It certainly looks that way. I wonder why….
Apart from, as pointed out, a few wealthier places where religion is part of the state’s laws.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Apart from, as pointed out, a few wealthier places where religion is part of the state’s laws.
I dont really see the issue of an atheist having the opinion that one religion has a better set of ethics, story, impact on culture than another religion despite being convinced they are all rooted in superstition.
Old news
Headline: Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm
From Monday, 10 December 2007
Tom Holland has referred to atheism as a logical end point of protestantism. His book „Dominion“ is worth a read imo.
Not that I've heard. What does it mean and what in this thread is it applicable to? Are you suggesting being irreligious = standing for nothing and makes a person excessively credulous?
It's definitely a saying but I don't think it works in the context i.e. not believing in God doesn't mean you don't stand for anything. I'm an atheist and possibly cynical to a fault. I can't see how that lends itself to believing in crackpot theories but then I also wouldn't subscribe to not standing for anything. I've very firm standards of justice.
There is an interesting argument I heard a while back that modern secular, compassionate morality which now extends to marriage equality and legal abortion etc grew out of Christian ideas of compassion and are a natural progression of those ideas.
Hence my request for clarity. It makes little sense to me unless the point is lacking a faith means you stand for nothing and will therefore be more credulous because you lack a code or some such. I hope not, however, as that is both bollocks and as arrogant as it is ignorant and hopefully the poster will clarify showing that this is a mis-reading on my part.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Someone tried to take me to online church the other day.
When I refused I was told Jesus died for my sins.
I asked him what was worse, death or rape. I also askds if living for three days after dying was harder than living for decades after being raped.
He blocked me.
When I refused I was told Jesus died for my sins.
I asked him what was worse, death or rape. I also askds if living for three days after dying was harder than living for decades after being raped.
He blocked me.
Ooh ooh... Yo, MAGA nutter Greene. First off, you're a shit politician and even shittier human being. Now, maybe if this "god" just showed itself maybe we'd believe in this bullshit. Oh, and might I add there are more than 2500 gods and goddesses in mankind's history but I digress. But yeah, "god" works in mysterious ways like giving us cancer and earthquakes.
If all Republicans repent and promise to themselves that they would stay away from lies, deceit and evil, I think GOP may not be so happy.
Sure, he's sending signs to repent and jail that charlatan Trump instead of letting him get away with everything - or at least that's my mad take
This is much repeated by Christians, and I heard it a lot attending Catholic school and doing all the sacraments etc but it has never made any kind of sense to me.
Jesus died for your sins.
God sacrificed his only son so you could have eternal life.
But, like, God is ubiquitous and all-powerful, why the feck would he need to have a human son and have him tortured in order to ensure people went to heaven? Also Jesus is sitting pretty in heaven so he wasn't sacrificed at all.
I mean, I get that a lot of it is faith based etc but this part I can't find any kind of logic in at all. I keep coming back to it, in that if millions of people are swallowing this, there must be some kind of logic I'm not understanding. Not that it would change anything about my avowed atheism, but it niggles at me everytime I hear or read about it that I can't see why anyone would believe it.
Ask any of them to prove it.
…crickets….
…crickets….
Many moons ago I was explained that jesus was supposed to be the ultimate sacrifice, replacing animal sacrifices, which basically only worked for individual sins. God said that blood must be shed for sinners to get to heaven and that's where the idea of sacrifice comes from. By sacrificing himself, the only guy without sin, jesus was the ultimate level sacrifice and therefore all sinners still have a chance to repent and go to heaven without the need for further blood being shed. It still sounds a bit silly, but it's religion I guess...
But like God made up the feckin rule in the first place. He didn't have to go through a big song and dance to let people into Heaven.
Thanks for that. Well, if that is the story then it makes some kind of sense but the idea of sacrifice is such an obviously human notion, it still makes no sense from the perspective of an ubiquitous eternal being.
God works in mysterious ways.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Go home America, you're drunk
Yes. However, the problem now is that (in Europe) Christianity is going down, but Islam is going up. And Dawkins has said many times that he considers Islam to be much worse than Christianity. He explains it in that interview:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It is nonsense. I am far from perfect but real meaningful wrongs/sins? Nope.
To be fair that isn't an endorsement of Christianity. I'm sure Dawkins is just disliking a religion that hasn't had a reformation more than one that has.
I find it hard to envision a similar desirable reformation in Islam when you consider the founder and the canonical material.
And here we are over 200 years later from this pl0nker's words, with all this intellectual and scientific progress and....Islam is the massively growing religion. Despite the annual culling of Muslims from the West (recent examples Iraq x 2, Syria, Afghanistan and of course the lovely Western work in Palestine).
What are these Muslamic Imams doing to brainwash the masses so well. In the West. Where they annually brutalise and murder Muslims globally via EMF, bombs, Islamaphobia, etc? Is it some kind of ray gun? Must be a ray gun.
Anyway, three very, very recent notable brainwashed Muslamic converts:
1. Renown stem cell scientist:
2. Lil John - we all know him
3. Klaverson - staunch anti Muslim Dutch right wing fanatic
Trying to find their tribe I suppose.
Mate, no offense but Lil 'Skeet Skeet Skeet Mufu**' Jon is probably not the best example of Islamic values.
A far right nutter, a rapper and a scientist. Is that it? Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Scientists are predominantly atheists but far from always. So what?
Religion is largely socially inherited and reinforced with fear of supernatural repercussions if you think of leaving but it also a crutch that people use so they don't have to confront the fact that this is it. You get one go around and then nothing. You live on in the memory of your loved ones for a short time and for most of us that is it.
Extreme weird flex since the growth of Islam is directly linked to… birth rate.
So congratulations, I guess?
So congratulations, I guess?
And the fact that if you are born into a muslim family you are automatically a musliim not to mention the apostasy laws in muslim majority countries and the social stigma and isolation in leave or convert to another religion in many cases.
Personally i dont believe the numbers game of a religion has very much bearing on how truthfull and how ethical the set of values are. Otherwise the worlds largest historical religions take turns at being the one true religion.
Last edited:
I used very recent examples. Recent like during this Ramadan just gone + Klaveren. I gave a diversity of people converting from the West. With what that Schloplonker said in the quote above surely the 'abhorrent ' nature of the religion would have put them off rather than attracted them, or even offered fuel to their already held negative notion of the religion?
Lil Jon may very well be a dodgy one but as a Muslim it is not for me to judge another.
Isn't your last statement quite the embarrassing cop out for all religions?
Calling Arthur Schopenhauer a "plonker" is really some next level stuff
No, next level is I went on to call him Schloplonker.Calling Arthur Schopenhauer a "plonker" is really some next level stuff
Worked well enough for Del BoyCalling Arthur Schopenhauer a "plonker" is really some next level stuff