Respecting religion???

Author
Discussion

TwigtheWonderkid

43,347 posts

150 months

Saturday 24th January 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think you can be a benign or a malignant religious person, but you can never be completely harmless. Ultimately, you have joined a club that perpetuates misogyny and homophobia. If you're a catholic you're lending support to a criminal organisation that continues to assist the evasion of justice of senior members for some truly despicable crimes.

Of course, the old biddy who makes jam for the local church fate in middle England may not see it that way.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,347 posts

150 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
So where do you stand on Chalie Hebdo, the Life of Brian and countless other uses of free expression to mock religion?

anonymous-user

54 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
So where do you stand on Chalie Hebdo, the Life of Brian and countless other uses of free expression to mock religion?
The Life Of Brian, well funny!
Charlie Hebdo, pictures of the Torah, Koran and Bible as toilet paper, don't see the point, don't see any humour in it.

NicD

3,281 posts

257 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
In a series of stinging judgments, Warsi, a former chairwoman of the Tory party and the first Muslim to serve in the cabinet, claims that:

■ David Cameron rejected requests for other faiths, including Muslims, to be given an equivalent to the annual meeting he has with the Jewish leadership – a meeting of Jewish groups and figures that the prime minister hosts.

Why does our government show this special treatment to the Jewish community?

when are we agnostics and atheists going to be treated in the same way?

anonymous-user

54 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
NicD, two words - cough up!

It's about cash, the Jewish lobby groups pay for influence (and I think it's more about helping Israel than Jewish interests in the UK). The Muslims, atheists, agnostics and the rest might want to dig deep for a little influence. Sounds a bit corrupt or just the game?

NicD

3,281 posts

257 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Ah, thats OK then, as long as it is nothing open and above board.

Had to laugh at this quote on the UK Israel Facebook page

'The British Embassy promotes Britain’s security, prosperity and well-being, and regional peace, through partnership with Israel.'

maybe they hope fewer Mossad agents (assassins) will operate here.

'https://www.facebook.com/ukinisrael


btw, my father's family was Jewish and lost his bothers and many relatives before and during the war, so please no-one to think I have no connection.

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

239 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm flattered that you bothered to look...

Now, about this Virgin birth. That's obviously biologically impossible so it follows that any Jesus could not be the son of God unless God gave Mary a good seeing to behind Joseph's back (a poor example for a deity).

Walking on water? As a swimmer I don't really know where to start on this.

What portion size does the average fish serve up?

If you open your mind and think about those questions you must realise the bible is nothing more than a fairy tale.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,347 posts

150 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
Now, about this Virgin birth. That's obviously biologically impossible
I'm not sure it is, look up parthenogenesis. But Jesus would have had to be female.

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

239 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
WinstonWolf said:
Now, about this Virgin birth. That's obviously biologically impossible
I'm not sure it is, look up parthenogenesis. But Jesus would have had to be female.
I certainly will, but that still leaves the bible in tatters.

Religion relies on the willing suspension of disbelief, without it, it fails.

///ajd

8,964 posts

206 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
WinstonWolf said:
Now, about this Virgin birth. That's obviously biologically impossible
I'm not sure it is, look up parthenogenesis. But Jesus would have had to be female.
But that only occurs in plants, some fish and amphibs. Further evidence of evolution gradually favouring sexual repro over asexual. No evidence it has ever happened in mammals naturally without direct human intervention; imprinting prevents it.

So biological evidence would suggest Jesus was the son of a bloke, not God.

MC Bodge

21,628 posts

175 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
///ajd said:
One of the realisations I had while praying during sunday school (as a kid that was partly put through, but did not succumb to, the indoctrination) was that it was surely just in the mind, and there could be no logical consequence of praying. I did used to wonder if others - including the vicar etc. - had different minds and I was somehow faulty in not having a mind that could communicate with 'the lord'
I tended to think that they were all trying convince themselves and each other.

Halb

53,012 posts

183 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
WinstonWolf said:
Now, about this Virgin birth. That's obviously biologically impossible
I'm not sure it is, look up parthenogenesis. But Jesus would have had to be female.
Jesus's mum was a lizard?

Claudia Skies

1,098 posts

116 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
Religion relies on the willing suspension of disbelief, without it, it fails.
For its supernatural aspects that is undoubtedly true. But there's more to religions than that - or at least, there is for the brighter people. Unfortunately those brighter people seem to be in the minority.

Richard Dawkins is good on this stuff. In essence he says, "you don't need to believe in magic in order to have a moral code which most people can agree upon".

nightflight

812 posts

217 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
Can I just point out that in the original scriptures, there is no mention of Mary being a virgin, or of a resurrection for that matter. The book of Mark ended with the crucifixion.
At that time there were many virgin births, simply because in those days a young girl would be stoned to death for her "crime", whereas to day they get a council house!

///ajd

8,964 posts

206 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
Claudia Skies said:
WinstonWolf said:
Religion relies on the willing suspension of disbelief, without it, it fails.
For its supernatural aspects that is undoubtedly true. But there's more to religions than that - or at least, there is for the brighter people. Unfortunately those brighter people seem to be in the minority.

Richard Dawkins is good on this stuff. In essence he says, "you don't need to believe in magic in order to have a moral code which most people can agree upon".
So what are you saying - the fact the most of it is 'untrue' is not important as it serves a useful purpose as a moral compass?

There is merit to (some of) the morals preached of course, but I think it is OK to ask if you really need the religious baggage, and whether some of that baggage (e.g. effectively homophobia) is acceptable collateral damage in this day and age. I find the sexism and homophobia unacceptable and it reflects very badly on religions that cannot manage to reject them. As you say Dawkins says religion is not needed at all to develop and agree a moral code - indeed some religions would clearly be a barrier to such an endeavor.





Moonhawk

10,730 posts

219 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
So where do you stand on Chalie Hebdo, the Life of Brian and countless other uses of free expression to mock religion?
Don't some religions themselves mock those with no faith, faith of a different sort or people who don't follow the rules to the letter.

The bible and koran are full of derogatory words like heathen, sodomite, blasphemer, kuffar, idolater...

Strange considering the bible also teaches - "do onto others....."

kowalski655

14,639 posts

143 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
Do unto others?? Ha!
A video of the "nice" views of theists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7607YiBso

NSFW biggrin

Gandahar

9,600 posts

128 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
Faith is just the age old way of getting people to all agree and feel included and so feel even more right.

Just look at the climate debate on here. Some real evangelicals on here saying it's all bunkem .... wink

Just forget the science and concentrate on the good old BBC being partisan. Et voila.


4v6

1,098 posts

126 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
Religion.
Sounds like a mental illness, talking to invisible sky friends in the year 2015.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,347 posts

150 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
kowalski655 said:
Do unto others?? Ha!
A video of the "nice" views of theists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7607YiBso

NSFW biggrin
rofl

You know those letters must be genuine, because you literally couldn't make it up. What is really odd is how so many of them think atheism is somehow connected to homosexuality. Just wft is that all about.

There are 4 references to the abomination of homosexuality in the bible, and 25 references to the abomination of eating shellfish. So why do oyster bars get an easier ride than gay bars??

Can any of the god squad on here tell my why you lot seem to be so obsessed with gayness?