rorybestsbigbaldnoggin wrote:
I have yet to encounter a mob of atheists who have set out to kill large numbers of people solely because they are not atheists.
Foreign observers estimate that hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained in "re-education through labor" camps, prisons and other detention facilities for refusing to renounce the spiritual practice.
Ethan Gutmann estimates 65,000 Falun Gong prisoners were killed for their organs from 2000 to 2008.
mikerob wrote:I don't get the overbearing Dawkins thing myself. Yes, he can come across a bit smug, but that is hardly the worst thing in the world.
I've heard Dawkins being interviewed many times.
One time in particular sticks in my memory.
It was on a BBC radio program where alongside him
a woman with christian beliefs was also being interviewed.
To describe Dawkin's performance as simply smug wouldn't do the man justice.
He sneered, patronised and worst of all, constantly interrupted her.
But did He shoot her in the face, take her captive or dare I say it ,bugger Her?
If their was physical violence from either party, I didn't hear of it, anything else?
Debates between theists and atheists are always rather dull. When the philosophers and the atheists get going it gets more interesting. Dawkins should be put in his place by the chair and have a suitable oponent. He is at his annoying worst when those things are lacking.
BaggyTrousers wrote:
I'd be interested to know when you talk of Dawkins in such terms, do you find his message repulsive or merely his delivery, maybe both.
The biggest problem with Dawkins is that the Christianity that he attacks is a straw man, a fundamentalist brand unrecognised by most Christians. I don't remember exactly but I think that in 'The God Delusion' the only Christian book in his bibliography is a coffee table book. HIs intellectual rigour is pretty poor.
A Christian friend of mine always says that he doesn't believe in the (version of) god that dawkins doesn't believe in either.
The question of whether gays and lesbians will change marriage, or vice versa, is at its thorniest around sex and monogamy. Private behavior could well stay private: when she studied marriage in the Netherlands, Lee Badgett, the University of Massachusetts economist, found that while many same-sex couples proselytize about the egalitarianism of their relationships, they don’t tend to promote non-monogamy, even if they practice it. Then again, some gay-rights advocates, like the writer and sex columnist Dan Savage, argue very publicly that insisting on monogamy can do a couple more harm than good.
rumncoke wrote:Shan I have no objection to couples having equal rights my objection is the hijacking the word marriage . You may say I am old fashioned but roles within marriage are and by agreement between the parties interchangeable within that framework . The problem with same sex couples the roles are not definable or easily identified .
Being a married man marriage created a sense of responsibilities which prior to marriage did not exist . I can believe that a same sex relation can produce the same awareness .
The fact is that it is the avoidance of responsibility which gives rise to many of problems of society
I have little interest in anybody's opinion on what they think marriage is according to their own definition.
The only interest I have is in equality and freedom. I'll never dress up in any way to convince myself I should deny others a right to both. If others wish to do so they are quite free to choose that path. We all have the option to vote according to our own principles.
* Though I really would prefer if we didn't have the option to continue to deny people equal rights.
It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.
Dave wrote:
A Christian friend of mine always says that he doesn't believe in the (version of) god that dawkins doesn't believe in either.
Dawkins and latterly Hitchens et al dismiss religions from a purely scientific, logical bias. Their arguments are so stark that it can be genuinely frightening to the believer if they happen entertain these notions. Everyone wants a big warm duvet in bed but alas…
Shan wrote: Expressing opinion is good. Expecting others to agree or respect that opinion is naive, at best.
For example in the upcoming marriage equality referendum- My own opinion on same sex marriage is entirely irrelevant to the vote I will cast. I would consider myself to be anti-freedom if I was to vote against equality. Simple as that. Now I will grant that in this case my opinion on the subject matter is entirely in line with a yes vote but I am 100% confident that even if I was on a personal level against same sex marriage it would not entice me to part from my principles. Others may be happy to convince themselves that their beliefs and opinions entitles them to deny equality and freedom to others but I would be disgusted with myself if I found myself having such an attitude.
Two bits of one of Shan's posts. The first sentence should be instructive to us all. Dead on balls accurate Shan
The larger paragraph simply confirms my long held opinion that Shan is amongst the most decent of men - don't blush mate.
Others of course wonder why civil partnership is not good enough for those pesky gays, ignorance as we know is supposedly bliss, it's actually just lazy.
NEVER MOVE ON. Years on, I cannot ever watch Ireland with anything but indifference, I continue to wish for the imminent death of Donal Spring, the FIRFUC's executioner of Wee Paddy & Wee Stu, and I hate the FIRFUCs with undiminished passion.
rorybestsbigbaldnoggin wrote:
I have yet to encounter a mob of atheists who have set out to kill large numbers of people solely because they are not atheists.
Foreign observers estimate that hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained in "re-education through labor" camps, prisons and other detention facilities for refusing to renounce the spiritual practice.
Ethan Gutmann estimates 65,000 Falun Gong prisoners were killed for their organs from 2000 to 2008.
Py, I can honestly say I was completely unaware of that example. I would point out, however:
The Chinese Communist Party are not solely or primarily an atheist organisation. They are an enormous political/social movement of which atheism is but one constituent part. I would go further and say that lack of atheism was not the only reason that the Falun Gong practitioners were and are subject to such evil. If lack of faith were the sole reason for this atrocity, why does the Chinese Communist Party simultaneously recognise Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Protestantism and Catholicism? (http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/zjxy/t36492.htm)
Plenty of evil has been committed by people who happen to tangentially be atheists (Hitler, Stalin etc).
However, plenty of evil has also been committed by people who happen to be religious; the difference is that those people are not always completely unrepresentative of their religious organisations - again, witness the Catholic Church with the Spanish Inquisition.
BaggyTrousers wrote:
I'd be interested to know when you talk of Dawkins in such terms, do you find his message repulsive or merely his delivery, maybe both.
The biggest problem with Dawkins is that the Christianity that he attacks is a straw man, a fundamentalist brand unrecognised by most Christians. I don't remember exactly but I think that in 'The God Delusion' the only Christian book in his bibliography is a coffee table book. HIs intellectual rigour is pretty poor.
A Christian friend of mine always says that he doesn't believe in the (version of) god that dawkins doesn't believe in either.
While it does not infringe on my marriage it is the systematic attack moral values which I object to ;a liberal trust that all change is better and improves the human condition . All the evidence points to a different conclusion for example the increasing number of children in one parent families , increased drug use etc .
As for the idea all wars are the product of religious belief is a falsehood - mankind have been at war with each other long before religion became organised .
Did the Greeks and Romans go to war for religious reasons but don't let facts distort a lie . Just accept the human race consists of good guys and bad guys and the is little difference between them when put to the test . It is not religion which it is imperfect but mankind ( mentalist may substitute God for religion)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist
The Chinese Communist Party are not solely or primarily an atheist organisation. They are an enormous political/social movement of which atheism is but one constituent part. I would go further and say that lack of atheism was not the only reason that the Falun Gong practitioners were and are subject to such evil. If lack of faith were the sole reason for this atrocity, why does the Chinese Communist Party simultaneously recognise Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Protestantism and Catholicism? (http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/zjxy/t36492.htm)
Plenty of evil has been committed by people who happen to tangentially be atheists (Hitler, Stalin etc).
However, plenty of evil has also been committed by people who happen to be religious; the difference is that those people are not always completely unrepresentative of their religious organisations - again, witness the Catholic Church with the Spanish Inquisition.
Unless the Chinese Communist Party has left its Marxism behind, it is essentially atheist. Certainly atheism is a constituent part but it is an essential part of its philosophy. Religion is the enemy. Without its atheism I think its whole philosophical foundation decays.
There is also a yawning gap between the claim of the Chinese government that it tolerates religion and the mountain of documented cases of government persecution of all religions. Plenty of examples on Amnesty International's website or Open Doors (a Christian organisation so some might think biased)
You're right, many dreadful things, individual and institutional, have been done by religious people but, when atheism becomes powerful the best we can say is that it has fared no better.
rumncoke wrote:While it does not infringe on my marriage it is the systematic attack moral values which I object to ;a liberal trust that all change is better and improves the human condition . All the evidence points to a different conclusion for example the increasing number of children in one parent families , increased drug use etc .
As for the idea all wars are the product of religious belief is a falsehood - mankind have been at war with each other long before religion became organised .
Did the Greeks and Romans go to war for religious reasons but don't let facts distort a lie . Just accept the human race consists of good guys and bad guys and the is little difference between them when put to the test . It is not religion which it is imperfect but mankind ( mentalist may substitute God for religion)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Equality. Yours is not the only religion - the end. out it work
NEVER MOVE ON. Years on, I cannot ever watch Ireland with anything but indifference, I continue to wish for the imminent death of Donal Spring, the FIRFUC's executioner of Wee Paddy & Wee Stu, and I hate the FIRFUCs with undiminished passion.
rumncoke wrote:
As for the idea all wars are the product of religious belief is a falsehood - mankind have been at war with each other long before religion became organised .
Has anyone ever drawn up two lists side by side: one of religious wars and one of non-religious wars (which would obviously include wars fought by religious people for non-religious reasons). I'm no historian but it might bring some objectivity to the argument.
rorybestsbigbaldnoggin wrote:
Plenty of evil has been committed by people who happen to tangentially be atheists (Hitler, Stalin etc).
Is anyone responsible more evil in history than these 2?
How do you know that their atheism was unrelated to their murderous tendencies?
rorybestsbigbaldnoggin wrote:
However, plenty of evil has also been committed by people who happen to be religious
And if you're going to persist in your assertion that the worst mass murderers in history were only tangentially atheistic,
how are you certain that these people weren't just tangentially religious?
rorybestsbigbaldnoggin wrote:
again, witness the Catholic Church with the Spanish Inquisition.
Aah, the Black legend.
Far more died in the NI troubles as were sentenced to death by church tribunals in Spain.
