utdalltheway
Sexy Beast
It certainly looks that way. I wonder why….The correlation between poverty and religion is strong.
Apart from, as pointed out, a few wealthier places where religion is part of the state’s laws.
It certainly looks that way. I wonder why….The correlation between poverty and religion is strong.
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.That’s hardly a major concession from Dawkins. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard him accept the notion of being culturally Christian, being perfectly happy with there being milestones marked through the church, etc.
Besides, your culture will be marked by religion, if only through the kinds of swears, allusions, idioms, etc. it uses. Don’t really see the issue here tbh.
Old newsTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
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?Isn't there a saying, when you stand for nothing you fall for everything/anything?
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.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?
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.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.
Well it's @Dumbstar so clarity may not be providedHence 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
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
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.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
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 takeTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
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.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.
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...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.
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.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...
God works in mysterious ways.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.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
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
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.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.
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.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
I find it hard to envision a similar desirable reformation in Islam when you consider the founder and the canonical material.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.
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).Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Mate, no offense but Lil 'Skeet Skeet Skeet Mufu**' Jon is probably not the best example of Islamic values.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
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?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
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.Extreme weird flex since the growth of Islam is directly linked to… birth rate.
So congratulations, I guess?
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?Mate, no offense but Lil 'Skeet Skeet Skeet Mufu**' Jon is probably not the best example of Islamic values.
Isn't your last statement quite the embarrassing cop out for all religions?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.
Calling Arthur Schopenhauer a "plonker" is really some next level stufffrom this pl0nker's words
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