Richard Dawkins VS The Pope...

[Blue Meanie]

ludo said:

\
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.

And yet we still have sectarian violence... Go figure.

[ludo]

Blue Meanie said:

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.

No, he says it is the only basis for hostility. You can have factions that are non-hostile.

Blue Meanie said:

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.

Did I mention (about half a dozen times so far) that the religious denominations provide convenient labels for the ethic groups, and it is used as a tool to whip up hatred in those ignorant of the religion. Neither of those things mean that the religion is the cause of the dispute.

[s2art]

ludo said:

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).

The cultural differences are primarily religious these days. As for language and political subjugation, thats now history and has been for a good few years. So what is the main cause of the tribalism, the Us and Them, now? Dawkins identifies a religious divide as the culprit.

[ludo]

s2art said:

ludo said:

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).

The cultural differences are primarily religious these days. As for language and political subjugation, thats now history and has been for a good few years. So what is the main cause of the tribalism, the Us and Them, now? Dawkins identifies a religious divide as the culprit.

See comments by Groak a couple of pages back, it is a cypher, nothing more. If the religions actually supported the violence you might have a point, but it doesn't.

[Blue Meanie]

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

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.

No, he says it is the only basis for hostility. You can have factions that are non-hostile.

You can have factions that are non-hostile, yes. But they do not feel hostility, so aren't really in the equation for what is the 'basis' of hostility.



Did I mention (about half a dozen times so far) that the religious denominations provide convenient labels for the ethic groups, and it is used as a tool to whip up hatred in those ignorant of the religion. Neither of those things mean that the religion is the cause of the dispute.

Yup... Used to whip up hatred... There you go, Ludo, you've got it. You see what I think you are failing to grasp is that it doesn't really matter who is USING religion to whip up fervor, more that those being whipped up believe it. It is this whipping up, and indoctrination that the 2 factions SHOULD be in conflict that is the basis for the factions hostility. Again with the 'cause'... Where does Dawkins say religion was the cause of the conflict?

[s2art]

ludo said:

s2art said:

ludo said:

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).

The cultural differences are primarily religious these days. As for language and political subjugation, thats now history and has been for a good few years. So what is the main cause of the tribalism, the Us and Them, now? Dawkins identifies a religious divide as the culprit.

See comments by Groak a couple of pages back, it is a cypher, nothing more. If the religions actually supported the violence you might have a point, but it doesn't.

You keep missing the point. Its not that the religion itself provides the motivation, its the fact that the existence of religion provides a mechanism by which we can separate people into an 'Us' and a 'Them'. Thereby encouraging a tribal mindset.

[sprinter1050]

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

\
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.

And yet we still have sectarian violence... Go figure.

Indeed.
More importantly, we as a race, need to concentrate solely on living together harmoniously, peacefully and to progress ourselves as beings unhindered by any form of religious dogma based upon what some historically outspoken individual(s) allegedly decreed that we should do according to some "higher being". Which one of those do I listen to ? Buddha ? Jesus Christ? Baha'ullah?

For goodness sake all that any of these "disciples" did was to lay down fundamentals of inter-personal behaviour in a world of medieval (or even earlier) unrulyness (sp?).

There has since become a huge global business selling religion to the masses, accumulating the resultant wealth and yet even now thousands of years on we still argue amongst ourselves (indeed killing each other in the process) as to which of these "clubs" certain souls, looking for something in which to believe, need to belong to & which offers "The Truth" & the "Way".

We as a species are worth so much more. I find it very sad.

Edited by sprinter1050 on Wednesday 14th April 16:06

[ludo]

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

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.

No, he says it is the only basis for hostility. You can have factions that are non-hostile.

You can have factions that are non-hostile, yes. But they do not feel hostility, so aren't really in the equation for what is the 'basis' of hostility.


It was you that said factions, not me, not Dawkins. If you are going to play games with words, it is just empty rhetoric.


Did I mention (about half a dozen times so far) that the religious denominations provide convenient labels for the ethic groups, and it is used as a tool to whip up hatred in those ignorant of the religion. Neither of those things mean that the religion is the cause of the dispute.

Yup... Used to whip up hatred... There you go, Ludo, you've got it. You see what I think you are failing to grasp is that it doesn't really matter who is USING religion to whip up fervor, more that those being whipped up believe it. It is this whipping up, and indoctrination that the 2 factions SHOULD be in conflict that is the basis for the factions hostility. Again with the 'cause'... Where does Dawkins say religion was the cause of the conflict?

so it is religions fault that the unscrupulous can use it to their own ends, even if that involves directly contradicting the central concepts? Nonsense, it is the fault of the unscrupulous and those that follow them, not of the religion. Those who actually followed the religion would be against the violent conflict.

Edited by ludo on Wednesday 14th April 16:23

[Blue Meanie]

ludo said:

so it is religions fault that the unscrupulous can use it to their own ends, even if that involves directly contradicting the central concepts? Nonsense, it is the fault of the unscrupulous and those that follow them, not of the religion. Those who actually followed the religion would be against the violent conflict.

As I said, it matters not that the 'unscrupulous' use religion, the important factor is that the followers believe it, and will happily believe the nonsense, and head off for hostility. Many people cite Hitler as being a famous, evil leader. But they forget that it was the germans, a mainly Roman Catholic people, who believed the dogma, and plodded along quite happily. religion IS used as a tool to fuel violence. No-one said it was anything other than that.

It reminds me of that quote that someone said, i can;t remember who...

"Bad people will always be bad people, but for a good person to do bad things, it takes religion"

Edited by Blue Meanie on Wednesday 14th April 16:25

[ludo]

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

so it is religions fault that the unscrupulous can use it to their own ends, even if that involves directly contradicting the central concepts? Nonsense, it is the fault of the unscrupulous and those that follow them, not of the religion. Those who actually followed the religion would be against the violent conflict.

As I said, it matters not that the 'unscrupulous' use religion, the important factor is that the followers believe it,

but in that case, the "it" involved is not the religion

Blue Meanie said:

and will happily believe the nonsense, and head off for hostility. Many people cite Hitler as being a famous, evil leader. But they forget that it was the germans, a mainly Roman Catholic people, who believed the dogma,

nonsense, it was a reaction to the effects of reparations from WW1 that caused the support and blaming the jews (there is an religious element to that, that is true). As I have already pointed out, ethnic groups tend to get identified by the religion, but that doesn't actually mean the people actually follow that religion, especially in modern Europe.

People will uncritically believe all sorts of nonsense, if it suits them, you only need to look at the climate debate for that (sorry), while there are many very good sceptical arguments, the sceptics prefer to cling onto obvious nonsense, such as Essenhigh's paper showing the rise in atmospheric CO2 is natural. It is human nature, and it is the same of political ideology as it is of religion.

[Blue Meanie]

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

so it is religions fault that the unscrupulous can use it to their own ends, even if that involves directly contradicting the central concepts? Nonsense, it is the fault of the unscrupulous and those that follow them, not of the religion. Those who actually followed the religion would be against the violent conflict.

As I said, it matters not that the 'unscrupulous' use religion, the important factor is that the followers believe it,

but in that case, the "it" involved is not the religion

Blue Meanie said:

and will happily believe the nonsense, and head off for hostility. Many people cite Hitler as being a famous, evil leader. But they forget that it was the germans, a mainly Roman Catholic people, who believed the dogma,

nonsense, it was a reaction to the effects of reparations from WW1 that caused the support and blaming the jews (there is an religious element to that, that is true). As I have already pointed out, ethnic groups tend to get identified by the religion, but that doesn't actually mean the people actually follow that religion, especially in modern Europe.

People will uncritically believe all sorts of nonsense, if it suits them, you only need to look at the climate debate for that (sorry), while there are many very good sceptical arguments, the sceptics prefer to cling onto obvious nonsense, such as Essenhigh's paper showing the rise in atmospheric CO2 is natural. It is human nature, and it is the same of political ideology as it is of religion.

So, a nation of Roman Catholics committed genocide why? Where was their religion? Where was their morals?

[ludo]

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

so it is religions fault that the unscrupulous can use it to their own ends, even if that involves directly contradicting the central concepts? Nonsense, it is the fault of the unscrupulous and those that follow them, not of the religion. Those who actually followed the religion would be against the violent conflict.

As I said, it matters not that the 'unscrupulous' use religion, the important factor is that the followers believe it, and will happily believe the nonsense, and head off for hostility. Many people cite Hitler as being a famous, evil leader. But they forget that it was the germans, a mainly Roman Catholic people, who believed the dogma, and plodded along quite happily. religion IS used as a tool to fuel violence. No-one said it was anything other than that.

It reminds me of that quote that someone said, i can;t remember who...

"Bad people will always be bad people, but for a good person to do bad things, it takes religion"

Apart from the fact it is bks. Was Karl Marx a bad person? No, he seriously believed his ideology would be a benefit to mankind, most would say he was wrong. The road to hell is, as they say, paved with good intentions, and you don't need religion to have good intentions.

[Blue Meanie]

ludo said:

[ Was Karl Marx a bad person? No, he seriously believed his ideology would be a benefit to mankind, most would say he was wrong. The road to hell is, as they say, paved with good intentions, and you don't need religion to have good intentions.

Who did Karl marx kill? What did he do that was bad?

[ludo]

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

so it is religions fault that the unscrupulous can use it to their own ends, even if that involves directly contradicting the central concepts? Nonsense, it is the fault of the unscrupulous and those that follow them, not of the religion. Those who actually followed the religion would be against the violent conflict.

As I said, it matters not that the 'unscrupulous' use religion, the important factor is that the followers believe it,

but in that case, the "it" involved is not the religion

Blue Meanie said:

and will happily believe the nonsense, and head off for hostility. Many people cite Hitler as being a famous, evil leader. But they forget that it was the germans, a mainly Roman Catholic people, who believed the dogma,

nonsense, it was a reaction to the effects of reparations from WW1 that caused the support and blaming the jews (there is an religious element to that, that is true). As I have already pointed out, ethnic groups tend to get identified by the religion, but that doesn't actually mean the people actually follow that religion, especially in modern Europe.

People will uncritically believe all sorts of nonsense, if it suits them, you only need to look at the climate debate for that (sorry), while there are many very good sceptical arguments, the sceptics prefer to cling onto obvious nonsense, such as Essenhigh's paper showing the rise in atmospheric CO2 is natural. It is human nature, and it is the same of political ideology as it is of religion.

So, a nation of Roman Catholics committed genocide why? Where was their religion? Where was their morals?

Absent. Was that the fault of the religion that those Roman Catholics failed to follow the dictates of their religion, or is it the fault of the heirarchy and of the people?

[ludo]

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

[ Was Karl Marx a bad person? No, he seriously believed his ideology would be a benefit to mankind, most would say he was wrong. The road to hell is, as they say, paved with good intentions, and you don't need religion to have good intentions.

Who did Karl marx kill? What did he do that was bad?

Who did Jesus kill? What did he do that was bad?

[Blue Meanie]

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

[ Was Karl Marx a bad person? No, he seriously believed his ideology would be a benefit to mankind, most would say he was wrong. The road to hell is, as they say, paved with good intentions, and you don't need religion to have good intentions.

Who did Karl marx kill? What did he do that was bad?

Who did Jesus kill? What did he do that was bad?

Is Jesus God?

[Blue Meanie]

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

so it is religions fault that the unscrupulous can use it to their own ends, even if that involves directly contradicting the central concepts? Nonsense, it is the fault of the unscrupulous and those that follow them, not of the religion. Those who actually followed the religion would be against the violent conflict.

As I said, it matters not that the 'unscrupulous' use religion, the important factor is that the followers believe it,

but in that case, the "it" involved is not the religion

Blue Meanie said:

and will happily believe the nonsense, and head off for hostility. Many people cite Hitler as being a famous, evil leader. But they forget that it was the germans, a mainly Roman Catholic people, who believed the dogma,

nonsense, it was a reaction to the effects of reparations from WW1 that caused the support and blaming the jews (there is an religious element to that, that is true). As I have already pointed out, ethnic groups tend to get identified by the religion, but that doesn't actually mean the people actually follow that religion, especially in modern Europe.

People will uncritically believe all sorts of nonsense, if it suits them, you only need to look at the climate debate for that (sorry), while there are many very good sceptical arguments, the sceptics prefer to cling onto obvious nonsense, such as Essenhigh's paper showing the rise in atmospheric CO2 is natural. It is human nature, and it is the same of political ideology as it is of religion.

So, a nation of Roman Catholics committed genocide why? Where was their religion? Where was their morals?

Absent. Was that the fault of the religion that those Roman Catholics failed to follow the dictates of their religion, or is it the fault of the heirarchy and of the people?

I'd say it was the fault of both. The hierarchy for being fairly anti-semitic to that point, and the people who deemed themselves religious, yet still murdered 6 million people based on their faith.

[ludo]

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

[ Was Karl Marx a bad person? No, he seriously believed his ideology would be a benefit to mankind, most would say he was wrong. The road to hell is, as they say, paved with good intentions, and you don't need religion to have good intentions.

Who did Karl marx kill? What did he do that was bad?

Who did Jesus kill? What did he do that was bad?

Is Jesus God?

According to Christian theology, yes. However it was pretty obvious that your question was just rhetorical evasion, anyway, good people do evil things perfectly well without religion. There were plenty of Englishmen thought that the Raj was doing India a favour for instance (even from a purely secular view - schools, hospitals, sanitation etc.).

[ludo]

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

so it is religions fault that the unscrupulous can use it to their own ends, even if that involves directly contradicting the central concepts? Nonsense, it is the fault of the unscrupulous and those that follow them, not of the religion. Those who actually followed the religion would be against the violent conflict.

As I said, it matters not that the 'unscrupulous' use religion, the important factor is that the followers believe it,

but in that case, the "it" involved is not the religion

Blue Meanie said:

and will happily believe the nonsense, and head off for hostility. Many people cite Hitler as being a famous, evil leader. But they forget that it was the germans, a mainly Roman Catholic people, who believed the dogma,

nonsense, it was a reaction to the effects of reparations from WW1 that caused the support and blaming the jews (there is an religious element to that, that is true). As I have already pointed out, ethnic groups tend to get identified by the religion, but that doesn't actually mean the people actually follow that religion, especially in modern Europe.

People will uncritically believe all sorts of nonsense, if it suits them, you only need to look at the climate debate for that (sorry), while there are many very good sceptical arguments, the sceptics prefer to cling onto obvious nonsense, such as Essenhigh's paper showing the rise in atmospheric CO2 is natural. It is human nature, and it is the same of political ideology as it is of religion.

So, a nation of Roman Catholics committed genocide why? Where was their religion? Where was their morals?

Absent. Was that the fault of the religion that those Roman Catholics failed to follow the dictates of their religion, or is it the fault of the heirarchy and of the people?

I'd say it was the fault of both. The hierarchy for being fairly anti-semitic to that point, and the people who deemed themselves religious, yet still murdered 6 million people based on their faith.

Quite, in which case it is a failing of the followers not of the religion. If the followers actually did follow the religion it would have been rather different.

ETA: it is also not true that the murders were based on their faith, it was a reprisal for economic hardships, they were the scapegoats for the cost of the reparations.

Edited by ludo on Wednesday 14th April 16:43

[Blue Meanie]

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

[ Was Karl Marx a bad person? No, he seriously believed his ideology would be a benefit to mankind, most would say he was wrong. The road to hell is, as they say, paved with good intentions, and you don't need religion to have good intentions.

Who did Karl marx kill? What did he do that was bad?

Who did Jesus kill? What did he do that was bad?

Is Jesus God?

According to Christian theology, yes.

Then jesus has killed plenty of people, hasn't he...

However it was pretty obvious that your question was just rhetorical evasion, anyway, good people do evil things perfectly well without religion. There were plenty of Englishmen thought that the Raj was doing India a favour for instance (even from a purely secular view - schools, hospitals, sanitation etc.).

How was it Rhetorical evasion? YOU cited Karl Marx... I was simply curious what he did that was terrible/