# In the name of religion



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I can't believe that anyone can go into a Catholic Church and kill a Priest, it shouldn't matter what your faith a place of worship should be a safe place, and ot kill in that way is beyond words.

That's why I don;t believe anymore, if there is a god why would he let anyone kill in his name, and don't say it's because he gives us the choose to make up our own minds. We have been killing thouands of people in his name for thouands of years, if he up there and watching is as evil as those who kill.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

As far as I'm concerned, all religions should be banned. Imagine the wars and death that would never have happened without religion.

Of course that could cause a population problem, but you can't have everything


----------



## JoanneF (Feb 1, 2016)

Is religion the cause or is it used as an excuse? If religion didn't exist, I wonder if angry / resentful people would find another 'reason' to kill? But it is a truly terrible thing that happened, I am in no way trying to excuse it.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

When your time is up there is no sanctuary or safe haven for anyone.

However, Isn't it amazing what men are capable of under the hallowed flag of religion and isn't it arrogant of us to believe that this God might bless us and our country more than the next man and his country.

This apparent God is little more than a warmonger and plays both sides for amusement.

God is the oldest ghost story known to man.


----------



## Charity (Apr 17, 2013)

It is an excuse, you can't blame the religion itself. Most religions teach loving and respecting your fellow man and, if we all did this, there would be none of the troubles of today and throughout history but if individuals choose not to follow that creed, then they've turned their back on their religion. Man left to his own devices without any religion, rules or standards to live by is an undisciplined, uncontrolled entity who then reverts to his dark, basic instincts and, sadly, that's what some are returning to.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Charity said:


> It is an excuse, you can't blame the religion itself. Most religions teach loving and respecting your fellow man and, if we all did this, there would be none of the troubles of today and throughout history but if individuals choose not to follow that creed, then they've turned their back on their religion. Man left to his own devices without any religion, rules or standards to live by is an undisciplined, uncontrolled entity who then reverts to his dark, basic instincts and, sadly, that's what some are returning to.


Oh yeah

Love thy neighbour as you would love yourself. 

Yet it's perfectly acceptable to send a plague of locusts upon his house when he p15535 you off.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Yes we all need rules to live by, we are taught from an early age what is right and wrong and most of us live by them. OK some do go on to steal, rob and kill for their own greed, but they don't go round killing hundreds of people in the name of some mystical creature that was born out of fear or someones ego in our dark past, It's about time he was put back in his box and forgotten.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Happy Paws said:


> I can't believe that anyone can go into a Catholic Church and kill a Priest, it shouldn't matter what your faith a place of worship should be a safe place, and ot kill in that way is beyond words.
> 
> That's why I don;t believe anymore, if there is a god why would he let anyone kill in his name, and don't say it's because he gives us the choose to make up our own minds. We have been killing thouands of people in his name for thouands of years, if he up there and watching is as evil as those who kill.


But these people are not killing in any God's name.

People use religion, politics and all sorts of other justifications for doing things, but for their own purposes.

Look into the detail of the killings and look for the truth and truth is not what much of the media would have you believe.

there a are a lot of little "gods" that people choose to believe in nowadays including newspapers, tv, radio and internet................


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

MilleD said:


> As far as I'm concerned, all religions should be banned. Imagine the wars and death that would never have happened without religion.
> 
> Of course that could cause a population problem, but you can't have everything


How would banning of religion prevent such events? I am failing to understand.

Maybe we should ban political views / parties to?

We could also ban freedom of speech so we all think the same so don't say anything which may trigger a aggravation due to a differing of opinion.


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

It's interesting that the people who want to ban religion to save lives usually ignore the lives that have been saved because of the same religion.

If you look at the history of many charities & organisations that campaigned on issues of justice, freedom & equality etc, you will find that many of the people involved started these campaigns because of their strong faith. That still happens today. We have a huge refugee crisis that has been brought about in many countries in the name of a religion. But many of the charities and individuals involved in helping those same people are faith-based.

Evil people do evil things because they are evil. Banning religion won't do anything to prevent evil. Look at the countries that have already tried it. E.g. In North Korea, you can be imprisoned or executed for having a religious faith, but I bet none of you are desperate to move to that wonderful, religion-free country!!!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> I can't believe that anyone can go into a Catholic Church and kill a Priest, it shouldn't matter what your faith a place of worship should be a safe place, and ot kill in that way is beyond words.
> 
> That's why I don;t believe anymore, if there is a god why would he let anyone kill in his name, and don't say it's because he gives us the choose to make up our own minds. We have been killing thouands of people in his name for thouands of years, if he up there and watching is as evil as those who kill.


A truly shocking and horrifying thing and beyond the understanding of anyone with a shred of humanity. I don't understand why you think God is allowing anyone to kill in his name. Do you think he is sitting up there and saying there there nice boy go and enter a church, a house of worship and chop off the head of the priest in front of some nuns? We all have free will and make our decisions based on our own morals/beliefs but I fail to see how God is to blame when evil deeds are done.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> Yes we all need rules to live by, we are taught from an early age what is right and wrong and most of us live by them. OK some do go on to steal, rob and kill for their own greed, but they don't go round killing hundreds of people in the name of some mystical creature that was born out of fear or someones ego in our dark past, It's about time he was put back in his box and forgotten.


How very disrespectful to people who have a faith. Who should be put back in his box and forgotten? which box?


----------



## ForestWomble (May 2, 2013)

Terrible.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> But these people are not killing in any God's name.
> 
> People use religion, politics and all sorts of other justifications for doing things, but for their own purposes.
> 
> ...


This ^^

These barbaric acts have nothing to do with any faith of any kind.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Zaros said:


> Oh yeah
> 
> Love thy neighbour as you would love yourself.
> 
> Yet it's perfectly acceptable to send a plague of locusts upon his house when he p15535 you off.


From a Christian perspective, the 'smite 'em an' fight 'em' approach tends to be an Old Testament one, which fits with the level of understanding of the people at the time. What Jesus attempted to do was to reinterpret the message, hence Christianity now being best known for 'love thy neighbour as thyself', which better sums up the New Testament attitude.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> I can't believe that anyone can go into a Catholic Church and kill a Priest, it shouldn't matter what your faith a place of worship should be a safe place, and ot kill in that way is beyond words.
> 
> That's why I don;t believe anymore, if there is a god why would he let anyone kill in his name, and don't say it's because he gives us the choose to make up our own minds. We have been killing thouands of people in his name for thouands of years, if he up there and watching is as evil as those who kill.


With respect (and I really mean that!), this is quite an old, stereotypical understanding of what 'God' is. The idea of someone/thing 'up there and watching' is not one that most modern theologians (of any faith) recognise as any kind of truth.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> From a Christian perspective, the 'smite 'em an' fight 'em' approach tends to be an Old Testament one, which fits with the level of understanding of the people at the time. What Jesus attempted to do was to reinterpret the message, hence Christianity now being best known for 'love thy neighbour as thyself', which better sums up the New Testament attitude.


Despite its revision, the Bible as a whole, written by mortal men, is open to interpretation and there are as many different interpretations as there are people who might read it.

Now I wouldn't try to tell me granny how to suck eggs but this is where I believe this God went wrong.
He allowed his one and only son to be persecuted, tortured and then murdered.
This, we are to believe, was a supreme sacrifice for our sins.
In short this God gave man free licence to conduct himself anyway he chose because man understood, that when he finally shuffled off this crazy world, he would be forgiven as Jesus had already atoned for another's indiscretions.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

... of course then we'd have to ban Monday's too because the girl who didn't like Mondays used that as her excuse for murder 

Sure why not ban tv as well, that's another excuse.. music.. video games.. movies.. politics..

Heck why not ban skin colour? That's caused problems for years


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

The killer was on a tag, known to police, was stopped from going to Syria to join IS....pity they stopped him


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2016)

One single act by a solitary person in the name of their religion shouldn’t be blamed on that religion no.
However, when a centuries long pattern emerges of atrocities, small and large scale, committed in the name of that religion, then yes, it’s time to question those teachings. 

Here is the elephant in the room. Monotheistic religions do teach peace and kindness, however, they also teach judgement, revenge, jealousy, misogyny, child rape, slavery, mutilation... At the end of the day, if the contents of the book (be it the bible or the koran) are so easily misinterpreted in to jihads and crusades, witch burnings, and honor killings, then it’s time for the leaders in that religion to adapt and change and openly reject the teachings that can be misinterpreted in to violence. Both these books have been altered over the years by religious leaders to serve their own purposes, why not again? Why not just come out and say, “the bible is wrong here,” or “ignore what the koran says here”? 
It is up to the leaders within each religion to change it. And yes, they do need change if they are being used so easily as an excuse.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2016)

Nettles said:


> ... of course then we'd have to ban Monday's too because the girl who didn't like Mondays used that as her excuse for murder
> 
> Sure why not ban tv as well, that's another excuse.. music.. video games.. movies.. politics..
> 
> Heck why not ban skin colour? That's caused problems for years


Not ban but change yes.
Have you ever watched old TV shows where the husband spanked the women? Yes, thrown over a knee and spanked. It was considered acceptable for a man to hit a woman and the woman was portrayed as deserving/needing the spanking. Now you wouldn't see any of that. 
Or smoking? Actors used to portray smoking as cool and something everyone did. Now it's not nearly so common. 
The industry changed to keep up with the societal change. 
Religion needs to do the same thing.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> A truly shocking and horrifying thing and beyond the understanding of anyone with a shred of humanity. I don't understand why you think God is allowing anyone to kill in his name. Do you think he is sitting up there and saying there there nice boy go and enter a church, a house of worship and chop off the head of the priest in front of some nuns? *We all have free will and make our decisions based on our own morals/beliefs but I fail to see how God is to blame when evil deeds are done*.


We may have free will, but surely if he does exist he would stop these mass murders. After all he made the world in 7 days so surely he could stop a few lunics from killing.

The bibe tells us god is mercyful and can see everything, yet he does nothing to stop what is happening.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Zaros said:


> Despite its revision, the Bible as a whole, written by mortal men, is open to interpretation and there are as many different interpretations as there are people who might read it.
> 
> Now I wouldn't try to tell me granny how to suck eggs but this is where I believe this God went wrong.
> He allowed his one and only son to be persecuted, tortured and then murdered.
> ...


Interesting Zaros, and thanks for replying but, again, this is not most theologians understanding of the atonement.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> We may have free will, but surely if he does exist he would stop these mass murders. After all he made the world in 7 days so surely he could stop a few lunics from killing.
> 
> The bibe tells us god is mercyful and can see everything, yet he does nothing to stop what is happening.


What do you think he should do? strike down dead anyone who is about to do something wicked - where should he draw the line - all murderers? all rapists? all thieves? all adulterers? I think we would all end up as automatons if we were being controlled by a higher being. What sort of life would that be?


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

Religion is used as an excuse, if it wasn't that, it would be something else. 

Not religious myself, but I don't see the point in 'banning' it. 

What I do think it is important though, is that the various religious leaders of all faiths, do there best to root out the evil in there ranks, same goes for neighbourhoods where this kinda thinking flourishes.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2016)

stuaz said:


> What I do think it is important though, is that the various religious leaders of all faiths, do there best to root out the evil in there ranks, same goes for neighbourhoods where this kinda thinking flourishes.


Exactly. Instead of trying to cover it up, pretend it doesn't happen, deny it has to do with religion, deny religious teachings might play a role...


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

Nettles said:


> ... of course then we'd have to ban Monday's too


I think we should. I mean who likes mondays. 
I think we should also ban Fridays and Saturdays cus I have to work with the biggest cock wombling wankpuffin behind a busy bar.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Happy Paws said:


> a place of worship should be a safe place, and ot kill in that way is beyond words.


Not just places of worship, everywhere should be safe, i personally dont think a place of worship has more of a right to be safe than a place of work, or a nightclub, or a school or a hospital or anything else.. Religion poisons everything. perhaps then, we shouldnt be so surprised when some of that poison spills into their own buildings.



Happy Paws said:


> That's why I don;t believe anymore, if there is a god why would he let anyone kill in his name, and don't say it's because he gives us the choose to make up our own minds. We have been killing thouands of people in his name for thouands of years, if he up there and watching is as evil as those who kill.


true true.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Those who wish to kill will often have, in their twisted minds, a 'good reason' for doing so.

Peter Sutcliffe said he was on a mission to rid the World of prostitutes. The man who killed many residents of a Home for the Disabled recently, said he did it because there is no place here for the disabled.

Why did Hitler murder all those Jews?

I don't believe it's religion to blame for the terrorist attacks we have had lately, but rather somebody's interpretation of religion and their belief that, if someone else doesn't live by their beliefs, they should be eliminated.

People will always find reasons to kill - there will always be fanatics who just go too far.

I'm a Catholic, have been all my life, yet I have never killed anyone - I can't even bring myself to kill a wasp.

This latest atrocity was a murderous attack on an eighty five year old man, a defenceless old man.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> What do you think he should do? strike down dead anyone who is about to do something wicked - where should he draw the line - all murderers? all rapists? all thieves? all adulterers? I think we would all end up as automatons if we were being controlled by a higher being. What sort of life would that be?


I have no idea, but he's god isn't he, surely he should be able to work something out. as I said, if he can created everything in should be able to sort it out or he he just telling fibs.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sweety said:


> Those who wish to kill will often have, in their twisted minds, a 'good reason' for doing so.
> 
> People will always find reasons to kill - there will always be fanatics who just go too far.


Of course.. So knowing that, it's probably best for us as a species to stop trying to pass off hate laden violent fairy tales as factual documents of a divinity.

as the famous quote goes: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

porps said:


> Of course.. So knowing that, it's probably best for us as a species to stop trying to pass off hate laden violent fairy tales as factual documents of a divinity.
> 
> as the famous quote goes: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."


Well, in my opinion, anyone who does an evil thing cannot be a good person.

If you commit an act of evil, for whatever reason, then you yourself are evil.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sweety said:


> Well, in my opinion, anyone who does an evil thing cannot be a good person.
> 
> If you commit an act of evil, for whatever reason, then you yourself are evil.


..therefore god is evil.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2016)

porps said:


> ..therefore god is evil.


Which one?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Interesting Zaros, and thanks for replying but, again, this is not most theologians understanding of the atonement.


Yet more interpretations then.

However, on the subject of why so much suffering;

It was once explained to me why this God allows one man to inflict harm on another or multiples of others without his intervention. He claimed that on the day of judgement we would all be tried for our sins no matter how insignificant they be compared to those of others. We would all be judged in accordance with our indiscretions.
He told me God allows suffering so that there can be no question of our guilt on that day. 
We cannot be tried for our thoughts, I thought about punching him in the face and breaking his jaw. But we can for our actions. I punched him in the face and broke his jaw and when he was down on the ground I drove his head into the concrete, fracturing his skull.

If ya gets me drift.

Incidentally, this was explained to me by a Muslim


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> I have no idea, but he's god isn't he, surely he should be able to work something out. as I said, if he can created everything in should be able to sort it out or he he just telling fibs.


Why should he work something out? who said God was supposed to control things? Like I said before do you imagine him sat in heaven with a button to push to control the way people behave? This was the most barbaric and hideous murder of an innocent old man which was filmed by a couple of crazed and evil human beings. I hope it will be condemned by religious leaders of all faiths the world over. I can't get the image out of my mind of such a cowardly act and I hope their god forgives them for such a betrayal of his name.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I think everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, however weird/twisted/strange or inexplicable they may be.

Nobody is entitled to try to force their beliefs on others, especially with the use of violence, or to kill in the name of their beliefs, and I do believe that's the difference.

Killing in the name of their own, particular beliefs, is not necessarily killing in the name of religion.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Sweety said:


> Nobody is entitled to try to force their beliefs on others.


You've obviously never spent an afternoon trying to get rid of Jehovahs Witnesses.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Which one?


I did realise that i hadn't been specific enough but thought it might be allowed to slide 

I'm talking about the god described in the bible as thats the only supposedly holy book that I've actually read...


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Zaros said:


> Yet more interpretations then.
> 
> However, on the subject of why so much suffering;
> 
> ...


So, if we assume that there is no God, what we really have is some human beings behaving like monsters through their own choice.

Who, then, is really to blame?


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2016)

So are we saying religion has no influence over people? If so then what is the point?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> So are we saying religion has no influence over people? If so then what is the point?


I wouldn't say it has no influence over people but I don't think it has control over people and how they act.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Why should he work something out? who said God was supposed to control things? Like I said before do you imagine him sat in heaven with a button to push to control the way people behave? This was the most barbaric and hideous murder of an innocent old man which was filmed by a couple of crazed and evil human beings. I hope it will be condemned by religious leaders of all faiths the world over. I can't get the image out of my mind of such a cowardly act and I hope their god forgives them for such a betrayal of his name.


As I said in the dirst place he's a myth.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I wouldn't say it has no influence over people but I don't think it has control over people and how they act.


In that case then we should not give religion credit for the good things people claim of it either


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I believe everyone is responsible for his/her own actions, regardless of religion. No wrong becomes a right because of somebody's personal beliefs.

I'm certain we're all devoted to dogs here, but if we saw someone ill treating a dog in the street, we wouldn't beat them to death, (much as we may like to), because we strongly believe the ill treatment of an animal goes against everything in which we believe.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> As I said in the dirst place he's a myth.


In your opinion maybe. Its called faith. I'm sorry that you don't have any. I would find having no faith very sad and lonely. I can assure you it is not a myth to the millions of people it brings great comfort to.



ouesi said:


> In that case then we should not give religion credit for the good things people claim of it either


Not sure, that is difficult to answer. I said religion can have influence on people but not control them so in the cases where people are influenced by their religion to do good things why not give them/their religion credit for it? I don't really care why people do good things or why they do evil things, evil is evil whether its based on the persons beliefs or their personality or their lack of morals. I don't believe these young men were being controlled by their religion more that they have been corrupted by evil.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Not sure, that is difficult to answer. I said religion can have influence on people but not control them so in the cases where people are influenced by their religion to do good things why not give them/their religion credit for it? I don't really care why people do good things or why they do evil things, evil is evil whether its based on the persons beliefs or their personality or their lack of morals. I don't believe these young men were being controlled by their religion more that they have been corrupted by evil.


That's where you lose me though. You want your cake and to eat it too 
If religion gets credit for people doing good things and turning their life around, then it should also get credit for people doing atrocities in the name of religion.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> That's where you lose me though. You want your cake and to eat it too
> If religion gets credit for people doing good things and turning their life around, then it should also get credit for people doing atrocities in the name of religion.


No I don't want cake thanks its vile stuff 

I'm saying religion can influence people to do good things so why not give credit (whatever that is) when they do. Of course religion can influence people to do bad things too but I think that is because they have chosen to misunderstand or twist the teachings of their faith to suit their own agendas. If it makes people feel better/helps them to blame religion or blame God for these atrocities then so be it. I'm sure the priest who died wouldn't want people to blame God though.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> In your opinion maybe. Its called faith. I'm sorry that you don't have any. *I would find having no faith very sad and lonely. * I can assure you it is not a myth to the millions of people it brings great comfort to.


I have a full and happy life apart from having a stroke and not been able to do everything I use to, but that's life for you. I don't need a mythical crutch to lean on.

Each to their own.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Sweety said:


> So, if we assume that there is no God, what we really have is some human beings behaving like monsters through their own choice.
> 
> Who, then, is really to blame?


Haven't you already answered your own question?


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> No I don't want cake thanks its vile stuff
> 
> I'm saying religion can influence people to do good things so why not give credit (whatever that is) when they do. Of course religion can influence people to do bad things too but I think that is because they have chosen to misunderstand or twist the teachings of their faith to suit their own agendas. If it makes people feel better/helps them to blame religion or blame God for these atrocities then so be it. I'm sure the priest who died wouldn't want people to blame God though.


Which goes back to what I was saying. If the religious teachings are so easily twisted to support atrocities, small and large scale, and have done so repeatedly throughout history, then perhaps those religious teachings are not so benign after all.

For the record, here I'm talking about religious doctrines, not god(s). Gods are made up and for most of us (you included) not existent, so you can't blame something that doesn't exist for anything


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> I have a full and happy life apart from having a stroke and not been able to do everything I use to, but that's life for you. I don't need a mythical crutch to lean on.
> 
> Each to their own.


Yes each to their own but why the need to be disrespectful of those who do believe and have faith?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Which goes back to what I was saying. If the religious teachings are so easily twisted to support atrocities, small and large scale, and have done so repeatedly throughout history, then perhaps those religious teachings are not so benign after all.
> 
> For the record, here I'm talking about religious doctrines, not god(s). *Gods are made up and for most of us (you included) not existent,* so you can't blame something that doesn't exist for anything


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


>


I take it you don't believe in Thor, Quetzalcoatl, or Allah yes? So it would be silly for you (or anyone) to blame someone/thing you don't believe in.
I was just clarifying that my posts are directed at doctrines - human created belief systems, not gods.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Charity said:


> It is an excuse, you can't blame the religion itself. Most religions teach loving and respecting your fellow man and, if we all did this, there would be none of the troubles of today and throughout history but if individuals choose not to follow that creed, then they've turned their back on their religion. Man left to his own devices without any religion, rules or standards to live by is an undisciplined, uncontrolled entity who then reverts to his dark, basic instincts and, sadly, that's what some are returning to.


With all respect, I disagree.

When religions were thought up to keep folk in line, there weren't the nation wide laws there are now that keep most people, religious or not, out of mischief.

I was bought up in a family that wasn't religious, and I haven't broken _many_ of the 10 commandments 

Edit to add, I honestly don't mean to be offensive to anyone who has faith, I just don't get it I'm afraid.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm saying religion can influence people to do good things so why not give credit (whatever that is) when they do. *Of course religion can influence people to do bad things too but I think that is because they have chosen to misunderstand or twist the teachings of their faith to suit their own agendas*.


Trouble is, there seem to be an awful lot of this type around at the moment. So are they all wrong?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

MilleD said:


> Trouble is, there seem to be an awful lot of this type around at the moment. So are they all wrong?


What do you mean by this type? If you mean people who carry out barbaric murders in the name of their religion then yes I believe they are wrong. I don't personally follow any set religion and I can't claim to have studied other religions either but I don't see how anyone of any faith and following can find this sort of crime acceptable.

*French church attack: Faith leaders call for more security (BBC News)*

5 hours ago

From the sectionEurope








Image copyrightEPA
Image captionRepresentatives from France's major faith groups were at the Elysee Palace meeting
French religious leaders have called for more security at places of worship following the murder of an elderly priest in Normandy on Tuesday.

Representatives of Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist faiths spoke after meeting President Hollande.

On Wednesday evening Mr Hollande went on to attend a mass for the priest in Paris's Notre Dame Cathedral.

Muslim leader Dalil Boubakeur, rector of Paris's Grand Mosque, said the leaders "deeply desire that our places of worship are the subject of greater [security] focus, a sustained focus", as even "the most humble place of worship" can be subject to an attack.

*Mr Boubakeur expressed "profound sorrow" on behalf of French Muslims at the attack, which he described as a "blasphemous sacrilege".*

The Archbishop of Paris, Andre Vingt-Trois, praised the harmonious relations between France's religions.

"We must not let ourselves get pulled in to Daesh's political games," he said, using a pejorative term for IS, saying it wanted "to set children of the same family against each other".

On another note - how amazing to see a Roman Catholic service being held in Hampton Court Palace for the first time in 450 years

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35536937

and look at the crowds of youngsters out to see the Pope in Poland

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36902882


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> No I don't want cake thanks its vile stuff
> 
> I'm saying religion can influence people to do good things so why not give credit (whatever that is) when they do. Of course religion can influence people to do bad things too but I think that is because they have chosen to misunderstand or twist the teachings of their faith to suit their own agendas. If it makes people feel better/helps them to blame religion or blame God for these atrocities then so be it. I'm sure the priest who died wouldn't want people to blame God though.


And many religious people would argue that you are the one twisting and misunderstanding the faith... It's all just cherry picking. Maybe the problem isn't that some people will pick the poisonous cherries, maybe the whole damn cherry tree needs chopping down since some of the cherries are poisonous.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

porps said:


> And many religious people would argue that you are the one twisting and misunderstanding the faith... It's all just cherry picking. Maybe the problem isn't that some people will pick the poisonous cherries, maybe the whole damn cherry tree needs chopping down since some of the cherries are poisonous.


If they think that then I'm more than happy to discuss it with them, not sure how I've twisted or misunderstood their faith as I've already said I haven't studied any faiths but I do listen to what religious leaders say after events like the recent attacks and they too condemn them as I quoted above

Muslim leader Dalil Boubakeur, rector of Paris's Grand Mosque, said the leaders "deeply desire that our places of worship are the subject of greater [security] focus, a sustained focus", as even "the most humble place of worship" can be subject to an attack.

*Mr Boubakeur expressed "profound sorrow" on behalf of French Muslims at the attack, which he described as a "blasphemous sacrilege"*


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> If they think that then I'm more than happy to discuss it with them, not sure how I've twisted or misunderstood their faith as I've already said I haven't studied any faiths but I do listen to what religious leaders say after events like the recent attacks and they too condemn them as I quoted above
> 
> Muslim leader Dalil Boubakeur, rector of Paris's Grand Mosque, said the leaders "deeply desire that our places of worship are the subject of greater [security] focus, a sustained focus", as even "the most humble place of worship" can be subject to an attack.
> 
> *Mr Boubakeur expressed "profound sorrow" on behalf of French Muslims at the attack, which he described as a "blasphemous sacrilege"*


Well the bible for example is pretty clear about what you can and cant do to your slave, the role of women in society, sex before marriage, worshipping false idols, homosexuality etc etc and it also details the correct punishment for such things... Sure it can be nice so long as you ignore all the disgustingly horrible parts, but thats cherry picking.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

Father Hamel had been a priest for 58 years and when asked if he was going to retire said that he wanted to serve until his last breath. He understood what faith is really supposed to be about.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Sad to think some use their faith to justify their appalling actions. It wasn't reassuring to hear the Pope say we're at war, but not in the name of religion in his view.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Happy Paws said:


> Yes we all need rules to live by, we are taught from an early age what is right and wrong and most of us live by them. OK some do go on to steal, rob and kill for their own greed, but they don't go round killing hundreds of people in the name of some mystical creature that was born out of fear or someones ego in our dark past, It's about time he was put back in his box and forgotten.


Your post brought me in mind of this HP 
*
"A good society allows you to believe in any God or other mythical creature. What it doesn't allow is for you to do bad things in their name." Ricky Gervais

*


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I've posted this before but I think its well worth sharing again. Stephen Fry gives it to 'God' with both barrels lol


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Gosh I've only just googled this story. I had no idea a priest was beheaded. How horrific. Poor man.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Gosh I've only just googled this story. I had no idea a priest was beheaded. How horrific. Poor man.


Yes it was horrific - might you reconsider the appropriateness of posting that vile video of Stephen Fry under the circumstances please.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Yes it was horrific - might you reconsider the appropriateness of posting that vile video of Stephen Fry under the circumstances please.


I can't see the video - "not available in your country" but if it's the one where he says what he would say to god at the pearly gates?
What is vile about it?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I can't see the video - "not available in your country" but if it's the one where he says what he would say to god at the pearly gates?
> What is vile about it?


I'm not sure this thread which is about the murder of a Priest in his place of worship in front of nuns and parishioners is the right place for it as I think its like an attack on the Priest and all he stood for which is vile and disrespectful. I find his comments about God being mean minded, stupid, a selfish maniac, monstrous and deserving of no respect as vile now as I did when I first had the misfortune to watch it. Other than that I'm sure he is a very nice man


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm not sure this thread which is about the murder of a Priest in his place of worship in front of nuns and parishioners is the right place for it as I think its like an attack on the Priest and all he stood for which is vile and disrespectful. I find his comments about God being mean minded, stupid, a selfish maniac, monstrous and deserving of no respect as vile now as I did when I first had the misfortune to watch it. Other than that I'm sure he is a very nice man


Hmm... if it's the video I think it is, I don't see how it is inappropriate at all. 
Fry is basically questioning how an all-powerful, all-knowing, god could allow such horrific things to happen to innocent people. That seems a perfectly apt question in light of the horror that did happen to Father Hamel while he was doing his god's work, in front of his parishioners.

I don't think it's disrespectful to question faith, to question god (if you believe in him/her/it), to question doctrines. 
I have several devoutly Christian friends who are not at all offended by questions like Fry's or ones that I pose. They are confident enough in their beliefs to not feel threatened by those who don't share them - and it makes for fantastic discussions frankly.

It's not a good place for any religion to be where it is untouchable, and certain things are off limits and never to be discussed nor questioned.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Hmm... if it's the video I think it is, I don't see how it is inappropriate at all.
> Fry is basically questioning how an all-powerful, all-knowing, god could allow such horrific things to happen to innocent people. That seems a perfectly apt question in light of the horror that did happen to Father Hamel while he was doing his god's work, in front of his parishioners.
> 
> I don't think it's disrespectful to question faith, to question god (if you believe in him/her/it), to question doctrines.
> ...


I'm not saying we shouldn't have those discussions and I'm more than happy to debate them but I think that video is disrespectful to the priest and what he stood for/his life. By all means have the discussion but not that video in this thread. If everyone else is happy with it then fine but I'm really not.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

porps said:


> Well the bible for example is pretty clear about what you can and cant do to your slave, the role of women in society, sex before marriage, worshipping false idols, homosexuality etc etc and it also details the correct punishment for such things... Sure it can be nice so long as you ignore all the disgustingly horrible parts, but thats cherry picking.


Context @porps, context!


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I have no pronlem with what Stephen Fry says talks a lot of sence as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> I can't believe that anyone can go into a Catholic Church and kill a Priest, it shouldn't matter what your faith a place of worship should be a safe place, and ot kill in that way is beyond words.


Murder of *any* individual is wrong, immoral and sickening, regardless of their title or their standing. That is the point we should be making here. The murder of the priest is no more and no less horrific than the murder of the individuals who were killed by terrorists in Paris or Brussels or those recently in Germany. To give weight to certain individuals or to the perpetrators because of their creed is to *make* this about religion.

It's not about religion, it's about politics.

The very fact that we use the term 'terrorist' to describe the people and their actions as 'terrorism' is a better way at looking at what these acts are. Terrorism is defined as "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of *political *aims." And a terrorist is "a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of *political* aims".

Throughout history individuals have always used the weak and vulnerable to do their dirty work ....they are easier to indoctrinate, easier to brainwash. But let's not make this about religion. That would mean giving the acts a status they do not deserve and the people recognition for what is nothing more than slaughter.

J


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> Murder of *any* individual is wrong, immoral and sickening, regardless of their title or their standing. That is the point we should be making here. The murder of the priest is no more and no less horrific than the murder of the individuals who were killed by terrorists in Paris or Brussels or those recently in Germany. To give weight to certain individuals or to the perpetrators because of their creed is to *make* this about religion.
> 
> It's not about religion, it's about politics.
> 
> ...


Sorry but what planet do you come from,

The whole thing is about religion and if religion isn't brainwashing I'm not sure what is.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> The whole thing is about religion .


No, it;s about power and control. Only the vulnerable foot soldiers believe they are saving their souls.

What planet do i come from? What is that supposed to mean?

J


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Context @porps, context!


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Is it alright if I gracefully bow out of this discussion.

I think God tried to kill me today:Nailbiting


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Yes it was horrific - might you reconsider the appropriateness of posting that vile video of Stephen Fry under the circumstances please.


I don't think it is a vile video & I only posted it because people were already saying similar things on here.

And just to add although I don't believe in god, I don't think religion should be banned. What I do think is it is wrong to indoctrinate children into a religion. Leave children with open minds so they can decide for themselves when they are adults 



Zaros said:


> Is it alright if I gracefully bow out of this discussion.
> 
> I think God tried to kill me today:Nailbiting


Blimey, hope you're ok!


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Blimey, hope you're ok!


I earned myself three busted ribs Noush'

And I was being a good samaritan too


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

I find it odd that a topic condemning the intolerance of two men toward a religion they believed was wrong should include so many comments that are intolerant of any religion...


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> I've posted this before but I think its well worth sharing again. Stephen Fry gives it to 'God' with both barrels lol


Not often I find myself agreeing with your posts @noushka05 but Mr Fry is sooooo right. Bone cancer in children? Bugs that sole life cycle is bury into people's eyes. If they were created by 'God' then I can safely say it's not a god I would want to be associated with.

As for being disrespectful.....


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2016)

CuddleMonster said:


> I find it odd that a topic condemning the intolerance of two men toward a religion they believed was wrong should include so many comments that are intolerant of any religion...


I'm happy to be thought intolerant of heinous murder


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

stuaz said:


> Not often I find myself agreeing with your posts @noushka05 but Mr Fry is sooooo right. Bone cancer in children? Bugs that sole life cycle is bury into people's eyes. If they were created by 'God' then I can safely say it's not a god I would want to be associated with.
> 
> As for being disrespectful.....


 right back at you.


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

ouesi said:


> I'm happy to be thought intolerant of heinous murder


But not every person who has a religious faith commits murder. And some atheists also commit murder.

Most people with a religious faith would condemn murder. So I don't see why 'being intolerant of murder' should mean 'I am going to condemn all religious belief'


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> right back at you.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2016)

CuddleMonster said:


> But not every person who has a religious faith commits murder. And some atheists also commit murder.
> 
> Most people with a religious faith would condemn murder. So I don't see why 'being intolerant of murder' should mean 'I am going to condemn all religious belief'


I didn't condemn all religious beliefs.

I was the one who said I don't think religion needs to be banned. Reworked and reframed absolutely. And I think the leaders need to address the fact that the teachings are so easily misinterpreted (if that's how you want to play it).

I am all for people believing whatever they want to believe. 
What I'm not supportive of, are doctrines that encourage people to act in atrocious ways. If that is intolerant of me, I'm happy to be intolerant. 
I am intolerant of many things, gladly so. Outdated, irresponsible doctrines are one of them.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Zaros said:


> I earned myself three busted ribs Noush'
> 
> And I was being a good samaritan too


Aw really sorry, what happened?. You must be in agony - especially when you breath - or laugh! Hope your ribs heal quickly Zaros xx



stuaz said:


> Not often I find myself agreeing with your posts @noushka05 but Mr Fry is sooooo right. Bone cancer in children? Bugs that sole life cycle is bury into people's eyes. If they were created by 'God' then I can safely say it's not a god I would want to be associated with.
> 
> As for being disrespectful.....


Well fancy not agreeing with my posts often! 

Yep, I totally agree with you & Stephen. If there is a god he certainly is monstrous & not one I want to be associated with either.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> right back at you.


I find it fascinating that you have blind faith in something that has never been proven to exist while on the other hand deny the irrefutable scientific evidence on climate change. I guess having blind faith means you can deny humans can change the climate too.

I found this really interesting study on faith groups & climate change. Its incredible & very scary to think that a large group of people can be in complete denial about basic science. VERY dangerous when catastrophic climate breakdown is staring us in the face.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ods-role-in-climate-change-natural-disasters/


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

porps said:


>


Context in terms of its place in history and its place now, not context as in 'which page, which chapter'!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> *I find it fascinating that you have blind faith in something that has never been proven to exist* while on the other hand deny the irrefutable scientific evidence on climate change. I guess having blind faith means you can deny humans can change the climate too.
> 
> I found this really interesting study on faith groups & climate change. Its incredible & very scary to think that a large group of people can be in complete denial about basic science. VERY dangerous when catastrophic climate breakdown is staring us in the face.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ods-role-in-climate-change-natural-disasters/


 Good I'm glad you find me fascinating - I guess that is what makes up human personality - we all believe in different things for different reasons and we don't all worship at the alter of celebrity opinions and twitter  You actually have no idea what I believe in and whether I have blind faith or not - I think I have said several times before that I don't follow a set religion, I believe in God because I have my own (personal) reasons to believe and that is my faith, I believe it because I know it to be true (for me) and I not only feel it but believe I have witnessed it (that presence) when caring for people during their last days and at their death. I don't ask you to believe what I believe or anyone else to. All I ask is that you (general) don't mock and disrespect religion. You (general) preach tolerance when it comes to immigration but not when it comes to religious beliefs (or should I say some religions) which seem to be fair game for mockery. That I don't understand anymore than you understand my views on climate change which incidentally are not that humans cannot change the climate I just don't believe the same as you and the "blind faith" you put in scientists who never manipulate anything after all and treat all of Gods creatures with care and compassion at all times.



stuaz said:


>


I apologise I was being sarcastic because I thought this comment you made

As for being disrespectful..... 

was aimed at me. Whether it was or whether it wasn't my response was childish.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Has Mr Smug Pompous Fry made an equivalent video about the Islamic religion? Thought not - easy to deride Christian faith as the followers are unlikely to chop your head off or in his particular case throw him off a building


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

DoodlesRule said:


> Has Mr Smug Pompous Fry made an equivalent video about the Islamic religion? Thought not - easy to deride Christian faith as the followers are unlikely to chop your head off or in his particular case throw him off a building


Muslims don't chop off heads or throw people off buildings, just as christians and catholics aren't violent in Ireland. Unless of course doing the exact opposite of a scripture is what makes someone religious.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Good I'm glad you find me fascinating - I guess that is what makes up human personality - we all believe in different things for different reasons and we don't all worship at the alter of celebrity opinions and twitter  You actually have no idea what I believe in and whether I have blind faith or not - I think I have said several times before that I don't follow a set religion, I believe in God because I have my own (personal) reasons to believe and that is my faith, I believe it because I know it to be true (for me) and I not only feel it but believe I have witnessed it (that presence) when caring for people during their last days and at their death. I don't ask you to believe what I believe or anyone else to. All I ask is that you (general) don't mock and disrespect religion. You (general) preach tolerance when it comes to immigration but not when it comes to religious beliefs (or should I say some religions) which seem to be fair game for mockery. That I don't understand anymore than you understand my views on climate change which incidentally are not that humans cannot change the climate I just don't believe the same as you and the "blind faith" you put in scientists who never manipulate anything after all and treat all of Gods creatures with care and compassion at all times.
> 
> I apologise I was being sarcastic because I thought this comment you made
> 
> ...


Top post RPH!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Vanessa131 said:


> Muslims don't chop off heads or throw people off buildings, just as christians and catholics aren't violent in Ireland. Unless of course doing the exact opposite of a scripture is what makes someone religious.


Oh ok!

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/...ians-accept-the-reality-of-islamic-terrorism/


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Good I'm glad you find me fascinating - I guess that is what makes up human personality - we all believe in different things for different reasons and we don't all worship at the alter of celebrity opinions and twitter  You actually have no idea what I believe in and whether I have blind faith or not - I think I have said several times before that I don't follow a set religion, I believe in God because I have my own (personal) reasons to believe and that is my faith, I believe it because I know it to be true (for me) and I not only feel it but believe I have witnessed it (that presence) when caring for people during their last days and at their death. I don't ask you to believe what I believe or anyone else to. All I ask is that you (general) don't mock and disrespect religion. You (general) preach tolerance when it comes to immigration but not when it comes to religious beliefs (or should I say some religions) which seem to be fair game for mockery. That I don't understand anymore than you understand my views on climate change which incidentally are not that humans cannot change the climate I just don't believe the same as you and the "blind faith" you put in scientists who never manipulate anything after all and treat all of Gods creatures with care and compassion at all times.
> 
> I apologise I was being sarcastic because I thought this comment you made
> 
> ...


No I don't find_ you_ fascinating RPH, just your mindset You don't have to subscribe to any religion, just believing in something unproven is having blind faith it exists. I simply don't understand how someone can have faith in an intangible god with zero evidence, yet deny the insurmountable evidence proving climate change. I guess I'll never understand such closed mindedness. So unless you have radically changed your views on the subject you are definitely in the AGW denial camp. That much I know because I remember from past posts, when you supported your views with the debunked 'hockey stick' graph, & lunatic deniers like Plimer & Delingpole. I definitely believe in science, but that doesn't mean I have 'blind faith' in all scientists. Obviously not all are going to be credible or honourable & without a 'hidden agenda' (take Professor Plimer for example! lol). Nor do I think all scientists treat 'gods' creatures with care or compassion ( quite the opposite in certain fields of science!) But we aren't talking about a handful of unreputable scientists in the field of climate science. This is just about the whole scientific community we are talking about!. Thousands of scientists all telling us the same thing: That climate change is real, its happening right now & its one of the greatest threats we face! Do you seriously believe ALL these experts have some hidden agenda? Not the likes of scientists such as Plimer? lol 

I don't worship at any alter, celebrity or otherwise. I 'respect' & 'admire' celebs who use their status to highlight cruelty & injustice. The things I'm passionate about myself. I only wish more would use their platform for good, instead of just being superficial & shallow.



DoodlesRule said:


> Has Mr Smug Pompous Fry made an equivalent video about the Islamic religion? Thought not - easy to deride Christian faith as the followers are unlikely to chop your head off or in his particular case throw him off a building


I don't think Stephen Fry supports any religion - hes atheist.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2016)

I think it’s important in these conversations to be clear about separating individual beliefs from overall religious doctrines. 
What someone believes, or has experienced is personal to them and not anyone’s domain to address other than that individual. 

Religious teachings meant to influence large groups of followers should be addressed, questioned, scrutinized, etc. 
Saying “context” doesn’t change the fact that the Christian Bible advocates some pretty extreme stuff - to put it mildly. As does the Koran. And those passages are used to encourage and excuse some pretty heinous human behavior. To me, that’s a fault in the teachings that needs to be addressed. 

If it was okay for King James to edit the Bible as he saw fit, why not again now?
I don’t know the history of the Koran, but knowing it has been translated multiple times, the same I’m sure is true for it. If it’s okay to edit and revise books why not edit out the passages that no longer serve a purpose other than to incite hate, otherness, and divisiveness? 

Every other aspect of humanity has evolved and changed as we learn more and gain understanding. Yet somehow religion - mainly monotheistic religions, refuse to adapt and change along with the rest of humanity. If they don’t change and adapt I think you will find that eventually humanity will move on without its religions, as it must if they don’t change.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> No I don't find_ you_ fascinating RPH, just your mindset You don't have to subscribe to any religion, just believing in something unproven is having blind faith it exists. I simply don't understand how someone can have faith in an intangible god with zero evidence, yet deny the insurmountable evidence proving climate change. I guess I'll never understand such closed mindedness. So unless you have radically changed your views on the subject you are definitely in the AGW denial camp. That much I know because I remember from past posts, when you supported your views with the debunked 'hockey stick' graph, & lunatic deniers like Plimer & Delingpole. I definitely believe in science, but that doesn't mean I have 'blind faith' in all scientists. Obviously not all are going to be credible or honourable & without a 'hidden agenda' (take Professor Plimer for example! lol). Nor do I think all scientists treat 'gods' creatures with care or compassion ( quite the opposite in certain fields of science!) But we aren't talking about a handful of unreputable scientists in the field of climate science. This is just about the whole scientific community we are talking about!. Thousands of scientists all telling us the same thing: That climate change is real, its happening right now & its one of the greatest threats we face! Do you seriously believe ALL these experts have some hidden agenda? Not the likes of scientists such as Plimer? lol
> 
> I don't worship at any alter, celebrity or otherwise. I 'respect' & 'admire' celebs who use their status to highlight cruelty & injustice. The things I'm passionate about myself. I only wish more would use their platform for good, instead of just being superficial & shallow.
> 
> *I don't think Stephen Fry supports any religion - hes atheist*.


Precisely. He refers to God, ie Christian god, no mention of the Islam deity because lets face it he wouldn't dare would he


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> No I don't find_ you_ fascinating RPH, just your mindset You don't have to subscribe to any religion, just believing in something unproven is having blind faith it exists. * I simply don't understand how someone can have faith in an intangible god with zero evidence, *yet deny the insurmountable evidence proving climate change. I guess I'll never understand such closed mindedness. So unless you have radically changed your views on the subject you are definitely in the AGW denial camp. That much I know because I remember from past posts, when you supported your views with the debunked 'hockey stick' graph, & lunatic deniers like Plimer & Delingpole. I definitely believe in science, but that doesn't mean I have 'blind faith' in all scientists. Obviously not all are going to be credible or honourable & without a 'hidden agenda' (take Professor Plimer for example! lol). Nor do I think all scientists treat 'gods' creatures with care or compassion ( quite the opposite in certain fields of science!) But we aren't talking about a handful of unreputable scientists in the field of climate science. This is just about the whole scientific community we are talking about!. Thousands of scientists all telling us the same thing: That climate change is real, its happening right now & its one of the greatest threats we face! Do you seriously believe ALL these experts have some hidden agenda? Not the likes of scientists such as Plimer? lol
> 
> I don't worship at any alter, celebrity or otherwise. I 'respect' & 'admire' celebs who use their status to highlight cruelty & injustice. The things I'm passionate about myself. I only wish more would use their platform for good, instead of just being superficial & shallow.
> 
> .


There you go again - I've already explained why I believe what I believe but because it doesn't fit with what you believe there is zero evidence. Do you realise that is very hurtful to someone who has taken the time to open up and tell you why they have faith?



BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Top post RPH!


Thank you - that means a lot


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2016)

DoodlesRule said:


> Precisely. He refers to God, ie Christian god, no mention of the Islam deity because lets face it he wouldn't dare would he


Can you explain what you mean by this?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Can you explain what you mean by this?


I suspect you know perfectly well. Its very easy to poke fun at, deride anyone following a Christian faith and make comments about their god. Stephen Fry would not make a similar video about the prophet Mohamed because he knows he would be targeted by fanatics as per the Charlie Hebdo murders.

I am not religious at all in case you case


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2016)

DoodlesRule said:


> I suspect you know perfectly well. Its very easy to poke fun at, deride anyone following a Christian faith and make comments about their god. Stephen Fry would not make a similar video about the prophet Mohamed because he knows he would be targeted by fanatics as per the Charlie Hebdo murders.
> 
> I am not religious at all in case you case


I didn't interpret Fry's comments as making fun. It seemed to me that he was being quite serious. Nor was he clear which "god" he was talking about. The question was, "what would you say to him/her/it", not "what would you say to the Christian God".

You do realize Islam does not hold a monopoly on fanatics yes?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> Precisely. He refers to God, ie Christian god, no mention of the Islam deity because lets face it he wouldn't dare would he


But he didn't mention any particular religion.








rottiepointerhouse said:


> There you go again - I've already explained why I believe what I believe but because it doesn't fit with what you believe there is zero evidence. Do you realise that is very hurtful to someone who has taken the time to open up and tell you why they have faith?
> 
> Thank you - that means a lot


I didn't mean to hurt your feelings so I do apologise for that RPH, but I'm afraid whatever your personal experiences, there is no evidence god exists. If there was I'd be the first to accept it. . But there is so much evidence on climate change it cannot rationally be disputed. Yet you do dispute it. Which is not only upsetting, but it absolutely terrifies to me. What hope have we of saving all of the wonders on this amazing planet of ours when so many people refuse to believe in basic science? It is completely depressing.

The ice caps are melting, seas are rising & acidifying, the 6th mass extinction has already begun . Ecosystems are collapsing!. What do you think about this RPH? I am heartbroken. Do you, in all honesty, believe these scientists have a 'hidden agenda'? https://www.theguardian.com/environ...reef-a-catastrophe-laid-bare?CMP=share_btn_tw


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Aw really sorry, what happened?. You must be in agony - especially when you breath - or laugh! Hope your ribs heal quickly Zaros xx


I'm holding my own thank you Noush.

But here's a curious tale; Jesus came to me in the night you know he placed a hand softly upon my brow and said 'Take up thy bed and walk'
At that precise moment a loud booming voice shattered the peace and quiet.
'YOU LEAVE THAT LITTLE 845T4RD WHERE I PUT HIM! I'M SICK AND BLOODY TIRED OF YOUR INTERFERENCE. BE WARNED ERRANT ONE, IF YOU PERSIST TO DEFY ME SO BLATANTLY AS YOU HAD DONE SO ONCE ONCE BEFORE, I'LL SMACK YOUR BUM AND HAVE YOU CRUCIFIED ALL OVER AGAIN!

Peace found its way into the room once more and I found myself completely alone.

If God gave us all that we have (life) it's logical to say that he also gave us our sense of humour?

To everything there is a season A time to kill and a time to heal; A time to tear down and a time to build up. A time to weep and* a time to laugh.*..Ecclesiastes 3:4


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Zaros said:


> I'm holding my own thank you Noush.
> 
> But here's a curious tale; Jesus came to me in the night you know he placed a hand softly upon my brow and said 'Take up thy bed and walk'
> At that precise moment a loud booming voice shattered the peace and quiet.
> ...


Well I did laugh at this:Hilarious Thank you, it was just what I needed x


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> I didn't mean to hurt your feelings so I do apologise for that RPH, but I'm afraid whatever your personal experiences, *there is no evidence god exists. If there was I'd be the first to accept it.* . But there is so much evidence on climate change it cannot rationally be disputed. Yet you do dispute it. Which is not only upsetting, but it absolutely terrifies to me. What hope have we of saving all of the wonders on this amazing planet of ours when so many people refuse to believe in basic science? It is completely depressing.
> 
> The ice caps are melting, seas are rising & acidifying, the 6th mass extinction has already begun . Ecosystems are collapsing!. What do you think about this RPH? I am heartbroken. Do you, in all honesty, believe these scientists have a 'hidden agenda'? https://www.theguardian.com/environ...reef-a-catastrophe-laid-bare?CMP=share_btn_tw


And there you go again - because you have not seen or allowed yourself to see or feel any evidence that God exists does not mean you are right and I am wrong. It simply means that our experiences and our beliefs are different. The fact that you cannot accept that my beliefs are different to yours but no less valid is rather dogmatic. We are never going to agree about politics or about climate change or about the end of the world and frankly this thread which is about the murder of a priest going about his work dedicated to God and to his parishioners is not an appropriate place to debate them. You may find my failure to agree with you and your selected scientists depressing but I find your doom and gloom posts equally depressing whereas I find my faith uplifting. I know which I prefer


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2016)

What is that adage? 
“Your beliefs don’t make you a better person, your behavior does.”

What does it matter if someone believes in a god or not?
As long as their behavior is decent and compassionate, does it really matter?
A personal, all knowing, all powerful god doesn’t make sense to me, but I don’t see the harm in someone else having a spiritual experience and interpreting it as the work of a god. 

Ideologies, totally different story. Following and supporting certain ideologies can definitely be damaging... Like forcing religion on children etc. That bothers me. 

BTW Sam Harris’ book “Waking Up” is a good read


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> And there you go again - because you have not seen or allowed yourself to see or feel any evidence that God exists does not mean you are right and I am wrong. It simply means that our experiences and our beliefs are different. The fact that you cannot accept that my beliefs are different to yours but no less valid is rather dogmatic. We are never going to agree about politics or about climate change or about the end of the world and frankly this thread which is about the murder of a priest going about his work dedicated to God and to his parishioners is not an appropriate place to debate them. You may find my failure to agree with you and your selected scientists depressing but I find your doom and gloom posts equally depressing whereas I find my faith uplifting. I know which I prefer


There is a big difference between your beliefs & mine. - Your evidence is anecdotal, mine is not. I would never expect someone to believe my word alone. If you gave me irrefutable proof ( as I have given you) - then I would believe it. I'm not closed minded. Unlike you, I have never selected scientists, I accept the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. You have to select scientists to fit your confirmation bias. Believe me I would LOVE to be able to stick my head in the sand & pretend all is dandy like you can. But I'm not like that, I'm a realist, I care too much about our living world. Sorry but when I see what we have done to the Great barrier reef for example, nothing could make me feel 'uplifted'. You evaded my question. Do you sincerely believe those scientists too have a 'hidden agenda'?

I'll just leave you with this -


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> There is a big difference between your beliefs & mine. - Your evidence is anecdotal, mine is not. I would never expect someone to believe my word alone. If you gave me irrefutable proof ( as I have given you) - then I would believe it. I'm not closed minded. Unlike you, I have never selected scientists, I accept the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. You have to select scientists to fit your confirmation bias. Believe me I would LOVE to be able to stick my head in the sand & pretend all is dandy like you can. But I'm not like that, I'm a realist, I care too much about our living world. Sorry but when I see what we have done to the Great barrier reef for example, nothing could make me feel 'uplifted'. You evaded my question. Do you sincerely believe those scientists too have a 'hidden agenda'?
> 
> I'll just leave you with this -
> 
> View attachment 278892


No I didn't evade your question, I did not read your link and have no intention of reading your link for the reasons I have already told you. You seem to miss the point about faith - its just that "having faith" there is no need for irrefutable proof.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> No I didn't evade your question, I did not read your link and have no intention of reading your link for the reasons I have already told you. You seem to miss the point about faith - its just that "having faith" there is no need for irrefutable proof.


Don't you want know what is happening in the world?. We are witnessing the collapse of one of the greatest wonders on this planet. The Great Barrier Reef is dying due to climate change. The scientists aren't lying - they are devastated.

I see that there is no need for irrefutable proof (or any proof for that matter) when you have faith in something. And that's fine I have no problem with it. If someone has faith Santa clause is real, that's fine. I don't really care what people believe in if causes no harm.. But my point was, on one hand you can believe in something which has never been proven yet dismiss a mountain range of evidence on the most serious threat to life on earth we are facing. That's what I find hard to understand.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2016)

Where did @rottiepointerhouse say she doesn't believe climate change is happening?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Where did @rottiepointerhouse say she doesn't believe climate change is happening?


I've said in other threads that I don't believe in the massive man made climate change that @noushka05 does. I believe the climate changes in cycles and has done for thousands of years. I've also explained my reasons for those beliefs before. I'm in favour of looking after the environment so like most other people I try to recycle as much as possible, not waste food/other resources and indeed another strong reason for becoming vegan is my belief that plants can feed far more people than animals. Livestock production produces more greenhouse gas emissions than all the world's cars put together (apparently - I have no proof). I believe man has caused problems in terms of chopping down forests (often to provide more farmland for more cattle) but I don't believe man is on a mission to destroy the planet. I think its inevitable that some species will become extinct and I'm not in favour of persecuting other species to enable that species to survive


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I've said in other threads that I don't believe in the massive man made climate change that @noushka05 does. I believe the climate changes in cycles and has done for thousands of years. I've also explained my reasons for those beliefs before. I'm in favour of looking after the environment so like most other people I try to recycle as much as possible, not waste food/other resources and indeed another strong reason for becoming vegan is my belief that plants can feed far more people than animals. Livestock production produces more greenhouse gas emissions than all the world's cars put together (apparently - I have no proof). I believe man has caused problems in terms of chopping down forests (often to provide more farmland for more cattle) but I don't believe man is on a mission to destroy the planet. I think its inevitable that some species will become extinct and I'm not in favour of persecuting other species to enable that species to survive


Ah! Gotcha. 
Thank you for explaining 

Strange turn of the thread going from murdered priest to climate change....


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Ah! Gotcha.
> Thank you for explaining
> 
> Strange turn of the thread going from murdered priest to climate change....


No problem. It would be a funny old world if we all thought and believed the same things.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> No problem. It would be a funny old world if we all thought and believed the same things.


Yes it would 

The older I get the more I realize common beliefs are not what binds us. 
I don't believe in a personal god, actually more than anything I would call myself ambivalent. 
It's not that I know or don't know that a god exists, I just simply don't care. If some god showed up on my doorstep and convinced me that he/she/it was real, it would not change my behavior or really anything about my life. I would still try to live my life as a decent, caring, compassionate individual, helping where I can and doing what I can to leave this world better than where I found it. A god in any form isn't going to change how I feel about being a good person. 
One of my dearest, oldest friends is a devout Christian who believes the only way to heaven is through accepting Jesus in to your heart. We could not be more different in our personal beliefs, yet we are close friends and have remained so despite our apparent differences, and long conversations about the bible and what it teaches!
Interestingly, I often find myself at odds with people who share my same beliefs about the existence of god, or politics, or science, or climate change. I guess personality accounts for a lot more than beliefs


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Yes it would
> 
> The older I get the more I realize common beliefs are not what binds us.
> I don't believe in a personal god, actually more than anything I would call myself ambivalent.
> ...


Beautifully put.


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

DoodlesRule said:


> Oh ok!
> 
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/...ians-accept-the-reality-of-islamic-terrorism/


So you do believe people doing the exact opposite of a scripture are religious? Well in that case, by not believing in god or agreeing with marriage I must be a follower of an abrahamic religion in your mind.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Context in terms of its place in history and its place now, not context as in 'which page, which chapter'!


i disagree that period of time has any bearing on whether owning another person as property is ever right. Surely a just, fair, good and righteous all knowing omnipresent omnipotent god would know that slavery is wrong regardless of time period , unless of course that stupid book was simply made up by men who's opinions had been formed and influenced by the world they saw around them at that particular time rather by some divine sky fairy.

If what you are saying is "the book is wrong on so many points because it was written long ago" then you are surely conceding that it is the words of (by todays standard) uneducated men and not in fact the word of any god. Either that or you are saying it is the word of god but god didnt know the difference between right and wrong back then.
In both cases i think discarding it as anything other than a historical novelty is the most sensible course of action.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> You may find my failure to agree with you and your selected scientists depressing but I find your doom and gloom posts equally depressing whereas I find my faith uplifting. I know which I prefer


Faith in a nutshell
"i have no evidence but it makes me feel better to pretend"

Also.. no.. no matter how offended you act, an opinion formed on the basis of imagination and feelings does NOT have the same validity as one formed on the basis of facts and evidence.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2016)

porps said:


> Faith in a nutshell
> "i have no evidence but it makes me feel better to pretend"


By itself that's not such a bad thing is is?
When my kids were little and scared of monsters under the bed and in the closet, I used "monster spray" to get rid of them. (Lavender essential oil in water in a spray bottle, yeah, mommy win.) My kids now laugh about it but at the time it made them feel better, and as far as I can tell did them no harm.

I don't think faith is necessarily a bad thing. 
I think some humans need something to hold on to, who am I to tell them they can't have that?

Nope, not going to put up with it being forced on me, but I'm okay if others need something to help them get through. Just keep it out of schools, legislation, and politics


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

ouesi said:


> By itself that's not such a bad thing is is?
> When my kids were little and scared of monsters under the bed and in the closet, I used "monster spray" to get rid of them. (Lavender essential oil in water in a spray bottle, yeah, mommy win.) My kids now laugh about it but at the time it made them feel better, and as far as I can tell did them no harm.
> 
> I don't think faith is necessarily a bad thing.
> ...


It can be a bad thing... if you have faith that you can fly unnassisted then decide to leave your apartment by the 6th floor window rather than the front door then faith probably was a bad thing..
If your faith comes from indoctrination then it's a bad thing imo.
If you have faith that you wont crash and it will be ok to drive home after 10 beers, then you crash, faith was bad.
If faith negatively impacts the way you treat other people then it's a bad thing.
If your faith leads you to not seeking proper medical treatment or refusing it for your kids or animals because you have faith that you/they will be healed by a supernatural entity, or if you/they die it is ok cos you trust the entities plan, then it's a bad thing.

There are a great many situations where belief without evidence is a bad thing, and for that reason i think it's important to let people know that faith is not a virtue, it's not a reasonable or sensible approach, it IS dangerous.... but religion is far worse than faith alone.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> there is no evidence god exists. If there was I'd be the first to accept it. .


Isn't that the whole point of faith though?

Wasn't it the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy that said if God was ever proven to exist he would cease to be?


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2016)

porps said:


> It can be a bad thing... if you have faith that you can fly unnassisted then decide to leave your apartment by the 6th floor window rather than the front door then faith probably was a bad thing..
> If your faith comes from indoctrination then it's a bad thing imo.
> If you have faith that you wont crash and it will be ok to drive home after 10 beers, then you crash, faith was bad.
> If faith negatively impacts the way you treat other people then it's a bad thing.
> ...


Right, it *can* be a bad thing, but it's not always a bad thing.

Like a glass of wine in the evening (or whatever your wind-down chemical of choice). I don't drink. I don't need wine to relax. But if someone else chooses to have a glass of wine, stay home, and chill, I don't have an issue with that. 
That doesn't mean they are a raging alcoholic who drinks and drives and beats their spouse and are destroying theirs and their loved ones' lives with drink.

Sometimes faith is just that - one glass of wine in the evening. Not flying planes in to buildings or beheading priests as they give mass.

I'm not going to fight the people having one glass of wine in the evening. More importantly, I'm going to try really hard not to alienate them either. Because those people drinking to excess are more likely to listen to the one glass of wine drinkers than me, the non-drinker.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Nice analogy @ouesi


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2016)

Just saw a brilliant post on FB about how to listen when you disagree. It's about the RNC, but the message seems very apt here.

http://urbanconfessional.org/blog/howtodisagree

"When someone has a point of view we find difficult to understand, disagreeable, or even offensive, we must look to the set of circumstances that person has experienced that resulted in that point of view.

Get their story, their biography, and you'll open up the real possibility of an understanding that transcends disagreement.

Like the roots of a tree, our stories, which can create our beliefs, are completely unique, and also connected. It is through story that we can find common ground enough to co-exist in the face of great, often necessary, tension."

Maybe it's my non-gregarious side, but I don't know that you need to exactly hear the whole story, but I do agree with dealing with the person, not just the opinion.

Anyway, thought it was interesting given this discussion and how it's meandering


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

porps said:


> Faith in a nutshell
> "i have no evidence but it makes me feel better to pretend"
> 
> Also.. no.. no matter how offended you act, an opinion formed on the basis of imagination and feelings does NOT have the same validity as one formed on the basis of facts and evidence.


Don't we all teach our children that Santa Claus brings their presents every Christmas?

Of course they eventually know the truth, but believing in Father Christmas during their young life gives them a lot of pleasure and gives an added feeling of magic to Christmas.

Faith is simply belief. Some of us believe in God and some don't. Why should anyone have to prove that God exists? Some of us believe he does and it really is as simple as that.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2016)

Sweety said:


> Don't we all teach our children that Santa Claus brings their presents every Christmas?


Nope. 
In Spain and Mexico, it's the 3 Kings who bring presents - on the 6th of January, not the 25th of December. 
And of course in non-Christian households children are not taught about Santa.

Interestingly (well, to me) some of the more strict Christian families I know don't have a Santa either. As one mother put it when I asked her about it, "I don't want to tell my children a story about Santa for them to find out later it's not true, because then they might not believe me about Jesus either." I don't know if she saw the irony in her thought process - probably not, she was doing what she felt best for her children. 
Her kids did get presents at Christmas, but from her and her husband, not from Santa.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sweety said:


> Don't we all teach our children that Santa Claus brings their presents every Christmas?
> 
> Of course they eventually know the truth, but believing in Father Christmas during their young life gives them a lot of pleasure and gives an added feeling of magic to Christmas.
> 
> Faith is simply belief. Some of us believe in God and some don't. Why should anyone have to prove that God exists? Some of us believe he does and it really is as simple as that.


It's not simply belief.. it's belief without evidence.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

porps said:


> Faith in a nutshell
> "i have no evidence but it makes me feel better to pretend"
> 
> Also.. no.. no matter how offended you act, an opinion formed on the basis of imagination and feelings does NOT have the same validity as one formed on the basis of facts and evidence.


Firstly I don't understand why it bothers you whether I have a religions faith or not. Please explain why it bothers you.

Secondly I don't actually give a flying f--k whether you think it has the same validity or not or whether anyone views it as a crutch or not. I've already explained why I know it to be true, How would you like it if I constantly challenged you on whether your new fiancee loves you or not or is faithful to you or not. If I kept telling you your feelings and what you know in your heart don't count a jot for anything unless you can categorically prove that she loves you and is faithful to you? How would we go about making her prove it? Would she have to pass a test? would she have to demonstrate it by her actions or would she have to go further and further still and spill blood before the non believers would accept your faith in her was right after all? I haven't asked you to believe what I believe just to respect that those are my beliefs, in the same way I would expect your friends and family to accept your faith/judgement/love for your fiancee. What is so difficult about that for non believers?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

porps said:


> It's not simply belief.. it's belief without evidence.


So?

Some of us believe in God and some don't, that's fine.

I would never try to force my beliefs on others but why should we be required to provide evidence?

Can you prove that God doesn't exist? Where's your evidence?


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Firstly I don't understand why it bothers you whether I have a religions faith or not. Please explain why it bothers you.
> 
> Secondly I don't actually give a flying f--k whether you think it has the same validity or not or whether anyone views it as a crutch or not. I've already explained why I know it to be true, How would you like it if I constantly challenged you on whether your new fiancee loves you or not or is faithful to you or not. If I kept telling you your feelings and what you know in your heart don't count a jot for anything unless you can categorically prove that she loves you and is faithful to you? How would we go about making her prove it? Would she have to pass a test? would she have to demonstrate it by her actions or would she have to go further and further still and spill blood before the non believers would accept your faith in her was right after all? I haven't asked you to believe what I believe just to respect that those are my beliefs, in the same way I would expect your friends and family to accept your faith/judgement/love for your fiancee. What is so difficult about that for non believers?


Okay the love analogy is a good one though.

What if a loved one was in a relationship with someone they believed with all their heat loved them. 
Here, let's make it me for sake of clarity, and I'm one of your loved ones. 
I say to you, RPH, I know he loves me. I believe it in my heart.
You say, but he tells you who you can and can't be friends with, tells you what you can and cannot wear, and the other day he beat you unconscious because you came home 5 minutes later than you had said you would. That's not love. 
And I say, but I *know*, I have faith in his love for me.

So we're back to the whole grey area where faith, and someone having faith based on bad or no evidence, can absolutely be problematic.

I get what @porps is saying, faith is a dangerous thing. 
I also get what you and @Sweety are saying - who the hell cares what others believe.

I think some humans need faith, yeah, they could do without it, and it's a crutch, but it makes life easier. Much in the way I need coffee. 
However, if someone were to explain to me how my coffee drinking is contributing to the devastation of rain forests, I would hope I would listen and adjust my coffee drinking accordingly, by either avoiding it all together, or researching brands that are more ethically sourced, or even growing my own.

Oh and churches should pay taxes. Just thought I'd throw that one out there too, because that one irks me to no end.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> And there you go again - because you have not seen or allowed yourself to see or feel any evidence that God exists does not mean you are right and I am wrong. It simply means that our experiences and our beliefs are different. The fact that you cannot accept that my beliefs are different to yours but no less valid is rather dogmatic. We are never going to agree about politics or about climate change or about the end of the world and frankly this thread which is about the murder of a priest going about his work dedicated to God and to his parishioners is not an appropriate place to debate them. You may find my failure to agree with you and your selected scientists depressing but I find your doom and gloom posts equally depressing whereas I find my faith uplifting. I know which I prefer


You are on form today!!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Okay the love analogy is a good one though.
> 
> What if a loved one was in a relationship with someone they believed with all their heat loved them.
> Here, let's make it me for sake of clarity, and I'm one of your loved ones.
> ...


Again I suppose it depends on whether you follow a set religion/doctrine and I don't so all I can say is my faith doesn't tell me to anything, or tell me how to think or what to wear although I appreciate some religious faiths do. It absolutely isn't a crutch, its not something I "think" about a lot, its just there in the background. I don't "need it" to get me through the day or through the year, its just there like a slight touch on the shoulder or like knowing your best friend is at the end of the phone if you just want to mull something over. For me its not written down in a book, I can't go and look up what am I supposed to do in this or that situation, its more a feeling of guidance. So how can that be wrong? how does that hurt anyone else? why does it bother anyone else?


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

The line about people believing in God because they need a 'crutch' makes me laugh out loud. Living life as a person of faith is WAY harder than living as an atheist - I know; I've tried both!


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

A number of people have commented that faith is a 'crutch' that some people need to get them through life. I just wondered what those contributors think about those who don't *kill* for their faith, but *die* for their faith? If someone is prepared to spend decades in prison, to be tortured or to be executed rather than give up their belief, you may think they are foolish or misguided, but they are hardly using their faith as a 'crutch'.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Again I suppose it depends on whether you follow a set religion/doctrine and I don't so all I can say is my faith doesn't tell me to anything, or tell me how to think or what to wear although I appreciate some religious faiths do. It absolutely isn't a crutch, its not something I "think" about a lot, its just there in the background. I don't "need it" to get me through the day or through the year, its just there like a slight touch on the shoulder or like knowing your best friend is at the end of the phone if you just want to mull something over. For me its not written down in a book, I can't go and look up what am I supposed to do in this or that situation, its more a feeling of guidance. So how can that be wrong? how does that hurt anyone else? why does it bother anyone else?


In your individual case, no, I don't see the harm, but in many cases faith does cause harm. 
Blind belief without evidence can be very wrong and very hurtful.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

When people say "i have no evidence but it makes me feel better to believe" that right there is a crutch. 

The love analogy falls apart with the simple quote "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If you claim to believe that somewhere in the world there is a pair of green shoes i wouldn't require evidence. If you claim you can teleport, i would require evidence. 

I don't care what you believe, i care that you think your beliefs should be above discussion and questioning, that you take offense when someone points out that the reasons you have for believing are nothing more than anecdotes, and that similar beliefs have been systematically indoctrinated into humans for thousands of years and have resulted in terrific amounts of suffering over those years. Believe what you want. But try not to kid yourself into thinking it's harmless, even if you can fool yourself into thinking it's true.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

porps said:


> The love analogy falls apart with the simple quote "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".


How? Logically, it seems a perfect analogy.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

ouesi said:


> In your individual case, no, I don't see the harm, but in many cases faith does cause harm.
> Blind belief without evidence can be very wrong and very hurtful.


Isn't it interesting though that people who have religious faith are accused of blind belief whereas those who have faith in, so called, modern sciences try to take the high ground?

I don't know anybody who lives an evidence-based life. Nobody has the time or the knowledge. How many millions of people have been fooled by the whole cholesterol story, to use just one topical example? We now know that to have been a fraudulent fabrication with absolutely no reliable evidence behind it. How many people who fell for it would have claimed to have followed the evidence whereas they were, in fact 100% "guilty" of 'blind belief' in anything that people in white coats told them. White coats vs religious garb - what's the difference?


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2016)

Satori said:


> Isn't it interesting though that people who have religious faith are accused of blind belief whereas those who have faith in, so called, modern sciences try to take the high ground?
> 
> I don't know anybody who lives an evidence-based life. Nobody has the time or the knowledge. How many millions of people have been fooled by the whole cholesterol story, to use just one topical example? We now know that to have been a fraudulent fabrication with absolutely no reliable evidence behind it. How many people who fell for it would have claimed to have followed the evidence whereas they were, in fact 100% "guilty" of 'blind belief' in anything that people in white coats told them. White coats vs religious garb - what's the difference?


If it's unquestioning blind following, there is no difference. 
But some of us do question authority - be it in white coats or white gowns


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

porps said:


> When people say "i have no evidence but it makes me feel better to believe" that right there is a crutch.
> 
> The love analogy falls apart with the simple quote *"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".* If you claim to believe that somewhere in the world there is a pair of green shoes i wouldn't require evidence. If you claim you can teleport, i would require evidence.
> 
> I don't care what you believe, i care that you think your beliefs should be above discussion and questioning, that you take offense when someone points out that the reasons you have for believing are nothing more than anecdotes, and that similar beliefs have been systematically indoctrinated into humans for thousands of years and have resulted in terrific amounts of suffering over those years. Believe what you want. But try not to kid yourself into thinking it's harmless, even if you can fool yourself into thinking it's true.


Which of course to many millions of people means your extraordinary claim that God does not exist requires extraordinary evidence so please do feel free to provide it.

I've never said it makes me feel better to believe - sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. I do not believe my beliefs are above discussion or questioning I merely said I didn't think this thread was an appropriate place to post that video of Steven Fry as I found it disrespectful to a man who was murdered who did dedicate his life to God. I also said and maintain that this thread is not the appropriate place to debate climate change. My reasons for believing may be anecdotes to you but they are not to me and how do you know that anything I believe has been systematically indoctrinated into humans for thousands of years when the things I believe are not written down anywhere. When you have sat and held the hand of as many people dying as I have then you might be in a position to tell me I'm talking out of my backside and when you are personally very very sick and face death tell me then that you still think I'm deluded and fooling myself and I might actually listen to you. Until then I'm perfectly happy with my beliefs and feel under no obligation to provide you with any evidence, extraordinary or otherwise


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2016)

Logically, you can’t prove the nonexistence of something. 
Just putting that one out there...


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> In your individual case, no, I don't see the harm, but in many cases faith does cause harm.
> Blind belief without evidence can be very wrong and very hurtful.


But its only blind faith or belief if you can't see it and don't have it. It isn't blind to me because obviously I do see it and do believe it. If I were to try and make/force you to share my beliefs then that would be wrong and hurtful but I don't see anyone on this thread who has faith/religious beliefs trying to make anyone else share them, blindly or otherwise


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Which of course to many millions of people means your extraordinary claim that God does not exist requires extraordinary evidence so please do feel free to provide it.
> 
> I've never said it makes me feel better to believe - sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.
> 
> When you have sat and held the hand of as many people dying as I have then you might be in a position to tell me I'm talking out of my backside and when you are personally very very sick and face death tell me then that you still think I'm deluded and fooling myself and I might actually listen to you.


Fallacy after fallacy after fallacy.

You said your faith is uplifting... How is thst not the same as saying it makes you feel better.

I'm sure you understand the burden of proof and realise how ridiculous it is to demand i prove a negative.

And as for your final appeals to emotion and personal anecdotes... If you can't already see how flawed those arguments arebthen there's little point in me taking any time or effort to answer them.

If you care about fallacies you can google them, otherwise just keep firing them off in the machine gun like fashion that I've come to expect from those with faith.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

]


rottiepointerhouse said:


> I've said in other threads that I don't believe in the massive man made climate change that @noushka05 does. I believe the climate changes in cycles and has done for thousands of years. I've also explained my reasons for those beliefs before. I'm in favour of looking after the environment so like most other people I try to recycle as much as possible, not waste food/other resources and indeed another strong reason for becoming vegan is my belief that plants can feed far more people than animals. Livestock production produces more greenhouse gas emissions than all the world's cars put together (apparently - I have no proof). I believe man has caused problems in terms of chopping down forests (often to provide more farmland for more cattle) but I don't believe man is on a mission to destroy the planet. I think its inevitable that some species will become extinct and I'm not in favour of persecuting other species to enable that species to survive


We are not experts, this shouldn't be about personal 'beliefs', this issue is far to serious. Neither of us are climatologists. I accept the irrefutable evidence that human activity is driving climate change - you don't. Whatever myths you choose to believe, the climate is not going through a natural cycle. Burning fossil fuels is adding carbon that had been locked underground. WE have upset the natural balance. And scientists CAN prove it.

I don't think most individuals want to destroy the planet. But as a Conservative party supporter yourself, I'm sure you must understand it is the neoliberal principle, that the natural environment is simply there as something to be exploited for profit? Politics of greed is destroying our planet. Of course species do go extinct naturally, they hit an evolutionary cul-de-sac & they die out for example. This mass extinction is not some natural phenomenon - it will be OUR fault. What would your god think if we allow this to happen? Do you not think he would want us to listen to the experts who tell us we must immediately move over to a green, sustainable economy RPH?


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> ]
> 
> We are not experts, this shouldn't be about personal 'beliefs', this issue is far to serious. Neither of us are climatologists. I accept the irrefutable evidence that human activity is driving climate change - you don't. Whatever myths you choose to believe, the climate is not going through a natural cycle. Burning fossil fuels is adding carbon that had been locked underground. WE have upset the natural balance. And scientists CAN prove it.
> 
> I don't think most individuals want to destroy the planet. But as a Conservative party supporter yourself, I'm sure you must understand it is the neoliberal principle, that the natural environment is simply there as something to be exploited for profit? Politics of greed is destroying our planet. Of course species do go extinct naturally, they hit an evolutionary cul-de-sac & they die out for example. This mass extinction is not some natural phenomenon - it will be OUR fault. * What would your god think if we allow this to happen? Do you not think he would want us to listen to the experts who tell us we must immediately move over to a green, sustainable economy RPH?*


I think that if he did existed he would find a way of doing something about it, as we are surposed it be distroying his planet.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> ]
> 
> We are not experts, this shouldn't be about personal 'beliefs', this issue is far to serious. Neither of us are climatologists. I accept the irrefutable evidence that human activity is driving climate change - you don't. Whatever myths you choose to believe, the climate is not going through a natural cycle. Burning fossil fuels is adding carbon that had been locked underground. WE have upset the natural balance. And scientists CAN prove it.
> 
> ...


Personally, I believe it's pretty dangerous to believe in something we can't see but not in something we can see.

The prolonged Arctic winters, for example, with consistent temperatures of minus 40C, are fast becoming a thing of the past.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

ouesi said:


> If it's unquestioning blind following, there is no difference.
> But some of us do question authority - be it in white coats or white gowns


As do many believers!


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Which of course to many millions of people means your extraordinary claim that God does not exist requires extraordinary evidence so please do feel free to provide it.
> 
> I've never said it makes me feel better to believe - sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. I do not believe my beliefs are above discussion or questioning I merely said I didn't think this thread was an appropriate place to post that video of Steven Fry as I found it disrespectful to a man who was murdered who did dedicate his life to God. I also said and maintain that this thread is not the appropriate place to debate climate change. My reasons for believing may be anecdotes to you but they are not to me and how do you know that anything I believe has been systematically indoctrinated into humans for thousands of years when the things I believe are not written down anywhere. When you have sat and held the hand of as many people dying as I have then you might be in a position to tell me I'm talking out of my backside and when you are personally very very sick and face death tell me then that you still think I'm deluded and fooling myself and I might actually listen to you. Until then I'm perfectly happy with my beliefs and feel under no obligation to provide you with any evidence, extraordinary or otherwise


Ever thought of writing a book, RPH?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

porps said:


> Fallacy after fallacy after fallacy.
> 
> You said your faith is uplifting... How is thst not the same as saying it makes you feel better.
> 
> ...


I said right there in the post you quoted

"I've never said it makes me feel better to believe - sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't"

or in other words sometimes its uplifting and sometimes it isn't. I don't know what is hard to understand about that.

*Faith - definition of

belief that is not based on proof:

confidence or trust in a person or thing:
*
Its no more ridiculous for me to ask you to prove there is no God than it is for you to believe that unless something can be proved it doesn't exist. Sorry that you find years of looking after people who are dying "Anecdotes" . They were real experiences and have without doubt influenced my beliefs.

Please feel free not to take the time or effort to answer my posts, I find your responses negative and sad and will spend some of my day in quiet contemplation of how best not to let them bring down my spirit - probably spend some time here, quietly on my own. Far better than booze, **** or drugs but each to their own.





noushka05 said:


> ]
> 
> We are not experts, this shouldn't be about personal 'beliefs', this issue is far to serious. Neither of us are climatologists. I accept the irrefutable evidence that human activity is driving climate change - you don't. Whatever myths you choose to believe, the climate is not going through a natural cycle. Burning fossil fuels is adding carbon that had been locked underground. WE have upset the natural balance. And scientists CAN prove it.
> 
> ...


Oh do give it a rest Noush, you are not going to brow beat me into agreeing with everything you say and everything you think. You have your views and beliefs and I have mine. I do my bit and that is probably a lot more than most key board warriors who I find often talk the talk but don't ....



BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Ever thought of writing a book, RPH?


 Yes I have funnily enough but it was going to be about my family history and their struggles through the workhouse system. Might see if I could incorporate faith into that somehow though.


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

I notice that no one has yet replied to my question as to how anyone who is weak enough to need faith as a 'crutch' to get through life can yet be strong enough to withstand imprisonment, torture and execution rather than deny that faith. This isn't some hypothetical question - every day, somewhere in the world, someone is having to make that decision.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

CuddleMonster said:


> I notice that no one has yet replied to my question as to how anyone who is weak enough to need faith as a 'crutch' to get through life can yet be strong enough to withstand imprisonment, torture and execution rather than deny that faith. This isn't some hypothetical question - every day, somewhere in the world, someone is having to make that decision.


I also wonder how those that question why there is no 'evidence' can ignore the historical fact that those who knew Jesus were willing to die quite horrible deaths rather than deny him. Only John died peacefully, but even he had been sentenced to work in the mines. I can't imagine dying for something that I believed to be a lie. It must be hard enough to have the faith and strength to die for the truth.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2016)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> As do many believers!


I know! Which is why I wondered what was wrong with questioning and challenging religion. I know many devoutly religious people who are not at all offended by their beliefs being questioned.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I know! Which is why I wondered what was wrong with questioning and challenging religion. I know many devoutly religious people who are not at all offended by their beliefs being questioned.


I think its to do with the way it is questioned/challenged. There are respectful ways to have the conversation (which you have been). I can remember when I was a very newly qualified staff nurse and in charge for my first couple of shifts. We had a JW lady who needed surgery but had been bleeding for a while and was too anaemic so they wanted to give her a blood transfusion but her husband and at least one other member of the church were sat with her the whole time. The doctors had tried having the discussion but the husband kept saying no blood. I was therefore asked to raise the question with her when I was bathing her and the husband was out of the room. The way some people on here go about talking to people who hold beliefs they don't share I wonder how they would approach that situation. I gently asked her if she had considered the outcome of not having the blood transfusion and explained why is was necessary and what would likely happen if she didn't have surgery but did so in a non judgemental or confrontational way. She held fast to her beliefs and we accepted them. She didn't have the blood nor the surgery and she died. Her family were treated with the same respect and compassion whether we agreed with them or not.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

The bible is a book writen a long after the events and sometimes past from one genration to another before it was writen down, so chinese whisphers comes to mind. 

I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist but to me he was nothing more than any other healer of his time.

Oh just thought where did god come, I'd love an answer to this.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2016)

Jobeth said:


> I also wonder how those that question why there is no 'evidence' can ignore the historical fact that those who knew Jesus were willing to die quite horrible deaths rather than deny him. Only John died peacefully, but even he had been sentenced to work in the mines. I can't imagine dying for something that I believed to be a lie. It must be hard enough to have the faith and strength to die for the truth.


Yeah, people died for Jim Jones too....

Faith can be a funny thing.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Jobeth said:


> I also wonder how those that question why there is no 'evidence' can ignore the historical fact that those who knew Jesus were willing to die quite horrible deaths rather than deny him. Only John died peacefully, but even he had been sentenced to work in the mines. I can't imagine dying for something that I believed to be a lie. It must be hard enough to have the faith and strength to die for the truth.


Just because they believed and were willing to die for that belief, doesn't prove anything.

Someone I know believes she has been healed and is now physically able to do things she hasn't done for years.

That doesn't prove she *was *healed, but she believes it .....

I don't believe she was healed, but I believe she thinks she was.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2016)

CuddleMonster said:


> I notice that no one has yet replied to my question as to how anyone who is weak enough to need faith as a 'crutch' to get through life can yet be strong enough to withstand imprisonment, torture and execution rather than deny that faith. This isn't some hypothetical question - every day, somewhere in the world, someone is having to make that decision.


I haven't answered because I don't really understand the question.
For one, I don't see "crutch" as negatively as you seem to have found it to be. We all have crutches/supports in our lives. For me, time outside in nature, near water is incredibly healing and can get me through all sorts of things. For others it's their church and their church community. Horses for courses.

Secondly, I don't understand the connection with being willing to be tortured and die for your faith. 
Like I said above people were willing to die for Jim Jones. People strap bombs to their bodies and are willing to die for their Jihad. Some drug addicts would rather die than give up their addictions. Anorexics who would rather die than eat. Adrenaline junkies who are willing to risk their life with every base jump, for the sake of the thrill. There are all sorts of things people are willing to endure for all sorts of reasons, some that make sense to me, some that don't. Religion and faith are not unique in that aspect.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

They clearly believed that Jesus died and rose again, so not quite the same as believing in Jim Jones.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


>


Beautiful view


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2016)

Jobeth said:


> They clearly believed that Jesus died and rose again, so not quite the same as believing in Jim Jones.


But how are they any different?
How is believing Jesus died and rose again different than believing in Thetans as in Scientology, or different than believing a ram must be slaughtered in order for the crops to grow? 
What is unique about Christian teachings that hasn't already been done in countless other religions throughout human existence?


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

It's different as they witnessed Jesus dying on the cross and coming back to life again. They knew him as a person that was also the son of God and had seen his other miracles. They believed the physical evidence of his resurrection as it was something they saw. They were then willing to die because of what they saw and not just some vague belief. I understand that others don't believe that and that is their choice.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2016)

Jobeth said:


> It's different as they witnessed Jesus dying on the cross and coming back to life again. They knew him as a person that was also the son of God and had seen his other miracles. They believed the physical evidence of his resurrection as it was something they saw. They were then willing to die because of what they saw and not just some vague belief. I understand that others don't believe that and that is their choice.


Lazarus came back from the dead too. And people other than Jesus performed miracles. 
And none of it is any different than the prevailing mythology of the time. Many faiths were based on gods who had been resurrected, who were the son/daughter of god, gods in human form on earth, performing miracles. Jesus' story is not at all unique.

As for a 'vague' belief. Today people perform faith healings and attendees witness them with their own eyes and believe every bit of it. And psychic readings, magic shows....


----------



## ForestWomble (May 2, 2013)

I am not religious, neither are my family. Religion was only something I was aware of at school (RE teacher would read a verse from the bible in assembly, we had RE lessons (though funnily enough we never learnt about Christianity) and we had to say the Lords prayer every day before lessons started). 
I don't understand religion and I admit to finding it hard to understand the faith people have. I've never read the bible, though I have tried, never got past the God makes the Earth 'story' (or whatever you'd call them).

However, Something happened to me 12 years ago and it's made me question things I've never considered before, maybe there is someone 'out there' or it could of just been me hallucinating......... who knows?

Sometimes I feel it would be nice to have faith, but sadly those I know in real life who have faith have all put me off, I know not everyone is like that, but they have put me off.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

MilleD said:


> Beautiful view


Its even better from inside the church looking out. Its a beautiful old church built in the 14th century

_'A moorside church, to Tors akin, Grey without and calm within'_, in the words of Rev A Hunter, vicar of Sourton 1953-1963.



Animallover26 said:


> I am not religious, neither are my family. Religion was only something I was aware of at school (RE teacher would read a verse from the bible in assembly, we had RE lessons (though funnily enough we never learnt about Christianity) and we had to say the Lords prayer every day before lessons started).
> I don't understand religion and I admit to finding it hard to understand the faith people have. I've never read the bible, though I have tried, never got past the God makes the Earth 'story' (or whatever you'd call them).
> 
> However, Something happened to me 12 years ago and it's made me question things I've never considered before, maybe there is someone 'out there' or it could of just been me hallucinating......... who knows?
> ...


Sorry that other people have managed to put you off. For me its all about my relationship with my God and not what or how other people think it should be. I haven't read the bible either  Your own faith is personal to you and nothing to do with anyone else unless you want it to be and want to worship together with others. I don't, I slip into churches like the one in the photo when nobody is around. Even just to sit quietly and look at it from the distance makes me feel at peace. I'm not confirmed and very rarely attend any formal services.


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

ouesi said:


> I haven't answered because I don't really understand the question.
> For one, I don't see "crutch" as negatively as you seem to have found it to be. We all have crutches/supports in our lives. For me, time outside in nature, near water is incredibly healing and can get me through all sorts of things. For others it's their church and their church community. Horses for courses.
> 
> Secondly, I don't understand the connection with being willing to be tortured and die for your faith.
> Like I said above people were willing to die for Jim Jones. People strap bombs to their bodies and are willing to die for their Jihad. Some drug addicts would rather die than give up their addictions. Anorexics who would rather die than eat. Adrenaline junkies who are willing to risk their life with every base jump, for the sake of the thrill. There are all sorts of things people are willing to endure for all sorts of reasons, some that make sense to me, some that don't. Religion and faith are not unique in that aspect.


You say you don't view a 'crutch as being negative. But a crutch is something that is not needed by a normal, healthy person. Most people I have heard who refer to religion as being a crutch do use it in a derogatory sense - the implication being that if you were mentally and emotionally healthy and strong, you wouldn't need it. So to me, it makes no sense to describe something as a a crutch if you are willing to suffer so much for it. We're not talking about a momentary risk here (I'll probably survive this fix/bungee jump) or something that is over in a moment while you are still hyped up, but the willingness to spend years in prison, suffering daily, when you know that the moment you say 'sorry, I made a mistake, I don't believe this after all' you will be freed. 
'
You say time outside in nature is your 'crutch'. Ok, but you are unlikely to face being thrown into prison & tortured for saying that. So I don't think you can compare that 'crutch' to a religious faith.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2016)

CuddleMonster said:


> You say you don't view a 'crutch as being negative. But a crutch is something that is not needed by a normal, healthy person. Most people I have heard who refer to religion as being a crutch do use it in a derogatory sense - the implication being that if you were mentally and emotionally healthy and strong, you wouldn't need it.


No, I don't see it as a negative. And frankly I don't know any adults who are 100% normal and healthy either. 
So no, I don't see it as derogatory as you do.



CuddleMonster said:


> We're not talking about a momentary risk here (I'll probably survive this fix/bungee jump) or something that is over in a moment while you are still hyped up, but the willingness to spend years in prison, suffering daily, when you know that the moment you say 'sorry, I made a mistake, I don't believe this after all' you will be freed.


Drug addiction, mental health issues like anorexia, are not 'momentary' risks.

And people like José Mujica have suffered the same imprisonment and torture because of their beliefs - not religious ones. I just don't see how being willing to suffer for your beliefs is unique to the Christian faith.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Jobeth said:


> It's different as they witnessed Jesus dying on the cross and* coming back to life again.* They knew him as a person that was also the son of God and had seen his other miracles. They believed the physical evidence of his resurrection as it was something they saw. They were then willing to die because of what they saw and not just some vague belief. I understand that others don't believe that and that is their choice.


Nobody actually saw him come back to life, they just found an empty tomb.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2016)

Happy Paws said:


> Nobody actually saw him come back to life, they just found an empty tomb.


I think they mean they saw him reappear later alive, so he must have risen from the dead. 
It doesn't matter really though.

Even if you grant Jesus all the miracles, the virgin birth, the resurrection, the son of god... Even if you grant him all of that, it doesn't make him unique in the history of human religions for one, and two, it doesn't make any of his teaching any more 'true' than the teachings of Buddha, or Chief Seattle, or Albert Einstein.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

ouesi said:


> I think they mean they saw him reappear later alive, so he must have risen from the dead.
> I/QUOTE]
> 
> *We all see what we want to, I think he was just used as they needed something to believe in at the time*


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Its no more ridiculous for me to ask you to prove there is no God than it is for you to believe that unless something can be proved it doesn't exist. Sorry that you find years of looking after people who are dying "Anecdotes" . They were real experiences and have without doubt influenced my beliefs.
> 
> Please feel free not to take the time or effort to answer my posts


I have never said "unless something can be proved it doesnt exist" NEVER.

What i do say, is "until there is sufficient evidence for it, it is unreasonable to have belief". What can't be proved now may one day be proved, the fact that we dont know how to prove something doesn't mean it cant exist.It means that we cannot claim that it definately does exist.

I'm sorry that you cant see the difference between anecdotes which include the appeal to emotion and quite possibly the appeal to authority fallacies, and actual evidence or reasoned arguement. But then i guess if you could tell the difference, you would no longer be a theist would you?

As for tell me what i can and cant reply to.. you dont get to do that. But you of course are welcome to use the block function, it's there for a reason.



CuddleMonster said:


> I notice that no one has yet replied to my question as to how anyone who is weak enough to need faith as a 'crutch' to get through life can yet be strong enough to withstand imprisonment, torture and execution rather than deny that faith. This isn't some hypothetical question - every day, somewhere in the world, someone is having to make that decision.


For somebody who beleives in such stories the threat of a living out the rest of their life in torment probably pales in comparison to the percieved threat of an eternity of pain and damnation. faith can undoubtedly bring strength and resolve... which is why it's such a good weapon in war


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

porps said:


> And as for your final appeals to emotion and personal anecdotes... *If you can't already see how flawed those arguments are* *then there's* *little point in me taking any time or effort to answer them.*





porps said:


> I have never said "unless something can be proved it doesnt exist" NEVER.
> 
> What i do say, is "until there is sufficient evidence for it, it is unreasonable to have belief". What can't be proved now may one day be proved, the fact that we dont know how to prove something doesn't mean it cant exist.It means that we cannot claim that it definately does exist.
> 
> ...


I wasn't actually trying to tell you what you can and can't reply to - you stated the bit I've bolded in the top paragraph so I said "please feel free not to take the time or effort to answer my posts" in response. So you say there is little point so I said feel free not to  Otherwise I quite agree with your statement about what can and can't be proved. Again I didn't say I could prove anything, I said I know it exists but I also acknowledge that other people don't know and don't want to know and so for them it/he doesn't exist.


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

ouesi said:


> No, I don't see it as a negative. And frankly I don't know any adults who are 100% normal and healthy either.
> So no, I don't see it as derogatory as you do.
> 
> Drug addiction, mental health issues like anorexia, are not 'momentary' risks.
> ...


 Where did I say willingness to suffer for your beliefs is unique to the Christian faith?!!!! My point is that I feel it is patronising to dismiss as a 'crutch' a belief that someone is so passionate about and so willing to suffer for. You disagree. That's ok.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2016)

CuddleMonster said:


> Where did I say willingness to suffer for your beliefs is unique to the Christian faith?!!!! My point is that I feel it is patronising to dismiss as a 'crutch' a belief that someone is so passionate about and so willing to suffer for. You disagree. That's ok.


I don't see how calling something a crutch is dismissive. Oh well...


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I haven't read the bible either


And yet you're offended on behalf of those who believe in it? What's that all about? Just curious really 



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Again I didn't say I could prove anything, I said I know it exists but I also acknowledge that other people don't know and don't want to know and so for them it/he doesn't exist.


Hmm... this I do find condescending - I know you don't mean it that way, but the idea that those who don't believe "don't want to know" or have less of an experience base doesn't sit right.

Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. 
I know I have had experiences that for lack of a better word we would call 'spiritual'. I know others have too. And I know how deeply felt and significant these experiences can be. 
However, what I don't know is what caused those experiences. Nor do you. Nor does anyone. 
One person might believe their experiences are due to a Christian, personal God. Others might believe they are due to supernatural abilities, others might believe they got slipped some peyote in their morning coffee. It really doesn't matter, none of us have evidence of anything other than the experiences. Not who/what caused them.

And frankly, not knowing is not a bad thing. Not knowing means we can inquire further and learn more. To me not knowing is good. I don't know, let me find out, let me ask, and experiment, and figure it out. Not knowing is where growth happens. 
If we "knew" disease was caused by demons and bad spirits and no one doubted, medical science would never have evolved further. And you and I probably wouldn't be here to discuss the existence of the supernatural


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

porps said:


> What i do say, is "until there is sufficient evidence for it, it is unreasonable to have belief"


I can sort of understand that different religions can disagree and argue points. What I can't understand is why athiests ever feel the need to have any opinion or argue against doctrine at all. If you don't believe something, have a lack of belief in something then why would you care? You may believe pigs can fly - I don't but it doesn't bother me that you do and I wouldn't argue it with you or insist you prove it because as a non believer it is of no consequence to me.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2016)

havoc said:


> What I can't understand is why athiests ever feel the need to have any opinion or argue against doctrine at all.


Doctrine is separate from belief. 
I don't care what people believe. 
I do care about doctrines that are damaging, divisive, bigoted, and that affect me personally. 
Beliefs are fine. Doctrines seep in to schools, legislation, and how people are treated, and then yup, I'm going to have something to say about it.


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

Happy Paws said:


> I can't believe that anyone can go into a Catholic Church and kill a Priest, it shouldn't matter what your faith a place of worship should be a safe place, and ot kill in that way is beyond words.
> 
> That's why I don;t believe anymore, if there is a god why would he let anyone kill in his name, and don't say it's because he gives us the choose to make up our own minds. We have been killing thouands of people in his name for thouands of years, if he up there and watching is as evil as those who kill.


The people who do these things are not human - as for a god?


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

ouesi said:


> Doctrine is separate from belief.
> I don't care what people believe.
> I do care about doctrines that are damaging, divisive, bigoted, and that affect me personally.
> Beliefs are fine. Doctrines seep in to schools, legislation, and how people are treated, and then yup, I'm going to have something to say about it.


Radicalisation?


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

ouesi said:


> Doctrine is separate from belief.
> I don't care what people believe.
> I do care about doctrines that are damaging, divisive, bigoted, and that affect me personally.
> Beliefs are fine. Doctrines seep in to schools, legislation, and how people are treated, and then yup, I'm going to have something to say about it.


So what are you re religion - agnostic maybe?


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2016)

KATZ1355 said:


> So what are you re religion - agnostic maybe?


Why does it matter? 
I don't like labels and none seem to suit how I feel anyway.

If I'm anything, I'm apathetic 
As in I don't really care one way or another if god in whatever incarnation you want to call it exists. If someone were to show up on my doorstep with irrefutable evidence of the existence of god, it wouldn't change anything about the day to day way I live my life, how I love my children, my personality, my interests... Nothing about me would change really. So to me, it doesn't matter one way or another. What matters is how you treat people, and this planet we have on loan for a little bit


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Happy Paws said:


> *Oh just thought where did god come, I'd love an answer to this.*


I see no one has come up with an answer this one, I wonder why.


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

ouesi said:


> Why does it matter?
> I don't like labels and none seem to suit how I feel anyway.
> 
> If I'm anything, I'm apathetic
> As in I don't really care one way or another if god in whatever incarnation you want to call it exists. If someone were to show up on my doorstep with irrefutable evidence of the existence of god, it wouldn't change anything about the day to day way I live my life, how I love my children, my personality, my interests... Nothing about me would change really. So to me, it doesn't matter one way or another. What matters is how you treat people, and this planet we have on loan for a little bit


Interesting - but no doubt you are aware that most religions are based on fear.


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

Happy Paws said:


> I see no one has come up with an answer this one, I wonder why.


You will not get one - but if you do ...............


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2016)

KATZ1355 said:


> Interesting - but no doubt you are aware that most religions are based on fear.


And?


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2016)

Happy Paws said:


> I see no one has come up with an answer this one, I wonder why.


Depends on your beliefs. 
What god are you asking about?

Granted, the other answer is, god(s) came from humans. The human mind


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Happy Paws said:


> I see no one has come up with an answer this one, I wonder why.


Becauae asking "where did this invisible imperceptible thing which in all likelihood doesnt actually exist come from?" is a nonsensical question which can only be answered by fabricating a story from your imagination.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Depends on your beliefs.
> What god are you asking about?
> 
> Granted, the other answer is, god(s) came from humans. *The human mind*





porps said:


> Becauae asking "where did this invisible imperceptible thing which in all likelihood doesnt actually exist come from?" is a nonsensical question which can only be answered by fabricating a *story from your imagination*.




That's why he doesn't exist.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

havoc said:


> I can sort of understand that different religions can disagree and argue points. What I can't understand is why athiests ever feel the need to have any opinion or argue against doctrine at all. If you don't believe something, have a lack of belief in something then why would you care? You may believe pigs can fly - I don't but it doesn't bother me that you do and I wouldn't argue it with you or insist you prove it because as a non believer it is of no consequence to me.


I care because i believe it to be damaging, dangerous and an impediment to progress.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

porps said:


> Becauae asking "where did this invisible imperceptible thing which in all likelihood doesnt actually exist come from?" is a nonsensical question which can only be answered by fabricating a story from your imagination.


If people want to believe it exists where's the problem? I know this thread is about those who use organised religion as a justification for appalling acts but those types would latch onto something else if religion didn't exist. Almost every organisation has its lunatic fringe.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Happy Paws said:


> I think that if he did existed he would find a way of doing something about it, as we are surposed it be distroying his planet.


You'd think so wouldn't you?. After all it took him 7 days hard graft to create it 



Zaros said:


> Personally, I believe it's pretty dangerous to believe in something we can't see but not in something we can see.
> 
> The prolonged Arctic winters, for example, with consistent temperatures of minus 40C, are fast becoming a thing of the past.


This is what I find most shocking. We can see the climate changing right before our eyes yet millions are still in complete denial 

Banksy nails it as per lol












rottiepointerhouse said:


> I said right there in the post you quoted
> 
> "I've never said it makes me feel better to believe - sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't"
> 
> ...


No I wont give it a rest, I'm like cracked record on this subject So I'm sorry but I refuse to be shut down. I know you have no interest in facts but I intend to continue to post them all the same (& maybe someone else will find them of interest). So if you don't want to hear my responses you could always block me. Unlike yours, my beliefs are based on solid scientific evidence. And that evidence is utterly terrifying. So I'm afraid I will continue shouting from the roof tops about climate change because unless we wake up SOON billions of life forms (including countless human beings) are going to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Here is a great interactive article for you to ignore lol - *What's Really Warming the World* - http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Climate change is already creating refugees. Ironically the people who are hostile towards refugees also tend to be in the climate denier camp. Maybe when it starts to seriously affect them will they open their eyes - though I doubt it. I really don't see any hope for this world.

I'm no fan of organised religion but in defence of the Pope, this one is incredibly progressive. He has done a great deal in raising awareness about the seriousness of climate change - & the plight of refugees.


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

havoc said:


> If people want to believe it exists where's the problem? I know this thread is about those who use organised religion as a justification for appalling acts but those types would latch onto something else if religion didn't exist. Almost every organisation has its lunatic fringe.


Child abuse in the Roman Catholic church etc..........?


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> You'd think so wouldn't you?. After all it took him 7 days hard graft to create it
> 
> This is what I find most shocking. We can see the climate changing right before our eyes yet millions are still in complete denial
> 
> ...


He took in a few Syrians right.........................


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> You'd think so wouldn't you?. After all it took him 7 days hard graft to create it
> 
> This is what I find most shocking. We can see the climate changing right before our eyes yet millions are still in complete denial
> 
> ...


Syrian refugees are not due to climate change - only a ....... barsteward called ASSAD and supported by another barsteward called PUTIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

KATZ1355 said:


> Child abuse in the Roman Catholic church etc..........?


Who are you? There have been cases of child abuse in members of the Clergy, also in Boy Scouts Leaders, Schoolteachers and countless cases amongst those who belong to none of the above.

Your posts make no sense.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

you are actually trying to deny that child abuse in the catholic church hasnt been disproportionate to the rest of society? Are you gonna deny that the organisation itself covered up many cases? Of course individual cases happen throughout all of society but when powerful organisations are covering up for the pedos whilst at the same time claiming some kind of moral authority, i see a big problem.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

KATZ1355 said:


> He took in a few Syrians right.........................


Which is far more than any other figure head has done. It sent a powerful message to rich countries like ours that have treated these poor, desperate people abysmally.



KATZ1355 said:


> Syrian refugees are not due to climate change - only a ....... barsteward called ASSAD and supported by another barsteward called PUTIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I wasn't specifically talking about Syrian refugees, but as it happens climate change has played a factor.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Whatever peoples opinions are of Ricky Gervais, this interview is really worth watching. He's not taking the mick just answering very sensible questions - sensibly  imo


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I know! Which is why I wondered what was wrong with questioning and challenging religion. I know many devoutly religious people who are not at all offended by their beliefs being questioned.


Me being one of them


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

havoc said:


> I can sort of understand that different religions can disagree and argue points. What I can't understand is why athiests ever feel the need to have any opinion or argue against doctrine at all. If you don't believe something, have a lack of belief in something then why would you care? You may believe pigs can fly - I don't but it doesn't bother me that you do and I wouldn't argue it with you or insist you prove it because as a non believer it is of no consequence to me.


Something I've also pondered for many years @havoc In seems to me that God has a hand on people, whether they believe it or not


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2016)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Something I've also pondered for many years @havoc In seems to me that God has a hand on people, whether they believe it or not


This sounds like you're saying the beliefs of those who believe are more valid than the beliefs of those who don't, or aren't sure, or don't care one way or another. 
If we're going to be 'respectful' of beliefs, this is not a very respectful statement to those who don't share the same beliefs as you.

It also opens the door to ask why, if god has a hand on people, would he allow a devoted priest, doing his work, for his people, to be horrifically murdered in his place of worship. 
Or like Fry asks, why would a god, who has his hand on people, inflict bone cancer on children? Is that the work of a loving god?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> And yet you're offended on behalf of those who believe in it? What's that all about? Just curious really
> 
> Hmm... this I do find condescending - I know you don't mean it that way, but the idea that those who don't believe "don't want to know" or have less of an experience base doesn't sit right.
> 
> ...


Sorry for the delay in replying, drove down to Devon yesterday so not much time last night.

What I should have said is I haven't read all of the bible, I've read some of it and studied some of it at school (O'level in Religious Education which shows my age), I also belonged to a youth club in my teens which involved church attendance and bible study but I have by no means studied it or read very much of it. I'd be offended for anyone having their religious beliefs made fun of to be honest. I've not read nor studied the Koran either but would still stick up for someone if I thought their religion was being dismissed as "myth"  It wasn't actually the bible I was getting offended about anyway, it was the way other people's beliefs were being dismissed and I thought that was particularly inappropriate (especially the Fry video) on a thread that started out about a man of God who lost his life.

No I did not intend my statement

"I said I know it exists but I also acknowledge that other people don't know and don't want to know and so for them it/he doesn't exist"

to be condescending. I should have said don't know *or* don't want to know. I've met many people who don't want to know and have a totally closed mind to the possibility which is fine too.

I can only say that for me having faith means I don't need evidence. For those who do need evidence fine but I don't because I trust my instincts and I trust my heart :Joyful


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Who needs facts when you have assumptions eh


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'd be offended for anyone having their religious beliefs made fun of to be honest. I've not read nor studied the Koran either but would still stick up for someone if I thought their religion was being dismissed as "myth"


Does it offend you when Norse gods are presented as myth?
What about Mayan and Aztec gods?
The Greeks and Romans? Egyptians?
All of the above are presented as myth all the time. Does that offend you?

What about when zombies are presented as caricatures of an aspect of Vodou? And made fun of in episodes of Scooby Doo and The Walking Dead? Does that offend you?

Because it's all the same thing. Vodou is a real religion that real people follow. Why should Islam and Christianity be untouchable but Vodou fair game? 
The animistic Mayan religion is a real religion still practiced today by real people, yet it's okay to call Mayan gods mythological, but not the Christian God of the Bible or the Muslim God of the Koran?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Does it offend you when Norse gods are presented as myth?
> What about Mayan and Aztec gods?
> The Greeks and Romans? Egyptians?
> All of the above are presented as myth all the time. Does that offend you?
> ...


It offends me when anyone belittles anyone else's beliefs or religion whether its Christianity, Islam, Greek, Roman or Egyptian. I've never seen an episode of Scooby Doo or The Walking Dead or anything with Zombies in it so have no idea whether they are viewed as Gods, mythical or otherwise.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> It offends me when anyone belittles anyone else's beliefs


Yet you called Fry a vile man for sharing his beliefs.

And I'm sorry but I really don't believe you would be equally offended if someone said they believe in the almighty god Zeus and received multiple responses about Zeus being a myth.
Or are you really telling me that you find textbooks, historical fiction, Renaissance art, and every other platform that presents Greek gods as mythological equally offensive?


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

It puzzles me that people want to know where God came from, but never have the same issue with where the world came from. I've met a load of people who say 'all it took was a single cell to divide...' but no one's ever given me a satisfactory answer as to where the single cell came from in the first place. Apparently, it was 'always there'. So it boils down to whether you believe in an eternal being or in eternal matter.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Regarding religion, I'll tell you what offends me. When a believer is afforded a brief private glimpse into a personal tragedy they then sometime later respond with 'I'm sorry you haven't found God' 

Now that's offensive. Truly offensive.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2016)

CuddleMonster said:


> It puzzles me that people want to know where God came from, but never have the same issue with where the world came from. I've met a load of people who say 'all it took was a single cell to divide...' but no one's ever given me a satisfactory answer as to where the single cell came from in the first place. Apparently, it was 'always there'. So it boils down to whether you believe in an eternal being or in eternal matter.


Uh... say what?!
Scientists are constantly questioning where life came from, where the world came from... In fact just recently scientists doing DNA mapping think they have discovered the earliest life form on earth. Trying to figure out where it all started is a huge part of scientific discovery!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> "
> 
> to be condescending. I should have said don't know *or* don't want to know. I've met many people who don't want to know and have a totally closed mind to the possibility which is fine too.
> 
> I can only say that for me having faith means I don't need evidence. For those who do need evidence fine but I don't because I trust my instincts and I trust my heart :Joyful


Do you not see the irony here RPH? You have a totally closed mind, not to a possibility, to a proven scientific fact.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2016)

I don't share the same opinions as @rottiepointerhouse and I find her reasoning flawed, but to her credit, at least she is on here posting genuine replies and doesn't have a hissy fit when her opinions on those replies are questioned. 
If nothing else it creates discussion and growth comes from discussion


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> Whatever peoples opinions are of Ricky Gervais, this interview is really worth watching. He's not taking the mick just answering very sensible questions - sensibly  imo


Just watched, great video


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

CuddleMonster said:


> It puzzles me that people want to know where God came from, but never have the same issue with where the world came from. I've met a load of people who say 'all it took was a single cell to divide...' but no one's ever given me a satisfactory answer as to where the single cell came from in the first place. Apparently, it was 'always there'. So it boils down to whether you believe in an eternal being or in eternal matter.


http://www.iflscience.com/chemistry...ng-blocks-life-recreating-asteroid-collision/

The question is asked constantly and because of that questioning we edge closer to knowledge and understanding. This is in contrast to religion where an assumed answer is asserted constantly rather than admit to a lack of understanding and knowledge.

The difference between science and religion is that religion says "god did it" rather than saying "we dont know, lets try to find out"


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

porps said:


> http://www.iflscience.com/chemistry...ng-blocks-life-recreating-asteroid-collision/
> 
> The question is asked constantly and because of that questioning we edge closer to knowledge and understanding. This is in contrast to religion where an assumed answer is asserted constantly rather than admit to a lack of understanding and knowledge.
> 
> The difference between science and religion is that religion says "god did it" rather than saying "we dont know, lets try to find out"


But surely it still comes down to a choice between an eternal being or eternal matter? If you have a third option, I would genuinely be interested to hear about it, since every argument I have ever heard, regardless of the beliefs of the arguer, comes down to one of these two options.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2016)

CuddleMonster said:


> But surely it still comes down to a choice between an eternal being or eternal matter? If you have a third option, I would genuinely be interested to hear about it, since every argument I have ever heard, regardless of the beliefs of the arguer, comes down to one of these two options.


How do you figure that one?
Science is about searching for answers, not eeny meeny miney mo between two options. 
Science is wide open for possibilities, not just two.

Did you read the article @porps linked?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

The 3rd choice is "if we dont know let's not jump to any conclusions until we find out, no matter how comforting those conclusions may be"


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

Yes, I did read the article that @porps linked - it's not relevant to my question, since it is discussing how life might have arrived on an earth *that is already there*. I agree that science can explore possibilities, I just don't see how you can have any theory for the earth's origination that does not involve either some form of matter existing eternally or a creator being existing eternally.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Yet you called Fry a vile man for sharing his beliefs.
> 
> And I'm sorry but I really don't believe you would be equally offended if someone said they believe in the almighty god Zeus and received multiple responses about Zeus being a myth.
> Or are you really telling me that you find textbooks, historical fiction, Renaissance art, and every other platform that presents Greek gods as mythological equally offensive?


No I called Fry a vile man because he expresses opinions that I do not share or agree with in a way that I find disrespectful to those who do believe in God. I really can't answer your question about Zeus or Greek Gods because in all honesty its not something I come across much or have given any thought to so I seriously can't tell you whether I would be "equally offended" but I hope I would be 



ouesi said:


> I don't share the same opinions as @rottiepointerhouse and I find her reasoning flawed, but to her credit, at least she is on here posting genuine replies and doesn't have a hissy fit when her opinions on those replies are questioned.
> If nothing else it creates discussion and growth comes from discussion


Thank you - sorry you find my reasoning flawed - Faith and why you have it and what is means to you is something that is very hard to explain, I've done my best to explain how/why I feel how I do but I'm no expert in debating theology so I'm sure I haven't done a great job of it. I've found it a sad thread in many ways because some of those who preach tolerance of other cultures seem to be unable to extend that tolerance of anyone who admits to having a faith they don't share so less and less people are prepared to come forward and say what they believe in. I'm a tough old bird so it won't stop me being as honest as I can be but I wonder how many others have read this thread and not been prepared to put their heads above the parapet.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

The interesting thing about God (and in many ways the same theory applied to police haters as well as God haters), when the bad things happen, when the night is darker than ever before, when we fear for our lives or the lives of loved ones, who do you pray too?......(in the case of police haters, who do you ring for help)........

We are simple creatures who need order and help from time to time


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> .


hi dot


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> No I called Fry a vile man because he expresses opinions that I do not share or agree with in a way that I find disrespectful to those who do believe in God.


I'm still not clear on what you found so disrespectful about Fry's comments. He asked why an all powerful, all knowing, all loving god would allow children to suffer with bone cancer. Why the creatures who's whole existence is to burrow through the eyes of children? Why the suffering that has nothing at all to do with the behavior of the individual or their choices? 
These are legitimate, poignant questions of someone who clearly cares deeply about others. What is so disrespectful about what he said?



rottiepointerhouse said:


> I really can't answer your question about Zeus or Greek Gods because in all honesty its not something I come across much or have given any thought to so I seriously can't tell you whether I would be "equally offended" but I hope I would be


But I already know you do not find it offensive to refer to Zeus as a myth, yet you found it offensive when HP referred to God as a myth. 
Be honest, you're defending belief. As long as the person believes in *something* you're there to defend them. But as soon as it shifts to lack of belief, your defensiveness fizzles out. 
You're not offended when non believers are painted as vile, sad, intolerant, who's experiences are less valuable. 
By the way, I'm not asking you to be offended either. That's not the point. There is actually nothing wrong with being offended IMO because it's in that place of getting knocked off balance (that we usually interpret as offense) that growth happens. 
I'm just trying to show you how your allegiance lies with those who believe in the same way you do, not across the board like you think it does.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thank you - sorry you find my reasoning flawed - Faith and why you have it and what is means to you is something that is very hard to explain, I've done my best to explain how/why I feel how I do but I'm no expert in debating theology so I'm sure I haven't done a great job of it. I've found it a sad thread in many ways because some of those who preach tolerance of other cultures seem to be unable to extend that tolerance of anyone who admits to having a faith they don't share so less and less people are prepared to come forward and say what they believe in. I'm a tough old bird so it won't stop me being as honest as I can be but I wonder how many others have read this thread and not been prepared to put their heads above the parapet.


Well, no need to apologize for me finding your reasoning flawed 

For one, disagreeing with something, not believing in something, doesn't mean you are intolerant of it. 
I don't eat meat. Haven't for 3 decades. Doesn't mean I am intolerant of those who do eat meat. I am not being intolerant of those who eat meat by refusing to eat meat next to them, I am simply doing my thing, they're doing their thing. If they ask, I will explain why I don't eat meat. That still doesn't mean I'm being intolerant when I explain my reasons for not eating meat. They asked. Which by the way is *always* the way it happens. I have never once in 3 decades said anything remotely like "ew, you're eating meat how disgusting, I could never eat meat." It has always been a situation where I have been directly asked why I don't eat meat. And you know what? There is always that one person who's going to take it personally, who's going to assume I'm criticizing their choices because mine happens to be different.

That's all that is happening here. You and I don't share the same beliefs about the supernatural. It's a difference of beliefs and reasoning and all sorts of things. Has nothing to do with me being intolerant of your beliefs, I just don't share them.

Another point though. Tolerance does not mean acceptance without limits. At least it does not to me. I am very tolerant of other cultures, but if a man were beating his wife, even if it were acceptable in that culture, I would not be tolerant of that behavior. 
In the same way, I am not tolerant of religious teachings that are damaging or detrimental. You might not be familiar with a little text that is a modern text, a modern reading of the bible called "To Train Up a Child" by a man named Michael Pearl. 
I suggest if you think we should be tolerant of religious beliefs, or the opinions of those with faith, that you read that book. You won't have to read all of it, a few passages flipping through it should do. It's a how-to book or child abuse. How to beat a baby, and infant, until they stop crying. 
In the name of "tolerance" this book is still on the shelves in bookstores and for sale on amazon. Something to consider about tolerance.....


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2016)

Colliebarmy said:


> The interesting thing about God (and in many ways the same theory applied to police haters as well as God haters), when the bad things happen, when the night is darker than ever before, when we fear for our lives or the lives of loved ones, who do you pray too?......(in the case of police haters, who do you ring for help)........
> 
> We are simple creatures who need order and help from time to time


Do you understand the difference between believing police officers exist and believing that an unseen but all knowing, all powerful god exists?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Do you understand the difference between believing police officers exist and believing that an unseen but all knowing, all powerful god exists?


Do you understand the difference between constructing a logical response and scoring cheap points?


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2016)

Satori said:


> Do you understand the difference between constructing a logical response and scoring cheap points?


Do you understand that I'm not going to waste my very excellent logic and eloquent writing on certain posters, and that scoring cheap points is sometimes the only effort a post is worth - if any?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

porps said:


> Who needs facts when you have assumptions eh


What a boring and cold old life it would be if we needed facts for everything. Don't you ever act on your instincts or what your heart tells you? If someone is in pain and something helps them I don't care where there are scientific facts to prove that substance or items works - all I care about is that it works 



noushka05 said:


> Do you not see the irony here RPH? You have a totally closed mind, not to a possibility, to a proven scientific fact.


That is not true - I "sometimes" have a closed mind to your posts which is something I'm not proud of. I rarely read a post by you that is your opinion and to be frank I need half a day to wade through the masses of links (usually long articles) or watch all the videos you post from people I do not admire or respect such as Messrs Fry, Gervais and worse of all Brand so yes my mind is closed to those links because 1. I don't respect them and 2. I haven't got the time to read them. My mind is not closed to the climate change debate which is presumably what you are talking about - I'm currently reading "Whole" by T Colin Campbell which has a section about climate change which I've enjoyed reading and which has challenged some of my beliefs although probably not changed many of them. I agree with him that food production should feature much higher in the list of things we can change - I had no idea for instance that one kilogram of beef requires in the region of 100,000 litres to produce (he is talking about the massive factory farming units in the US) whereas a kilo of wheat requires 900 litres and a kilo of potatoes only 500 litres and the livestock population of the US consumes 5 times as much grain as the country's entire human population. So when I said some people have a closed mind to faith I meant in that they don't have it and don't want to know about it or discuss it. I do not share you faith in scientists and never will no matter how many articles you link.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I'm still not clear on what you found so disrespectful about Fry's comments. He asked why an all powerful, all knowing, all loving god would allow children to suffer with bone cancer. Why the creatures who's whole existence is to burrow through the eyes of children? Why the suffering that has nothing at all to do with the behavior of the individual or their choices?
> These are legitimate, poignant questions of someone who clearly cares deeply about others. What is so disrespectful about what he said?
> 
> yet you found it offensive when HP referred to God as a myth.
> ...


Oh gosh a lot of points there so may have to come back later but to get started I posted this way back when you first asked what I found disrespectful about Fry's comments and I said this
"
I find his comments about God being mean minded, stupid, a selfish maniac, monstrous and deserving of no respect as vile now as I did when I first had the misfortune to watch it. Other than that I'm sure he is a very nice man"

this was particularly in reference to it being posted on a thread talking about the murder of a man who dedicated his life to serving that God.

I'm totally baffled by your second paragraph

"But I already know you do not find it offensive to refer to Zeus as a myth, "

How do you know that when I said I didn't know because its not something I've really come across or thought about?

and

"You're not offended when non believers are painted as vile, sad, intolerant, who's experiences are less valuable"

Who says I'm not, who says I think their experiences are less valuable? I've defended plenty of non believers and plenty of people I don't like or respect.

Got to go and eat dinner now but will come back later.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Colliebarmy said:


> We are simple creatures who need order and help from time to time


I agree, and in the bleakest times I get why you might welcome God in. IME, there is no bleaker place for an atheist than a religious funeral for a loved one. But I don't really care what anyone believes, I care how their belief drives them and I care how they behave as a result. I will not waste anybody's time arguing about whether God exists, there are more productive ways to spend our time.

To get back to the original post: I can't see that it is worse for a priest to be killed at his place of work than for anyone else to be murdered. I think it seems worse if it is so normal to you that you can imagine the scene and can not imagine the violence within your normal experience.

Also, imo, not all religions have the benevolent God people want to believe in, not all of them encourage peace and goodwill to people who are deemed outside the faith.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Satori said:


> Do you understand the difference between constructing a logical response and scoring cheap points?


Medice, cura te ipsum


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2016)

Just a quick reply, since you said you have more to post 



rottiepointerhouse said:


> I find his comments about God being mean minded, stupid, a selfish maniac, monstrous and deserving of no respect as vile now as I did when I first had the misfortune to watch it. Other than that I'm sure he is a very nice man"


Remember I couldn't view the video @noushka05 posted, so just to be clear, we're talking about this response yes?





What he said was, "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain." This came after asking about bone cancer in children and a world with so much misery that is not our fault.
It's a perfectly valid question.
I can see how it can be an uncomfortable question, but I don't see how it is disrespectful. I myself have asked similar of a minister once, and he took the time to answer me very thoroughly and also compassionately. He did not find the question inappropriate or disrespectful either.

Fry went on to clarify that if - IF the god that created the universe was all powerful, all seeing, all wise, all kind, then creating a world where there is such misery and injustice is maniacal. Again, very valid point and a question often asked of religious leaders.

Edit: Side note, the book "The Shack" by Wm. Paul Young is a Christian book that starts with the premise of a devastated father wanting to know how his young daughter could be abducted, horrifically tortured and killed. Again, asking how God could allow unthinkable atrocities to happen.
It's not a disrespectful question 

Edit #2: Did you know that Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury weighed in on Fry's comments and agreed that "It would be a very, very stupid and insensitive person who never felt that." (That being the outrage at children suffering through no fault of their own.)



rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm totally baffled by your second paragraph
> 
> "But I already know you do not find it offensive to refer to Zeus as a myth, "
> 
> How do you know that when I said I didn't know because its not something I've really come across or thought about?


Come on, are you really going to try and tell me that if someone said "Zeus is a mythological Greek god" you would be offended on behalf of the ancient Greeks?
You know you wouldn't nor would I or anyone expect you to! That would be silly wouldn't it?
So what is offensive about opining that the Christian God or the Muslim Allah to be a human created myth?
It's no more offensive than opining that Zeus was a human created myth.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Im not going to read all 12 pages of this but it appears the age old argument of blaming religion for mans evil has reared its head as it always does...

Im an atheist. I am not anti-theist, I have religious friends, I find the whole thing fascinating to be honest and believe we are just wired that way in many cases. I cant comprehend any reason why one would hold such blind faith - but at the same time I am sure my Christian and Muslim friends (of which I have many) could not comprehend a life without such blind faith... I have my theories, but they are mine alone and I wouldnt risk insulting my friends by verbalising my assumptions regarding why they hold the faith they do.

The basic fact however are that shi*tty people will do sh*tty things. They will do the for whatever convenient reason they can find for such things. If someone is isolated from society, feels like an outsider and sits on the outskirts feeling alone a dejected then falls into extremist ideologies, whose fault is that? 
Is it the fault of the religion (how can an ideology be blamed - it is not a conscious being, it is a theoretical existance)? Personally I find that hard to believe.

Maybe society is partially at fault for creating such barriers whereby people feel outcast and look for comfort in the arms of those who target vulnerability. Certainly the maniacs who interpret theological scriptures, and then spread such bile throughout society are to blame.... but these are men (and women) that do that, not writings. Its kind of like saying "the catcher in the rye" was responsible for the Reagan assassination attempt... its absurd.
If someone goes out and shoots something up claiming they are "Muggles" - are we going to go out and ban Harry Potter?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> For one, disagreeing with something, not believing in something, doesn't mean you are intolerant of it.


I didn't say it did - I find mocking someone else's beliefs to be intolerant though particularly when done in quite aggressive tones (not by you by the way)



ouesi said:


> You and I don't share the same beliefs about the supernatural.


Don't we? I'm not aware we ever discussed the subject but perhaps I've forgotten.



ouesi said:


> Tolerance does not mean acceptance without limits.


I never said it did 



ouesi said:


> I suggest if you think we should be tolerant of religious beliefs, or the opinions of those with faith, that you read that book.


Why would I want to read a book about child abuse?



ouesi said:


> Remember I couldn't view the video @noushka05 posted, so just to be clear, we're talking about this response yes?


Yes



ouesi said:


> but I don't see how it is disrespectful.


Posting it in the context of the murder of the priest who dedicated his life to the work of God is disrespectful. I'm trying to think of something comparable, Say there was a terrorist attack and emergency services staff were killed including policemen and on the thread discussing how sad it was some people waded in with their anti police ramblings and bringing up reasons they have to hate/mistrust the police. They are entitled to their opinions of course and to express them but that particular thread would be an inappropriate and disrespectful place to do it.



ouesi said:


> : Did you know that Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury weighed in on Fry's comments and agreed that "It would be a very, very stupid and insensitive person who never felt that.


No I didn't know that and yes everyone has doubts, having faith doesn't mean "blind faith that is never doubted" but Fry is not doubting faith he is attacking God - "mean minded, stupid, a selfish maniac, monstrous and deserving of no respect" He is entitled to those opinions but words hurt, its easy when its about something you (general you) don't believe in or feel strong about to throw words around without thinking of their impact on people who do believe. A bit like those people who threw "filth" into a discussion we were having once about the police - its easy and cheap to say but its bloody hurtful to others.



ouesi said:


> Come on, are you really going to try and tell me that if someone said "Zeus is a mythological Greek god" you would be offended on behalf of the ancient Greeks?
> You know you wouldn't nor would I or anyone expect you to! That would be silly wouldn't it?
> So what is offensive about opining that the Christian God or the Muslim Allah to be a human created myth?
> It's no more offensive than opining that Zeus was a human created myth.


I'm not trying to tell you that no, I said I haven't really thought about it and don't know, I also know nothing about Greek Gods or the ancient Greeks so can only repeat that I don't have an opinion.

Phew that was exhausting. I'm really sure other forum members are bored to tears with hearing about what I do and don't believe in and why so why don't we put someone else under the microscope and ask them probing questions about what they believe in any why. Step forward the next volunteer


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2016)

grumpy goby said:


> Is it the fault of the religion (how can an ideology be blamed - it is not a conscious being, it is a theoretical existance)? Personally I find that hard to believe.


Yes, ideologies (and religions) absolutely can be blamed and are to blame in many instances.

As I said in my very first post on this thread. One individual instance of someone behaving crazily, no you would not blame that on religion.

However, when a pattern emerges of centuries long plundering of lands, subjugation of races, bigotry, impeding scientific progress, deliberate cover ups, persecutions of entire peoples, telling AIDS stricken African counties not to use condoms... etc., etc., then yes, I can and do blame religion for the suffering of millions upon millions of people throughout the world, throughout history.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> What a boring and cold old life it would be if we needed facts for everything.


Not boring or cold at all.. i see enough beauty and wonder in reality without having to make up fairy tales to explain things i dont understand.. To quote Minchin, as i so often do in these kind of discussions: _"isnt this enough? Just this world? Just this beautiful, complex, wonderfully unfathomable world? How does it so fail to hold our attention that we have to diminish it with the invention of cheap, man-made myths and monsters?" _
I reject your tone of fake sympathy, this pretense that you feel sorry for those of us who don't need fairy tales to find wonder in life.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> all I care about is that it works


I guess you dont pray then...


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

porps said:


> Not boring or cold at all.. i see enough beauty and wonder in reality without having to make up fairy tales to explain things i dont understand.. To quote Minchin, as i so often do in these kind of discussions: _"isnt this enough? Just this world? Just this beautiful, complex, wonderfully unfathomable world? How does it so fail to hold our attention that we have to diminish it with the invention of cheap, man-made myths and monsters?" _
> I reject your tone of fake sympathy, this pretense that you feel sorry for those of us who don't need fairy tales to find wonder in life.
> 
> I guess you dont pray then...


I see beauty and wonder in the world too and have no need to make up fairy tales. I know what I know and there are no fairy tales or hallucinogenic drugs involved thanks I'm not sure what tone of fake sympathy you reject as I don't recall offering you any sympathy fake or otherwise. If you mean my reference to pain I did actually mean physical pain as in looking after people in pain and not caring about whether scientific facts prove something works, I was taught that pain is what the patient says it is not what a person in a white coat says it is. Sorry if you find that fake.

Whether I pray or not is irrelevant


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

If i go to hospital or a doctor i most certainly want to be treated by someone with a firm grasp on evidence based medical science, not someone who thinks gut instinct and a vivid imagination is a suitable subtitute.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

porps said:


> If i go to hospital or a doctor i most certainly want to be treated by someone with a firm grasp on evidence based medical science, not someone who thinks gut instinct and a vivid imagination is a suitable subtitute.


Don't be childish Porps. Of course nurses have a grasp on evidence based medical science - that is part of their training but nursing isn't just about science, its also about caring. What is pain? how do you measure it? how do you assess what helps and what doesn't? why do some drugs work for some people and not others? are there alternatives that help without the associated risks/side effects of drugs? what does the patient say helps? For some people that might be a heat pad or an ice pack or it might be a massage or it might be aromatherapy or it might be walking. When I had a major operation and was in quite a lot of pain I paced up and down the corridors, staying still made if much worse and the drugs on offer made me feel sick and dizzy. Can you scientifically prove that pacing up and down is an effective analgesia? I doubt it, can you scientifically prove that lavender oil relieves headaches? Care of someone in pain is not just about science, its knowing how to work out what helps them and what doesn't and has nothing whatsoever to do with a vivid imagination :Nurse


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> What a boring and cold old life it would be if we needed facts for everything. Don't you ever act on your instincts or what your heart tells you? If someone is in pain and something helps them I don't care where there are scientific facts to prove that substance or items works - all I care about is that it works
> 
> That is not true - I "sometimes" have a closed mind to your posts which is something I'm not proud of. I rarely read a post by you that is your opinion and to be frank I need half a day to wade through the masses of links (usually long articles) or watch all the videos you post from people I do not admire or respect such as Messrs Fry, Gervais and worse of all Brand so yes my mind is closed to those links because 1. I don't respect them and 2. I haven't got the time to read them. My mind is not closed to the climate change debate which is presumably what you are talking about - I'm currently reading "Whole" by T Colin Campbell which has a section about climate change which I've enjoyed reading and which has challenged some of my beliefs although probably not changed many of them. I agree with him that food production should feature much higher in the list of things we can change - I had no idea for instance that one kilogram of beef requires in the region of 100,000 litres to produce (he is talking about the massive factory farming units in the US) whereas a kilo of wheat requires 900 litres and a kilo of potatoes only 500 litres and the livestock population of the US consumes 5 times as much grain as the country's entire human population. So when I said some people have a closed mind to faith I meant in that they don't have it and don't want to know about it or discuss it. I do not share you faith in scientists and never will no matter how many articles you link.


Oh I know my posts can be ineligible ramblings at times (yes, and they are often long as I like to support my opinions with evidence  ) But I am telling the truth about your closed mindedness on climate science - we have debated it before lol. Even in this post you contradict yourself by admitting 'your' beliefs on the subject haven't changed much. And again, take this last sentence of your post ; _* "I do not share you faith in* *scientists and never will* no matter how many articles you link". D_oes this scepticism in scientists extend to all fields of science? - medicine for example? or is it only reserved for scientists in the field of climatology? And even here there is no consistency as you DO have faith in some scientists on this issue - the ones who deny the evidence. Surpise surprise lol. Rather than accepting the position of pretty much an entire scientific community you have put your faith into a bunch of proven fraudsters The likes of Plimer & Montford et al. You have allowed yourself to be duped RPH

The debate about humans role in climate change is over, there is NO doubt we are driving global warming. The science on this only gets stronger & stronger as the evidence comes in and is reviewed.

So just think if 97% of climate scientists & all the worlds leading academies turn out to be right & the fraudsters & your instincts are proven wrong RPH? Do you want to see this wondrous living planet destroyed because we refused to listen? Don't we owe it to every living thing to listen to the experts & act now?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Don't be childish Porps. Of course nurses have a grasp on evidence based medical science - that is part of their training but nursing isn't just about science, its also about caring.


It isnt childish... you basically stated that facts arent needed and you can just trust your instinct.. I'm showing that trusting your instincts is only a sensible course of action after you have equipped yourself with the facts and relevant evidence based training. A point which you have, to your credit, finally conceded.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

porps said:


> Not boring or cold at all.. i see enough beauty and wonder in reality without having to make up fairy tales to explain things i dont understand.. To quote Minchin, as i so often do in these kind of discussions: _"isnt this enough? Just this world? Just this beautiful, complex, wonderfully unfathomable world? How does it so fail to hold our attention that we have to diminish it with the invention of cheap, man-made myths and monsters?" _
> I reject your tone of fake sympathy, this pretense that you feel sorry for those of us who don't need fairy tales to find wonder in life.
> 
> I guess you dont pray then...


So many posts I wish I could rep you for Porps, but if I could & I had to choose one, it would be this one. That Tim Minchin quote is brilliant


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> So many posts I wish I could rep you for Porps, but if I could & I had to choose one, it would be this one. That Tim Minchin quote is brilliant


Thanks, right back at you, i personally appreciate the fact that you provide sources to back up your posts. 
I kinda miss the rep system.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

porps said:


> If i go to hospital or a doctor i most certainly want to be treated by someone with a firm grasp on evidence based medical science, not someone who thinks gut instinct and a vivid imagination is a suitable subtitute.


If you go to a hospital do you demand that any medically trained staff treating you do not have a religious faith? The two things are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

havoc said:


> If you go to a hospital do you demand that any medically trained staff treating you do not have a religious faith? The two things are not mutually exclusive.


Of course not, and of course they are not mutually exclusive. I would however refuse to be treated by someone who claimed that gut feeling is as important as scientific facts when it comes to medicine.

Are you telling me that you wouldn't ask for a second opinion if you sought the advice of a doctor and they said "i don't really understand medicine or the human body from a scientific standpoint but my gut feeling is that you just need a big old dose of odin in your life"?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

porps said:


> Of course not, and of course they are not mutually exclusive. I would however refuse to be treated by someone who claimed that gut feeling is as important as scientific facts when it comes to medicine.
> 
> Are you telling me that you wouldn't ask for a second opinion if you sought the advice of a doctor and they said "i don't really understand medicine or the human body from a scientific standpoint but my gut feeling is that you just need a big old dose of odin in your life"?


Again that shows your ignorance and lack of understanding. The best doctors and nurses are ones who do rely on their gut instincts in addition to science. Your gut instinct can alert you to something being wrong way before the proof is there. Let me give you an example. My MIL felt a bit unwell and had flushing of her face. Her GP sent her to hospital because she felt "something was not quite right", She had no proof, all the extensive tests my MIL had proved negative (including x-rays, a barium meal and enema and an ultra sound) so the hospital discharged her but the GP "just knew" something was not right so sent her back again. This time she saw a doctor who was alerted by the face flushing so he ordered a liver biopsy, she was found to have a rare form of cancer called a Carcinoid Tumour. She was dead within 6 weeks. That GP relied on her gut instinct so yes it is as important as scientific facts.


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

porps said:


> Not boring or cold at all.. i see enough beauty and wonder in reality without having to make up fairy tales to explain things i dont understand.. To quote Minchin, as i so often do in these kind of discussions: _"isnt this enough? Just this world? Just this beautiful, complex, wonderfully unfathomable world? How does it so fail to hold our attention that* we have to diminish it with the invention of cheap, man-made myths and monsters*?" _


That is the issue I have with Minchin and his kind - that they cannot simply disagree, they have to ridicule & insult as well.

I doubt anyone who believes in any kind of supernatural power would say they thought their belief diminished the world. Most people I have spoken to (from widely varying beliefs, including some that are part of no formal religious group) say that their beliefs* increase* their appreciation of the world around them and make them regard it more highly. Minchin (or you) may not agree with them, but is there any need to dismiss their beliefs as 'cheap'? (Bearing in mind that for many people with these kind of beliefs, those beliefs are the most precious and important thing in their lives) What is wrong with saying 'I don't agree with you' or 'I don't believe that'?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I'm not talking about either/or. I am saying that if I'm on the operating table and I've got the top surgeon in the field working on me I wouldn't care if they said a little prayer and believed they were that good because of a god or if they went into cold stark technical mode - the result is the same. I wouldn't choose a lesser surgeon just because I don't hold the same beliefs.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

havoc said:


> I'm not talking about either/or. I am saying that if I'm on the operating table and I've got the top surgeon in the field working on me I wouldn't care if they said a little prayer and believed they were that good because of a god or if they went into cold stark technical mode - the result is the same. I wouldn't choose a lesser surgeon just because I don't hold the same beliefs.


Nor would i and that wasn't remotely what i said. So long as they do thier job they can believe in whatever they like.. And their job is medicine... Something that is science rather than faith based. 
The point is that you can believe what you like but while working in medicine you are applying science, not faith.. Facts, not vague feelings.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

CuddleMonster said:


> That is the issue I have with Minchin and his kind - that they cannot simply disagree, they have to ridicule & insult as well.
> 
> I doubt anyone who believes in any kind of supernatural power would say they thought their belief diminished the world. Most people I have spoken to (from widely varying beliefs, including some that are part of no formal religious group) say that their beliefs* increase* their appreciation of the world around them and make them regard it more highly. Minchin (or you) may not agree with them, but is there any need to dismiss their beliefs as 'cheap'? (Bearing in mind that for many people with these kind of beliefs, those beliefs are the most precious and important thing in their lives) What is wrong with saying 'I don't agree with you' or 'I don't believe that'?


So a statement such as "what a boring and world it would be if we all went around only believing in facts" doesn't imply that those of us who don't believe in things for which thier is no evidence have a less rich experience of the world? Sure...
And religion... Faith... It is cheap. It's cheap and it's lazy. It's easy to just say "god did it". It's easy to invent a god rather than following the evidence, learning, experimenting, discovering... It's a cheap lazy way to stagnate. 
Beliefs don't have rights. You have a right to believe and i have a right to critisize your beliefs.


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

porps said:


> So a statement such as "what a boring and world it would be if we all went around only believing in facts" doesn't imply that those of us who don't believe in things for which thier is no evidence have a less rich experience of the world? Sure...


I did not make that statement. But I don't see the two statements as comparable anyway. One is saying that the world would be a more boring place if everyone believed the same. The other says that the beliefs of a certain group of people are 'cheap' and diminishing toward the world.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

porps said:


> So a statement such as "what a boring and world it would be if we all went around only believing in facts" doesn't imply that those of us who don't believe in things for which thier is no evidence have a less rich experience of the world? Sure...
> And religion... Faith... It is cheap. It's cheap and it's lazy. It's easy to just say "god did it". It's easy to invent a god rather than following the evidence, learning, experimenting, discovering... It's a cheap lazy way to stagnate.
> Beliefs don't have rights. You have a right to believe and i have a right to critisize your beliefs.


You can't debate anything reasonably.

If anyone disagrees with you, you'll find a way to insult them.

If those who believe there is a God are "cheap and lazy", well then, why aren't those who don't believe cheap and lazy?

I believe there is a God. You don't. That's fine, that's what life is about but why that makes me a lesser human being than you I can't fathom.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

porps said:


> The point is that you can believe what you like but while working in medicine you are applying science, not faith.. Facts, not vague feelings.


The point is that in the real world they can work side by side. That brilliant surgeon may have belief in their ability because of a belief in a higher being while another brilliant surgeon may have belief in their ability purely because of training and a different way of looking at things. What matters to me is the result and as a non believer myself I see it as no different to two people taking different approaches to doing any task and reaching the same outcome.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

havoc said:


> The point is that in the real world they can work side by side. That brilliant surgeon may have belief in their ability because of a belief in a higher being while another brilliant surgeon may have belief in their ability purely because of training and a different way of looking at things. What matters to me is the result and as a non believer myself I see it as no different to two people taking different approaches to doing any task and reaching the same outcome.


2 surgeons may have very different beleifs but they will both, i would hope, apply very similar, evidence based techniques when performing surgery. You wont see a faith healing, you'll see a medical operation based on scientific fact. Regardless of what thier beliefs are, they will apply science since science has the best chance of actually working.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sweety said:


> You can't debate anything reasonably.
> 
> If anyone disagrees with you, you'll find a way to insult them.
> 
> ...


The fact that you are simply using strawman fallacies like it's going out of fashion in this post means i won't bother to waste my time on a real reply to it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2016)

Of course there is room for both faith/gut feelings/instinct, whatever you want to call it along side of scientific study and evidence-based reasoning. However, when I go to a doctor, I am concerned with the doctor's scientific knowledge, not their religious affiliation. When I go to a plumber, I am concerned with the plumber's training, not their religious affiliation. 
If I am looking for spiritual guidance, or even a friend to talk to, sure, bring beliefs and spirituality in to it.

Unfortunately, religion and religious doctrines have a way of sticking their nose in where they don't belong. Doctors don't go around telling people what their beliefs should be, but religious leaders are often very happy to tell their followers what kind of medical help they should receive. I have an issue with that. 
I have an issue with forbidding women in developing nations, in unspeakable poverty, access to birth control. I have an issue with telling adults in AIDS devastated countries that they should not use condoms. I have an issue with religious leaders determining what, if any education a woman should be entitled to. 
And part of the huge issue I have with this the lack of factual evidence. What possible reason could there be to tell millions of women to not use birth control, and actively work to block programs that would allow them access to birth control, when being able to control their reproduction, has been proven, through evidence, to be the single most effective way to decrease poverty?

At this point, no, there isn't room for religious doctrine along side of evidence based science. The religious doctrine needs to go away, take a back seat, and let the people who can make a difference do so.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

porps said:


> The fact that you are simply using strawman fallacies like it's going out of fashion in this post means i won't bother to waste my time on a real reply to it.


Good.

I have no respect for your opinions.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

porps said:


> 2 surgeons may have very different beleifs but they will both, i would hope, apply very similar, evidence based techniques when performing surgery. You wont see a faith healing, you'll see a medical operation based on scientific fact. Regardless of what thier beliefs are, they will apply science since science has the best chance of actually working.


Of course they will and that's the point. The one with a religious faith doesn't do anything differently which is why I have no issue with them believing whatever they want. A lot of this thread has been science(good) versus religion(bad) whereas they can exist side by side and I've known a fair few scientists with a faith.

Make no mistake, I have no time for the snake oil merchants and conning charlatans who look to profit from the insecurities of others 'in the name of' religion. The only belief they hold is in the great god money. That doesn't mean all those with religious beliefs are backward and bad.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2016)

havoc said:


> A lot of this thread has been science(good) versus religion(bad)


I think a lot of this thread has just been too simplistic for a topic that's much more involved that a simple dichotomy.

One, I think it's important to separate personal, individual beliefs from religious doctrine. They are not the same at all. I don't have any issue whatsoever with individual's beliefs. 
Religious doctrines, taught and enforced by religious leaders, are an entirely different ball of wax and need to be addressed differently.

Two I also think it is important to separate the people from the religion. One can take issue with a religion, it's practices, and beliefs while not having any issue with individuals who practice that religion (especially those who practice it privately and don't try and force their beliefs on others).


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sweety said:


> Good.
> 
> I have no respect for your opinions.


I am of course extremely upset to hear that but i think, somehow, i will still manage to survive.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

ouesi said:


> I think a lot of this thread has just been too simplistic for a topic that's much more involved that a simple dichotomy.
> 
> One, I think it's important to separate personal, individual beliefs from religious doctrine. They are not the same at all. I don't have any issue whatsoever with individual's beliefs.
> Religious doctrines, taught and enforced by religious leaders, are an entirely different ball of wax and need to be addressed differently.
> ...


Very well said, have some imaginary rep


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2016)

porps said:


> Very well said, have some imaginary rep


LOL! And thanks for the laugh


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

On the fourth day God created the sun.

Question:

What did he use to count the days before?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Zaros said:


> On the fourth day God created the sun.
> 
> Question:
> 
> What did he use to count the days before?


Checkmate!


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

Zaros said:


> On the fourth day God created the sun.
> 
> Question:
> 
> What did he use to count the days before?


If you allow for the sun to be created by a divine being to tell the time, then he would surely know (and have created?) time beforehand. You don't ask a clockmaker how he told the time before he finished the clock - it's because he already knows about time that he is able to make the clock.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2016)

CuddleMonster said:


> That is the issue I have with Minchin and his kind - that they cannot simply disagree, they have to ridicule & insult as well.


What is ridiculing and insulting about the quote?


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Im not sure when science and religion came to loggerheads  There was a time when scientific research was done by men of the cloth (mainly cos they were the only ones with the time and finances to do so...)

I understand your point @ouesi re: blaming theology; but maintain that yes its blamed for heinous acts, they acts would have been carried out regardless of the religious calling, and they would just find another cause to blame.. men fear that which is different. Religion makes for a convenient scapegoat for bigotry. As well as being blamed for bad, it is also hailed for good - in charities and drives and whatnot - I also believe that while good people do good in the name of religion; such empathy is in their blood and they would continue their humanitarian acts regardless (as many atheists do, or the humanitarian society etc)... That is just my outlook on it - religion just serves a convenient "excuse" or gives people a sense of purpose in their acts (good or bad) - but its existance or non existance is not that instrumental to it. I dont believe that we would have any less evil in the world or war if religion were irradicated... we would just have different excuses.

That aside, at some point religion stopped "evolving" - the Christian/Jewish god (Yahweh) story has changed alot since the begining, when we moved from polytheistic to monotheistic faith - and the new testament is an extension of that evolution... due to increase in literacy and availability of bibles not in latin? Who knows (not me!)... but where religion at one point addressed the cultural and societal struggles, strains and frustrations - laying down rules relevant to that time - that stopped at some point... and now we have scripture not relevant to our day and so people seek their own intepretation to make it releavant. Some in a good way, dismissing the bits about slaves, and stonnings, and rape and pillaging, focussing instead on the love... and others to support their own sinister means...

I dont even know where I am going with this. Just rambling I suppose...


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

ouesi said:


> This sounds like you're saying the beliefs of those who believe are more valid than the beliefs of those who don't, or aren't sure, or don't care one way or another.
> If we're going to be 'respectful' of beliefs, this is not a very respectful statement to those who don't share the same beliefs as you.
> 
> It also opens the door to ask why, if god has a hand on people, would he allow a devoted priest, doing his work, for his people, to be horrifically murdered in his place of worship.
> Or like Fry asks, why would a god, who has his hand on people, inflict bone cancer on children? Is that the work of a loving god?


Not meant at all disrespectfully Ouesi, but simply musing that it's odd how people who deny the existence of God seem to want to spend so much time talking about her/him! I don't believe in elves and fairies and have therefore never felt the need to have a conversation about them


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Zaros said:


> Regarding religion, I'll tell you what offends me. When a believer is afforded a brief private glimpse into a personal tragedy they then sometime later respond with 'I'm sorry you haven't found God'
> 
> Now that's offensive. Truly offensive.


Zaros, that's nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with someone behaving like an idiot.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Zaros said:


> On the fourth day God created the sun.
> 
> Question:
> 
> What did he use to count the days before?


And here, in a nutshell, is the whole problem (thanks Zaros  ).

Most people are still stuck in the idea of God as a man in the sky in control of the universe. Ideas like 'count the days' are an entirely human construct and nothing to do with spirituality. The major difficulty on this thread (and all the previous ones!) is that 'God/the Divine/Allah/whichever name one uses for the Creator' is constantly being confused with man-made religious doctrine.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Not meant at all disrespectfully Ouesi, but simply musing that it's odd how people who deny the existence of God seem to want to spend so much time talking about her/him! I don't believe in elves and fairies and have therefore never felt the need to have a conversation about them


Maybe, but you don't get elves and fairies knocking on your door try to convert you to their belives, they don't have churchs everywhere it very hard to get away from religion like it or not.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> simply musing that it's odd how people who deny the existence of God seem to want to spend so much time talking about her/him!


 Trust me, only when believers start it, or like this thread, it is is the main topic of conversation in the room and you just want to join in. But some people,like Fry and Minchin, talk about it because that is the job they have. People of faith probably don't notice how much they talk about God because it is so natural and desirable to them to do so.



BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Most people are still stuck in the idea of God as a man in the sky in control of the universe. Ideas like 'count the days' are an entirely human construct and nothing to do with spirituality. The major difficulty on this thread (and all the previous ones!) is that 'God/the Divine/Allah/whichever name one uses for the Creator' is constantly being confused with man-made religious doctrine.


 I don't understand this - what other concepts are there that could be discussed?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> And here, in a nutshell, is the whole problem (thanks Zaros  ).
> 
> Most people are still stuck in the idea of God as a man in the sky in control of the universe. Ideas like 'count the days' are an entirely human construct and nothing to do with spirituality. The major difficulty on this thread (and all the previous ones!) is that 'God/the Divine/Allah/whichever name one uses for the Creator' is constantly being confused with man-made religious doctrine.


No, the main problem is the complete lack of evidence to support the creator theory, and the utter lack of any kind of reason other than hope or fear to believe in such a being, OR the doctrines.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Not meant at all disrespectfully Ouesi, but simply musing that it's odd how people who deny the existence of God seem to want to spend so much time talking about her/him! I don't believe in elves and fairies and have therefore never felt the need to have a conversation about them


If beleif in elves and fairies was a common thing, forcefully indoctrinated into children the world over, and if beleif in elves and fairies came from books which had vile hateful divisive messages, and if beleif in elves and fairies was the catalyst if not outright cause of many wars and deaths and suffering and cruelty throughout history... then people who didn't believe in elves and fairies but did care that humans one day move past such false, dangerous, destructive belief systems would talk about that in the same way athiests talk about religion. Wouldn't you? 
By ignoring it the problem will never go away.


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2016)

grumpy goby said:


> I understand your point @ouesi re: blaming theology; but maintain that yes its blamed for heinous acts, they acts would have been carried out regardless of the religious calling, and they would just find another cause to blame.. men fear that which is different. Religion makes for a convenient scapegoat for bigotry. As well as being blamed for bad, it is also hailed for good - in charities and drives and whatnot - I also believe that while good people do good in the name of religion; such empathy is in their blood and they would continue their humanitarian acts regardless (as many atheists do, or the humanitarian society etc)... That is just my outlook on it - religion just serves a convenient "excuse" or gives people a sense of purpose in their acts (good or bad) - but its existance or non existance is not that instrumental to it. I dont believe that we would have any less evil in the world or war if religion were irradicated... we would just have different excuses.


I agree that evil people would still commit evil with or without religion, and good people would still do good with or without religion.

However I think religion - specifically monotheistic religions, are much more than just a convenient scapegoat for bigotry. 
For one, if your religion is that easy to use as a scapegoat for bigotry, isn't that in itself an issue?
But getting right down to the nitty gritty, the doctrine and ideology itself IS bigoted and teaches bigotry.

Women are property. Women are to obey the men in charge of them. Women are second class citizens. This is actual teachings of the church, I have sat and listened to different versions of this in both Catholic and Protestant services. Now we move from a 'misinterpretation' used as an excuse to actual teachings of church leaders.

The Catholic church taught for years that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus so the hardships they endured today were a punishment they had brought upon themselves. Many Protestant denominations teach the same thing. As late as the 1990's I've sat in services and listened to church leaders tell their parishioners that the Holocaust, while a terrible tragedy, was something the Jews brought upon themselves - they were cursed by God, for killing Jesus 2000 years ago. 
That's not an "excuse" for bigotry. That's teaching bigotry.

I would go so far as to say that the whole premise of monotheism teaches otherness and bigotry.
"I am the one and only God and all other gods are the wrong god" is in itself a divisive. Now anyone who follows a different god than you has become "other" and not only "other" but wrong in their otherness. Which is essentially the foundation for bigotry.



BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Not meant at all disrespectfully Ouesi, but simply musing that it's odd how people who deny the existence of God seem to want to spend so much time talking about her/him! I don't believe in elves and fairies and have therefore never felt the need to have a conversation about them


Well, clearly you don't spend a lot of time reading Tolkien or have a 13 year old who does, because if you did, you'd spend a lot of time discussing fairies, elves and dwarves and who is the better warrior, or if you could be a non-human, which one would you rather be. Just sayin'... 
I mean, really, anyone who doesn't include elves and fairies in their life must lead a very sad and unfulfilled existence 

But seriously though, there is no doctrine that says those who follow fairies are better than those who follow elves. There is no doctrine that says all who believe in fairies must also eschew birth control of any kind, otherwise they're not true fairy followers. There is no doctrine that says a fairy follower cannot marry an elf follower. And there is no one telling my children that they must believe fairies are real otherwise they will burn in eternal damnation in hell.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I agree that evil people would still commit evil with or without religion, and good people would still do good with or without religion.
> 
> However I think religion - specifically monotheistic religions, are much more than just a convenient scapegoat for bigotry.
> For one, if your religion is that easy to use as a scapegoat for bigotry, isn't that in itself an issue?
> ...


And no believer I have anything to do with would say those things ^^ either.


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2016)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> And no believer I have anything to do with would say those things ^^ either.


Well that's convenient for you in this discussion, but the fact is these are exactly the things that are said by the religious and are taught in religious doctrine.

Your point was why discuss elves and fairies if you don't believe in them?
I countered that one, I do discuss them and frankly have a lot of fun with those discussions. And fascinatingly, no one gets offended in a conversation where I say I would rather be an elf and they would rather be a dwarf. Or that I think elves are more elegant than dwarves. Or even when we joke about elves and fairies! Nope, no offense at all.

Nor is there a doctrine associated with elves or fairies. 
You saying "well that's not what *I* do" is completely immaterial. You asked why the conversation. I answered with legitimate, real reasons that you and I both know exist. You know there is church doctrine that says only though accepting Jesus can you be admitted in to the kingdom of heaven. You know nobody says the same about fairies.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Today is Father Jacques Hamel's funeral so I hope we can put our differences about faith/religion aside and spend a few moments thinking of him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36950521


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

ouesi said:


> What is ridiculing and insulting about the quote?


If you can't see the problem, it obviously isn't a problem for you. I think it is rude to call another person's beliefs 'cheap' or to say they diminish the world. You obviously don't.



Happy Paws said:


> Maybe, but you don't get elves and fairies knocking on your door try to convert you to their belives, they don't have churchs everywhere it very hard to get away from religion like it or not.


Like I said, if you want to get away from religion, move to North Korea. Funny how no one seems to have taken me up on that suggestion yet...


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> Which is far more than any other figure head has done. It sent a powerful message to rich countries like ours that have treated these poor, desperate people abysmally.
> 
> I wasn't specifically talking about Syrian refugees, but as it happens climate change has played a factor.
> 
> View attachment 279021


The CATHOLIC church is rich!


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

CuddleMonster said:


> If you can't see the problem, it obviously isn't a problem for you. I think it is rude to call another person's beliefs 'cheap' or to say they diminish the world. You obviously don't.
> 
> Like I said, if you want to get away from religion, move to North Korea. Funny how no one seems to have taken me up on that suggestion yet...


Try another site which is more focused on such issues.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

KATZ1355 said:


> Try another site which is more focused on such issues.


Excuse me- since when did you get to tell people to try another site. This is general chat and we do just that - chat about all sorts of things, religion/politics/health worries/family worries etc. We might have huge differences of opinion but we can remain civil and debate like adults.


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Excuse me- since when did you get to tell people to try another site. This is general chat and we do just that - chat about all sorts of things, religion/politics/health worries/family worries etc. We might have huge differences of opinion but we can remain civil and debate like adults.


GET OVER IT!


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

CuddleMonster said:


> Like I said, if you want to get away from religion, move to North Korea. Funny how no one seems to have taken me up on that suggestion yet...


what a ridiculous suggestion. As if to imply that north korea is the way it is because of it's religious policies?? or that it is the only choice for an irreligious country? or that it is even a representative choice? Is that really the best excuse for an argument you can come up with? Maybe you might want to have a look at some of the other majority irreligious countries for comparison.. last time i checked, the likes of china, sweden, denmark, iceland etc etc were all doing pretty damn well.

Lets flip your argument on it's head...
If you want religion, move to Somalia.

See how much sense that makes?


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Excuse me- since when did you get to tell people to try another site. This is general chat and we do just that - chat about all sorts of things, religion/politics/health worries/family worries etc. We might have huge differences of opinion but we can remain civil and debate like adults.





rottiepointerhouse said:


> Excuse me- since when did you get to tell people to try another site. This is general chat and we do just that - chat about all sorts of things, religion/politics/health worries/family worries etc. We might have huge differences of opinion but we can remain civil and debate like adults.


How does one become a VIP on this site?


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

KATZ1355 said:


> How does one become a VIP on this site?


You have to reach a 1,000 posts.


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

Pappychi said:


> You have to reach a 1,000 posts.


Thanks xxx


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

Pappychi said:


> You have to reach a 1,000 posts.


I don't think I will make that!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

KATZ1355 said:


> I don't think I will make that!


I agree.

You have made yourself quite unpopular in the Cat Section and then demanded that the Moderators delete your account.

Yet, here you are now attempting to cause trouble.

It's nothing to do with you who does or doesn't post here and definitely not your place to tell them to find another site.


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

Sweety said:


> I agree.
> 
> You have made yourself quite unpopular in the Cat Section and then demanded that the Moderators delete your account.
> 
> ...


Unpopular in the Cat Section??????


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

KATZ1355 said:


> Unpopular in the Cat Section??????


You know something - this site sucks and to be quite honest, I really do not know why I bothered in the first place.
Whatever I say, seems to upset someone.
So get on with it and delete me NOW - as I have had enough.
Your not worth talking to.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

you're* 

Sorry, couldn't resist


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

porps said:


> what a ridiculous suggestion. As if to imply that north korea is the way it is because of it's religious policies?? or that it is the only choice for an irreligious country? or that it is even a representative choice? Is that really the best excuse for an argument you can come up with? Maybe you might want to have a look at some of the other majority irreligious countries for comparison.. last time i checked, the likes of china, sweden, denmark, iceland etc etc were all doing pretty damn well.
> 
> Lets flip your argument on it's head...
> If you want religion, move to Somalia.
> ...


I just got a message from one of the VIPS saying that I was not popular in Cats Chat (not had any complaints) and also this person said re religion....................
I asked to be deleted from this site.
But hey enjoyx


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

KATZ1355 said:


> I just got a message from one of the VIPS saying that I was not popular in Cats Chat (not had any complaints) and also this person said re religion....................
> I asked to be deleted from this site.
> But hey enjoyx


You don't need to be deleted. Just log out.


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

porps said:


> you're*
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist


Seems some peeps don't like me - well thats what a person called SWEETY said ?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

KATZ1355 said:


> Seems some peeps don't like me - well thats what a person called SWEETY said ?


so? I'm 100% certain many people here don't like me either... such is life. Do you really need everyone to like you?


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

KATZ1355 said:


> I just got a message from one of the VIPS saying that I was not popular in Cats Chat (not had any complaints) and also this person said re religion....................
> I asked to be deleted from this site.
> But hey enjoyx





Sweety said:


> You don't need to be deleted. Just log out.


As said, if your not happy on here just don't have to log-in, you don't have to be deleted,


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

KATZ1355 said:


> GET OVER IT!


No. As I've already said You don't get to decide who posts what and where and who should go to another forum.



KATZ1355 said:


> How does one become a VIP on this site?


Not by being rude and provocative perhaps.



KATZ1355 said:


> Seems some peeps don't like me - well thats what a person called SWEETY said ?


Hardly surprising judging from the posts you have made on this thread.


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2016)

Man... been gone all morning saw a bunch of new posts and got excited thinking we had a good discussion going.

*Much disappointed*


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

Happy Paws said:


> As said, if your not happy on here just don't have to log-in, you don't have to be deleted,


Thanks and that's a really nice dog you have btw! x


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

porps said:


> what a ridiculous suggestion. As if to imply that north korea is the way it is because of it's religious policies?? or that it is the only choice for an irreligious country? or that it is even a representative choice? Is that really the best excuse for an argument you can come up with? Maybe you might want to have a look at some of the other majority irreligious countries for comparison.. last time i checked, the likes of china, sweden, denmark, iceland etc etc were all doing pretty damn well.
> 
> Lets flip your argument on it's head...
> If you want religion, move to Somalia.
> ...


My comment was in response to Happy Paws saying it was very hard to get away from religion. My point is that it is easy to get away from religion if you move to a country where atheism is the only permitted belief & where those holding to a religion are imprisoned or executed. Likewise, it is easy to get away from all religions except Islam if you move to Somalia for the same reasons. Because realistically, the only way you are going to get a society that has everyone believing the same thing (whether atheism, Islam or any other belief) is if you have a totalitarian state which 'removes' anyone who strays from the accepted viewpoint. And I doubt any of us would want to live in such a society, even if it reflected our own beliefs.

It has nothing to do with how 'well' North Korea and China are or are not doing - it's about whether you would really want to live in a society that controlled its citizens to such an extent. (I'm not sure why you include Denmark, Sweden & Iceland in your list, since as far as I am aware, there is still religious freedom in those countries? There may not be so many people following a religious faith in those countries as in some others, but that is a very different thing from being criminalised or oppressed for doing so.)


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

KATZ1355 said:


> Try another site which is more focused on such issues.


Out of interest, why am I the only one being told to go to another forum?  Not that I'm going to go anywhere just because you tell me to, I'd just love to know why I have apparently annoyed you more than anyone else on this thread.


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2016)

CuddleMonster said:


> (I'm not sure why you include Denmark, Sweden & Iceland in your list, since as far as I am aware, there is still religious freedom in those countries?


So does freedom of religion only count as long as you have a religion? What about freedom for those who don't claim a religion?
Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, and I would include Norway and Japan here too, are all countries with a high population of atheists and people who don't claim any religion.


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

ouesi said:


> So does freedom of religion only count as long as you have a religion? What about freedom for those who don't claim a religion?
> Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, and I would include Norway and Japan here too, are all countries with a high population of atheists and people who don't claim any religion.


Sorry, freedom of belief would have been a more appropriate phrase to use. (Although my post was in response to one talking about religious belief, which was why I used the phrase) As far as I am aware, all the countries you mention allow freedom of belief. Countries such as North Korea, China and Somalia do not. My main point is unchanged - would you prefer to live in a country that allowed freedom of belief, or one that did not - I know which I choose!


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2016)

CuddleMonster said:


> Sorry, freedom of belief would have been a more appropriate phrase to use. (Although my post was in response to one talking about religious belief, which was why I used the phrase) As far as I am aware, all the countries you mention allow freedom of belief. Countries such as North Korea, China and Somalia do not. My main point is unchanged - would you prefer to live in a country that allowed freedom of belief, or one that did not - I know which I choose!


Who is arguing for there to be no freedom of belief? 
I think what you consider freedom of belief and what I consider freedom of belief are rather different.

Or is it that you would want people to be free to practice (or not practice) whatever religion they want?
And to what extent would you protect religious freedom?
Should it be permissible to forbid women from getting an education? Should it be permissible to mutilate children's genitalia in the name of religion? 
To what degree are you willing to grant religious freedom?


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2016)

I’m just going to put this here because it’s a great quote and very applicable to this conversation:

“Avoiding offense means we don’t accept each other as equals.” ~Ayaan Hirsi Ali


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

CuddleMonster said:


> My comment was in response to Happy Paws saying it was very hard to get away from religion. My point is that it is easy to get away from religion if you move to a country where atheism is the only permitted belief & where those holding to a religion are imprisoned or executed. Likewise, it is easy to get away from all religions except Islam if you move to Somalia for the same reasons. Because realistically, the only way you are going to get a society that has everyone believing the same thing (whether atheism, Islam or any other belief) is if you have a totalitarian state which 'removes' anyone who strays from the accepted viewpoint. And I doubt any of us would want to live in such a society, even if it reflected our own beliefs.
> 
> It has nothing to do with how 'well' North Korea and China are or are not doing - it's about whether you would really want to live in a society that controlled its citizens to such an extent. (I'm not sure why you include Denmark, Sweden & Iceland in your list, since as far as I am aware, there is still religious freedom in those countries? There may not be so many people following a religious faith in those countries as in some others, but that is a very different thing from being criminalised or oppressed for doing so.)


Then i guess i misunderstood your post, apologies. I have some more to say, and some links/statistics i found that I'd like to share but trying to make anything other than a quick throwaway post on this phone is infuriating, so.. Tomorrow when I'm on the pc.. You lucky devils you


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

No absolution for me 


ETA: With the greatest respect


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Zaros said:


> You know Blaise', you might have accepted my post in good faith but, instead, you chose to be mean spirited over a few words that were intended to be nothing more than an innocent tongue-in-cheek remark.
> 
> No absolution for that.
> 
> ...


Zaros, I wasn't for a moment calling YOU an idiot - I wouldn't dream of it! I was referring to the person who would make such a crass remark (to you?) in the name of faith.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Zaros said:


> Nevertheless, I believe the comment you passed over, likening me to an idiot - which I most certainly am not, says more about your professionalism and incapability to show a little understanding, clemency and forgiveness, than the observation which brought forth such rebuke actually says about its author.
> That utterance itself, not founded upon the resentment of another.


And that is really over the top - you don't know me at all and have jumped to this from a misunderstanding of my post. Not helpful Zaros.


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

CuddleMonster said:


> If you can't see the problem, it obviously isn't a problem for you. I think it is rude to call another person's beliefs 'cheap' or to say they diminish the world. You obviously don't.
> 
> Like I said, if you want to get away from religion, move to North Korea. Funny how no one seems to have taken me up on that suggestion yet...


They worship a pretty large god in north korea.


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

ouesi said:


> Who is arguing for there to be no freedom of belief?
> I think what you consider freedom of belief and what I consider freedom of belief are rather different.
> 
> Or is it that you would want people to be free to practice (or not practice) whatever religion they want?
> ...


My point is that it is easy for someone to say they would like to get away from a particular belief (as has been mentioned on this topic), but the only way that is likely to happen is if they move to a very restrictive country that does not permit freedom of belief. Which none of us is likely to want.

I believe everyone should have the right to express & practice their own beliefs (religious or non-religious) freely,* providing that freedom does not remove another person's freedom. *Restricting another person's access to education or physically harming them are both examples of belief affecting another person's freedom. As are killing or imprisoning someone for their beliefs or forcing them to go to an 'education centre' to try to make them change their beliefs.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Zaros, I wasn't for a moment calling YOU an idiot - I wouldn't dream of it! I was referring to the person who would make such a crass remark (to you?) in the name of faith.





BlaiseinHampshire said:


> And that is really over the top - you don't know me at all and have jumped to this from a misunderstanding of my post. Not helpful Zaros.


Exactly how I read/understood your post to @Zaros


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2016)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Zaros, I wasn't for a moment calling YOU an idiot - I wouldn't dream of it! I was referring to the person who would make such a crass remark (to you?) in the name of faith.


That was exactly how I read your comment also - not referring to Zaros as an idiot, but whoever made that comment.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Zaros, I wasn't for a moment calling YOU an idiot *- I wouldn't dream of it! I was referring to the person who would make such a crass remark* (to you?) in the name of faith.





ouesi said:


> That was exactly how I read your comment also -* not referring to Zaros as an idiot, but whoever made that comment*.


It might have escaped your attentions, but it was ME who made the remark / comment.

Not MrsZee. Not Oscar. Not Zara.

Just me.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2016)

CuddleMonster said:


> My point is that it is easy for someone to say they would like to get away from a particular belief (as has been mentioned on this topic), but the only way that is likely to happen is if they move to a very restrictive country that does not permit freedom of belief. Which none of us is likely to want.


Not really though. There are many countries where religion does not seep insidiously in to all aspects of government, education, and day to day life. Those countries have been listed for you  
BTW, no government - no one really can restrict freedom of belief. Those are our thoughts, and no matter how oppressive the government, there is no way for it to prevent someone from believing whatever they want. Ironically, that's the domain of religion - to try and control what you think and how you think is what many religions attempt to do.



CuddleMonster said:


> I believe everyone should have the right to express & practice their own beliefs (religious or non-religious) freely,* providing that freedom does not remove another person's freedom. *Restricting another person's access to education or physically harming them are both examples of belief affecting another person's freedom. As are killing or imprisoning someone for their beliefs or forcing them to go to an 'education centre' to try to make them change their beliefs.


Ah, now you're talking about expressing beliefs, which is different. Not the freedom to have a belief, but the freedom to express that belief.

But you're not really okay with people expressing beliefs either though are you?
Because when @porps posted Minchin's quote (from a poem he wrote - freedom of expression), you took issue with it. Because it insulted others' beliefs. 
Except that's the whole point of monotheism. That others' beliefs are wrong. There is only one god and it happens to be *this* one, and anyone who believes in other gods is an infidel or a heathen. That's not insulting?

Which goes back to why I asked you and others what is the problem with Minchin and Fry's quotes. And then posted the Ayaan Hirsi Ali quote. 
I don't want to get stuck on a conversation of who has more grounds to be offended. That's not a very useful conversation to me or to anyone really. 
Instead we can have a conversation where someone posts a Minchin quote and someone else says "I don't see belief as diminishing or cheap" and doesn't get offended that others might think differently, but instead explains why belief isn't cheap or diminishing.

If we get stuck at "oh how rude, how dare you!" there is no exchange of ideas, no sharing of views, no forward movement in the conversation....


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2016)

Zaros said:


> It might have escaped your attentions, but it was ME who made the remark / comment.
> 
> Not MrsZee. Not Oscar. Not Zara.
> 
> Just me.


You said "I'm sorry you have not found God" to someone who had experienced a personal tragedy?



Zaros said:


> Regarding religion, I'll tell you what offends me. When a believer is afforded a brief private glimpse into a personal tragedy they then sometime later respond with 'I'm sorry you haven't found God'


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

ouesi said:


> You said "I'm sorry you have not found God" to someone who had experienced a personal tragedy?


Read and understand it properly and you'll invariably find I was applying a quote. A thoughtless comment rottiepointerhouse once passed over to me.

I found the remark wholly unnecessary and, therefore, thoroughly disrespectful.

And just how is the above related to the 4th day of creation quip?


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2016)

Zaros said:


> Read and understand it properly and you'll invariably find I was applying a quote. A thoughtless comment rottiepointerhouse once passed over to me.
> 
> I found the remark wholly unnecessary and, therefore, thoroughly disrespectful.
> 
> And just how is the above related to the 4th day of creation quip?


So you were not the person who said "I'm sorry you have not found god"?
Then @BlaiseinHampshire interpreted your post correctly.

BTW if more than a few people find your post confusing, you don't get to be uppity about people reading it incorrectly or not in the way you intended. 
Which it seems no one did read your post incorrectly, you just misinterpreted Blaise's post. Perhaps you should be the one endeavoring to read posts properly


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Zaros said:


> Read and understand it properly and you'll invariably find I was applying a quote. A thoughtless comment rottiepointerhouse once passed over to me.
> 
> I found the remark wholly unnecessary and, therefore, thoroughly disrespectful.
> 
> And just how is the above related to the 4th day of creation quip?


Zaros something has obviously upset you but it seems 3 of us are having trouble working out what. Instead of making more cryptic comments that I really don't understand (sorry I'm either thick or just not on your wave length) please explain what specifically has upset you.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2016)

Oh and yes, unnecessary to tell someone, anyone “I’m sorry you have not found god.” Same as it is unnecessary to tell anyone “you’ll feel differently when you’re on your death bed” or similar. But again I refer to Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s wonderful quote about avoiding offense. I’d rather people show me their true selves so I can address that head on, than pussyfoot around me trying to avoid offending me.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

ouesi said:


> So you were not the person who said "I'm sorry you have not found god"?
> Then @BlaiseinHampshire interpreted your post correctly.


Blaise' quoted my post # 259 (this thread) with the inference that I was an idiot.

When I authored the 4th day of creation submission #259, it was not a quote from another source. It was meant to be taken as an amusement.
The member did not quote me on the 'Sorry you haven't found God' which was originally a remark made by rottiepointerhouse some while ago and one that I let slide at the time she posted it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2016)

Zaros said:


> Blaise' quoted my post # 259 (this thread) with the inference that I was an idiot.


No Zaros, she quoted your other post with the inference that whoever said "I'm sorry you have not found god" was behaving like an idiot.

http://www.petforums.co.uk/threads/in-the-name-of-religion.430985/page-14#post-1064611064

Her response to post #259 is here:
http://www.petforums.co.uk/threads/in-the-name-of-religion.430985/page-14#post-1064611079


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Zaros something has obviously upset you please explain what specifically has upset you.


Sometime ago the delicate subject of religion was raised by another member.
Topics so have a tendency to be cycled.

Taking the rightful opportunity to air my opinion, which, incidentally, was directed at no one. You took it upon yourself to post the aforementioned remark to me.

If you recall further, you asked me why I harboured such an obvious resentment of a particular member of this forum, I briefly afforded you an explainatipn of the reasons why.
All things considered, I deduced you believed I had every just and valid reason to seek the entity out.


----------



## Team_Trouble (Apr 11, 2016)

Wow... I read this thread pretty much all in one go.

From when I was very young I just didn't feel that God was very likely. I couldnt explain why. I wondered what we were doing saying prayers at school. But I have always 'prayed' when I really needed things to go a certain way, and I address those prayers to God. I don't think this means I actually believe in a God. I think I've conditioned myself to repeat the prayer over and over again in my head and if it doesn't work out, I didn't pray enough. I also think little thank you prayers afterwards.
But it certainly works out for me more often than it doesn't. Would things have gone the same way had I not Prayed? I don't know, maybe it's just willpower.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

@BlaiseinHampshire.
Quite evidently there has been a great deal of confusion on my part and, presently, I am without any real idea how such a terrible misunderstanding has taken form. I will not attempt to make any excuses for either my attitude or my concluding remark (post#304) and will remove the uncalled for offence immediately, but not before offering you my humblest and most sincere apologies for such blatant disrespect.:Sorry


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Zaros said:


> @BlaiseinHampshire.
> Quite evidently there has been a great deal of confusion on my part and, presently, I am without any real idea how such a terrible misunderstanding has taken form. I will not attempt to make any excuses for either my attitude or my concluding remark (post#304) and will remove the uncalled for offence immediately, but not before offering you my humblest and most sincere apologies for such blatant disrespect.:Sorry


If that's sincere Zaros (I don't know you well enough to read you, as has already been proved!) thank you, although no respect expected by me - it has to be earned. But glad to have the nasty remarks withdrawn.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2016)

Good grief, what a thread!


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2016)

In an attempt to bring us back on topic somewhat to the thread title - "in the name of religion," I though this was an interesting exchange between Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the topic of using religion as a reason/excuse for behavior:
(I'm putting it in a different color, not to hurt anyone's eyes, but because the quote function makes half of it disappear unless you purposefully click on the quoted text.)

*Harris:* That's a point I really wanted us to cover. Most liberals think that religion is never the true source of a person's bad behavior. Even when jihadists explicitly state their religious motivations-they believe that they have an obligation to kill apostates and blasphemers, and they want to get into Paradise-liberal academics, journalists, and politicians insist on looking for _deeper_ reasons for their actions. However, when people give economic, political, or psychological reasons for doing whatever it is they do, everyone accepts those reasons at face value.

If a man murders his neighbor because he wants to steal his property and doesn't want to leave a witness, everyone accepts the killer's account of his actions. But when he says, as every jihadist does, that he was driven by a sense of religious obligation and a yearning for Paradise, liberals insist that the search for an underlying motive must continue. So the game is rigged. If you're always going to look beneath a person's religious convictions for something else, _of course_ you'll never see that religion is an important driver of human behavior.

*Hirsi Ali:* And that's where it becomes truly painful. All these Western apologists, no matter where they are on the political spectrum-left, center, or right-are robbing Muslims of the opportunity to reflect. It is very, very difficult in Muslim households, communities, and countries to reflect on Islam. Such a process of introspection and self-criticism has led to the reformations we have seen in other religions-and it's being denied to Muslims by this focus on economics, politics, and all these other variables that are, in many cases, the _result_ of Islamic doctrine. For instance, there is a very strong case to be made that the desperate economic situation in the Middle East is largely a product of religion.

I especially like Ali's point about reflection, which I think is also very relevant to this thread. These conversations (I would hope) lead to the process of reflection which is so important to so many aspects of human life.

Oops! forgot the link!
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/lifting-the-veil-of-islamophobia


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Zaros said:


> Sometime ago the delicate subject of religion was raised by another member.
> Topics so have a tendency to be cycled.
> 
> Taking the rightful opportunity to air my opinion, which, incidentally, was directed at no one. You took it upon yourself to post the aforementioned remark to me.
> ...


I really am sorry but I don't remember the thread or the member you are referring to. Can you give me a hint so I can try and find it to see what context I made the statement. If I'd made it with malice then I think I would remember it but I don't.


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

ouesi said:


> Ah, now you're talking about expressing beliefs, which is different. Not the freedom to have a belief, but the freedom to express that belief.
> 
> But you're not really okay with people expressing beliefs either though are you?
> Because when @porps posted Minchin's quote (from a poem he wrote - freedom of expression), you took issue with it. Because it insulted others' beliefs.
> Except that's the whole point of monotheism. That others' beliefs are wrong. There is only one god and it happens to be *this* one, and anyone who believes in other gods is an infidel or a heathen. That's not insulting?


I'm unsure if you are deliberately misunderstanding me or genuinely confused. To try and make it clear, I believe every human being should have the right to express their beliefs, providing they do not impinge on the rights of others. But I also believe *we do not have to exercise that right in a way that is unnecessarily insulting to others*.

For example, you could say "I think your beliefs are wrong but I respect your right to have them" or you could say "I think your beliefs are wrong - they are totally stupid and only an idiot would believe something like that." You should have the* right* to make both comments, but I think the world is a better place when people* refrain from exercising their right* to make the second kind of comment.

I have friends who are Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, New Age...we often debate matters of belief and disagree, sometimes quite heatedly. But I would never describe their beliefs as stupid, lazy, diminishing, fantasy, myth etc because beliefs are very precious things to the people who hold them. I would have the* right* to do so, but I choose not to exercise that right, because I believe their views should be treated with *respect*. Tim Minchin has every *right* to speak dismissively of religious belief, but I also have the right to feel no respect for him when he shows no respect to others!


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

It is true that manners cost nothing and in that way I agree with you. But let's say I do feel diminished by some aspect of a faith, or I do truly believe it is a myth. Is it disrespectful to express that to a person of that faith? And if a person of faith listens in to a group of atheists having a lively discussion with jokes and banter, and anger, expressed out loud in public, and complains on the grounds of offence taken at the lack of respect, how different is that from censorship?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I want to apologise to @Zaros for causing hurt with my comment about being sorry he hadn't found God made on a thread some time ago. I honestly don't remember saying it or in what context I did but nonetheless I am sincerely sorry.


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

Jonescat said:


> It is true that manners cost nothing and in that way I agree with you. But let's say I do feel diminished by some aspect of a faith, or I do truly believe it is a myth. Is it disrespectful to express that to a person of that faith? And if a person of faith listens in to a group of atheists having a lively discussion with jokes and banter, and anger, expressed out loud in public, and complains on the grounds of offence taken at the lack of respect, how different is that from censorship?


I've already said (quite clearly, I think!) that I am not advocating censorship - except* self-censorship* (where an individual refrains from making a comment they have a right to make out of a desire not to upset another person). I just don't see why that self-censorship is so hard. Saying "I don't believe that" is a statement of fact which still respects the other person's belief. Saying "that's a fairytale" makes the same statement, but in a way that is very dismissive of the other person's belief. Let's be honest, most people who make rude comments about Islam, Christianity or any other faith, do so knowing they will be upsetting people who hold those beliefs, and many of them enjoy the fact that they will upset people. I honestly think the world would be a better place if people didn't feel they had to exercise their 'right' to be rude! But I seem to be in a minority.


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

There is something which I would like to say. Not sure how this will be taken, but here we go.
I have met one hell of a lot of people on various chat sites in the past.
A lot from Middle East, some with very strong religious beliefs too - others atheist and agnostic.One from Iran told me that if they knew he was an atheist, they would kill him!!!!!!
I lost a friend in Syria - he was a teacher there,young guy not pious - we met when the war first started there and spoke every day, which was rather difficult - then I lost touch..................................


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

CuddleMonster said:


> I've already said (quite clearly, I think!) that I am not advocating censorship - except* self-censorship* (where an individual refrains from making a comment they have a right to make out of a desire not to upset another person). I just don't see why that self-censorship is so hard. Saying "I don't believe that" is a statement of fact which still respects the other person's belief. Saying "that's a fairytale" makes the same statement, but in a way that is very dismissive of the other person's belief. Let's be honest, most people who make rude comments about Islam, Christianity or any other faith, do so knowing they will be upsetting people who hold those beliefs, and many of them enjoy the fact that they will upset people. I honestly think the world would be a better place if people didn't feel they had to exercise their 'right' to be rude! But I seem to be in a minority.


I have been told that I am not liked on this site!


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I want to apologise to @Zaros for causing hurt with my comment about being sorry he hadn't found God made on a thread some time ago. I honestly don't remember saying it or in what context I did but nonetheless I am sincerely sorry.


I thought we had already settled this matter via PM Rottie?

Might I just add, that I am confident the comment itself, was not made with harmful, malicious or spiteful intent and consider that, as a result of emotional upheaval, I overreacted to a reflection made in all innocence.

May I also offer my apologies to you for the extremely unnecessary consequences of this thread.


----------



## KATZ1355 (May 30, 2016)

Zaros said:


> I thought we had already settled this matter via PM Rottie?
> 
> Might I just add, that I am confident the comment itself, was not made with harmful, malicious or spiteful intent and consider that, as a result of emotional upheaval, I overreacted to a reflection made in all innocence.
> 
> May I also offer my apologies to you for the extremely unnecessary consequences of this thread.


x


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

KATZ1355 said:


> x




I'm not quite sure how you would like me to respond to your quote

So, in a half decent and courteous attempt to acknowledge your efforts to gain my attention;

A police officer knocked at my door earlier this evening and claimed he had received concerning reports that Oscar had been chasing someone on a bike.

'With respect' I informed the law man 'Oscar simply cannot ride a bike!':Smuggrin


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

KATZ1355 said:


> I have been told that I am not liked on this site!


Not by me! Even though you did tell me to go to another site!


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

Zaros said:


> A police officer knocked at my door earlier this evening and claimed he had received concerning reports that Oscar had been chasing someone on a bike.
> 
> 'With respect' I informed the law man 'Oscar simply cannot ride a bike!':Smuggrin


Did you get arrested for being cheeky?!!!


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

CuddleMonster said:


> Did you get arrested for being cheeky?!!!


No. But he did try to catch me out.

Pointing to my Kona Cindercone he asked, 'That's a Mountain Bike isn't it?'

I quickly confirmed that the Kona was indeed a 'Mountain Bike' just as he'd rightly surmised.
He then turned towards Oscar and said 'And that's a Mountain Dog.....right.

It's fair cop I told him but the dog won't go peacefully:Smug


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Zaros said:


> I thought we had already settled this matter via PM Rottie?
> 
> Might I just add, that I am confident the comment itself, was not made with harmful, malicious or spiteful intent and consider that, as a result of emotional upheaval, I overreacted to a reflection made in all innocence.
> 
> May I also offer my apologies to you for the extremely unnecessary consequences of this thread.


We had Zaros but on reflection I felt I owed you a public apology


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2016)

CuddleMonster said:


> I'm unsure if you are deliberately misunderstanding me or genuinely confused.


Neither 



CuddleMonster said:


> To try and make it clear, I believe every human being should have the right to express their beliefs, providing they do not impinge on the rights of others. But I also believe *we do not have to exercise that right in a way that is unnecessarily insulting to others*.


Who decides what is insulting or not?
Who decides what is 'unnecessarily' insulting?
If it's not insulting to call Thor a myth, why is is suddenly insulting to call the Christian God or Muslim Allah a myth? 
If it's not insulting to make movies and cartoons about zombies and essentially caricature Vodou, why does it suddenly become insulting when it's a religion we're more familiar with? 
So basically two issues. One the double standard of offense when it comes to familiar vs. unfamiliar religions, and two, the relative nature of what is considered insulting.

No, three issues. Why is religion - or at least the ones westerners are familiar with so special. Why can't I say something is stupid when I feel it is stupid?
I think buying your dog 14 different sets of matching collars and leashes is stupid. No, I wouldn't say that on a thread where someone announced they got a new collar, but on a thread where people are asking how many collars they have, yes, I would. 
This is a thread where we are discussion "in the name of Religion". Not a thread where someone is celebrating a baptism. On the baptism thread, no I'm not going to say "so you're going to indoctrinate your child in to myths and fantasies huh?" but on a thread where we are talking about religion and especially atrocities committed in the name of religion, yes, I think it's perfectly acceptable to talk about indoctrination of children. But somehow that's taboo because religion is *important* to people. Yeah, well children are important to me...



CuddleMonster said:


> I've already said (quite clearly, I think!) that I am not advocating censorship - except* self-censorship* (where an individual refrains from making a comment they have a right to make out of a desire not to upset another person). I just don't see why that self-censorship is so hard.


See here we are back to the relative nature of what is insulting. 
I would be offended if someone were self-censoring around me. That would annoy me more than hearing an opinion that might upset me - or more likely cause cognitive dissonance and throw me off balance. 
I posted Hirsi Ali's quote about treating each other as equals because I very much agree with it. 
If I refrain from telling someone I think something is stupid, especially in the appropriate context, I'm not dealing with an equal. I'm basically saying they're too sensitive, too weak, too something to handle my opinions, and *that* is more insulting than anything.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> We had Zaros but on reflection I felt I owed you a public apology


Likewise chuck.:Shamefullyembarrased


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

porps said:


> Thanks, right back at you, i personally appreciate the fact that you provide sources to back up your posts.
> I kinda miss the rep system.


That's very kind of you, thank you Porps 

To kind of follow on from your Tim Minchin quote, early humans invented Gods to explain nature. Yet, in the face of all the evidence, even today a huge number of believers actually think god is responsible for climate change & the other man induced ecological catastrophes we are witnessing. This is when blind faith becomes dangerous - people who think like this are a threat to our living planet.

This >>>


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

ouesi said:


> Who decides what is insulting or not?
> Who decides what is 'unnecessarily' insulting?
> If it's not insulting to call Thor a myth, why is is suddenly insulting to call the Christian God or Muslim Allah a myth?
> If it's not insulting to make movies and cartoons about zombies and essentially caricature Vodou, why does it suddenly become insulting when it's a religion we're more familiar with?
> ...


YOU are the one who is making this only about Western religions, not me! I don't actually go round talking about Thor or Voodoo all the time (and I don't think I have ever mentioned either on this forum), but if I did, I would try to do so in a way that would not upset those for whom those beliefs are special (I've never actually met anyone who followed Thor as a deity) Likewise, I've never heard from anyone who has bought 14 matching collar & leash sets for their dogs, but if I did, I might say that I can't see the point, but I hope I wouldn't say they were stupid. It's got nothing to do with people being too 'weak' to handle your opinion. A lot of people on this topic don't agree that God is a myth and that religion is a fairytale, but they are still involved in the conversation, so presumably not too 'weak' to cope with hearing their beliefs dismissed as fantasy.

Second point, it's easy to unintentionally say something offensive about someone else's beliefs, but that can't be helped and you don't have to repeat the remark...but there is a huge difference in saying something when you KNOW it is going to offend, and to keep saying it because you are celebrating your 'right' to be rude and enjoying the fact that it is upsetting other people.

You obviously want to maintain your right to be as rude as you like about other people's beliefs. I totally support your right to do so.  I just think it is both unnecessary and unhelpful - our society has become so rude, so quick to call someone an idiot or stupid or a waste of space, and I don't think that makes for a better world.. And I'm entitled to my opinion, just as much as you are to yours.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2016)

CuddleMonster said:


> YOU are the one who is making this only about Western religions, not me! I don't actually go round talking about Thor or Voodoo all the time (and I don't think I have ever mentioned either on this forum), but if I did, I would try to do so in a way that would not upset those for whom those beliefs are special (I've never actually met anyone who followed Thor as a deity) Likewise, I've never heard from anyone who has bought 14 matching collar & leash sets for their dogs, but if I did, I might say that I can't see the point, but I hope I wouldn't say they were stupid. It's got nothing to do with people being too 'weak' to handle your opinion. A lot of people on this topic don't agree that God is a myth and that religion is a fairytale, but they are still involved in the conversation, so presumably not too 'weak' to cope with hearing their beliefs dismissed as fantasy.


I'm reminding you about other religions in order to point out the double standard we create for our current dominant religions.

Let me be clear. I don't have an issue with Thor being called a myth. NOR do I have an issue with the God of Islam or Christianity being called a myth. However, according to people like you, calling the Christian God a myth is disrespectful to Christians. I contend that it's not. And I'm proving that by pointing out that no one minds when Thor is called a myth.

I never said people were to weak to handle their god being called a myth, I said that pussyfooting around issues in order to avoid offense is not treating the other party as an equal.



CuddleMonster said:


> Second point, it's easy to unintentionally say something offensive about someone else's beliefs, but that can't be helped and you don't have to repeat the remark...but there is a huge difference in saying something when you KNOW it is going to offend, and to keep saying it because you are celebrating your 'right' to be rude and enjoying the fact that it is upsetting other people.
> 
> You obviously want to maintain your right to be as rude as you like about other people's beliefs. I totally support your right to do so.  I just think it is both unnecessary and unhelpful - our society has become so rude, so quick to call someone an idiot or stupid or a waste of space, and I don't think that makes for a better world.. And I'm entitled to my opinion, just as much as you are to yours.


I don't know what is going to offend any more than you do. Humans are a diverse group and just because you might find something offensive doesn't make it so. 
I did not find Fry or Minchin's remarks offensive, and I'm clearly not alone there. Are you really saying your opinion that they are is more valid than mine that they're not?

"You obviously want to maintain your right to be as rude as you like about other people's beliefs." 
Really? That's "obviously" my agenda here?
You know, for someone arguing so adamantly against rudeness, this is quite the ironic statement. You don't think making assumptions about my motives, and very negative ones at that, is rude and offensive?

If you had simply asked, or even read my posts on this thread without bias, you would notice that not only have I posted with respect, but I've also made clear numerous times that I separate personal beliefs from religious dogma. 
And my motivation is people. I object greatly to ideologies that are bigoted, alienate people, create otherness, encourage hate and fear... Because I see every day what it does to those people affected by those ideologies and it is wrong, morally wrong to treat people this way. Which is slightly more important than worrying about being thought rude on a pet forum


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

myth
mɪθ/
_noun_

*1*.
a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
"ancient Celtic myths"
synonyms: folk tale, story, folk story, legend, tale, fable, saga, allegory, parable, tradition, lore,folklore; _technical_mythos, mythus
"ancient Greek myths"


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2016)

My main problem with the concept of a religion is the idea that a man thinks a human being could tell other human beings what is right or wrong on god´s behalf. If there would be a supreme entity/a god, who or which is able to create the earth and all living creatures, how anyone could possibly think he or she could write down rules how to worship him/her/it and what he/she/it would consider right or wrong? To me all religions are man made concepts and arrogant attempts to be "god´s" spoke persons. Most of us can´t understand even basic quantum physics and science is still full of mysteries, and yet somehow we have supposed to have achieved an understanding of god´s will. Really? 

Besides, most people, who claim to be believers fail to obey the simplest rules of the holy books. "Thou shall not kill" is one of the main commandments of Quran, Bible, Veda- scripts etc. Yet most people and even most mullahs/priests/ vicars/holy men are happy to kill animals (=i.e. eat meat) and join or support armies. 

All people can believe in whatever they want, as long as they don´t tell others what is right or wrong based on their religious beliefs. That for me is just wrong and arrogant.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

and again in the name of god 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36998449


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

The Bible and Koran are both so open to interpretation that one could justify anything with them and that includes killing others. Both were written over a 1,000 years ago by people which lived by very different morals and ethics. The fact people call beliefs religion and the fact there's so many religions make me more skeptical of them. There's no way to know whether Gods exist but I remain skeptical. In the end, I don't know why people care so much about what others believe. The fact that my neighbor could believe the earth is flat or worships the flying spaghetti monster has no bearing on my life whatsoever.  I do like some of the cultural aspects of religion.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

God's existence does not depend on our beliefs. Though our beliefs shape our existence.
But I doubt Almighty meddles much in our daily affairs. 
We have free will to destroy ourselves if we choose. Even as a specie.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

cheekyscrip said:


> God's existence does not depend on our beliefs. Though our beliefs shape our existence.
> But I doubt Almighty meddles much in our daily affairs.
> We have free will to destroy ourselves if we choose. Even as a specie.


So what is the point of him/her/it, isn't he surpost to be there to help in times of trouble.

(sorry spelling:Shamefullyembarrased)


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

He does help in times of trouble. It's difficult to explain, but having your prayers answered doesn't mean that he will change the situation. It means he gives you the strength to deal with it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2016)

Jobeth said:


> He does help in times of trouble. It's difficult to explain, but having your prayers answered doesn't mean that he will change the situation. It means he gives you the strength to deal with it.


Prayer and meditation are wonderful tools and can absolutely have a positive effect on well being.

You don't have to be religious to pray or meditate. You don't even have to believe in a god or higher power of any sort to reap the benefits of prayer.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I can't speak for those that believe that; but I personally believe that when I pray I'm speaking to God and that those prayers are answered. I don't expect him to magically fix a situation. Instead he gives me the strength to manage.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2016)

Jobeth said:


> I can't speak for those that believe that; but I personally believe that when I pray I'm speaking to God and that those prayers are answered. I don't expect him to magically fix a situation. Instead he gives me the strength to manage.


Which is wonderful 

That doesn't have anything to do with religion as doctrine though. 
Your prayer is personal and between you and your god.

Religious doctrine that states this one religion is the only true religion, other religions are false, and those who believe in other religions are also wrong is divisive and unhelpful.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I was answering Happypaws question about God helping and explaining how he does it. I do believe that there is only one God. However, I would only discuss my faith with those that genuinely wanted to believe. I wouldn't get in a debate about whether my religion is right or wrong with someone that either wasn't interested or had their own beliefs. I think that's when it gets divisive as everyone is entitled to their own opinion.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2016)

Jobeth said:


> I was answering Happypaws question about God helping and explaining how he does it. I do believe that there is only one God. However, I would only discuss my faith with those that genuinely wanted to believe. I wouldn't get in a debate about whether my religion is right or wrong with someone that either wasn't interested or had their own beliefs. I think that's when it gets divisive as everyone is entitled to their own opinion.


Do you believe there are consequences for those who don't believe in the same God as you?
What about people who believe in a different God?


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

Although I'm afraid I've not attended for a while, this is what I signed when I became a uniformed soldier. http://www.sarmy.org.au/en/Resources/Articles-of-War/


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2016)

Jobeth said:


> Although I'm afraid I've not attended for a while, this is what I signed when I became a uniformed soldier. http://www.sarmy.org.au/en/Resources/Articles-of-War/


Gotcha. So that's a yes.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Jobeth said:


> Although I'm afraid I've not attended for a while, this is what I signed when I became a uniformed soldier. http://www.sarmy.org.au/en/Resources/Articles-of-War/


Thank you for sharing.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Gotcha. So that's a yes.


Yes it is. I thought it was useful as it puts it in context. I do want to make it clear though that it is God that makes those decisions and I leave it to him. I certainly wouldn't go round telling people that in such simple terms.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Happy Paws said:


> So what is the point of him/her/it, isn't he surpost to be there to help in times of trouble.
> 
> (sorry spelling:Shamefullyembarrased)


God helps us but does not interfere. Not directly...
Puts everything into.perspective ..
I am rubbish with words....


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2016)

Jobeth said:


> Yes it is. I thought it was useful as it puts it in context. I do want to make it clear though that it is God that makes those decisions and I leave it to him. I certainly wouldn't go round telling people that in such simple terms.


And I appreciate that. 
What I was getting at is that according to your religion, all other religions got the whole thing wrong, and are not telling their followers the real truth.

So basically you and I agree. Just add one more religion to my list than yours


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

That's one way of looking at it! However, I don't believe that it is quite as simple as that.


----------



## Team_Trouble (Apr 11, 2016)

Do you have to be married to join the salvation army?


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

KatieandOliver said:


> Do you have to be married to join the salvation army?


Both soldiers and officers can be single. Officers (ministers) can only marry other officers though. To officially join (become a soldier) you have to have lessons and agree to the articles of war. You can then wear the uniform if you want to. Anyone can attend without being a member and they are very welcoming. The reason I don't go at the moment is nothing to do with the church.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Jobeth said:


> Both soldiers and officers can be single. Officers (ministers) can only marry other officers though. To officially join (become a soldier) you have to have lessons and agree *to the articles of war*. You can then wear the uniform if you want to. Anyone can attend without being a member and they are very welcoming. The reason I don't go at the moment is nothing to do with the church.


 Please explain what you mean by war????


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Happy Paws said:


> Please explain what you mean by war????


I define the war the Salvation might fight is the war on poverty and not the war on the poor the government appears to have declared.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

Everything within the Army has some sort of link to military language. William Booth saw it as a spiritual battle. The basic mission is to; save souls, grow saints (that doesn't mean being perfect) and serve suffering humanity without discrimination. It's not part of the SA to argue their beliefs as the behaviour and lifestyle of Salvationists is one supposed to encourage conversion alongside the use of prayer. That's why they are the biggest providers of social care in the UK after the government- hand to man and heart to God. 

When I was at university there were open air services in the summer. Afterwards everyone could join us for a meal and Salvationists brought extra food to share. Several came to the meal, but never came to the citadel. It didn't matter though and they were always welcome. It's part of the underlying belief that people need to be listened to and have someone to talk to.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> Please explain what you mean by war????


Their magazine is also called "War Cry".

@Jobeth I really admire the Salvation Army and the good work they do, they are one of the few human rather than animal charities/organisations I donate to regularly.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Their magazine is also called "War Cry".
> 
> @Jobeth I really admire the Salvation Army and the good work they do, they are one of the few human rather than animal charities/organisations I donate to regularly.


I used to serve with them overseas by teaching the children of those that had gone out to support the Chikankata mission. I also taught the nurses how to improve their literacy skills. It is all about providing health care and education. Religious belief isn't necessary to receive either. They take visitors now as part of ethical tourism if you ever fancy a visit! http://www.salvationarmy.org/chikankata/organisedtripsandvisitors


----------



## CuddleMonster (Mar 9, 2016)

I know people whose lives have been transformed by the Salvation Army rehabs. Huge respect for what they do.


----------

