Richard Dawkins PH prophet

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

Blue Mosque, Istanbul

Ok, thanks. I’m not familiar after all then! I was thinking about the large mosques in Oman and Dubai that I’ve visited.

[otolith]

jjlynn27 said:

As an atheist, I found this absolutely stunning;

I agree. Beautiful.

[RemyMartin81D]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Blue Mosque, Istanbul

Ok, thanks. I’m not familiar after all then! I was thinking about the large mosques in Oman and Dubai that I’ve visited.

Probably the most famous mosque in the world.

A stunning building and as iconic in Istanbul as the houses of parliament or the White House is, in their associated country.

[HD Adam]

I'm in Abu Dhabi this week and there's a fairly big Mosque close by.

The call to prayer isn't offensive at all and the Muzzein there (doing it live) has an awesome voice.
It's actually quite soothing.

Last night I went out and sat on the balcony so I could hear it better.

I am an Atheist for the record.

[Funk]

otolith said:

jjlynn27 said:

As an atheist, I found this absolutely stunning;

I agree. Beautiful.

I also agree it's beautiful but think what could have been done for the community with the money rather than spending it all on ornate, fancy buildings. I have the same issue with the Catholic church (probably even more so) which has obscene amounts of property, gold and other jizz-trinkets which is money spent on 'shows of wealth and power' which could have benefited hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people over the centuries.

I find it hard to believe the claims of caring for the poor, homeless and needy when they've got millions tied up for their own aggrandisement.

Edited by Funk on Wednesday 18th July 15:56

[Burwood]

otolith said:

jjlynn27 said:

As an atheist, I found this absolutely stunning;

I agree. Beautiful.

They are all built at a huge cost to the community that fund them

[Derek Smith]

Funk said:

otolith said:

jjlynn27 said:

As an atheist, I found this absolutely stunning;

I agree. Beautiful.

I also agree it's beautiful but think what could have been done for the community with the money rather than spending it all on ornate, fancy buildings. I have the same issue with the Catholic church (probably even more so) which has obscene amounts of property, gold and other jizz-trinkets which is money spent on 'shows of wealth and power' which could have benefitted hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people over the centuries.

I find it hard to believe the claims of caring for the poor, homeless and needy when they've got millions tied up for their own aggrandisement.

It is stunning. Quite breathtaking. It would be equally stunning and breathtaking if it had been a library, and it would have been of much more benefit to the community.

Or a bus station, a railway station, an opera house, a village hall or just somewhere anyone could go to sit and stare. The beauty comes from what it is and not what it represents.

For some reason I find the scale of churches offensive. I'm not sure why but I think it has something to do with waste: of effort, resources and money. They are often the biggest thing around. Collectively, they are a significant proportion of national wealth in some countries. Malta, for instance, seems to have enough churches to allow everyone their own. I wonder how many hospitals there were when church building was rampant.

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Blue Mosque, Istanbul

Ok, thanks. I’m not familiar after all then! I was thinking about the large mosques in Oman and Dubai that I’ve visited.

Never been to Oman and Dubai, so can't compare but this one is well worth the visit.

[otolith]

It's a fair point that these massive collective endeavours - whether driven by religion or by government or by philanthropy - represent effort that could have been used to improve lives in other ways and wealth that was collected in some way that was inequitable. Whether we're talking about Egyptian pyramids, cathedrals, mosques, royal palaces, opera houses, football stadia, skyscrapers or Bugatti Veyrons. But would the world be a better place without them?

[Digga]

jjlynn27 said:

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Blue Mosque, Istanbul

Ok, thanks. I’m not familiar after all then! I was thinking about the large mosques in Oman and Dubai that I’ve visited.

Never been to Oman and Dubai, so can't compare but this one is well worth the visit.

FWIW Grand Mosque in Muscat, Oman:

[Tankrizzo]

I see OP hasn't been back to this thread since he got fking rinsed, probably trying to think of other ways to troll a site he got banned from before but can't keep away from.

[SpeckledJim]

otolith said:

It's a fair point that these massive collective endeavours - whether driven by religion or by government or by philanthropy - represent effort that could have been used to improve lives in other ways and wealth that was collected in some way that was inequitable. Whether we're talking about Egyptian pyramids, cathedrals, mosques, royal palaces, opera houses, football stadia, skyscrapers or Bugatti Veyrons. But would the world be a better place without them?

From our point of view, it's very nice to have the buildings.

From the point of the slaves who built them, or the coerced peasants who paid for them, maybe not.

[otolith]

SpeckledJim said:

otolith said:

It's a fair point that these massive collective endeavours - whether driven by religion or by government or by philanthropy - represent effort that could have been used to improve lives in other ways and wealth that was collected in some way that was inequitable. Whether we're talking about Egyptian pyramids, cathedrals, mosques, royal palaces, opera houses, football stadia, skyscrapers or Bugatti Veyrons. But would the world be a better place without them?

From our point of view, it's very nice to have the buildings.

From the point of the slaves who built them, or the coerced peasants who paid for them, maybe not.

I was just looking at the history of that mosque. Interesting. It was built by the then sultan of the Ottoman Empire using funds from the treasury, something which was opposed by Islamic jurists at the time. A Millennium Dome job!

[Derek Smith]

otolith said:

It's a fair point that these massive collective endeavours - whether driven by religion or by government or by philanthropy - represent effort that could have been used to improve lives in other ways and wealth that was collected in some way that was inequitable. Whether we're talking about Egyptian pyramids, cathedrals, mosques, royal palaces, opera houses, football stadia, skyscrapers or Bugatti Veyrons. But would the world be a better place without them?

It's a fair point you raise as well.

There are some difference with some, like stadia, skyscrapers,opera houses and, to an extent, the Veyron.

I agree with regards the pyramids. I was left on one side at a dinner party when I suggested that I sympathised with the tomb robbers. It was, after all, simply recycling. We, ie our generation, had no rights to them, and neither did the pharoes. We've got the King Tut memorabilia to coo over.

The world would not be a better place without such artwork, but look at the cost for the poor sod at the bottom of the pile.

[Funk]

otolith said:

It's a fair point that these massive collective endeavours - whether driven by religion or by government or by philanthropy - represent effort that could have been used to improve lives in other ways and wealth that was collected in some way that was inequitable. Whether we're talking about Egyptian pyramids, cathedrals, mosques, royal palaces, opera houses, football stadia, skyscrapers or Bugatti Veyrons. But would the world be a better place without them?

As Derek mentions above, there's a massive difference to buildings which were built for profit (football stadia, skyscrapers, Veyrons etc) using private funding etc and buildings such as churches, mosques etc which were built for showing 'the glory of xyz deity' etc, often at huge physical and financial cost to the poorest at the time. It's the same with vile people like Joel Osteen and other 'prosperity preachers' who live lavish and expensive lifestyles by taking money from their members promising that God will bring those donors rewards for their 'tithes' etc (which ironically flies completely contrary to the teachings of the Bible).

I used the word 'aggrandisement' earlier and there really is no better term to describe the construction of intricate, ornate and lavish churches, mosques and cathedrals etc when people are starving on the steps or homeless in the alleyway around the corner.

Let's not forget than all religions swerve paying any taxes etc on their incomes (because they're treated as charities and supposedly helping the poorest in the community) and often own huge amounts of land in premium locations too.

Edited by Funk on Wednesday 18th July 17:28

[Halb]

Derek Smith said:

otolith said:

It's a fair point that these massive collective endeavours - whether driven by religion or by government or by philanthropy - represent effort that could have been used to improve lives in other ways and wealth that was collected in some way that was inequitable. Whether we're talking about Egyptian pyramids, cathedrals, mosques, royal palaces, opera houses, football stadia, skyscrapers or Bugatti Veyrons. But would the world be a better place without them?

It's a fair point you raise as well.

There are some difference with some, like stadia, skyscrapers,opera houses and, to an extent, the Veyron.

I agree with regards the pyramids. I was left on one side at a dinner party when I suggested that I sympathised with the tomb robbers. It was, after all, simply recycling. We, ie our generation, had no rights to them, and neither did the pharoes. We've got the King Tut memorabilia to coo over.

The world would not be a better place without such artwork, but look at the cost for the poor sod at the bottom of the pile.

the pyramids are not an open and shut case. The pyramids that people think of when they think of pyramids, the three at giza, may not have been tombs, but were certainly special for whatever reasons they were built, likewise the Sphinx, which on geological evidence is far older than orthodox Egyptologists believe. did they ever contain bodies, I reckon if they did, they were put in there by later generations, the ones who build the sttyly designed and constructed smaller pyramids of later millennia, of course they shifted to tombs at some date.
the recycling is a sad thing, at one point Giza had white limestone capstones, which had writing on them, lost to the world.

[otolith]

Funk said:

otolith said:

It's a fair point that these massive collective endeavours - whether driven by religion or by government or by philanthropy - represent effort that could have been used to improve lives in other ways and wealth that was collected in some way that was inequitable. Whether we're talking about Egyptian pyramids, cathedrals, mosques, royal palaces, opera houses, football stadia, skyscrapers or Bugatti Veyrons. But would the world be a better place without them?

As Derek mentions above, there's a massive difference to buildings which were built for profit (football stadia, skyscrapers, Veyrons etc) using private funding etc and buildings such as churches, mosques etc which were built for showing 'the glory of xyz deity' etc, often at huge physical and financial cost to the poorest at the time.

I'm not sure how profit matters. People build these buildings because someone has the power to make it so. The craftsmen and labourers are paid. The money is acquired by a range of means - rich men, the church's own fundraising, kings using public funding. So yes, there is the question of how sufficient wealth to pay for a cathedral or a mosque gets concentrated in the hands of the men who make it so. Well, how does sufficient wealth to build something like Trump Tower get into the hands of someone like Trump? How does enough money to build the Millennium Dome get into the hands of Blair? Is a monument to a rich man's ego inherently more noble than one to his theist delusions?

Humans do lots of things which are fundamentally pointless other than that someone is willing or can be made to pay for them to happen. How many of us spend our lives in jobs which are ultimately just as pointless as constructing a piece of architecture?

[Wobbegong]

HD Adam said:

I'm in Abu Dhabi this week and there's a fairly big Mosque close by.

The call to prayer isn't offensive at all and the Muzzein there (doing it live) has an awesome voice.
It's actually quite soothing.

Last night I went out and sat on the balcony so I could hear it better.

I am an Atheist for the record.

Take a trip to their Grand Mosque, it’s breathtaking

[Halb]

otolith said:

I'm not sure how profit matters. People build these buildings because someone has the power to make it so. The craftsmen and labourers are paid. The money is acquired by a range of means - rich men, the church's own fundraising, kings using public funding. So yes, there is the question of how sufficient wealth to pay for a cathedral or a mosque gets concentrated in the hands of the men who make it so. Well, how does sufficient wealth to build something like Trump Tower get into the hands of someone like Trump? How does enough money to build the Millennium Dome get into the hands of Blair? Is a monument to a rich man's ego inherently more noble than one to his theist delusions?

Humans do lots of things which are fundamentally pointless other than that someone is willing or can be made to pay for them to happen. How many of us spend our lives in jobs which are ultimately just as pointless as constructing a piece of architecture?

Quite, it's all arbitrary. THere are those things that are built that are designed to pass on knowledge, I think they rate the highest for me, of course religious houses are meant to do that as well as libraries and geo-orientated buildings. It's kind of one thing in some cultures.
the discussion of Islam and the beautiful mosques reminded me of the hidden despots of knowledge that the Persians and other kept in the European dark ages, which ultimately, led to Europeans rediscovering knowledge and leading to the renaissance. ALl these beautiful mosques, were they built in that period when Islam was the leader in philosophy and science? Before the pendulum swing back to the home of Christianity being the leader, after it's abhorrent darks days.

[ciege]

Dawkins is more religious than me and I go to church.

He's a fking publicity we and anyone who feeds him is a total fking idiot.

I can't obviously prove any of my faith, nor can he prove any of his lack.

Difference is I couldn't give two fks whether anyone on an internet forum or real life believes me or not.

He needs to make a living from the mugs who buy his bks!

Suggesting the world may or may not be better of with or without is as old as the hills, believe him if you want or not doesn't matter to anyone what you believe and ultimately that's something Dawkins and his disciples will have to cope with.

And don't give me any st about relegious people blowing each other up someone somewhere always wants to kill someone else, if it was Islam it'd be Northern Ireland, or Poland, or cotton, or silk or something else.

Fact is we're all different but Dawkins fking self righteous smugness and his fawning fking fans are a thousand times more annoying that the street preacher who tells me I'm going to Hell without fking asking me all about the service I've just enjoyed the previous day.

And yes, I'm feeding an obvious trolls post!