God Owned! Repeatedly. Must see...

[Panamark]

You should wear a flower in your hair at the next barbie.

Yes Yes !! Would go grate with my BBQ apron with the fake plastic Tits !!!!

[Seshmeister]

You can't beat a pair of comedy breasts, ask Victoria Beckham.

[Panamark]

I think David wanted two soccer balls always on hand....

[binnie]

The thing is that what you think of as fundamentalist or zealot christians are common place in the US. Half the christians in the US claim to be born again happy clappys who you would consider extreme. They are nothing like say the Archbishop of Canterbury who sounds virtually agnostic himself.

Secondly there is an argument that the moderate religious people legitimise the extremists. I was out in the pub a while ago with someone I had known for a while and it turned out that unknown to me he is a real fire and brimstone extreme christian. He said he absolutely respected my position, it was the wishy washy christians he hated. He was quite right in a way. If people truely believed the stories then how could they possibly not act in a fundamentalist way? Why do people risk an eternity of torure if that''s whats in the book? Why don't they celebrate when a kid dies that they have been lucky enough to get cancer and go to the eternal joy of heaven early?

I have no doubt that htere are a horrifyingly amount of 'fire and brimstone' Christians in the US. However, I have also met many peple who use faith to enhance their lives, and those of others, rather than control it. I am not for a second arguing that without faith people will not do good and kind things, but I have certainly met many who are inspired to do so by their faith. These 'quieter' Christians are very rarely represented in the media, or in the polemic of the atheist lobby. They do not harm me, or you, or anyone else - and of they can throw a different light onto moral, ethical or politcal questions then I'm all for it - more discusiuons and exchange of ideas only enhances our society.

As for Christians having to interpret scirpture in a legalist or rigid away, a cursory study of the history of the Christian faith shows us that the 'fundamentalists' have always been in the minority. The Bible is something to think with, not a code of practice. You seem to think that people are encouraged to slavishly follow the prescripts of scripute, but as you rightly point out, the Archbishop of Canterbury is 'almost agnostic' - he, like many other Church of England ministers, use scripture to think with, almost as analogy and parabels for problems faced by those today.

[Seshmeister]

Which is as you say the traditional approach.

Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey for fuck sake because a hundred and fifty years ago everyone seemed to know that the stories in the bible were just that - stories to illustrate a point. The master of these was Jesus with say his story of the Good Samaritan showing how Jewish law was silly bigotry. His life story as described in the gospels is also an allegorical story too in the same way with made up stuff about wise men and Bethlehem, virgin births, Herod killing babies, crucifixian at Passover and so on.

A lot of people don't seem to be able to get this. The ones that do like the Archbishop tend to be those that have actually studied the book.

[binnie]

Also Dawkins may be polemic, I find his argument that being raped by a teacher as a kid is less harmful than having your brain damaged by religious indoctrination a bit over the top but he isnt trying to control people.

So many of these people try to use superstition as a means of control. These people may have caused your parents to die before they needed to or may have robbed you of years of life by preventing the funding of stem cell research for years in the USA. They have caused the deaths of millions in Africa with their evil anti condom shit andthey use religion as a way to make young people sacrifice their lives for their agendas.

You can't compare a brilliant scientist pointing out the elephant in the room about religious superstitions as being anything like those actions.

I'm enjoying this discussion, Sesh.

Again, I would not for one second doubt that Christians have had, and continue to have, detrimental effects upon society. But many have positive effects - running charities, running youth clubs, helping people to kick drugs, faith inspires much voluntary actions in our cities.

And whilst I wouldn't compare the actions of Dawkins to be on a par with any other the negatvie actions which you cite, I might point out that mankind's use of science hasn't always being positive - nuclear weapons, total warfare, and chemical warfare all spring to mind. The medical science industry is run by money grabbing fucks who often price priducts out of the market for people or places that need them. I am not chalking up the positives and negatives of science and religion here, I am merely pointing out that just because horrifying actions have result from either one, it doesn't mena that they should be abandoned - not every medical scientists thinks with his wallet first, in the same way that not every Catholic priest abuses boys, or every cleric tries to 'control' people.

I could use the same analogy with Democracy - the early part of the 20th centruy saw some awful pogroms and ethnic violcene and forced migrations as a result of increased popular representation. In more recent years, our democratic process led to the completely unethical war in Iraq and contiues to justify the supporting of brutal regimes all ver the world in the name of oil. These are horrendous things, but doesn't that mean that we should abandon democracy despite its potential for misuse? Of course not.

For my money, instead of baiting the zealots like Dawkins makes an inordinate amount of money doing, we should invite them into the public sphere - such exposure would only serve to weaken their power, displyaing their zeal and bigotry for all to see.

[Seshmeister]

I am not chalking up the positives and negatives of science and religion here

Good because I would then have suggested you make your next post by prayer.

The war in Iraq was pretty much forced through by two of the most religious leaders we have had in the West in living memory and was a lot more to do with their single minded 'god is talking to me' bullshit than anything to do with democracy.

[binnie]

I thanked you for that post because there is an element of truth to waht you say. However, you can't tell me that you seriously believe that Blair's religion is the major reason we went to war - Parliament voted in favour of oil grabbing, and 'liberating' a people from tyranny. It was pure Western Imperalism

[Nickdfresh]

The only thing worse than an unthinking Christian is a fundamentalist atheist.

Richard Dawkins annoys, no angers me, more than I can convey - like Michael Moore, he is as guilty of polemic, misrepresentation and zeal as the people he castigates, and to me both men do more damage to the causes they 'support' than good. Dawkins is very good at finding zealots and extreme fundamentalists to show up, but he positions them to the centre ground of Christianity, as though they are typical of the average Churchgoer who uses their faith to get them through their daily lives, and to help others around them.

I would much rather see Dawkins debate a scientist who believes in God - not a 'Creationist' scientist, but one who despite being a phyicist, chemist, or biologist, actively goes to Church. But Dawkins wouldn't do that - why debate someone as intelligent as you?

I write this as someone with no faith whatsoever - I'm a devout agnostic. To me, polemic does very little to help us understand ourselves, which is what all learning should ultimately be about.

From a recent thread I posted in the Front Line:

Paul Kurtz isn't quite finished preaching the gospel of secular humanism.

The retired University at Buffalo philosophy professor (who) built...an internationally recognized nonprofit known as the Center for Inquiry — around the premise that secularism and skepticism are good for society...worries that...the momentum he helped build toward a less faith-bound world is now overly focused on attacking religion, at the expense of other goals...

"It's become fixated in recent years on atheism, the criticism of religion," he said. "And I think that's a strategic blunder. Not just a strategic blunder, but a philosophical and ethical one, as well."

Don't misunderstand Kurtz, who hasn't had a change of heart in his advanced years. He has always viewed religions skeptically. "They were spawned during an agricultural, rural time," he said. "They don't apply to the modern world."

He still doesn't believe in a god or an afterlife, because "there's no evidence for that."

At the same time, he sees a place for believers in the broad spectrum of secular humanism — in large part because, without them, any movement toward societies based on principles of humanism, rather than faith, will go nowhere.

"Let's say the atheists are successful, and religion continues to decline, so what do you have, a vacuum?" he said. "That's really the burning issue in America today: How shall I live? What should I strive for?"

Atheism "not enough'

--Story written by Jay Tokasz

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?58712-Redirecting-a-long-life-of-godlessness

[Nickdfresh]

...
Secondly there is an argument that the moderate religious people legitimise the extremists. I was out in the pub a while ago with someone I had known for a while and it turned out that unknown to me he is a real fire and brimstone extreme christian. He said he absolutely respected my position, it was the wishy washy christians he hated. He was quite right in a way. If people truely believed the stories then how could they possibly not act in a fundamentalist way?...

That's sort of like saying: "if you believe that government is good for society, how could you not believe a totalitarian one is the best?"

And I'm not a Christian other than for birth religion identification purposes only, but I think most Christians wouldn't "legitimize" a fire and brimstone asshole contradicting himself whilst drinking in a pub as much as think he's nuts...

[Nickdfresh]

I think David wanted two soccer balls always on hand....

I just hope he doesn't forget himself and accidentally, spontaneously kick or headbutt her tits...

[Unchainme]

The only thing worse than an unthinking Christian is a fundamentalist atheist.

Richard Dawkins annoys, no angers me, more than I can convey - like Michael Moore, he is as guilty of polemic, misrepresentation and zeal as the people he castigates, and to me both men do more damage to the causes they 'support' than good. Dawkins is very good at finding zealots and extreme fundamentalists to show up, but he positions them to the centre ground of Christianity, as though they are typical of the average Churchgoer who uses their faith to get them through their daily lives, and to help others around them.

I would much rather see Dawkins debate a scientist who believes in God - not a 'Creationist' scientist, but one who despite being a phyicist, chemist, or biologist, actively goes to Church. But Dawkins wouldn't do that - why debate someone as intelligent as you?

I write this as someone with no faith whatsoever - I'm a devout agnostic. To me, polemic does very little to help us understand ourselves, which is what all learning should ultimately be about.

Great points being made here. When you're running to "Focus on the family" for your debate opponent rather than say, someone with a degree from a top-class university who may just happen to believe in God, you're going to win the debate each and every time.

It's like Hannity and Colmes, Hannity has a homecourt advantage at say a place like FOX and picked out a rather weak person to represent the left, thus he "appears" to be right on most issues, when in actuality, if your brought in someone like, say, Rachel Maddow in, and airing it on CSPAN or PBS, chances are he would possibly get his clock cleaned a good amount of times.

I'm auctually willing to give someone like say, Bill O'Reilly credit, as he at least allows someone like Dennis Kucinich to come on the air and counterpoint him on a lot of things

I just feel that there's a lot of faulty logic in the Dawkins-type atheist is the assumption that most everybody who practices a religion or happens to believe in a higher power automatically equals out to an extremist who wants to blow up the world.

[ELVIS]

GRATE points !!

[binnie]

I just feel that there's a lot of faulty logic in the Dawkins-type atheist is the assumption that most everybody who practices a religion or happens to believe in a higher power automatically equals out to an extremist who wants to blow up the world.

I think that is a very eloquent way of putting it.

[Anonymous]

Sesh, I hope you don't mind me asking, but why do you feel such a need to prove that god doesn't exist?

It's almost like you want to convince yourself.

It's obvious that shit's a fantasy. Only a fevered mind can believe such blatant bullshit. And you can't have a rational discussion with a fevered mind.

Cheers! :bottle: