Richard Dawkins VS The Pope...

[ludo]

The Excession said:

ludo said:

There are ample quote available attributed to Jesus that indicate that there are elements of the OT that are superceded in the new, violence is one of them. There are also quotes to suggest that if we follow the golden rule we are in accordance with the spirit of the OT (and hence are not ignoring it).

ETA: I would have thought the bit about turning the other cheek instead of an eye for an eye was pretty straightforward, apparently not.

Edited by ludo on Tuesday 13th April 20:47

Hmmm... so what you are saying is that God got it wrong in the first place and changed his mind a bit, is that like what the UEA & CRU are doing?

Nice try

[Halb]

ludo said:

Halb said:

ludo said:

try this at work tomorrow, everytime you disagree with someone, tell them they are deluded and see how well it goes down.

It would depend what the subject matter was.

Quite, if you used it in connection with a belief that was of deep personal significance to someone (for instance a religious belief) then it would be interpreted as an insult. QED.

Not 'would', 'could', and as stated, it would have to be someone who is insulted easily. QED. Also you seem to be assuming for all deists that they would be insulted. Don't assume.

[ludo]

groak said:

In Jesus' day there was a fair bit of civil strife afoot, but I don't recall any instance in the Bible where Jesus directly advises either militant Jews or Romans to cease hostilities.

(Matthew 22:21) "render unto Caesar" is pretty much a direct instruction to accept Roman rule and pay their taxes.

Not Jesus, but Paul:

(Romans 13) Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

Of course people being what they are will interpret the bible in ways that suit themselves from time to time; it isn't as if the writings were originally intended as a single book unambiguously setting out the core beliefs.

[Halb]

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

Ludo, being the agnostic he is, surely has to believe in Thor, Zeus, et al. as equally as he believes in the Christian God, surely? I know I place them all on the same level of belief.

And I though Dawkins made some poor arguments!

Poor how? What makes you believe occasionally in the Christian God, but not the others? As an agnostic you can't dismiss Zeus, or Wotan, and not dismiss God.

YOu cannot dismiss any fanciful creature that has popped up in literature.

[ludo]

Halb said:

ludo said:

Halb said:

ludo said:

try this at work tomorrow, everytime you disagree with someone, tell them they are deluded and see how well it goes down.

It would depend what the subject matter was.

Quite, if you used it in connection with a belief that was of deep personal significance to someone (for instance a religious belief) then it would be interpreted as an insult. QED.

Not 'would', 'could', and as stated, it would have to be someone who is insulted easily. QED. Also you seem to be assuming for all deists that they would be insulted. Don't assume.

Following a similar argument the term "wker" isn't an insult as not everyone being called a wker would consider it an insult. Be as pedantic as you like, but I think it is rather naieve to think that Dawkins was unaware that the title of his book would be perceived as an insult to many believers. However, as I suggested most such believers tend to be the forgiving kind

[Halb]

ludo said:

The trouble with any discussion of evidence is that it always comes down to either personal revelation, or historical evidence from those who claimed to have been there. Both sources of evidence tend to be rejected out of hand by atheists on the grounds that they are deluded. There can be no evidence, that will be satistfactory to all, but that doesn't mean there are not reasons to find one god more plausible than another, for instance the guidance provided. For instance I would find it hard to accept a belief system that rejects the golden rule (do unto others...).

There is no evidence, there are stories. Just as there are stories of many Gods and their followers and or prophets. Jehoshua Ben Joseph may have existed as a real individual, so did Buddha, and Mohammed and the oracles at DElphi, it has no bearing on whether Yahwah exists, or Allah, or Odin or Zeus.

[Halb]

ludo said:

Following a similar argument the term "wker" isn't an insult as not everyone being called a wker would consider it an insult. Be as pedantic as you like, but I think it is rather naieve to think that Dawkins was unaware that the title of his book would be perceived as an insult to many believers. However, as I suggested most such believers tend to be the forgiving kind

YOu may be pedantic as you like. wker can be used as an insult, it is also used between friends. It is a swear word which adds to it's power in usage, where deluded is not. It also refers to a sexual act, again where people may take offence. I think it is rather arrogant and ignorant to assume on behalf of so many that they would be insulted.

[DJC]

Tangent Police said:

DJC said:

Tangent Police said:

DJC said:

Im fully in the camp of "Dawkins the nobber".

Smug? Yep.
Smarmy? Yep.
Self-obsessed? Yep.
Arrogant. Yes.
Obnoxious? Yes.
Pompous? Yes.
Self-righteous? Yes.

My evidence/proof? Every Goddam thing it has been my misfortune to read or to see him on tv.

Here comes the irony. I now turn the tv off/channel over if I see him popping up to affect my peace and quiet. I no longer read...even casually...his writings. In this he has managed to become the intellectual equivalent of the Pope to me, i.e. someone irritating and to be ignored. Its *almost* a shame, as he started off being an enjoyably intelligent read and his tv stuff was quite Starkey-ish in being informative and well presented. He was still smug, smarmy and arrogant, but the content was worth the Brand Dawkins tax. Now though, the quality of the content has stayed the same, however the Brand Dawkins tax has suffered inflation far out-stripping even that of fuel duty rises. The cons massively outweigh the pros of him.

There is a point, Starkey is getting bloody smug and irritating himself these days.

"But what about that bstard the Pope eh? What about attacking him then instead of Dawkins eh?2 i hear the usual twerps bleat. Well, er, why should I? Im not a Catholic, I hold no interest in him. He is completely and utterly irrelevent to me. He represents a religion I find slightly silly, speaks in a language I dont understand and apart from him being German I know and care cock all about him. What I do know is he represents something alien, wierd and irrelevent to me, so I treat him as such. Dawkins now by stint of his behavior, preachings and attitude has brought himself to the same place in my humble opinion as the Pope, but for different reasons. Both now provoke the same response in me...daft bloke, ignore.

DJC,

Inferiority Complex? Yep.

What's up with you? Dawkins is great

No, he is annoying, hence why I no longer bother listening to or reading him. Sorry, was I being too subtle?


And to the berk who finds it hard to live with the Catholic Church knocking around doing its thing...grow up. Ive always found ignoring them makes them very easy to live with.

I think The God Delusion should be put on the GCSE English Lit courses.

Everyone should read it, including you. Otherwise you are letting petty prejudice stand in the way of insight and clarity.

Have you read it BTW?

Read it? I even shelled out my own cash to buy it.

And insight and clarity? Knock it off. If you think that provides insight and clarity then one can only presume you never read much of Erasmus, Luthar, Calvin and Knox.

[DJC]

Blue Meanie said:

That's what I get. What exactly is it that he is so arrogant, self-righteous, (The irony of someone using logic, and reasoning being self-righteous against those who deem that they 'know it all', and believe that THEIR religion is the right one , I find amusing), smarmy, etc.

I would suggest that if any of the 'New-Atheists' is the rude, and obnoxious one, it would be Hitchens, but ho-hum.

I think you will find those are my words and insults against him.

Im not Catholic. Im not religious. Religion merely occupies a space in my brain marked "irrelevent".

I do delight in the mischief of pointing out to his followers though that their Messiah behaves in a very Messiah like manner, preaching his message and that they his followers do follower him in a very religious following like manner. I find the similarities most amusing, even more so when they shriek and shout that they are nothing alike. I mean even a muppet like Ludo is scoring points against you and he is just being his usual argumentative devils advocate self!

For Hitchens, see Dawkins.

[DJC]

Blue Meanie said:

I also love the way this isn;t about the Pope, and child abuse, but whether Dawkins is a nice guy. Fine way to avert the issue.

For myself its because I couldnt give a rats arse about the Pope or children. He could personally have buggered them on an alter to Gary Glitter for all I care.


But Dawkins just gets on my wick. Ergo Dawkins gets my ire.

[Andy Zarse]

DJC said:

Tangent Police said:

DJC said:

Tangent Police said:

DJC said:

Im fully in the camp of "Dawkins the nobber".

Smug? Yep.
Smarmy? Yep.
Self-obsessed? Yep.
Arrogant. Yes.
Obnoxious? Yes.
Pompous? Yes.
Self-righteous? Yes.

My evidence/proof? Every Goddam thing it has been my misfortune to read or to see him on tv.

Here comes the irony. I now turn the tv off/channel over if I see him popping up to affect my peace and quiet. I no longer read...even casually...his writings. In this he has managed to become the intellectual equivalent of the Pope to me, i.e. someone irritating and to be ignored. Its *almost* a shame, as he started off being an enjoyably intelligent read and his tv stuff was quite Starkey-ish in being informative and well presented. He was still smug, smarmy and arrogant, but the content was worth the Brand Dawkins tax. Now though, the quality of the content has stayed the same, however the Brand Dawkins tax has suffered inflation far out-stripping even that of fuel duty rises. The cons massively outweigh the pros of him.

There is a point, Starkey is getting bloody smug and irritating himself these days.

"But what about that bstard the Pope eh? What about attacking him then instead of Dawkins eh?2 i hear the usual twerps bleat. Well, er, why should I? Im not a Catholic, I hold no interest in him. He is completely and utterly irrelevent to me. He represents a religion I find slightly silly, speaks in a language I dont understand and apart from him being German I know and care cock all about him. What I do know is he represents something alien, wierd and irrelevent to me, so I treat him as such. Dawkins now by stint of his behavior, preachings and attitude has brought himself to the same place in my humble opinion as the Pope, but for different reasons. Both now provoke the same response in me...daft bloke, ignore.

DJC,

Inferiority Complex? Yep.

What's up with you? Dawkins is great

No, he is annoying, hence why I no longer bother listening to or reading him. Sorry, was I being too subtle?


And to the berk who finds it hard to live with the Catholic Church knocking around doing its thing...grow up. Ive always found ignoring them makes them very easy to live with.

I think The God Delusion should be put on the GCSE English Lit courses.

Everyone should read it, including you. Otherwise you are letting petty prejudice stand in the way of insight and clarity.

Have you read it BTW?

Read it? I even shelled out my own cash to buy it.

And insight and clarity? Knock it off. If you think that provides insight and clarity then one can only presume you never read much of Erasmus, Luthar, Calvin and Knox.

DJC, I've seldom seen such weak arguments as you make. Nor do I believe you've no vested interest other than your apparent dislike based on petty personality.

[ludo]

DJC said:

Blue Meanie said:

That's what I get. What exactly is it that he is so arrogant, self-righteous, (The irony of someone using logic, and reasoning being self-righteous against those who deem that they 'know it all', and believe that THEIR religion is the right one , I find amusing), smarmy, etc.

I would suggest that if any of the 'New-Atheists' is the rude, and obnoxious one, it would be Hitchens, but ho-hum.

I think you will find those are my words and insults against him.

Im not Catholic. Im not religious. Religion merely occupies a space in my brain marked "irrelevent".

I do delight in the mischief of pointing out to his followers though that their Messiah behaves in a very Messiah like manner, preaching his message and that they his followers do follower him in a very religious following like manner. I find the similarities most amusing, even more so when they shriek and shout that they are nothing alike. I mean even a muppet like Ludo is scoring points against you and he is just being his usual argumentative devils advocate self!

For Hitchens, see Dawkins.

Can I be Gonzo?

BTW, I'm not playing devils advocate, but this thread does show why people like Dawkins ought to find out the theology of the religions he criticises, as otherwise they end up making bogus arguments, for instance that the troubles in NI have a religious basis, when history shows it was political power struggle and the religion itself provides no support whatsoever for the violence. I don't see how it is playing devils advocate to point these things out.

I have no problem with atheists, I even have no problem with evangelical atheists, however evangelical atheists making dodgy arguments is something I could do without.

[Andy Zarse]

ludo said:

DJC said:

Blue Meanie said:

That's what I get. What exactly is it that he is so arrogant, self-righteous, (The irony of someone using logic, and reasoning being self-righteous against those who deem that they 'know it all', and believe that THEIR religion is the right one , I find amusing), smarmy, etc.

I would suggest that if any of the 'New-Atheists' is the rude, and obnoxious one, it would be Hitchens, but ho-hum.

I think you will find those are my words and insults against him.

Im not Catholic. Im not religious. Religion merely occupies a space in my brain marked "irrelevent".

I do delight in the mischief of pointing out to his followers though that their Messiah behaves in a very Messiah like manner, preaching his message and that they his followers do follower him in a very religious following like manner. I find the similarities most amusing, even more so when they shriek and shout that they are nothing alike. I mean even a muppet like Ludo is scoring points against you and he is just being his usual argumentative devils advocate self!

For Hitchens, see Dawkins.

Can I be Gonzo?

BTW, I'm not playing devils advocate, but this thread does show why people like Dawkins ought to find out the theology of the religions he criticises, as otherwise they end up making bogus arguments, for instance that the troubles in NI have a religious basis, when history shows it was political power struggle and the religion itself provides no support whatsoever for the violence.

Yeesh! Just how totally pig ignorant of the facts can you get?

[ludo]

Andy Zarse said:

ludo said:

DJC said:

Blue Meanie said:

That's what I get. What exactly is it that he is so arrogant, self-righteous, (The irony of someone using logic, and reasoning being self-righteous against those who deem that they 'know it all', and believe that THEIR religion is the right one , I find amusing), smarmy, etc.

I would suggest that if any of the 'New-Atheists' is the rude, and obnoxious one, it would be Hitchens, but ho-hum.

I think you will find those are my words and insults against him.

Im not Catholic. Im not religious. Religion merely occupies a space in my brain marked "irrelevent".

I do delight in the mischief of pointing out to his followers though that their Messiah behaves in a very Messiah like manner, preaching his message and that they his followers do follower him in a very religious following like manner. I find the similarities most amusing, even more so when they shriek and shout that they are nothing alike. I mean even a muppet like Ludo is scoring points against you and he is just being his usual argumentative devils advocate self!

For Hitchens, see Dawkins.

Can I be Gonzo?

BTW, I'm not playing devils advocate, but this thread does show why people like Dawkins ought to find out the theology of the religions he criticises, as otherwise they end up making bogus arguments, for instance that the troubles in NI have a religious basis, when history shows it was political power struggle and the religion itself provides no support whatsoever for the violence.

Yeesh! Just how totally pig ignorant of the facts can you get?

(i) Go read up on the "plantation of Ulster"

(ii) Go find me some quotes from the new testament that would support the armed struggle in NI (I have provided a fair few that make the case for peace)

(iii) Argue with Groak, he seems to have more first hand experience (I mainly know what I know from having Anglo-Irish inlaws - some of whos ancestors had a hand in the plantations).

Groak said:

As to NI (as anyone from there will confirm) there is the appearance of a catholic-protestant struggle and an overt dispute between politicians who draw on quasi-religious backgrounds to present a platform for adversity. But The Street knows better. On the streets it's well known that there are/were certain pubs and clubs where major players from both sides conferred and collaborated to draw the lines as to who owned what particularly in terms of lucrative earners like drug trading and extortion and illegal gaming and prostitution. One could ask where the organised criminals of Ulster were hiding when The Troubles were dominant? Have a guess. Two very big organised crime gangs enjoyed semi-legitimised operation for a very long time. Sorry. That's all it ever really was/is. And what that has to do with religion, never mind faith, is very very little, other than that it defined the allegiances of memebers. Criminals from Catholic families would adhere to the Ra and prod crims would hang out with the UDA.

If I am the pig ignorant one, and you the well informed one, presumably you can provide the answers?

[Andy Zarse]

ludo said:

Andy Zarse said:

ludo said:

DJC said:

Blue Meanie said:

That's what I get. What exactly is it that he is so arrogant, self-righteous, (The irony of someone using logic, and reasoning being self-righteous against those who deem that they 'know it all', and believe that THEIR religion is the right one , I find amusing), smarmy, etc.

I would suggest that if any of the 'New-Atheists' is the rude, and obnoxious one, it would be Hitchens, but ho-hum.

I think you will find those are my words and insults against him.

Im not Catholic. Im not religious. Religion merely occupies a space in my brain marked "irrelevent".

I do delight in the mischief of pointing out to his followers though that their Messiah behaves in a very Messiah like manner, preaching his message and that they his followers do follower him in a very religious following like manner. I find the similarities most amusing, even more so when they shriek and shout that they are nothing alike. I mean even a muppet like Ludo is scoring points against you and he is just being his usual argumentative devils advocate self!

For Hitchens, see Dawkins.

Can I be Gonzo?

BTW, I'm not playing devils advocate, but this thread does show why people like Dawkins ought to find out the theology of the religions he criticises, as otherwise they end up making bogus arguments, for instance that the troubles in NI have a religious basis, when history shows it was political power struggle and the religion itself provides no support whatsoever for the violence.

Yeesh! Just how totally pig ignorant of the facts can you get?

(i) Go read up on the "plantation of Ulster"

(ii) Go find me some quotes from the new testament that would support the armed struggle in NI (I have provided a fair few that make the case for peace)

(iii) Argue with Groak, he seems to have more first hand experience (I mainly know what I know from having Anglo-Irish inlaws - some of whos ancestors had a hand in the plantations).

Groak said:

As to NI (as anyone from there will confirm) there is the appearance of a catholic-protestant struggle and an overt dispute between politicians who draw on quasi-religious backgrounds to present a platform for adversity. But The Street knows better. On the streets it's well known that there are/were certain pubs and clubs where major players from both sides conferred and collaborated to draw the lines as to who owned what particularly in terms of lucrative earners like drug trading and extortion and illegal gaming and prostitution. One could ask where the organised criminals of Ulster were hiding when The Troubles were dominant? Have a guess. Two very big organised crime gangs enjoyed semi-legitimised operation for a very long time. Sorry. That's all it ever really was/is. And what that has to do with religion, never mind faith, is very very little, other than that it defined the allegiances of memebers. Criminals from Catholic families would adhere to the Ra and prod crims would hang out with the UDA.

If I am the pig ignorant one, and you the well informed one, presumably you can provide the answers?

Despite the fact of Ludo being terminally obtuse and there being "none so deaf as them as won't listen", I asked an ex-gf with whom I'm great pals, whether she agreed with your statement about there being no religious element to the troubles. She's NI Catholic, from a village near Derry, all the neighbours are Sinn Fein though her mammy was always SDLP. She said, and I quote, "Is he insane? Of course there's a religious element". She went on to explain that whilst Groak is correct, there's no doubt religion has been used in NI for decades as a tool to whip up hatred and prejudice by aggitators on both sides. Or did I mishear Ian Paisley shout "No Popery!" at those political rallies?

[ludo]

Andy Zarse said:

ludo said:

Andy Zarse said:

ludo said:

DJC said:

Blue Meanie said:

That's what I get. What exactly is it that he is so arrogant, self-righteous, (The irony of someone using logic, and reasoning being self-righteous against those who deem that they 'know it all', and believe that THEIR religion is the right one , I find amusing), smarmy, etc.

I would suggest that if any of the 'New-Atheists' is the rude, and obnoxious one, it would be Hitchens, but ho-hum.

I think you will find those are my words and insults against him.

Im not Catholic. Im not religious. Religion merely occupies a space in my brain marked "irrelevent".

I do delight in the mischief of pointing out to his followers though that their Messiah behaves in a very Messiah like manner, preaching his message and that they his followers do follower him in a very religious following like manner. I find the similarities most amusing, even more so when they shriek and shout that they are nothing alike. I mean even a muppet like Ludo is scoring points against you and he is just being his usual argumentative devils advocate self!

For Hitchens, see Dawkins.

Can I be Gonzo?

BTW, I'm not playing devils advocate, but this thread does show why people like Dawkins ought to find out the theology of the religions he criticises, as otherwise they end up making bogus arguments, for instance that the troubles in NI have a religious basis, when history shows it was political power struggle and the religion itself provides no support whatsoever for the violence.

Yeesh! Just how totally pig ignorant of the facts can you get?

(i) Go read up on the "plantation of Ulster"

(ii) Go find me some quotes from the new testament that would support the armed struggle in NI (I have provided a fair few that make the case for peace)

(iii) Argue with Groak, he seems to have more first hand experience (I mainly know what I know from having Anglo-Irish inlaws - some of whos ancestors had a hand in the plantations).

Groak said:

As to NI (as anyone from there will confirm) there is the appearance of a catholic-protestant struggle and an overt dispute between politicians who draw on quasi-religious backgrounds to present a platform for adversity. But The Street knows better. On the streets it's well known that there are/were certain pubs and clubs where major players from both sides conferred and collaborated to draw the lines as to who owned what particularly in terms of lucrative earners like drug trading and extortion and illegal gaming and prostitution. One could ask where the organised criminals of Ulster were hiding when The Troubles were dominant? Have a guess. Two very big organised crime gangs enjoyed semi-legitimised operation for a very long time. Sorry. That's all it ever really was/is. And what that has to do with religion, never mind faith, is very very little, other than that it defined the allegiances of memebers. Criminals from Catholic families would adhere to the Ra and prod crims would hang out with the UDA.

If I am the pig ignorant one, and you the well informed one, presumably you can provide the answers?

Despite the fact of Ludo being terminally obtuse and there being "none so deaf as them as won't listen", I asked an ex-gf with whom I'm great pals, whether she agreed with your statement about there being no religious element to the troubles. She's NI Catholic, from a village near Derry, all the neighbours are Sinn Fein though her mammy was always SDLP. She said, and I quote, "Is he insane? Of course there's a religious element". She went on to explain that whilst Groak is correct, there's no doubt religion has been used in NI for decades as a tool to whip up hatred and prejudice by aggitators on both sides. Or did I mishear Ian Paisley shout "No Popery!" at those political rallies?

Yes, if you read my earlier posts you will find that is exactly the argument being made, i.e. that it is an ethnic and political struggle for which religion is used as a cypher (as there is a religious difference corresponding to the ethic divide it provides convenient labels) and a tool for the unscrupulous to whip up hatred in those who are ignorant of the core beliefs of the two faiths (which provide no support for the conflict). However it is not the cause of the dispute, as Dawkins suggests, and never has been.

[Andy Zarse]

ludo said:

Yes, if you read my earlier posts you will find that is exactly the argument being made, i.e. that it is an ethnic and political struggle for which religion is used as a cypher (as there is a religious difference corresponding to the ethic divide it provides convenient labels) and a tool for the unscrupulous to whip up hatred in those who are ignorant of the core beliefs of the two faiths (which provide no support for the conflict). However it is not the cause of the dispute, as Dawkins suggests, and never has been.

Surely you've just summed up the core point of any religion; political control and generation of capital and income from a gullible and malleable people by the use the of scary doctrines, peer pressure and fear, so that the people may do Your bidding in the name of the Father?

[s2art]

ludo said:

Andy Zarse said:

ludo said:

Andy Zarse said:

ludo said:

DJC said:

Blue Meanie said:

That's what I get. What exactly is it that he is so arrogant, self-righteous, (The irony of someone using logic, and reasoning being self-righteous against those who deem that they 'know it all', and believe that THEIR religion is the right one , I find amusing), smarmy, etc.

I would suggest that if any of the 'New-Atheists' is the rude, and obnoxious one, it would be Hitchens, but ho-hum.

I think you will find those are my words and insults against him.

Im not Catholic. Im not religious. Religion merely occupies a space in my brain marked "irrelevent".

I do delight in the mischief of pointing out to his followers though that their Messiah behaves in a very Messiah like manner, preaching his message and that they his followers do follower him in a very religious following like manner. I find the similarities most amusing, even more so when they shriek and shout that they are nothing alike. I mean even a muppet like Ludo is scoring points against you and he is just being his usual argumentative devils advocate self!

For Hitchens, see Dawkins.

Can I be Gonzo?

BTW, I'm not playing devils advocate, but this thread does show why people like Dawkins ought to find out the theology of the religions he criticises, as otherwise they end up making bogus arguments, for instance that the troubles in NI have a religious basis, when history shows it was political power struggle and the religion itself provides no support whatsoever for the violence.

Yeesh! Just how totally pig ignorant of the facts can you get?

(i) Go read up on the "plantation of Ulster"

(ii) Go find me some quotes from the new testament that would support the armed struggle in NI (I have provided a fair few that make the case for peace)

(iii) Argue with Groak, he seems to have more first hand experience (I mainly know what I know from having Anglo-Irish inlaws - some of whos ancestors had a hand in the plantations).

Groak said:

As to NI (as anyone from there will confirm) there is the appearance of a catholic-protestant struggle and an overt dispute between politicians who draw on quasi-religious backgrounds to present a platform for adversity. But The Street knows better. On the streets it's well known that there are/were certain pubs and clubs where major players from both sides conferred and collaborated to draw the lines as to who owned what particularly in terms of lucrative earners like drug trading and extortion and illegal gaming and prostitution. One could ask where the organised criminals of Ulster were hiding when The Troubles were dominant? Have a guess. Two very big organised crime gangs enjoyed semi-legitimised operation for a very long time. Sorry. That's all it ever really was/is. And what that has to do with religion, never mind faith, is very very little, other than that it defined the allegiances of memebers. Criminals from Catholic families would adhere to the Ra and prod crims would hang out with the UDA.

If I am the pig ignorant one, and you the well informed one, presumably you can provide the answers?

Despite the fact of Ludo being terminally obtuse and there being "none so deaf as them as won't listen", I asked an ex-gf with whom I'm great pals, whether she agreed with your statement about there being no religious element to the troubles. She's NI Catholic, from a village near Derry, all the neighbours are Sinn Fein though her mammy was always SDLP. She said, and I quote, "Is he insane? Of course there's a religious element". She went on to explain that whilst Groak is correct, there's no doubt religion has been used in NI for decades as a tool to whip up hatred and prejudice by aggitators on both sides. Or did I mishear Ian Paisley shout "No Popery!" at those political rallies?

Yes, if you read my earlier posts you will find that is exactly the argument being made, i.e. that it is an ethnic and political struggle for which religion is used as a cypher (as there is a religious difference corresponding to the ethic divide it provides convenient labels) and a tool for the unscrupulous to whip up hatred in those who are ignorant of the core beliefs of the two faiths (which provide no support for the conflict). However it is not the cause of the dispute, as Dawkins suggests, and never has been.

Can you find the quote where Dawkins says that?

I found;

'My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a 'they' as opposed to a 'we' can be identified at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There's also skin colour, language, and social class. But often, as in Northern Ireland, these don't apply and religion is the only divisive label around.'

[ludo]

Andy Zarse said:

ludo said:

Yes, if you read my earlier posts you will find that is exactly the argument being made, i.e. that it is an ethnic and political struggle for which religion is used as a cypher (as there is a religious difference corresponding to the ethic divide it provides convenient labels) and a tool for the unscrupulous to whip up hatred in those who are ignorant of the core beliefs of the two faiths (which provide no support for the conflict). However it is not the cause of the dispute, as Dawkins suggests, and never has been.

Surely you've just summed up the core point of any religion; political control and generation of capital and income from a gullible and malleable people by the use the of scary doctrines, peer pressure and fear, so that the people may do Your bidding in the name of the Father?

No, that is how the unscrupulous misuse religion, and why (as I explained earlier in the thread) heirarchically organised religion tends to be a bad thing. However if you look in the NT you will find very little support for the idea of a heirarchically organised religion (e.g. "call no-one father" - what do they call the pope?), and a fair bit against it (see criticism of pharisees). However it isn't the fault of the religion; it is the fault of the unscrupulous and the fault of those who are uncritical of the heirarchy and don't bother to check whether what their leaders say is in keeping with more fundamental ideas, such as the golden rule.

[ludo]

s2art said:

ludo said:

Yes, if you read my earlier posts you will find that is exactly the argument being made, i.e. that it is an ethnic and political struggle for which religion is used as a cypher (as there is a religious difference corresponding to the ethic divide it provides convenient labels) and a tool for the unscrupulous to whip up hatred in those who are ignorant of the core beliefs of the two faiths (which provide no support for the conflict). However it is not the cause of the dispute, as Dawkins suggests, and never has been.

Can you find the quote where Dawkins says that?

yes, i posted it earlier in the thread.

Edited by ludo on Wednesday 14th April 14:36