, they co-exist - like family type of thing. I've always embraced both & questioned them also. The day you stop doing that is the day you just accept life as it is & i dont think anyone should settle for that.
Have a listen to this shite man. Dawkins did a radio show type of yoke, on Radio BBC Norn Iron - this is the small-minded crap we're subjected to all the time. I dont think most of these folk can actually spell Sicence. I'm no great fan of the man, but he came across very well & echo'ed my own understandings - well pretty much. Bloody nutjobs in our neck of the woods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitra
Before throwing accusations, know your religion.
Basically what "Fitrah" means is that any human being is born with a predisposition to believe in Allah or at least in "tawhid" (monotheism). Do you agree with this ?
I agree with you. As long as science and belief occupy different territories, there are no issues. Of course, the more rational thing to do is to refrain from formulating beliefs when we reach the boundaries of science and just accept that there are things we don't know yet. However, I don't think that accepting life as it is is an unsatisfactory position. Some people need some fantasy and spiritual aspect in their lifes, others don't. As pointed out earlier, there are societies where atheism is strong and that rank high in terms of social indicators. Just different approaches to life. The common ground being that whenever science has answers it must become the reference.
Yeah, it sums up the matter perfectly. Some people just cannot make concessions regarding their beliefs when they contradict science. It has been the case with Abrahamic religions for centuries.
Agree to a degree. Wether they believe in a god is irrelevant I think. What I understood from this thread is that religion and science should be separate (please correct me if I wrong). I think there is a slight misunderstanding here where the discussion somehow changed from how the two shouldn't be mixed to God doesn't/needn't exit.
I come from a different schooling culture. In my O levels (science - there is an arts route also) I had 4 religious subjects + 5 science subjects (Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology) + 5 Language subjects (4 Arabic + English) + 1 Art oh and PE.
The religious subjects where mainly about the Who. All the rest were about the what, when, how and why. In fact, the last 4 questions strengthened the Who. I appreciate how some may feel when a student asks 'why' and he/she is told because of God. I would feel the same way but I don't think this position needs the idea of a god to be non-valid for Science to advance (if this is the main issue).
------
Saying that, I am not sure if there are schools here where you could exclude religious studies entirely if that's the main point of the Atheists on here. If so, shouldn't that be easier to do (setting up non religious schools) and more beneficial to your cause than attacking other's beliefs/faiths?
Unbelievable. First you bring something up, then when people ask you to clarify it, you accuse them of changing the subject.
You should really stop this 'most atheist I know' shit too. It's a convenient way for you to just assert any old bollocks out of thin air. From everything you've said here, it would seem that not only do you not know very many atheists, it's as if you haven't met a single one. Such is the naivete and misapprehension you're displaying.
Your entire contribution in this thread has been boilerplate, amounting to hesitant, timid deism, and the amazing revelation that non believers can't prove the non existence of god, which most atheists I know will tell you in advance anyway, as most of them did in this very thread.
There's not much to change the subject from. The bollocks about family ties among atheists and believers is one of the rare substantial(if not substantiated) claims that you've made. Which is why everyone is jumping on it.