Tonight - More4, The God Delusion

[8ace]

This Muslim who used to be a jewboy - what a c'unt.

 

[readingstockport]

Two points. If this program was called "The Allah Delusion" it would not have even got on telly.

Also, I don't believe in God. However, there have been more than ten but less than twenty times when I have cast my eyes upwards and prayed like a bastard for someone to get me out of the shitstorm I have found myself in. Amazing who finds God in a foxhole, innit?

I refer to the reply I posted a minute ago.

Don't blame Dawkins for the mealy mouthed attitude of others. Richard Dawkins is MORE than happy to explain to muslims why their belief in a sky man is as idiotic as xians belief in one.

And the strawman argument about atheists in foxholes has nothing to do with the existance of a sky man, merely the weakness of humans when the sadly end up in foxholes.

 

[readingstockport]

This Muslim who used to be a jewboy - what a c'unt.

Are you talking to yourself or refering to someone else?

 

[Stoo82]

This was a good thread until the clearly very angry readingstockport, who hates everyone, came along.

 

[8ace]

Talking about the sceptic who moved to Jerusalem who was just on readingstockport.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

I'm surprised by the number of people who have labelled Hitler an athiest. He was a Catholic, though not hugely active.

Stalin DIDN'T kill all those people because he was athiest. He killed them because he was a maniac. The pilots on 9/11 DID kill because of their God (and because they were maniacs). There's the difference

 

[¤DãŃn¥ §êãGüLL¤]

Pray tell me what you have done that remotely compares to his achievements?

He posted a picture of his ex's knockers on NSP

 

[daveinprague]

I just noticed this comment on a youtube video...

It takes a woman 20 minutes to orgasm. It takes a man 2 minutes......how much proof do you need that there is no f***ing god!!.............

 

[Stoo82]

I'm surprised by the number of people who have labelled Hitler an athiest. He was a Catholic, though not hugely active.

Stalin DIDN'T kill all those people because he was athiest. He killed them because he was a maniac. The pilots on 9/11 DID kill because of their God (and because they were maniacs). There's the difference

So Hitler killed people because of God and Stalin killed people because he was a maniac. I'll think you'll finr Hitler was a maniac aswell.

 

[Little Piggy]

Move to Sweden then.

I knew you would say that. Its very dismissive of the concerns and life worries of others.

Background: I moved to Ireland a few years ago to meet girls and have a bit of fun. It was a temporary thing. However, I got caught up falling for a fantastic girl, married her, bought a house in a beautiful part of the world surrounded by lovely people, and now we want to start a family. I have no religion though, so life here is getting more and more conflicted. And that makes me angry.

Oh no, wait, I should move to Sweden! Bollocks to the wife eh?

By the way, with regard to this programme... I have to say, Mr Dawkins is certainly coming across a lot more patronising than I thought he did in his book of the same name. But who cares, all he is capable of doing in it is winding a few people up. Its a bit of schadenfreude as far as I am concerned.

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

Ah but he is [all powerful].

And God created everything, as well? And he loves us all as his children, right? And he created us in his own image?

Right. What kind of father would stand by and see thousands of his own innocent babies and children destroyed by a flood, or a tsunami - that he himself had created?

He would have to be either:-

1 Not in control of his creation after all - so not actually all-powerful, OR

2 A horrifically sadistic kind of god, deserving only of scorn, and not worship, OR

3 Non-existent.


So, which one is it for you, Mr Biggums?

 

[ATFC Seagull]

And God created everything, as well? And he loves us all as his children, right? And he created us in his own image?

Right. What kind of father would stand by and see thousands of his own innocent babies and children destroyed by a flood, or a tsunami - that he himself had created?

He would have to be either:-

1 Not in control of his creation after all - so not actually all-powerful, OR

2 A horrifically sadistic kind of god, deserving only of scorn, and not worship, OR

3 Non-existent.


So, which one is it for you, Mr Biggums?

Very simplistic viewpoint. I don't think anyone really believes that God is up there pushing buttons, e.g. "December 26th, massive Tsuami". What Christians would believe is that God created the earth and has given us stewardship of it under our own free will. It doesn't run against the idea that the forces of nature are affected by all sorts of scientific variables and can result in disasters like the ones you have mentioned.

Aanyways I did promise myself I wouldn't get dragged into this thread and I won't read the rest of it. If there are any religious types on here trying to insist they are right then I hope they stop, however - could I ask for mutual respect from atheists, rather than this obsessive need to prove how much cleverer they are than those of us who have faith?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

a being that is also, according to you, inately warmongering, cruel and greedy. bit of a logic failure. funny how all bad things are due to mans weakness, all good things are in Gods plan. but God supposedly created man, so why did he do so with so many flaws? is it a lack of critical reasoning or blind faith that means you fail to see this contradiction.

Who says it has to be a being?

God is merely a name to represent what religious people believe played a part in our design.

As I've said previously in this thread, it could be a conscience contained within the cosmos. Which might explain why when humans are born there are already certain things imprinted within their brains.

Logic failure comes when it's viewed trough a single thought process that only we alone exist.

Added the word logic means nothing outside of planet Earth. What is logical here, may be completely illogical due to different sets of physical laws occurring elsewhere.

And all bad things are due to mans mental weaknesses, The parable of Adam and Eve highlights that quite well.

But you are wrong to try and make it out like like im suggesting good only occurs with Gods influence. Of course good can exist without it.

But if people need to use the text in the new testament as a guide to their lives then so be it.

So I don't see a contradiction at all.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I'm surprised by the number of people who have labelled Hitler an athiest. He was a Catholic, though not hugely active.

Stalin DIDN'T kill all those people because he was athiest. He killed them because he was a maniac. The pilots on 9/11 DID kill because of their God (and because they were maniacs). There's the difference

Hitler wasn't a Catholic.

He might have been baptized one but by the time he came to power he was very much removed from any God.

To quote Martin Bormann, "National Socialism [Nazism] and Christianity are irreconcilable"

Which means anything Hitler said on Religion was merely lip servive to get people onside.

In addition, Hitler declared Nazism the state religion and the Bible was replaced by Mein Kampf in the schools.

He also said, 'It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood.'"

Not really the words of someone who you'd call a "Catholic".


As for Stalin you can't categorically state that his atheism had no part in the way he acted against the churches in Russia.

Sure he was a maniac, but that doesn't mean his anti-religion/atheist views cant manifest themselves within his policies.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I knew you would say that. Its very dismissive of the concerns and life worries of others.

Background: I moved to Ireland a few years ago to meet girls and have a bit of fun. It was a temporary thing. However, I got caught up falling for a fantastic girl, married her, bought a house in a beautiful part of the world surrounded by lovely people, and now we want to start a family. I have no religion though, so life here is getting more and more conflicted. And that makes me angry.

Oh no, wait, I should move to Sweden! Bollocks to the wife eh?

By the way, with regard to this programme... I have to say, Mr Dawkins is certainly coming across a lot more patronising than I thought he did in his book of the same name. But who cares, all he is capable of doing in it is winding a few people up. Its a bit of schadenfreude as far as I am concerned.

Well I guess you have to take the good with the perceived bad then.

So I'm not being dismissive at all.

It's more you can't rock up to a country that you know is extremely entwined within a faith based system then get angry when that countries system doesn't suit your needs.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Right. What kind of father would stand by and see thousands of his own innocent babies and children destroyed by a flood, or a tsunami - that he himself had created?

So, which one is it for you, Mr Biggums?

You could pose that very same question at the Monarchs and Prime Ministers of England.

How many of them sent their own people off to wars they started only to be butchered to death in a strange land?


Your whole premise is based around blaming a natural process for a disaster.

I can point to the bush fires here recently that killed 128 people. Bushfires are a natural disaster which can occur here.

But it wasn't the natural disaster that necessarily killed the people. It was peoples stupidity that lead to their demise.

If you build a house in the middle of an area prone to fires you cant then moan when a fire happens and say oh "its Gods fault all these people died".

No, they died because of human failures. not due to any other process.

If you saw a Tsnuami hit an unpopulated area you'd wonder in awe at the power and force created by it. I know I would.

Just as I look on in awe at things like avalanches, tornadoes, lightning strikes.

All things that "could" harm a person, but are none the less magnificent things to observe.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

God in the Christian sense can't be responsible for millions of deaths because he expressly said in the text attributed to his words "thou shall not murder/kill"

You can't kill in the name of God because he forbid it.

Conversely he did promote generosity and kindness to ones neighbour.

So if you followed that text from the same place he forbid murder then you'd be following his words.


The Crusades isn't a great example to use for a religious war because there's too many examples where its apparent it was nothing more than a looting venture.
Granted there were elements like the Knights Templar who were religious zealots but for a lot of others, it hardly mattered.

One glaring example of this was the Fourth Crusade. When instead of the original plan of attacking the Muslims they instead went and sacked Constantinople which was itself part of the Byzantian Christian Empire.


It's almost always about the $$$

O.K, I see your point.

However, the Crusades are an excellent example of war being waged in God's name. God(if he exists) might not have been best pleased with them but it is undeniable that they were fought in his name. On both sides. The first crusade(and thus the subsequent five too) could never have happened without God. Pope Urban II called for a Christian army to not only defend the Eastern edges of the (Christian) Byzantium empire against the encroaching attacks of the (Muslim) Turks but to forge a path all the way to Jerusalem a city that he described as the 'navel of the world' and was the 'fountain of all Christian teaching'. He claimed that Islam and Muslims were 'alien to god' and that they were 'slaughtering[Christians], destroying churches and laying waste to the kingdom of God'. As a deal clincher he said that going on this 'sacred venture' would lead to the 'remission of all their sins'.In other words he was offering those who went on the crusade as direct a path to heaven as was possible. He claimed that this was a Holy war that was not only condoned by God but actively endorsed by him. 'Christ commands' it.

Some protagonists might have enlisted for slightly less than evangelical reasons but it is undeniable that the vast majority of crusaders took the cross as an act of pilgrimage and religious penance. This is true for all the crusades, I think. A good example is the third crusade. There is no way anything other than the call of God could induce Richard the Lionheart and Phillip II to turn their back on their realms and European wars for years on end to go and fight in a war thousands of miles away against an enemy that posed no threat to them. Likewise the devotion of the 'common' man can not be questioned too much. This is clearly illustrated by the reaction of Richards army when, with Jerusalem within striking distance, he chose-for sound military reasons- to not attack. This hugely demoralised the rank and file as they were there to do God's work and take the holy city and no matter how good the military logic of not attacking morale was destroyed.

On the other side of the crusades, religion too played a central part. Saladin would never have been able to call on so many disparate and warring Muslim factions if he wasn't able to call on the concept of Jihad. whether he was a devout jihadist or was simply using it to further his own ends is open to debate, but without it he wouldn't have been able to pull together such a large army. It was a call to arms that was used repeatedly throughout the history of the crusades by not only Saladin but by his predecessors(notably Nur al-Din) and those that came after him(notably Baybars).

So God and the idea of religion were absolutely central to the idea and carrying out of the Crusades. Objectives might have changed in the field and some people may have taken the cross more for the glory of their person than that of God but nevertheless God was fundamental to the crusades. Without him there would have been no crusades. It was the Pope who sanctioned it. It was the Pope who situated it within the framework of existing religious beliefs, it was the Pope who told his flock that it was god's will and it was in God's name that Kings, princes and the common man took the cross. It was in Allah's name that thousands of Muslims received the call of Jihad.

Take God/allah out of the equation and the Crusades would never have happened.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

O.K, I see your point.

However, the Crusades are an excellent example of war being waged in God's name. God(if he exists) might not have been best pleased with them but it is undeniable that they were fought in his name. On both sides. The first crusade(and thus the subsequent five too) could never have happened without God.

Pope Urban II called for a Christian army to not only defend the Eastern edges of the (Christian) Byzantium empire against the encroaching attacks of the (Muslim) Turks but to forge a path all the way to Jerusalem a city that he described as the 'navel of the world' and was the 'fountain of all Christian teaching'. He claimed that Islam and Muslims were 'alien to god' and that they were 'slaughtering[Christians], destroying churches and laying waste to the kingdom of God'. As a deal clincher he said that going on this 'sacred venture' would lead to the 'remission of all their sins'.In other words he was offering those who went on the crusade as direct a path to heaven as was possible. He claimed that this was a Holy war that was not only condoned by God but actively endorsed by him. 'Christ commands' it.

ome protagonists might have enlisted for slightly less than evangelical reasons but it is undeniable that the vast majority of crusaders took the cross as an act of pilgrimage and religious penance. This is true for all the crusades, I think. A good example is the third crusade. There is no way anything other than the call of God could induce Richard the Lionheart and Phillip II to turn their back on their realms and European wars for years on end to go and fight in a war thousands of miles away against an enemy that posed no threat to them. Likewise the devotion of the 'common' man can not be questioned too much. This is clearly illustrated by the reaction of Richards army when, with Jerusalem within striking distance, he chose-for sound military reasons- to not attack. This hugely demoralised the rank and file as they were there to do God's work and take the holy city and no matter how good the military logic of not attacking morale was destroyed.


On the other side of the crusades, religion too played a central part. Saladin would never have been able to call on so many disparate and warring Muslim factions if he wasn't able to call on the concept of Jihad. whether he was a devout jihadist or was simply using it to further his own ends is open to debate, but without it he wouldn't have been able to pull together such a large army. It was a call to arms that was used repeatedly throughout the history of the crusades by not only Saladin but by his predecessors(notably Nur al-Din) and those that came after him(notably Baybars).

So God and the idea of religion were absolutely central to the idea and carrying out of the Crusades. Objectives might have changed in the field and some people may have taken the cross more for the glory of their person than that of God but nevertheless God was fundamental to the crusades. Without him there would have been no crusades. It was the Pope who sanctioned it. It was the Pope who situated it within the framework of existing religious beliefs, it was the Pope who told his flock that it was god's will and it was in God's name that Kings, princes and the common man took the cross. It was in Allah's name that thousands of Muslims received the call of Jihad.

Take God/allah out of the equation and the Crusades would never have happened.

I have to beg to differ in some regards.

Even without God these types of wars would still have occurred as there would have been another fillip which set the war train wheels in motion.

With no religion it might then have come down to political philosophies.

As history shows religion does not need to be present for a war to happen.

You are most likely correct that the Crusades would not have happened without Religion.

But on the flip side they actually united a lot of Europe at thetime meaning it was more stable than previously.

Take away the somewhat stabilising affect of these European treatys during the crusades and you would probably have just seen more infighting within the European theatre of war.

We can never know of course with hypotheticals. But mankinds history or war suggests if it's not one thing causing conflict it's another.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

I have to beg to differ in some regards.

Even without God these types of wars would still have occurred as there would have been another fillip which set the war train wheels in motion.

With no religion it might then have come down to political philosophies.

As history shows religion does not need to be present for a war to happen.

You are most likely correct that the Crusades would not have happened without Religion.

But on the flip side they actually united a lot of Europe at thetime meaning it was more stable than previously.

Take away the somewhat stabilising affect of these European treatys during the crusades and you would probably have just seen more infighting within the European theatre of war.

We can never know of course with hypotheticals. But mankinds history or war suggests if it's not one thing causing conflict it's another.

Yeah, I have little doubt that humankind has used religion as a handy stick to attack others and if it wasn't religion they would have found something else.

I was merely giving the example of the Crusades as a series of wars that were solely down to differing religions. There is no way that in the 11th and 12th centuries people from England, france, Germany would have united and marched 2,000 odd miles to take on an army of Syrians, Iraqi's and Egyptians.

 

[beorhthelm]

Very simplistic viewpoint. I don't think anyone really believes that God is up there pushing buttons, e.g. "December 26th, massive Tsuami". What Christians would believe is that God created the earth and has given us stewardship of it under our own free will.

im afraid to say there are Cristians and other faiths that do believe God is directly intervening in everyday life (always handy to invoke god for a "miracle"). some went as far to say the tsunami was a punishment. the Abrahamic god is quite malevolent and tyranical.

Who says it has to be a being?

God is merely a name to represent what religious people believe played a part in our design.

As I've said previously in this thread, it could be a conscience contained within the cosmos. Which might explain why when humans are born there are already certain things imprinted within their brains.
...
And all bad things are due to mans mental weaknesses, The parable of Adam and Eve highlights that quite well.

erm... you did? you were talking about the creation of man: "he created a being". The mental weakness you describe is there because of your god if you beleieve in creation. the parable of Adam and Eve is a good place to start finding flaws in Abrahamic tradition, its a downright sadistic thing to do (God would have known they would fall for the temptation...). what a nice chap. anyway seems you agree with the point i made ("And all bad things are due to mans mental weaknesses..."), which out even acknowledging or realising you do so. I will put it down to both blind faith and lack of critical reasoning.