Hey, an awful lot of racism can be accounted for by the media. Every time someone posts a daily mail article about some immigrant from a war-torn region being allowed benefits etc. I think it's plain to see here how their deliberate distortions coerce people. These tabloids are hilarious because they condemn the BNP whilst writing articles that completely agree with their propaganda. Like I've said, we haven't gone near religion for months on these pages. This thread was mainly political until Joe from Montana decided to throw a bunch of poorly informed, fallacious accusations into the ring.

You say these people are fools if they take religion seriously, but most of these countries where this is the case do not have the same factors to mitigate religious propaganda that prosperous western countries do, e.g. good education (the main factor x10000), a well-developed, un-corrupt government and a strong GDP, access to a wealth of information e.g. internet and other media. So the main teaching these people have for how to live their lives is the Church, or their mosque etc. So when these people tell you take their shit seriously, they see no reason not to. And when their shit involves persecution, lynching, no condoms etc. they believe it, because they've been brought up to believe morality comes from god and not from the critical common sense and internal empathy of man. And when religious leaders use religion as an excuse to promote bigotry that would be condemned under any other banner, they listen to that too.

A lot of the countries who do take it seriously are what, maybe 50odd years behind us? They are simple people who really believe every word they're told. I agree completely that religion in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing, but so are most things. I mean I'm Catholic but no amount of eternal heaven or virgins would make me want to kill myself or other people. Especially when in my religious book it states NOT to take life. It's all subjective, if you wanted to be accurate then you should really take religion away from the millions of idiots who take it as fact rather than an interpretation of life.

I do agree with something the other guy said though. It does bring peace and a moral life to millions of good people, why should we be condemned for people's actions we outright criticise.

As a religious person I fully believe it's time the Pope made a stand against all this crap. Evrything has to evolve, including religion.

I agree with what Colleen said to an extent. Tax payers money is wasted on many things less deserving than this, in my opinion. You may not be catholic, so for you, tax money being spent on it is unjust. However, in 2005 there were 4.2 million catholics in the UK. That's just a figure I found, and I'm not sure if there are more recent figures, but it seems catholicism is on the up due to immigration from Catholic countries like Poland. That's a big enough proportion of the population, in my opinion, to justify some public spending, in comparison to some of the other costs.

I also think the whole 'gay rights' thing is massively OTT.

I agree with this. I do think gay people should have the same rights (to an extent) as everyone else. There's no reason for someone to be degraded because of sexuality, however religion has a right to ignore it. It may not be right but the act itself disgusts many people. There should be rights without such constant broadcasting.

Yeah, I feel much the same. I just don't really know what 'rights' they want. We already now have civil partnerships, so what else? In my opinion, like with racism, a lot of the discrimination and divisions in society are caused by the movements. Going out and protesting for 'gay rights' makes you stand out. I think it has already become much more accepted in to religion, but I don't think you can expect a lot more. If you want to be homosexual, fine, just do it.. don't go out and draw attention to it. Tbh, I'd be surprised if there were homosexuals who weren't accepted in to the church these days providing they kept their head down and turned up to services just like everyone else.

A lot of countries who take religion seriously are, in many areas, hundreds of years behind us, at least in terms of social evolution. That in itself often has a lot to do with religion. Take the Islamic countries. Up to 1200 the Islamic Empire was a rational, enlightened culture that preserved the scientific thinking of the Greeks whilst Europe descended into barbarism. They nurtured scientific method and peer review, discovered mathematics, were practicing eye-surgery, had themselves an agricultural revolution, the progress was astounding. It was a place of relative religious tolerance and free enquiry. Then in the 13th century a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam grew in dominance (in part due to external pressures from other expansionist powers). All investigation and enquiry that could not be linked to better understanding the Koran was effectively outlawed (much like the Dark Ages in Europe when the Church was the dominant political power), and they have been stuck in darkness since.

But then you have countries like the United States, which is not behind us, right? 1/3rd of Americans believe the bible, every word of it, is literally true. So that's Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, etc. Or another poll, 64% of American Christians believe the parting of the Red Sea actually happened. Americans aren't a stupid people, in spite of all the jokes we have. These people aren't idiots. At university I've encountered countless people who are very academically successful who were convinced, with fierce conviction, that the bible is the literal, inerrant word of god. It's education vs. brainwashing where the link might lie: According to the first source, disbelief is linked to education, whilst literal interpretation is linked to regular church attendance (these literalists were almost to a person very sheltered individuals). It would explain why the worst shit you hear about Christianity happens in Africa: they're massively church-attending, but few have access to decent education. Ditto the Middle East. When Christian leaders tell them to take this shit seriously, why would they doubt them?

Here's another one: 22% of Americans claim to be literally certain that Jesus is going to come down out of the clouds sometime in the next 50 years. Another 22% think he probably will sometime in the next 50 years. Ronald Regan once brought in an advisor to brief his staff on the imminent Rapture and how it will effect the world. Isn't it worrying that such beliefs are so prevalent at a time where we're trying to protect the planet for the future?


Lots of things are dangerous in the wrong hands, but that doesn't mean we should accept those things. And I am confident I could make a very convincing argument based on the bible to persecute non-believers, take slaves, and wage holy war all the way up to full-blown genocide. The bible is not a peaceful book.


I agree, the best solution is to tackle the rampant fundamentalism that is the cause of so much suffering in the world. But I think it is insufficient condemnation to only condemn their interpretation and actions based on it, rather than undermine the whole cultural reason they believe in the first place: because the concept of "belief through faith" is held up as virtuous and admirable rather than condemned for being a frankly ridiculous way to seek truth (becaus faith judges all arguments equally). From religious moderates come religious fundamentalists.


Does it? A religious society is not a more moral one. Morality has never come from scripture. In fact, scripture is one of the biggest inhibitors throughout history to the progression of social ethics and legislation. Peace? On top of regions that are war-torn in part through religious conflict, I can point towards multiple gay Christian friends I have had who battles with guilt and shame brought about by religious teachings. I myself was constantly grappling with the horrible concept of "sin" - that things that wrong no one may still be an offense in the eyes of god. Heaven help one of my Hindu friends if she wanted to marry a Muslim man!

Again, I posit that a person is no more moral, no more happy and no more peaceful with belief than without. They are just different ways of living a life, one with unfortunate side-effects, the other without.



Aye it does. There is a place for religion in society - and that is somewhere the fuck away from politics. Religious, supernatural belief is a personal thing with no objective rational support, and as such it is not a responsible thing to lobby for legislative change for society as a whole with supernatural claims as a justification. If a religious person or institution wants to change opinions or law, it needs to argue its case on the playing field of reason and evidence that makes sense to everyone, not just people who believe in the same dogma that they do. Society should be guided by reason, not ideology.

This post has been edited by DougieFFC: Mar 8 2010, 1:46 PM

You'll probably find the most gay-rights activism is centred around countries other than the UK at the moment (although iirc it is recognised not as a marriage, but a "civil union", without good reason). Gay marriage even under the name "civil partnership" still isn't recognised in the overwhelming majority of states in the U.S., meaning families with gay parents do not have the same legal entitlements that straight ones do. In an awful lots of countries it is a criminal offense. In others it is a capital offense. These are severe human rights violations that should outrage any empathic human being. In Uganda recently American Christian evangelicals have actively been promoting a campaign of hatred against gay people that has led to legislation being drawn up that would punish gay people with life imprisonment or execution.

Just one last call to Jerry Rice to make some attempt towards a reasonable argument for why you are so hostile towards critics religious organisations/beliefs, because your justifications so far are intellectually bankrupt and easily refuted.

First off, you show a lack of awareness of even the most common arguments when you say things like

and

....which make me wonder if you have ever touched a Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett text in any great detail; and if not, what makes you qualified to pass such judgments on their position?

You appear to be guilty of double standards when you have no problem attacking non-religious institutions when the side-effects they cause are suffering and death, but when it comes to religion:


This is such a staggeringly simpleminded argument that it leads me to believe you are entirely closed-minded about the issue.
You cannot even remain consistent within the same post.
You say
At the top of your post, but at the bottom you say


Are you completely opposed to forms of social progress? Slavery made lots of people happy, was that justification for it? Apartheid made people happy, was it justified? Hitler's (sorry, Godwin coming up) rampage across Western Europe brought joy, and hope, and pride to tens of millions of Germans, was it justified? Western Empires raped Africa of its natural resources making their citizens wealthy, happy and prosperous. Was this either responsible or justified?

(edit: and you haven't even demonstrated that religion makes people happy. I maintain that a non-religious person is just as happy as a religious one, and just lives a different life with different meaning)

One of the main ways society advances is when it creates alternative ways of life, or ways of thinking that maintains or improves quality of life whilst reducing the negative consequences. What is your justification for excluding religious organisations and the concept of supernatural belief itself from this area of constant re-evaluation and progress?

You are welcome of course, to ignore this post, like you have thus far ignored the one above, like you have chosen not to engage yourself in at least four or five previous occasions (though it has not stopped you from personally attacking those who try to engage you), but if do continue this refusal, then you really have no right to jump in the next time someone takes a poke at the consequences of religions. And let it be shown that you have no real interest in open discourse.

(Though if you do wish to engage I of course welcome and invite you to do so)

This post has been edited by DougieFFC: Mar 9 2010, 1:20 PM

Then why is it being brought up in relation to the pope coming to the UK?

Because the Pope has attacked anti-discrimination laws that Britain has adopted. I don't mean to sound like I'm in the schoolground but the Pope started it.

Edit: So far this week we've had Vatican officials accused of running a male prostitution ring, and the Pope's brother linked to new claims of child abuse. And these people deign to lecture us on morality? Fucking hell.

This post has been edited by DougieFFC: Mar 9 2010, 5:27 PM

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."- Albert Einstein (happy birthday for yesterday Al!)

On- topic, some highlights from Christopher Hitchens' latest article on the matter:

Them fucking foreigners.

Oh you naughty Cardinal:



What is obvious is that the Catholic church's leaders believe the organisation to be the highest authority on earth and have no respect for the laws of any country, even the ones in which they carried out their child raping. They are a subversive and evil organisation and should be laid bare for the fraud that it is.

He is visiting Coventry, I may pop up there for the lols.

It's been like that for centuries, that's how they ended up with 2 Popes in medieval times. We got pissed off with the French pope based in Avignon ignoring our kings wishes and installing French bishops in high places. Back then Bishops had a lot of power so we ended up with a English backed pope in Rome at the same time as the French one.

They were power crazed.

This post has been edited by FrankSideTits: Mar 18 2010, 10:58 AM

Ooh, fresh new Irish priest is a child rapist story of the day:




(IMG:http://media.profileheaven.com/images/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

This post has been edited by DougieFFC: Mar 18 2010, 1:15 PM

It's not just priests who abuse (IMG:http://media.profileheaven.com/images/style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif)

I'd also blame any parent who takes a silence payment. Disgusting

True, there are paedophile rings all around the world. But not many of them have as much wealth, power and influence as the Vatican, or recognition as a sovereign nation and therefore immunity from prosecution of their head of state (Pope Ratzinger, who was arguably the most influential figure in their quite-literally-global conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and silence victims). And very few of these rings have the audacity to tell us all how we should lead our lives.


Edit: It should be noted that senior Vatican officials would have been well aware of Ratzinger's efforts to protect child rapists and silence their victims when they decided to make him Pope.

This post has been edited by DougieFFC: Mar 18 2010, 4:07 PM

I'm going to try and distil this argument into it's most simple components, as i see them, to avoid a massive, ballooning, essay argument. Your anti-anti-religion argument seems to continually fall back on the same point: if the behaviour of a prominent religious individual brings their religion into disrepute (or indeed, religion as a whole), then the same could be said of other individuals, belonging to other groups, be they secular/racial/whatever. We all know the latter position is mostly untenable, and therefore by extension so is the former.

The problem with that position, is as follows: one cannot so easily divorce the behaviours/beliefs of an individual belonging to a particular religion, from their particular religion (or from the concept of faith itself), especially not when those behaviours/beliefs are actually stated to be a direct product of said religion. In the case of religion, the group itself is defined by the ideology of the adherents. If that ideology leads the adherents to particular conclusions, the the ideology itself is fair game for criticism. People like Dougie and myself are not attempting to classify anybody who is, for example, anti embryonic stem cell research, as a bigoted fool. Rather, we are classifying anybody who is anti embryonic stem cell research because their religion tells them to be, or because the tenets of their religion, which they cannot justify, which have no verifiable basis in fact, and which not everybody chooses to share, demand that they be, as a bigoted fool.

People like you routinely (and wrongly) characterise people like us as closed minded and dogmatic - as as unprepared to listen to other points of view as the religious people we criticise. This is not true. What we ARE intolerant of, is people who want to close off any and all debate, and immediately proclaim a right answer - whatever that may be - because God/religion demands it to be so. I'm not opposed to a debate about abortion; I'm opposed to a debate about abortion with people who just want to say "God created all life, therefore all life is sacred, therefore abortion is a sin, therefore abortion is wrong and nobody- whether they share our beliefs or not - should be offered the choice to undergo it." We are not claiming that these important issues are so clear cut that debate should be stifled, and that our intellectual superiority allows us to dictate the right answer to other people. We're claiming that these important issues are TOO FUCKING IMPORTANT, to allow people who DO want to dogmatically pick a side, without any sensible, rational, scientific, or evidence based reason, to have have the same sort of platform in the debate, as those people who can justify their position.

News just in: it matters WHY people think the way they do, not just WHAT they think.

This post has been edited by Ill Culinary Behavior: Mar 18 2010, 4:41 PM