Helpful for Christains

[readingstockport]

Anyway, we are getting way off track. Asking people to respect each other's beliefs/or lack of (providing they're not forcing it on you) is a basic human right.

You can ask for anything but it is not a basic human right to have religion as an unquestioned thing. The right to exercise your religion is a basic human right I agree and I support that.
But there is no more 'right' for the 9/11 'truthers' or the birthers to have their beliefs taken seriously than for religious people to. Why, just because someones beliefs (I call them delusions) are religiously based should they be automatically elevated to some kind of priveleged status wherein they can not be questioned or mocked?

As for homosexuality, people are gay. This is an undeniable fact and can not be contradicted, other than of course on the basis of religiously inspired dogma and hate. Religiosity is purely based on faith and has no evidence to back up it's assertions at all and as such is open to both question and more.

And I'm not particularly angry per se. What does annoy me, however, is the assumption that many religious have that they should be accorded privelelged status simply because they are religious.

Edit to add.
Of course melotron you are being immensly contradictory in that you feel that palace fans can be mocked on the basis of their 'faith' and 'belief' in palace but you feel the same does not apply to the religious.

 

[DTES]

You can ask for anything but it is not a basic human right to have religion as an unquestioned thing. The right to exercise your religion is a basic human right I agree and I support that.
But there is no more 'right' for the 9/11 'truthers' or the birthers to have their beliefs taken seriously than for religious people to. Why, just because someones beliefs (I call them delusions) are religiously based should they be automatically elevated to some kind of priveleged status wherein they can not be questioned or mocked?

As for homosexuality, people are gay. This is an undeniable fact and can not be contradicted, other than of course on the basis of religiously inspired dogma and hate. Religiosity is purely based on faith and has no evidence to back up it's assertions at all and as such is open to both question and more.

And I'm not particularly angry per se. What does annoy me, however, is the assumption that many religious have that they should be accorded privelelged status simply because they are religious.

Edit to add.
Of course melotron you are being immensly contradictory in that you feel that palace fans can be mocked on the basis of their 'faith' and 'belief' in palace but you feel the same does not apply to the religious.

Absolutely 100% spot on.

If I genuinely believed my toaster was the creator of the universe, and lived my life following the "instructions" that I genuinely believed it was giving me, would you respect that? Or would you get me sectioned?

This may seem sarcastic or cynical, but it's a honest question that I'd like an answer to: Other than the sheer number of believers, what's the difference? (If you take this question personally, then apply it to a different religion other than yours and answer it then...)

(Note - I'm not suggesting the religious should be sectioned at all, just emphasising that there is no automatic right to "respect")

 

[Surrey_Albion]

Tell me where you live, I want to sacrifice some thick white bread to the your holy toaster, In toaster name we trust

 

[Kazenga <3]

[yt]PIK3GXdkxL0[/yt]

 

[Surrey_Albion]

 

[Shooting Star]

Of course melotron you are being immensly contradictory in that you feel that palace fans can be mocked on the basis of their 'faith' and 'belief' in palace but you feel the same does not apply to the religious.

1. You cannot place football and religion on the same footing.
2. But even so, this is a Brighton forum and our rivals are Palace. If Palace fans are knocking about on here, they know that they're going to get slaughtered. Conversely, many Brighton fans on here I imagine would be Christians/Jewish/Muslim etc. and thus their beliefs, if we're decent people, should be respected. Religion is deeply personal and fundamentally changes life for those who possess it. This is not an Atheist/Religious forum. Similarly I'd disagree if someone started going 'tories are scum' or 'labour are f'ing comi idiots'. They're similarly ignorant comments towards personal beliefs.

And DTES, I'd argue the fundamental difference is that most major religions take their scripture as historical evidence. For example, if Christianity is true and Jesus was indeed resurrected, then those who witnessed it recorded it, and thus that scripture is a historical document.

 

[Surrey_Albion]

"1. You cannot place football and religion on the same footing."
I completly disagree with this because of my beleifs

 

[Shooting Star]

"1. You cannot place football and religion on the same footing."
I completly disagree with this because of my beleifs

Fair enough.

 

[El Presidente]

You have faith or you don't.

Whilst I am all for tolerance of views, I'm not sure I agree with the above.

Babies are not born with faith, it is indoctrinated into them.

 

[DTES]

And DTES, I'd argue the fundamental difference is that most major religions take their scripture as historical evidence. For example, if Christianity is true and Jesus was indeed resurrected, then those who witnessed it recorded it, and thus that scripture is a historical document.

So although you may not respect my hypothetical beliefs personally, if I were to write them down, you'd then respect my children for holding them? And anyone else who read my writings in the future?

 

[Albumen]

Thankfully religion is dying out, we're in another science paradigm where communication can spread the love of evidence and peer reviews, (mmm peer reviews) not some daft bit of paper written over and over again to fill the gaps where fear doth lurk.
As Stewart Lee said: I'm not saying relious people are mentally handicapped . . . but they are.

LIVE IN THE NOW! IT'S BRILLIAAAANNNNNT!

And read this blog. Pharyngula
I went to see him on Tuesday night. What a lovely man.

 

[DTES]

And read this blog. Pharyngula
I went to see him on Tuesday night. What a lovely man.

PZ Myers, like Richard Dawkins, has a reputation for being an aggresive, "fundamentalist" atheist (whatever that means), but as you say is actually a thoroughly decent bloke in person.

This video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4trHH6AuZ0 appeared from one of his talks recently, where some Islamists attempt to tell him he has embryology wrong. They don't realise he's actually an embryologist, so needless to say he wins the debate comprehensively - he does it perfectly politely though.

 

[Shooting Star]

So although you may not respect my hypothetical beliefs personally, if I were to write them down, you'd then respect my children for holding them? And anyone else who read my writings in the future?

The Gospels aren't 'beliefs', they are eye witness accounts. Whether you choose to accept them as valid historical documents is down to you/academic research.

 

[DTES]

The Gospels aren't 'beliefs', they are eye witness accounts. Whether you choose to accept them as valid historical documents is down to you/academic research.

If I write down that my hypothetical toaster spoke to me, it's not different (IMHO) than someone 2,000 years ago writing down that they saw a man return from the dead. However, the gospels were written long after the events they claim to record: John, for example was written between 90-110AD. It is highly unlikely therefore, that these can be taken to be eye-witness accounts.

Your second point however goes a little too far - you don't need academic research. The gospels contradict each other throughout, and it isn't advanced logic to state that two directly contradicting events cannot both be true. Therefore I do not take them to be valid historical documents. Of course, many people ignore these contradictions and believe regardless - entirely up to them (I've never stated people shouldn't believe); I simply don't accept that it's a "human right" that such a belief should be beyond criticism.

 

[Surrey_Albion]

The Gospels aren't 'beliefs', they are eye witness accounts. Whether you choose to accept them as valid historical documents is down to you/academic research.

Eye witnesses get it wrong and exagerate, also isnt there a gap in time between versions of the bible and wasnt Jesus long gone before some of them wrote it?
And the early bits who wrote that down, who was witness to the incestuous begining of Adam and Eve?? to many questions that make the above bollocks (no offense)

 

[Was not Was]

PZ Myers, like Richard Dawkins, has a reputation for being an aggresive, "fundamentalist" atheist (whatever that means)

The idea of being 'aggressively atheist' is an odd one, isn't it? Yet it's regularly leveled at us by Christian groups.

How can you 'aggressively' not believe something?

Of course, you can be rude. Which Dawkins is, regularly. But that's down to his personality, not his atheism.

 

[Albumen]

The idea of being 'aggressively atheist' is an odd one, isn't it? Yet it's regularly leveled at us by Christian groups.

How can you 'aggressively' not believe something?

Of course, you can be rude. Which Dawkins is, regularly. But that's down to his personality, not his atheism.

PZ Myers' new book will apparently be far ruder than the God Delusion. Lovely.

 

[Shooting Star]

If I write down that my hypothetical toaster spoke to me, it's not different (IMHO) than someone 2,000 years ago writing down that they saw a man return from the dead. However, the gospels were written long after the events they claim to record: John, for example was written between 90-110AD. It is highly unlikely therefore, that these can be taken to be eye-witness accounts.

Your second point however goes a little too far - you don't need academic research. The gospels contradict each other throughout, and it isn't advanced logic to state that two directly contradicting events cannot both be true. Therefore I do not take them to be valid historical documents. Of course, many people ignore these contradictions and believe regardless - entirely up to them (I've never stated people shouldn't believe); I simply don't accept that it's a "human right" that such a belief should be beyond criticism.

You are right, there are time lapses, and the gospels can be attributed to strong oral tradition etc around the time. It can also be argued that contradictions are bound to appear in the Gospels, through oral tradition and naturally the way people report events. That happens today (e.g. newspapers reporting on the same story almost always give slightly different accounts) but the Gospels all agree on the core events. If there were no slight contradictions, then you could argue that the writers collaborated together or deliberately made their accounts exactly 100% the same, which would weaken their authenticity. Either way, Christians believe these recordings to be historically true, and Atheists don't. This goes for many historical events/reports. Both viewpoints are perfectly fine and should be respected, I'm sure you'll agree.

Anyway this is going off the topic I objected to. I too believe that religion shouldn't be without criticism, and this recent debate has been what it should be; a debate. But the comments posted on the first page were ignorant insults, and that's what I objected to. Like I said, I would feel exactly the same if people started slinging around ignorant insulting comments about people's political beliefs.

Surrey_Albion: Many Christians believe Genesis to be a metaphor for the creation of the world, which makes the Bible compatible with evolution.

 

[Albumen]

You are right, there are time lapses, and the gospels can be attributed to strong oral tradition etc around the time. It can also be argued that contradictions are bound to appear in the Gospels, through oral tradition and naturally the way people report events. That happens today (e.g. newspapers reporting on the same story almost always give slightly different accounts) but the Gospels all agree on the core events. If there were no slight contradictions, then you could argue that the writers collaborated together or deliberately made their accounts exactly 100% the same, which would weaken their authenticity. Either way, Christians believe these recordings to be historically true, and Atheists don't. This goes for many historical events/reports. Both viewpoints are perfectly fine and should be respected, I'm sure you'll agree.

Anyway this is going off the topic I objected to. I too believe that religion shouldn't be without criticism, and this recent debate has been what it should be; a debate. But the comments posted on the first page were ignorant insults, and that's what I objected to. Like I said, I would feel exactly the same if people started slinging around ignorant insulting comments about people's political beliefs.

Surrey_Albion: Many Christians believe Genesis to be a metaphor for the creation of the world, which makes the Bible compatible with evolution.

How can creating the world in 6 days then Eve being created from Adams rib bone be a metaphor? I'm genuinely confused.

 

[Muhammad - I’m hard - Bruce Lee]

Muhammed 'im hard' Bruce Lee 3:16.....

and here begineth another spackfest