Do You Know the Real Islam?

[salarcon]

It's incredibly sad how few people really know the true Islam today.

Islam teaches many things and that includes justice, love, preserving family blood ties, brotherhood, kindness to one's parents, and the list goes on.

Many people in the West confuse the real teachings of Islam with the stupid behavior of extremists who have the audacity to call themselves muslims. Real muslims do not kill innocent people. But these terrorists use any excuse to justify their foolish actions.

Then there are those who use the following terms: "radical islam" or "islamic radicalism," or "islamic terrorists" which in reality have nothing to do with Islam. Why? Islam does not support any kind of radical, terrorist, or extremist behavior.

Another point that many people in the West confuse: Sunna with Shia sect. The "muslims" from Iran practice a version of Islam which isn't truly Islam. There was a split of who should have been the first muslim leader after Muhammad's death. Some believed that Muhammad(PBUH) wanted Ali Ibn Abi Talib to become the first Caliph. Ali's supporters became the shia sect. And the Sunni is the majority of muslims today. The Sunni is the practices of Prophet Muhammad(Peace Be Upon Him) which are the examples that he set forth in order to give future Muslims a clear guidance in how to behave in everyday life. This is the true Islam.

People are confusing politics with religion, and that is why most people today cannot get a truer picture of the real Islam.

[donKey jote]

cue Roamy :D

[race aficionado]

Hello salarcon.
This is a good, educational topic and hopefully it will be treated as such.

Stereotyping is not a good thing.

[Roamy]

oh boy a real muslim we can talk to.
so lets begin

1. do you follow the koran?? is that your book i.e. bible?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

..ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves. For thou shalt worship no other God. Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrafice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods (Exodus 34:13-17)

[schmenke]

Oh dear... :erm:

[Zico]

Hi Salarcon, welcome to the forum. I don't profess to know a lot about the religion of Islam. I was brought up as a Christian, and while I do see some positive values in living life obeying the twelve comandments in the bible (and some of the islamic values that you have stated above) I became very dissillusioned with it in my early teenage years after it became apparant that it certainly was not all it had once seemed to be. So you could say that I don't really care much for religion.
I must warn you, you may shortly encounter some self profesed christians who will probably (hypocritically) slate some of the verses in your holy book and may even call your prophet a few unpleasant names but pay no attention to them, they should 'learn to love their neighbours', realise that there are quite a few passages in their book that also makes for some equally unpleasant reading and I hope they will have a pleasant friendly chat with you.

I have a few questions for you..

What kind of impact has the scientific world had on Islam, ie, evolution etc?

What are your personal views on Christianity/Jesus and the holy bible and what is it that makes Islam the correct religion to follow?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

*wispers*

it's all made up ;)

[Sonic]

I have a few questions for you..

What kind of impact has the scientific world had on Islam, ie, evolution etc?

Now that's an excellent question. An old school friend is Pastor at a very 'Happy Clappy' (his words, not mine) Christian church, and they have a stick their fingers in the ears attitude to such matters.

I'll be interested to hear our newcomers answer to that particular question.

[Koz]

It's incredibly sad how few people really know the true Islam today.

Ok.


Islam teaches many things and that includes justice, love, preserving family blood ties, brotherhood, kindness to one's parents, and the list goes on.
Justice that gets your hands chopped off?
Love? The kind that gets you stoned to death?
Blood ties? You mean honour killings?
The list goes on and on. :)


Many people in the West confuse the real teachings of Islam with the stupid behavior of extremists who have the audacity to call themselves muslims. Real muslims do not kill innocent people. But these terrorists use any excuse to justify their foolish actions.

Of course not, no body kills innocent people, except serial killers. You fellows just kill folks you deem guilty... of being infidels...


Then there are those who use the following terms: "radical islam" or "islamic radicalism," or "islamic terrorists" which in reality have nothing to do with Islam. Why? Islam does not support any kind of radical, terrorist, or extremist behavior.
Does Islam not prescribe Jihad?

Ya'll just wanna kill us, cover up our women, get rid of delicious bacon and take our beer and whisky away!

[heliocastroneves#3]

Why the **** should I care about the islam and it's people? It's just hypocrite and troublesome folk here in The Netherlands. Especially the children, they're having a big mouth and they're always seeking trouble. Also don't forget when you're gay in Iran you'll get the death penalty by hanging. It's a stupid religion, and it's causing more trouble then that it's doing good things for this world. I don't have a religion, but I prefer Christian or Catholic instead of being a ****ing beast.

Sorry if people don't like my comment, but it's how I see the most muslims are doing nowadays in The Netherlands. Luckily I live in a good town where you can't find those young trouble seekers, but in the big cities you can see those stupid trouble seekers in every street. It's not that I hate every muslim, on the contrary, I'm having friends which are muslim, but I really dislike the religions' rules and the lots of ****ty youth in the cities here.

[donKey jote]

Oh dear, that didn't take long :rolleyes:

Koz: "you fellows" = all 1.5 billion of them, or just the extremists you see on the news ?
schu: all 1,5 billion muslim = trouble seekers or ****ing beasts, or just those in your neighbourhood, who happen to be muslims?

Peace and tolerance dammit!

[race aficionado]

What the Donks said. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EuroTroll]

Religion -- **** it!

:)

I am tolerant. ;)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Oh dear, that didn't take long :rolleyes:

Koz: "you fellows" = all 1.5 billion of them, or just the extremists you see on the news ?
schu: all 1,5 billion muslim = trouble seekers or ****ing beasts, or just those in your neighbourhood, who happen to be muslims?

Peace and tolerance dammit!

Peace yes.

Tolerance?

Do we have to tolerate religion?

If a religious leader has the blood of millions of HIV victims on his hands because he tells them not to use condoms, should we tolerate it?
If a religion executes homosexuals by stoning, should we tolerate it?
If a religion forces women to hide their faces, should we tolerate it?
If a religion tells people not to think for themselves because it has all the answers, should we tolerate it?

[donKey jote]

you're not tarring all religious people with a single brush now are you?

I doubt you'll find anybody as staunchly atheist as myself, but that doesn't mean I need to be an ass about it ;)

Beneath the religion there are people, and they can be good and bad.

Tolerance for good people, yes. Tolerance also for all those who want to live their lies (no typo ;) ) in peace. It will also make you a better person.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

you're not tarring all religious people with a single brush now are you?

I doubt you'll find anybody as staunchly atheist as myself, but that doesn't mean I need to be an ass about it ;)

Beneath the religion there are people, and they can be good and bad.

Tolerance for people, yes. Tolerance for all those who want to live their lies in peace. It will also make you a better person.


Do you not think that the moderate majority of a religion acts as a 'smokescreen' for the extremists?

Where do we draw the line with tolerance?

Why should we tolerate a ritual animal sacrafice that causes the animal to suffer?
Why should a company tolerate religious dress that violates company dress code?
Why should we tolerate a Bed and Breakfast that refuses to allow homosexual couples to stay?

[donKey jote]

No, I don't.
Extremists often use religion as an excuse. Slight difference.
Banning religions won't get rid of extremists, they'll simply find other excuses.

[donKey jote]

Where do we draw the line with tolerance?

Why should we tolerate a ritual animal sacrafice that causes the animal to suffer?
Why should a company tolerate religious dress that violates company dress code?
Why should we tolerate a Bed and Breakfast that refuses to allow homosexual couples to stay?

part 2 ;) :p

who's "we" ?
never said "you" should.

do these things you mention seriously affect you, or are you simply using them as a smokescreen for your anti-religion tirade ?
There is no single line to draw on tolerance, and everyone has their own lines.

As for your examples, in my view:
-depends on the ritual... if you mean fox hunting I'd tend to say "we" shouldn't. But if you mean halal I don't see why not, unless you're also a staunch vegan.
-depends on whether the company uses dress code to target unwanted individuals, or if the individuals are using their religious dress code to target the company
-depends on their reason to refuse, or on the couple's reason to stay.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

No, I don't.
Extremists often use religion as an excuse. Slight difference.
Banning religions won't get rid of extremists, they'll simply find other excuses.

Would the Pope have found another excuse to tell Africans not to use condoms if he didn't have religion?

[donKey jote]

Don't get me started on the pope or the catholic church... :p
Still, it's not just the pope's fault people are dying of aids through not using condoms. It's also yours, for not going down there and explaining how wrong he is.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Don't get me started on the pope or the catholic church... :p
Still, it's not just the pope's fault people are dying of aids through not using condoms. It's also yours, for not going down there and explaining how wrong he is.

Nobody asked me to be the pope though :(

[donKey jote]

In my tolerant eyes, the pope counts as an extremist. But this thread is about Islam ;)

[donKey jote]

Anyway, I doubt salarcon will stick around too long. Seems to me more like an elaborate spam attempt. Oops, are muslims allowed spam? :p

[race aficionado]

It will be a bummer if he doesn't come back. He did open a door that had the possibility of an interesting give and go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[donKey jote]

race, he was a spammer... check his 3 posts and don't click on any of the links in his profile ;)

roamy will have to wait a little longer for his real muslim to talk to :p

[Zico]

race, he was a spammer... check his 3 posts and don't click on any of the links in his profile ;)

roamy will have to wait a little longer for his real muslim to talk to :p

I suspect you're right, thats a pity, it had some potential to have been an interesting discussion.... and an even greater potential to descend into a public slanging match. :hmph:

[donKey jote]

ooooh messi...
almost

oops, wrong thread :(

[Malbec]

Would the Pope have found another excuse to tell Africans not to use condoms if he didn't have religion?

The thing is though, the Pope doesn't JUST say don't use condoms does he?

You've got to take the whole package which is, no pre-marital sex, marry one partner and stay faithful to them for life. In this context, no condoms for contraception.

If you follow the whole package then its pretty difficult to get HIV.

Its a shame that both critics of the church and supposed 'catholics' discard the bits inconvenient to them and keep only the bits they're happy with.

[Roamy]

Oh dear, that didn't take long :rolleyes:

Koz: "you fellows" = all 1.5 billion of them, or just the extremists you see on the news ?
schu: all 1,5 billion muslim = trouble seekers or ****ing beasts, or just those in your neighbourhood, who happen to be muslims?

Peace and tolerance dammit!

There are some great looking Muslim women

Ditch the Burkas Dammit!!!

[Koz]

Oh dear, that didn't take long :rolleyes:

Koz: "you fellows" = all 1.5 billion of them, or just the extremists you see on the news ?


Most of what I said comes from the Qur'an and is Islamic law.
If they don't believe nor follow the teachings of the Qur'an they aren't really "real Muslims" are they?

[Malbec]

Most of what I said comes from the Qur'an and is Islamic law.

Most? Some.

Honour killings are not part of Islam, you'll find Hindu's, Sikh's and Christians practice it too in some parts of the world.

Honour killings used to be done in Britain too up to Victorian times by people who would consider themselves good Christians. That was up until women who got pregnant outside marriage were declared insane and locked up in asylums which was extremely common up to the '60s.

The term Jihad is similar in usage to crusade. It is not uncommon for the both crusades and jihads to be declared in a non-military scenario like against povery, ignorance or inequality. The term Jihad also refers to any attempt at self-improvement too. Most Muslims view Jihad as being about personal improvement.

A little thinking would reveal that if all Muslims thought Jihad meant killing any non-Muslim and that was their duty, with 1.5 billion Muslims around the world there'd be a hell of a lot of killing going on. Think about why that isn't the case.

As for capital/corporal punishment, many Muslims do take them literally but have you ever read the Torah or Bible and what punishments are in there?

[Koz]

Most? Some.

Honour killings are not part of Islam, you'll find Hindu's, Sikh's and Christians practice it too in some parts of the world.
Not a part of Islam?
You're kidding right?

You are correct that honour killings exists in other religions too, but it is most prevalent in Islam.


The term Jihad is similar in usage to crusade. It is not uncommon for the both crusades and jihads to be declared in a non-military scenario like against povery, ignorance or inequality. The term Jihad also refers to any attempt at self-improvement too. Most Muslims view Jihad as being about personal improvement.
Sure.
Are you saying that the notion of Jihad does not involve war on infidel?
I am not talking about "most" muslims, I would say most are, like in all religions, hypocrites. The fellow was talking about "real Islam" which I assume to mean the teachings of the Qur'an.



As for capital/corporal punishment, many Muslims do take them literally but have you ever read the Torah or Bible and what punishments are in there?

Are you seriously comparing ancient teachings to what is happening in this modern world today?
That, sir, is absurd.

[Malbec]

Not a part of Islam?
You're kidding right?

You are correct that honour killings exists in other religions too, but it is most prevalent in Islam.

Honour killings do not exist in any religion. It is not in any holy book. I'm sure you can differentiate between something that is intrinsically part of a religion (like worshipping Jesus for a Christian) and something cultural that people happen to practice in a particular part of the world (like honour killings) regardless of religious affiliation.

It is prevalent in parts of the Middle East stretching all the way east to India. That is why Hindus, Christians and Sikhs do it too. Muslims from outside this area don't do it.


Sure.
Are you saying that the notion of Jihad does not involve war on infidel?
I am not talking about "most" muslims, I would say most are, like in all religions, hypocrites. The fellow was talking about "real Islam" which I assume to mean the teachings of the Qur'an.

Yes, I'm saying that the notion of Jihad does not ONLY involve war on infidels. I guess what I said about the usage of the word 'crusade' is lost on you. Just as the true meaning of the word 'Crusade' refers to a war to rid Muslims from the holy sites of the middle east but is used nowadays for any campaign against a whole variety of targets, jihad has a wide spread of meanings.

One of my colleagues who is quite religious told me that he has decided to launch a jihad against his bulging waistline. You tell me what he meant?

[Koz]

Honour killings do not exist in any religion. It is not in any holy book. I'm sure you can differentiate between something that is intrinsically part of a religion (like worshipping Jesus for a Christian) and something cultural that people happen to practice in a particular part of the world (like honour killings) regardless of religious affiliation.

It is prevalent in parts of the Middle East stretching all the way east to India. That is why Hindus, Christians and Sikhs do it too. Muslims from outside this area don't do it.


him) and said : Allah's Messenger, I have wronged myself ; I have committed adultery and I earnestly desire that you should purify me. He turned him away. On the following day, he (Ma'iz) again came to him and said : Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) turned him away for the second time, and sent him to his people saying: Do you know if there is anything wrong with his mind. They denied of any such thing in him and said: We do not know him but as a wise good man among us, so far as we can judge. He (Ma'iz) came for the third time, and he (the Holy Prophet) sent him as he had done before. He asked about him and they informed him that there was nothing wrong with him or with his mind. When it was the fourth time, a ditch was dug for him and he (the Holy Prophet) pronounced judg- ment about him and he wis stoned. He (the narrator) said : There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said : Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said : Allah's Messenger, Why do you turn me away ? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma'iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child). When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said : Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said : Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (the Holy Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said : Allah's Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) heard his (Khalid's) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried.

Of course. This is in no way a religious text right?

Sahih Muslim - Hadith No: 4206 (http://www.nur.org/en/nurcenter/nurlibrary/Sahih_Muslim_Hadith_No_4206_75298)



Yes, I'm saying that the notion of Jihad does not ONLY involve war on infidels. I guess what I said about the usage of the word 'crusade' is lost on you. Just as the true meaning of the word 'Crusade' refers to a war to rid Muslims from the holy sites of the middle east but is used nowadays for any campaign against a whole variety of targets, jihad has a wide spread of meanings.

Yeah, do you remember all those people cheering at 9/11 and at other terrorist attacks?



One of my colleagues who is quite religious told me that he has decided to launch a jihad against his bulging waistline. You tell me what he meant?


I don't know him, but who knows what it could imply... Maybe him waging war against himself at the gym... Or maybe him planning to wage war and blow up the McDonalds that provided him with fatty food?

[Malbec]

Of course. This is in no way a religious text right?

Sahih Muslim - Hadith No: 4206 (http://www.nur.org/en/nurcenter/nurlibrary/Sahih_Muslim_Hadith_No_4206_75298)

That isn't honour killing. No wonder you have problems understanding my point.

That verse talks specifically about the punishment for adultery. I don't agree with it but its specifically for adultery. One of the Ten commandments also bans adultery.

Honour killing is the killing of someone in the family because they stain the family honour. It doesn't have to be about adultery. Many people are killed simply because they don't obey the family about something. There is no religious text in the world that says you may punish a member of your family by death if they stain the family honour.


Yeah, do you remember all those people cheering at 9/11 and at other terrorist attacks?

All or some? I saw some Palestinians and extremists elsewhere cheering. Do they represent all Muslims? I saw many others simply shocked.

There are articles about how Americans and Brits commented on facebook that the Tsunami that hit Japan was a great thing that was payback for ww2. Do they represent all Americans and Brits?

Maybe if you start thinking a bit deeper you'd start to differentiate between extremists (and they are in every part of society) and the mainstream. I doubt it though from your posts so far.


I don't know him, but who knows what it could imply... Maybe him waging war against himself at the gym... Or maybe him planning to wage war and blow up the McDonalds that provided him with fatty food?

No it implies your understanding of the word is wrong.

[odykas]

Thank God I'm an Atheist.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The thing is though, the Pope doesn't JUST say don't use condoms does he?

You've got to take the whole package which is, no pre-marital sex, marry one partner and stay faithful to them for life. In this context, no condoms for contraception.

If you follow the whole package then its pretty difficult to get HIV.

Its a shame that both critics of the church and supposed 'catholics' discard the bits inconvenient to them and keep only the bits they're happy with.

q_0kFU7IfPM

[Brown, Jon Brow]

_nla1bo6ACU

[Eki]

Don't get me started on the pope or the catholic church... :
Is the pope catholic?

[Malbec]

q_0kFU7IfPM

Errr that does nothing to refute what I said.

Show me the text where the Pope says carry on screwing a different girl every night and take IV drugs but by no means must you EVER use condoms. I'll save you a little time, there is no such text. If Catholics lived their whole lives by the rules given to them by the Pope then HIV wouldn't be such a problem. The no condom rule doesn't exist in pure isolation does it.

Taking something someone says in isolation and refusing to see it in context is what extremists do and that applies both to atheists and religious types.

[Roamy]

_nla1bo6ACU

good video. The thing that pisses me off now is that I am behind on my knowledge of explosives. I was hoping at my age not to have another learning curve. So crap I will probably have to attend PETN classes. Meanwhile perhaps the answer is to ban religion.

[donKey jote]

U0kJHQpvgB8

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Errr that does nothing to refute what I said.

Show me the text where the Pope says carry on screwing a different girl every night and take IV drugs but by no means must you EVER use condoms. I'll save you a little time, there is no such text. If Catholics lived their whole lives by the rules given to them by the Pope then HIV wouldn't be such a problem. The no condom rule doesn't exist in pure isolation does it.

Taking something someone says in isolation and refusing to see it in context is what extremists do and that applies both to atheists and religious types.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Pope's condom stance sparks row (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7950671.stm)

Pope - HIV/Aids was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem".

Of course abstinence and loyalty can prevent the spread of HIV, but so can condoms!

[Malbec]

Of course abstinence and loyalty can prevent the spread of HIV, but so can condoms!

Its taken three posts for you to finally acknowledge that the Pope does preach abstinence and loyalty which if followed properly would prevent the spread of HIV. I'm sure you can also acknowledge that if you follow those rules then the use of condoms is then not necessary to protect you from HIV.

The blame in this case is with the 'followers' who ignore most of what the Pope says about sex but pick on the ban on condoms. And that is assuming that the Africans people are so concerned about are interested to hear what the Pope says on the subject anyway.

Frankly if prominent government officials in a democratic African state can openly proclaim that lemon juice is more effective than condoms or AZT in preventing HIV then the problem lies far deeper than what the Pope has to say.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Its taken three posts for you to finally acknowledge that the Pope does preach abstinence and loyalty which if followed properly would prevent the spread of HIV. I'm sure you can also acknowledge that if you follow those rules then the use of condoms is then not necessary to protect you from HIV.

The blame in this case is with the 'followers' who ignore most of what the Pope says about sex but pick on the ban on condoms. And that is assuming that the Africans people are so concerned about are interested to hear what the Pope says on the subject anyway.

Frankly if prominent government officials in a democratic African state can openly proclaim that lemon juice is more effective than condoms or AZT in preventing HIV then the problem lies far deeper than what the Pope has to say.


Saying that comdoms can increase the spread of comdoms is a bigger crime and far outweighs the promoting of abstinence and loyalty .

[Zico]

Saying that comdoms can increase the spread of comdoms


What's a comdom? :p

[Brown, Jon Brow]

What's a comdom? :p

:(

[Zico]

Sorry..

[donKey jote]

if you open your mind too much, your brain might fall out :p
DLKl1o-foG8

[Malbec]

Saying that comdoms can increase the spread of comdoms is a bigger crime and far outweighs the promoting of abstinence and loyalty .

The problem is that the epidemiological evidence supports the Pope.

HIV rates are lower in conservative societies even allowing for underreporting of cases. It is rare in the Middle East and South America with the exception of countries where IV drug abuse is rife. HIV rates in the Bible belt are lower than on the coasts of the USA. Abstinence and loyalty are the biggest factors in preventing spread. I don't agree that spreading condoms increases the spread of HIV but I do agree that Catholic values of no pre-marital sex, one partner and no extra-marital sex are probably the single biggest factor reducing HIV spread. This may be a deeply unfashionably view but that is what the data shows.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The problem is that the epidemiological evidence supports the Pope.

HIV rates are lower in conservative societies even allowing for underreporting of cases. It is rare in the Middle East and South America with the exception of countries where IV drug abuse is rife. HIV rates in the Bible belt are lower than on the coasts of the USA. Abstinence and loyalty are the biggest factors in preventing spread. I don't agree that spreading condoms increases the spread of HIV but I do agree that Catholic values of no pre-marital sex, one partner and no extra-marital sex are probably the single biggest factor reducing HIV spread. This may be a deeply unfashionably view but that is what the data shows.

I personally believe that enlightening the population to practice safe sex is a better way to stop the spread of HIV than putting the fear of Gods wrath into them.

Education has seen HIV cases decrease in Western Europe, without the negative side effects that come with religion.

[Roamy]

I finally figured out how the "White and Latin Euros" are combating the incredible muslim immigration.
They are going to send them over here, because our heads are so far up our asses we will never notice them coming in.

California Senator Threatens Boycott After Lowe's Pulls Ads From Muslim-American Reality Show | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/11/california-senator-threatens-boycott-after-lowes-pulls-ads-from-muslim-american/?test=latestnews#ixzz1gIH3LsWB)

[Malbec]

I personally believe that enlightening the population to practice safe sex is a better way to stop the spread of HIV than putting the fear of Gods wrath into them.

Education has seen HIV cases decrease in Western Europe, without the negative side effects that come with religion.

Educating the population can be done alongside having conservative values intrinsic in society.

Disease doesn't care about religion or social morals. They take advantage of anything that permits them to spread. With a disease that is spread predominantly by exchanging bodily fluids its inevitable that limiting sexual contact and IV drug use will be the most effective agents to limit dissemination. I'm afraid that using a disease as a battleground to bash either Catholics or Atheists simply isn't effective.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I personally believe that enlightening the population to practice safe sex is a better way to stop the spread of HIV than putting the fear of Gods wrath into them.

Malbec has data support his point. What about you?

BTW, it's not about HIV only. An early start of sexual life and multiple partners afterwards may cause infertility and lots of other problems with reproductive health.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Just a general point. It's funny to see one Muslim start a thread and evaporate after a single post just too see a bunch of Westerners discuss it in a polite tone and supporting points with arguments. I am not sure a Christian would be allowed to pull the same trick on a predominantly Muslim forum. I also suspect the level of correctness among Muslims discussing Christianity and (Allah forbid!) atheism would be somewhat different from what we see here.

[ArrowsFA1]

I am not sure a Christian would be allowed to pull the same trick on a predominantly Muslim forum.
Perhaps not but that contrast assumes this is a predominantly Christian forum.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Perhaps not but that contrast assumes this is a predominantly Christian forum.

Christian/atheist/agnostic from what I could see. All three views of this world belong to the European culture in the general sense, where even in the darkest times people did recognize the presence of different views and bothered to have a debate with dissenters before killing them.

BTW, just seen it on the news. Saudi Arabia, which is the definitive Muslim country in my book, just had a woman decapitated for sorcery. They had 67 people executed in 2009, 27 in 2010 and 73 this year. I wonder if this has something to do with Islam.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Educating the population can be done alongside having conservative values intrinsic in society.

Disease doesn't care about religion or social morals. They take advantage of anything that permits them to spread. With a disease that is spread predominantly by exchanging bodily fluids its inevitable that limiting sexual contact and IV drug use will be the most effective agents to limit dissemination. I'm afraid that using a disease as a battleground to bash either Catholics or Atheists simply isn't effective.

The fact remains that the Pope didn't just say that abstinence and loyalty prevent sexually transmitted disease, he said that condoms don't and that condoms make the problems worse. His attitude seems to be 'AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse'.


Malbec has data support his point. What about you?

BTW, it's not about HIV only. An early start of sexual life and multiple partners afterwards may cause infertility and lots of other problems with reproductive health.


I haven't seen Malbecs statistics. And even so, the data wouldn't prove anything. Data would show an increase of HIV diagnosis in the UK, but a majority of the new cases would be from people who have come to the UK already with HIV.

I really don't think that religious groups are the right ones to teach us about sex. Take the Catholic church; celibacy of nuns, priests, monks. Is this a natural and healthy attitude towards sex? The Catholic Church is obsessed with sex in the same way that anorexics are obsessed with food.

[Captain VXR]

Christian/atheist/agnostic from what I could see. All three views of this world belong to the European culture in the general sense, where even in the darkest times people did recognize the presence of different views and bothered to have a debate with dissenters before killing them.

BTW, just seen it on the news. Saudi Arabia, which is the definitive Muslim country in my book, just had a woman decapitated for sorcery. They had 67 people executed in 2009, 27 in 2010 and 73 this year. I wonder if this has something to do with Islam.

There's plenty of Christians burning 'witches' in places like Nigeria and Uganda

[Bob Riebe]

There's plenty of Christians burning 'witches' in places like Nigeria and UgandaYour proof, and as you said plenty it had better be numerous and gov. executions, elsewise you are just blowing smoke.

[Malbec]

The fact remains that the Pope didn't just say that abstinence and loyalty prevent sexually transmitted disease, he said that condoms don't and that condoms make the problems worse. His attitude seems to be 'AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse'.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Pope is a Catholic preaching to Catholics.

He is right to assume that practicing Catholics adhere to Catholic principles including abstaining from pre-marital sex etc. In that context can you please tell me what relevance condom use has for a couple who are faithful to each other for life as Catholic teachings prescribe in preventing HIV spread?

You're approaching his attitude towards condoms from a non-Catholic standpoint trying to apply it to lifestyles that are completely at odds with what the Pope preaches. You're right that condoms are essential for preventing all sorts of conditions in people who do sleep around, but then again they won't be Catholics by definition would they.

This whole thing about HIV, condoms and the Pope is incredibly poorly thought through. There are plenty of other awful issues over which to criticise the Catholic Church over but HIV is one subject where the arguments used to damn the Pope reflect poorly on those who criticise him.


I haven't seen Malbecs statistics. And even so, the data wouldn't prove anything. Data would show an increase of HIV diagnosis in the UK, but a majority of the new cases would be from people who have come to the UK already with HIV.

And those migrants are from sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian sub-continent.

HIV is rampant in parts of the world where macho cultures persist in which men believe they can have as many partners as they want when they want, and where using protection is an affront to masculinity. That is why prostitution and rape are rife in sub-Saharan Africa and that is why HIV is so common there.

Blaming the Pope in this is largely an irrelevance. There has to be a fundamental culture shift in Africa and South Asia.

But going back to the UK, the HIV rate among the native British population has historically been and continues to be higher than in more conservative parts of the world. That is not something you can deny.


I really don't think that religious groups are the right ones to teach us about sex. Take the Catholic church; celibacy of nuns, priests, monks. Is this a natural and healthy attitude towards sex? The Catholic Church is obsessed with sex in the same way that anorexics are obsessed with food.

Completely with you on that one.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Pope is a Catholic preaching to Catholics.

He is right to assume that practicing Catholics adhere to Catholic principles including abstaining from pre-marital sex etc. In that context can you please tell me what relevance condom use has for a couple who are faithful to each other for life as Catholic teachings prescribe in preventing HIV spread?

You're approaching his attitude towards condoms from a non-Catholic standpoint trying to apply it to lifestyles that are completely at odds with what the Pope preaches. You're right that condoms are essential for preventing all sorts of conditions in people who do sleep around, but then again they won't be Catholics by definition would they.

This whole thing about HIV, condoms and the Pope is incredibly poorly thought through. There are plenty of other awful issues over which to criticise the Catholic Church over but HIV is one subject where the arguments used to damn the Pope reflect poorly on those who criticise him.

And what about his wicked lie that condoms increase the risk of catching HIV?

If the Catholic Church is right about the issue then why did the Pope change his mind last year?




And those migrants are from sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian sub-continent.

HIV is rampant in parts of the world where macho cultures persist in which men believe they can have as many partners as they want when they want, and where using protection is an affront to masculinity. That is why prostitution and rape are rife in sub-Saharan Africa and that is why HIV is so common there.

Blaming the Pope in this is largely an irrelevance. There has to be a fundamental culture shift in Africa and South Asia.

But going back to the UK, the HIV rate among the native British population has historically been and continues to be higher than in more conservative parts of the world. That is not something you can deny.

But is the reason peoples liberal attitude to sex? Or is it just a statistic that has come about because areas of Western Europe and the US coasts have societies that include more immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa?
Statistics are one-dimensional.

[Malbec]

And what about his wicked lie that condoms increase the risk of catching HIV?

Except he didn't say that. He said that the use of condoms to combat HIV can backfire. I personally disagree with that but there have been medical studies showing that indeed some people receive free condoms but decline to use them, yet participate in more unprotected sex than they did before.


But is the reason peoples liberal attitude to sex? Or is it just a statistic that has come about because areas of Western Europe and the US coasts have societies that include more immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa?
Statistics are one-dimensional.

There are three ways HIV can spread.

Unprotected sex.
IV drug use.
Medical bodily fluid exchange.

Outside India the last of those three is pretty much non-existent. In most Western countries with aggressive needle exchange programmes the second is also much reduced.

In the UK and US you've chosen the biggest cause for HIV spread is indeed unprotected sex. You've talked about immigration from Sub-Saharan Africa where the spread of HIV is almost entirely due to 'liberal' attitudes to sex (I'd call it a misguided misogynistic attitude to sex personally). As for the native British population the greatest rise in HIV is also amongst heterosexuals who practice unprotected sex.

You say statistics are one-dimensional. What do you think then is the main route of HIV transmission in the UK and amongst the Sub-Saharan African population?

[anthonyvop]

It's incredibly sad how few people really know the true Islam today.

Islam teaches many things and that includes justice, love, preserving family blood ties, brotherhood, kindness to one's parents, and the list goes on.

Many people in the West confuse the real teachings of Islam with the stupid behavior of extremists who have the audacity to call themselves muslims. Real muslims do not kill innocent people.

Really?

Then explain this headline.

Saudi Arabia executes woman convicted of 'sorcery'
Saudi authorities have executed a woman convicted of practicing magic and sorcery.

Rape, murder, apostasy, armed robbery and drug trafficking are all punishable by death under Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islamic sharia law.

Saudi Arabia executes woman convicted of 'sorcery' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/8951248/Saudi-Arabia-executes-woman-convicted-of-sorcery.html)

[555-04Q2]

Religion is the scourge of the earth. Why do people of all religions listen to what is in a book written 5 million billion trillion years ago by some guy who lived in a cave and probably wiped his arse with his eating hand?

[BDunnell]

Religion is the scourge of the earth. Why do people of all religions listen to what is in a book written 5 million billion trillion years ago by some guy who lived in a cave and probably wiped his arse with his eating hand?

I may disagree with a lot of what you have to say, but I can't argue with this. We now live in an age of science and reason, which makes continued adherence to such texts all the more incomprehensible. Still, each to their own. And religion has produced many fascinating relics and buildings.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I may disagree with a lot of what you have to say, but I can't argue with this. We now live in an age of science and reason, which makes continued adherence to such texts all the more incomprehensible. Still, each to their own. And religion has produced many fascinating relics and buildings.

Wow! Are you a reincarnation of Voltaire? I just recall that the establishment of the Cult of Reason in the revolutionary France as the final step of radical de-Christianization was followed by the Reign of Terror.

Some personifications of Marianne are really beautiful, though.

[555-04Q2]

I may disagree with a lot of what you have to say, but I can't argue with this. We now live in an age of science and reason, which makes continued adherence to such texts all the more incomprehensible. Still, each to their own. And religion has produced many fascinating relics and buildings.

You're not so bad after all ;) :p :

[Bob Riebe]

Religion is the scourge of the earth. Why do people of all religions listen to what is in a book written 5 million billion trillion years ago by some guy who lived in a cave and probably wiped his arse with his eating hand?Hmm, if religious faith (I am not going to debate here which one is correct. ) is fairy tale, why would man have to created it?
If there is no higher power, why would man create somthing for which he had no base (no knolwedge period of any such idea) or reason to create?

[donKey jote]

Hmm, if religious faith (I am not going to debate here which one is correct. ) is fairy tale, why would man have to created it?
If there is no higher power, why would man create somthing for which he had no base (no knolwedge period of any such idea) or reason to create?

Our brain is hardwired to try and make sense out of what we perceive... it was simply evolutionary favourable to believe in the supernatural.
Now we should really know better...
Since there is no higher power, why does man still create something for which he has no base (no knowledge period of any such idea) or reason to create? :crazy: :p

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Hmm, if religious faith (I am not going to debate here which one is correct. ) is fairy tale, why would man have to created it?
If there is no higher power, why would man create somthing for which he had no base (no knolwedge period of any such idea) or reason to create?

Why do children make up imaginary friends?

Has Donkey has said, religion probably had some sort of evolutionary benefit. For example, tribes that were prepared to die for a 'god' and belief of afterlife might have made more loyal and aggressive fighters than opponent tribes that didn't have such beliefs.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Except he didn't say that. He said that the use of condoms to combat HIV can backfire. I personally disagree with that but there have been medical studies showing that indeed some people receive free condoms but decline to use them, yet participate in more unprotected sex than they did before.



There are three ways HIV can spread.

Unprotected sex.
IV drug use.
Medical bodily fluid exchange.

Outside India the last of those three is pretty much non-existent. In most Western countries with aggressive needle exchange programmes the second is also much reduced.

In the UK and US you've chosen the biggest cause for HIV spread is indeed unprotected sex. You've talked about immigration from Sub-Saharan Africa where the spread of HIV is almost entirely due to 'liberal' attitudes to sex (I'd call it a misguided misogynistic attitude to sex personally). As for the native British population the greatest rise in HIV is also amongst heterosexuals who practice unprotected sex.

You say statistics are one-dimensional. What do you think then is the main route of HIV transmission in the UK and amongst the Sub-Saharan African population?


I appreciate your point that you are making about the Roman Catholic moral guidance would in theory mean condoms aren't needed to fight HIV. But to be truly moral couldn't the church perhaps say:

1) be faithful to your partner
2) if you're likely to infect, don't have sex within marriage (or don't marry at all).
3) If you know you are likely to infect a potential spouse, tell them before you marry or the marriage is not a marriage.
4) If you do feel you need to use a condom, it's between you, your conscience and God.

Whether or not one is Catholic, people still hear the Pope's message across the world. Even in African countries where Catholics don't make up most of the population, the Catholic Church still plays a big role in medical services. The church's stance on condoms could potentially reduce supply of them.

Do you really think for one second that it would be any easier to get the whole of male population on the side of monogamy than it would be to get a significant proportion to use condoms?

[Bob Riebe]

Our brain is hardwired to try and make sense out of what we perceive... it was simply evolutionary favourable to believe in the supernatural.
Now we should really know better...
Since there is no higher power, why does man still create something for which he has no base (no knowledge period of any such idea) or reason to create? :crazy: :p


That would be because God put it there; whereas if there is no God, the need for such a thing is zero.
We supposedly evolved from animals but I have never seen an animal play with imaginary friends as another poster uses for a lame analogy.
If they did, there would have to be a pre-existing event or thing to recreate with imagination.

There is nothing in the theory of evolution to explain or justify man supposedly creating god because he did not remember where he came from, which would be from nothing and from nothing comes nothing so for some to make, a make believe story, whilst coming from a non-existant history of make believe storys makes the explanation why man would have to make up god the most bizarre fairy tale I ever heard.
If man evolved he can be hard wired for nothing, anything that is hard-wired is due to a pre-existing condition, or to cause a later condition from a pre-existing standard.
Evolution is strictly a game of chance, so that could not apply.

You are using the same make believe thought process that those who condemn people of religious faith, condemn people of faith, of having.
Their is no logic to defend it, so let's make one up.

[Bob Riebe]

Personally I beleive our existence to be the result of a complex biological reaction and a process that started many millions of years ago. I don't for one second beleive a person or a higher force is responsible for the creation of millions of species on this planet. If God created us and its reasonable to suggest there are other planets out there with life on them, then I think it would have been decent to tell us. Religion is great for an individual who needs stability and guidance, but its not for everyone and not everyone needs it in their life. I live for myself, my family and my friends and am not concerned in the slightest about what happens to me when I die. I can't see the point in living your life in fear of something that nobody has proved even exists. People turn that around and say well nobody has proved god doesn't exist but I've seen more proof to support my view personally. Each to their own and all that lol.Where did this complex biological material come from, and what supplied the energy?
From nothing comes nothing, so where did it come from.

Of course there is Dawkins who believes life came from crystals but I think such an obtuse statement says maybe he put to much faith in the CRYSTAL METHod.

[555-04Q2]

Hmm, if religious faith (I am not going to debate here which one is correct. ) is fairy tale, why would man have to created it?
If there is no higher power, why would man create somthing for which he had no base (no knolwedge period of any such idea) or reason to create?

Because religion was used to control and manipulate the people. In the case of religions such as Islam, it still does :(

[555-04Q2]

From nothing comes nothing, so where did it come from.

Nail...head...exactly. So where did a god come from then? Something had to create them, just like something had to happen for us to be around here!

As Arrows pointed out, I will not live my life in fear just because some book says I must. I'm enjoying my life, I am a loving father and husband and I do my fair share of goodwill work for my fellow man. If that makes me a "sinner" who's gonna fry for all eternity, so be it!

[Rudy Tamasz]

Because religion was used to control and manipulate the people. In the case of religions such as Islam, it still does :(

It's how you use it. You're being manipulated on a daily basis by commercial ads. Chances are, you give in, at least from time to time. Does it negate the idea of advertising?

[555-04Q2]

It's how you use it. You're being manipulated on a daily basis by commercial ads. Chances are, you give in, at least from time to time. Does it negate the idea of advertising?

I don't see a Coke ad and then run out and buy one. I make informed decisons on what I need not what adverts say I need when I actually don't! Advertising is for the week minded with an overdrawn credit card :p

[raybak]

I'm going to stick to my own religion, although the authorities won't recognise it as a religion. I'm a practicing member of the rally religion. Services are held regularly in forests all over the world, on gravel roads and on tarmac. To join the religion you must be prepared to spend many nights in the shed working in crappy lighting to get your car ready for the next event.

We worship the god's of rallying some still with us some gone to the great service park in the sky. Hallowed ground be near a 1000 lakes in a country far to the North, in Africa we worship in the land of the Safari, in the New World we spend time in the 100 acre wood. We idolise the the famous stages in the world such as Whaanga Coast in NZ, we will travel afar to meet with many of our kind. We are Rally!!!!

Ray

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Evolution is strictly a game of chance, so that could not apply.

.

I am so glad you said that Bob. You have fallen on your own sword.

Evolution happens through natural selection. Natural selection occurs when species are adapted better to their natural environment. If the species is less adapted its chance of surviving is much lower. As a result natural selection is the opposite of chance.

[555-04Q2]

I am so glad you said that Bob. You have fallen on your own sword.

Evolution happens through natural selection. Natural selection occurs when species are adapted better to their natural environment. If the species is less adapted its chance of surviving is much lower. As a result natural selection is the opposite of chance.

This coming from a guy who can't spell his own name right ;) :p : :D

[Bob Riebe]

I am so glad you said that Bob. You have fallen on your own sword.

Evolution happens through natural selection. Natural selection occurs when species are adapted better to their natural environment. If the species is less adapted its chance of surviving is much lower. As a result natural selection is the opposite of chance.Science has proven nothing occurs in nature by chance, so that theory is self-destructing.
Nothing can occur by natural selection unless an organism is pre-wired to do x,y or z under circustances x, y, or z.
In evolution that cannot happen as all is a crap-shoot with no pre-defined standards.

So evolution cannot exist.

As I said, nothing comes from nothing, making the scientific statements about life being an accident is absolutely asinine.

[Bob Riebe]

Because religion was used to control and manipulate the people. In the case of religions such as Islam, it still does :( Man cannot create something that it has not idea exists or will work.
All ideas are based on something and if there is no god that idea cannot exist.
Nothing comes from nothing.

Just so you understand, if there was no god, the idea of a god could not be created as no such idea existed nor could anyone have thought of anything for which they had zero input to use to create it-- religion could not and would not exist, nor would anyone have any idea of how to make one.

[donKey jote]

Where did this complex biological material come from, and what supplied the energy?
what's complex about it? It came from the stars and the sun (also a star) supplied the energy.



From nothing comes nothing, so where did it come from.
You obviously haven't heard about virtual particles and their very measurable effects... that would be one example of something coming from nothing. Pretty basic quantum physics.

[donKey jote]

Science has proven nothing occurs in nature by chance, so that theory is self-destructing.
Oh dear, so God doesn't play dice? :p

[donKey jote]

That would be because God put it there; whereas if there is no God, the need for such a thing is zero.
If god were perfect the need for such a thing would also be zero.


We supposedly evolved from animals but I have never seen an animal play with imaginary friends as another poster uses for a lame analogy.
You have never seen it so you question it, yet you don't question your god?



There is nothing in the theory of evolution to explain or justify man supposedly creating god
On the contrary, there are many theories to explain or justify it. You may not have heard of them, but that doesn't mean they're not there :p



Their is no logic to defend it, so let's make one up. Bingo! The origin of god and religion.

[Bob Riebe]

what's complex about it? It came from the stars and the sun (also a star) supplied the energy. Where did they come from?


You obviously haven't heard about virtual particles and their very measurable effects... that would be one example of something coming from nothing. Pretty basic quantum physics.
Virutal particles are part of a group of theories which are just that theories, or guess work with no facts backing them up.
They are as much faith, scientists have in themselves, as faith the the base for religious persons.

Nothing comes from nothing and for anyone to say it does, makes the person a raving lunatic or a complete ass, at least when thsome same one says that believing in an unseen God that has always been is rediculous.
Two items: a God that has always been or something coming to exist out of absolutely nothing with no guiding intellegence or material to use to exist.
Which is more fanciful?

If you read science journals old theories or accepted standards are contiually failing, being replaced by new unknown discoveries and theories to explain why the new theories replace the old.

[Bob Riebe]

I don't know but it doesn't tell you that in the bible either. I think its the least of our worries when we have people all over the world praying to something they have never seen or can explain. I doubt we'll ever fully know how we were created and frankly a book written millions of years after the earth was created is hardly a reliable source IMO. I live for now and intend to enjoy myself while I'm alive. What happens after is not worth worrying about.
Most religions are based on faith; Christianity totally is.

Too many Christian dogma leaders, are now so full of themselves, they try to play God, as much, or more, than humanists who reject God.

[Bob Riebe]

Then again the bible could do with a re-release. Nobody has challenged the old one for a while.Not beiing well versed in new religions, the last I know of is Mormons, who have/had a special form of writing and believe in a book no one has seen.
That one worked pretty well only because they are trying to hitch a ride on the back of Jesus, until one checks into the details, where the devil lives.

[BDunnell]

Science has proven nothing occurs in nature by chance, so that theory is self-destructing.
Nothing can occur by natural selection unless an organism is pre-wired to do x,y or z under circustances x, y, or z.
In evolution that cannot happen as all is a crap-shoot with no pre-defined standards.

So evolution cannot exist.

As I said, nothing comes from nothing, making the scientific statements about life being an accident is absolutely asinine.

The fact that you associate science with being asinine says much about you.

[BDunnell]

I appreciate your point that you are making about the Roman Catholic moral guidance would in theory mean condoms aren't needed to fight HIV. But to be truly moral couldn't the church perhaps say:

1) be faithful to your partner
2) if you're likely to infect, don't have sex within marriage (or don't marry at all).
3) If you know you are likely to infect a potential spouse, tell them before you marry or the marriage is not a marriage.
4) If you do feel you need to use a condom, it's between you, your conscience and God.

Any pretense the Catholic Church may have towards morality has been well and truly done away with by virtue of what we know of the abuse scandals.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Science has proven nothing occurs in nature by chance.

I agree. Evolution agrees, Darwin agrees. As I said in the post you quoted; natural selection doesn't happen by chance. In the relevant sense of chance - natural selection is the opposite.


Nothing can occur by natural selection unless an organism is pre-wired to do x,y or z under circustances x, y, or z.
In evolution that cannot happen as all is a crap-shoot with no pre-defined standards.

This 'pre wiring' exists. It is called DNA.


So evolution cannot exist.

Apart from er


er


it


er



does exist.




As I said, nothing comes from nothing.

Excellent. So if this is true (quantum mechanics might disagree with you here) then you are proving to us that God can't exist. Thank you.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Man cannot create something that it has not idea exists or will work.
All ideas are based on something and if there is no god that idea cannot exist.
Nothing comes from nothing.

Just so you understand, if there was no god, the idea of a god could not be created as no such idea existed nor could anyone have thought of anything for which they had zero input to use to create it-- religion could not and would not exist, nor would anyone have any idea of how to make one.


Okay. I'm going to use your babyish argument for Gods existence to prove evolution.

If there was no evolution, the idea could not be created as no such idea existed nor could anyone have thought of anything for which they had zero input to use to create it......

[Malbec]

Nothing can occur by natural selection unless an organism is pre-wired to do x,y or z under circustances x, y, or z.
In evolution that cannot happen as all is a crap-shoot with no pre-defined standards.

So evolution cannot exist.

Evolution does exist. We see it in action in the evolution of disease especially to do with drug-resistance.

Evolution occurs through genetic mutations that occur every time a cell replicates. Most are corrected at the time of error, some are fatal, most are of no use whatsoever but a few confer an advantage or disadvantage.

Sorry you don't believe in it but that has no bearing on the fact that it exists and is being observed in action.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Evolution does exist. We see it in action in the evolution of disease especially to do with drug-resistance.

Evolution occurs through genetic mutations that occur every time a cell replicates. Most are corrected at the time of error, some are fatal, most are of no use whatsoever but a few confer an advantage or disadvantage.

Sorry you don't believe in it but that has no bearing on the fact that it exists and is being observed in action.

Evolution is just as much a theory as gravity is a theory. In fact, we understand evolution better than we understand gravity. The difference is that we know gravity is a fact because it is working on us for every second of our lives. Evolution in species takes too long for most of us to observe.

Any argument I have ever heard against evolution just proves that the given person just doesn't understand evolution.

[Malbec]

Evolution is just as much a theory as gravity is a theory. In fact, we understand evolution better than we understand gravity. The difference is that we know gravity is a fact because it is working on us for every second of our lives. Evolution in species takes too long for most of us to observe.

Any argument I have ever heard against evolution just proves that the given person just doesn't understand evolution.

IIRC a theory is a theory until the principle has been widely accepted. The terms 'theory of evolution' or 'theory of gravity' are historical and apply largely to the times they were first postulated and the furore they caused at the time.

I do agree though that if there is conflicting evidence then the principle has to be challenged.

[Mark]

There's also a misunderstanding of the word theory, in general usage theory means something that is supposed but without much evidence.

However; the scientific definition is much different, in that a theory is a hypothesis that has been proven - as much as humanly possible - to be true. It's still called a 'theory' as most things in science cannot be proved 100% and so the word theory rather than 'law' is used.

[Mark]

IIRC a theory is a theory until the principle has been widely accepted.

No; theory itself means it has been widely accepted.

[donKey jote]

Virutal particles are part of a group of theories which are just that theories, or guess work with no facts backing them up.
They are as much faith, scientists have in themselves, as faith the the base for religious persons.
Virtual particles are used to explain facts seen every day in experiments at the LHC, for example.
Show me one fact that backs up your theory of god, other than the fact that "we" haven't a clue why we are here without divine beings putting us here, apparently with the sole purpose to believe in them, and then you can compare science and faith.



Nothing comes from nothing and for anyone to say it does, makes the person a raving lunatic or a complete ass, at least when thsome same one says that believing in an unseen God that has always been is rediculous.
Two items: a God that has always been or something coming to exist out of absolutely nothing with no guiding intellegence or material to use to exist.
Which is more fanciful?
Before we wander too far into metaphysics (when you say "always", do you also mean before time "began" ? ;) . Regarding "nothing": is "0" nothing or is it a number? Is emptiness empty, or full of nothing? Is nothingness something and if it is, then what exactly is it? ;) )...
let us simply imagine that "something" has "always" "existed".
Two items:
Something evolves spontanously out of it to eventually become the everything we perceive now, or a personal god with a "mind" of it's own "intentionally" creates everything as we see it now.
Which is more fanciful?
Clearly, a god. Specially one who supposedly created everything in seven days, 6000 years ago, and does miracles and guides you though his son or holy ghost or whatever other religious theory you might hold... talk about raving loonies :laugh:



If you read science journals old theories or accepted standards are contiually failing, being replaced by new unknown discoveries and theories to explain why the new theories replace the old.
Continually failing is your interpretation... continually improved upon is more like it. There are no everlasting bibles in science. Theories aren't written in stone, they evolve naturally. ;) :p

[Bob Riebe]

There's also a misunderstanding of the word theory, in general usage theory means something that is supposed but without much evidence.

However; the scientific definition is much different, in that a theory is a hypothesis that has been proven - as much as humanly possible - to be true. It's still called a 'theory' as most things in science cannot be proved 100% and so the word theory rather than 'law' is used.That bs lie excuse has been floated before on many forums, i.e. "We do not like what the word says, there is no other word to replace it because we do not have proof; therefore let's change the meaning of the word."
If the scientific community uses that lie, they is proves they are no better than street hustlers, playing con-games.

Word mean things, when words do not mean what they say, the speaker has resorted to grammar babble, i.e. he knows he cannot tell the truth because the truth may prove him wrong.

So let's go to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) the one used by scholars with preference over others.

THEORY

1--Mental view, contemplation.

2- A conception or menatal view of someting to be done, or of the method of doing it.

3-A scheme of system of ideas or statements held as an explanation.

4- Without article: Systematic conception or statement of the principles of something; abstract knowledge, or the formulation of it: often used as implying more or less unsupported hypothesis.

5-In loose or general sense; A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture.

[Bob Riebe]

Virtual particles are used to explain facts seen every day in experiments at the LHC, for example.
Show me one fact that backs up your theory of god, other than the fact that "we" haven't a clue why we are here without divine beings putting us here, apparently with the sole purpose to believe in them, and then you can compare science and faith.


Before we wander too far into metaphysics (when you say "always", do you also mean before time "began" ? ;) . Regarding "nothing": is "0" nothing or is it a number? Is emptiness empty, or full of nothing? Is nothingness something and if it is, then what exactly is it? ;) )...
let us simply imagine that "something" has "always" "existed".
Two items:
Something evolves spontanously out of it to eventually become the everything we perceive now, or a personal god with a "mind" of it's own "intentionally" creates everything as we see it now.
Which is more fanciful?
Clearly, a god. Specially one who supposedly created everything in seven days, 6000 years ago, and does miracles and guides you though his son or holy ghost or whatever other religious theory you might hold... talk about raving loonies :laugh:


Continually failing is your interpretation..-----. IF a theory is floated as truth, their is only one truth, truth cannot change. If it changes it was never truth, but a lie ----continually improved upon is more like it. There are no everlasting bibles in science. Theories aren't written in stone, they evolve naturally. -----Because they are all guesses based on what one wants non-provable guesses to say, not facts or truths ;) :p
As I said there is nothing-- which has only one meaning, unless one is so cornered in a lie that the one resorts to Clinton's "that depends on what the meaning of is, is" destruction of grammar-- that supports your faith based notion of how all came to be.
As without a guiding force it is strictly a true chaos (of course the scientific community has its own definition for chaos as the true meaning does not fit their fairy tale physics) and out of a random order and steady state order does not form.

For one to have faith in a intelligent being that has knowldege of physics man does not, as it says in the Bible, is far more logical than putting faith on unprovable theories based on all that is- just was- and by accident- life formed etc., etc., etc.
That is a faith based on the logic of people who are either narcissists or raving lunatics.

Many years ago, before the internet existed, a betting firm in Vega ran the odds on creation verses evolution-- creation won.

[Knock-on]

So, you class Religion as 4 then Bob?

[donKey jote]

That is a faith based on the logic of people who are either narcissists or raving lunatics.


Where believing in gods is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise... :dozey:

[Bob Riebe]

So, you class Religion as 4 then Bob?

More like a three or five.


Words mean things, when words do not mean what they say, the speaker has resorted to grammar babble, i.e. he knows he cannot tell the truth because the truth may prove him wrong.
So let's go to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) the one used by scholars with preference over others.

THEORY
1--Mental view, contemplation.

2- A conception or mental view of someting to be done, or of the method of doing it.

3-A scheme of system of ideas or statements held as an explanation.

4- Without article: Systematic conception or statement of the principles of something; abstract knowledge, or the formulation of it: often used as implying more or less unsupported hypothesis.

5-In loose or general sense; A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Many years ago, before the internet existed, a betting firm in Vega ran the odds on creation verses evolution-- creation won.

So you think a single bookmaker is in a better position to educate us about our origins than scientist who have dedicated their careers to testing the evidence? That is ignorance on an unprecedented level, Bob.

So come, Bob. Tell us how you think we got here.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

For one to have faith in a intelligent being that has knowldege of physics man does not, as it says in the Bible, is far more logical than putting faith on unprovable theories based on all that is- just was- and by accident- life formed etc., etc., etc.
That is a faith based on the logic of people who are either narcissists or raving lunatics.
.

If that is what you think then I'm afraid you will have to exclude yourself from this discussion, because you have declared yourself incompetent to proceed with an open mind.

[Bob Riebe]

So you think a single bookmaker is in a better position to educate us about our origins than scientist who have dedicated their careers to testing the evidence? That is ignorance on an unprecedented level, Bob.

So come, Bob. Tell us how you think we got here.



If that is what you think then I'm afraid you will have to exclude yourself from this discussion, because you have declared yourself incompetent to proceed with an open mind.

[Knock-on]

I have been really disappointed with the intolerance and even hatred directed at the Muslim faith on here. Growing up in the 70's, I can only liken it to xenophobic distrust of Blacks and Asians of that era.

As for the age old debate between Christian believers and Atheists, nobody on here is ever going to change their mind and the debate will just rage on regardless. Science gives so many answers to age old mysteries but people with belief in God will ignore inaccuracies and tolerate subjugation of women, capital punishment, genocide, religious wars, incest and religious hatred depicted in the bible. Yet the Bible also preaches tolerance, compassion and a moral structure that, although derived from older beliefs, still offers a code of conduct relevant for modern society.

Science has opened our eyes to to a fascinating understanding of who we are but is still only just scratching the surface. The more we discover, the more we find we need to understand. Looking at particle and neotic sciences, perhaps the more we realise that what we know is nothing and perhaps the more we might come to appreciate that which we don't know and accept at face value some of the teachings from our past. There may not be any truth in a God that created our planet but once we get past the spurious mythology, perhaps there is something more meaningful underneath.

[jens]

For me the main point of a religion is not a 'God' itself, but the way it affects the lifestyle and thinking of human beings in everyday life. Genuinely religious people tend to be genuinely good-hearted, friendly, open, warm and caring for others. So they have put the main philosophical aims of their life in place, which are the basis of achieving real happiness. And this is what I really value in their case. Discussions about the existence of God are unimportant to me in this context.

Of course all these good virtues can be reached without being religious. But religion has traditionally been one way of achieving this, being helpful to people to stay energetic and positive in life despite rough rides.

[Malbec]

I have been really disappointed with the intolerance and even hatred directed at the Muslim faith on here. Growing up in the 70's, I can only liken it to xenophobic distrust of Blacks and Asians of that era.

Its also quite shocking to see how widely accepted intolerance/hatred of Muslims is. It seems to be acceptable to say things about them which would never be tolerated about other faiths.

I suspect if the same comments were directed at Jews or the Jewish faith instead there would be swift condemnation.

[Roamy]

Its also quite shocking to see how widely accepted intolerance/hatred of Muslims is. It seems to be acceptable to say things about them which would never be tolerated about other faiths.

I suspect if the same comments were directed at Jews or the Jewish faith instead there would be swift condemnation.

/well you euros are not too bright about what is going on so I can at least point you in the right direction

Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If that is what you think then I'm afraid you will have to exclude yourself from this discussion, because you have declared yourself incompetent to proceed with an open mind.

So are you going to tell us what you believe or not?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

For me the main point of a religion is not a 'God' itself, but the way it affects the lifestyle and thinking of human beings in everyday life. Genuinely religious people tend to be genuinely good-hearted, friendly, open, warm and caring for others. So they have put the main philosophical aims of their life in place, which are the basis of achieving real happiness. And this is what I really value in their case.
.

Is it always though?

As the late Hitchens put it - organised religion is 'violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children'.

[BDunnell]

I have been really disappointed with the intolerance and even hatred directed at the Muslim faith on here. Growing up in the 70's, I can only liken it to xenophobic distrust of Blacks and Asians of that era.

And what a surprise that so much of it is so badly written. I mean this as a serious point, not as one of my occasional digs at poor standards of English. Quite telling, I think.

[GridGirl]

I have been really disappointed with the intolerance and even hatred directed at the Muslim faith on here. Growing up in the 70's, I can only liken it to xenophobic distrust of Blacks and Asians of that era.




Its also quite shocking to see how widely accepted intolerance/hatred of Muslims is. It seems to be acceptable to say things about them which would never be tolerated about other faiths.

I suspect if the same comments were directed at Jews or the Jewish faith instead there would be swift condemnation.

As some one who has a muslim father and a christian mother and having knowledge of both faiths I quite often have to question whether certain posters on this forum really believe some of the things they say or whether they are saying them for effect to cause confrontation. I generally just tend to skip over posts with the more extreme views on the muslim faith unless I want a really good laugh.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

As some one who has a muslim father and a christian mother and having knowledge of both faiths I quite often have to question whether certain posters on this forum really believe some of the things they say or whether they are saying them for effect to cause confrontation. I generally just tend to skip over posts with the more extreme views on the muslim faith unless I want a really good laugh.

I agree that we have seen posts here aimed at Islam that are nothing than scaremongering and paranoia.

But I am not in favour of the general view that religion deserves respect just because it is religion. Religion needs to be criticised and countered in the same way one would if they disagreed with certain views on politics, music, art etc.

[BDunnell]

But I am not in favour of the general view that religion deserves respect just because it is religion. Religion needs to be criticised and countered in the same way one would if they disagreed with certain views on politics, music, art etc.

I agree.

[Roamy]

While I have not went and looked for the passage - My understanding is the book says "kill the infidels" Based on their definition of infidel that seems i could be one. I am not going to support or accept religion that says to kill me. Its not paranoia or scaremongering. Its a commitment. To back that up I just purchased new s&w 460 mag. There is a Benelli on the horizon with a XDM .40 19 shot home defense pistol. But I will admit my PETN experience is light so I better get trucking on some education. Now if a muslim wants to swear off the religion then what would that person become?? To listen to the ration of bullish!t saying "Oh they don't practice that" it is fairly obvious they recruit and it IS a worldwide problem. So I am supposed to figure out who is non extremist and who is an extremist? Some religions kill there own family members. I am not here to sort all this crap out but if confronted I my eliminate some of it. There are "Whack" christians and I don't cut them any air either. Right now in this country we have very few daily bomb deaths from whackos - I want to keep it that way. The best way to do that is "DON'T CREATE THE ENVIRONMENT.

[jens]

Is it always though?

As the late Hitchens put it - organised religion is 'violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children'.

In this case the religion has not been understood properly, those people are not truly religious, they are egoistic with other "values", pretenders of the name of 'religion'. Like with everything, all depends on interpretation. It's not only about religion, but in every field there are people, who make a bad name for it. But it doesn't mean we should take the whole subject and everyone involved with prejudice.

[Malbec]

While I have not went and looked for the passage - My understanding is the book says "kill the infidels" Based on their definition of infidel that seems i could be one. I am not going to support or accept religion that says to kill me. Its not paranoia or scaremongering. Its a commitment.

The Quran is not written in the same style as the Bible and Torah or other holy books, often written several centuries down the line and functioning as a narrative. The Quran was directly dictated by the prophet Muhammed and therefore context is key. He said different things at different times to suit the occasion which is to be expected.

There is indeed a passage in the Quran that says "kill the infidels whereever you may find them". The context of the speech was that it was made to rouse Muslim troops who were heavily outnumbered as they escaped from one city to go to another. Essentially if they lost then they would have been eradicated.

Once the Muslims gained power they had to deal with treating non-Muslims as minorities within their community and the passages in the Quran reflect that, setting out the rights of non-Muslims in detail including their legal and political rights. Oddly enough these passages don't attract as much interest from the likes of you.

Understanding the context takes time and requires patience as they are often complicated and require reading about the history of the events around the period the Quran was written in. Sadly both extremists and critics of the religion like you take those words at face value.

[Malbec]

Is it always though?

As the late Hitchens put it - organised religion is 'violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children'.

Nonsense.

Organised religion is also about people quietly going to churches, synagogues, mosques and temples on a regular basis, using their religion as a source of strength and as a foundation for a close-knit community, using it to guide their decisions but not pressing it on others. The number of religious people who use their faith for entirely positive reasons vastly outnumbers those who use it for destructive purposes.

It is quite impressive to read about how many scientific advances were made by religious people and lets not pretend that atheist scientists can be easily as dogmatic rejecting scientific advances purely because it threatens their domain too.

I find it quite tiring to keep reading negative comments about religion that are entirely focused on what extremists etc propose rather than on the solid faith and positive behaviour of billions who hold those faiths.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Nonsense.

Organised religion is also about people quietly going to churches, synagogues, mosques and temples on a regular basis, using their religion as a source of strength and as a foundation for a close-knit community, using it to guide their decisions but not pressing it on others. The number of religious people who use their faith for entirely positive reasons vastly outnumbers those who use it for destructive purposes.

I find it quite tiring to keep reading negative comments about religion that are entirely focused on what extremists etc propose rather than on the solid faith and positive behaviour of billions who hold those faiths.

If this was true the world would be a better place as a majority of the religious people I know are kind, decent people. But sadly it is simply is not the case. The minority of extremists are all too influential, not only within their own religion but to the world as a whole. And everyone has to put up with their actions.

I don't believe that people do positive things because of their religion. I think it is the 'humanist' that is in all decent people that encourages us to positive things.



It is quite impressive to read about how many scientific advances were made by religious people and lets not pretend that atheist scientists can be easily as dogmatic rejecting scientific advances purely because it threatens their domain too.

Do you honestly believe that an athiest scientist would reject a new discovery because it threatens what they already think?

There are many cased where religion has promoted rejection of not only science, but philosphy too. For example, some of Aristotles works were 'lost' because Christians burned or suppressed philosophy on the grounds that there could be no useful reflections on morality before the preaching of Jesus.

[Malbec]

If this was true the world would be a better place as a majority of the religious people I know are kind, decent people. But sadly it is simply is not the case. The minority of extremists are all too influential, not only within their own religion but to the world as a whole. And everyone has to put up with their actions.

Are the extremists influential because many people follow their actions or is it simply because they are who the press pick up most? Most people who are comfortable with their faith don't change their beliefs because of what some hothead has to say.




Do you honestly believe that an athiest scientist would reject a new discovery because it threatens what they already think?

No offence meant but I find that an extremely naive sentiment.

Science is not and has probably never been purely about the proving/disproving of abstract concepts. Behind any new scientific development there are budgets, egos and political factors involved. This is even more true where science intersects with industry which is increasingly common.

Try looking into science in Soviet Russia where anything that contradicted the atheist Communist line was banned.

How about the suppression of evidence that linked cigarette smoking to cancer, initially demonstrated by the Nazis then by scientists elsewhere in the 1960's? There are still scientists around that try to minimise or disprove that link. Do you believe that those scientists are all religious or do you think another factor, namely massive funding budgets from tobacco companies might be an influence? How about the climate change debate?


There are many cased where religion has promoted rejection of not only science, but philosphy too. For example, some of Aristotles works were 'lost' because Christians burned or suppressed philosophy on the grounds that there could be no useful reflections on morality before the preaching of Jesus.

Who preserved many of those Greek texts? The Muslims. Aren't they religious too?

[JackSparrow]

If god created adam and eve 6000 years ago how can people of god explain the earliest human remains from 11,000 years ago? Crazy scientists right?
So if god created everything did he also create cancer,hiv,plagues etc?If yes then he's a mass murderer right?

[Bob Riebe]

So are you going to tell us what you believe or not?The thread is not about me, and if you cannot tell what I believe, beyond a devil is in the the details type set-up, you are not very perceptive.

[Bob Riebe]

As the late Hitchens put it - organised religion is 'violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children'.
Typical response of a self-righteous person who is irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children.

[Bob Riebe]

And what a surprise that so much of it is so badly written. I mean this as a serious point, not as one of my occasional digs at poor standards of English. Quite telling, I think.
Yes it tells that you put correct grammar on an internet forum over contributing anything of intelligent construct to either side of the debate.
Quite telliing really.

[Roamy]

The Quran is not written in the same style as the Bible and Torah or other holy books, often written several centuries down the line and functioning as a narrative. The Quran was directly dictated by the prophet Muhammed and therefore context is key. He said different things at different times to suit the occasion which is to be expected.

There is indeed a passage in the Quran that says "kill the infidels whereever you may find them". The context of the speech was that it was made to rouse Muslim troops who were heavily outnumbered as they escaped from one city to go to another. Essentially if they lost then they would have been eradicated.

Once the Muslims gained power they had to deal with treating non-Muslims as minorities within their community and the passages in the Quran reflect that, setting out the rights of non-Muslims in detail including their legal and political rights. Oddly enough these passages don't attract as much interest from the likes of you.

Understanding the context takes time and requires patience as they are often complicated and require reading about the history of the events around the period the Quran was written in. Sadly both extremists and critics of the religion like you take those words at face value.

All I can add is :
Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/)

[donKey jote]

If god created adam and eve 6000 years ago how can people of god explain the earliest human remains from 11,000 years ago? Crazy scientists right?
duh! cos god put them there deliberately to confuse us mere mortals :dozey:

So if god created everything did he also create cancer,hiv,plagues etc?If yes then he's a mass murderer right?
he moves in mysterious ways, mere mortals couldn't understand, it's god's will that their souls go to him sooner and test those left behind...

believing in gods is bliss :)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Are the extremists influential because many people follow their actions or is it simply because they are who the press pick up most? Most people who are comfortable with their faith don't change their beliefs because of what some hothead has to say.


I don't think an extremist has to just be a suicide-bomber or a Fred Phelps burning korans. How do we accept parents telling their children that they must behave because if they don't the invisible man in the sky will send them to hell. That is emotional child abuse.




No offence meant but I find that an extremely naive sentiment.

Science is not and has probably never been purely about the proving/disproving of abstract concepts. Behind any new scientific development there are budgets, egos and political factors involved. This is even more true where science intersects with industry which is increasingly common.

Try looking into science in Soviet Russia where anything that contradicted the atheist Communist line was banned.

How about the suppression of evidence that linked cigarette smoking to cancer, initially demonstrated by the Nazis then by scientists elsewhere in the 1960's? There are still scientists around that try to minimise or disprove that link. Do you believe that those scientists are all religious or do you think another factor, namely massive funding budgets from tobacco companies might be an influence? How about the climate change debate?

They haven't done these things in the name of atheism though, have they?

The communist scientists didn't hold back science because they were atheists, they did it because they were communist. But this leads us onto a subtle point. In North Korea, Kim Jong Il is painted as a God. The similarities between communism and religion are obvious.




Who preserved many of those Greek texts? The Muslims. Aren't they religious too?

That is correct but one positive does not out-weigh hundreds of negatives.

The simple fact is , the amount of times that religion has advocated the burning of texts (or even the writer itself e.g Salman Rushdie) is massive. Texts are never burnt in the name of atheism, or at least, not out of anything but making a point.

[Malbec]

I don't think an extremist has to just be a suicide-bomber or a Fred Phelps burning korans. How do we accept parents telling their children that they must behave because if they don't the invisible man in the sky will send them to hell. That is emotional child abuse.

You really need to learn to think for yourself rather than merely regurgitate anti-religion propaganda because your point is rather boringly one-dimensional.

How can a Buddhist or Hindu threaten their children with hell when they don't believe in a heaven or hell?

Christians, Muslims and Jews are all moving away from a fire and brimstone approach to encourage good behaviour. If a parent is going to threaten their kids with hell then it seems to me obvious that if you take away their belief system they would merely be threatening them with something else like a good beating.


They haven't done these things in the name of atheism though, have they?

No but atheist scientists have been as bad as anyone else in ignoring or trying to devalue theories that threaten them for whatever reason. Don't try to put atheist scientists on a pedestal, just like religious scientists they happen to be HUMAN BEINGS and behave as such.


That is correct but one positive does not out-weigh hundreds of negatives.

The simple fact is , the amount of times that religion has advocated the burning of texts (or even the writer itself e.g Salman Rushdie) is massive.

The renaissance and all of modern Western science as we know it is derived from science preserved and much expanded upon by the Muslims, itself taken from ancient Greece and Rome. This includes engineering, physics, chemistry, mathematics and medicine as well as philosophy.

Elsewhere we see ancient Hindus pioneer basic mathematics including the concept of zero. The Taoist Chinese with their equally important basic advances such as writing, paper, currency, gunpowder, the concept of bureaucracy and government and the like.

According to you all this is worthless because these developments were made under the banner of religion. Wow.


Texts are never burnt in the name of atheism, or at least, not out of anything but making a point.

Nothing can be blamed on atheism itself because it doesn't exist as an organised religion or even as a political movement which is rather convenient isn't it.

However plenty of books have been burnt in the name of atheist ideologies. Nazis and Communists for a start.

Before accusing the religious for being extremists you should take a good close look at yourself.

You have claimed that the multiple belief systems around the world of widely divergent philosophies, together with the political structures that developed around them that have lasted for millenia with literally billions of followers have nothing positive going for them, bathing them with hate instead.

This is a staggeringly undeveloped view, one of a fanatic as only such a person can paint such a simplistic picture of a massively complex entity such as religion which has an effect across just about every field of human endeavour I can think of.

It is blatantly obvious that something as influential as religion has both positive and negative aspects as indeed just about any human activity has, yet you happily claim that any positive aspect is minimal and compensated for by the negative aspects.

You sir are really as close minded as the people you criticise.

[BDunnell]

Nothing can be blamed on atheism itself because it doesn't exist as an organised religion or even as a political movement which is rather convenient isn't it.

Rather convenient? What on earth do you mean by that statement?

[Malbec]

Rather convenient? What on earth do you mean by that statement?

It should be pretty obvious. Time and again we have heard the argument that 'atheists don't do that because that has never been done in the name of atheism'. Of course nothing has ever been done in the name of atheism because it is not an organised religion nor does it have a political movement or organisation. Instead we can only judge atheists on what they do as individuals which makes any undesirable action they perform easily denied as being due to their 'religious' beliefs.

[BDunnell]

It should be pretty obvious. Time and again we have heard the argument that 'atheists don't do that because that has never been done in the name of atheism'. Of course nothing has ever been done in the name of atheism because it is not an organised religion nor does it have a political movement or organisation. Instead we can only judge atheists on what they do as individuals which makes any undesirable action they perform easily denied as being due to their 'religious' beliefs.

It struck me as a jibe at those of us who are atheists, suggesting that in some way our lack of belief is a 'convenient' shroud for something. But the rest of the point you make there is reasonable.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

You really need to learn to think for yourself rather than merely regurgitate anti-religion propaganda because your point is rather boringly one-dimensional.

How can a Buddhist or Hindu threaten their children with hell when they don't believe in a heaven or hell?

Christians, Muslims and Jews are all moving away from a fire and brimstone approach to encourage good behaviour. If a parent is going to threaten their kids with hell then it seems to me obvious that if you take away their belief system they would merely be threatening them with something else like a good beating.



No but atheist scientists have been as bad as anyone else in ignoring or trying to devalue theories that threaten them for whatever reason. Don't try to put atheist scientists on a pedestal, just like religious scientists they happen to be HUMAN BEINGS and behave as such.



The renaissance and all of modern Western science as we know it is derived from science preserved and much expanded upon by the Muslims, itself taken from ancient Greece and Rome. This includes engineering, physics, chemistry, mathematics and medicine as well as philosophy.

Elsewhere we see ancient Hindus pioneer basic mathematics including the concept of zero. The Taoist Chinese with their equally important basic advances such as writing, paper, currency, gunpowder, the concept of bureaucracy and government and the like.

According to you all this is worthless because these developments were made under the banner of religion. Wow.



Nothing can be blamed on atheism itself because it doesn't exist as an organised religion or even as a political movement which is rather convenient isn't it.

However plenty of books have been burnt in the name of atheist ideologies. Nazis and Communists for a start.

Before accusing the religious for being extremists you should take a good close look at yourself.

You have claimed that the multiple belief systems around the world of widely divergent philosophies, together with the political structures that developed around them that have lasted for millenia with literally billions of followers have nothing positive going for them, bathing them with hate instead.

This is a staggeringly undeveloped view, one of a fanatic as only such a person can paint such a simplistic picture of a massively complex entity such as religion which has an effect across just about every field of human endeavour I can think of.

It is blatantly obvious that something as influential as religion has both positive and negative aspects as indeed just about any human activity has, yet you happily claim that any positive aspect is minimal and compensated for by the negative aspects.

You sir are really as close minded as the people you criticise.

Okay, so now what I thought was a civilised debate has come down to you making personal insults. You are one of the forum members who is better than that, Malbec. I made the point earlier that people aren't allowed to criticise religion because it is religion and you are proving my point.

I have read everything that you have put forward in arguing religion as a force for good. But I counter this by saying that the good things are done by people because of the goodness of humanity itself. Many religious people have done and will continue to do good, but I think good people will do good, and would have done good even without religion. You could call it humanism if you like.

You go on to make a false claim that I think all developments made under the banner of religion are worthless. Where on Earth have you got this idea from?

I don't claim them to be worthless. I argue that these developments would come about whether the philosophers , scientists, doctors etc were religious or not. And I also argue that religion has supressed or retarded these developments more than it has advanced them. But apparently this makes makes me close-minded.

I remember just last Thursday at work I was discussing literature with a colleague. She is a young pescetarian girl who describes herself as a hippy, does lots of charity work for the under-privilidged and for the environment, and is a believer. I was stating how I prefer non-ficiton works (I cited Hawking and Brian Cox) to fiction. The response of this religious person staggered me.

She said :
'Oh, Brian Cox is that guy off the TV isn't he, it's a shame everything he says is rubbish'

I didn't say anything to her, but I thought to myself how awful is it that this young woman has rejected knowledge just because it contradicts the medieval myth she was brainwashed into believing as a child.

Even if religion has had positive impact throughout history, we have outgrown it.

[Bob Riebe]

I have read everything that you have put forward in arguing religion as a force for good. But I counter this by saying that the good things are done by people because of the goodness of humanity itself.

This is a false claim and mankind has show that there is nothing inherently good about it; a goodly chunk of it may be submissive but that is far from good.

Your whole arguement is based on man creating something it had no reason or ability to create, without which there would be no evil.
That boat does not float.

[Malbec]

Okay, so now what I thought was a civilised debate has come down to you making personal insults. You are one of the forum members who is better than that, Malbec. I made the point earlier that people aren't allowed to criticise religion because it is religion and you are proving my point.

Its not a personal insult. Take a deep look at your own posts. You are incredibly intolerant of religion and are utterly blind to the shortcomings of atheists. That fulfils my criteria for an extremist. You judge what you don't like purely by its most negative attributes, generalising them and ignoring or explaining away any positive attributes.

BTW to clear this up I am not religious at all, I am somewhere between atheist and agnostic. I am however utterly intolerant of intolerance and ignorance and I find your kind of militant atheism abhorrent. How can you sweep away the beliefs of billions of people across the world, the vast majority of whom use it in a positive stabilising fashion and ridicule both them and their beliefs? Can you not see the staggering arrogance in that?


I have read everything that you have put forward in arguing religion as a force for good. But I counter this by saying that the good things are done by people because of the goodness of humanity itself. Many religious people have done and will continue to do good, but I think good people will do good, and would have done good even without religion. You could call it humanism if you like.

Sure, but neither can you get away from the fact that many great things HAVE been done under the banner of religion, therefore it HAS been a force for good. You cannot simply negate this by claiming its all because of 'humanism'.


You go on to make a false claim that I think all developments made under the banner of religion are worthless. Where on Earth have you got this idea from?

I don't claim them to be worthless. I argue that these developments would come about whether the philosophers , scientists, doctors etc were religious or not. And I also argue that religion has supressed or retarded these developments more than it has advanced them. But apparently this makes makes me close-minded.

When those scientific discoveries were made by religious people doing research funded by religious groups how can you say religion has had no part in them? Sure, you could argue that in the absence of religion the same scientific discoveries would have been made but they were. And you're right some religions at some times have also suppressed or retarded scientific developments. Globally I would argue that scientific progress has been greatly aided by religious groups, however since atheistic philosophies tend to originate in the West they tend to focus on the Catholic Church and its attitude to science, and I can agree that they have generally delayed the progress of science. One can say the same for many non-religious political systems too.


I remember just last Thursday at work I was discussing literature with a colleague. She is a young pescetarian girl who describes herself as a hippy, does lots of charity work for the under-privilidged and for the environment, and is a believer. I was stating how I prefer non-ficiton works (I cited Hawking and Brian Cox) to fiction. The response of this religious person staggered me.

She said :
'Oh, Brian Cox is that guy off the TV isn't he, it's a shame everything he says is rubbish'

I didn't say anything to her, but I thought to myself how awful is it that this young woman has rejected knowledge just because it contradicts the medieval myth she was brainwashed into believing as a child.

Wonderful anecdote. I suppose you've never found an atheist with an utter ignorance of science or who rejects scientific advances because it doesn't fit in with their worldview? Unfortunately I have to deal with patients who have no understanding of how science works and would prefer to have their disease treated by all kinds of alternative therapies with no scientific basis whatsoever and believe me, atheists are by no means immune from this kind of viewpoint.

[BDunnell]

Its not a personal insult. Take a deep look at your own posts. You are incredibly intolerant of religion and are utterly blind to the shortcomings of atheists. That fulfils my criteria for an extremist. You judge what you don't like purely by its most negative attributes, generalising them and ignoring or explaining away any positive attributes.

BTW to clear this up I am not religious at all, I am somewhere between atheist and agnostic. I am however utterly intolerant of intolerance and ignorance and I find your kind of militant atheism abhorrent. How can you sweep away the beliefs of billions of people across the world, the vast majority of whom use it in a positive stabilising fashion and ridicule both them and their beliefs? Can you not see the staggering arrogance in that?

I don't disagree with your standpoint, but surely you must agree that there are situations in which one cannot escape the fact that the effect of a particular religious belief, or, more to the point, clash of opposing religious beliefs has been more damaging than if said religious belief or beliefs had not entered the equation.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Its not a personal insult. Take a deep look at your own posts. You are incredibly intolerant of religion and are utterly blind to the shortcomings of atheists. That fulfils my criteria for an extremist. You judge what you don't like purely by its most negative attributes, generalising them and ignoring or explaining away any positive attributes.

I am not blind to the shortcomings of atheists. People will always do bad things, but are atheists doing bad things because they are atheist?

Perfect place to quote Weinberg:

With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.



BTW to clear this up I am not religious at all, I am somewhere between atheist and agnostic. I am however utterly intolerant of intolerance and ignorance and I find your kind of militant atheism abhorrent. How can you sweep away the beliefs of billions of people across the world, the vast majority of whom use it in a positive stabilising fashion and ridicule both them and their beliefs? Can you not see the staggering arrogance in
that?

Sure, but neither can you get away from the fact that many great things HAVE been done under the banner of religion, therefore it HAS been a force for good. You cannot simply negate this by claiming its all because of 'humanism'


If it makes me arrogant then so be it.

I personally think that we should make a stand when other peoples beliefs cross the line and start to intrude into our everyday lives, and it is not just extremists who are guilty of this. I'm not going to be told that I should shy away from ridiculing their beliefs.

In the closing sentence of my last post (that you didn't quote), I conceeded that organised religion might be able to lay claim to some positive things. But I think the opposite has happened much more often.

Why does claiming that religion has more achieved more evil than good make me arrogant and close-minded? It is just my opinion and I have justified it where I can.




Wonderful anecdote. I suppose you've never found an atheist with an utter ignorance of science or who rejects scientific advances because it doesn't fit in with their worldview? Unfortunately I have to deal with patients who have no understanding of how science works and would prefer to have their disease treated by all kinds of alternative therapies with no scientific basis whatsoever and believe me, atheists are by no means immune from this kind of viewpoint.

Once again, they don't think that because they are atheist, they think like that because they are ignorant to reason and just happen to be atheist. The girl I quoted was ignorant (to physics) because of her religion.

[Malbec]

I am not blind to the shortcomings of atheists. People will always do bad things, but are atheists doing bad things because they are atheist?

Perfect place to quote Weinberg:

With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Breathtaking.

You take a quote that uses religious (and IMO outdated) contexts of good and evil to damn religion? Again, rather simplistic don't you think? I thought atheists were beyond believing in the existence of 'good' and 'evil'. Also you think that good people only do evil things because of religion?

Ever studied group psychology? Ever looked into how atrocities and mob behaviour develop? Again all I can say is wow.



If it makes me arrogant then so be it.

I personally think that we should make a stand when other peoples beliefs cross the line and start to intrude into our everyday lives, and it is not just extremists who are guilty of this. I'm not going to be told that I should shy away from ridiculing their beliefs.

In the closing sentence of my last post (that you didn't quote), I conceeded that organised religion might be able to lay claim to some positive things. But I think the opposite has happened much more often.

So in what way does the way religion is quietly practiced by the billions of faithful around the world intruding into your everyday life (and don't include things like terrorism because that clearly is extremist) to the extent that you have to ridicule others?

I've made clear that I believe you underrate the positive things religion has done throughout human history by negating them, claiming they are merely 'humanistic' factors. We are not going to agree on that point so lets let that drop.


Once again, they don't think that because they are atheist, they think like that because they are ignorant to reason and just happen to be atheist. The girl I quoted was ignorant (to physics) because of her religion.

Again a nice easy way to sweep an inconvenience under the carpet. Lets clarify your logic here.

If they are atheist and they are pro-science then that shows how rational atheists are. If they are anti-science then they are merely ignorant but happen to be atheist.

If they are religious and pro-science, well that happens and proves nothing. If they are religious and they are anti-science then that demonstrates the anti-scientific nature of religion.

Correct me where I'm wrong.

[Malbec]

I don't disagree with your standpoint, but surely you must agree that there are situations in which one cannot escape the fact that the effect of a particular religious belief, or, more to the point, clash of opposing religious beliefs has been more damaging than if said religious belief or beliefs had not entered the equation.

Yes clearly religion is used as a political tool and a clash of religions is a common cause for conflict.

However I also believe that in many cases the religious aspect is overplayed for many many reasons and the underlying causes lie elsewhere.

Take NI for an example. Its termed as a Catholic vs Protestant conflict but that really isn't the case. It is more a conflict between the native Irish and immigrants who are predominantly from the West coast of Scotland or England.

Likewise many conflicts that involve the Muslim world and its neighbours are about recent population movements and similar conflicts over territory. Although religion might be a factor the dividing lines are also often ethnic and/or tribal too.

But there are also plenty of cases where religion is almost the sole cause for the conflict occurring in the first place.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Breathtaking.

You take a quote that uses religious (and IMO outdated) contexts of good and evil to damn religion? Again, rather simplistic don't you think? I thought atheists were beyond believing in the existence of 'good' and 'evil'. Also you think that good people only do evil things because of religion?

Ever studied group psychology? Ever looked into how atrocities and mob behaviour develop? Again all I can say is wow.

I'm not sure to what extent I agree with Steinberg's statement. I think it would depend on what can be classed as religion. You would also have to say people's belief in Communism or Nazism as on obvious example of where good people will do bad. But if one was to think Steinberg is correct, they may have to conceed that 'for a bad person to do good it takes religion'.

There was once a study of Israeli schoolchildren on the battle of Jericho in the book of Joshua (The Battle of Jericho is essentially another mass genocide in the name of God). The children were asked: 'Do you think Joasua and the Isrealites acted rightly or wrongly?' The options were A (total approval), B (partial approval) and c (total disapproval). 66% gave total approval.

A different group of Israeli children were given the same story but Joshua's name was replaced by 'General Lin' and 'Israel' replaced by the Chinese kingdom. Now the experiment gave opposite results. Only 7% of the children approved General Lins behaviour.

I'm confused by your suggestion that an atheist doesn't believe in the existence of good. Goodness in humans can have a Darwinian explanation.



So in what way does the way religion is quietly practiced by the billions of faithful around the world intruding into your everyday life (and don't include things like terrorism because that clearly is extremist) to the extent that you have to ridicule others?

In 2009 I went with some friends to the LGBT Pride festival at Blackpool. It was a great event where everyone - gay, straight, asexual, - could enjoy music, comedy, learn about safe sex etc. Sadly, the event in my mind was overshadowed by a few people outside the gate. Holding up banners such as Jesus hates fags and GAY -Got Aids Yet.

Now I accept that you could argue that those people are probably extremists, not all religious people are homophobic and that non-religious people can also be homophobic. But that would be completely missing the point. I know plenty of gay people who think religion is organised homophobia. It isn't nice, is it?





Again a nice easy way to sweep an inconvenience under the carpet. Lets clarify your logic here.

If they are atheist and they are pro-science then that shows how rational atheists are. If they are anti-science then they are merely ignorant but happen to be atheist.

If they are religious and pro-science, well that happens and proves nothing. If they are religious and they are anti-science then that demonstrates the anti-scientific nature of religion.

Correct me where I'm wrong.

I didn't suggest that pro-science atheists shows how rational atheists are. It shows that some people want to learn things, some people don't want to learn things. But some people who are religous don't wish to learn new things because they believe the bible holds all the answers. It depresses me.

I think maybe we are reaching a stalemate in our debate and I accept that the position I hold is an unpopular one. But thankyou for your time.

[schmenke]

Oh God...

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Oh God...

..something I said? :erm:

Why am I getting adverts from 'Single Muslims.com' ?

[schmenke]

Jesus Christ, why can't everyone just chill?!

[Malbec]

This thread is rather intense now lol. Its christmas, lets just enjoy the time we have with our families and if religion plays a part for you, then great :) .

Ahhh, so you're trying to use a religious festival to shutdown a debate? ;) Shocking!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Haha I suppose I am.

Its not a religious festival to me though. :)

A celebration of a cultural tradition.

[schmenke]

A celebration of a cultural tradition.

That’s probably a better way to look at it.
Many of the Christmas traditions that we observe this time of year have little to do with the actual birth of Jesus Christ.

[Malbec]

I'm not sure to what extent I agree with Steinberg's statement. I think it would depend on what can be classed as religion. You would also have to say people's belief in Communism or Nazism as on obvious example of where good people will do bad. But if one was to think Steinberg is correct, they may have to conceed that 'for a bad person to do good it takes religion'.

If you want to claim that atheism is about reason and applying scientific principles then you cannot use a quote that ignores the last 50 years of psychology without attracting criticism.

Exercises such as the Stanford and Milgram experiments have shown that very little is needed to make a 'good' person do 'bad' things, certainly not something as big and cumbersome as religion. All you need is a little powerplay and light coercion and there you go.


There was once a study of Israeli schoolchildren on the battle of Jericho in the book of Joshua (The Battle of Jericho is essentially another mass genocide in the name of God). The children were asked: 'Do you think Joasua and the Isrealites acted rightly or wrongly?' The options were A (total approval), B (partial approval) and c (total disapproval). 66% gave total approval.

A different group of Israeli children were given the same story but Joshua's name was replaced by 'General Lin' and 'Israel' replaced by the Chinese kingdom. Now the experiment gave opposite results. Only 7% of the children approved General Lins behaviour.

In our debate I find the points you use to illustrate your arguments often have large flaws and this is one of them.

This might upset a few people but the Israelis are not a good example for this kind of thing. As a population they have managed to find a way of dissociating their own behaviour from what is commonly acceptable across other societies. This is a population group for example that is utterly incapable of seeing any parallel between what was done to them by the Nazis and what they are doing to the Palestinians, and in fact are often apoplectic if you try.

Walling off Jews into a particular part of town and limiting or halting their movements and harassing them is utterly unacceptable for them but doing exactly the same to Palestinians elicits barely a word of protest, more seen as a perfectly logical normal reaction to events.

So no, it does not surprise me at all that they find shocking acts of barbarity unacceptable when it has a neutral name on it but fine when it is done by Israelis. I think this isn't so much a religious factor (although I do agree religion plays a role) but is more a national trait, one honed by their experiences both in WW2 and more recently within the Middle East.


I'm confused by your suggestion that an atheist doesn't believe in the existence of good. Goodness in humans can have a Darwinian explanation.

The concept of 'good' and 'evil' is utterly simplistic and are outdated religious term. While I use the terms as simplifications because I cannot be bothered to expand my arguments I find that those two words fall woefully short of being able to express the often very complex reasoning behind human actions. Again I think even a basic understanding of psychology would demonstrate how poor 'good' and 'evil' are in explaining human behaviour.


In 2009 I went with some friends to the LGBT Pride festival at Blackpool. It was a great event where everyone - gay, straight, asexual, - could enjoy music, comedy, learn about safe sex etc. Sadly, the event in my mind was overshadowed by a few people outside the gate. Holding up banners such as Jesus hates fags and GAY -Got Aids Yet.

Now I accept that you could argue that those people are probably extremists, not all religious people are homophobic and that non-religious people can also be homophobic. But that would be completely missing the point. I know plenty of gay people who think religion is organised homophobia. It isn't nice, is it?

I didn't suggest that pro-science atheists shows how rational atheists are. It shows that some people want to learn things, some people don't want to learn things. But some people who are religous don't wish to learn new things because they believe the bible holds all the answers. It depresses me.

I think maybe we are reaching a stalemate in our debate and I accept that the position I hold is an unpopular one. But thankyou for your time.

I'm sorry to hear that your experiences with religion have been overwhelmingly negative. Mine haven't been.

I don't agree with the generally homophobic tone emanating from several religions but I have also seen amongst my group of friends at uni behaviour that rises above that, including three Christian girls (of the type who hold bible reading sessions) befriending an openly lesbian girl to the point they formed a clique within a clique. If there was any effort made to 'convert' this girl from her wicked ways I didn't see it and they are still close friends. These Christian girls were able to realise that their beliefs were for them and didn't judge others with it. There are many religious people who are capable of this and do so.

Also amongst my devoutly religious colleagues many are heavily involved in research and one or two openly claim that it is their religious duty to expand scientific knowledge in their field to improve medical care. Where do these guys fit in to your views? Presumably their positive contributions are eradicated by all the negative effects religion has had right?

[Bob Riebe]

Jesus Christ, why can't everyone just chill?!That is what most of U.S. society said till the ACLU decided that Christmas was bad, and they made money off of donations to kill it.

[BDunnell]

Take NI for an example. Its termed as a Catholic vs Protestant conflict but that really isn't the case. It is more a conflict between the native Irish and immigrants who are predominantly from the West coast of Scotland or England.

I beg to differ on this. There is no way one can simply exclude the religious aspect, as clever as it may make one sound to attempt so to do.

[BDunnell]

I'm confused by your suggestion that an atheist doesn't believe in the existence of good. Goodness in humans can have a Darwinian explanation.

Do you believe in the equally simplistic concept of evil as well, then?

[Malbec]

I beg to differ on this. There is no way one can simply exclude the religious aspect, as clever as it may make one sound to attempt so to do.

There is a religious aspect but the divide comes from the migration of a Protestant and Anglo-Saxon population from the mainland. Its not as if the Irish themselves decided to split purely on religious grounds is it?

You can also take the anti-Catholic Church attitude of the IRA due to their Communist sympathies.

[jens]

So no, it does not surprise me at all that they find shocking acts of barbarity unacceptable when it has a neutral name on it but fine when it is done by Israelis. I think this isn't so much a religious factor (although I do agree religion plays a role) but is more a national trait, one honed by their experiences both in WW2 and more recently within the Middle East.


Prejudices have long been discussed in this thread, but isn't this one of them? You have long been defending the prejudices against religious people, but now you have a prejudice against one whole nation? Or are those people extremists in Israel?

[Malbec]

Prejudices have long been discussed in this thread, but isn't this one of them? You have long been defending the prejudices against religious people, but now you have a prejudice against one whole nation? Or are those people extremists in Israel?

I think similar prejudices exist elsewhere to an extent. I'd be very interested if a poll similar to the one originally described by Jon were performed on schoolchildren in the UK describing bombing an enemy city and killing civilians to destroy enemy industry. Would schoolchildren respond differently if the bombers were from the RAF and the city called Hamburg compared to if the bombers were from the Luftwaffe and the city called Coventry.

Ultimately though I stand by my point entirely regarding Israel, I believe they do have a special mindset where they simply give themselves far more leeway to abuse others than they tolerate in others.

The paragraph you didn't quote about walls was a direct comparison between the Warsaw Ghetto and the wall being built by the Israelis to limit Palestinian movement. How do you think the confinement of Jews in Ghettos during the Holocaust is portrayed in Israel? How do you think the same confinement of Palestinians is portrayed? Why is there no public outcry? Why the national inability to see the direct parallel and cry foul?

[BDunnell]

There is a religious aspect but the divide comes from the migration of a Protestant and Anglo-Saxon population from the mainland. Its not as if the Irish themselves decided to split purely on religious grounds is it?

You can also take the anti-Catholic Church attitude of the IRA due to their Communist sympathies.

An underlying factor which will have been lost on many of those swayed in 1968 by, for example, the rhetoric of Ian Paisley. To many of them it was, surely, a religious issue, pure and simple.

[BDunnell]

The paragraph you didn't quote about walls was a direct comparison between the Warsaw Ghetto and the wall being built by the Israelis to limit Palestinian movement. How do you think the confinement of Jews in Ghettos during the Holocaust is portrayed in Israel? How do you think the same confinement of Palestinians is portrayed? Why is there no public outcry? Why the national inability to see the direct parallel and cry foul?

Because successive Israeli governments ever since the country's creation have instilled in its citizens a sense of all-pervading paranoia regarding much of the rest of the world.

[Malbec]

An underlying factor which will have been lost on many of those swayed in 1968 by, for example, the rhetoric of Ian Paisley. To many of them it was, surely, a religious issue, pure and simple.

Religion is the factor people identify with the most but it is hardly a religious conflict in the sense that the protagonists (with exceptions like Paisley) are fervently religious. Do you really think the awful treatment of Catholics for several centuries by the Protestants was driven purely because of religion or because one was ruled by the invading other? The history of the conflict dates back to Cromwell and the colonisation of Ireland, one driven by imperialistic ambitions. The inequities established at that point are the root cause of the current troubles and are due not directly to religion but the colonisation of one population by another who are most readily differentiated according to religious affiliation.

[BDunnell]

Religion is the factor people identify with the most but it is hardly a religious conflict in the sense that the protagonists (with exceptions like Paisley) are fervently religious. Do you really think the awful treatment of Catholics for several centuries by the Protestants was driven purely because of religion or because one was ruled by the invading other? The history of the conflict dates back to Cromwell and the colonisation of Ireland, one driven by imperialistic ambitions. The inequities established at that point are the root cause of the current troubles and are due not directly to religion but the colonisation of one population by another who are most readily differentiated according to religious affiliation.

But none of this, as true as it is, escapes the fact that to many who were there, supporting one side or the other, it was a conflict in which people divided along religious lines. I'm not arguing that it was the sole motivation, but I consider it to have been a stronger one than you are making out.

[Malbec]

But none of this, as true as it is, escapes the fact that to many who were there, supporting one side or the other, it was a conflict in which people divided along religious lines. I'm not arguing that it was the sole motivation, but I consider it to have been a stronger one than you are making out.

If so what were the Orange order marches celebrating? Why did sectarian taunts refer so much to Cromwell and prominent battles then? I am not arguing that religion was unimportant but that the other causes of the conflict are often forgotten but were the single greatest driving force.

[BDunnell]

If so what were the Orange order marches celebrating? Why did sectarian taunts refer so much to Cromwell and prominent battles then? I am not arguing that religion was unimportant but that the other causes of the conflict are often forgotten but were the single greatest driving force.

But did the majority of the ordinary people who took one side or the other have any knowledge of this, or were their choices based on sectarian divides?

[Malbec]

But did the majority of the ordinary people who took one side or the other have any knowledge of this, or were their choices based on sectarian divides?

Knowledge of what? The history? Judging from the content of sectarian chants I've heard on the news or read about I'd say most of the content would not be on religious grounds but based on the history ie Cromwell etc etc.

This would be reflected in the nature of the various groups on both sides which were rarely overtly religious in nature. IIRC and I'm happy to be corrected, even Paisley's party was largely secular.

[monadvspec]

What got the original poster or thread starter get banned? How do you get banned anyway if you express an opinion? Isn't that the concept behind forums such as Chit-Chat. Selective banning of people by moderators is badly abused by people set up as moderators.
I have read most of the posts on this particular thread and find that whatever got the person who started this must have been pretty bad as there are many posts that are very inflammatory.

[Rudy Tamasz]

What got the original poster or thread starter get banned? How do you get banned anyway if you express an opinion? Isn't that the concept behind forums such as Chit-Chat. Selective banning of people by moderators is badly abused by people set up as moderators.
I have read most of the posts on this particular thread and find that whatever got the person who started this must have been pretty bad as there are many posts that are very inflammatory.

Yeah, right. The guy just dropped his post here and started a borderline discussion. Then the crowd with the percentage of Muslims among them close to zero started discussing Islam and then switched to division between Catholics and Protestants in Ulster. This sure is not inflammatory.

Now he must be laughing his a$$ off after gettting the infidels started even as he got banned. He got what he wanted.

[Garry Walker]

As I have said, I am yet to find a religious person who can prove to me that what they beleive is factual and in anyway fits in with modern discoveries, other than to tell me its rubbish and scientists don't know what they are talking about lol. Oh well, I'm happy with the way I live my life and thankfully I don't need religion as a guide. :)

Yeah, for years I have been asking religious people to prove to me the existence of god, but so far nothing.


I have been really disappointed with the intolerance and even hatred directed at the Muslim faith on here. Growing up in the 70's, I can only liken it to xenophobic distrust of Blacks and Asians of that era.

muslims can only blame themselves and their vile sickening religion for that. There is no place for islam in europe, we are better off without it.


Genuinely religious people tend to be genuinely good-hearted, friendly, open, warm and caring for others. As many of our islam friends have proven LOL


Its also quite shocking to see how widely accepted intolerance/hatred of Muslims is. It seems to be acceptable to say things about them which would never be tolerated about other faiths.

I suspect if the same comments were directed at Jews or the Jewish faith instead there would be swift condemnation.
Do you see jews blowing themselves up to kill infidels? Do you see jews flying planes into buildings to teach the infidels a lesson? There is far too much tolerance for that sickening religion as of now.

And also I have to add that if you pay attention to media, you will notice that any attacks on islam are at once labelled as racism and islam gets off far too easy. You don't see anyone daring to mock allah (or our tolerant muslim friends will just try to kill you), yet jesus christ is quite okay to be mocked (not that I care, I consider everyone who believes in god to be in an urgent need of a shrink.)


I agree that we have seen posts here aimed at Islam that are nothing than scaremongering and paranoia.
Only if you are a stupid idiot and don't see the obvious signs of danger islam presents.



In 2009 I went with some friends to the LGBT Pride festival at Blackpool. It was a great event where everyone - gay, straight, asexual, - could enjoy music, comedy, learn about safe sex etc. Sadly, the event in my mind was overshadowed by a few people outside the gate. Holding up banners such as Jesus hates fags and GAY -Got Aids Yet.

An event like this? Up Your Alley 2008 (http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/) (warning, YOU DO NOT WANT TO CLICK ON THAT LINK, some quite sickening images)

[ArrowsFA1]

muslims can only blame themselves and their vile sickening religion for that. There is no place for islam in europe, we are better off without it.
Each and every religion has a minority who chose to distort its beliefs and use them in the name of 'a cause'. Islam is not unique in that respect. In political terms it has become the communism of our age.

[Knock-on]

muslims can only blame themselves and their vile sickening religion for that. There is no place for islam in europe, we are better off without it.



:laugh: I know you're just trolling but there really are people out there that think like that. You would be surprised how bigoted some people really are ;)

[Garry Walker]

:laugh: I know you're just trolling .
Don't be so sure about that :laugh:


Each and every religion has a minority who chose to distort its beliefs and use them in the name of 'a cause'. Islam is not unique in that respect. In political terms it has become the communism of our age.

So you are saying communism is basically a good thing? Well good good, now we know what kind of political beliefs you have.

[Dave B]

So you are saying communism is basically a good thing? Well good good, now we know what kind of political beliefs you have.
Way to spectacularly miss the point, old bean.

[donKey jote]

What got the original poster or thread starter get banned? .

Go into his profile and click on the links if they are still there... maybe it was just a professional spammer using a realistic enough looking post to catch you all ;) :)

[donKey jote]

I personally don't believe you are that thick Garry. :monkeedan :monkeedan
:laugh:

[Roamy]

I must admit I find it quite ironic that you level your criticism at a religion for promoting hate, yet your wording itself is hatred in its own right. There are many muslim people in Britain and Europe who are law abiding and intelligent enough to interpret their religious scripture without forming hate against other religions. A minority of fantatics have turned to extremism and done terrible things but that does not mean we label millions of people in the same way. I am not religious at all but respect people who are as it rarely interferes with my life. Being the big keyboard warrior and promoting anti religious hatred is just uncultured and I personally don't believe you are that thick Garry. I've agreed with alot of your posts and I think you might be on the wind here.

The images in that link are quite sickening but not because the group in them are gay. Any form of public sexual activity that displays itself for the purpose of offending someone is classed as sickening IMO. There are also many gay festivals around the world that do not display this level of indecency.

Henners get your head out of the sand - There were many law abiding citizens in Egypt - Look at this sh!thole today!! The days is coming that you will have to pick a side sharia boy!!

[markabilly]

Yeah, right. The guy just dropped his post here and started a borderline discussion. Then the crowd with the percentage of Muslims among them close to zero started discussing Islam and then switched to division between Catholics and Protestants in Ulster. This sure is not inflammatory.

Now he must be laughing his a$$ off after gettting the infidels started even as he got banned. He got what he wanted.


Nah, just rolling on the floor.........can't beleive we are once again having a thread about worshipping the pedo-prophet :rolleyes:

Seen any good videos of stoning of women whose virginity has been determined to be missing by some old Islamic fart??

I know Europe has been having some minor issues with 'Street Jihad'--- they seem to be having some fun in France:
Muslims Stone Catholic Festival-Goers in France

Muslims Stone Catholic Festival-Goers in France - Atlas Shrugs (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/10/muslims-stone-catholic-festival-goers-in-france.html)

[markabilly]

I personally don't believe you are that thick Garry. I've agreed with alot of your posts....

.

Best that henners be getting thick as well. Sooner the better, as the thicker the skin, the less those stones gonna hurt when you forget yourself and start muttering some sort of anti-religous stuff that might offend the sensibilities of some Islams......

[Dave B]

Nah, just rolling on the floor.........can't beleive we are once again having a thread about worshipping the pedo-prophet :rolleyes:

Seen any good videos of stoning of women whose virginity has been determined to be missing by some old Islamic fart??

I know Europe has been having some minor issues with 'Street Jihad'--- they seem to be having some fun in France:
Muslims Stone Catholic Festival-Goers in France

Muslims Stone Catholic Festival-Goers in France - Atlas Shrugs (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/10/muslims-stone-catholic-festival-goers-in-france.html)
Of course nobody has ever used the Bible to justify their violence, wars, child abuse, murder, homophobia or genocide. Oh....

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Of course nobody has ever used the Bible to justify their violence, wars, child abuse, murder, homophobia or genocide. Oh....

You're not allowed to say that on here, Dave. You have got to show 'respect' for all religions.

[Knock-on]

Henners get your head out of the sand - There were many law abiding citizens in Egypt - Look at this sh!thole today!! The days is coming that you will have to pick a side sharia boy!!

Personally I don't fancy picking sides between the extreme supporters of two opposed religions who haven't the maturity to accept that others may hold a slightly different view to themselves.

However, after travelling and working in Muslim countries, I can honestly say that although they take their religion seriously and spend a lot of their time devoting themselves to religious activities, the Muslims I know are a very warm and tolerant bunch of people that have always made me welcome. In fact, people in the Middle East seem to be a great bunch of people with respect and consideration for anyone that doesn't try and push them around.

And then we have American foreign policy :(

Most Americans are equally warm and friendly but as a nation, you do have a very xenophobic outlook against anyone that isn't Americanish. Us Brits are OK I suppose because we talk American and allow you to influence our foreign and domestic policy but that's as far as it goes really. If not, I am sure we would be subjected to the same sort of naive discrimination you reserve for Muslims.

It's all pretty sad really.

It would be interesting to find out how many extreme Muslims you personally have come across? You know the ones that spout hate, intolerance and use abusive and aggressive language.

None? Funny that. I know quite a few supposed "Christians" on this forum that do.

[markabilly]

You're not allowed to say that on here, Dave. You have got to show 'respect' for all religions.

not anymore...Just got to show it for the muslim religion or else you better learn to duck those rocks.


Like that ole Beatle-Lennon song...Better watch out, instant street jihad gonna get you...
Gonna knock you right on the head
:arrows:
You better get yourself together
Pretty soon you're gonna be dead

What in the world you thinking of ...laughing at the pedo prophet.....
:grenade:

[Dave B]

Personally I don't fancy picking sides between the extreme supporters of two opposed religions who haven't the maturity to accept that others may hold a slightly different view to themselves.

Religion. Some dude turns up preaching tolerance and love, then mankind spends the next two thousand years kicking the crap out of each other because they can't agree on exactly how he said it.

[markabilly]

Religion. Some dude turns up preaching tolerance and love, then mankind spends the next two thousand years kicking the crap out of each other because they can't agree on exactly how he said it.

yep-- there is getting stoned :s mokin: and there is gettin stoned :arrows:

[Rudy Tamasz]

Religion. Some dude turns up preaching tolerance and love, then mankind spends the next two thousand years kicking the crap out of each other because they can't agree on exactly how he said it.

Tolerance and love don't belong in the same sentence, at least in this context. You love somebody close to you or related to you, but you tolerate somebody who might be venemently opposing your views, giving you hard time and otherwise being on different pages with you. When I have to tolerate somebody, it's the first indication for me I might have a reason not to fell in love with the guy or gal. There are different auidiences for love and tolerance.

To me there are two types of people who get on my nerves. One is intolerant people, full of themselves and hostile to everything different from what they are used to. Another is people who mix love and tolerance. What they achieve is making themselves and their beloved ones a soft target for bad guys who never hesitate to take full advantage of that lovey-dovey thing.

[markabilly]

The images in that link are quite sickening but not because the group in them are gay. Any form of public sexual activity that displays itself for the purpose of offending someone is classed as sickening IMO. .

but of course, El Donko would like this..... :imubash: he watches that stuff all the time, so says his momma

[markabilly]

So true lol. No religion is superior IMO, and all contribute to the problems in the world but I respect anyone who feels it improves their life whether I think its a load of made up rubbish or not. Its their choice at the end of the day. :)

Now I do got to agree with you, but being that I ain't no cross eyed Islamic type, so what??

But there you go saying....no religion is superior.........all contribute to the problems......i think it is a load of made up rubbish

all i can is tell you there was this Cartoonist who was not as blunt as you and made a couple of really funny jokes and it got him some street Jihad that left him cold stone dead.

So maybe folks might want to keep some distance from you, just in case one of them stone chuckers can't throw and one of them folks gets a stone to the head from standing too close

[markabilly]

Best that henners be getting thick as well. Sooner the better, as the thicker the skin, the less those stones gonna hurt when you forget yourself and start muttering some sort of anti-religous stuff that might offend the sensibilities of some Islams......


Yep, I no more than warn you to watch out on that muttering, and there you go again.... :vader:


So true lol. No religion is superior IMO, and all contribute to the problems in the world but I respect anyone who feels it improves their life whether I think its a load of made up rubbish or not. Its their choice at the end of the day. :)

As someone famous once said, ask not for whom the stone is thrown, it's thrown at you :eek:

[Bob Riebe]

Of course nobody has ever used the Bible to justify their violence, wars, child abuse, murder, homophobia or genocide. Oh....Sources?

How many Christians have strapped bombs on themselves and blown up people at funerals, church services and the such?

Give me comparison numbers if you are going to say there is no differnence.

Talk is cheap, so give me some not so cheap proof.

Oh it also seems Christian leader speak out against those who crap on their faith by using it for immoral purposes; where are the large protests by U.S. muslims against the murdering trash that is supposedly crapping on their religion?
Either the press is not covering it, or it simply is not happening.
There have been a few singylar Muslims trying to expose the vile dogma being taught in Muslim schools but beyond NPR or PBS they are pretty much ignored becuase no major news outlet, it seems, wants to take a chance of upsetting the majority of muslims and suffering their wrath, or showing how different their favorite target of ridicule, conservative Christians, are from the Muslim.

[airshifter]

Sources?

How many Christians have strapped bombs on themselves and blown up people at funerals, church services and the such?

Give me comparison numbers if you are going to say there is no differnence.

Talk is cheap, so give me some not so cheap proof.

You better keep looking for a lot of those bomber christians, maybe that will convince people to forget the crusades. Church endorsed of course. The majority convicted in the abortion clinic related terror acts were also "Christians".

Based on your shallow stereotypes of Muslims, you must bomb abortion clinics.

[Bob Riebe]

You better keep looking for a lot of those bomber christians, maybe that will convince people to forget the crusades. Church endorsed of course. The majority convicted in the abortion clinic related terror acts were also "Christians".

Based on your shallow stereotypes of Muslims, you must bomb abortion clinics.
Crudades- the cry of a desperation when they have nothing to use.

How many abortian clinics were bombed?
Death count of these Christian bombers compared to Muslim bombers for the past six months, or you can compare totals from the day of the clinic bombing up to today.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If I lived in America then the Christian right would worry me more than the Muslim extremists.

[Dave B]

Crudades- the cry of a desperation when they have nothing to use.

How many abortian clinics were bombed?
Death count of these Christian bombers compared to Muslim bombers for the past six months, or you can compare totals from the day of the clinic bombing up to today.

I don't see any desperation about referring to the Crusades - deluded Christians forcing their religion down peoples' throats and slitting them if they refused to listen.

Aside from henners' eloquent post about the IRA, how many needless deaths are caused by the Pope telling pooly educated Africans that they mustn't use condoms, contributing to the massive spread of HIV? Or how many deaths can be traced back to Bush and Blair claiming they were doing God's work by poking their unwanted beaks into Iraq? Add to this the untold misery caused by people choosing to interpret the bible to justify their bigotry, homophobia, sexism (how many women priests are there?); or to tell rape victims they can't have abortions?

It's important to keep in mind I'm not accusing all Christians of this, that would be unfounded and stupid. The majority of them are perfectly decent people, just like the majority of Muslims or whoever else. It's the extreme views in any religion which cause the problems.

[Robinho]

Honestly, how many people actually genuinely believe in "God", a god, the god, (Muslim, Jewish, Christian which I think is the same god followed in a different way by different religons)
It seems to me that people call themselves Christian, Muslim etc, and follow the social practices as their upbringing and surroundings dictate, as twisted and cherry picked by those seeking to control the populous in that area. They are taught what has been written by men about "god" to keep people fearing something unseen t adhere to their particular moral code or face some eternal hardship, playing soley on the very rational fear of death. But how many of these people actually believe in god, if pressed to actually confirm their belief. I think in the UK most people if picking from a list would call themselves Christian, but I expect a majority of these do not believe in an all powerful creator, heaven, hell and all that supernatural stuff, potentially even a proportion of those who practice religon, who like the moral and social aspects of their church life without really being into the whole thing.

That leaves the extremists on both sides who do believe, who do bomb, who do picket funerals, who do preach intolerance, who do predict the rapture.

I would be very interested to see some genuine polls of belief in god, rather than census forms saying which religon you are.

[jens]

If you propose a question that how many people believe in God, then it very much depends, how do you define it. It is not about believing in some mythical person in the sky or elsewhere, but it is about the whole context. God is often defined as 'soul', 'conscience', our 'heart' that unites us all. So as you can see, synonyms can be found for the word 'god' and in this case it doesn't seem so strange at all.

[jens]

If you propose a question that how many people believe in God, then it very much depends, how do you define it. It is not about believing in some mythical person in the sky or elsewhere, but it is about the whole context. God is often described as 'soul', 'conscience', our 'heart' that unites us all. So as can be seen, synonyms can be found for the word 'god' and in this case the word itself doesn't seem so strange and out of the world.

I think the concepts of someone in heaven and someone in hell burning people are vastly outdated and shouldn't really be seriously discussed, when talking about religion. We should look much more at real life evidence to find the basis of religions.

--

When I was living in India (now talking about a different religion than what we have been discussing in this topic), people were telling me that god created the world and they found it strange, how in the 'West' people don't believe in god, because people without religion sounded to them like people without 'conscience'.

And to be frank, couldn't argue against this statement of world creation. What could have initially possibly prompted all those ingredients to come together to really lay the foundations of life? Well, you guess... So they are right to believe in whatever they want from that point of view.

[Rudy Tamasz]

If you propose a question that how many people believe in God, then it very much depends, how do you define it. It is not about believing in some mythical person in the sky or elsewhere, but it is about the whole context. God is often described as 'soul', 'conscience', our 'heart' that unites us all. So as can be seen, synonyms can be found for the word 'god' and in this case the word itself doesn't seem so strange and out of the world.

You need to go no further in search of a definition that reading the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, still used by the biggest Christian Churches.


I think the concepts of someone in heaven and someone in hell burning people are vastly outdated and shouldn't really be seriously discussed, when talking about religion. We should look much more at real life evidence to find the basis of religions.

See, here's the fundamental problem of the rationalist critique of the faith in God. You cannot rationally understand the faith unless you observe it from within, i.e. you believe in God. But if you truly believe, your faith supercedes your rationalizing. Hence the gap between faith and rationalist thinking that no one has convincingly bridged so far. You have to be on one side or the other.

[jens]

See, here's the fundamental problem of the rationalist critique of the faith in God. You cannot rationally understand the faith unless you observe it from within, i.e. you believe in God. But if you truly believe, your faith supercedes your rationalizing. Hence the gap between faith and rationalist thinking that no one has convincingly bridged so far. You have to be on one side or the other.

As we know, human has two brain sides for different functions. Left brain is for rational and logical thinking, right one for imagination, beliefs and feelings. Why should we mix them up? In the same way - why should we try to rationally understand faith and, well, god? I think this is the absurd, which people reach during those discussions. I think religious people think and define it in the same way - religion shall not be about rational thinking, it is about soul and heart and that's how it should be. Also imagination, fantasizing and stories are part of it. It is not important whether all the stories in the Bible are proven scientifically correct, but it is important that those stories create a good feeling in us and we can learn something from them.

[Robinho]

I was strictly referring to the religous god, the creator, not the thing that someone might feel inside themselves. The very thing that religon has to be founded on is a god. But those whose belief structure is believing in an all powerfui deity come accross as completley irrational IMO, but without that faith religon is little more than a few guidelines and somewhere to meet up, something we are capable of doing perfectly well without being threatened with eternal damnation. IMO the teachings of any religon are completley at odds with the modern world and massivley insulting to a persons intelligence. They are a collection of nice stories and there is a useful moral side to many, but were written in a different time by people with now very outdated views of the way the world should be. I personally don't belive there is anything more than man's words in the bible, koran etc, certainly nothing from "god", and when stripped back to this it makes the whole thing seem massivley futile. However to think like that, especially after a lifetime of belief would make people think they have rather wasted their time pushing religon, and for many its easier to belong to something that makes them feel safe rather than questioning the world around them.

Just my opinion, and of course i would defend anyones rights to believe, as long as it is their belief and not one they are forcing on others

[jens]

IMO the teachings of any religon are completley at odds with the modern world and massivley insulting to a persons intelligence. They are a collection of nice stories and there is a useful moral side to many, but were written in a different time by people with now very outdated views of the way the world should be.

I have been thinking that some kind of a deep culture (doesn't mean to be religious) could be useful for the modern world. Many people are stressed, overworked, obsessed with materialistic values - traditional/fundamental values have been forgotten and genuine happiness has also gone missing with it.

Everyone believes in something, it's just the matter of what. Instead of god many people may believe in conspiracy theories, bad human nature, bleak future, whatever.

[ArrowsFA1]

These words strike a chord with me:

If there is a God we must see Him, if there is a soul we must perceive it; otherwise it is better not to believe. It is better to be an outspoken atheist than a hypocrite.
Swami Vivekananda

[donKey jote]

The Church of Kopimism (http://kopimistsamfundet.se/)

[Bob Riebe]

Are you familiar with the troubles in Northern Ireland Bob?

The IRA and other christian terror groups responsible for planting bombs in pubs, streets, and shopping centres across the UK and Northern Ireland? How many deaths have occured at the hands of catholic and Protestant terrorist organisations? A friend of my uncle lost his daughter in the Birmingham pub bombings and she had absolutely nothing to do with the cause they were fighting for. Deaths at the hands of these groups goes into the thousands. Along with all the planned assassinations, the UK has experienced bombings of innocent people in Birmingham, Manchester, Coventry, London pubs, Canary Wharf, Omagh to name a few. We can also look at Spain and their terrorist group ETA. Italy also has known groups who have collaborated with the IRA due to similar religious aims. I think its time to realise that not all terrorists are Islamic.
OK, here we have denomination against denomination; to make this even basically similar to the Muslims, you are saying this was being done in the name of Rome and whatever Pope was in power at the time?


A main reason for Muslim murdering others is taking the name of Mohammed in vain or something similar. (The Shiites and Sunnis are separated by who the proper inheritor of Mohammed's crown is)
That was going on in Ireland and the British Isles?

For there to be an analogy the reasons have to be at least basically similar, are they?
--------------------------------------------------------------

Brown, Jon Brow

If I lived in America then the Christian right would worry me more than the Muslim extremists.

Really now, give me the list that shows more people were killed by Christians, for religious reasons, than people were killed by Muslims, for religious reasons, in the U.S., in the past five, three. one year?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't see any desperation about referring to the Crusades - deluded Christians forcing their religion down peoples' throats and slitting them if they refused to listen."

What goes around, comes around.
The Muslims had invaded, by force, non-muslim land.

Paybacks are a bitch.

Regardless of how badly the rule of the Crusaders may have crapped on a lot of what Jesus said, to point fingers at them and ignore the fact that Muslims had killed the native peoples to take Christian lands is silly.

[Bob Riebe]

Hang on a minute, you asked if Christian terrorists bombed innocent people and I gave you a major example of where this is the case. That same group the IRA were funded once upon a time by American companies and naive people in your country who claimed to have Irish roots and gave them money thinking they were supporting a historic cause. little did they know it was a terrorist group that lynched fellow christians with a slightly different faith, and planted bombs in public areas to kill as many people as possible, simply to get a message across to the British government. You can't turn around and say what muslim extremists do is worse because the reasons are slightly different. Any group that uses religion as a reason to kill innocent people is scum of the earth and are to be treated with the same contempt as far as I am concerned.

Just because the groups I have given as an example happen to be of the same religion as you (or Christian at least) does not mean you can treat them in a more lenient fashion Bob. It seems you are trying to single out muslims because they contain members that hate your religion. I myself am not religious so can see this unnecessary violence for what it is without favourism.

Let's remain in context here (if you ever read thouroughly 'christian" forums, quoting the Bible out of context to support one's dogma runs rampant) my answer was to this statement: "Originally Posted by Dave B


Of course nobody has ever used the Bible to justify their violence, wars, child abuse, murder, homophobia or genocide. Oh....

Any answers have to remain within that context.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I don't see any desperation about referring to the Crusades - deluded Christians forcing their religion down peoples' throats and slitting them if they refused to listen.

Aside from henners' eloquent post about the IRA, how many needless deaths are caused by the Pope telling pooly educated Africans that they mustn't use condoms, contributing to the massive spread of HIV? Or how many deaths can be traced back to Bush and Blair claiming they were doing God's work by poking their unwanted beaks into Iraq? Add to this the untold misery caused by people choosing to interpret the bible to justify their bigotry, homophobia, sexism (how many women priests are there?); or to tell rape victims they can't have abortions?


Wake up Dave!!. We spent the first half of this thread discussing this.


As we know, human has two brain sides for different functions. Left brain is for rational and logical thinking, right one for imagination, beliefs and feelings. Why should we mix them up? In the same way - why should we try to rationally understand faith and, well, god? I think this is the absurd, which people reach during those discussions. I think religious people think and define it in the same way - religion shall not be about rational thinking, it is about soul and heart and that's how it should be. Also imagination, fantasizing and stories are part of it. It is not important whether all the stories in the Bible are proven scientifically correct, but it is important that those stories create a good feeling in us and we can learn something from them.

The problems start when people actually take the Bible/Koran etc literally. And don't say that this is an out of date idea, because some people actually do believe in a creator and a young Earth. Some of these people have powerful political roles. This is very dangerous.

[Bob Riebe]

Then the answer to Dave's question is 'yes'.Hmmmm- just who used the Bible, not saying it did not happen, but just who used the Bible to justify killing people the way Muslims are using the Koran?

[markabilly]

Are you familiar with the troubles in Northern Ireland Bob?

I think its time to realise that not all terrorists are Islamic.

No, all terrorists are fanatics, be it for religous reasons, political reasons, racism, --Nazism, communism, right wingers, leftist, animal lovers, christains, Jews, et all or whatever---

I tend to viewthe old Catholic religion and its history about the same as Islam in its current state.

BTW- I keep
daring all you folks to go do all this ranting about religion to some Islam types, face to face, but none of you want to wander over to even Saudi Arabia for a little muttering about religion......Smart move.

Act the liberal in your ivory tower and cite mostly ancient history to justify your point of view.

You defend Islam by saying it is just as bad as Christain religions--well that might have been true some 500 to 1600 years ago...

nevertheless, a Silly argument--sort of like well, many other people get away with murder, why can not I ..... :rolleyes:

[Roamy]

PETN coming to a neighborhood near you - Wake up fools

[Knock-on]

Hmmmm- just who used the Bible, not saying it did not happen, but just who used the Bible to justify killing people the way Muslims are using the Koran?

So, what if someone claimed that God was speaking through them and used this to justify the deaths of tens of thousands of people?

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." George W. Bush, 2004, during the war in Iraq.

[ArrowsFA1]

Regardless of how badly the rule of the Crusaders may have crapped on a lot of what Jesus said, to point fingers at them and ignore the fact that Muslims had killed the native peoples to take Christian lands is silly.
Isn't it also rather "silly" to get into a contest over which religion has killed the greater number of people, or how they've killed.

It's hardly a great advertisement for any religion.

[Roamy]

I have no idea, but then again not every Islamic terror group bases their hatred on a twisted interpretation of the Koran, do they? It runs alot deeper than that. The fact largely Christian countries have financial interests and forced attempts at trying to gain power of such countries doesn't bode too well when one needs an excuse to hate another country or religion. The less educated amongst us might pin all their ideas of why there is conflict on a "kill ze infidel" interpretation within a holy book, but thats a very simplistic explanation in the grand scheme of things. Sure terror groups preach such garbage but that is but a tiny part of the real problem. If I were to look at your question a bit more deeply, I could argue the bible has been used in the same way because it is what has sculpted a person into believing what they do. Whether there are passages within it that tell them to kill others is irrelevant because if relgion is used in any form, it is based on what that person believes.

The war in Bosnia was fought based on religion because both sides wanted dominance in that region. Both wanted the population to believe what their religion had taught them and killed each other to make that point.

Asking people to fly to a country and incite religious hatred is not only stupid but is hardly a realistic dare is it? You appear to know the least about Islam on this forum and also appear to have some very hatefull views on the subject so why do you not lead by example and give us a summary of what happened to you when you get back?

I have defended the right to believe in all religions as long as its peaceful yet you are only picking up on part of it. The fact you are choosing to ignore the actions of Christian Terror groups in the 20th and 21st century speaks volumes for your arguement and your understanding IMO.

I don't know why you are trying to defend religion. It has killed millions and millions and now it is the Christians vs the Muslims.
But now the Muslims want to kill the people from the West. If we are not Christian then we are a infidel. I am obviously referring to radical muslims. The problem is water and oil don't mix. People keep trying to make one big melting pot of people and beliefs and it doesn't seem to be working. If one points that out then that person instantly becomes a racist, bigot etc. When will people begin to accept reality!!! Never!!!! -- that is why we will be in a constant state of war. Someone once told me "religion is not for the masses" I now tend to believe him.

[swamhost]

The proper mean of ISLAM is that all people who are Muslim people leave crudeness and live with very silently..... The ISLAM is the biggest religion in the world ..and The massage of all muslim people to fill silently and spiritually internally with the god..


At last i say to very friendly do not progress and follow any more trublenss to take a support of ISLAM religion .... thanks a lot all

[Bob Riebe]

So, what if someone claimed that God was speaking through them and used this to justify the deaths of tens of thousands of people?

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." George W. Bush, 2004, during the war in Iraq.

You, Henner and some others are trying to make an analogy where none exists.

The thread is supposed to be about the -"real"Islam. The Koran does contain verses telling Mulsims to kill the infidel, yet some are trying to say the Bible is no different when it is totally different.

This thread is not about simple war which is the lowest common denominator some are trying to reduce it to; its core value is the real Holy Jihad that is the real Muslim religion and is actively engaging in .
Of course what separates Muslims is that blowing up women, children at funerals, church services and other civilian gatherings is fine for Muslims as few to near none are condemning it, while but many are making excuses to justifying it.

[race aficionado]

Religious terrorism - and all terrorism for that matter, SUCKS!

[DanicaFan]

This topic could get ugly in a hurry.

I will say this.... True Islam is not a peaceful religion. Anyone who tells you this falls under 2 categories...1. They dont really know what true Islam is. 2. They do know but lie to you about it and try to hide the fact that its a violent religion.

[monadvspec]

DanicaFan and Bob Riebe, are you theologians? What do you understand about "true Islam" or the Muslim faith? I gather you are both American. You seem to have this rather sad proclivity of lumping everyone into one category without really knowing much. Reminds me of a time when I saw John McCain being interviewed while he was in Iraq and had to be told by a Jewish member of the Senate which sect of the Muslim faith was practiced in Iran. And, he was running for President. Sheesh.
Then we have this Henner chap speaking about Northern Ireland and all he mentions is the PIRA as though only the Nationalists were bombing and murdering. I would like to remind him of the Shankhill Butcher. A member of the UFF (Loyalist and Presbyterian) who drove the streets of Belfast in a taxi cab picking up innocent Catholics and torturing them to death along with his cronies. His trade. He was a butcher. How was he caught? A man whose throat he/they had slit survived. He became an MP.
In addition I'd like to point out the 1975 bombings in Dublin and Monaghan. Along with the UDA and the SAS, yes, the SAS they were/are the prime suspects in the bombings that killed 29 innocents by placing bombs in three strategic areas of Dublin and Monaghan. So sophisticated were these devices that it was concluded only experts in the SAS were capable of putting them together. It took almost thirty years for this to come out along with the SAS gunning down of three members of the IRA who were "planning" to set of a device in Gibraltar. At trial witnesses stated that two of those killed were pleading for their lives and unarmed. The SAS members appeared in court at a hearing wearing hoods. Kinda like the KKK.
So, were these three IRA members on a religious crusade or were the SAS trying to disrupt the initiatives of Wilson the British PM?
When did Henner ever hear anything from the PIRA or the UDA, UFF, RHU ever utter anything to do with Christianity?
Stop painting a religion with same brush you do with terrorists and ignore the good and righteous people who practice in peace.
I bet half of those arguing or maybe even more than that were in support of invading Iraq to oust Hussein and free the Muslim Koran worshiping Muslims because it was George Bush a Republican that was President. Then when it came to President Obama they leveled their ignorant barbs on him claiming (oh my god) that he was a Muslim. I used to get a channel named Fox but now watch it on You Tube to see those with a brain lambaste the ignorance that is so pervasive in an uneducated and easily led populace.
So, now you bash the whole Muslim faith when it seems you do not have one idea of what you are talking or writing about.

[DanicaFan]

I do know what Im talking about. I am an American and a Christian and proud to be both. I have studied Islam, taken classes, went to lectures, talked with local pastors about it. Trust me, its not peaceful. If you think it is, then you dont believe what the Koran says. It clearly states to kill and death to all non-believers. Is that peaceful ?

I dont have time rite now but I can get in depth to what I am saying and back it up with verses, studies, etc. I think you fall in the #2 category my friend.

[BDunnell]

I do know what Im talking about. I am an American and a Christian and proud to be both. I have studied Islam, taken classes, went to lectures, talked with local pastors about it. Trust me, its not peaceful. If you think it is, then you dont believe what the Koran says. It clearly states to kill and death to all non-believers. Is that peaceful ?

I dont have time rite now but I can get in depth to what I am saying and back it up with verses, studies, etc. I think you fall in the #2 category my friend.

My apologies, but the fact that you think 'rite now' is a phrase and forget the apostrophe in 'I'm' indicates to me that you may not, perhaps, be the best person to undertake such a study as you claim to have done.

[GridGirl]

I do know what Im talking about. I am an American and a Christian and proud to be both. I have studied Islam, taken classes, went to lectures, talked with local pastors about it. Trust me, its not peaceful. If you think it is, then you dont believe what the Koran says. It clearly states to kill and death to all non-believers. Is that peaceful ?

I dont have time rite now but I can get in depth to what I am saying and back it up with verses, studies, etc. I think you fall in the #2 category my friend.

Talked with local pastors about it? Pastors? Christian pastors by any chance?

[donKey jote]

Be fair now Ben. He has also talked with local pastors about it... that must count for something too!

p.s. you missed the missing apostrophe in 'dont' :p

[donKey jote]

Talked with local pastors about it? Pastors? Christian pastors by any chance?

either they were
1) christian pastors
or
2) they were muslim 'pastors' and he doesn't know the slightest bit about Islam :laugh:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Stop painting a religion with same brush you do with terrorists and ignore the good and righteous people who practice in peace.


So are you suggesting that instead, we ignore all the horrible parts of religion and cherry-pick the good bits and get excited, shouting 'Look! That's religion!'?

[GridGirl]

either they were
1) christian pastors
or
2) the were muslim 'pastors' and he doesn't know the slightest bit about it :laugh:

I'm glad you said that pointed out that Donkey. I was trying my hardest to not laugh and be nice to DanicaFan. :p

[donKey jote]

I was going to be nice to him too until I saw his avatar and was overcome with jealosy :laugh: :erm: :uhoh: :arrows:

[DanicaFan]

First off, I am a Christian, a born again believer in Jesus Christ whom is the only way to Heaven. I am a baptist if anyone was curious. What I will discuss will be in love and that my desire and as with most Christians is that the truth comes out about false religions and beliefs. Also what I will say will not be politically correct, at times sound insensitive, and not what you typically hear but should. But again, my point is Im not here to hate or offend anyone, I just want to give you the truth.

Before I get into Islam, the thing with Christianity that seperates it from all other religions is that it is the only religion that has a true, living Savior, and that is Jesus Christ. Also its where God wants to have a personal relationship with his people. He doesnt want you to be a slave to him. With Christianity, salvation is a free gift given to all of us by God through Jesus Christ. Other religions make you try and work and earn your way to salvation. Truth is, we could never earn our way to Heaven, we dont deserve it but God's Grace gives us a chance. We all have been given a free will so we can choose to accept Jesus or reject him.

[DanicaFan]

The first thing I will discuss is the Koran, which is the Islam's equivalent to Christianity's Bible.

First off, the Koran is full of errors and not in any type of chronological order. It is very hard to read and understand, even for Muslims. Many verses in the Koran, including many of the peace and gentle verses have been abrogated or nullified if you will. In other words, they throw out a verse if they no longer want it or if it conflicts with another verse. Now how can anyone with any form of intelligence follow and trust a book like that ?

The Bible itself does not change, in fact in Revelation 22:19 -And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book

[jens]

Other religions make you try and work and earn your way to salvation.

So why not work towards it? Instead of taking the lazy mode. :) Why shall I need a 'Saviour"? And how am I a slave to God in other religions?

I am personally not a religious person, but have to say that my biggest respect goes to several Asian religions - Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. To form that opinion, I only need to look at real life evidence, how it has influenced the lives of human beings practically. When I see people smiling sincerely all the time, enjoying life with deep feelings and emotions, being tolerant and respectful to others... Then I know that religion has had a positive effect on the culture and is working really well in the society. Perhaps something similar can be said about Islam. I have personally not been to an Arabic country, but read/heard from people, who have been, that guests are treated with huge respect and helpfulness, like kings.

[markabilly]

The catholic church survived through the ages using terror, fun things such as setting people on fire while tied to a stake and so forth. Only because they deviated slightly on views about the faith.

Then along came the printing press, and people started reading the new testament--odd stuff about turn the other cheek, love your enemies........nothing in there about burning people for a slightly different view on God :eek:

But the difference is that unlike Jeus, the pedo prophet was busy "marrying" young girls who were 9 or ten years old, chopping off heads of infidels (men, women and children) or other people he just did not like----all of which is held up as an example of holy acts to be followed by true beleivers, as laid out in the Koran. :rolleyes:

Oh, but there you will want to go....gee there are those pastors, yada, ....so what? two wrongs do not make a right. :(

True Islam is a dangerous religion to the dignity of women and does NOT seperate religion from the political system, very dangerous to the very freedoms that brits, americans, canadians, et all, hold so precious.

[markabilly]

I was going to be nice to him too until I saw his avatar and was overcome with jealosy :erm: :uhoh: :arrows:

Let me ease your pain... :D ....she is not your type. Cause she is older than 11 years of age..........


opps, I almost forgot, maybe it is because you are jealous of her, instead of him, for stealing him away. In that case, I can't help you dude, except to suggest erotic asphyxiation as an alternate :bounce:

[markabilly]

Some of the recent comments on this page are quite disturbing IMO. Radical Muslims or fundamentalist Christians? Perhaps we could have a poll on which is scarier? :eek:

Is there any actual difference? That is, setting aside the names of the various parties involved- and the problem that most of the fundamentalist christians are hypocrites....something which can not be said for radical Muslims who are simply practicing what is preached in the Koran.

Anyway, I would have to vote for DonKey jote and his momma...they are both scarier....

[markabilly]

I have no idea, but then again not every Islamic terror group bases their hatred on a twisted interpretation of the Koran, do they? It runs alot deeper than that. The fact largely Christian countries have financial interests and forced attempts at trying to gain power of such countries doesn't bode too well when one needs an excuse to hate another country or religion. The less educated amongst us might pin all their ideas of why there is conflict on a "kill ze infidel" interpretation within a holy book, but thats a very simplistic explanation in the grand scheme of things. Sure terror groups preach such garbage but that is but a tiny part of the real problem. If I were to look at your question a bit more deeply, I could argue the bible has been used in the same way because it is what has sculpted a person into believing what they do. Whether there are passages within it that tell them to kill others is irrelevant because if relgion is used in any form, it is based on what that person believes.

The war in Bosnia was fought based on religion because both sides wanted dominance in that region. Both wanted the population to believe what their religion had taught them and killed each other to make that point.

Asking people to fly to a country and incite religious hatred is not only stupid but is hardly a realistic dare is it? You appear to know the least about Islam on this forum and also appear to have some very hatefull views on the subject so why do you not lead by example and give us a summary of what happened to you when you get back?

I have defended the right to believe in all religions as long as its peaceful yet you are only picking up on part of it. The fact you are choosing to ignore the actions of Christian Terror groups in the 20th and 21st century speaks volumes for your arguement and your understanding IMO.

1) it ain't a twisted interpretation of the Koran.

2) Of course, you miss the point. It is not necesssary to go there. Just look at what happenned to the cartoonist or what has been going on in France. You are the one running off at the mouth who is clueless about the koran and the religion-and refuses to recognize what would happen if you said the same things in a Islamic country. And that is the point: You can say those things BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT IN AN ISLAMIC COUNTRY!! You are not inciting religous haterd, but simply stating beleifs that are not much different than mine in many respects, something you can do where you live, but NOT IN ISLAM. For that very reason, that is sufficient grounds to condemn Islam. Of course, I could add about how women are treated and all the rest......

I have known a number of moslems, from my college days and on. All of them were not the terrorist type and i think they would be embarrased about the radicals. Unfortunately, in the view of their religion with the preachings of the pedo-prophet on women, et al,--they are hypocrites as expressly defined by their own Koran.

3) I do not regard the "christian terror groups" as Christian, but hypocrites of the worst sort. Unfrotunately, the same can not be said about radical moslems

Sort like there were those "good Germans" who were nazis but because they were not actively killing jews and so forth, would qualify as hypocrites........

[BDunnell]

The first thing I will discuss is the Koran, which is the Islam's equivalent to Christianity's Bible.

First off, the Koran is full of errors and not in any type of chronological order. It is very hard to read and understand, even for Muslims. Many verses in the Koran, including many of the peace and gentle verses have been abrogated or nullified if you will. In other words, they throw out a verse if they no longer want it or if it conflicts with another verse. Now how can anyone with any form of intelligence follow and trust a book like that ?

I thought some of this seemed a bit eloquent, so did a quick search for your words and found your opinions, and some of the phraseology, to have been lifted in large part from this website:

TheReligionofPeace - Games Muslims Play (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Games-Muslims-Play.htm)

For instance: 'But Muslims today pray toward Mecca. The reason for this is that Muhammad issued a later command that abrogated (or nullified) the first.' I somehow doubt that words such as 'abrogate' feature that heavily in your everyday language. And you have the gall to accuse all Muslims of lacking intelligence for following the Koran!

[race aficionado]

First off, I am a Christian, a born again believer in Jesus Christ whom is the only way to Heaven. . . . . Im not here to hate or offend anyone, I just want to give you the truth.

This attitude always bothers me. I am an infidel then. :dozey:


We all have been given a free will so we can choose to accept Jesus or reject him.

This I can agree on. I accept Jesus as a very evolved human being that "walked what he talked" and was a great example of what a loving, caring, understanding human being can be. It's a pity that the religion formed around his philosophy messed it up really.

:s mokin:

[Captain VXR]

Until (some) Christians stop doing things like torturing and killing children because they are 'witches' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver) they can stop attacking Islam

[Roamy]

Yeah and there are too many sore ass Alter Boys !!

[airshifter]

I do know what Im talking about. I am an American and a Christian and proud to be both. I have studied Islam, taken classes, went to lectures, talked with local pastors about it. Trust me, its not peaceful. If you think it is, then you dont believe what the Koran says. It clearly states to kill and death to all non-believers. Is that peaceful ?

I dont have time rite now but I can get in depth to what I am saying and back it up with verses, studies, etc. I think you fall in the #2 category my friend.

Interesting, I've also talked to a pastor about the Muslim faith, but at the time was in a Muslim majority country. He explained that the local population was very open minded and they had no issues being Christian openly. He also said that over time he often spoke with Muslims about their religious views and saw it at a very tolerant religion.

Taken out of context, the Qu'ran could be said that death should come to all non belivers. Taken in context you as a "christian" openly state that anyone that does not accept Jesus will go to hell. I can easily determine that no Muslim has killed you, how do you easily determine that it is your place to pass judgement on others?

[monadvspec]

So are you suggesting that instead, we ignore all the horrible parts of religion and cherry-pick the good bits and get excited, shouting 'Look! That's religion!'?

Quite the opposite. The bad , lurid, aspects of religion are self evident. Stop calling the issues of NI a religious war which it is not. It was and may still be a socio/economic/political war started by the Brits with the Plantation of Scottish Presbyterians on Catholic land in Northern Ireland. Then setting about the to curb the ability of the Catholic Irish from voting unless they owned a home. An almost impossible task. Religion was used as the catalyst to start the troubles as it was the most obvious starting point.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Quite the opposite. The bad , lurid, aspects of religion are self evident. Stop calling the issues of NI a religious war which it is not. It was and may still be a socio/economic/political war started by the Brits with the Plantation of Scottish Presbyterians on Catholic land in Northern Ireland. Then setting about the to curb the ability of the Catholic Irish from voting unless they owned a home. An almost impossible task. Religion was used as the catalyst to start the troubles as it was the most obvious starting point.

The issues in NI would be much simpler to solve if there wasn't a religious divide. The same could be said about Israel/Palestine.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Before I get into Islam, the thing with Christianity that seperates it from all other religions is that it is the only religion that has a true, living Savior, and that is Jesus Christ. Also its where God wants to have a personal relationship with his people.

It is quite self-centered to think that 'God' wants to have a personal relationship with us insignificant humans.



He doesnt want you to be a slave to him.

So why do Christians kneel down when they pray?


With Christianity, salvation is a free gift given to all of us by God through Jesus Christ. Other religions make you try and work and earn your way to salvation. Truth is, we could never earn our way to Heaven, we dont deserve it but God's Grace gives us a chance. We all have been given a free will so we can choose to accept Jesus or reject him.

So why would 'God' make Earth as good as he could, but not quite as good as he made heaven?

[Captain VXR]

Interesting, I've also talked to a pastor about the Muslim faith, but at the time was in a Muslim majority country. He explained that the local population was very open minded and they had no issues being Christian openly. He also said that over time he often spoke with Muslims about their religious views and saw it at a very tolerant religion.

Taken out of context, the Qu'ran could be said that death should come to all non belivers. Taken in context you as a "christian" openly state that anyone that does not accept Jesus will go to hell. I can easily determine that no Muslim has killed you, how do you easily determine that it is your place to pass judgement on others?

"Judge not lest ye be judged in heaven"
How many fundies actually spout the above quote?
Can a religious person please explain to me how their religion is true and all of the others false using arguments other than 'its a matter of faith' or 'I was raised in it and never doubted it' or 'I know it is the correct path'

[Captain VXR]

It is quite self-centered to think that 'God' wants to have a personal relationship with us insignificant humans.



So why do Christians kneel down when they pray?



So why would 'God' make Earth as good as he could, but not quite as good as he made heaven?

"The lord is my shepherd" - Christians are sheep.

[Mercy]

Taken out of context, the Qu'ran could be said that death should come to all non belivers. Taken in context you as a "christian" openly state that anyone that does not accept Jesus will go to hell. I can easily determine that no Muslim has killed you, how do you easily determine that it is your place to pass judgement on others?
I liked this saying. I came across aboutjihad site it's pretty good in explaining this misquoted ayahs to non muslims who may be deceived by anti-islamists claims.

N.B The christian-current def.- is who believes in God father, mother, trinity NOT Christ follower.

[monadvspec]

First off, I am a Christian, a born again believer in Jesus Christ whom is the only way to Heaven. I am a baptist if anyone was curious. What I will discuss will be in love and that my desire and as with most Christians is that the truth comes out about false religions and beliefs. Also what I will say will not be politically correct, at times sound insensitive, and not what you typically hear but should. But again, my point is Im not here to hate or offend anyone, I just want to give you the truth.

Before I get into Islam, the thing with Christianity that seperates it from all other religions is that it is the only religion that has a true, living Savior, and that is Jesus Christ. Also its where God wants to have a personal relationship with his people. He doesnt want you to be a slave to him. With Christianity, salvation is a free gift given to all of us by God through Jesus Christ. Other religions make you try and work and earn your way to salvation. Truth is, we could never earn our way to Heaven, we dont deserve it but God's Grace gives us a chance. We all have been given a free will so we can choose to accept Jesus or reject him.

I have been reading about a group of "born agains" that go by the name of Westboro (sic) church. They go to the funerals of returning American service men from Afghanistan and Iraq when it was in full force protesting not the war but sexuality. Why Danica fan? They also go to the funerals of known gays with signs saying "God hates fags". Why would God hate something he created?
This born again that is not just an anomaly of the US is an excuse to hide behind religion like an alcoholic does with life through a bottle.
DanicaFan, do you believe in evolution? Was T-Rex walking the earth 4,000 years ago. Did Noah put all living creatures in his over-sized boat?
Why did my lovely brother who harmed not a soul in his life have to die prematurely from a hideous disease leaving behind a family? What was the plan that God had in taking him away and have him suffer so greatly and his children and siblings to this day still in pain?
Do you actually believe water was turned into wine or that five loaves and fish fed a mass( no pun intended) of people? Is the word :faith" and the use of "free will" a cop out so you can excuse all the unanswered and in my humble opinion idiotic fables you "born agains" seem to gravitate to.

[Bob Riebe]

Some of the recent comments on this page are quite disturbing IMO. Radical Muslims or fundamentalist Christians? Perhaps we could have a poll on which is scarier? :eek:
Well if the few thousands of corpses, in the past ten years, resulting from followers of the Koran, does not convince you, nothing will as your bias is overwhelmingly skewed.

[Bob Riebe]

Is there any actual difference? That is, setting aside the names of the various parties involved- and the problem that most of the fundamentalist christians are hypocrites....something which can not be said for radical Muslims who are simply practicing what is preached in the Koran.

Sadly that is too true, while one may loath what Muslims do, one has to admire their loyalty and devotion to their faith.

[Bob Riebe]

this i can agree on. I accept jesus as a very evolved human being that "walked what he talked" and was a great example of what a loving, caring, understanding human being can be. It's a pity that the religion formed around his philosophy messed it up really.

:s mokin:roflmao- http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/icons/eek.gif

[Bob Riebe]

Until (some) Christians stop doing things like torturing and killing children because they are 'witches' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver) they can stop attacking IslamVery-very weak- blah-blah-blah.

[Bob Riebe]

[quote="Brown, Jon Brow"]It is quite self-centered to think that 'God' wants to have a personal relationship with us insignificant humans. -[b] Really?
How so?

So why do Christians kneel down when they pray?[b]some do, some do not.
Those who do, do it out of reverence, OR because they were taught to do so and I doubt they were explained as tp why.

So why would 'God' make Earth as good as he could, but not quite as good as he made heaven?[b] A third of heavens angels fell with Satan.
What is your point?
--------------------------

It is amazing that a large portion of this thread seems to consist of calling Christians are no better, or worse than Muslims, despite the thousand of people murdered by Muslims in the past decade.
Sounds like a bit of bigotry to me and yes I am bigoted against the Muslim faith.

At the same time I have worked with and had Muslim friends who were either decent people, or good ole boy hell raisers who liked to have good time.

[Rudy Tamasz]

My apologies, but the fact that you think 'rite now' is a phrase and forget the apostrophe in 'I'm' indicates to me that you may not, perhaps, be the best person to undertake such a study as you claim to have done.

That's nitpicking, isn't it?

[Robinho]

First off, I am a Christian, a born again believer in Jesus Christ whom is the only way to Heaven. I am a baptist if anyone was curious. What I will discuss will be in love and that my desire and as with most Christians is that the truth comes out about false religions and beliefs. Also what I will say will not be politically correct, at times sound insensitive, and not what you typically hear but should. But again, my point is Im not here to hate or offend anyone, I just want to give you the truth.

Before I get into Islam, the thing with Christianity that seperates it from all other religions is that it is the only religion that has a true, living Savior, and that is Jesus Christ. Also its where God wants to have a personal relationship with his people. He doesnt want you to be a slave to him. With Christianity, salvation is a free gift given to all of us by God through Jesus Christ. Other religions make you try and work and earn your way to salvation. Truth is, we could never earn our way to Heaven, we dont deserve it but God's Grace gives us a chance. We all have been given a free will so we can choose to accept Jesus or reject him.

All of which makes you, IMO, as deluded as any other religous believer, as you are more inclined to take your direction from a text that was written by people, that was nothing more than an exercise is control, than you are to make your own rational direction based on the human experience, which (again IMO) is far more valuable.

You talk of the Truth, only way to heaven, gods grace etc without anything more than a wholly scientifically inaccurate text and the interpreted teachings from that as a way to live your life. Please, provide some information of when God has spoken to you, why is it we must believe without evidence (a very convenient get out for something tha doesn't exist).

Also, before you jump up and down, i do respect your right to belive, i just don't understand it one bit ( I was raised Christian, have attended CofE, Baptist, Methodist and Catholic services and find it all to be nothing more than basic theatre), and I would also refer my entire previous paragraphs to anyone of Muslim faith. Don't for one second think that the bible is all about peace and tolerance, you can cherry pick plenty of verses in order to suit a view to allow persecution, stonings etc of various people or groups.

I can find no positive influence that any religon can provide, that a rational atheist cannot manage perfectly well without supernatural guidance.

[Robinho]

Some of the recent comments on this page are quite disturbing IMO. Radical Muslims or fundamentalist Christians? Perhaps we could have a poll on which is scarier? :eek:

equally for me, and I don't see the need for the use of the words "Radical" or "Fundamentalist" to be honest, as the whole premise of the belief system is both radcial and fundamentalist to me. althoough there are obviously degrees of moderation in which the chosen religon is practiced

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It is quite self-centered to think that 'God' wants to have a personal relationship with us insignificant humans. -
Really?
How so?

If you have to ask the question then I doubt you will ever understand. Do you have any idea how big the universe is? Or how many species have existed before we have?


So why do Christians kneel down when they pray?
some do, some do not.
Those who do, do it out of reverence, OR because they were taught to do so and I doubt they were explained as tp why.

Looks to me like a submission of fear.


So why would 'God' make Earth as good as he could, but not quite as good as he made heaven?

A third of heavens angels fell with Satan.
What is your point?

Do you always think as logically as this? Your last point is so ridiculous it does not value a reply.

[ShiftingGears]

First off, the Koran is full of errors

Like this?

A List Of Biblical Contradictions (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html)