|
|
| Re: nonsense about atheism (240886) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
|
| (241569) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 13:07:51 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 27 12:03:38 2007. What happens when Anglicans arrive in Trinidad and Tobago? I dated a lovely woman from there 20 years ago, but wenever really got into a religious discussion. I presume she was Anglican of some sort. She had British parents and a small icon of Jesus on her desk, but that's it. |
|
|
| (241570) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 13:08:19 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 10:15:34 2007. "Correct. As a public servant your responsibility is to serve the public. If, as a judge, you decide cases based on your personal religious belief then you might as well be in Saudi Arabia or running around with the Taliban, because that's what they do. It's not what democracies do."last time I checked, the Taliban were democratically elected, as are the current lot out there, who tried to execute a man for converting from Islam (who applied for asylum to several countries in the EU, and many people petitioned those democratically elected governments to let him in, and the democratically elected governments of those countries, save Italy, ignored the requests). So there's several democracies that either allow cases to be judged on the personal religious belief of the judge, or condoning such a thing. As a public servant, you are to serve the public - if the public want you to use your religious views to judge crimes or to teach children, then you can, surely? In Kansas, didn't evolution get banned from being taught because of the public's will to have it banned, but then it got unbanned as the ban was unconstitutional? Surely serving the people, in a democracy is to follow their will. If a class full of children wanted to learn Biblical Theology, then surely they should be allowed to. Likewise if a class of children wanted the teacher to lead them in prayer at the beginning of the day, surely they should be allowed to. That they can't isn't democracy, but oppression. Democracy is "what the majority says goes". It's Mob Rule, but a bit more structured. "As I said before, there is a time and place for it." And the time and the place to learn about the most important questions in the universe - Is there a creator, and if so, has he spoken to us, and if so, what does he say? is surely while you are being educated, which last time I checked, happened to be at school! ""As for proof, look up the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ - the evidence is fairly conclusive that he did - definitely beyond reasonable doubt" False statement. There is no scientific or physical proof. There is a religious belief that he did so, and you are entitled to it." I have said that the historicity of Jesus rising from the dead is beyond reasonable doubt, you say "False statement. There is no scientific or physical proof." I never said there was - I said that there was historical proof - if you want, I could write a nice long thesis on here on the subject. I won't now, because I think you'd dogmatically reject it, on faith grounds. You seem to trust in the unproven (and hypocritical) statement that everything must be proven by science and physical things to be true. "Jews do not believe it, nor do Muslims." you are now asserting that if other religions don't believe it, then it can't be true. That's like me saying that, as several people in this thread do not believe that God used evolution, that evolution didn't happen. It's a nonsense statement that has no relevance to the question at hand. If I said I didn't believe the world was spherical, but was actually flat, would that mean that it isn't? Would it matter if I also had geography and cosmology degrees and still said that, would it mean that the world wasn't round. (OK, I know it's slightly off being a perfect sphere) "The resurrection is the core of Chistian mythology, just as Moses' receiving the 10 commandments from God is core to the Jewish mythology." no, the resurrection is core to the Christian religion, just as receiving the 10 commandments from God is core to the Jewish religion (and an important part of Christianity). You are using the loaded word "mythology" to 'beg the question' as to whether it's true. You are also asserting without any reference to their being any evidence to back up your claim - a case of 'I say, therefore it is!' I do hope you aren't a scientist! "Your statement communicates the arrogance and tyranny that Christian supremacists convey to "non-believers." "Also it is possible to prove there is a God," False statement. It is possible to believe in one, but not to prove its existence. Anything relying on faith and circular reasoning necessarily falls into this category." Your statement communicates the arrogance and tyranny that agnositic supremacists convey to "non-believers". You are saying "as I don't know, no one can ever know" so everyone should be agnostic! It possible to prove there is a God - it's just not a scientific proof (but no less valid) - if he exists, then you can meet him and he can give us a message. We cannot scientifically prove that aliens exist, until we meet them. When we meet an alien, or hear a message from one, we have evidence that they exist. Likewise with God. Also the evidence of God working in his creation, that the rules of the universe can be broken by the rule maker (it's funny how the existence of rules seem to rule out the existence of a rule maker in some people's book). The best evidence of that is the resurrection of Jesus. |
|
|
| (241571) | |
Re: nonsense about Religion in England |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 13:13:07 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about Religion in England, posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 11:54:57 2007. "they don't go somewhere else, they just don't go, and reject what they know of the teachings of the CofE church, even though that wasn't the teachings that they left. A lot of people moved to Catholicism, or different protestant denominations. Others just stop going and put Christian on their census form, even though they just do weddings and funerals."And if they do, so what? If you are inclined to be more fervent, rather than less, that's your privilege. Nobody is stopping you. "The CofE leaders supported it, even though it had the possibility of making it illegal to publically state the 39 articles and say that they were true." I see nothing wrong with the Church saying they are true - but I don't want the State saying so, because the State represents everyone - not just Church of England. I america the Constitution guarantees that any church, synagogue, temple, mosque, etc can publish what it likes and say that it's true. Wonderful! But the State does not, and that's critical to democracy. |
|
|
| (241572) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 13:13:44 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 27 12:53:18 2007. AGREED. |
|
|
| (241573) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 13:15:04 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 27 13:03:04 2007. Agreed that they are both concepts without basis of scientific or physical proof. They are belief systems. |
|
|
| (241574) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 13:16:14 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 27 12:59:21 2007. Under God was not even part of the Pledge until 1954. It was put there as part of the communist hysteria led by Joe McCarthy. |
|
|
| (241575) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 27 13:18:41 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 13:07:51 2007. What happens when Anglicans arrive in Trinidad and Tobago? I dated a lovely woman from there 20 years ago, but wenever really got into a religious discussion. I presume she was Anglican of some sort. She had British parents and a small icon of Jesus on her desk, but that's it.Or she could just have liked east European art... |
|
|
| (241579) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Mon Aug 27 13:23:33 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by AlM on Mon Aug 27 11:57:34 2007. Some cynical guy pointed this out a long time ago. If you believe in an afterlife and are wrong, you'll never find out.But if you don't believe in an afterlife and are wrong, you might be seriously sorry. So the safe thing to do is believe in an afterlife. Doing the safe thing isn't going to work. Assuming there is an all-powerful God, He* most assuredly will know that your "belief" is an insincere, cover-all-bases ploy. Not good enough. * = or She, or It, or even They My LIRR/NYCT blog |
|
|
| (241582) | |
Re: nonsense about Religion in England |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 27 13:31:10 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about Religion in England, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 13:13:07 2007. "The CofE leaders supported it, even though it had the possibility of making it illegal to publically state the 39 articles and say that they were true."I see nothing wrong with the Church saying they are true - but I don't want the State saying so, because the State represents everyone - not just Church of England. There's one small problem with that: for the state to do as you say would involve the Queen violating her Coronation Oath: The Coronation Oath (from the Order of Service for the Coronation) The Queen having returned to her Chair, (her Majesty having already on Tuesday, the 4th day of November, 1952, in the presence of the two Houses of Parliament, made and signed the Declaration prescribed by Act of Parliament), the Archbishop standing before her shall administer the Coronation Oath, first asking the Queen, Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath? And the Queen answering, I am willing. The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and the Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows: Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs? Queen. I solemnly promise so to do. Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements? Queen. I will. Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them? Queen. All this I promise to do. Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Arch-bishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words: The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God. Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath. The Queen having thus taken her Oath shall return again to her Chair, and the Bible shall be delivered to the Dean of Westminster. |
|
|
| (241583) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 13:34:22 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 13:08:19 2007. "So there's several democracies that either allow cases to be judged on the personal religious belief of the judge, or condoning such a thing."Not really. You conveniently leave out a lot of details. However, there are democracies where an official religion helps decide legal cases - Israel is one such place. "In Kansas, didn't evolution get banned from being taught because of the public's will to have it banned, but then it got unbanned as the ban was unconstitutional?" Evolution was never banned due to "public will." Creationism was introduced and the Board members supporting it were booted out of office when it was clear the State of Kansas would become a laughingstock. "If a class full of children wanted to learn Biblical Theology, then surely they should be allowed to." But in the vast majority of cases, they do not. They take suggestion from the adults leading them. And in cases where opinion leaders among the children want it, they do not represent all the children in the group. That's where the tyranny and oppression start. "Likewise if a class of children wanted the teacher to lead them in prayer at the beginning of the day, surely they should be allowed to." No, they should be educated as to where and when it is appropriate, and where and when it is not. Yu are assuming the whole class asks for it, because you have difficulty imagining anyone who does not believe as you do. "And the time and the place to learn about the most important questions in the universe - Is there a creator, and if so, has he spoken to us" You believe that this is the most important question. Others believe that this qwuestion is rather trivial. If you think it's that important, find or start a school where that's what they talk about. "I said that there was historical proof - if you want, I could write a nice long thesis on here on the subject." With no facts to back it up. he resurrection is a belief system - mythology -. There is historical proof that certain groups of people have believed the story since 2,000 or so years go. That's all. It says nothing about the veracity of the alleged event itself. "you are now asserting that if other religions don't believe it, then it can't be true." False statement. I am saying that because non-Christians don't believe in it, that the Constitution rightly prevents you from cramming Christian mythology down the throats of people in public school. "You are using the loaded word "mythology" to 'beg the question' as to whether it's true." No. I'm using that trerm to show you that God and a resurrected Jesus are within a particular faith-based belief system, not subject to physical or science proof. There are other belief systems which do not include these particular beliefs that are as valid from the point of view of religious freedom. If you want to believe in the myth of the resurrection, that is your business. But without scientific or phhysical proof, it doesn't belong in public school. |
|
|
| (241584) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 13:34:45 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 27 13:18:41 2007. 8-) |
|
|
| (241585) | |
Re: nonsense about Religion in England |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 13:36:47 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about Religion in England, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 27 13:31:10 2007. Ah, yes, thank you. I assume, however, that the POrime Minister and House of Commons need not take that oath?My comments, therefore, are relevant to the US and its Constitution. |
|
|
| (241586) | |
Re: nonsense about Religion in England |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 13:56:26 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about Religion in England, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 13:13:07 2007. "And if they do, so what? If you are inclined to be more fervent, rather than less, that's your privilege. Nobody is stopping you."Indeed, however you asked about "don't they just go elsewhere" so I was saying yes. ""The CofE leaders supported it, even though it had the possibility of making it illegal to publically state the 39 articles and say that they were true." I see nothing wrong with the Church saying they are true - but I don't want the State saying so, because the State represents everyone - not just Church of England." However, that is by-the-by, as this was an example of the Church and State trying to silence those who actually still believe the state religion (amongst others). This wasn't the state saying these things are true, but them possibly making saying those things illegal. Again, you are dodging the context of these quotes of mine. Do you not feel that the possibility of a new law effectively banning the official religion of the state to be an attack on that religion by the state? That the church supported shooting it's own foot adds to it. I am disestablishmentarianist, because the state corrupts the church, and that the majority of people aren't part of the church, the church shouldn't be officially part of the state. I won't go whole hog and kick bishops out of the Lords, though, preferring to have a range of officially recognised religions' leaders sitting in there. I'm sure most British people would agree, even if it was just to get brilliant comments like "the Archbishop of Canterbury is unprincipled as he and two bishops voted against a new law allowing super casinos, which he has been outspoken against" in the press. It's always funny to see journalists not having a clue what they are saying! Then again, the Lords will become mostly elected with the new constitution (making only Israel and Iceland the only states not to have one written down) - there won't be much room for religious leaders (including Dawkins, though he'd hate to be counted as a religious leader) with all the David Beckhams and so on filling up the upper house. |
|
|
| (241589) | |
Re: nonsense about Religion in England |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 27 14:07:07 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about Religion in England, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 13:36:47 2007. Ah, yes, thank you. I assume, however, that the POrime Minister and House of Commons need not take that oath?They don't, but Members of Parliament have to swear an Oath of Allegiance. This, however, hasn't been written in such a way as to be exclusively acceptable to members of the CofE since the late 1820s. In practice, only Sinn Fein members refuse to swear (or affirm) it, so it's little more than a tradition. |
|
|
| (241600) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Mon Aug 27 14:24:18 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 13:16:14 2007. Which is why those words should be eradicated from the pledge of allegiance |
|
|
| (241606) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 27 14:30:32 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 13:16:14 2007. McCarthy was a real merchant of misery. Can't take on the communists directly, so turn on your own people. His witchhunts were just like communism, although the USA was civilized to the point where 66 million people don't get to die in gulags or be executed . . . |
|
|
| (241607) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 27 14:31:30 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 27 12:59:21 2007. I see you ignored my points. |
|
|
| (241610) | |
Re: skool prare |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 27 14:36:42 2007, in response to Re: skool prare, posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Aug 27 03:08:36 2007. Nice to see my favorite, yet generally underrated letter is getting some attention hereThat's because it doesn't represent a sound that is absent from other letters (two other letters, in the case of English).  |
|
|
| (241614) | |
Re: nonsense about Religion in England |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 15:13:31 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about Religion in England, posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 13:56:26 2007. "Do you not feel that the possibility of a new law effectively banning the official religion of the state to be an attack on that religion by the state?"No, more like the state deciding that the one official religion should no longer be treated preferentialy to the others. "the state corrupts the church, and that the majority of people aren't part of the church, the church shouldn't be officially part of the state." I certainly don't want the US to be officially part of a church and vice-versa. "I won't go whole hog and kick bishops out of the Lords," In the United states there are ordained clergy who hold elected office. The Reverend Cleaver is Congressman from Missouri, for example, and was Mayor of Kansas city. Nothing wrong with that. Of course, when I go to see him about government business, I expect him to treat me equally as he would any other constituent, regardless of my religion or lack of it. He's my Congressman, not my priest. Of course he has constituents who were his parishioners as well. That's fine, but as Congressman he's there to forward his constituents' agendas, not the church's. As to your other points about local English politics, I acknowledge what you're saying. |
|
|
| (241615) | |
Re: nonsense about Religion in England |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 15:14:05 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about Religion in England, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 27 14:07:07 2007. Thank you. |
|
|
| (241617) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 15:15:21 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by BIE on Mon Aug 27 14:24:18 2007. I believe they should be removed, but I'm not going to suffer a horrible life if they're not |
|
|
| (241618) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 15:15:42 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 27 14:30:32 2007. Agreed. |
|
|
| (241621) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Aug 27 15:21:29 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 27 13:01:00 2007. Most polling proves that assertion wrong. We are a nation of believing Christians. It's just the way things are.I never said that on average we're not a nation of believing Christians. What I said was that a media that promotes religion (which is what the original poster recommended) is not necessary for people to be religious. |
|
|
| (241622) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Mon Aug 27 15:22:44 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 27 14:30:32 2007. the USA was civilized to the point where 66 million people don't get to die in gulags or be executed . . .Yet. My LIRR/NYCT blog |
|
|
| (241623) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 15:27:42 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 13:34:22 2007. "If a class full of children wanted to learn Biblical Theology, then surely they should be allowed to."But in the vast majority of cases, they do not." Indeed, but in the small minority of cases, where they do (if those even exist), they are not allowed to. If the majority of school kids don't want to, that's fine, however this small minority isn't allowed to. You say that as the majority don't want it, then the minority have to bend to their way. Also it's forcing the minority to go with the crowd, something you've spoken against upthread and in the sentences directly after. "They take suggestion from the adults leading them. And in cases where opinion leaders among the children want it, they do not represent all the children in the group. That's where the tyranny and oppression start." So the adults indoctrinate the children as to what they want? I was only taking the situation where all the class, or a number of students, enough to make a class, want it, and only they have to do it. However, you seem bent on tyranny and oppression that as there are people somewhere else who don't want it, no one's allowed to have it, even if those who don't want it don't have to have it! "Likewise if a class of children wanted the teacher to lead them in prayer at the beginning of the day, surely they should be allowed to." No, they should be educated as to where and when it is appropriate, and where and when it is not. Yu are assuming the whole class asks for it, because you have difficulty imagining anyone who does not believe as you do." It was a hypothetical situtation. It could exist, say in Colorado Springs or so on that the whole class want to pray. I don't have any difficulty in imagining people that don't believe as I do - I know that lots of people don't believe what I do (far more than not, sadly), I know many of the excuses why they either sidestep the issue, ignore the facts or just plain refuse to except, despite the evidence. Where is prayer appropriate - yes they should be taught that prayer is appropriate anywhere, as why should be that on public land the American right to freedom to practise religion is removed? Or are you saying that, like I've been saying, American schools should be places for practical atheism. You also seem to suggest forcing your view on prayer on those that don't share it, again, something that you abhor when you think it might happen to you. "I said that there was historical proof - if you want, I could write a nice long thesis on here on the subject." With no facts to back it up. he resurrection is a belief system - mythology -. There is historical proof that certain groups of people have believed the story since 2,000 or so years go. That's all. It says nothing about the veracity of the alleged event itself." that people have believed it, because of the evidence, for 2000 years aids the case that there is evidence. If the Jewish/Roman authorities could find and show Jesus' body, people wouldn't have believed, surely? I can give you the facts if you want, just say the word. "you are now asserting that if other religions don't believe it, then it can't be true." False statement. I am saying that because non-Christians don't believe in it, that the Constitution rightly prevents you from cramming Christian mythology down the throats of people in public school." so likewise, as countless thousands of people don't believe in evolution, how can you get away with it without the state having to resort to imposing and affirming your beliefs of what can be called true, and what has to be mythology? How can it justify itself imposing the mythology (in your view) as to what is true or not? Likewise people do not believe that religion should be kept out of schools, but you are ramming your 'myth' (well it's not scientifically proven) that it should down their throats, forcing them to conform to your views. It seems a tad hypercritical of you to basically force people who don't believe that it's right, to conform to the belief that you should not force people who don't believe the same as you to conform. ""You are using the loaded word "mythology" to 'beg the question' as to whether it's true." No. I'm using that trerm to show you that God and a resurrected Jesus are within a particular faith-based belief system, not subject to physical or science proof. There are other belief systems which do not include these particular beliefs that are as valid from the point of view of religious freedom." though aren't valid from the point of view as truth. You're basically saying that if science doesn't proof it, it's a myth, and that all myths are equally valid, because of religious freedom. Science cannot prove your statement, therefore you cannot have the government utilising that view, as it is a 'myth', and my 'myth' that evidence can prove something, even if it's unrepeatable is as equally valid as yours. You are wanting impose your myth therefore on the school system, that you can't impose myths on the school system. It's hypocritical nonsense. If you want to believe in the myth of the resurrection, that is your business. But without scientific or phhysical proof, it doesn't belong in public school." So you don't want children to study English, history, human geography, philosophy, etc? All of these, and other subjects all involve teaching things, while based on evidence, that aren't scientifically proven. |
|
|
| (241627) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 15:48:06 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 15:27:42 2007. "You say that as the majority don't want it, then the minority have to bend to their way."Correct. That's also why a majority of whites sitting in a school cannot exclude a black person from attending the school. Majority rule is the norm, but the Constitution protects the minority, at the same time. Individual rights are balanced against group interests. "should be places for practical atheism" That is not atheism. It's merely a place where forced prayer is not allowed. If a majority of people in a carraige on the London UndergrounD want to blast a stereo at 200 decibels and consume methamphetamine and a few people on the same car don't want it, who should prevail? According to you, the majority should. However, in a mature democracy, the majority do not have unfettered rights. "yes they should be taught that prayer is appropriate anywhere," How about in the middle of a lecture? Should students be allowed to break into prayer while the instructor is reviewing polynomials? How about during English history class? Should the teacher cancel 30 minutes of his lecture any time students ask him because they want to pray right then and there? Obviously there are limits to everything. "that people have believed it, because of the evidence," They didn't believe it because of evidence. They believed it for the same reason they believe all kinds of superstitions. There's no evidence at all - but the belief doesn't depend on evidence. "If the Jewish/Roman authorities could find and show Jesus' body" Mozart's body was not found either. Neither was Jimmy Hoffa's. How do we know they're not resurrected too? Maybe instead of praying to Jesus, you should be praying to Jimmy Hoffa. "so likewise, as countless thousands of people don't believe in evolution," The difference is that evolution is a proven process with well-documented scientific and physical evidence. There are competing theories for how it happened, with Genesis' first account of it and Darwin's work being advanced by many scientists since then. The resurrection of Jesus relies purely on a particular brand of faith. "You're basically saying that if science doesn't prove it, it's a myth, and that all myths are equally valid, because of religious freedom" Essentially correct. I religion, there is no one proof, nor one truth. There is whatever truth you want to believe, and you aree entitled to believe it, but you are inherently in conflict with other taxpayers who do not believe it. Thus, when you enter a tax-payer supported institution, your imposition of your religious "truth" o others must be suspended. |
|
|
| (241628) | |
Re: nonsense about Religion in England |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 15:49:05 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about Religion in England, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 15:13:31 2007. "No, more like the state deciding that the one official religion should no longer be treated preferentialy to the others."but it wasn't - it could have been, at the discretion of the courts, a full on ban on the CofE, amoung others. If it was to remove the preferential treatment, it would be dealing with the House of Lords, not people's freedom of speech. It wasn't an attack specifically on the CofE, however the less wishy-washy people in the Church that the Church and the Government are often embarrassed to have, could have been silenced, even if unintentionally (especially with respect to Islam, as the whole point of the bill was to "In the United states there are ordained clergy who hold elected office." though not because they are ordained clergy! there's some Muslim leaders and the Chief Rabbi too, IIRC. "As to your other points about local English politics, I acknowledge what you're saying." Just to be pedantic - I haven't made any points about local English politics. I don't think I've made many about English politics. I've made a quite a few about nationwide British politics. Local English politics would be such things as parking restrictions, TESCOs not being satisfied with only having their most profitable store in the country in Amersham and deciding to open up a store half a mile away, even big things like West London Tram being horrific and so on that aren't dealt with national Government (which is the Government over 3 and a bit nations, of course). Then again, I know how an Island 800 miles long is rather local in America ;). |
|
|
| (241631) | |
Re: nonsense about Religion in England |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 15:56:46 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about Religion in England, posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 15:49:05 2007. "TESCOs not being satisfied with only having their most profitable store in the country in Amersham and deciding to open up a store half a mile away"The superior customer intelligence (courtesy of Dunnhumbie) and supply-chain systems are helping TESCO kick Wal-Mart's hiney in the UK. |
|
|
| (241634) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Aug 27 15:59:35 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Peter Rosa on Mon Aug 27 13:23:33 2007. Doing the safe thing isn't going to work. Assuming there is an all-powerful God, He* most assuredly will know that your "belief" is an insincere, cover-all-bases ploy. Not good enough.Doing the "safe thing" is known as "Pascal's wager". According to Wikipedia: The Wager posits that it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists than not to believe, because the expected value of believing (which Pascal assessed as infinite) is always greater than the expected value of not believing. End Wiki quote But Pascal's wager assumes that there is either one God or no God. If there are many gods, and especially if there are many competing gods (as there certainly were in the early history of religion), Pascal's wager would not apply. In the holy books there are many cases where people came to grief (sometimes a fate worse than death) by worshipping the wrong god(s). |
|
|
| (241636) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 16:08:36 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Aug 27 15:59:35 2007. Of course. Prayer books are there to tell you not to use a different religion's prayer books. Most religions like loyal customers. 8-) |
|
|
| (241639) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Mon Aug 27 16:14:25 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 15:27:42 2007. If someone wants their kids to learn religion, they can go to the clergy of their choice. That way the parent gets the DESIRED indoctrination for their kids. |
|
|
| (241643) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Aug 27 16:23:12 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 16:08:36 2007. Most religions like loyal customers. 8-)Yes, and they feel strongly about that. According to Islamic law, Jews and Christians are treated as second class citizens ("dhimmis") unless they convert to Islam. Hindus and Buddhists are less fortunate, being treated as idolaters. |
|
|
| (241644) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 16:25:58 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 15:48:06 2007. "You say that as the majority don't want it, then the minority have to bend to their way."Correct." so you say that minority have to bend to the way of the majority "That's also why a majority of whites sitting in a school cannot exclude a black person from attending the school. Majority rule is the norm, but the Constitution protects the minority, at the same time. Individual rights are balanced against group interests." so you say that the minority doesn't have to bend the rule of the majority. I can't tell what you are saying as you are making statements that contradict each other! ""If the Jewish/Roman authorities could find and show Jesus' body" Mozart's body was not found either. Neither was Jimmy Hoffa's. How do we know they're not resurrected too? Maybe instead of praying to Jesus, you should be praying to Jimmy Hoffa." The know why they haven't found Mozart's body - he was buried in a mass grave, as a pauper, in a recyclable coffin (the bottom was a door - pull the latch, the body falls out). I don't know who Jimmy Hoffa is, but there is no evidence to suggest that he rose from the dead, where is a wealth of evidence, with respect to Jesus, I've offered to post it if you so wish, however I'm not going to spend ages typing it if you don't want it, as I doubt very much that you'd actually accept it as evidence, as it's not scientific evidence, but historical from a wealth of sources, church and secular, from that time period. "Essentially correct. In religion, there is no one proof, nor one truth." Can you scientifically prove that? It seems to be going against everything I learnt in science - that there is only one right answer! As you'll only accept scientific proof, then so will I, but I'll be happy to look at any other proof of that statement. If you can't scientifically prove it, by your view, then "you are entitled to believe it, but you are inherently in conflict with other taxpayers who do not believe it" if you impose it on people, say, on the issue of religion being taught in schools. "Thus, when you enter a tax-payer supported institution, your imposition of your religious "truth" on others must be suspended." So likewise tax shouldn't be used for anyone to teach an opinion that isn't scientifically proven, say in an English class that Macbeth is a study of the nature of human evil, as it's unable to be proven scientifically, and therefore an alternative viewpoint that it was written solely to make money and please the King is just as true? Wow, I could have got an A in an essay I got a D in, for disagreeing with the teacher's view (which is linked in with the examiner's view). Basically in my English Literature GCSE I could have written down anything, as long as it was a view on the question, and they should have given me full marks, not a C! "The resurrection of Jesus relies purely on a particular brand of faith." No to accept the resurrection of Jesus as fact relies on being open to the evidence. It only needs a particular brand of faith as all others, including atheism and agnosticism (when of the "we're unable to know" brand, not the "we just don't know yet" brand) believe that it won't happen, as it screws everything up. By faith you choose not to believe, making faith based excuses like "for something to be real, it has to be scientifically proven" or "the disciples, who didn't want to die, so fled, went back, fought a heavily armed detachment of Roman Soldiers, with no injury to either party, rolled the massive stone away carried away the body and hid it where we couldn't find it" or "Jesus wasn't killed - the crack squad of executioners failed to kill him, and failed to check the body, when asked again. Jesus then spent 36 hours in a cold tomb, with 75lbs of spices on top of him. He got up, rolled the stone that it took several men to move, a long way from the tomb, caused the armed guard to flee, and then didn't need urgent medical attention for exposure and blood loss". |
|
|
| (241645) | |
Re: new school prayer |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Mon Aug 27 16:31:38 2007, in response to Re: new school prayer, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Aug 25 18:40:24 2007. eat some more beans.... |
|
|
| (241647) | |
Re: TESCOs vs Walmart |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 16:35:22 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about Religion in England, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 15:56:46 2007. TESCO were kicking ASDA before Walmart brought ASDA. They are about as cheap as each other, but TESCOs has more stores, and often in better locations. TESCOs has also diversified more, with car insurance, internet provision, etc (I can't remember whether ASDA sells petrol or not, TESCO certainly does). ASDA were the first to diversify, with George brand clothes, though TESCOs followed soon afterwards.These two supermarket chains are the big two in the UK. TESCOs neglect of the law also helps - they built a store in Stockport 33% too big, and just bribed the council away. |
|
|
| (241654) | |
Re: new school prayer |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Aug 27 17:09:32 2007, in response to new school prayer, posted by monorail on Fri Aug 24 07:19:06 2007. Amen!I would be quite happy with the American state of affairs. Separation of church and state protects them from each other. Here in the Canadian province of Ontario we have two school systems: one for Catholics and one for non-Catholics. This has been condemned by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, on the grounds that it unfairly favors one particular faith. Now the provincial Conservative opposition leader (one Mr. Tory) is advocating public funding for schools of all faiths. Being a person with no religious affiliation, I resent having to contribute tax dollars to faith-based schools, and I would strongly protest against public funding of Islamic schools, given what little I know about Islam. The aim of Islamic militants is to restore the Caliphate, which was abolished by Kemal Ataturk after the Ottoman Empire was defeated in World War One and Turkey became a secular republic. The Caliphate aimed to convert the entire world to Islam, by force if necessary. |
|
|
| (241657) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 17:14:43 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Aug 27 16:23:12 2007. True. Also, people who leave an Orthodox Jewish families in terms of marrying non-believers are sometimes shunned. |
|
|
| (241659) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Aug 27 17:35:47 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 09:39:49 2007. I do not deny the existence of a "God" becauseI cannot disprove the concept.I don't think anyone can ever prove or disprove the existence of God, and it's not for want of trying. There are a number of traditional proofs, such as the argument from First Cause and the argument from Design, but they are easily refuted. |
|
|
| (241660) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 17:41:02 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 16:25:58 2007. "I can't tell what you are saying as you are making statements that contradict each other!"Simple. Majority rule with minority safeguards. Always in balance. The Constitution helps a lot. "They know why they haven't found Mozart's body - he was buried in a mass grave, as a pauper, in a recyclable coffin (the bottom was a door - pull the latch, the body falls out). I don't know who Jimmy Hoffa is..." Jimmy Hoffa was head of the Teamsters. He disappeared and is presumed murdered; suspicion fell on union rivals. A favorite theory is that he's entobed in some concrete structure somewhere. "where is a wealth of evidence, with respect to Jesus, " False. There is a wealth of faith and mythology, not evidence. Oe must believe it by Christian faith. By contrast, Jewish faith generaly does not support a resurrection. "Can you scientifically prove that?" Yes, actually. Compare the vast number of religions out there now. Do Hindus believe in Jesus' resurrection? Do Buddhists? What about Jews? They generally reject the New Testament. What about Mormons? Do you accept the Book of Mormon in the whole, as you would the Bible? What about the Quran? Are all the truths there the same as in the New Testament? So who's right? Again, it all depends on which belief system you want. "So likewise tax shouldn't be used for anyone to teach an opinion that isn't scientifically proven, say in an English class that Macbeth is a study of the nature of human evil, as it's unable to be proven scientifically, and therefore an alternative viewpoint that it was written solely to make money and please the King is just as true?" Literature classes are Constitutional. Comparative religion classes are too. But not organized prayer and proselytizing. There is no evidence for Jesus' resurrection. It is your burden of proof to show there was a resurrection. "By faith you choose not to believe" No, by faith you choose to believe. If you can prove that there was a resurrection (no one has succeeded yet) and that no one else can possibly be resurrected except Jesus (what about Jesus Hernandez of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania? Can he be resurrected?), then I'll believe in the resurrection. The odds of your doing so are so long that I can be confident you'll never succeed. But if you do, we'll talk again. |
|
|
| (241661) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 17:41:42 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Aug 27 17:35:47 2007. Indeed. |
|
|
| (241662) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Aug 27 17:48:44 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 17:41:02 2007. Maybe someone needs to die and get a resurerection for kyles dad... |
|
|
| (241663) | |
Re: new school prayer |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 17:48:53 2007, in response to Re: new school prayer, posted by monorail on Mon Aug 27 16:31:38 2007. You're eating enough for everyone. |
|
|
| (241664) | |
Re: new school prayer |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Mon Aug 27 17:54:07 2007, in response to Re: new school prayer, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 17:48:53 2007. so then you should have no problem to continue to blow false statements and whatever OUT YOUR ASS..... |
|
|
| (241666) | |
Re: TESCOs vs Walmart |
|
|
Posted by LA Blue Line on Mon Aug 27 18:04:25 2007, in response to Re: TESCOs vs Walmart, posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 16:35:22 2007. Tesco is making a MAJOR push in California and the western US. Their 1st grocery stores are opening later this year or early next year. They are marketing themselves as environmentally conscious and are making a big deal about opening stores in Compton and South Central LA. They plan on revolutionizing the way that Americans shop for groceries and are investing billions of dollars. |
|
|
| (241668) | |
Re: new school prayer |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 18:40:42 2007, in response to Re: new school prayer, posted by monorail on Mon Aug 27 17:54:07 2007. Why should I? You continue doing it. Better that way. |
|
|
| (241670) | |
Re: TESCOs vs Walmart |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 18:42:35 2007, in response to Re: TESCOs vs Walmart, posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 16:35:22 2007. True!TESCO also knows a lot more about each store's customers and their buying preferences than Wal-Mart does - and stocks each store accordingly. |
|
|
| (241686) | |
Re: TESCOs vs Walmart |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 27 19:41:59 2007, in response to Re: TESCOs vs Walmart, posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 16:35:22 2007. Now why do I use Waitrose and Morrison's when I go to hypermarkets... |
|
|
| (241689) | |
Re: nonsense about Religion in England |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 27 19:50:32 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about Religion in England, posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 13:56:26 2007. I am disestablishmentarianist, because the state corrupts the church, and that the majority of people aren't part of the church, the church shouldn't be officially part of the state. I won't go whole hog and kick bishops out of the Lords, though, preferring to have a range of officially recognised religions' leaders sitting in there. I'm sure most British people would agree, even if it was just to get brilliant comments like "the Archbishop of Canterbury is unprincipled as he and two bishops voted against a new law allowing super casinos, which he has been outspoken against" in the press. It's always funny to see journalists not having a clue what they are saying! Then again, the Lords will become mostly elected with the new constitution (making only Israel and Iceland the only states not to have one written down) - there won't be much room for religious leaders (including Dawkins, though he'd hate to be counted as a religious leader) with all the David Beckhams and so on filling up the upper house.Well, if we have to have religious leaders, Dawkins would be great at it, however much he'd hate it. I'd also like to see Richard Chartres (the Bish of London), David Hope (the ex-Archbish of York), and Maurice Couve de Murville (the ex-Archbish (RC) of Brum) in there. I'm no fan of elected/appointed peers. I wish we could simply go back to hereditary principle. Failing that, I'd like to see them indirectly elected to protect our cities. |
|
|
| (241691) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 27 20:02:10 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 27 14:30:32 2007. McCarthy was a real merchant of misery. Can't take on the communists directly, so turn on your own people. His witchhunts were just like communism, although the USA was civilized to the point where 66 million people don't get to die in gulags or be executed . . .I'm sorry, but I don't think Communism is a useful term of discussion: Stalin and McCarthy were both wankers, but their success/failure said more about America vs Russia than about isms. |
|
|
| (241696) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 27 20:07:50 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by David Fairthorne on Mon Aug 27 15:59:35 2007. But Pascal's wager assumes that there is either one God or no God. If there are many gods, and especially if there are many competing gods (as there certainly were in the early history of religion), Pascal's wager would not apply. In the holy books there are many cases where people came to grief (sometimes a fate worse than death) by worshipping the wrong god(s).Please, please, please don't remind me of Xenophon of Ephesus... |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||