All-Purpose Religion Thread

[Jon]

Tbh I'm with Dawkins why should the planet be ruled by people who use fairy stories from a by gone uninformed age to shape the more enlightened world of today.

It isn't though, is it? Not any more. It's ruled by people with money, and large uber rich corporations.

 

Although I do agree that in the less 'developed' world, religion is still far, far too prominent, and does I guess 'rule/govern' the lives of those societies.

[Jon]

 

 

I really, really rate Owen Jones' political musings. He's spot on on pretty much everyhting I've read from him.

 

He's the bastard offspring of peterms and Richard Murphy, and I would never tire of taking a cricket bat to his smug face.

 

You've really got it in for the Mountie, Mr Riss! Or maybe you just don't have much truck for people with left wing thoughts

[Risso]

 

 

 

I really, really rate Owen Jones' political musings. He's spot on on pretty much everyhting I've read from him.

 

He's the bastard offspring of peterms and Richard Murphy, and I would never tire of taking a cricket bat to his smug face.

 

You've really got it in for the Mountie, Mr Riss! Or maybe you just don't have much truck for people with left wing thoughts

 

 

I have lots of respect for Peter, I just enjoy trying to wind him up, but the bugger never, ever bites!

[Risso]

 

Tbh I'm with Dawkins why should the planet be ruled by people who use fairy stories from a by gone uninformed age to shape the more enlightened world of today.

It isn't though, is it? Not any more. It's ruled by people with money, and large uber rich corporations.

 

Although I do agree that in the less 'developed' world, religion is still far, far too prominent, and does I guess 'rule/govern' the lives of those societies.

 

 

And that was clearly the point Dawkins was making.  In some Islamic societies, the study of Islam supercedes the study of everything else.  Advances in medicine and science are what generally makes life more pleasant and easy for people, not being able to recite a dusty old book of untruths from memory.

[CrackpotForeigner]

 

 

Tbh I'm with Dawkins why should the planet be ruled by people who use fairy stories from a by gone uninformed age to shape the more enlightened world of today.

It isn't though, is it? Not any more. It's ruled by people with money, and large uber rich corporations.

 

Although I do agree that in the less 'developed' world, religion is still far, far too prominent, and does I guess 'rule/govern' the lives of those societies.

 

 

And that was clearly the point Dawkins was making.  In some Islamic societies, the study of Islam supercedes the study of everything else.  Advances in medicine and science are what generally makes life more pleasant and easy for people, not being able to recite a dusty old book of untruths from memory.

 

 

Ironically it hasn't always been that way, as you may know. The words Algebra, Algorithm, Alkaline and even Alcohol all come from Arabic, from the days of the Caliphate.

[bickster]

Tbh I'm with Dawkins why should the planet be ruled by people who use fairy stories from a by gone uninformed age to shape the more enlightened world of today.

It isn't though, is it? Not any more. It's ruled by people with money, and large uber rich corporations.

 

Although I do agree that in the less 'developed' world, religion is still far, far too prominent, and does I guess 'rule/govern' the lives of those societies.

Did you skip read those two words Jon. Of course what you say is true but they still use the fairy stories to a great degree. Even here in the UK, Tories do it, Labour do it, the Liberals do it, they all use god and religion, they all pander to the believers of fairy stories. The only way to stop that is to get more people to question their ludicrous beliefs.

[Risso]

Spot on Bicks.  And it starts from a very early age.  Schools still have religious assemblies and teach Christianity as if it's a "fact".  I've no problem with children learning about religions, as like it or not they play a large part in the world, but as a parent I either have to sit by and watch as my kids get brainwashed into something I don't agree with, or go to the lengths of asking that they don't participate in certain things, which at a small village school would be quite distressing for them.  Schools should be entirely secular.

[CrackpotForeigner]

Everyone's hero Tony Blair was a real champion of "Faith Schools", and gave them big time funds. What an inspired way to snatch a setback from the jaws of progress.

[bickster]

Everyone's hero Tony Blair was a real champion of "Faith Schools", and gave them big time funds. What an inspired way to snatch a setback from the jaws of progress.

Agreed but remember he only "turned catholic" officially after he resigned, the cynical devious warmongering toad

[Jon]

 

 

Tbh I'm with Dawkins why should the planet be ruled by people who use fairy stories from a by gone uninformed age to shape the more enlightened world of today.

It isn't though, is it? Not any more. It's ruled by people with money, and large uber rich corporations.

 

Although I do agree that in the less 'developed' world, religion is still far, far too prominent, and does I guess 'rule/govern' the lives of those societies.

 

Did you skip read those two words Jon. Of course what you say is true but they still use the fairy stories to a great degree. Even here in the UK, Tories do it, Labour do it, the Liberals do it, they all use god and religion, they all pander to the believers of fairy stories. The only way to stop that is to get more people to question their ludicrous beliefs.

 

I have to say, I haven't really noticed much a religious angle to UK politics these past say 40 years. Maybe I've not been studying it hard enough? I would say Dave's Gay Marriage push suggested that parties/people put policy before religion in the UK.

 

The main area I have a gripe with religion in this country is over schooling. Where I'd agree with you fully in that religion is far too prevalent. IMO schooling should not be divided on religious grounds. Why, in this largely secular society, are schools divided along C of E, Catholic lines etc. It's bizzare. I would also say that I went to a C of E school but did not come out believing in Jebus or God.  

  Schools should be entirely secular.

With that, I will agree.

[TrentVilla]

 

Although I do agree that in the less 'developed' world, religion is still far, far too prominent, and does I guess 'rule/govern' the lives of those societies.

 

 

It isn't just the tobacco companies that have moved on to the developing and third world for an easy sell.

[Risso]

Everyone's hero Tony Blair was a real champion of "Faith Schools", and gave them big time funds. What an inspired way to snatch a setback from the jaws of progress.

 

If only there was a Hell, there's one person that would be going straight there.

[Jon]

 

Everyone's hero Tony Blair was a real champion of "Faith Schools", and gave them big time funds. What an inspired way to snatch a setback from the jaws of progress.

 

If only there was a Hell, there's one person that would be going straight there.

 

He can then be reunited with his old chum Maggie. Those 2 would keep the fires raging for eternity.

[TrentVilla]

 

 

Everyone's hero Tony Blair was a real champion of "Faith Schools", and gave them big time funds. What an inspired way to snatch a setback from the jaws of progress.

 

If only there was a Hell, there's one person that would be going straight there.

 

He can then be reunited with his old chum Maggie. Those 2 would keep the fires raging for eternity.

 

 

Sadly even Maggie wouldn't be able to do this, no coal available apparently.

[Risso]

April called, Trent, it wants its joke back!

[TrentVilla]

Who is April?

[YLN]

 

Also I think Richard Dawkins is a truly detestable individual, and is more closeminded and arrogant than many of the dogmatic folk he confronts.

 

 

Why?

 

I found the tone of The God Delusion to be so self-congratulatory I had to stop reading it. Made it about 100 pages into it. What has resparked my dislike for him is an interview I watched yesterday where he spoke to a doctor who was championing the idea that controlled drug trials should not be considered absolutely reliable when it comes to predicting how a patient would respond to a drug, and instead he felt that the person's state of mind and other such factors should be taken into account, i.e. the parts of the person that cannot be gleaned by measuring the extent of their illness. Dawkins thought that this was an absolute affront to science and that he was effectively dealing with a homeopath. He would not entertain for a moment that there might other non strictly medical factors at work in whether or not a person would respond to a drug and was very dismissive of any of the doctor's points.

 

The show was called Enemies of Reason, so from the outset, Dawkins was assuming he was correct in all of his views. It was far from a debate and more of a Louis Theroux documentary where he meets an idiot and treats him like one. Dawkins kept returning to the title of the doctor's brand of medicine, which included the word quantum. When he was failing with a point, he'd return to the fact that the doctor had stolen the word quantum from 'real science' and branded his own faux-science with it. Also the way it was cut meant that Dawkins was given a chance to think about every question before he asked it, perhaps consulting with experts behind the scenes, while the doctor was having to answer questions as they were aimed at him.

 

Anyway the interview is here, so you can make up your own mind about it, but it just further added to my dislike for the man, who sees things in the colours of absolute atheism and everything else, when I think this is certainly not the case. Sure organised religion is bollocks, but that doesn't mean that everything that has not been revealed by science yet, and possibly those things that will never be revealed by science due to the limits of the human brain is to be dismissed as all part of the same crap sandwich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qsH1U7zSp7k

[Jon]

Who is April?

I think she was Devon's assistant in Knight Rider for a while.

[TrentVilla]

 

Who is April?

I think she was Devon's assistant in Knight Rider for a while.

 

 

Ah I thought it was the friend of the Ninja Turtles.

Yillan, I'm assuming that while you aren't a fan of organised religion but would I also be right in assuming you believe in God?

[CrackpotForeigner]

 

 

Also I think Richard Dawkins is a truly detestable individual, and is more closeminded and arrogant than many of the dogmatic folk he confronts.

 

 

Why?

 

I found the tone of The God Delusion to be so self-congratulatory I had to stop reading it. Made it about 100 pages into it. What has resparked my dislike for him is an interview I watched yesterday where he spoke to a doctor who was championing the idea that controlled drug trials should not be considered absolutely reliable when it comes to predicting how a patient would respond to a drug, and instead he felt that the person's state of mind and other such factors should be taken into account, i.e. the parts of the person that cannot be gleaned by measuring the extent of their illness. Dawkins thought that this was an absolute affront to science and that he was effectively dealing with a homeopath. He would not entertain for a moment that there might other non strictly medical factors at work in whether or not a person would respond to a drug and was very dismissive of any of the doctor's points.

 

The show was called Enemies of Reason, so from the outset, Dawkins was assuming he was correct in all of his views. It was far from a debate and more of a Louis Theroux documentary where he meets an idiot and treats him like one. Dawkins kept returning to the title of the doctor's brand of medicine, which included the word quantum. When he was failing with a point, he'd return to the fact that the doctor had stolen the word quantum from 'real science' and branded his own faux-science with it. Also the way it was cut meant that Dawkins was given a chance to think about every question before he asked it, perhaps consulting with experts behind the scenes, while the doctor was having to answer questions as they were aimed at him.

 

Anyway the interview is here, so you can make up your own mind about it, but it just further added to my dislike for the man, who sees things in the colours of absolute atheism and everything else, when I think this is certainly not the case. Sure organised religion is bollocks, but that doesn't mean that everything that has not been revealed by science yet, and possibly those things that will never be revealed by science due to the limits of the human brain is to be dismissed as all part of the same crap sandwich.

 

 

Fair enough, although I think the fact that he has become the spokesman for non-belief in a world of believers affords him a bit of slack. Obviously he's not the first atheist/agnostic in the history, but I admire him for making a point of saying what the rest of us are thinking. Like him or not, I think he's a force for good. Until someone else steps up, he'll do as far as I'm concerned.