I've almost finished reading the book The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason (http://www.samharris.org/) by Sam Harris. The book is rather heavy-handed at times, and a bit sloppy in some of its reasoning, but its core message makes absolute sense and is one which I think is vital in this age of weapons of mass destruction: we need to stop living our lives according to "laws" that were laid down at a time when people lived in tents in the desert and were impressed by hot new inventions such as the wheel.

Discuss.

(The thread title, by the way, is inspired by a Negativland song (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativland))

Organised religion is to a large extent a political tool - this however shouldn't be used to dismis it entirely out of hand - after all, for all the crappy things done in the name of religion the first people into the worlds disaster areas are frequently motivated by religion. Religion is a tool and if I may use an analogy here, a spanner is a tool - it can be used to tighten a nut or it may be used to beat someones brains out - the tool itself has no morality thats all down to how it's used.

I disagree. Of course, many good things have come from religion, but they are good things which could equally come from intuiting about human nature and from applying a humanist approach. You don't have to be religious to be good.

It does concern me that if we did away with religion then we would no longer have people like the new Archbishop of York in a position to comment upon social matters and offer a "moral" viewpoint, and I do think we would have to come up with some other way of offering moral guidance in order to keep our governments etc in check.

But my gut feeling is that there is no point hanging on to these teachings wholesale, some of which are good, some of which are irrelevent, anachronistic, downright evil. There is no point calling something "sacred" and vilifying anyone who dares criticise of challenge it, just because that is what people have done for thousands of years. It's time to live our own lives, make our own decisions, based upon rationality rather than dogma.

I think that if people actually did what their religion tells them to do, ie. love everyone, show tolerance, charity and compassion, etc. etc then the world would be a lovely place, however they don't.

So I conclude it's not the religions fault it's the people who follow (or don't follow) them that are the problem.

Originally posted by nick2
I think that if people actually did what their religion tells them to do, ie. love everyone, show tolerance, charity and compassion, etc. etc then the world would be a lovely place, however they don't.

So I conclude it's not the religions fault it's the people who follow (or don't follow) them that are the problem.

Trouble is, many religions don't preach those things, as was discussed at great length in the other thread. That sounds more like a partial definition of secular humanism.

Ok, you've lost me now.

My own view is that religion is UN-SPIRITUAL. It is a conglomerate of fixed, rigid ideas and notions. There is little or no flexibility with religion.

It also encourages people to stop thinking for themselves, to stop devling in to and discovering their own natures for themselves and by themselves.

That's not to say religion is all bad. It certainly isn't. I believe there are deep, immutable spiritual truths expressed by the worlds' religions (e.g: the teachings of Christ or Lao Tzu), and those spiritual truths will always be there, even if religion isn't.

Did Jesus say (when he was on that hill) "Look here's a bunch of spiritual truths, now go out and form a religion around them, get all fixed and rigid in your mentality, and hung up on ceremony, oh yeah, and value dogma more than what's in your very own heart".

Did he say all that?

No way baby!

Religion is like a sign-post.

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
Trouble is, many religions don't preach those things, as was discussed at great length in the other thread. That sounds more like a partial definition of secular humanism.

Actually most religions DO preach those things - it's the monotheistic religions that preach they are the one true way that have to diss other religions!

Originally posted by nick2
Ok, you've lost me now.

[I wrote, but didn't submit, the following before evildrneil's post]

Well, the big monotheistic religions tend to instruct you to be charitable, compassionate etc. to people of your own faith, but not to anybody else. E.g. the Old Testament is full of examples showing that "Thou shalt not kill" is only meant to apply to orthodox members of your own religion (and certainly not to animals!).

Or sometimes they interpret being charitable and compassionate as offering you the wonderful benefits of their religion, but reserve the right to kill you if you're churlish enough to turn down the offer.

Being universally tolerant, compassionate etc. is more characteristic of post-Enlightenment humanist thinking, in the West at least. [Buddhism and Jainism are, I think, more universal, and maybe there are other examples.]

Originally posted by nick2
Ok, you've lost me now.
Sorry, Nick - and anyone else confused - probably best that you look at the 7/07 conspiracy thread from this point (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=487982#post487982) and this point (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=489185#post489185) onwards for some specific criticisms of Abrahamic religions, and specific examples of passages in the Bible and Koran which, without beating about the bush, tell their followers to go out and slaughter followers of other religions/unbelievers.

Originally posted by evildrneil
... it's the monotheistic religions that preach they are the one true way that have to diss other religions!

It's almost like a direct expression / manifestation of our innate human nature, religion is I mean (our nature to dissect, divide and conquer).

Dan,

Thanks for posting this highly interesting and challenging topic - I remember that you said you would once you had finished the book.

I think one of the first things to highlight is that some religions are more intolerant than others. That is to say that they murder innocent people to make a point (ie. Islamic extremists). In my own mind I struggle to understand what drives people to murder countless innocent civilians just because the women of another country don't wear clothing that covers them head to toe or because homosexuality is openly accepted.

Mark Steyn attempted to explain why Islamofascists hate America and the wider western world saying, "The Arab Islamists despise America because it’s all lap-dancing and gay-phone sex". But what gives these people the right to attempt to destroy our way of life because we are different? Islam has a lot to answer for; but then people shout, "Yes, but the Muslim Council of Britain condemned the attacks." They did - but did you hear of any Saudi Arabian or Iranian Muslim councils denounce it? I didn't. For this reason I shall continue to hold them to account (not hate them but hold them responsible ).

But one must realise that there are other religions outside of Islam. People criticise the way that the Roman Catholic Church will not advocate the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids. But the reason for this is one of promoting a Christian lifestyle (ie. not condoning the promiscuity that is rife within African culture). Other people argue that we should be doing more to make anti-HIV drugs available in affected countries. I agree with you, but is this anything to do with the Roman Catholic Church?

I myself was brought up in a Christian home but have since lapsed. I put it down to the Christians that I met; many of them were deceitful, back-stabbing, selfish and manipulative and for this reason I wanted nothing to do with the Church. People may not represent all that a Church is but they have a lot of influence in determining the atmosphere.

But is religion stupid? I think it's hard to answer for all religions; instead answers must be isolated for each religion in turn.

Islam: I can't abide it. It's a cruel religion that's filled with hatred, intolerance and violence. For this reason I afford it no time.

Christianity:
Church of England - wishy washy flitting ideology that lacks coherency and consistency. One minute it's immoral to be homosexual the next they're ordaining homosexual vicars. Inconsistency breeds distrust and makes a religion look half-baked.

Roman Catholic Church - a lot more consistent in its application of principles. A 'brand' of Christianity that I would follow.

Whilst I could go on to analyse other religions I feel under-qualified and inadequately versed (forgive me the pun) in their doctrines. I think some religions still have a part to play in our world. They teach about enlightenment, love, truth, kindness, and true happiness. Others however are truly evil and they should be expunged from our world.

Originally posted by Jamie
It also encourages people to stop thinking for themselves, to stop devling in to and discovering their own natures for themselves and by themselves.

That's not to say religion is all bad. It certainly isn't. I believe there are deep, immutable spiritual truths expressed by the worlds' religions (e.g: the teachings of Christ or Lao Tzu), and those spiritual truths will always be there, even if religion isn't.
I agree with you completely Jamie. A great many good pointers have come from religion, it really would be quite amazing if they hadn't given that much of this is human nature. My problem is with dogma, and with the insistence upon faith (belief in ideas which have no proof).

Religion, like all memes, is subject to natural selection, survival of the fittest. To some extent this means that religions which best match the way the world is (or at least the way humans perceive and interact with the world) are at an advantage. But it also means that religions, such as Islam, which preach violent opposition to other religions and death for anybody who questions their own religion's teachings and finds them lacking, have a certain advantage over more peaceful religions.

For a good example of this, just look at what's been going off between Moslems and Buddhists in Thailand (which was the subject of an excellent Channel 4 documentary the other night)

Originally posted by Jamie
It's almost like a direct expression / manifestation of our innate human nature, religion is I mean (our nature to dissect, divide and conquer).

Yup - hence my earlier comment that organised religion (which often has little to nothing to do with spirituality!) is primarily a political tool! After all if you want to invade another country do you pay an army to do it or convince your army that the other country is full of subhuman heretics that you should kill in order to get your just deserts in another life - a cost free and fanatical army, just what any despot wants!

Originally posted by Jamie
Did Jesus say (when he was on that hill) "Look here's a bunch of spiritual truths, now go out and form a religion around them, get all fixed and rigid in your mentality, and hung up on ceremony, oh yeah, and value dogma more than what's in your very own heart".

Did he say all that?

No way baby!

That summed up what I've been thinking for the last 20 minutes :)

Look at Matthew 12:30-31:


And you are to have love for the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, Have love for your neighbour as for yourself. There is no other law greater than these.


Then ask yourself, is killing others of a different religion 'loving your neighbour as yourself'? How about xenophobia? How about child abuse? None of these things are what Jesus came to say, they are ascribed to him by the actions of worldly religions.

Interesting side note: the title of the book (and presumably the contents) mentioned in the OP mix the concepts of faith and religion. Having a faith is not the same as blindly following religion. In fact, it is quite the opposite. With faith, you have to keep your eyes open. Faith is about growth and change, religion is about fixed control.

Do scientology and Kabala (spelling - sorry) count as religions or are they (as I suspect) just fashionable cults for pop/movie stars who don't want to be involved in the more "common or garden" religions ?

I'm thinking mainly of Madonna here as she has been a follower of most religions in the last few years.

Actually whats the difference between a cult and a religion ?

Originally posted by nick2
Do scientology and Kabala (spelling - sorry) count as religions or are they (as I suspect) just fashionable cults for pop/movie stars who don't want to be involved in the more "common or garden" religions ?

I'm thinking mainly of Madonna here as she has been a follower of most religions in the last few years.

Actually whats the difference between a cult and a religion ?

Kabbalah is mystical school of thought within Judaism. Not sure about scientology though Nick.

Originally posted by DanSumption
I've almost finished reading the book The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason (http://www.samharris.org/) by Sam Harris. The book is rather heavy-handed at times, and a bit sloppy in some of its reasoning, but its core message makes absolute sense and is one which I think is vital in this age of weapons of mass destruction: we need to stop living our lives according to "laws" that were laid down at a time when people lived in tents in the desert and were impressed by hot new inventions such as the wheel.

Discuss.

(The thread title, by the way, is inspired by a Negativland song (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativland))

So you made this miraculous decision that religion is so bad by reading one book written by one person?

Surely this is worse than religious people who try to live their lives by the Bible, Koran or the Torah. Which are made up of multiple books and writing by many different people through many years!

Originally posted by nick2

Actually whats the difference between a cult and a religion ?

I guess the difference is that a religion has existed for a longer amount of time.

Originally posted by spiffymonkey
Interesting side note: the title of the book (and presumably the contents) mentioned in the OP mix the concepts of faith and religion. Having a faith is not the same as blindly following religion. In fact, it is quite the opposite. With faith, you have to keep your eyes open. Faith is about growth and change, religion is about fixed control.
I disagree with you - "faith" means fixed unwavering belief in an idea, i.e. belief regardless of evidence, it is the opposite of what you call faith.

The book is actually about faith rather than religion: although religion does form the vast majority of the book's subject matter, it also touches on equally dangerous faith in secular dogma, such as Stalinism and Naziism.

i think scientology is generally accepted as a religion.

But is there any difference between a religion and a cult apart from scale?

JonJParr
On Christianity
But the reason for this is one of promoting a Christian lifestyle

On Islam
But what gives these people the right to attempt to destroy our way of life because we are different



Looks a bit inconsistent to me JJP. Sure catholics don't personally murder Africans. They just cause millions of them to die from aids in order to further their religion.

Not that i'm trying to justify either behaviour. They are both equally wrong.

Religion could be thought of as a tool like a spanner. But a spanner doesn't try to control the way we behave and think, it just lets us undo nuts or bash peoples heads in.
An idea isn't really comparable to a physical object in any meaningful way.
So whilst religion could be thought of as a tool for social manipulation, that's not the same as a tool for poking holes in people (or screwing screws in).

People naturally form into societal groups. These groups are naturally in conflict with each other for scarce resource. Religion is just one way of forming a big group, as is nationality, skin colour or your local neighbourhood watch.
Until we reach the point where we all think that we belong to the same group there will be conflict. The level of conflict (and nature) is determined by how extreme the people involved are, and to the common morality of the group that they belong too.

Originally posted by serapis
So you made this miraculous decision that religion is so bad by reading one book written by one person?
No, I made it based upon my life's experiences, my own intuitions, and the reading and thinking I have amassed over one life, particularly by people such as Hume, Descartes, Ayer, Hofstadter and Dawkins.

Like I said, Sam Harris's book is flawed, and there is stuff in it I disagree with: in no way is Harris the intellectual equal of those names I just mentioned (well, except perhaps Descartes, who also put forward a flawless logical argument "I think therefore I am" but then tied himself in knots trying to work out how to get from this point to a proof of God's existence).

But the key point is that I thought for myself in deciding which parts of the book made sense and which strayed off the point. Most religion does not allow people that luxury, it advances certain ideas which just aren't open to challenge.

Yes I agree with Dan again - faith (as I understand it) is about believing things for reasons other than evidence.

Originally posted by serapis
So you made this miraculous decision that religion is so bad by reading one book written by one person?

Surely this is worse than religious people who try to live their lives by the Bible, Koran or the Torah. Which are made up of multiple books and writing by many different people through many years!

I agree with him, and i've not even read the one book!

Originally posted by spiffymonkey
Look at Matthew 12:30-31:
Like I said, there is much in religion to be commended, but that is absolutely not an argument for accepting any religious dogma as "the truth" or "the way to live your life". Every thought should be open to challenge.

Jesus also said "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." So who wants to join me in going out, finding some people who don't "adide in Jesus", rounding them up and casting them into a fire?

Originally posted by nick2
Actually whats the difference between a cult and a religion ?

How about 4 letters difference !?

Of course the word 'cult' generally has more negative assosiations than the word 'religion', however, the underlying group dynamics are (I believe) exactly the same.

A shift of focus from your own personal world view, to the world view as sanctioned by the group. Surrendering your power and making yourself a slave to the group.

Please do not go to the trouble of thinking for yourself, we can do that for you ... *smiles* .... yadda yadda yadda ...

Originally posted by DanSumption
Jesus also said "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." So who wants to join me in going out, finding some people who don't "adide in Jesus", rounding them up and casting them into a fire?

The other danger in religion is that people mistake metaphor for instruction ...

As a fully paid up member of the Supreme Church Of The Utterly Indifferent God, I think my views on faith are as good as anyone else's.

As far as we know, religious belief is found in one form or another in all cultures throughout history. There must be something akin therefore to a religious impulse in human beings - although of course it can find very different outlets, even belief in secular values, scientific progress or 'loadsamoney' materialism.

At a fundamental level, religious belief derives from the natural human need to make sense of the world and our place in it. The religious fables and stories associated with the major religions probably made a lot of sense and may well have appeared plausible in a pre-scientific age. Today they do not, except if they are viewed as allegorical rather than as literal truth.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Looks a bit inconsistent to me JJP. Sure catholics don't personally murder Africans. They just cause millions of them to die from aids in order to further their religion.

Not that i'm trying to justify either behaviour. They are both equally wrong.

Africans still live promiscuously despite the warnings about HIV and Aids. I think you have to acknowledge in this instance the difference between passive responsibility and active responsibility. One simply can't draw a connection between bombs in a crowded London Underground tunnel planted with the sole purpose of killing and maiming with that of the Catholic Church refusing to rescind on a fundamental piece of ideology. I'm sorry Cyclone but to draw such a connection is simply not possible and really rather ill thought out. Your conclusion lacks a further depth of analysis. Catholicism does not seek to further their religion through their active opposition to condoms - instead they seek to preserve their ideology!

Islamic terrorists have the blood of innocent people on their hands. Are the Africans really that innocent? After all, it is their choice to be promiscuous....

Originally posted by spiffymonkey
The other danger in religion is that people mistake metaphor for instruction ...
Exactly! Nowadays, of course, everything is metaphor. In the past, it was all literal. The main thing which has changed is us, we have so much more knowledge about the world that the only way we can make religion fit inside our world view is by turning it all into metaphor and allegory.

(Although I think much of what Jesus said included the bit about burning unbelievers was always intended as allegory, it's just that it took the rest of the human race some 2000 years to catch up with his meaning).

LordChaverly is right, religion fulfils an instinctive need to make sense of the world, the problem is that nowadays we have far more sophisticated methods for doing this, and religion is in very many cases actually an obstacle to knowledge.

I was under the impression that the catholic church's opposition to contraception was not only do do with it objecting to promiscuity, but more due to the fact that it sees life as being so sacred, and so the use of contraception is objected to as the prevention of pregancy is tantamount to murder - every sperm is sacred - it applies not just to people who are promiscuous. This objection to contraception surely began way before aids was even known of - if the rules were rewritten, surely they'd be different now?

I've always considered religion as a two way thing, there's the people that do the believing and those that create the doctrine.

The church as creaters are all about bums on seats, cash in the collection box and after a while another church built to start the process all over again. The congregation are there to save their souls, to redeem sin and to look for guidance. What originally started out as a means of social control is now the norm and a fundamental part of peoples lives whether they believe it wholeheartedly or not.

My thoughts are that religion is a crutch that people use to make sense of and get through life, the price they pay is to the church so it can perpetuate itself and gain more followers.

If religions your thing then all well and good just don't expect everyone to share your belief in the power of God.

Originally posted by Swan_Vesta


My thoughts are that religion is a crutch that people use to make sense of and get through life, the price they pay is to the church so it can perpetuate itself and gain more followers.



Totally agree. I find it very hard to see religion as anything more than a way of dealing with fear of death.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Africans still live promiscuously despite the warnings about HIV and Aids. I think you have to acknowledge in this instance the difference between passive responsibility and active responsibility. One simply can't draw a connection between bombs in a crowded London Underground tunnel planted with the sole purpose of killing and maiming with that of the Catholic Church refusing to rescind on a fundamental piece of ideology. I'm sorry Cyclone but to draw such a connection is simply not possible and really rather ill thought out. Your conclusion lacks a further depth of analysis. Catholicism does not seek to further their religion through their active opposition to condoms - instead they seek to preserve their ideology!

Islamic terrorists have the blood of innocent people on their hands. Are the Africans really that innocent? After all, it is their choice to be promiscuous....

they are both trying to change a society that they have no right to interfere in though.

Originally posted by Cyberscribe
I was under the impression that the catholic church's opposition to contraception was not only do do with it objecting to promiscuity, but more due to the fact that it sees life as being so sacred, and so the use of contraception is objected to as the prevention of pregancy is tantamount to murder - every sperm is sacred - it applies not just to people who are promiscuous. This objection to contraception surely began way before aids was even known of - if the rules were rewritten, surely they'd be different now?

and the nature of dogma is that it can't be reevaluated in light of new understand or knowledge, it can only be rigidly enforced despite the suffering that it will inflict on people.

Originally posted by Cyberscribe
I was under the impression that the catholic church's opposition to contraception was not only do do with it objecting to promiscuity, but more due to the fact that it sees life as being so sacred, and so the use of contraception is objected to as the prevention of pregancy is tantamount to murder - every sperm is sacred - it applies not just to people who are promiscuous. This objection to contraception surely began way before aids was even known of - if the rules were rewritten, surely they'd be different now?

And I think that's part of the point I made in my last post in that the Roman Catholic Church does not rescind on fundamental ideology. People see the Church of England's flitting as a catalyst to 'modernising' other religion's ideology and this simply isn't the case. Catholicism is unlikely to bow to 'modernity' under any circumstances.

Originally posted by DanSumption
(Although I think much of what Jesus said included the bit about burning unbelievers was always intended as allegory, it's just that it took the rest of the human race some 2000 years to catch up with his meaning).

LordChaverly is right, religion fulfils an instinctive need to make sense of the world, the problem is that nowadays we have far more sophisticated methods for doing this, and religion is in very many cases actually an obstacle to knowledge.

On these two points, we are in agreement :)

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
Yes I agree with Dan again - faith (as I understand it) is about believing things for reasons other than evidence.

People turn to religions and have "faith" for one reason - because it's scarey not knowing what happens when you die.

Who the hell wants to believe that when you're gone that's it. You cease to exist. You'll never see those you love again. Not me!

I can understand why people want to believe in an after life, in a heaven. I can understand why they have "faith" that there is something more. I have faith. What I don't understand, or like, is religions that pray on this fear.

Religions promise heaven (or whatever you want to call it) but place conditions on it. You'll only get it if you behave this way. Well I'm sorry but all these conditions are made up by men. They have not been sent down by God. They are rules made up by people in order to control other people. Sometimes this works to the good and sometimes to the bad. Either way, the motivation is based on a lie.

IMO it is healthy to have faith but people should wake up to the con that is religion.

Originally posted by Cyclone
they are both trying to change a society that they have no right to interfere in though.

Again you forget to look deeper Cyclone! If Catholicism has no right to interfere in African society then surely it can't be blamed for Africa's AIDs problem by not advocating contraception. Under your view of things they would seem to bare no responsibility for the events that take place in Africa as they have no "right to interfere" in the first place!

Originally posted by Swan_Vesta
If religions your thing then all well and good just don't expect everyone to share your belief in the power of God.
I don't believe it is "all well and good". Our silent respect for religion, our deference which prevents us from challenging and asking questions, helps to create a climate where people use their faith as justification for planting bombs, or for killing children in order to "drive out the evil spirits that possess them".

Bad logic should be challenged wherever it is encountered.

But I want to repeat that it is religion I am opposed to, not the religious. It is not a sin (oops, probably the wrong word to use in this context) to be wrong. While I hate (yes, hate) the teachings of Islam, I hold no emnity for a single Moslem. They're all human beings, confused in their thinking as we all are at times, and they deserve sympathy.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Again you forget to look deeper Cyclone! If Catholicism has no right to interfere in African society then surely it can't be blamed for Africa's AIDs problem by not advocating contraception. Under your view of things they would seem to bare no responsibility for the events that take place in Africa as they have no "right to interfere" in the first place!

having no right to do what it does doesn't absolve it from the responsibility for it's actions.

I don't forget to look deeper, you choose not too in order to defend christianity.

Originally posted by Zamo
People turn to religions and have "faith" for one reason - because it's scarey not knowing what happens when you die.

Who the hell wants to believe that when you're gone that's it. You cease to exist. You'll never see those you love again. Not me!

I can understand why people want to believe in an after life, in a heaven. I can understand why they have "faith" that there is something more. I have faith. What I don't understand, or like, is religions that pray on this fear.

Religions promise heaven (or whatever you want to call it) but place conditions on it. You'll only get it if you behave this way. Well I'm sorry but all these conditions are made up by men. They have not been sent down by God. They are rules made up by people in order to control other people. Sometimes this works to the good and sometimes to the bad. Either way, the motivation is based on a lie.

IMO it is healthy to have faith but people should wake up to the con that is religion.

i don't want to believe it, and I don't want to believe that the odds of me winning the lottery on saturday are 14 million to 1. But not wanting to believe it doesn't alter it.

Originally posted by Zamo
People turn to religions and have "faith" for one reason - because it's scarey not knowing what happens when you die.
It's at times like this when I comfort my self by singing a little Chumbawamba (http://www.houseoflyrics.com/d/artists/1397/song/59434):

<sings>
Have fun when you're alive,
You won't get nothing when you die
Have a good time all the time
Because you won't get nothing when you die
</sings>

Paste the Lord!

Originally posted by JonJParr
Again you forget to look deeper Cyclone! If Catholicism has no right to interfere in African society then surely it can't be blamed for Africa's AIDs problem by not advocating contraception. Under your view of things they would seem to bare no responsibility for the events that take place in Africa as they have no "right to interfere" in the first place!

This doesn't really make sense - if they hadn't interfered then no, they wouldn't have any responsibility, but by actively condemning contraception they have interfered and so must bear responsibility.

Originally posted by Cyclone
having no right to do what it does doesn't absolve it from the responsibility for it's actions.

I don't forget to look deeper, you choose not too in order to defend christianity.

But it really isn't taking any actions - that's the point I'm trying to make. The Roman Catholic Church refuses to back down on contraception because of it's condemnation of promiscuity, adultery and that it believes all life (even sperm) is sacred. I don't believe that's an action. It's simply saying, "If you choose to follow Catholicism then this is our ideology - if you don't agree with it, fine - but this is what we believe".

How can the Roman Catholic Church then be held responsible when Africans jump in and out of bed with each other and contract HIV? It's simply not their fault because they don't agree with that immorality in the first place.

the promiscuity isn't there fault (is it a fault at all, or is that a moral judgement?).

What is there fault is that they come along to an existing society that already has a habit of promiscuity. Convince people in the existence of heaven and then tell them not to use condoms or they won't be invited to the party.

They are actively interfering in the development of the society and by imposing there values and judgements on top of existing behaviour they are causing the deaths of millions of people.

I've come to the conclussion that religion is just another method to control your lives so I just think all religion is just a load of BS.

Originally posted by JonJParr
The Roman Catholic Church refuses to back down on contraception because of it's condemnation of promiscuity, adultery and that it believes all life (even sperm) is sacred. I don't believe that's an action. It's simply saying, "If you choose to follow Catholicism then this is our ideology - if you don't agree with it, fine - but this is what we believe".


If sperm is sacred why do so many Catholic priests waste it by depositing it up the bums of choirboys? link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4655265.stm)

Originally posted by JonJParr
But it really isn't taking any actions - that's the point I'm trying to make. The Roman Catholic Church refuses to back down on contraception because of it's condemnation of promiscuity, adultery and that it believes all life (even sperm) is sacred. I don't believe that's an action. It's simply saying, "If you choose to follow Catholicism then this is our ideology - if you don't agree with it, fine - but this is what we believe".

How can the Roman Catholic Church then be held responsible when Africans jump in and out of bed with each other and contract HIV? It's simply not their fault because they don't agree with that immorality in the first place.

Then the Roman Catholic Church is fixed and rigid in it's ideologies, this is never a good thing and is most un-spiritual.

It seems to me that the Roman Catholic Church has more to do with dogma and rigidity and preserving the 'old ways' than it has to do with change and evolution and appropriateness and love and what is actually good for people.

Originally posted by Cyclone
the promiscuity isn't there fault (is it a fault at all, or is that a moral judgement?).

What is there fault is that they come along to an existing society that already has a habit of promiscuity. Convince people in the existence of heaven and then tell them not to use condoms or they won't be invited to the party.

They are actively interfering in the development of the society and by imposing there values and judgements on top of existing behaviour they are causing the deaths of millions of people.

Promiscuity is a lifestyle that has been shown to have consequences. Maybe that smacks of moral judgement but my moral fibre tells me sleeping around is just not right.

The Catholic Church may be expressing their views about how they think people should live but they can't be charged with the spread of HIV and Aids. One must remember that the majority of Africans are not Christian and that to them the Catholic teachings against contraception hold no weight. Yet we find that the problem still goes on. This seems to suggest that Africans themselves are more to blame than just those who, from a religious standing point, refuse to advocate using a condom.

Originally posted by Jamie
Then the Roman Catholic Church is fixed and rigid in it's ideologies, this is never a good thing and is most un-spiritual.

It seems to me that the Roman Catholic Church has more to do with dogma and rigidity and preserving the 'old ways' than it has to do with change and evolution and appropriateness and love and what is actually good for people.

And it simply doesn't seem to work - of all the Catholics I know and have known, not one actually really sticks to all the rules etc. It just seems so hypocritical to me.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Promiscuity is a lifestyle that has been shown to have consequences. Maybe that smacks of moral judgement but my moral fibre tells me sleeping around is just not right.

The Catholic Church may be expressing their views about how they think people should live but they can't be charged with the spread of HIV and Aids. One must remember that the majority of Africans are not Christian and that to them the Catholic teachings against contraception hold no weight. Yet we find that the problem still goes on. This seems to suggest that Africans themselves are more to blame than just those who, from a religious standing point, refuse to advocate using a condom.

catholicism is one of the major religions on the continent of africa now. There are over 100 million practising catholics.
If it hadn't spread then there would be no opposition to the use of condoms and the consequences of their promiscuity would be much reduced.
And it is a moral judgement that you are applying, your moral fibre has been shaped by the society that you grew up in, it's just another example of trying to apply our values to other people.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Catholicism is unlikely to bow to 'modernity' under any circumstances.

I don't know about that - for instance they no longer torture heretics to death or burn witches, which I guess are concessions to modernity. And I think they now accept the findings of Galileo, and the more radical Catholics I believe accept the findings of Darwin. They're just a bit slow at catching up with the rest of us.

This argument can continue to go round and round but some people will never be convinced (I suspect they revile Christianity too much and it clouds their judgement) however I think that Cyclone's comparison of the Catholic Church's refusal to rescind on contraception to that of Islamic terrorists planting bombs on the London Underground / flying a plane into the WTC is abhorrent.

The people on the London Underground were completely innocent. They did not bring the bombs upon themselves. Instead they were targeted by a group of individuals so filled with hatred and intolerance that they were compelled to commit heinous acts of pure evil.

They didn't have a choice in the matter (ie. whether to be promiscuous or not like many Africans) they were targeted because they were from the West. To draw the comparison that Cyclone did demeans their tragic deaths and was crass beyond belief!

Originally posted by JonJParr
Promiscuity is a lifestyle that has been shown to have consequences.

Is that promiscuity with, or without, condoms?

Originally posted by Jamie
Is that promiscuity with, or without, condoms?

I think they both have consequences Jamie - whether physical or emotional.

the point I was trying to draw out, and which you either refuse to acknowledge or can't see is that you were condeming Islam for trying to change our way of life (by whatever method) whilst supporting the right of christianity to go around the world doing just that to other people.

The methods may differ, and maybe the examples I used aren't the best, but the intention and the end result (should they succede) are the same.

Originally posted by JonJParr
But it really isn't taking any actions - that's the point I'm trying to make. The Roman Catholic Church refuses to back down on contraception because of it's condemnation of promiscuity, adultery and that it believes all life (even sperm) is sacred. I don't believe that's an action. It's simply saying, "If you choose to follow Catholicism then this is our ideology - if you don't agree with it, fine - but this is what we believe".
So, can I use an analogy to see whether I've understood you correctly? If, for example, a Moslem came across somebody stumbling out of a tube station, badly burnt and bleeding to death, and realised that this person was a Jew then it would be morally OK for him to leave the Jew there to die, despite feeling a strong urge to do his human duty and help out, as his religion orders him to have nothing to do with Jews and Christians.

Originally posted by DanSumption
So, can I use an analogy to see whether I've understood you correctly? If, for example, a Moslem came across somebody stumbling out of a tube station, badly burnt and bleeding to death, and realised that this person was a Jew then it would be morally OK for him to leave the Jew there to die, as his religion orders him to have nothing to do with Jews and Christians.

Now that's an interesting analogy Dan, if not a tad extreme. The thing is I'm not entirely convinced that this would happen and whether you interpretation of what is written in their ideology is entirely correct or full. As a trivial example, if this were to be true then Muslim taxi drivers would have to drive away from a Christian or a Jewish person trying to take a taxi.

Indeed, using your example, how would they know if the person was Jewish or Christian for that matter? Whilst airing on the side of caution (because I have not read the Koran) I would hazard to suggest that the teaching is to have nothing to do with their religion teachings not the person themself.

What do you think Dan?

Originally posted by JonJParr
Now that's an interesting analogy Dan, if not a tad extreme. The thing is I'm not entirely convinced that this would happen and whether you interpretation of what is written in their ideology is entirely correct or full. As a trivial example, if this were to be true then Muslim taxi drivers would have to drive away from a Christian or a Jewish person trying to take a taxi.

Indeed, using your example, how would they know if the person was Jewish or Christian for that matter? Whilst airing on the side of caution (because I have not read the Koran) I would hazard to suggest that the teaching is to have nothing to do with their religion teachings not the person themself.

What do you think Dan?

didn't the ealier quote say something along the lines of that to befriend them is to become like them.
I don't think a business transaction would count as befriending them...

How about if it were a member of the religion that eschews medical treatment instead of a muslim.
So instead of helping, they quickly convert the injured victim and tell him that to go to heaven he must refuse help from the approaching paramedic and should instead accept that the will of god is for him to die.

Originally posted by Cyclone
...tell him that to go to heaven he must refuse help from the approaching paramedic and should instead accept that the will of god is for him to die.

Is that a teaching of Islam (if it was I was unaware of it)?

Originally posted by Cyclone
didn't the ealier quote say something along the lines of that to befriend them is to become like them

Are you 'befriending' someone by offering to stem a bleeding arm or lead them to a paramedic?

Originally posted by JonJParr
Is that a teaching of Islam (if it was I was unaware of it)?

i quite clearly said that it was from a different religion, not Islam.

Originally posted by Cyclone
i quite clearly said that it was from a different religion, not Islam.

My apologies Cyclone - perhaps you should post the name of the religion (or is it a secret?)

Originally posted by JonJParr
Now that's an interesting analogy Dan, if not a tad extreme. The thing is I'm not entirely convinced that this would happen and whether you interpretation of what is written in their ideology is entirely correct or full. As a trivial example, if this were to be true then Muslim taxi drivers would have to drive away from a Christian or a Jewish person trying to take a taxi.

Indeed, using your example, how would they know if the person was Jewish or Christian for that matter? Whilst airing on the side of caution (because I have not read the Koran) I would hazard to suggest that the teaching is to have nothing to do with their religion teachings not the person themself.
I am indeed stretching the meaning of some of the teachings, although I don't know all of the Koran and there may indeed be some which prohibit Moslems from helping Jews. And I chose a Jew because, if they were orthodox, it wouldn't be hard for a Moslem to tell from their clothing and hair what religion they belonged to (or indeed for a Christian, a simple cross around the neck might suffice).

Anyway, some of the Surahs I'm aware of that have a bearing on this are:


Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal. (3:118)

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. (5:51)

Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels and those who were given the Book before you, who have made of your religion a jest and a pastime (5:57)

You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those that say 'We are Christians' (5:80)


Also, I don't think it would be impossible to find Moslems who would equate "rescuing" with "befriending". A small minority, no doubt, but I imagine they exist.

There are plenty more which state that God will burn infidels, so our fictitious Moslem might well assume that this is God's work, and let what will be be.

On the other hand, he might rescue the Jew in order to save him for later torture, if he had this Surah in mind:

Those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire. No sooner shall their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge (4:55)

Originally posted by JonJParr
My apologies Cyclone - perhaps you should post the name of the religion (or is it a secret?)
Jehovah's witnesses, and others, believe this.

Originally posted by JonJParr
My apologies Cyclone - perhaps you should post the name of the religion (or is it a secret?)

thanks Dan. I knew they existed, just couldn't remember who they were.

Originally posted by Cyclone
So instead of helping, they quickly convert the injured victim and tell him that to go to heaven he must refuse help from the approaching paramedic and should instead accept that the will of god is for him to die.

So you forget that conversion to religion is a choice. A choice to believe someone, a choice to believe in a religion even a choice to tell them to get out of the way of the approaching paramedic? It seems that this person has had a choice all the way through, don't you? Now, taking your own example (of Islamic terrorists bombing innocent civilians) and aligning the two- did the innocent civilians have a choice?

Originally posted by JonJParr
So you forget that conversion to religion is a choice. A choice to believe someone, a choice to believe in a religion even a choice to tell them to get out of the way of the approaching paramedic? It seems that this person has had a choice all the way through, don't you? Now, taking your own example (of Islamic terrorists bombing innocent civilians) and aligning the two- did the innocent civilians have a choice?
But you're getting confused (I'm not surprised, given all these analogies flying around). This is not about the choice of the dying person, whether to accept the religion or not, this is about the choice of the person prostelytizing: is it "wrong" of them to try and convert this person, given that if they are converted, and subsequently reject medical treatment, they will die.

Originally posted by JonJParr
So you forget that conversion to religion is a choice. A choice to believe someone, a choice to believe in a religion even a choice to tell them to get out of the way of the approaching paramedic? It seems that this person has had a choice all the way through, don't you? Now, taking your own example (of Islamic terrorists bombing innocent civilians) and aligning the two- did the innocent civilians have a choice? #

maybe the injured guy is a little slow and the jehovahs witness very persuasive.

I never said it was identical anyway, I just said that the intention and aims were the same, the change of an existing culture.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I never said it was identical anyway, I just said that the intention and aims were the same, the change of an existing culture.
Don't let JonJParr's confusion confuse you Cyclone, the two cases are a lot more similar than he (and now you) think.

Case 1: Catholic church preaches "don't use condoms" to Africans. African "chooses" not to use condom. African catches AIDS and dies.

Case 2: Jehova's Witness preaches "don't accept medical intervention" to sick person. Sick person "chooses" to reject medical intervention and dies.

Now, I think we need to move somehow closer to the original subject, as all of these analogies are getting rather confused and probably unecessary.

Originally posted by JonJParr
I think they both have consequences Jamie - whether physical or emotional.

I'd say quite different consequences, certainly in terms of the physical (health risks).

Indeed, all our actions as human beings have consequences (be them desireable or otherwise), you put your hand in the fire, it hurts.

I don't think there is anything inherinty wrong with promiscuity and sexual activity (sure, there are consequences).

On the other hand, what is really screwed up, is when a religion dictates what is right and wrong, and indoctrinates us all with the notion that sex is sin, and denies people the freedom to find their own way and work it all out for themselves.

The greatest danger to humanity, is humanity; and religion is simply another expression of our very own human nature.

I think it's much better if you work it all out for yourself.

Cyclone / Dan,

I think I've remarked before about how this thread could go round and round. Indeed, we could devise even more widely outrageous examples in an attempt to add weight to our case but the examples so far on this thread have been wildly extreme and whilst I'd love (a lie) to debate them all day with you - it does seem rather asinine to keep doing this.

I'll try to sum up as plainly as I can. If you don't agree (which I suspect you won't) then that's fine and I wouldn't feel it my place to say otherwise.

I don't believe that the Roman Catholic Church is responsible for the HIV/Aids epidemic that is rife within Africa. They refuse to rescind on fundamental ideology about contraception as a means to solving it because they believe the problem is more deeply rooted in African societal habits. Can it be said that by refusing to condone something that, in their eyes is immoral, they are responsible for the epidemic? I don't think so.

I really don't think the blame for Africa inherent culture of hopping into bed with whoever you want and subsequently their impending Aids / HIV epidemic can be laid at the Vatican's doorstep. One needs only to look at the cause of why AIDS / HIV is spread - sleeping around.

Africans stop sleeping around and the epidemic will stop increasing extremely fast. Say they can use condoms as a means to facilitating a promiscuous lifestyle and the decrease in the spread of the disease will be much slower.

A good debate guys - you have my respect for your views (even if I did disagree with them) and you are the reason I must finish off writing this report outside of work.... but then again it was my 'choice' and I can't blame it on you both.

Originally posted by JonJParr


I really don't think the blame for Africa inherent culture of hopping into bed with whoever you want and subsequently their impending Aids / HIV epidemic can be laid at the Vatican's doorstep. One needs only to look at the cause of why AIDS / HIV is spread - sleeping around.

Africans stop sleeping around and the epidemic will stop increasing extremely fast. Say they can use condoms as a means to facilitating a promiscuous lifestyle and the decrease in the spread of the disease will be much slower.




Do you know a great deal about Africa's "inherent culture of hopping into bed with whoever you want", or is this along the lines of your equally ridiculous earlier assertion that "most Africans aren't Christians"?

It is an uphill struggle to spread awareness of HIV and AIDS in Africa: Many people are born with it without realising, so will still pass it to the next generation, even if they only ever have one partner! You are right that the Catholic Church has not proactively sought to cause the African AIDS epidemic, yet your flawed perceptions of Africa suggest that you think they are absolved of any negligence whatsoever, when infact their teachings have been one of the greatest barriers to any improvements.

Sorry, I did want to say something more interesting about religion on a philosophical level, but some of your comments needed addressing.

OK, now we've got the Africa/AIDS thing out of the way, please can we have some more interesting comments about religion on a philosophical level?

Er, you are born, you live and you die, thats it

Or as T.S.Eliot put it:

Birth, copulation and death
Birth copulation and death
Thats all the facts when you get down to brass tacks
Birth copulation and death
I've been born once and once is enough.

Ooh, yes. Can we have a bit of that over here (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46991&perpage=15&pagenumber=1) too please, LordChav.

JohnJParr Catholicism does not seek to further their religion through their active opposition to condoms - instead they seek to preserve their ideology! Catholics seek to preserve their religion by opposing cotraception......hence the more children born, the more Catholics. Religion is a way of controlling the masses, always has been, always will be.

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
[I wrote, but didn't submit, the following before evildrneil's post]

Well, the big monotheistic religions tend to instruct you to be charitable, compassionate etc. to people of your own faith, but not to anybody else. E.g. the Old Testament is full of examples showing that "Thou shalt not kill" is only meant to apply to orthodox members of your own religion (and certainly not to animals!).

Or sometimes they interpret being charitable and compassionate as offering you the wonderful benefits of their religion, but reserve the right to kill you if you're churlish enough to turn down the offer.

Being universally tolerant, compassionate etc. is more characteristic of post-Enlightenment humanist thinking, in the West at least. [Buddhism and Jainism are, I think, more universal, and maybe there are other examples.] nice one,but maybe it was a way of survival for the tribes/people of that country when it was written,as in, dont trust strangers, as the bible says,its easier for a camel to pass thru the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven,so why then ,do all the top religious leaders have servants,limo,s,wear gold and silk,live in vast palaces? thats not following the bible,they bend its meaning to suit,as does every other religious leader no matter which faith they follow

Originally posted by Jamie
Then the Roman Catholic Church is fixed and rigid in it's ideologies, this is never a good thing and is most un-spiritual.

It seems to me that the Roman Catholic Church has more to do with dogma and rigidity and preserving the 'old ways' than it has to do with change and evolution and appropriateness and love and what is actually good for people.

Maybe so in our enlightened, free and progressive society, but the Catholic faith would be a godsend (pardon the pun) to its congregations if our cosy little world started to go wrong.
Think about John Paul II in communist Poland, defying government pressure on people to abandon religion. Now, I'm not religious, but if the authorities tried to pressure people in this country into one homogenous secular ideology, well, that's just not cricket, and, religious or otherwise, I would have been 100% behind the Polish Catholics in their efforts to secure places where they could worship.
Then after they'd got them, I'd go back to criticising the sillier points of their religion.
Religion is a rock, and it's helpful to people during the bad times, it's the "heart in a heartless world", to quote Karl Marx. Despite the bad stuff that comes from religion, it has inspired people to some very charitable and selfless acts, it has helped comfort people during times of grief, and it has caused people to better themselves, and if the foundations of any religion are found to be built on sand rather than rock, then you take the inspiration away from its believers.


Having said that, I feel that the happy clappy, members only, narrow minded, boneheaded churches that I've been to only concentrate on the pedantry of religion, and manage to ignore the very fine basic principles. I had the marvelous opportunity of visiting a Hindu temple once, and thoroughly enjoyed the experience; they had some gorgeous architecture and they didn't preach at me because no one could speak English. :)

And another thing that puts me off religion for life..

The Pope is still telling people in Africa where AIDS is rife not to use condoms and contraception.. sentencing more people to a un-needed death sentence.

Way to go popey!

Another reason why religion is an outdated concept meant to control us all.

But god really exists so its OK for more people to die of AIDS.

religion is pointless.

you can never prove that God, Allah whoever exists so what is the point?

Originally posted by robbie
religion is pointless.

you can never prove that God, Alah whoever exists so what is the point?

Amen to that! ;)

The secular gospel of DanSumption! Once again you have spent a considerable amount of time and effort to gospel your disbelief and trash the beliefs of others. Why? :confused:

Originally posted by Chicago
Once again you have spent a considerable amount of time and effort to gospel your disbelief and trash the beliefs of others. Why? :confused:
(1) Because I was bored yesterday, and working to a deadline, hence I spent the whole day time wasting :)

(2) Because I believe this is important, very important, alongside climate change probably the most important problem facing the human race right now.

A significant minority of people in the world wage war upon rational discourse, and use pre-medieval dogma to justify their own twisted ends. The vast majority of people in the world are complicit in allowing them to do this, believing that a person's faith is such a sacred thing that it cannot be questioned. Everything can and must be questioned. To misquote William S Burroughs "destroy all irrational thought".

I am amazed that since last Thursday's bombings, which we now know to be the work of Moslem extremists, virtually nobody has focused on the "Moslem" element (other than to say "don't call these people Moslems" and to urge people not to hold all Moslems responsible) and everyone has focused on the "extremist" part. It is a very sad indictment of our inability to question religion that the only people I have heard talking about this aspect seriously since Thursday are Nick Griffin of the BNP, and a panel of Moslems on last night's Newsnight, who skirted around the issue and only managed to come up with one Surah which might very weakly support the bombers' actions whereas there exist many, many Surahs which can easily be used to strongly support their actions.

Yes, I really do feel very strongly about this.

OK, I've been out hunting quotes for my signature, to reflect my current "crusade". Here's some nice ones, from men more eloquent than I: I quote them to better express what I believe. Strange that so many of them seem to come from George Bush's forebears:

"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." -- Abraham Lincoln

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." -- Thomas Jefferson

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." -- Thomas Paine

"Where knowledge ends, religion begins." -- Benjamin Disraeli

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -- Steven Weinberg

"The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality." -- George Bernard Shaw

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." -- Napoleon Bonaparte

"Hell is an outrage on humanity. When you tell me that your deity made you in his image, I reply that he must have been very ugly." -- Victor Hugo

"We must repsect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart." -- Henry Mencken

"Puritanism - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." -- Henry Mencken

"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration - courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth." -- Henry Mencken

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." -- Albert Einstein

"I viewed my fellow man not as a fallen angel, but as a risen ape." -- Desmond Morris

"Religion to me has always been the wound, not the bandage." -- Dennis Potter

"Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning." -- Bill Gates

"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way." -- Bertrand Russell

Good quotes Dan, here's a few words from Richard Dawkins:

Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are that you won't know it, and may even vigorously deny it.

No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth...it is a telling fact that, the world over, the vast majority of children follow the religion of their parents rather than any of the other available religions.

We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes.

For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

if there is only one Creator who made the tiger and the lamb, the cheetah and the gazelle, what is He playing at? Is he a sadist who enjoys spectator blood sports? ... Is he manuvering to maximize David Attenborough's television ratings?

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

Originally posted by Norbert
nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

How uplifting!

These words could have been taken from the catechism of the 'Church Of The Utterly Indifferent God', of which I have been a longstanding member

do you think that focussing on the fact that these people were muslims would actually help the debate or move the issue along, would it give us more options for stopping further attacks or would it just cause revenge attacks against innocent people?

Originally posted by DanSumption
(1) Because I was bored yesterday, and working to a deadline, hence I spent the whole day time wasting :)

(2) Because I believe this is important, very important, alongside climate change probably the most important problem facing the human race right now.

A significant minority of people in the world wage war upon rational discourse, and use pre-medieval dogma to justify their own twisted ends. The vast majority of people in the world are complicit in allowing them to do this, believing that a person's faith is such a sacred thing that it cannot be questioned. Everything can and must be questioned. To misquote William S Burroughs "destroy all irrational thought".

I am amazed that since last Thursday's bombings, which we now know to be the work of Moslem extremists, virtually nobody has focused on the "Moslem" element (other than to say "don't call these people Moslems" and to urge people not to hold all Moslems responsible) and everyone has focused on the "extremist" part. It is a very sad indictment of our inability to question religion that the only people I have heard talking about this aspect seriously since Thursday are Nick Griffin of the BNP, and a panel of Moslems on last night's Newsnight, who skirted around the issue and only managed to come up with one Surah which might very weakly support the bombers' actions whereas there exist many, many Surahs which can easily be used to strongly support their actions.

Yes, I really do feel very strongly about this.

Originally posted by Cyclone
do you think that focussing on the fact that these people were muslims would actually help the debate or move the issue along, would it give us more options for stopping further attacks or would it just cause revenge attacks against innocent people?
Sadly I think the latter, given how little distance their is between most humans and most apes. On top of this there is the tricky matter of Sharia law against apostacy, which means that even if any Moslems can be convinced their religious teachings are wrong, they will be killed who those who don't.

But I also think that the status quo is not an option. Sooner or later it is likely to lead to our mass destruction, probably before the century's out.

Yes, it's an intractible problem, but I would prefer to try and find a solution based upon rationality, respect, and allowing people to put their hands up and say "I was wrong", rather than one based upon a status quo where people the world over can continue to justify unjustifiable acts by saying "God told me to do it".

Also, I wouldn't "focus on the fact that these people were muslims", I would focus on the fact that these people were wrong and that Islam encouraged them to be wrong. It's a subtle distinction, I know, and one which probably wouldn't be grasped by your average BNP rentamob, but I think it has to become permissible to challenge ideas without that challenge being taken as an implicit or explicit challenge to the people who hold those ideas.

Originally posted by DanSumption
Also, I wouldn't "focus on the fact that these people were muslims", I would focus on the fact that these people were wrong and that Islam encouraged them to be wrong. It's a subtle distinction, I know, and one which probably wouldn't be grasped by your average BNP rentamob, but I think it has to become permissible to challenge ideas without that challenge being taken as an implicit or explicit challenge to the people who hold those ideas.


whatever solution is to be found must also be applied to other religions as they encourage the same things.

Originally posted by Cyclone
whatever solution is to be found must also be applied to other religions as they encourage the same things.
Absolutely! As I've tried to make clear in almost every post I've made (but accidentally forgot to on that last one) I feel the same way about all religions, in fact about any system which proscribes answers and prevents the revision of ideas via empirical learning and the application of rationality.

Originally posted by JonJParr


Mark Steyn attempted to explain why Islamofascists hate America and the wider western world saying, "The Arab Islamists despise America because it’s all lap-dancing and gay-phone sex". But what gives these people the right to attempt to destroy our way of life because we are different? Islam has a lot to answer for; but then people shout, "Yes, but the Muslim Council of Britain condemned the attacks." They did - but did you hear of any Saudi Arabian or Iranian Muslim councils denounce it? I didn't. For this reason I shall continue to hold them to account (not hate them but hold them responsible ).



I wouldnt say its necessarily just that. I think in Saudi for example, many of the young there hate the US for its support of their own tyrinnical regime, that is the House of Saud who will perform to any of the organgrinders requests. Its a bit like how people in the Uk get dismayed with Brussels, just worse!

I am very anti religious.

religion is the root cause of "most" of the death, war, theft, hate and suffering in the world. From the crusades, through to witch burning and the persecution of women, right upto the present day suicide bombings

get rid of religion and the world would be a safer place, but im afraid its already too late for that

Originally posted by melthebell

get rid of religion and the world would be a safer place, but im afraid its already too late for that

Perhaps we should deal with religion the way Stalin did ? :D

Most religions or political -isms seem to get built round an individual "deity" - whether it's Jesus, Mohammed, Mao, Marx etc etc.

IMHO anything that purports to be able to give you the truth about anything and everything is lying through its back teeth. First of all they were used as a way of trying to make sense of the world and have since been hijacked by despots to control and terrorise large sections of mankind.

I'm amazed (and pleased) that most people posting here seem to be supporting, in some way or other, my idea that "religion is stupid". Are there no religious members of Sheffield Forum who want a good old theological scrap^B^B^B^B^B debate? Or have we convinced them all to change beliefs?

Originally posted by DanSumption
I'm amazed (and pleased) that most people posting here seem to be supporting, in some way or other, my idea that "religion is stupid". Are there no religious members of Sheffield Forum who want a good old theological scrap^B^B^B^B^B debate? Or have we convinced them all to change beliefs?

Why does that please you Dan? If you want a theological debate with religious members of the Forum perhaps you should begin by abandoning your tagline of "Religion is Stupid". The title of this thread is clearly designed to antagonise religious members of the Forum into having a "scrap" with you. This seems like a pretty 'stupid' way to prompt an intellectual discussion don't you think?

Furthermore I find it incredibly presumptious of you to assume that by posting a few messages on the Forum you could persuade someone to abandon their religious beliefs. What an incredibly arrogant and (to coin one your favourite words) 'stupid' suggestion.

TO YOUR CORNERS GENTLEMEN

Originally posted by DanSumption
I'm amazed (and pleased) that most people posting here seem to be supporting, in some way or other, my idea that "religion is stupid". Are there no religious members of Sheffield Forum who want a good old theological scrap^B^B^B^B^B debate? Or have we convinced them all to change beliefs?

Maybe those who have a personal faith or attach themselves to a particular religion feel there is no need to post on here as it seems that come what may, the two parties - believers and non-believers - will never agree on the same thing? Seems to me at least, that you've been true to your moniker Dan and made your own (misconceived) assumptions?

But one point if I may: Who on earth do you think you are to 'convince them all to change beliefs?'

There's been many a Christian martyr who has died for his beliefs. Small chance you have of convincing people to 'change their beliefs'!!

'Religion is stupid.' What a generalisation that is and an affront to all the billions of people in this world who go about their everyday life embracing everything their faith gives them without causing anyone else any harm or bother but who are frankly, more likely to live their lives in a peaceful, compassionate way and who have more love and respect in their little fingers than any so-called atheist or non-believer.

Each to their own I say. I like Morrissey - you probably don't. Am I going to spend all day trying to convert you into a Mozza fan?

Precisely.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Why does that please you Dan? If you want a theological debate with religious members of the Forum perhaps you should begin by abandoning your tagline of "Religion is Stupid". The title of this thread is clearly designed to antagonise religious members of the Forum into having a "scrap" with you. This seems like a pretty 'stupid' way to prompt an intellectual discussion don't you think?
It pleases me because, as I thought I had made fairly clear, I believe religion is insidious and evil. Given that the majority of the population seems to express some kind of religious belief, however half-heartedly, I would have thought there's be more support for it. It pleases me to think that perhaps I have over-estimated support for religion, perhaps people are coming to their senses and abandoning it.

The tagline I explained in the first post on this thread. I guess you it is antagonistic, but mainly it's tongue in cheek, as are most things I do, that's just the way I am. It's possible to have fun and make a serious point at the same time, but I guess I may have put some people off posting, which was silly of me.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Furthermore I find it incredibly presumptious of you to assume that by posting a few messages on the Forum you could persuade someone to abandon their religious beliefs. What an incredibly arrogant and (to coin one your favourite words) 'stupid' suggestion.
And I suggest you read the post you were replying to again. "I'm amazed... have we convinced them all to change beliefs?" It would be incredibly presumptious to assume a few posts could get people to abandon long-held beliefs (although it would be nice to think it might get them started along that path). I was not, for a change, joking when I said "I'm amazed". It's incredibly arrogant and stupid of you to assume I'm not. And to assume that one of my favourite words is "stupid". It isn't.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Why does that please you Dan? If you want a theological debate with religious members of the Forum perhaps you should begin by abandoning your tagline of "Religion is Stupid". The title of this thread is clearly designed to antagonise religious members of the Forum into having a "scrap" with you. This seems like a pretty 'stupid' way to prompt an intellectual discussion don't you think?

Furthermore I find it incredibly presumptious of you to assume that by posting a few messages on the Forum you could persuade someone to abandon their religious beliefs. What an incredibly arrogant and (to coin one your favourite words) 'stupid' suggestion.

I feel the need to defend Dan here. His title 'Religion is Stupid' is indeed provocative, but the use of such attention grabbing titles is a well known and accepted way of gaining interest and drawing people in to read further. It is in no way a simple incitement to a 'scrap', but it is an invitation to debate - and there is no harm in this. It was also, as he points out, inspired by a song title.

To your second point Dan's comment about changing people's beliefs was quite clearly tongue in cheek, he was simply making the point that so far no one seems to have been willing to come forward and openly defend their own religion, and questioning the reasons for this.

Originally posted by DanSumption
I'm amazed (and pleased) that most people posting here seem to be supporting, in some way or other, my idea that "religion is stupid". Are there no religious members of Sheffield Forum who want a good old theological scrap^B^B^B^B^B debate? Or have we convinced them all to change beliefs?

I don't entirely agree with you. Although I'm noy religious, I do not agree that religion causes or authorises people to wreak misery and bloodshed.

As we have all observed, people interpret religious teachings to suit their own agendas. Anyone who wants to kill or harm people is already affected by a kind of criminal insanity. If they did not have religion to justify it, they would find something else. The religion has not caused the insanity, it is a manifestation of it. A lot of the most famous serial killers, rapists etc. have had quasi-religious obsessions (God told them to do it, etc.), but that doesn't mean that couldn't be replaced with some other equally ridiculous obsession.

Another example is people who cite religion as their reason for refusing to open their minds and tolerate, for example, homosexuality. Yet plenty of non-religious people are equally hostile to opening their minds in this kind of way ("it's just not natural is it?). What you are asking for is not an end to religion, but an end to people's need for belief systems

Originally posted by Ousetunes
Maybe those who have a personal faith or attach themselves to a particular religion feel there is no need to post on here as it seems that come what may, the two parties - believers and non-believers - will never agree on the same thing? Seems to me at least, that you've been true to your moniker Dan and made your own (misconceived) assumptions?

But one point if I may: Who on earth do you think you are to 'convince them all to change beliefs?'
That would be a great achievement, it's true. But it has happened to me, so it could happen to others. I don't think I can "convince them all to change beliefs", but it would be remiss of me not to try.

Originally posted by Ousetunes
There's been many a Christian martyr who has died for his beliefs.
I can't believe you can say this and then in the next sentence criticise me for saying "religion is stupid" :D


Originally posted by Ousetunes
'Religion is stupid.' What a generalisation that is and an affront to all the billions of people in this world who go about their everyday life embracing everything their faith gives them without causing anyone else any harm or bother but who are frankly, more likely to live their lives in a peaceful, compassionate way and who have more love and respect in their little fingers than any so-called atheist or non-believer.
Yes, it was foolish of me to use that wording. I am stupid. But you will notice I said "religion is stupid", not "religious people are stupid". We should all be allowed the luxury of being wrong from time to time, but our wrongness should not prevent others from trying to put us right.

As for the compassion of an atheist, now you are the one who is being incredibly insulting. In light of the numerous statements of shock and disbelief from the suicide bombers friends and neighbours in today's press, and the fact that one of the bombers was a teacher, I think one of the quotes I posted yesterday bears repeating:

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -

Originally posted by Ousetunes
Each to their own I say. I like Morrissey - you probably don't. Am I going to spend all day trying to convert you into a Mozza fan?
If you had good reason for believing that the world was at risk from non-Mozza fans then, yes, I would urge you to do everything in your power to try and convert me into a Mozza fan.

Dan, don't you think that there is a world of difference between 'religion' and 'faith' ?

You can give up one without the other.

Originally posted by DanSumption

If you had good reason for believing that the world was at risk from non-Mozza fans then, yes, I would urge you to do everything in your power to try and convert me into a Mozza fan.

Ah, now we agree on something.:clap:

Originally posted by Bully_Beef
As we have all observed, people interpret religious teachings to suit their own agendas. Anyone who wants to kill or harm people is already affected by a kind of criminal insanity. If they did not have religion to justify it, they would find something else. The religion has not caused the insanity, it is a manifestation of it. A lot of the most famous serial killers, rapists etc. have had quasi-religious obsessions (God told them to do it, etc.), but that doesn't mean that couldn't be replaced with some other equally ridiculous obsession.

Another example is people who cite religion as their reason for refusing to open their minds and tolerate, for example, homosexuality. Yet plenty of non-religious people are equally hostile to opening their minds in this kind of way ("it's just not natural is it?). What you are asking for is not an end to religion, but an end to people's need for belief systems
I agree with you, it is irrational belief systems that we need to put to an end, not only religion. I also agree that religion alone is not sufficient to make people kill, it has to be combined with other resentments. But I disagree with your contention, and that of all of the media I have encountered since last Thursday, that this is all about "interpretation". I have already posted several passages here that require little interpretation to justify violence. What is really amazing is that so many religious believers manage to skim over these passages and make more of the ones calling for peace and understanding. But I guess this just goes to prove that humans (yes, including atheists) are basically good and compassionate.

Originally posted by Tony
Dan, don't you think that there is a world of difference between 'religion' and 'faith' ?

You can give up one without the other.
I'm not sure about this, friends have tried to convince me of the same thing, but I'm not quite sure what remains of religion when faith is gone. Some sort of mushy spirituality which could survive just as well within a rational context as within a religious one. I'd be interested to hear what people think religion would be without faith though.

You definately cannot have religion without faith - as all religion is based on faith.

I think you probably can have faith without a religion, but I can't help but think that 'faith' without religion is simply a way for people to be able to believe in a god, or some sort of higher meaning or plan, but without having to commit to a particular religion or have a set framework for their beliefs.

Originally posted by DanSumption
I'm not quite sure what remains of religion when faith is gone.
As cyberscribe says, it's the other way around.

Ah, yes, you can have faith without religion, and it does have a role to play. But I think that you have to have a rational basis for your faith, and that you should be willing to drop it if it proves to be inconsistent. A big part of the problem with religious faiths is that they contain inbuilt mechanisms to prevent change, e.g. the Islamic law on apostacy.

http://www.reandev.com/taliban/

This kind of rhetoric does christianity no favours.

Originally posted by DanSumption
Islamic law on apostacy.

Sorry for my ignorance - is it a law that basically means that you can't leave the religion?

Originally posted by DanSumption
Ah, yes, you can have faith without religion, and it does have a role to play. But I think that you have to have a rational basis for your faith, and that you should be willing to drop it if it proves to be inconsistent. A big part of the problem with religious faiths is that they contain inbuilt mechanisms to prevent change, e.g. the Islamic law on apostacy.

Dan, surely the whole point of faith is that it is irrational: the logic of it can't be proven one way or another. People who have faith just know that they are right. If you examine your own feelings on whether there is a God or not, your rationality probably kicks in secondary to your gut feeling.

Originally posted by Cyberscribe
Sorry for my ignorance - is it a law that basically means that you can't leave the religion?
Yes, it forms part of the Hadith, the sayings of Mohammed which form the basis of Sharia law, "he who changes his religion, kill him". Again, many modern Moslems seem to conveniently ignore this requirement, but in Middle-Eastern countries it is widely followed.

Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death for apostacy.

More here (http://www.al-islam.org/short/apostacy.htm)

Originally posted by Bully_Beef
Dan, surely the whole point of faith is that it is irrational: the logic of it can't be proven one way or another. People who have faith just know that they are right. If you examine your own feelings on whether there is a God or not, your rationality probably kicks in secondary to your gut feeling.

This is very simplified, but I think it all comes down to our need to make sense of the world, and is a mixture of the rational and irrational, just like human nature. We want to know why we are here and what happens when we die, so we decide that there is a god, and as their is no prove of this - it is faith. But this isn't enough - we also feel the need to put this into a framework - so we have religion.

When people are born into a religion it is all a lot easier - everything has already been thought out for them, they can just go along with how they have been brought up.

Originally posted by Bully_Beef
Dan, surely the whole point of faith is that it is irrational: the logic of it can't be proven one way or another. People who have faith just know that they are right. If you examine your own feelings on whether there is a God or not, your rationality probably kicks in secondary to your gut feeling.
That was what I thought, but I've been thinking more about the word "faith" itself and it has a broader meaning, for example "I have faith in this aeroplane's pilot" is a faith statement based upon empirical evidence and rationalisation, which may be altered in light of subsequent events.

everything you need to know about religion is, in my opinion, explained by the phenomena of cargo cults.

In many ways they are more pragmatic religions, as Prince Philip is still alive, whereas God died some time ago (some time maybe pre-Homer (the Poet, not Simpson)).

However - to assume that just because scientific inquiry has yet to break out of the cartesian paradigm, precluding the discovery of numinous forces,it somewhow precludes the existence of numinous forces. This is obviously logically incorrect.

The quickest way to find out if you are right is to top yourself - obviously not a course of action I would recommend to anyone.

Religion is not stupid. Organised religion is evil. Religious or spiritual development is to be lauded, not reviled.

Scientology is not a religion it is a system invented by a Science Fiction author for parting fools from their money.

As for negativland - the next line of that song is
"communism is good".

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The quickest way to find out if you are right is to top yourself - obviously not a course of action I would recommend to anyone.

But then if you were wrong, you wouldn't realise it ... ooops!

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Religion is not stupid. Organised religion is evil. Religious or spiritual development is to be lauded, not reviled.

My opinion would be that 'spiritual development' is an entirely personal matter, and has nothing to do with organised religion.

I believe there are more serious traditions, systems of (spiritual) development around the world; that deserve more respect than mainstream organised religions. These are very scientific in their approach to the development (spiritually and otherwise) of a human being. That's great, spiritual development and scientific method should go hand in hand.

The 'believe it, because we say it's true' catagory of religion is, I agree, tosh. The most essential thing is to find out for yourself, after all, what is spiritual development if it's not discovery of the self ... or self-honesty?

Someone I have the deepest of respect for, once said "make sure you are not shackled, by the very thing that is supposed to set you free".

Originally posted by nick2
Do scientology and Kabala (spelling - sorry) count as religions or are they (as I suspect) just fashionable cults for pop/movie stars who don't want to be involved in the more "common or garden" religions ?

I'm thinking mainly of Madonna here as she has been a follower of most religions in the last few years.

Actually whats the difference between a cult and a religion ?

Trust me to be a latecomer again when I can actually add something useful. Sorry if this has already been said.

Cult: 'New' religious group with it's own values and practices, sometimes takes small parts of other religions but has few links with them. E.g. Scientology

Sect: Breakaway group from a larger denomination. E.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, Kabbalah, Hare Krishna

Originally posted by JonJParr
But it really isn't taking any actions - that's the point I'm trying to make. The Roman Catholic Church refuses to back down on contraception because of it's condemnation of promiscuity, adultery and that it believes all life (even sperm) is sacred. I don't believe that's an action. It's simply saying, "If you choose to follow Catholicism then this is our ideology - if you don't agree with it, fine - but this is what we believe".

How can the Roman Catholic Church then be held responsible when Africans jump in and out of bed with each other and contract HIV? It's simply not their fault because they don't agree with that immorality in the first place.

You sound like an intelligent person Jon, so surely you know about all the rape problems of young girls? If using condoms was made commonplace then maybe the issue would be slightly less. And honestly, the Catholic Church is being ridiculous - condoning the use of condoms is not promotion of promiscuity - it is the promotion of sensible and responsible sex - surely opposite?

All the stuff about every sperm being sacred is obviously another matter - although much of that came from the view that a fully-formed, miniscule baby was inside every sperm (before they knew about the scientific fact). As they know this is not true, the argument isn't so strong. In some ways I admire their conviction and staying power to laws that were made in a society so very, very different to our own. On the other hand, I think the Catholic dogma comes across as heartless, compassionless, prejudiced and damning to the unfortunate people in the world.

Originally posted by JonJParr
This argument can continue to go round and round but some people will never be convinced (I suspect they revile Christianity too much and it clouds their judgement) however I think that Cyclone's comparison of the Catholic Church's refusal to rescind on contraception to that of Islamic terrorists planting bombs on the London Underground / flying a plane into the WTC is abhorrent.


Yeah, and the people that have been dying in Ireland, that's terrible too, isn't it?

And all those 'good Christians' in the USA lynching blacks because they thought they were the devil's work. That was a bit of a ****ter n all.

There are bad parts of EVERY religion. Don't channel your hatred into a whole religion when there are a few fundamentalist crazies about. There are a few fundamentalist crazies in your precious Christianity too - those lot campaigning against Harry Potter. And you may say that this is a minor thing - fair enough. But let me remind you that the Al Quaeda bombings have been openly attributed to the 'upholding of good Christian values' by the West that is largely responsibe. They do it because they hate OUR values. It's a two way thing - religion causes conflict, simple as.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Yeah, and the people that have been dying in Ireland, that's terrible too, isn't it?

And all those 'good Christians' in the USA lynching blacks because they thought they were the devil's work. That was a bit of a ****ter n all.

There are bad parts of EVERY religion. Don't channel your hatred into a whole religion when there are a few fundamentalist crazies about. There are a few fundamentalist crazies in your precious Christianity too - those lot campaigning against Harry Potter. And you may say that this is a minor thing - fair enough. But let me remind you that the Al Quaeda bombings have been openly attributed to the 'upholding of good Christian values' by the West that is largely responsibe. They do it because they hate OUR values. It's a two way thing - religion causes conflict, simple as.

It may come as no shock that I agree. My last post on the 'London Bombings' thread can be applied I think. It's really basic thinking to attach the actions of a few with the majority. I quite often refer back to the brutal bombings that have taken place in this country in the name of Christianity. That was the country that I grew up in. I'm happy that I managed to keep my mind open enough and not think that all Christians were out to destroy us.

Originally posted by Longcol
Most religions or political -isms seem to get built round an individual "deity" - whether it's Jesus, Mohammed, Mao, Marx etc etc.

IMHO anything that purports to be able to give you the truth about anything and everything is lying through its back teeth. First of all they were used as a way of trying to make sense of the world and have since been hijacked by despots to control and terrorise large sections of mankind.

Absobloodylutely. Have you heard of the phrase 'The end of enlightenment grand-narratives' (Lyotard)? He said that Religion and many secular movements like marxism are all based around the same thing - a macrocosmic explanation and structuralistic view.

What I presume DanSumption's book was about (and I'll try and get hold of a copy) is the decline of organised religion and faith in doctrine. Did it have anything about the rise of alternative religion though? Traditional religion may be dropping in popularity, but fundamentalism is on the rise in all nations.

[
All the stuff about every sperm being sacred is obviously another matter - although much of that came from the view that a fully-formed, miniscule baby was inside every sperm (before they knew about the scientific fact). As they know this is not true, the argument isn't so strong. In some ways I admire their conviction and staying power to laws that were made in a society so very, very different to our own. On the other hand, I think the Catholic dogma comes across as heartless, compassionless, prejudiced and damning to the unfortunate people in the world. [/B]

I'm rather inclined to agree. Some of the catholic ideas on sex and sexuality (both very normal and very natural in my view) are rather disturbing.

And as for every sperm being sacred... does that mean wet dreams are a sin? If that's the case then every teenage boy would be damned to hell for recklessly disgarding human life onto his bedsheets! :loopy:

Originally posted by JBee
I'm rather inclined to agree. Some of the catholic ideas on sex and sexuality (both very normal and very natural in my view) are rather disturbing.

And as for every sperm being sacred... does that mean wet dreams are a sin? If that's the case then every teenage boy would be damned to hell for recklessly disgarding human life onto his bedsheets! :loopy:

I don't know about that one, because it happens without the actions of the person, but masturbation is considered a sin.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
However - to assume that just because scientific inquiry has yet to break out of the cartesian paradigm, precluding the discovery of numinous forces,it somewhow precludes the existence of numinous forces. This is obviously logically incorrect.
Yes, but conversely behaving as if there were numinous forces is unecessary and often perverse: a perfectly good model of the universe can be built without and in fact their introduction either confuses matters greatly (requiring that we either redraw some of the laws of physics, or rely upon the least understood elements of quantum theory as a "get out of jail" card) or adds nothing whatever to our understanding.

Also, I keep hearing this distinction between religion and "spirituality". I'm not quite sure what it means, but in as much as any kind of spirituality can be exist in the absence of deities, I think it's merely another biological phenomenon which will eventually submit to scientific enquiry.

Anyway, I'm now busy reading John Haldane's An Intelligent Person's Guide to Religion (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0715628674/sumptionorg-21) to see whether there's anything worth salvaging from religion. So far, I don't hold out much hope.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
As for negativland - the next line of that song is
"communism is good".
True, although I lied. I didn't actually base the thread title on the song. I based it on the T-Shirt, which I thought about buying for several years, but never did. The T-Shirt just said "Christianity is stupid. Give up".

Originally posted by noseyrosie
What I presume DanSumption's book was about (and I'll try and get hold of a copy) is the decline of organised religion and faith in doctrine. Did it have anything about the rise of alternative religion though? Traditional religion may be dropping in popularity, but fundamentalism is on the rise in all nations.
Actually, the book was more about the rise of fundamentalist doctrine, and the dangers it poses for the world, and in particular the fact that our deferential respect for religion, our idea that "it's rude to ask questions about somebody's faith", is the greatest threat to the world at the moment, because it allows them to "get away with it".

Much more about the book, and lots of follow-up discussion, on the author's website (http://www.samharris.org/).

Originally posted by DanSumption
True, although I lied. I didn't actually base the thread title on the song. I based it on the T-Shirt, which I thought about buying for several years, but never did. The T-Shirt just said "Christianity is stupid. Give up".

Great Song, Brilliant T-Shirt.

I'll get one and wear it if you do!

I'm starting a new religions. New members get ice pops.

its very simple.

its called follow your heart. Not sure about something? All you do is sit down and look into your heart to see if its right or not.

no room for dogme or subjective mumbo jumbo.

whaat! already your religion is censoring Danish neorealism!

I'm sure Von Trier will have sleepless nights!!

It only works to follow your heart if you believe that everyone's good at heart and morally sound. And after reading that American Taliban website that was linked earlier I can't honestly believe that.

American Taliban... I missed that one (I dunno, a couple of days away from the Sheffield Forum, the things I miss....)

Can't everyone be good at heart, morally sound, and occasionally misguided?

Much as I'd like to think so this link (once again) confirms my beliefs otherwise......

http://www.reandev.com/taliban/

OK, this is from the other (closed) thread on Islam (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&postid=511346). I had to respond to the following from skny:

I think you are giving far too credit to Islam there, as it seemed to have marginal influence on pre-renaissance era Italy and northern europe. Saying the renaissance would not have taken place without the introduction of the Islamic Caliphate in Spain is taking quite a leap.
Not at all. The work of Greek philosophers was preserved in the Islamic world, while destroyed in Europe. The Islamic Caliphate re-introduced this body of work to Spain, and it was the resulting intellectual revolution that make the Renaissance possible.

Surely you're not saying that the Greek philosophers had nothing to do with the Renaissance?

Originally posted by DanSumption
OK, this is from the other (closed) thread on Islam (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&postid=511346). I had to respond to the following from skny:


Not at all. The work of Greek philosophers was preserved in the Islamic world, while destroyed in Europe. The Islamic Caliphate re-introduced this body of work to Spain, and it was the resulting intellectual revolution that make the Renaissance possible.

Surely you're not saying that the Greek philosophers had nothing to do with the Renaissance?

Were they white? if so then yes would be the answer in the current climate but if they were at all of a even ever so slightly darker complexion, then it can't be, why? because those muslims don't know nought, derrrr.
You will have difficulty explaining to a lot of people that muslims do have a history that goes further than the sixties when they arrived here to work in our factories, and that only after we invited them.

Currently reading Bertrand Russell's 'Why I Am Not a Christian' - witty and very interesting, akthough I already know most of the theories mentioned in great detail, it's a highly recommended read :thumbsup:

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Currently reading Bertrand Russell's 'Why I Am Not a Christian' - witty and very interesting, akthough I already know most of the theories mentioned in great detail, it's a highly recommended read :thumbsup:

Just about to start reading that ... not too dry and heavy going is it ?

Whilst I do subscribe to the notion that religion is stupid the issue shouldn't be treated as if it doesn't matter. In Indonesia (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1707254,00.html) for example it's a grave issue of the right to life and liberty.

And I doubt that being totally faithless and expressing the opinion that religion is stupid in those circumstances would save your skin :D

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Currently reading Bertrand Russell's 'Why I Am Not a Christian' - witty and very interesting, akthough I already know most of the theories mentioned in great detail, it's a highly recommended read :thumbsup:

What puzzles me is not why Bertrand Russell was not a Christian, but why some of the leading scientists and cosmologists are.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
What puzzles me is not why Bertrand Russell was not a Christian, but why some of the leading scientists and cosmologists are.

Such as?

Apart from John Polkinghorn, I can't think of any.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Much as I'd like to think so this link (once again) confirms my beliefs otherwise......

http://www.reandev.com/taliban/

Now THAT is scary - perhaps no more so than in these two lovely quotes, firstly from George Dubya:

God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.

mmmmmm - now who was arguing that the attack on Iraq was not essentially christain fundamentalist terrorism!

And possible even more frightening from Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin:

George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the United States, he was appointed by God.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Such as?

Apart from John Polkinghorn, I can't think of any.

Yes they are few and far between. You'd be particularly hard pressed to find a leading biologist who was religious.

Another example I can think of, however, is John Houghton, who used to run the IPCC (climate change panel). (Not a biologist.)

One problem is that most leading scientists are not well known to the public.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Such as?

Apart from John Polkinghorn, I can't think of any.

Hows about these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_scientists) :)

Originally posted by evildrneil
Hows about these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_scientists) :)

Oh sorry, thought we were talking about living scientists.

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
Oh sorry, thought we were talking about living scientists.

We were, as Phan's post clearly indicates

Re: Scientists and God.

I have a tape somewhere, called "The Guide to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" in which Douglas Adams talks about scientists and God - he mentions that quite a lot of physicists seem to have "got" religion, especially recently, whereas almost all biologists are atheists. He offers the explanation that theoretical physicists, who are used to dealing with incomprehensible concepts on a daily basis, have little problem throwing another seemingly illogical set of beliefs into the mix, whereas biologists work with real life in a much more down-to-earth way, and so have a much better understanding of where it's all likely to have come from.

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
Oh sorry, thought we were talking about living scientists.
Well at least the dead ones now have the advantage of hindsight


Interpret that whichever way your beliefs desire. :D

Originally posted by DanSumption
Re: Scientists and God.

I have a tape somewhere, called "The Guide to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" in which Douglas Adams talks about scientists and God - he mentions that quite a lot of physicists seem to have "got" religion, especially recently, whereas almost all biologists are atheists. He offers the explanation that theoretical physicists, who are used to dealing with incomprehensible concepts on a daily basis, have little problem throwing another seemingly illogical set of beliefs into the mix, whereas biologists work with real life in a much more down-to-earth way, and so have a much better understanding of where it's all likely to have come from.

I must be odd then - I'm a biochemist (by training - currently a bioinformatician) who believes in god - I just don't believe in religion!

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
Oh sorry, thought we were talking about living scientists.

Don't realy see that it makes that much difference - they were still scientists with religious beliefs *shrug*!

Originally posted by evildrneil
I must be odd then - I'm a biochemist (by training - currently a bioinformatician) who believes in god - I just don't believe in religion!

Yes, you are in a small minority, as you'll be aware since you've worked amongst scientists (as I always have) :)

You also illustrate the fact that even when scientists are religious, they are usually not religious in any way that the orthodox would recognise.

I suppose that religious scientists get so much air time precisely because they are so unusual, or have more of an axe to grind.

I have to admit that I find that scientists are just as likely to have spiritual beliefs as anyone else - they do seem less prone to following dogmatic religious structures though. And many will believe in such things as a god in terms of a prime creative impulse but not in terms of an old guy with a long white beard who oversees the universe on a day to day basis, or even such staples of religion as an afterlife!

Originally posted by evildrneil
I must be odd then - I'm a biochemist (by training - currently a bioinformatician) who believes in god - I just don't believe in religion!

Very interesting Neil !!

Do you believe in god because people around you (in our culture) do, and the word 'god' is in popular usage. Thereby you've been 'culturally infected' with the word and concept.

OR ...

Is it wholey an individual thing, something inside you, that you experience directly for yourself.

AND ...

Isn't 'god' a registered trademark or 'religion inc'.

Originally posted by Jamie
Do you believe in god because people around you (in our culture) do, and the word 'god' is in popular usage. Thereby you've been 'culturally infected' with the word and concept.

Not really - I was raised as a Roman Catholic so arguably if any meme had got hold of me it should be Roman Catholicism. While I have nothing against Roman Catholicism per se I consider it to be window dressing around a central idea in the same way as any other organised religion.

Is it wholey an individual thing, something inside you, that you experience directly for yourself.

Thats probably closer - of the 'organised' religions I probably have the most time for those that advocate either a gnostic approach (not many of these around as they tend to dispense with priests and central authorities which for some reason doesn't go down well with the organised religions - usually small sects like the ophites or Mandaeans though, by some readings, Taoism may just about qualify) or the syncretic religions (e.g Voodoun, Santeria and later Baha'i and teachings of Krishnamurti arguably have syncretic themes) which while I don't follow them show that different religions are simply different interpritations of the same thing.

Isn't 'god' a registered trademark or 'religion inc'.

Not really - God (capital G) is the christian name for god, but god (little g) is more typically the generic name for a deity of some description...

I only ask such things Neil, because I ask myself the very same ...

Originally posted by evildrneil
Not really - God (capital G) is the christian name for god, but god (little g) is more typically the generic name for a deity of some description...

What I was trying to get at with the "god is a registerd trademark of religion" is this:

It seems to be that religion is mostly responible for the notion of 'god' and the popular usage of the word 'god' (not distinuishing between 'god' or 'God' here).

If religion did not perpetuate usage of the word, would individuals still hold the word 'god' in their minds, or would they have no label, no map of the territory, only the first hand direct experience of actually being a part of the territory?

In essense, is 'God' or 'god' anything more than just a word?

Originally posted by Jamie
[BWhat I was trying to get at with the "god is a registerd trademark of religion" is this:

It seems to be that religion is mostly responible for the notion of 'god' and the popular usage of the word 'god' (not distinuishing between 'god' or 'God' here).

If religion did not perpetuate usage of the word, would individuals still hold the word 'god' in their minds, or would they have no label, no map of the territory, only the first hand direct experience of actually being a part of the territory?

In essense, is 'God' or 'god' anything more than just a word? [/B]

I think you may be breaking into the teritory of psycholinguistics and semiotics here! God can have many meanings depending on the meaning you attach to it. By analogy, depending on your point of view the union flag may be seen as a brightly coloured piece of cloth, a shorthand symbol for the UK or some semi-mythical symbol of everything that it means to be British. In essence it is never any more than a brightly coloured piece of cloth, but you try telling that to a nationalist! Religions tend to identify their deity with all the paraphenalia of the religion making it easier to talk about the abstract notions of spirituality.

(Of course identifying the religion with the deity makes it easier to say 'your god commands you to do X' when you actually mean 'your church commands you to do X'!)

Sorry to resurrect this old chestnut, but there's what looks like an interesting programme on BBC2 at 9 pm.

Science and Seance - a history of the Spiritualist movement.

Science shows that evolution really does exist, does this mean god is a single celled organism?, or did an ape create a religion?. These people just need something to belive in, maybe they should start with there self.

Science is based on the 'word' of Steven Hawking, but since he hasn't spoken in 40 years, people just have faith that what his chair says is what he actually thinks, he might be a devout Catholic. Bet you've never thought of that before.