Richard Dawkins VS The Pope...

[Blue Meanie]

This quote s2art, although Ludo missed out the answer previous to the one mentioning NI (Ironic, as he accuses me of quote mining bible verses)

Interview said:

Tubridy: Can I suggest that the next question is quite appropriate. The role of religion in wars. When you think of the difficulty that it brings up on a local level. Richard Dawkins, do you believe the world would be a safer place without religion?

Dawkins: Yes, I do. I don’t think that religion is the only cause of wars. Very far from it. Neither the second World War nor the first World War were caused by religion, but I do think that religion is a major exacerbater, and especially in the world today, as a matter of fact.




Tubridy: OK. Explain yourself.

Dawkins: Well, it’s pretty obvious. I mean that if you look at the Middle East, if you look at India and Pakistan, if you look at Northern Ireland, there are many, many places where the only basis for hostility that exists between rival factions who kill each other is religion.

Edited by Blue Meanie on Wednesday 14th April 14:47

[s2art]

ludo said:

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

And that quote says nothing that supports your contention that Dawkins suggests that religion is the cause of the dispute. Please explain why you think he does.

[Blue Meanie]

s2art said:

ludo said:

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

And that quote says nothing that supports your contention that Dawkins suggests that religion is the cause of the dispute. Please explain why you think he does.

Because Ludo's interpretation is the only one that counts?

[ludo]

s2art said:

ludo said:

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

And that quote says nothing that supports your contention that Dawkins suggests that religion is the cause of the dispute. Please explain why you think he does.

Dawkins said:

Well, it’s pretty obvious. I mean that if you look at the Middle East, if you look at India and Pakistan, if you look at Northern Ireland, there are many, many places where the only basis for hostility that exists between rival factions who kill each other is religion.

I would have thought that was pretty unambiguous. You are just being contrary for the sake of it, Dawkins is explicitly saying here that religion is the only basis for the violence in NI, if you are going to quibble he said "basis" and not "cause" that is just ridiculous pedantry..

[s2art]

Blue Meanie said:

s2art said:

ludo said:

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

And that quote says nothing that supports your contention that Dawkins suggests that religion is the cause of the dispute. Please explain why you think he does.

Because Ludo's interpretation is the only one that counts?

Looks like a reading comprehension problem, but we have seen that before with Ludo.

[s2art]

ludo said:

s2art said:

ludo said:

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

And that quote says nothing that supports your contention that Dawkins suggests that religion is the cause of the dispute. Please explain why you think he does.

Dawkins said:

Well, it’s pretty obvious. I mean that if you look at the Middle East, if you look at India and Pakistan, if you look at Northern Ireland, there are many, many places where the only basis for hostility that exists between rival factions who kill each other is religion.

I would have thought that was pretty unambiguous. You are just being contrary for the sake of it, Dawkins is explicitly saying here that religion is the only basis for the violence in NI, if you are going to quibble he said "basis" and not "cause" that is just ridiculous pedantry..

Wrong again Ludo. Dawkins is saying that religion in N.I. is the only basis for the tribalism. The basis/cause of the dispute is historic.
This is blindingly obvious, just reread the quotes supplied.

[Blue Meanie]

ludo said:

I would have thought that was pretty unambiguous. You are just being contrary for the sake of it, Dawkins is explicitly saying here that religion is the only basis for the violence in NI, if you are going to quibble he said "basis" and not "cause" that is just ridiculous pedantry..

Funny.. When I quoted a bible quote talking about slaying people, you said I got the interpretation and context wrong. Seems 'ambiguity' issues are not just the non-religious, then? In fact you are still harping on about the NT. You still haven't cleared up why we should ignore the OT.

Edited by Blue Meanie on Wednesday 14th April 15:20

[ludo]

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

I would have thought that was pretty unambiguous. You are just being contrary for the sake of it, Dawkins is explicitly saying here that religion is the only basis for the violence in NI, if you are going to quibble he said "basis" and not "cause" that is just ridiculous pedantry..

Funny.. When I quoted a bible quote talking about slaying people, you said I got the interpretation and context wrong. Seems 'ambiguity' issues are not just the non-religious, then?

You did get the context wrong, you forgot that Jesus himself instructed his followers to turn the other cheek instead of an eye for an eye. Generally if there are conflicting instructions, the latter is generally taken to over-ride the first, especially when it alludes to the previous code. Of course you keep forgetting that.

[ludo]

s2art said:

ludo said:

s2art said:

ludo said:

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

And that quote says nothing that supports your contention that Dawkins suggests that religion is the cause of the dispute. Please explain why you think he does.

Dawkins said:

Well, it’s pretty obvious. I mean that if you look at the Middle East, if you look at India and Pakistan, if you look at Northern Ireland, there are many, many places where the only basis for hostility that exists between rival factions who kill each other is religion.

I would have thought that was pretty unambiguous. You are just being contrary for the sake of it, Dawkins is explicitly saying here that religion is the only basis for the violence in NI, if you are going to quibble he said "basis" and not "cause" that is just ridiculous pedantry..

Wrong again Ludo. Dawkins is saying that religion in N.I. is the only basis for the tribalism. The basis/cause of the dispute is historic.
This is blindingly obvious, just reread the quotes supplied.

Go read the post by Groak and argue with him, religion is not the basis for the conflict in NI, he says that anyone who is from there will be able to tell you that (I assume he himself is from NI).

[Blue Meanie]

Ludo, I lived in the republic for some time myself. Trust me, religious tension is still there, and you still have the divide between the branches of the same friggin religion.

[s2art]

ludo said:

s2art said:

ludo said:

s2art said:

ludo said:

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

And that quote says nothing that supports your contention that Dawkins suggests that religion is the cause of the dispute. Please explain why you think he does.

Dawkins said:

Well, it’s pretty obvious. I mean that if you look at the Middle East, if you look at India and Pakistan, if you look at Northern Ireland, there are many, many places where the only basis for hostility that exists between rival factions who kill each other is religion.

I would have thought that was pretty unambiguous. You are just being contrary for the sake of it, Dawkins is explicitly saying here that religion is the only basis for the violence in NI, if you are going to quibble he said "basis" and not "cause" that is just ridiculous pedantry..

Wrong again Ludo. Dawkins is saying that religion in N.I. is the only basis for the tribalism. The basis/cause of the dispute is historic.
This is blindingly obvious, just reread the quotes supplied.

Go read the post by Groak and argue with him, religion is not the basis for the conflict in NI, he says that anyone who is from there will be able to tell you that (I assume he himself is from NI).

And Dawkins doesnt say that, do you really not understand that? Remember Dawkins is married to someone from N.I. so he will be well informed.

'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.'

He is saying that a conflict which was caused by politics is exacerbated by the tribalism that a religious divide provides.

Edited by s2art on Wednesday 14th April 15:32

[Blue Meanie]

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

I would have thought that was pretty unambiguous. You are just being contrary for the sake of it, Dawkins is explicitly saying here that religion is the only basis for the violence in NI, if you are going to quibble he said "basis" and not "cause" that is just ridiculous pedantry..

Funny.. When I quoted a bible quote talking about slaying people, you said I got the interpretation and context wrong. Seems 'ambiguity' issues are not just the non-religious, then?

You did get the context wrong, you forgot that Jesus himself instructed his followers to turn the other cheek instead of an eye for an eye. Generally if there are conflicting instructions, the latter is generally taken to over-ride the first, especially when it alludes to the previous code. Of course you keep forgetting that.

I am talking about the quote I had from the NT, regarding slaying people. You still did not explain how it was referring to the afterlife.

[Blue Meanie]

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

So no free will then?

Ludo...

Luke 19 24-28 said:

24And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.

25(And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

26For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

27But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

28And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.

Pray tell, what is the context here of him slaying people who do not want him 'king'?

I like the way you skip the context that would show that it is a parable and obscure the meaning of the parable. The parable is about evangelization, and that if you are given gifts you are expected to make use of them. The "slay them before me" obviously refers to the next life not this one. It certainly isn't justification for religious persecution. Back down the quote mine!

This one.. You never explained how it referred to the next life. How is that turning the other cheek?

Edited by Blue Meanie on Wednesday 14th April 15:31

[ludo]

Blue Meanie said:

Ludo, I lived in the republic for some time myself. Trust me, religious tension is still there, and you still have the divide between the branches of the same friggin religion.

I am the son of a Catholic and a Scots presbyterian (however you spell it), does religious tension mean violence? No, not if those involved have a grasp of the basic concepts involved in their religions. As I said, the basic problem is ethnic, it gets identified with religion because protestant settlers were sent in to make sure they didn't "go native" and keep the locals from rising up against the English. It is the English preferential support for the plantation (and its descendants) that is responsible for the troubles, and has very little to do with religion. Of course if you didn't have a grasp of the religion, or the political history, that might not be so apparent.

[s2art]

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

Ludo, I lived in the republic for some time myself. Trust me, religious tension is still there, and you still have the divide between the branches of the same friggin religion.

I am the son of a Catholic and a Scots presbyterian (however you spell it), does religious tension mean violence? No, not if those involved have a grasp of the basic concepts involved in their religions. As I said, the basic problem is ethnic, it gets identified with religion because protestant settlers were sent in to make sure they didn't "go native" and keep the locals from rising up against the English. It is the English preferential support for the plantation (and its descendants) that is responsible for the troubles, and has very little to do with religion. Of course if you didn't have a grasp of the religion, or the political history, that might not be so apparent.

And you think Dawkins doesnt know all this? LOL!

[ludo]

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

So no free will then?

Ludo...

Luke 19 24-28 said:

24And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.

25(And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

26For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

27But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

28And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.

Pray tell, what is the context here of him slaying people who do not want him 'king'?

I like the way you skip the context that would show that it is a parable and obscure the meaning of the parable. The parable is about evangelization, and that if you are given gifts you are expected to make use of them. The "slay them before me" obviously refers to the next life not this one. It certainly isn't justification for religious persecution. Back down the quote mine!

This one.. You never explained how it referred to the next life. How is that turning the other cheek?

Edited by Blue Meanie on Wednesday 14th April 15:31

I did explain it (Jesus didn't become the king of the parable on Earth), however I think you'd be better off asking someone with a better grasp of theology than mine. As to how is that turning the other cheek? If someone burgles your house, do you go and find him and kick his head in and take your stuff back, or do you let the police sort it out? The same applies here, the turn the other cheek idea is intended to prevent the cycle of violence/reprisals from even starting, with the authority being ultimately with God.

Do you think that Jesus' instruction to turn the other cheek supports the violent conflict in NI? I don't.

[Blue Meanie]

I don;t know.. Call me old fashioned, but "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." doesn't sound overly cheek turning to me.

[ludo]

s2art said:

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

Ludo, I lived in the republic for some time myself. Trust me, religious tension is still there, and you still have the divide between the branches of the same friggin religion.

I am the son of a Catholic and a Scots presbyterian (however you spell it), does religious tension mean violence? No, not if those involved have a grasp of the basic concepts involved in their religions. As I said, the basic problem is ethnic, it gets identified with religion because protestant settlers were sent in to make sure they didn't "go native" and keep the locals from rising up against the English. It is the English preferential support for the plantation (and its descendants) that is responsible for the troubles, and has very little to do with religion. Of course if you didn't have a grasp of the religion, or the political history, that might not be so apparent.

And you think Dawkins doesnt know all this? LOL!

No, he obviously doesn't, if he did he would know that religion is not the only basis for hostility in NI as he explicitly states, there are also substantial cultural differences, language an a long history of political subjugation of one community and support of the other (for non-religious reasons).

[Blue Meanie]

ludo said:

No, he obviously doesn't, if he did he would know that religion is not the only basis for hostility in NI as he explicitly states, there are also substantial cultural differences, language an a long history of political subjugation of one community and support of the other (for non-religious reasons).

He says it is the only basis for rival factions, not for the basis of the conflict.

You have not heard the term 'sectarian violence' associated with NI? hell, you get Sectarian chanting at Old Firm games, along exactly the same religious lines. The cause of the conflict is long in the past, however, the religious sectarianism is what keeps much of the tension alive.

Edited by Blue Meanie on Wednesday 14th April 15:49

[ludo]

Blue Meanie said:

I don;t know.. Call me old fashioned, but "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." doesn't sound overly cheek turning to me.

yes, but in that case he is talking about the police, not the victim of the crime.

Whether you think the beliefs are correct or reasonable is missing the point, if you are going to make claims about what a religion actually supports, for instance the conflict in NI, you do actually need to know something of the theology. Christianity (as expressed in the new testament) provides no support for religious violence as far as I can see, and even contains parables suggesting that even those for whom we may feel emnity (such as between the jews and samaritans) are actually the neighbours that we should love as we love ourselves. Doesn't seem to fit the picture of NI particularly well IMHO.