Respecting religion???

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

When it comes to the matter of 'arrogance' of opinion, surely you see the irony of suggesting that the opinion of a religion is somehow to be asigned any particular relevance in scientific or moral matters.

An organisation that still struggles with equality between the sexes stands little chance of getting any other moral questions right, does it?

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I've never said I hated religion, just that it all has common flaws and out dated thinking that does not lend itself any competence in moral decision making.

Interesting that you started to as ascrib hatred and hence ramp up the confrontation. Why did you do this?

[Troubleatmill]

Do you really have the same values? I hope you don't.

An Australian priest who supports the ordination of women has been excommunicated by Pope Francis. http://catholicism.org/pope-excommunicates-morally...

So... talking about the ordination of women is so heinous you get ex-communicated pronto.
Rape children repeatedly - and get protection, reassigned or promoted.


The entire institution is not fit for purpose. Those who support it under the existing value set should be ashamed.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

When it comes to the matter of 'arrogance' of opinion, surely you see the irony of suggesting that the opinion of a religion is somehow to be asigned any particular relevance in scientific or moral matters.

An organisation that still struggles with equality between the sexes stands little chance of getting any other moral questions right, does it?

There you go too, who are they to question the ethics and morals of science?
Scientists may understand the chemistry, the biology and the physics of things but this in no way means they automatically understand the impact their developments have on mankind.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

I've never said I hated religion, just that it all has common flaws and out dated thinking that does not lend itself any competence in moral decision making.

Interesting that you started to as ascrib hatred and hence ramp up the confrontation. Why did you do this?

Confrontation? Don't take yourself too seriously, it's only a discussion.
Talking of flaws, humanity is flawed. But do you write off everything about something in particular because of what you perceive to be flaws? I'll ask you this - is Mrs. Ahmad from 76 Kent Road to blame for the actions of ISIS? Do you think that ISIS somehow own Islam and mean that all Islam is bad?

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I am not saying that such things are beyond question - of course not. A medical ethics council, and the legal system, spring to mind as authoritative bodies who could make judgements with some independence.

Can you provide any argument as to why any religious body should have any influence and make a moral judgement on scientific research? Their behaviour and track record with fgm and child abuse suggests they are amonsgt the least qualified, no?

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

I am not saying that such things are beyond question - of course not. A medical ethics council, and the legal system, spring to mind as authoritative bodies who could make judgements with some independence.

Can you provide any argument as to why any religious body should have any influence and make a moral judgement on scientific research? Their behaviour and track record with fgm and child abuse suggests they are amonsgt the least qualified, no?

Sorry, what? The Church of England and FGM? https://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/marriage...

So who are you blaming for FGM, in particular?

[Martin4x4]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Nice strawman and excellent example of why religious people should refrain from commenting on scientific topics which require logical thought.

The church and religious people can say what they want but when they talk rubbish they should expect to get called out on it and not just assume they can dictate from an assumed position of authority.

I'll take your persistence in avoiding the question as conceding that the church holds back progress.

Edited by Martin4x4 on Monday 2nd February 17:29

[anonymous-user]

Martin4x4 said:

Nice strawman.

The church can say what they want but when they talk rubbish they should expect to get called out on it and not just assume they can dictate from assumed position of authority.

I'll take your persistence of avoiding the question as conceding that the church holds back progress.

So do you believe the scientists have satisfied all concerns about ethics, safety and efficacy in the case that you brought up in ordrr to bash the CofE?
You made the claim, you back it up.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

FGM is a product of religion, no?

I see you are setting your preferred one aside and above reproach.

A quick google

http://www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/churchofengland.htm

As you are happy for religions to dictate the morals of science, surely those religions should themselves be subject to scrutiny?

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

FGM is a product of religion, no?

I see you are setting your preferred one aside and above reproach.

A quick google

http://www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/churchofengland.htm

As you are happy for religions to dictate the morals of science, surely those religions should themselves be subject to scrutiny?

Hahahhahahaha!
fk me, you are too obvious!

[Derek Smith]

Those who profess a religion have a right to speak on any subject.

Those who run a particular sect of a particular religion have no justification for speaking for their entire membership, real or manufactured. As we have seen on here, including from the most prolific contributor, each member has their own particular beliefs. So top vicars can only speak for themselves and the board of directors.

If that board of directors base a conclusion on an uncritical interpretation of scribblings of someone 3500 years ago and some other stuff, then this must be a factor in deciding how much emphasis to place on their statements.

If that particular sect has something to say on fertility, then we must consider their attitude to women and fecundity in deciding how much emphasis to place on their statements.

When the top vicar says something in his position as head of that sect we must consider his lack of experience if he, and it is always he, decides to spout off about what married people, or even just those living together, can or cannot do. We can, I think, put whatever he says in the file marked: For amusement only.

Philosophers have a right to speak on any subject as well, but they have no limitations as to their conclusions, other than their brand of logic.

Everyone has a right to speak out on any subject in this free country and it is a right that should be exercised. However, let us accept that those who speak for churches have a limited view on life and morality, not formed by their own opinions but by those of others.

I'd like to hear a lot more of what Ann Widdicombe has to say on the subject of religion. Listening to her makes one wonder if she is, somehow, controlled by Dawkins and he uses her to create more atheists. Fair enough, her views are not those of the majority of adherents to her particular sect, but they are pertinent when trying to understand what the church is based on.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

So you agree the moral authority of (any) religion is fundamentally without merit?

The argument to support such a claim is stuffed with ample evidence (scientific method)

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

So you agree the moral authority of (any) religion is fundamentally without merit?

The argument to support such a claim is stuffed with ample evidence (scientific method)

We are talking about a case where our CofE representative in the House Of Lords questions the stringency of some scientific research. You protest you don't have a thing against 'religion' as a large all encompassing concept yet you use FGM as a thing to bash the CofE and to somehow invalidate their questioning of this genetic trial. I quote an official CofE statement about FGM, clearly against FGM (not that FGM was ever a CofE thing anyway).
Your response is 'FGM, religion innit?'.
Your thinking is so full of st, pal.

[supertouring]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

And so speaks the religious. Nice work VK.

[anonymous-user]

supertouring said:

And so speaks the religious. Nice work VK.

You validate the link insinuated between FGM and the Bishops in the House of Lords then.

[Derek Smith]

Stephan Fry's take on whether the abrahamic god deserves respect:

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/feb/01/ste...

WARNING: Those of a religious nature, look away now.

[WinstonWolf]

Derek Smith said:

Stephan Fry's take on whether the abrahamic god deserves respect:

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/feb/01/ste...

WARNING: Those of a religious nature, look away now.

Sums the whole thing up perfectly.

[BlackLabel]

When the Blair government tried to introduce a law which would have made insulting religion illegal.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96ulSDoCwjE&fe...

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I have alot against religion but I don't profess to hate it - that is a word you introduced.

I highlighted FGM, sexism, homophobia and child abuse generically as failings of various religions. Ample examples are available to associate various shortfalls with various religions.

You attempt to clear the CoE by citing one atrocity they have spoken out against, as if that exonerates all the other failings of christianity based religions, missing the point entirely.

And then you accuse my thought processes of being inadequate by using foul language.

Once again - how do you feel about the sexism and homophobic shortcomings of christian religion - are you OK with those of will you dodge the question again by referring to something else?

Why should a sexist homophobic body have any valid say in the direction of scientific research?