UKC

Is Islam the problem?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015

There's a fierce debate ongoing about whether it is the substance of the religion of Islam that is to blame for the myriad atrocities such as the attack by Al-Shabaab this week, ISIS etc; or whether mainstream Islam is peaceful and these extremists are outliers who hold a grotesquely distorted interpretation of their religion.

Sam Harris argues strongly for the former, and can be pretty convincing - he uses polling data to justify the view that Muslims in general are nutters who want to kill apostates and take over the world, forcing everyone to live under medieval, violent laws. He argues that there is a central, "straightforward" interpretation of the Q'ran that is all about chopping peoples hands off and beheading anyone who disagrees with you.

youtube.com/watch?v=BCM2rU7mFKk&

I'm not totally convinced by this. Here's something from the other side, Mhedi Hasan debating at Oxford that I also find convincing, not least because it chimes with my experience of British Muslims:

http://tinyurl.com/n77k6d2

All religions have their toxic elements: the 'God Hates Fags' brigade in the US, the Zionist right in Israel, and, at the moment, a significant chunk of Islam causing havoc around the world. I'm not arguing the statistics of whether right now a larger proportion of Muslims are nutters than followers of other religions - I think that's pretty clearly the case. But I think that it's economics and history that dictates whether people use their Holy Book to wage war on others, or to sit at home politely. The Holy Books are just full of the same impenetrable ancient garbage onto which any meaning you like can be imposed.

I'm not interested in theological debate - every claim that "the Q'ran says..." can be countered with "but the Bible says...". Then there's the line "yeah, but Muslims actually believe those bits, whereas the Christians ignore them". Yes, this seems to be the case for the nutters; but the question is why?. Is it because the violent content of the religion is itself so compelling to its followers, or is it the history and economics - the backstory to the positions people of different races and tribes are in as the world stands today, and the culture that grows out of that?
Post edited at 02:28
 Roadrunner5 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:
"I'm not interested in theological debate - "

Then

".... Is it because the violent content of the religion is itself so compelling to its followers,"

Isn't that theology?

I'm not sure it's anyone reason. As you say you can twist the texts anyway. I was chatting to a scholar a few weeks ago, he was an academic who worked on translating ancient religious texts, and he said there are more variations of the bible, than there are words in the New testament.
Post edited at 02:48
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Regardless of religion the majority of the world population want to live in peace, I've spent some time in North Iraq, Southern Turkey, Egypt, Bradford, Nepal, Pakistan, and Oman and from what I saw, the people were kind, generous, caring, and beautiful.

I don't think Islam is the problem.
Post edited at 03:38
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> I'm not sure it's anyone reason. As you say you can twist the texts anyway. I was chatting to a scholar a few weeks ago, he was an academic who worked on translating ancient religious texts, and he said there are more variations of the bible, than there are words in the New testament.

A good point, the ancient texts can be easily dismissed as 'impenetrable ancient garbage' by anyone with the usual worldview blinded by modern propaganda. I'd say anyone who's really looked into it understands that the passage of time and series of translations has essential dumbed down these texts into myth and metaphor and only briefly covers the history of a once great ancient forgotten civilization.
Post edited at 03:46
1
 Sharp 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> I'm not arguing the statistics of whether right now a larger proportion of Muslims are nutters than followers of other religions - I think that's pretty clearly the case.

Can't say I agree with that Jon and I presume the evidence for that statement is anecdotally what you've seen in the western media. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, we've bombed quite a lot of them over the years and I think we can take a fair share of the blame for being nutters. if your statement was true it's disingenuous to phrase it that way and I'd suggest it was down to development and education not whether someone's Muslim or Christian. go back a few hundred years and the Spanish inquisition were sticking rods up people's bums and we were burning witches by the dozen. If it's got nothing to do with which religion then why phrase a question singling out Muslims? like John the only Muslims I've met have been peaceful kind people. In fact much as I have a bit of a distaste for religion, I find religious people generally a lot less likely to knife you than the rest of the population.
Post edited at 08:09
2
 Andy Farnell 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Islam isn't the problem. Christianity isn't the problem. Religion is the problem. As soon as people have their free will removed and lose the ability to think then you create the situation we see today. All religions poison the mind and destroy the ability to think in logical, bias free fashion. Remove religion, remove the problem. The sooner we accept that there are no gods and we control our destiny (as a race), the sooner the world will start to heal.

Religion is pointless.

Andy F
Post edited at 08:30
 summo 04 Apr 2015
In reply to andy farnell:
> . Religion is the problem.

Hit the nail on the head.
Post edited at 08:19
 summo 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Sharp:

> In fact much as I have a bit of a distaste for religion, I find religious people generally a lot less likely to knife you than the rest of the population.

Tell that to anyone dealing with IS face to face. Or the kids in various religious orphanages in the UK over the past few decades... religious people are certainly no better than anyone else, but often worse, as they use religion as an excuse to do evils things or as a mask to hide behind.
 JLS 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I invoke Goodwin's. Arguing Islam is the problem seems to me like arguing "Germans" were the problem in the 1930's and not a band of nutty National Socialists. The same human nature can be seen played out over the centuries, only the rallying flag changes. It's unfortunate that religion provides so many opportunities to be exploited by those minded to but if religion didn't exist, sadly someone would quickly invent it.
Post edited at 09:12
In reply to JLS:

You didn't 'invoke goodwin's'

You did however prove Godwin correct again- in his observation that Internet debates eventually result in someone bringing up the Nazis or Hitler, whether or not it's relevant.

Here you did it in a thread about an unrelated subject after only 10 or so posts- good going. ..

1
 David Riley 04 Apr 2015
In reply to andy farnell:

"All religions poison the mind"

Completely agree.
 butteredfrog 04 Apr 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

To be fair to JLS, the Nazi's spent a lot of time creating a quasi-religious belief system to further their control of the ordinary populace.
In reply to andy farnell:

> Religion is pointless.

Oh, I don't know. It gives us four-day weekends every now and then...
 Shani 04 Apr 2015
All major religions have a murderous and bloody past, if not present. The problem with religions is that many of their propositions are untestable, so two people can read the same passage and can come to wildly different conclusions. There is no objective interpretation. With Islam in particular, moderate Islam seems to be a Western construct predicated on education and enlightenment. That the more violent manifestation of Islam resides largely, but not exclusively, amongst those with little scientific knowledge illustrates this.

What I want to know is, given 'Moderate Islam' and ISIS' version of Islam, who gets to say which interpretation of Islam is correct? Sam Harris said it best:

"The only reason anyone is 'moderate' in matters of faith these days is that he has assimilated some of the fruits of the last two thousand years of human thought (democratic politics, scientific advancement on every front, concern for human rights, an end to cultural and geographic isolation, etc.).  The doors leading out of scriptural literalism do not open from the inside.  The moderation we see among nonfundamentalists is not some sign that faith itself has evolved; it is, rather, the product of the many hammer blows of modernity that have exposed certain tenets of faith to doubt.  Not the least among these developments has been the emergence of our tendency to value evidence and to be convinced by a proposition to the degree that there is evidence for it.  Even most fundamentalists live by the lights of reason in this regard; it is just that their minds seem to have been partitioned to accommodate the profligate truth claims of their faith."


Sam Harris 2006, The End of Faith, (p20-21)

 TobyA 04 Apr 2015
In reply to andy farnell:
What do you believe in Andy and what do you know? I mean are you a university based theoretical physicists who can really explain to me the big bang or do you (like me) believe that on the balance of probability and an understanding of the scientific method (warts and all) and the peer review system of academic publication that the physicists are right?

I suspect that many of things you (and most of us) call true you (and I) believe in ways very similar to a Christian or Muslim believes in god. I don't always feel I have much control over my destiny; and the control and agency I do have I would argue are mainly the result of being born male, white and to parents with some financial resources in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Have I killed god only to replace her with the financial power of the late capitalist system?

I think if the world became atheist tomorrow you'd be very disappointed as surprisingly little would change.
Post edited at 10:27
2
m0unt41n 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

The problem is all about extremes and polarisation. Religion tends towards this because it starts with the premise you have to forgo logic and just believe which opens the door to extremes of those who believe and those who don't. Politics also does this, but differently because it is based upon a concept of a right and wrong approach which again polarises. Whereas the real world is grey and society only functions by accepting a range of views. But any range has ends and I guess the problem is how far those ends are apart. With religion the ends are extreme, yes or no, black or white, believe or don't believe, so you will always have extremist. It's religion. The brand of religion just denotes where in the spectrum they are. Same with politics.
 Andy Farnell 04 Apr 2015
In reply to TobyA: If the world became atheist tomorrow then religious hatred and killing in the name of god would stop. Which can only be a good thing.

Andy F


 TobyA 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Shani:

> it is, rather, the product of the many hammer blows of modernity that have exposed certain tenets of faith to doubt.  Not the least among these developments has been the emergence of our tendency to value evidence and to be convinced by a proposition to the degree that there is evidence for it. 

Hmm, that sounds rather like Mr Harris is of the Niall Ferguson school of the history of empire! I suspect you don't really need to be a post-colonialist scholar to think those hammer blows of modernity have more often been in the form of machine gun fire and nowadays hellfire missiles from Predator drones.
1
 TobyA 04 Apr 2015
In reply to andy farnell:

But do you really believe that the killing would stop? If so you, ironically I suppose, have a lot more faith than me!
1
I can eat 50 eggs 04 Apr 2015
In reply to andy farnell:

> If the world became atheist tomorrow then religious hatred and killing in the name of god would stop. Which can only be a good thing.

> Andy F

Is the problem religion? If the world became atheist tomorrow then sure...hatred and killing in the name of God would stop. How long would it take to start back up again in the name of something else?

I don't think Islam or Christianity or any other religion is to blame. Unfortunately I think the blame lies with us as humans. It's easy to blame religion because it's a more tangible and acceptable thing than the fact that humans still want to kill each other. Greed, ego, pride, ignorance, cowardace are all, in my view, more to blame than religion.

I am atheist by the way.
1
redsonja 04 Apr 2015
In reply to andy farnell:

Totally agree with everything you say Andy
 Andy Farnell 04 Apr 2015
In reply to I can eat 50 eggs: The problem is with us humans, but religion is an excuse for cowards to perform acts of great violence in the name of a god. Strip away religion and you see them for what they are.

Andy F

 TobyA 04 Apr 2015
In reply to andy farnell:

> Strip away religion and you see them for what they are.

Sure, but can we not see what they are regardless of any religion they profess? I'm not sure whether I understand anymore (or less) the Shia militiaman who used a power drill on the head of his Sunni neighbours in a Baghdad suburb a few years ago saying it was god's command than the Hutu who hacked to death his Tutsi neighbour's kids in Kigali for the 'honour' of his nation.

1
 Timmd 04 Apr 2015
In reply to TobyA:
> Sure, but can we not see what they are regardless of any religion they profess? I'm not sure whether I understand anymore (or less) the Shia militiaman who used a power drill on the head of his Sunni neighbours in a Baghdad suburb a few years ago saying it was god's command than the Hutu who hacked to death his Tutsi neighbour's kids in Kigali for the 'honour' of his nation.

It's not the cheeriest of 'truths', but I think pretty similarly about human nature, and the capacity to do horrible things.

It strikes me we need to try and prevent the situations arising which allow it to emerge as it were, the right conditions of tribalism and seeing other humans as being the others. Using tribalism to apply to all races.

Happy Saturday
Post edited at 12:11
1
 Andy Farnell 04 Apr 2015
In reply to TobyA: Atrocities will happen, that is unfortunately a human condition. We have a long way to go, but eliminating the need to justify our existence based on a non existent god will be a start.

Andy F

Donnie 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Hi Jon,

Interesting question.

There's not really any avoiding a theological debate, though. That's what Sam Harris's argument is about. And as far as I can see it's the only possible argument if you want to say Islam that itself is the problem. As opposed to social, economic, environmental or cultural factors.

My opinion is that Islam and Christianity are both obviously compatible with good and bad. Focussing on the bad, because that's what we're discussing here, it seems pretty clear that the other factors I mention above are largely responsible for any variance in bad things done in the name of religion.

I also think Sam Harris is a disingenuous self publicist. I wouldn't call his views convincing. He lumped Jihadists (killers) and Islamists (nasty conservatives) together to get 20%, when less than 0.1% are Jihadists. Doing that on national television in America is disgusting flame fanning.
1
 Timmd 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Donnie:

Plus 1
1
 seankenny 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Shani:

> That the more violent manifestation of Islam resides largely, but not exclusively, amongst those with little scientific knowledge illustrates this.

You might want to think about that for a moment:
http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/materials/papers/2007-10.pdf

Incidentally, who here is an engineer?
1
In reply to TobyA:

> What do you believe in Andy and what do you know? I mean are you a university based theoretical physicists who can really explain to me the big bang or do you (like me) believe that on the balance of probability and an understanding of the scientific method (warts and all) and the peer review system of academic publication that the physicists are right?

I think it is a near certainty that the physicists are wrong. The Big Bang theory does a better job of explaining the data than the God theory and eventually something else will do a better job than the Big Bang theory.

A process which continuously collects data, challenges theories and substitutes better ones is a better way of developing explanations of the world than one which simply asserts a theory in a 2,000 year old book is true and follows up with threats of violence or eternal torture. It is the process for developing theories which is the point, not the specific theory.

As soon as you assume that theories may be false and are subject to challenge based on data there is no longer any need to resort to violence to resolve conflicts about theories. It isn't that atheism is superior to theism it is that reason is superior to religion.


 wercat 04 Apr 2015
In reply to andy farnell:

It seems to me that the most stupid and hateful thing we do to our fellow humans is to underestimate their values as compared to our own. The root of most atrocities is the Belief that one is part of a righteous grouping having a right to disregard the rights or beliefs of another group. Unfortunately some people make the mistake of believing that the evil is caused by religion. It is actually the self belief that we have priority over those other humans. I don't think that communism is a religion but rather a belief system and how many people have died in the struggles associated with it?

The American Civil war was pretty bloody as were the Napoleonic wars and they weren't fought for religion. I'm not sure that falsifying the beliefs of truly religious people as opposed to those who have been manipulated by the power seekers among all societies isn't moving towards a hate crime.
 TobyA 04 Apr 2015
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> A process which continuously collects data, challenges theories and substitutes better ones is a better way of developing explanations

So we get to Popper, but haven't mentioned Kuhn and the fact that science doesn't always (often?) work like that at all.

> of the world than one which simply asserts a theory in a 2,000 year old book is true and follows up with threats of violence or eternal torture. It is the process for developing theories which is the point, not the specific theory.

But there are forms of religious theory that are adapting to accept all that scientific discovery and data too. We might not find them terribly convincing but it is theoretical development in its own way. Not many British bishops are biblical literalists these days, I suspect none are of the young earth variety.

> As soon as you assume that theories may be false and are subject to challenge based on data there is no longer any need to resort to violence to resolve conflicts about theories.

I don't think the Chinese Communist Party holds Marxist-Leninist theory as infallible truth anymore - if you look at how they operate. But why do they rely on both structural and literal violence to maintain their power? And what about western liberal values? Do we not resort to violence to defend them when necessary? Even if central to those values is questioning our own belief system?




 Roadrunner5 04 Apr 2015
In reply to redsonja:

> Totally agree with everything you say Andy

Yet some of the most murderous regimes of recent history have been atheist...
 Roadrunner5 04 Apr 2015
In reply to andy farnell:

> Atrocities will happen, that is unfortunately a human condition. We have a long way to go, but eliminating the need to justify our existence based on a non existent god will be a start.

> Andy F

People fight wars over anything.. Race, religion, politics, nationality, religion, governance/independence..

I think even if we were all one race , atheist , speaking one language, no cultural differences we'd find some other division... Like northerners v southerners.. We always find something to divide over.

And that world would be a much poorer world
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I think it is a near certainty that the physicists are wrong. The Big Bang theory does a better job of explaining the data than the God theory and eventually something else will do a better job than the Big Bang theory.

Obviously I don't have the intelligence or comprehension to describe what happened, but for a good now I've thought the big bang theory is a pile of quasi religious scientific guff.

Just one day the whole of everything was contained within nothing then there was just a big bang and everything started, it's the most lacking theory ever in the history of bad theories, and this ridiculously simplistic theory is fact all because the cosmic background radiation tells us so, and woe betide anyone who dares to doubt it, they'll be put in the Naughty corner and made to wear a dunces hat.

So given the choice of the 2, An intelligence that could start this process seems way more rational, logical, and possible.
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5 and Donnie:

> "I'm not interested in theological debate - "

You're right, Sam Harris' argument is theological. On reflection, what I'm saying is that I'm not convinced by theological arguments because they have no basis in anything sensible. We all hear Muslims, including scholars (Mehdi Hasan quotes a couple in his speech) saying that the Q'ran explicitly forbids the violence against non-combatants extremists employ: it's clear that there absolutely is not a simple, mainstream interpretation of Islam that promotes terrorism.

But I am finding the view that in the Muslim world, support for Sharia law and ludicrous violent ideas such as promoting punishment of apostasy by death are mainstream hard to dismiss. The argument is that liberals need to face up to this rather than pretend otherwise - I haven't made up my mind if this deserves credence.
 RomTheBear 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:
The big problem is that all religions are essentially bullshit.

And anyone who has actually read the texts will find that the Qran tops the scale of awfulness, and the Old Testament follows closely in second place. And I disagree with the idea that these texts are all "impenetrable ancient garbage". Some of it is, but a lot of it is also pretty straightforward or just plain historical accounts. Its tedious but reading them is not that hard.

Sure I am completely aware that nowadays people have come up with very convoluted interpretations and excuses to make it fit with modern values, but at the end of the day Islamic State have by far the most honest interpretation, that's a big advantage for them because they can legitimate anything they do based on the texts.

So yeah overall I wouldn't say Islam is the problem, religion and blind belief in any text or god without being able to openly criticise it, that is the problem.

Don't get me wrong I am not ignoring the political dimension of all this and the fact that the West messed up the middle east for centuries by colonising, installing dictators to secure strategic resources, and bombing civilians populations. Some kind of extreme reaction was to be expected, but the religious factor doesn't help as what should have been a revolutionary movement turned into a dangerous global destructive ideology.
Post edited at 13:52
 seankenny 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> But I am finding the view that in the Muslim world, support for Sharia law and ludicrous violent ideas such as promoting punishment of apostasy by death are mainstream hard to dismiss. The argument is that liberals need to face up to this rather than pretend otherwise - I haven't made up my mind if this deserves credence.

This brings the "what they are doing" question towards "what role did we have to play in it" - and whilst you could argue with this west-centric take, the idea that liberals are ignoring it is a poor reading of history. Many of the forces which have driven or promoted Islamic extremism have been strengthened (not created, I hasten to add) by conservative forces in our own societies. I'm thinking here the likes of General Zia in Pakistan, the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the whole Saudi establishement. So for conservatives to turn around and say "stop being so wishy-washy" is, ahem, chancing it a bit no?
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Sharp:

> Can't say I agree with that Jon and I presume the evidence for that statement [that a larger proportion of Muslims are nutters than followers of other religions] is anecdotally what you've seen in the western media.

What I'm referring to is Sam Harris' arguments that while only a tiny minority of Muslims are violent fundamentalists, many more are Islamists and then even more are conservative Muslims. When I say "nutters" I'm talking about people with a completely demented world view incompatible with the notion that every person has right to their freedom so long as it does not harm others and in supporting the replacement of western political and economic systems with theocracy. I should have been more specific.

> There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, we've bombed quite a lot of them over the years and I think we can take a fair share of the blame for being nutters. if your statement was true it's disingenuous to phrase it that way and I'd suggest it was down to development and education not whether someone's Muslim or Christian.

This is the nub of the issue. I think the reasons for Muslims wreaking havoc in the world at the moment are economic and historical, exactly as you say - whereas there is a growing argument that the reason is theological.

> If it's got nothing to do with which religion then why phrase a question singling out Muslims?

Because of what's going on in the world at the moment of course!

> I find religious people generally a lot less likely to knife you than the rest of the population.

As I gay man, I'm afraid I can't say the same.
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

> Obviously I don't have the intelligence or comprehension to describe what happened, but for a good now I've thought the big bang theory is a pile of quasi religious scientific guff.

What makes you completely wrong is the vast web of interconnected, consistent, independently verified evidence. There's still loads of big, fundamental questions left - which is great - but if you understand some really basic stuff about what you see when you look up at the sky at night (the fact that it's dark, with stars in it for a start, and then the redshift of the stars' spectra), then you can be sure that big bang happened. It's as sure as that the earth is round, I'm afraid.
I can eat 50 eggs 04 Apr 2015
In reply to andy farnell:

> Atrocities will happen, that is unfortunately a human condition. We have a long way to go, but eliminating the need to justify our existence based on a non existent god will be a start.

> Andy F

Do you honestly think so?

Religion has been blamed for all sorts of dastardly deeds but in my opinion it's the cause of far more acts of kindness than acts of brutality. If religion was eliminated the acts of kindness may stop...the acts of brutality will continue behind a different justification
1
 Timmd 04 Apr 2015
In reply to I can eat 50 eggs:

Why shouldn't acts of kindness and terrible acts both be equally apart from religion as the cause?
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> What makes you completely wrong......

Now to quantify your assumption you need to prove some actual proof of the start I.E the big bang, not all these observable effects from after the short delay where the data collection begins,, I know I may be waiting some time so don't stress yourself out trying to prove the impossible and if it makes you happy continue preaching your religon of big bangism.

As it's already been said in the thread all religions are bullshit so if that applies yours is bullshit too

Have a nice day




 lowersharpnose 04 Apr 2015
In reply to I can eat 50 eggs:

Out of interest, what acts of kindness do you have in mind that you wish to thank religion for? You know, the ones you fear may stop.


 Timmd 04 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:

I think that's possibly an unfair question to ask...I dare say he has in mind the way religions tell people to do good things for their fellow humans?
 lowersharpnose 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Timmd:

The poster made the claim "If religion was eliminated the acts of kindness may stop".

It cannot be unfair to ask for examples, surely?
 Timmd 04 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:
It depends how s/he ment it, religiously motivated acts of kindness in general, or certain ones in particular.

If s/he ment in a general sense it could be a bit unfair perhaps.
Post edited at 14:36
 lowersharpnose 04 Apr 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

That is some impressive ignorance.
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to RomTheBear:

> And anyone who has actually read the texts will find that the Qran tops the scale of awfulness, and the Old Testament follows closely in second place. And I disagree with the idea that these texts are all "impenetrable ancient garbage". Some of it is, but a lot of it is also pretty straightforward or just plain historical accounts. Its tedious but reading them is not that hard.

I've found it utterly impossible. I just don't have any idea what's being said.

> at the end of the day Islamic State have by far the most honest interpretation, that's a big advantage for them because they can legitimate anything they do based on the texts.

I just don't buy this theological angle: outsiders like yourself have a flick through the Q'ran and declare that the IS interpretation is "the most honest". I don't understand where you derive the authority to say that, given that so many Muslim scholars completely disagree.

> Don't get me wrong I am not ignoring the political dimension of all this and the fact that the West messed up the middle east for centuries by colonising, installing dictators to secure strategic resources, and bombing civilians populations. Some kind of extreme reaction was to be expected, but the religious factor doesn't help as what should have been a revolutionary movement turned into a dangerous global destructive ideology.

Yes, I think this is quite convincing: that put into the mix, Islam might be particularly unhelpful given the amount of specific stuff about punishments for this and that laid out in the Q'ran. Whereas the similar stuff in the Bible is perhaps much more jumbled up with stuff that says the opposite, or is otherwise wishy-washy?
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

Where do you stand on the issue of whether the earth is flat or round - or perhaps we should stay away from this kind of controversial topic?
In reply to lowersharpnose:
Well when on the forum historically for my worldview I've had to deal with a lot of insults, been called arrogant is almost like someone saying what I nice man you are, so thanks and also have a nice day too
Post edited at 14:48
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I thought the flat Earthers were a good few hundred years ago now, but I guess they're a bit like the big bangers, People who believe in ideas which science will eventually prove are out dated.
1
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to I can eat 50 eggs:

> Religion has been blamed for all sorts of dastardly deeds but in my opinion it's the cause of far more acts of kindness than acts of brutality. If religion was eliminated the acts of kindness may stop...the acts of brutality will continue behind a different justification

Obviously human nature has capacity for, and results in both brutality and kindness, with or without religion. The crucial point though, is that human nature also compels us to justify what we do. This is why religion is so unhelpful in the world. Human beings don't need to justify their acts of kindness - they make us feel good anyway which is why we do them (they're helpful to our lives as social creatures). There are also extraordinary acts of kindness which are less obviously rational and which religion might sometimes be involved in - acts where one makes great sacrifices for others. But the acts of brutality which we do need to justify - and having religion there whenever we need it because we want to invade someone's land and steal their resources - are I think a much more pertinent issue and on balance I think removing the source of justification would be a benefit as Andy says.
 lowersharpnose 04 Apr 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

This is an internet forum. Based on very many layers of scientific and technological understanding. You know theories and the like. For you you to say it is equivalent to religious belief is plain nuts.

Maybe we have done this before, I dunno, but I am genuinely surprised when I read such defiantly ignorant and ill-thought words like yours.

I take it you use the fruits of science: the internet, electricity, medicine, aviation and yet you think it is just a pile of 'quasi-religious scientific guff'.



In reply to lowersharpnose:

And all you've done is the usual personal attack instead of offering conclusive proof of the big bang.
1
 Roadrunner5 04 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:
>

> I take it you use the fruits of science: the internet, electricity, medicine, aviation and yet you think it is just a pile of 'quasi-religious scientific guff'.

he has a fair point..

Faith in religion is supposedly so wrong because of blind faith in text saying it is thus...

Well is that really any different to faith in astrophysics when you have absolutely no understanding in the field?

If you asked most lay persons to explain basic string theory, quantum mechanics etc they'd have little explanation. They'd just say 'well the scientists say so'...

I see it in biology. I teach Bio1 at University level when is basic evolution and diversity. Its basically a course to get everyone up to the same level so some have little or no background in science. Often their understanding of basic genetics and evolution is atrocious.. you are trying to get over such basic concepts as individuals don't evolve.. inheritance.. yet they'd all say they believe in evolution, yet half the class could not define what Darwinian Fitness meant.

Is it really any different when the faith in what they believe is just taking words at face value?
Post edited at 15:24
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

> And all you've done is the usual personal attack instead of offering conclusive proof of the big bang.

The night sky is dark with stars in it that are all receding away from us. This is conclusive proof of the big bang. The burden of proof is on you to provide a better explanation that fits all available evidence.
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The night sky is dark with stars in it that are all receding away from us. This is conclusive proof of the big bang. The burden of proof is on you to provide a better explanation that fits all available evidence.

LOL, I thought the god squad was bad, that is one dumbed down explanation.
1
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> Is it really any different when the faith in what they believe is just taking words at face value?

It's completely different. With a bit of education, you gain the skills to understand how science goes about explaining the world. You can then make rational choices about what to believe, who to trust, and justify your choices. If for example, the current theories of physics were wrong, then how is that consistent with the world we see around us, with technology, with universities being funded, with people receiving Nobel prizes. You make a rational decision to believe in a compelling, consistent reality, rather than to pin your beliefs on some wildly unlikely conspiracy that the rest of the human race is colluding in some gigantic web of lies for no apparent purpose.
 Roadrunner5 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> This is conclusive proof of the big bang.

Come on? Right you can't use proof in science.

There is certainly no 'conclusive proof'.

Even now we have theories opposing the Big Bang.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html

But regardless the Big Bang has its problems and is very much just a theory, which as it stands is the most widely accepted theory for the origin of the Universe. But in my field we had a theory which stood for 50 years before falling away during the last 5 years, the oxidative stress theory of ageing.

Theories are just that. Theories. Falsification of science, the purpose of much of science is to knock these theories down, that's how we move the field forward.

 Roadrunner5 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> It's completely different. With a bit of education, you gain the skills to understand how science goes about explaining the world. You can then make rational choices about what to believe, who to trust, and justify your choices. If for example, the current theories of physics were wrong, then how is that consistent with the world we see around us, with technology, with universities being funded, with people receiving Nobel prizes.

Come on, people have been scientific frauds..

OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

No it isn't (well, 'stars' rather than 'galaxies outside our local group was, to be fair'). The fact that the sky is dark tells us that the universe cannot be infinite in space and time. If it was, then the night sky would be as bright as the sun, as all the radiation from all the stars going off into infinity would eventually get to us. The dark sky is consistent with there being a start to the universe. The redshift in stars' spectra showing that galaxies are all receding away from us is the crucial evidence for the big bang. You need to provide a better explanation for this evidence if you are to doubt the theory.

It's worth noting that Einstein didn't believe in the big bang and initially manipulated General Relativity so that it didn't imply an expanding universe. But he was forced to abandon this when Hubble showed that the galaxies outside ours were all receding away from us. You asked for proof and there's plenty of it.

You either accept the big bang or you provide an alternative explanation for the redshift. Which is it?
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:


> You either accept the big bang or you provide an alternative explanation for the redshift. Which is it?

I think you're well behind the curve of contemporary scientific thought and need to catch up rather than trying to patronize me with this either or question.
 malk 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The fact that the sky is dark tells us that the universe cannot be infinite in space and time. If it was, then the night sky would be as bright as the sun, as all the radiation from all the stars going off into infinity would eventually get to us.

why not an infinite expanding universe?


In reply to Roadrunner5:

> Come on? Right you can't use proof in science.

> There is certainly no 'conclusive proof'.

> Even now we have theories opposing the Big Bang.



> But regardless the Big Bang has its problems and is very much just a theory, which as it stands is the most widely accepted theory for the origin of the Universe. But in my field we had a theory which stood for 50 years before falling away during the last 5 years, the oxidative stress theory of ageing.

> Theories are just that. Theories. Falsification of science, the purpose of much of science is to knock these theories down, that's how we move the field forward.

Thanks Iain, I'm currently at work, and only have the odd spare minute or 2 waiting for filler to go off. It's nice to know there's folk who are capable of staying current with the reading.
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> There is certainly no 'conclusive proof'.

You don't have deductive proof, but you have to have a pragmatic point at which the evidence has mounted up and you can justify calling it 'conclusive proof'. We know the earth is round, not flat. We know there was a big bang.

> Even now we have theories opposing the Big Bang.


I read that as opposing a "big bang singularity" which is not the same at all as opposing a big bang. The part we are sure of is the redshift of the galaxies. Only a theory that says something different to all these being squashed together in the past and expanding outwards can be described as "opposing the big bang". Getting rid of the singularity is lovely and neat and if it solves dark matter then hooray, but it isn't disproving the big bang.

> But regardless the Big Bang has its problems and is very much just a theory

No, it's the only way to explain the redshift evidence which has been around since the 1920s.

> Theories are just that. Theories. Falsification of science, the purpose of much of science is to knock these theories down, that's how we move the field forward.

There are huge advances still to be made and all the new, undercooked quantum gravity theories still stand to be falsified, but getting away from the redshift evidence ain't going to be part of that. The earth is round, it goes round the sun, the sun is a star in the galaxy, and the galaxies are all receding away from each other. None of that is going to change.

> Come on, people have been scientific frauds..

Yes, and individuals being frauds is consistent with a rational view of the world. Whole chunks of accepted scientific knowledge being wrong is not.
1
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to malk:

> why not an infinite expanding universe?

someone (hoyle?) tried to make that work a few decades ago, with new stars all being created along with the new space in a drip-drip kind of fashion. it didn't work.
 Roadrunner5 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

My worry with 'conclusive proof' is when a theory falls, and they normally do, it gives people space to point at the fallibility of science.. as a weakness against it, when it fact it is a strength, that it does allow evolution in its stances. If the BBT fell, then as long as falls through the scientific process that's all well and good.

I was once in Mass and the priest used the changing positions of science as an argument against science.. which is actually its strength. From the early evolution work of Lamarck through to Darwin and much more.

We are doing astrophysics by snap shots, like coming up with a theory of evolution through the fossil record and short term models in bacteria, or trying to unravel a groups evolutionary history without accurate information on ancestor traits, so we will get things wrong.
 lowersharpnose 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

What ISIS Want:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/...

I have read it and found it interesting.
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

> I think you're well behind the curve of contemporary scientific thought and need to catch up rather than trying to patronize me with this either or question.

There are loads of different variations on theories at the forefront of physics (all totally incomprehensible to anyone but experts) but whatever way you cut it, the galaxies are all flying away from each other. You have to accept that evidence and its implications, as all theories since the 1920s have done.
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Expansion is one component of celestial mechanics, it is not a confirmation of the big bang, please understand I've been reading about this most of my life.
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> My worry with 'conclusive proof' is when a theory falls, and they normally do, it gives people space to point at the fallibility of science..

Then you should be worrying that maybe the earth is actually flat, and maybe diseases are actually caused by curses.

> when it fact it is a strength, that it does allow evolution in its stances.

It's strength is that a new theory has to be consistent with all the same evidence as the previous theory, and more. So a new theory will show how the old theory is still correct, but just a limited way of looking at things.

> If the BBT fell, then as long as falls through the scientific process that's all well and good.

Well if someone's going to come up with a theory that's consistent with the redshift but doesn't involve all the galaxies being squished together in the past then fine. I'm just saying that that's as likely as finding out that the earth is actually flat after all. The threshold has been crossed with regards to that evidence.

> We are doing astrophysics by snap shots

Some of which provide incontrovertible evidence about the nature of the universe. Some forms of evidence leave gaps and wriggle room. With the observations of what's up in the sky we have now, some things are settled for good. And one of those things is that the galaxies are all flying apart from each other and so they must have in the past occupied the same small space and been rather hot. The details of how and why, what's behind that theoretically, are not yet settled.
1
 lowersharpnose 04 Apr 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

The big-bang became the preferred theory when Fred Hoyle's steady-state expansion could offer no explanation for the cosmic microwave background radiation. Whereas the big bang theory suggested there would be such an artefact.

You are ringing a bell now, some sort of christian fundamentalist who rates faith above knowledge.
 malk 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:
current theories don't really work either as noone knows what most of the universe is made of ..
i'm sure the alternative theories have come on since Hoyle's day

why do we presume physical constants and time have been constant over time?
Post edited at 16:38
In reply to lowersharpnose:



> You are ringing a bell now, some sort of christian fundamentalist who rates faith above knowledge.

Really, maybe thats because your religious beliefs have brainwashed you, I'm going on the fact that the proof of the original singularity in the bang theory isn't proved, it sounds like you are taking the assumption as a fact
 malk 04 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:

you 're coming over as a scientific fundo..
 lowersharpnose 04 Apr 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

I don't have any religious beliefs.

 lowersharpnose 04 Apr 2015
In reply to malk:

What's a scientific fundo?
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I read Penrose's what came before the big bang in 2012, I suggest you have a read, or maybe find something else rather that this tit for tat childishness we've got ourselves involved in

Later

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2...
 Roadrunner5 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

There are still holes in the BBT. They have predictions which they should see and some things they aren't. This was how the Oxidative stress theory fell after 5 decades of support.. it rocked the ageing world and to the people in the street it is still the accepted theory.

As it stands it is the most widely accepted theory but we are long way from using the word proof.
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

> Expansion is one component of celestial mechanics, it is not a confirmation of the big bang, please understand I've been reading about this most of my life.

OK, but I also know you give anything that goes against the consensus more weight than anything that supports it, so you end up believing the stuff that's least likely to be true.
 Roadrunner5 04 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:

> The big-bang became the preferred theory

Exactly.. that's all it is at the moment. The most widely accepted theory. I wouldn't put it at the same stage as flat earth, not even plate tectonics.

 malk 04 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:
some interpretations:
a scientist who doesn't look outside the standard models, a vocal atheist who likes to mock religion, a scientist who's main priority is money?
 malk 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

and how long were Newton's theories accepted for?
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> OK, but I also know you give anything that goes against the consensus more weight than anything that supports it, so you end up believing the stuff that's least likely to be true.

Last post, no I don't, this is you trying to put words in my mouth, I have a rather different view of how the world works to the average, but I do my reading and try to keep an open mind. The book I suggested is worthwhile to see the classical mechanics of the big bang theory whilst leaving the equations in the appendix.
 lowersharpnose 04 Apr 2015
In reply to malk:

That's not me then.
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

> I read Penrose's what came before the big bang in 2012


But this is still a theory of the big bang! He's just adding more to the picture, giving a new, speculative take on the bigger hows and whys of the big bang.
1
In reply to malk:

Newton was far from being wrong. The fact that we were able to predict to the second when the recent eclipse would start and finish, and that we could land a probe on a comet a billion miles away, shows just how correct his laws of motion were and still are

Einstein demonstrated that his theories were partial explanations of a more complex whole, but that is not the same as saying he was wrong.

I'm not a cosmologist, and someone like Coel would be better placed to comment, but I think the Big Bang theory is likely to be something like that- correct, but more complicated in ways we have yet to understand. as Jon says though, the key observations, including red shift, the cosmic background radiation, and the fact that the sky is dark at night, all converge on one explanation, the precise details of which we are some way off being able to explain,

Cheers
Gregor
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> But this is still a theory of the big bang! He's just adding more to the picture, giving a new, speculative take on the bigger hows and whys of the big bang.

All right I can play out a bit more me tea int ready yet, Let me try and explain a bit more, it's the original singularity which isn't proved everything came from nothing which is currently at the centre of the whole big bang theory, no body is saying that this inflation didn't happen, as i mentioned right at the top because it can be seen in the CBR. I guess I could have explained this from the start, but I thought these basic facts were common knowledge.
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> There are still holes in the BBT.

There is lots left to explain about the universe, huge big mysteries about dark matter and energy to start with. I'm not defending any specific modern theory at the forefront of physics, I'm saying that we know the galaxies are rushing away from each other and in the past occupied a small space which must have been rather hot. This is now at the level of incontrovertible fact.

> As it stands it is the most widely accepted theory but we are long way from using the word proof.

You could say really that the 'theory' is the whatever modern quantum gravity - superstring - brane - conformal cyclical thing you choose, and the evidence that needs to be explained by the theory is the big bang, which is what we see when we look at the sky.
 malk 04 Apr 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

it's rather like a house of cards though. eg. how are we to know that the physical constants and time have been constant over time?
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

> All right I can play out a bit more me tea int ready yet, Let me try and explain a bit more, it's the original singularity which isn't proved everything came from nothing which is currently at the centre of the whole big bang theory, no body is saying that this inflation didn't happen, as i mentioned right at the top because it can be seen in the CBR. I guess I could have explained this from the start, but I thought these basic facts were common knowledge.

Righto, that makes much more sense. I don't claim that anything once you get right up to the singularity is remotely 'proven'. It all gets totally incomprehensible to me at that point. When I say 'big bang' I just mean everything we can see in the sky having come from a small space in the past. So we agree!
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Righto, that makes much more sense. I don't claim that anything once you get right up to the singularity is remotely 'proven'. It all gets totally incomprehensible to me at that point. When I say 'big bang' I just mean everything we can see in the sky having come from a small space in the past. So we agree!

In a round about way yes we agree I would prefer to think everything we can see in the sky occupied a small space 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago.
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to malk:

> it's rather like a house of cards though. eg. how are we to know that the physical constants and time have been constant over time?

This is just pointless philosophical quibbling. You either live in the real world where you believe that the simplest explanation is most likely to be true (the past resembles the present, etc), or you give up on knowledge entirely and consider yourself a brain in a vat that's part of a computer simulation and don't bother getting out of bed.
 lowersharpnose 04 Apr 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

So what did you mean when you wrote "I've thought the big bang theory is a pile of quasi religious scientific guff." given your "everything we can see in the sky occupied a small space 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago. "

The latter statement pretty much sums up the idea of the big-bang .




 lowersharpnose 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Changing constants don't seem to cause much of a problem. You can ask questions like if {c, G, e, H.. etc} was lower/higher in the past how would it affect how the universe appears to us now?

I think it is a valid area for study and does not make science into a house of cards.
In reply to lowersharpnose:

No it doesn't it says everything came from nothing a point of singularity which if you think about that deeply enough it's faith based choice believing what you are told and faith is considered religious, hence my little ditty just for shit and giggles. LOL

Maybe really it was the big suck, or maybe the gnab gib big crunch theory, stuff like this interests me, and as this afternoon has shown if you even question a theory in it's entirety lots of assumptions are made about integrity and knowledge and you are patronised and personally attacked. Not really good form is it.

You can see how wars are manufactured by this lack of unity.

In reply to John Simpson:

Rubber dinghy rapids bro'
 lowersharpnose 04 Apr 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

I am not keen on singularities. If a theory yields infinite quantities, it is often a sign that something is wrong (e.g ultra-violet catastrophe). Inside a black hole, I doubt there actually is a singularity and a better theory will not come up with these infinities.

Similarly, I doubt the very early universe was a singularity.

I enjoyed Lee Smolin's : "The Trouble With Physics"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics

In reply to lowersharpnose:

> I am not keen on singularities. If a theory yields infinite quantities, it is often a sign that something is wrong (e.g ultra-violet catastrophe). Inside a black hole, I doubt there actually is a singularity and a better theory will not come up with these infinities.

I remember at Uni a lot of equations were solved for infinity, seemed a bit of a fudge, but all I was bothered about was learning the maths to the necessary standards

> Similarly, I doubt the very early universe was a singularity.

> I enjoyed Lee Smolin's : "The Trouble With Physics"


I've not red this so I'll have a look cheers.
 malk 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:
yeah, like an infinite number of universes? what world are multiverse theorists living on?

In reply to John Simpson:

> So given the choice of the 2, An intelligence that could start this process seems way more rational, logical, and possible.

Well, as long as you are going for the God theory because you think it fits the facts better than the Big Bang theory you are on the reason side of the reason vs faith debate.

However, you don't need to make a choice of two theories. There's lots of other options e.g. 'I don't know' or 'I don't have time to study this enough to form an opinion' or 'I don't believe either of them' or 'I don't believe either of them but that one looks closer to the truth than the other'.

 malk 04 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:

> Changing constants don't seem to cause much of a problem.

well not as much as the increasing rate of expansion..
a slowing of time could explain both the redshifts and the acceleration we observe?..
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to malk:

> yeah, like an infinite number of universes? what world are multiverse theorists living on?

god knows. but they are trying to follow through the maths that's consistent with the evidence to form a consistent description of reality without making up extra stuff that's not needed - apparently.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Could I have I believe the universe was once a crocodile?
 mark s 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

islam is a major problem.
1
In reply to the thread:

Where's coel when you need him...?



1
In reply to John Simpson:

> Could I have I believe the universe was once a crocodile?

Sure.

If you've selected the crocodile theory because you think it fits the evidence then you are on team science rather than team religion. You are just not that great a player.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

There is no evidence, we've been going over it this afternoon, did you fall down a black hole and miss it perchance?

1
 krikoman 04 Apr 2015
In reply to mark s:

> islam is a major problem.

Why do you say that, it's the people behind the killings that's the problem.

There's plenty of reasons to be part of ISIS in the middle east than not at the moment.

disenfranchised people who've had two or three generations brought up in some sort of war, all from outside influences.

Look at Afghanistan the Russian then us and the US both trying to fight an unwinnable war.

Invading Iraq on false pretences.

Supporting Israel in all it's crimes against the Palestinians.

It's little wonder that it's easy to turn young heads from not just hating the west but to actually fighting against the west and western ideals.

So it's not religion per sa, religion is a useful tool to gain support and point out that you should fight for your god, and by fighting you get to go to heaven, it's easy to see why people who have nothing might choose to joining.

A lot of people don't want peace, look at Netanyahu's objections to the Iran nuclear deal. He's always been a harbinger of doom and a fear monger, it's what keeps him in power.

I would like to ask the people who kill in the name of religion two questions, "Why is your great god so weak that you have to kill for him? If he is so powerful why would he take offence at a mere human being offending them?"

Wars aren't created by religion though, they are created by people. If we had no religion it would be no better.

Look at the Tutsi and Hutu - they speak the same Bantu tongues as well as French, and generally practice Christianity -- yet they managed to try and wipe each other out.
 malk 04 Apr 2015
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
how would the slowing of time be inconsistent with observations/evidence? just askin..
Post edited at 19:50
In reply to krikoman:

Did you read the link on the other thread that lowersharpnose posted?

It's a long article, but really interesting. It seems that, this time, it really is about religion.
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to krikoman:

> Why do you say that, it's the people behind the killings that's the problem.

Well back on topic, I am at least part-convinced about the especially unhelpful nature of Islam in the context you set out. I don't for a minute think that the content of the Q'ran is the principle reason for this century's Islamic terrorism, but I'm more to accepting of the idea that the content of the religion itself isn't irrelevant.
1
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

That's a big part of what's changing my mind.
 Shani 04 Apr 2015
In reply to TobyA:

Is religious scholars believe the earth orbits the sun, for example, to my knowledge, not a bullet was fired to convince them of that fact. Planetary mechanics are not accepted by all though:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/11419428/W...
In reply to Jon Stewart:

It made a pretty compelling case.

Not that Islam is as a whole the problem; but that an ultra 'pure' interpretation of it, as it may have been practiced in the 7th century, has gathered enough support to become a regional power; and that that interpretation is no more or less 'Islamic' than other, more palatable variants, with religious dogma being very much at the heart of its philosophy.
1
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Shani:

That clip is gold!
 RomTheBear 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> I've found it utterly impossible. I just don't have any idea what's being said.

THe Qran a least is very easy to read and not especially cryptic. Old testament yeah I admit is more open to interpretation but still most of it is quite clear cut.

> I just don't buy this theological angle: outsiders like yourself have a flick through the Q'ran and declare that the IS interpretation is "the most honest". I don't understand where you derive the authority to say that, given that so many Muslim scholars completely disagree.

The thing is that I thought exactly like you before, I was convinced that Islam couldn't be that bad and that it was all a matter of interpretation. But the more I researched it the more I was forced to realise this is not true, I don't like it, but it's the elephant in the room. But every time there is a new atrocity committed by IS you'll find that they have followed the literal interpretation of the texts. It's actually pretty disturbing how scrupulous they are with it.

I have also read a lot from the Muslim scholars who are trying to promote a "modern" interpretation, lots of good books by Tariq Ramadan. It's so well written and so well thought out, they almost convince you, but then you take two steps back and you realise this is all too far fetched, I understand the need they have to come up with these convoluted explanations because they can't change the texts and they can't criticise them.

In fact I even agree that they have the right approach, because telling people that their religion is shit is not going to help. The sad thing is that they even those scholars are actually a minority globally, and they all have a fatwa on their head.


> Yes, I think this is quite convincing: that put into the mix, Islam might be particularly unhelpful given the amount of specific stuff about punishments for this and that laid out in the Q'ran. Whereas the similar stuff in the Bible is perhaps much more jumbled up with stuff that says the opposite, or is otherwise wishy-washy?

Not really there is some pretty hardcore stuff in Deuteronomy as well. And it is not especially cryptic. On example in Leviticus 24:16 it says "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death" I am sure many scholar will says this is not what it actually means and will invent new layers of meaning for this. But I'm sorry they are just wrong, it's pretty clear what it means.

The big difference I think is that in the new testament all this nonsense is contradicted and it's all softened up, apart from few things about homosexuals, so in a way it supersedes the Old testament, that more or less solves the problem for those who believe in Jesus at least, it's a bit less effort for them to make their religion work with the 21st century. I won't comment on Judaism because I honestly don't know enough about it to have an opinion and it seems much more complex.
Post edited at 20:55
1
Removed User 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Have to question the validity of debating someone whose knowledge leads them to spell it 'Q'ran'.
1
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Removed User:

Don't bother then.
1
 winhill 04 Apr 2015
In reply to malk:

> yeah, like an infinite number of universes? what world are multiverse theorists living on?

Why, that would be The Infiniverse.

Space is infinite, boundless, there is nothing beyond space, not even nothing because that is still space. It has been nothing for an infinite amount of time, such a long period of time it doesn't even make sense to ask whereabouts in it's timeline we exist.

If one universe can be formed, no matter how rare an event that is, then the probability exists that others can form as well (unless there is some weird condition that a universe that exists in some dimensions instantly precludes the formation of others, across all dimensions and infinite space).

Given an infinite amount of space and time, then the probability is that even a very rare event has happened an infinite amount of times.
In reply to winhill:

And taking this theme forwards, you can also assume the universe is teaming with life, and much of that life is way older than our civilization, therefore they can travel across space like we jump in the car and go to the shops, so they've been visiting us for a long time, but the general population thinks not.
1
 Coel Hellier 04 Apr 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Where's coel when you need him...?

Err, out climbing.

In reply to John Simpson:

> No it doesn't it [the Big Bang model] says everything came from nothing a point of singularity

No, actually it doesn't. The Big Bang model does not say that the universe began in a singularity. Rather, it says that the observable universe can be traced backwards to about the Planck scale at around the Planck time. At that point quantum gravity effects would have dominated, and since we don't have a theory of quantum gravity anything before that is speculative. However, most theorists would suggest something along the lines of that state coming from a quantum-gravity fluctuation from a pre-existing universe.

There is hugely abundant evidence for the Big Bang model, sufficiently so that the basics of it are not in doubt. But whether or not there was a singularity (likely not) is another issue, and not a core part of the Big Bang model.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

> But regardless the Big Bang has its problems and is very much just a theory ...

You are misusing the word "theory" as it is used in science. The evidence for the Big Bang is pretty secure.

Of course that does not mean our understanding won't be improved upon, but if so it'll likely be much like the improvement from Newtonian gravity to general relativity. As mentioned up-thread, Newtonian gravity is not really "wrong", it is sufficiently right that people use it all the time for many purposes. It's pretty close to right.
 wercat 04 Apr 2015
In reply to winhill:
"probability is that even a very rare event has happened an infinite amount of times. "

what, like a God coming into existence and creating other universes?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Err, out climbing.

> In reply to John Simpson:

> No, actually it doesn't. The Big Bang model does not say that the universe began in a singularity. Rather, it says that the observable universe can be traced backwards to about the Planck scale at around the Planck time. At that point quantum gravity effects would have dominated, and since we don't have a theory of quantum gravity anything before that is speculative. However, most theorists would suggest something along the lines of that state coming from a quantum-gravity fluctuation from a pre-existing universe.

> There is hugely abundant evidence for the Big Bang model, sufficiently so that the basics of it are not in doubt. But whether or not there was a singularity (likely not) is another issue, and not a core part of the Big Bang model.

Ok i can understand that I was under the impression that Big Bang theory went right back to singularity, if that assumption was incorrect I thank you for clearing up this misunderstanding.

Do you think its possible that the twitching of a crocodiles tail in a pre-existing universe somewhere out there could have caused the quantum-gravity fluctuations, which initiated this model of inflation.


> In reply to Roadrunner5:

> You are misusing the word "theory" as it is used in science. The evidence for the Big Bang is pretty secure.

> Of course that does not mean our understanding won't be improved upon, but if so it'll likely be much like the improvement from Newtonian gravity to general relativity. As mentioned up-thread, Newtonian gravity is not really "wrong", it is sufficiently right that people use it all the time for many purposes. It's pretty close to right.
 lowersharpnose 04 Apr 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

Your 'therefore' is a 'maybe'


Many things are required for the universe to be teeming in life like you envisage, some of which are ...

a) life evolves to intelligent life.

b) intelligent life becomes technological and then some.

c) life lasts long enough to travel far (means not thwarted by death of a star, competition, disease, war, religious nuttery etc)

d) they do all the fancy travel stuff and leave no signs.
In reply to lowersharpnose:

A maybe, maybe, but statistically speaking it's a definitely maybe.
1
 SteveSBlake 04 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

So I take it that form much of the above that Muslims stole the singularity then?

Steve
OP Jon Stewart 04 Apr 2015
In reply to SteveSBlake:

The problem, it seems, is not Islam but those bloody aliens.
Jim C 05 Apr 2015
In reply to David Riley:

> "All religions poison the mind"

> Completely agree.

It beggars belief that every decade or so we take yet another leap in technology to help us look at , and understand our universe a little bit better.
Do religious people never wonder that not once, in the thousands of years of advances , has any new technological advance ever supported the existence of a 'God'
( what they will say is that technology has failed to disprove it)

 birdie num num 05 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Religion is simply a form of indoctrination that begins in early life.
Control based on deep seated fears instilled into folk from an impressionable age.
Some manage to shake it off, others find it impossible, and carry it through their lives.
Num Num sniffs at all deities from Allah to Zeus, but nevertheless finds himself transfixed by the all seeing and wrathful eye of Mrs Num Num bent on his every move, and slinks in the shadows, a miserable fawning cur, beseeching, humble and compliant.
In reply to Jim C:

Along with pictures of gods in ancient Egypt, literally scattered all over the parish from Up North Alexandria and way past Crocodilopolis


http://ancientstandard.com/2007/07/02/come-to-crocodilopolis-no-we-are-not-...

There's pictures of space ships and attack helicopters and also what looks like thunderbird one, the most famous can be found with a simple search on doogle god bless him

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=egypt+picture+of+space+ship+and+helicopte...

I dunno what to make of it all, what I do know is getting called a nutjob is only because the name caller lacks the vocabulary and is too closed minded to discuss the matter.
1
 Roadrunner5 05 Apr 2015
In reply to Coel Hellier:
No I'm not. When have I provided a definition?

It maybe pretty secure.. The oxidative stress theory was..

'Ageing no longer an unsolved problem' or similar, was the title of one high profile paper before it suddenly died and more recent papers have been 'is the the oxidative stress theory of ageing dead?'.. This was after 5 decades of continual support on a theory that was a variation of the rate of living hypothesis... So probably pushing 70-80 years of support..

It's now looking like maybe it's not do dead but not the unifying theory it was made out to be.

But that is a strength of science. I'm not saying the BBT is wrong or in serious doubt but science is struggling because of how it communicates with the public.

Overuse of the word proof being one obvious issue. What happens if we do get a large scale change? It makes people doubt science as they do with global warming because it's been poorly communicated too often. Add to that misrepresenting data and we have surprisingly low public confidence in the scientific process.

You are being unnecessarily defensive, clearly I support the scientific process but with that comes proper communication that things do change and science is open to change.

We currently have measles epidemics on the rise because the public, in damagingly large numbers, could be scared to doubt the science and no longer vaccinate their kids.

But theories are there to be falsified, you make predictions from that and test, most of the time you find what the theory predicts, sometimes you don't and you modify it.. The longer a theory withstands such questions normally the increasingly robust and sound it becomes. But theories do fall after decades of support, and when they do that is science working.. Not failing.

But some failures, say prolonged periods of colder weather, make people question global warming and the science underpinning it.. We're still quite clearly some way off communicating science and the scientific process to the general public. Hence why we have guys like Dawkins in specialized posts making TV shows with guys like me....
Post edited at 01:40
1
 Roadrunner5 05 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

Should add 'apparent failures'.. prolonged cold weather doesn't need to be a failure of the anthropogenic global warming theory.. but we hear it anytime we get such weather, or poor summers..
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Indeed mainstream media is all over it like a badly reported rash all the time.

And you get shouted down straight away if you try to bring up subjects like high level aerosol operations, chem dumps, and / or microwave heating of upper atmosphere with facilities such as The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, it's been stated for a long time under headings such as' Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025' That these earlier mentioned operations are well established. And if you do the necessary reading on weather modification such as cloud seeding, you see the pictures of the old Douglas DC-3 Dakotas going way back.

The subject is way more complicated than rising levels of co2 closing the feedback loop.
Post edited at 03:25
1
In reply to Timmd:

> I think that's possibly an unfair question to ask...I dare say he has in mind the way religions tell people to do good things for their fellow humans?

So long as they arent gay, or follow other gods, or think about sex..................
 nik king 05 Apr 2015
In reply to John Simpson:

> Regardless of religion the majority of the world population want to live in peace, I've spent some time in North Iraq, Southern Turkey, Egypt, Bradford, Nepal, Pakistan, and Oman and from what I saw, the people were kind, generous, caring, and beautiful.


Obviously didn't spend long in Bradford then.
In reply to nik king:

Bradford was interesting we were installing fences in a rough part of town, so I was told, it wasn't as rough as 1980's Lundwood.
 Pete Pozman 05 Apr 2015
In reply to andy farnell:

What religion was Pol Pot?Millions tortured and killed. Intellectuals murdered and identified as such by the fact they wore glasses
What religion was Stalin? 20 million dead in famines, gulags, purges etc
Hitler?

Religion isn't the problem. Hate is the problem.
The answer: "love one another". All proper religions say that.
 Andy Farnell 05 Apr 2015
In reply to Pete Pozman: The abuse of religion breeds hate and mistrust. It gives an excuse to perform acts of violence. But some men, as you have highlighted, need no reason to commit atrocities. And afaik Islam is not a peace loving religion.

Andy F

 stp 05 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

The countries of the Islamic world have been under attack for close to a century. The reason is nothing to do with religion. It's because of the huge energy deposits there. All this hostility towards them is bound to create hatred and retaliation towards the attackers (us). To justify and rally support its natural for those people to cite bits from their prevailing, shared ideology: Islam. If history had been kinder to these people they'd probably be citing different parts of the Koran by now.

If the US had suffered a century of brutal attacks and repression by outside forces the Christians there would probably be preaching the more brutal and murderous parts of the Bible (which are just as extreme).

In other words its the real life situations that drive the ideology, not the other way around.
 TobyA 05 Apr 2015
In reply to stp:

Unfortunately the history of the Middle East/Arab world doesn't really fit with your telling of it. For decades after WWII nationalism (and some socialism/communism) was way more important an ideology than Islam over much of the MENA region, and with Saudi being the most obvious example, Western countries have generally befriended the oil rich countries and European colonialism in the region predates the rise of the importance of oil to a degree.
1
OP Jon Stewart 05 Apr 2015
In reply to stp:
> The countries of the Islamic world have been under attack for close to a century. The reason is nothing to do with religion. It's because of the huge energy deposits there.

This I agree with. The Al-Qaeda rhetoric about the US hating Islam was obviously just propaganda to mobilise people; I'm sure Bin Laden knew what he was he was doing. The US doesn't give a stuff about religion, but they care deeply about control of resources.

> If history had been kinder to these people they'd probably be citing different parts of the Koran by now

> If the US had suffered a century of brutal attacks and repression by outside forces the Christians there would probably be preaching the more brutal and murderous parts of the Bible (which are just as extreme).

Again I agree, but having read some of the articles posted up (thanks Toby for those responses to Graeme Wod), I think to completely downplay the role of religion is missing an important part of the picture.

Of course, it's much more stupid to ignore all of the economical and historical factors and conclude that the sole reason for Islamic extremism and violence is because Islam is an evil religion, and the way to combat Jihadism is to shout about that as loud as possible.
Post edited at 13:53
1
OP Jon Stewart 05 Apr 2015
In reply to TobyA:

> Unfortunately the history of the Middle East/Arab world doesn't really fit with your telling of it. For decades after WWII nationalism (and some socialism/communism) was way more important an ideology than Islam over much of the MENA region

But was there also dissatisfaction with the subjugation of Islam during this period?
1
 Timmd 05 Apr 2015
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> So long as they arent gay, or follow other gods, or think about sex..................

Nice generalisation, there's plenty of non religious homophobes too.
1
OP Jon Stewart 05 Apr 2015
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> The answer: "love one another". All proper religions say that.

The problem is that they say "kill one another" too and let everyone make up their own minds about which bits they want to apply to whom. On balance, not a great contribution.
1
 TobyA 05 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Islam wasn't particularly subjugated (well, in a few countries with communist leaders it was), rather Islamism was subjugated because it represented a political power opposed to the authoritarian nationalist leaders and, yep, that then led on to extremism we see today.
1
 Rob Exile Ward 05 Apr 2015
In reply to TobyA:

A problem I have with Islamic fundamentalism (or any other fundamentalism for that matter) is that it is, at least, consistent and coherent. If you genuinely believe that the Koran represents the definitive received word of god then it makes perfect sense to do whatever it tells you to do - no ifs, no buts, no mealy mouthed equivocation, just do it.

How can a Christian criticise such an attitude? It is the Christians that are being hypocritical, why regret martyrs when they are now in paradise? Why not use force to impose Christianity if that guarantees everlasting bliss? Islam and Christianity can't both be right - surely the sacred thing to do is to wipe Islam from the face of the earth and earn god's eternal approval?

I don't think anyone of 'faith' is any position to criticise anyone of any other faith. The future must lie in education, the recognition that such education is utterly incompatible with faith based mysticism, and the relegation of religion and faith to some minority, quirky interest groups like UFO watchers and ghost hunters, far removed from any political process.
2
Clauso 05 Apr 2015
In reply to birdie num num:

>... and slinks in the shadows, a miserable fawning cur, beseeching, humble and compliant.

You love it, you tart... In fact, I've heard that you pay for the privilege.
Post edited at 20:14
1
 Trevers 05 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'll throw in my 2p without having read the rest of the thread.

I don't believe religion is the problem. It certainly might be in some cases, for some particularly stupid people, but in terms of the bigger picture I doubt it. Religion is a convenient dividing line that is easily exploited and used to create opposition.

You can create either an extreme, violent ideology or a tolerant, moderate ideology simply by picking and choosing for the Koran. I believe the ideology is the starting point and the interpretation of the holy text is simply the justification.

The same could go for the Bible.
1
In reply to Timmd:

> Nice generalisation, there's plenty of non religious homophobes too.

No, i was being quite specific.
 lowersharpnose 05 Apr 2015
In reply to Trevers:

I think you have explained very well why religion is the problem
1
 Roadrunner5 05 Apr 2015
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>

> I don't think anyone of 'faith' is any position to criticise anyone of any other faith. The future must lie in education, the recognition that such education is utterly incompatible with faith based mysticism,

It's not at all..

After all much of our teaching and science started off in the church, Mendels laws?

But even today church schools often provide some of the best education and most importantly education where there otherwise would be none...

I do think they need overseeing, I've no room for creationism in my evolution lectures... But we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water

1
 Thrudge 05 Apr 2015
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> What religion was Pol Pot?Millions tortured and killed. Intellectuals murdered and identified as such by the fact they wore glasses

> What religion was Stalin? 20 million dead in famines, gulags, purges etc

> Hitler?

Don't know about Pol Pot. Stalin was an atheist. Hitler was a Christian.
1
In reply to Jon Stewart: You say there's a "significant chunk of Islam causing havoc around the world." which is quite some statement. How do you define "significant"? I'll assume that by "Islam" you mean people living in Islamic countries. Everyone says "insha'Allah" and "alhamdulillah", but not everyone is a practicing Muslim.

I've spent a couple of months in Africa and the Middle East this year, from Southern Sudan to Northern Sinai and I dispute your statement. Most people are too busy looking after themselves/their family, getting water/medical aid and earning enough to get them through the lean times ahead which are always just around the corner. Many people have zero knowledge of the west beyond La Liga and the Premiership. I was recently asked if I was from Cairo (I speak Egyptian Arabic) and when I said Manchester the village elders I was drinking tea with had no clue what or where that was. A significant chunk of people living in Islamic countries don't give two hoots about causing havoc. They don't have the time, energy or motivation. By "significant" I mean >98%.

 Roadrunner5 05 Apr 2015
In reply to Tony Naylor:
Ooof

You've opened up a can of worms.. Cowl I think, and others, belief hitler had a Christian agenda but many don't...

At times we overlay politics on religion when is hard to separate.. No doubt for some N Ireland was about independence for others just independence..

A war between two desperate countries will often be between two sets of disparate people, 2 different cultures and often two different religions.. Sometimes two different races.. It's hard to attribute a direct cause
 Sir Chasm 05 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

I wonder if Northern Ireland would have been such an issue if children had merely gone to school, not catholic school or protestant school, just school, where they weren't taught they were different to the children at the school down the road.
 RomTheBear 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Pete Pozman:
> Religion isn't the problem. Hate is the problem.
> The answer: "love one another". All proper religions say that.

Yep, but you do understand that when some religions promote hate and violence then there is a problem with it.
Post edited at 00:15
2
KevinD 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> But even today church schools often provide some of the best education

Contentious claim. The results are highly varied with, for many of them, the covert selection playing a big part.

> and most importantly education where there otherwise would be none...

In what sense? They provided some early education although it was mostly about training bureaucrats for the church/state (the two being difficult to split for a long time).

However they underperformed badly in providing universal education with the church and other bodies (such as the remaints of the guilds) being rather patchy in delivery
Which is why the state had to take over from about 1830 onwards, although for a fair few years after that the state was limited by religious and other opposition to just providing funds for the creation of, primarily, church schools.
 Roadrunner5 06 Apr 2015
In reply to dissonance:

Really ??

FFs the churches money is used for good and bad.. The good is providing education where no one else funds it... Rural Africa.. They may have another motive but they still teach reading and writing..
 Thrudge 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:
> You've opened up a can of worms.. Cowl I think, and others, belief hitler had a Christian agenda but many don't...

I don't think the idea of Hitler as Christian is a contentious one. There's his Catholic upbringing, his references to the Almighty in various speeches, and this line:

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Mein Kampf

Then there's the oath to God on joining the Nazi armed forces, and issuing soldiers with belt buckles inscribed "Gott mitt uns" (God with us).

As for Hitler having a Christian agenda, I think it would be a somewhat difficult to argument to make. It seems more likely his agenda was primarily political, rather than religious; and, as the leader of a totalitarian state, he would need to co-opt or overthrow Catholicism as a natural rival. That he went for co-option may indicate religious sensibilities, but it could equally indicate pragmatism.

BTW, I don't refer to the Catholic church in this context as a natural rival in the sense of 'good vs bad', but in the sense of a potentially rival power structure. They were in bed with Hitler from the word go
Post edited at 01:18
OP Jon Stewart 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Frank the Husky:

> You say there's a "significant chunk of Islam causing havoc around the world." which is quite some statement. How do you define "significant"?

I'm referring to the whole Islamist movement - every individual and organisation which seeks to replace current governance with Islamic political and legal systems. As you point out, this isn't ordinary people in rich or poor countries, but neither is it just a handful of nutters. The support for Islamist ideas seems widespread throughout much of the Muslim world according to polls (http://tinyurl.com/mehs46v) and in terms of impact, it's significant.
 Roadrunner5 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Tony Naylor:

Hitler was a 'great' politician.. He knew how to manipulate and use, be it the economy, religion, history...

In reply to Roadrunner5:

> The good is providing education where no one else funds it... Rural Africa..

It took me a while to realise you mean 'outside the UK', where you may have a point.

The situation in the UK isn't quite so clear cut, especially with the more recent faith schools, that are essentially 100% state funded, and have taken over non-faith schools, leaving no other local, non-faith school.
 Roadrunner5 06 Apr 2015
In reply to captain paranoia:

Well in the States they also provide better schools than the state does in really rough areas.

But in the UK I don't think you can criticize the quality of the students leaving church schools; they don't leave thinking a biblical flood created the worlds geology. I think you can in say the southern US, bible belt, but not in the UK.
KevinD 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> Really ??

yes. I have just realised who you are. I thought you had flounced?

> FFs the churches money is used for good and bad..

I was dealing with your specific claims about education and the UK.
The positive impact in the UK is often overstated since it ignores the failure of the church to meet the need and the heavy government funding from the 1830s onwards and then more direct involvement a few decades later.
If it hadnt been for the House of Lords overruling the commons in 1906 we would have a pretty much secular system by now. However religious lobbying on that and other occasions prevented that.

You also dont seem to have noticed some of the more nutty religious schools in the UK. Like the one which had to be told specifically it couldnt teach creationism or the fact the exam regulator had to come up with a rule that schools werent allowed to redact questions from exam papers that they disagreed with on religious grounds.

> The good is providing education where no one else funds it... Rural Africa..

strange I know several non religious charities who fund schools in Africa.

1
 Roadrunner5 06 Apr 2015
In reply to dissonance:
> yes. I have just realised who you are. I thought you had flounced?

> I was dealing with your specific claims about education and the UK.

> The positive impact in the UK is often overstated since it ignores the failure of the church to meet the need and the heavy government funding from the 1830s onwards and then more direct involvement a few decades later.

> If it hadnt been for the House of Lords overruling the commons in 1906 we would have a pretty much secular system by now. However religious lobbying on that and other occasions prevented that.

> You also dont seem to have noticed some of the more nutty religious schools in the UK. Like the one which had to be told specifically it couldnt teach creationism or the fact the exam regulator had to come up with a rule that schools werent allowed to redact questions from exam papers that they disagreed with on religious grounds.

> strange I know several non religious charities who fund schools in Africa.

Yeah I clearly said there would be no schools...

Right did I not say they would need overseeing????

It was a thread about global religion.. Don't go changing the goals because you spouted rubbish.
Post edited at 12:20
KevinD 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:
> It was a thread about global religion.. Don't go changing the goals because you spouted rubbish.

Good to see the new name hasnt stopped you sprouting dumb inanities and then hurling abuse when called on it.
Shame the flounce didnt stick.
I will leave you to your dribbling. Like Bruce there is no real point trying to discuss anything serious with you.
Post edited at 12:30
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> Don't go changing the goals because you spouted rubbish.

He didn't spout rubbish. He made a rational, argued comment about the situation in the UK, because, like me, he misinterpreted your post.

There's really no need to get quite so worked up when people disagree with you.
 Roadrunner5 06 Apr 2015
In reply to dissonance:

briliant.. as usual you waded in half way.. specific claims about the UK.. yeah I made them..

Jesus Sherlock, you worked it out.. I keep off running posts to try to hide and it and make no mention in my username...
 Roadrunner5 06 Apr 2015
In reply to captain paranoia:
It's not being worked up, it's saying dissonance speaks rubbish..

I didn't make specific claims about the UK. This isn't a UK centric thread, it's about global religion.

And I responded to you politely.. But you admitted you made a mistake.
Post edited at 12:58
 Roadrunner5 06 Apr 2015
In reply to dissonance:

> Good to see the new name hasnt stopped you sprouting dumb inanities and then hurling abuse when called on it.

How was I called on it?

You were wrong.. I came back when I saw the abuse you hurled at Gordon..
In reply to Roadrunner5:

Iain, every time I come on here these days, you seem to be in an argument with someone

Whether you're right or wrong, surely there are more productive ways to spend your time?

Best wishes
Gregor
 Roadrunner5 06 Apr 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

thanks.. dissonance and i just dont like each other.. he just never accepts he's wrong..
In reply to Roadrunner5:

When do any of us...?

Anyway, good to see you back

But just walk on by some of the threads...!

KevinD 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> thanks.. dissonance and i just dont like each other.. he just never accepts he's wrong..

I do however when trying to discuss things with you that is rarely the case.
You seem to make a thousand and one assumptions and then get upset when people dont guess the entire set.

I honestly didnt recognise you had returned, perhaps I should but then I am shite at that sort of thing. It was only once you went rabid again that the clue dropped.
So I will maintain my policy of ignoring you. Since its a waste of time on my part to try and discuss anything serious with you and it really doesnt seem to do your blood pressure any good.
 Roadrunner5 06 Apr 2015
In reply to dissonance:
yeah this thread was moving along nicely until you jumped in trying to re-define the original arguments.. saying what is right and what isn't.. like you did with Gordon.. lets ignore each other..

Went Rabid? I said you were talking rubbish... I think someone is over reacting again.. we just need your side kick now. I suspect you are stalking me, searching my posts, if you had read the thread you would know it wasn't constrained to the UK...
Post edited at 13:42
1
 krikoman 06 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:

> I think you have explained very well why religion is the problem

But without religion they'd be fighting over something else, hence Tutsi and Hutu example above.

It would be blue eyes against brown eyes or some other shit, it's not religion that's the problem but people!
 Rob Exile Ward 06 Apr 2015
In reply to krikoman:

I wouldn't deny that, but people of any religion contesting the arguments put by another religion are in effect saying: ' 'well, it's just stupid fighting people because they have different colour eyes! I mean, c'mon... Now, if you were to fight people because they have red hair, that makes perfect sense...'
In reply to Roadrunner5:
> we just need your side kick now

Am I supposed to be the sidekick? I'm no-one's sidekick. I don't stalk people, or argue for the sake of it, and rarely even notice or care who I'm replying to; I address the post, not the poster.

My suggestion about not getting worked was intended as advice; I tend to pay little attention to points that aren't argued rationally, and I'm sure others do too. Disagreeing with someone, or misinterpreting a rather terse, ambiguous comment isn't a personal attack.

This is not a personal attack, merely a comment, and I hope you don't get upset by it. You can choose to consider it or ignore; I'm not bothered either way.
Post edited at 16:15
 Roadrunner5 06 Apr 2015
In reply to captain paranoia:

No..
 lowersharpnose 06 Apr 2015
In reply to krikoman:

I can't see how the points made in the OP can be about anything else but religion. I agree that people can fight about other stuff, but in this, very large case, it has a religion at it heart.
 Roadrunner5 06 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:

But they are killing everyone..

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Who are killing everyone?
 deepsoup 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> ... he just never accepts he's wrong..

Extraordinary.
 Stone Idle 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

If Islam is not part of the solution then by definition it is part of the problem. It's part of the problem!
 Pete Pozman 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Tony Naylor:

Hitler was a christian? No. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a christian. Oscar Romero was a christian.
I'm not saying that everybody should be religious. I'm not even saying I am. If you don't believe in god go for it. That's a perfectly sound philosophical outlook, but where does it get us to assert that Nazism is a christian ideology?
On Islam: it was working with Muslims in Bradford, Batley and Huddersfield and being impressed by their honesty and kindness that made me find out about Islam. I can't forget the respect I felt for them because a bunch of raving losers have decided to live out Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty fantasies and call it Islam.
When everybody's finished having a good rant remember that muslims (and christians) are people first and foremost.
1
 Sir Chasm 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Pete Pozman:

The "no true Scotsman" argument, well it took a while.
 Sir Chasm 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> But they are killing everyone..

But "they", if you mean ISIS, are killing people because they aren't "proper" Muslims. You can claim religion isn't the cause but I think ISIS might disagree, still, what would they know compared to you?
 lowersharpnose 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Hitler was baptised and confirmed.

Did you know that?


 Coel Hellier 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Hitler was a christian? No. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a christian.

Or both? There can be more than one Christian at a time. Indeed, Christians come in lots of different varieties, Catholic and Protestant being one division.

> but where does it get us to assert that Nazism is a christian ideology?

Truth? Naziism was a mixture of Christianity with a creationist racial ideology plus nationalism.
1
 Roadrunner5 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm: here he is...

1
 krikoman 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Stone Idle:

> If Islam is not part of the solution then by definition it is part of the problem. It's part of the problem!

What a ludicrous statement!!

If Christianity isn't part of the solution, as far as I can see, so does that make it part of the problem too?

What about atheism, is that part of the problem too?
1
 krikoman 06 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:

> I can't see how the points made in the OP can be about anything else but religion. I agree that people can fight about other stuff, but in this, very large case, it has a religion at it heart.

But it isn't is it? It's not Islam that's the problem, in the same way it wasn't Catholicism and Protestantism that were the trouble in Ireland. It's what people do, that makes it become a religious problem, when in fact it's some people that don't like other people, it's got very little to do with religion, apart form the fact that the people taking part in it say it is.

1
 lowersharpnose 06 Apr 2015
In reply to krikoman:

Are you seriously suggesting about ISIS that "it's got very little to do with religion, apart form the fact that the people taking part in it say it is" ?
 Pete Pozman 06 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:

So was Stalin. (He almost went into the priesthood.)
So... if both Hitler and Stalin were baptised and confirmed then it proves that Nazism and Stalinism were both Christianity.
The list gets longer and the overwhelming burden of proof becomes heavier when you start thinking about the Branch Davidian sect at Waco; the Albigensian Crusade, The Spanish Inquisition; Robert Mugabe etc
(I'll bet Pol Pot was a Buddhist too.)
I think my point is that people are going to do wicked things and they are often going to try to justify what they do by finding a quote somewhere in a holy book (or by receiving some sort of divine revelation). Then again they might devise a theory of history that gives them permission to do exactly the same thing. (Science gives some people the moral wherewithal to experiment on live animals.)
Surely there's scope for a more intelligent discussion than just trying to make each other (religious types and rationalist boffins) look stupid.
(Please don't start explaining about fossils and Darwin and Noah's flood couldn't have happened etc.)
1
 Sir Chasm 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Pete Pozman:
"So... if both Hitler and Stalin were baptised and confirmed then it proves that Nazism and Stalinism were both Christianity."

No, but it suggests that their (nonexistent) atheism wasn't a cause - did you read the Mein Kampf quote above?
 Roadrunner5 06 Apr 2015
In reply to deepsoup:

> Extraordinary.

Well we can always just make up stats...
1
 lowersharpnose 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Pete Pozman:
Stalin was educated in a seminary. That was where he could get an education. He hated it. He hated priests and he hated privilege. He was not close to becoming a priest.

EDIT: References Isaac Deutscher (Stalin)& Bullock (Hitler & Stalin, Parallel Lives).
Post edited at 23:17
1
 Roadrunner5 06 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:
Of course religion is a factor..

Simple fact is we will never know, apart from Sir Chasm.. This is all hypothetical because we'll not (in our lifetime) lose a major religion..

But Sir Chasm is right..

Say tomorrow we find irrefutable proof if no God, the major faiths all give in, will ISIS and the other extremists just wheel out if town and become nursery teachers?



About all we do know is that people do kill in the name of anything.. Be it religion, animals, independence , tribes, race..

If ISIs did manage to control the whole of the Middle East I doubt the killings would stop.. Sir Chasm will know.. Even if everyone believed an almost identical style of Islam, I suspect it will be colour, tribes, something else..

But hopefully we'll never know..

No doubt a few do truly believe they are killing in Gods name, probably the suicide bombers, I think a lot are just evil bastards.

Aren't they supposedly running out of willing suicide bombers? Hence the drive to recruit from abroad?

Anyway LSN have you read Jared diamonds Guns Germs and Steel? Quite a good chapter about comparative studies of societies in Polynesia.. And that we can never know the answers to some of the bigger questions like this..

Unless you are Sir Chasm..
Post edited at 23:22
1
 lowersharpnose 06 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

I have read Guns, Germs and Steel. Can't remember the part you refer to. I will look it up.
 Roadrunner5 06 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:
It's late on, he just has a study on the role of geography, resources on how a society develops, we're they farmers or hunter gatherers, who were peaceful etc, who had layers of government. Basically that such an approach is our only way of answering some of these questions as we'll never be able to press rewind, change the starting parameters, press play and see if we get a different outcome..
1
KevinD 07 Apr 2015
In reply to krikoman:

> it's got very little to do with religion, apart form the fact that the people taking part in it say it is.

Which is a fairly major fact.
To take NI the issues have been perpetuated by religion. The later plantations were deliberately settled with people of a different branch as they were seen as more reliable and like to stay separate. Previous attempts failed to keep that separation with the Old English becoming assimilated over time.
It is possible it could have been managed without that religious difference but it certainly helped.

You then have the problem of most of the religious texts reflecting social norms from several hundred or thousands of years ago. Which becomes even more problematic if the religion takes those texts as dictated by god as opposed to inspired/interpreted.

1
 Roadrunner5 07 Apr 2015
In reply to dissonance:
> Which is a fairly major fact.

> To take NI the issues have been perpetuated by religion. The later plantations were deliberately settled with people of a different branch as they were seen as more reliable and like to stay separate. Previous attempts failed to keep that separation with the Old English becoming assimilated over time.

> It is possible it could have been managed without that religious difference but it certainly helped.

> You then have the problem of most of the religious texts reflecting social norms from several hundred or thousands of years ago. Which becomes even more problematic if the religion takes those texts as dictated by god as opposed to inspired/interpreted.

All very definite..

There were Protestant Irish Nationalists.. Obviously far fewer.. So I doubt it could have been managed. Again we will never know.
Post edited at 02:04
1
 Pete Pozman 07 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:

Stalin hated a lot of things didn't he.
I think my original point was that although he was brought up a nominal Christian it is unreasonable to then attribute Christian values or beliefs to his subsequent actions.
As for Hitler's Nazi belief system. I dare say there are right wing thugs around today who have a Holy Grail tattooed on the inside of their mouth, but I very much doubt that the beliefs they shout about are to be found in the Holy Gospels.
Evil people dress their evil in religious or scientific clothing to justify what they do; mainly to themselves. It's disappointing to find I'm racked on the same shelf as Hitler because I have a notion of divine love and peace on Earth. According to a sentimental Nazi song of the time Adolf Hitler's favourite flower was the edelweiss. This does not taint botany by association. Nor are artists fascists because Hitler could draw a bit.
1
 wercat 07 Apr 2015
In reply to Pete Pozman:
In agreement, but, whimsically, re artists ..

I'm reminded by your comment of the architect brought back to Gateshead to see the families living in the concrete squalor he'd designed in the 60s. The film showed him saying "But it's Art!!! These people should be grateful to be living in what is a work of Art!".
Post edited at 14:04
 lowersharpnose 07 Apr 2015
In reply to Pete Pozman:

But, the holy books do advocate genocide, slavery, barbaric punishments and a whole raft of evil.
 Pete Pozman 07 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:

Not the bits I read. Practically the last thing Jesus said was " Love one another as I have loved you."
" Blesssed are the peacemakers..." etc. Those are the bits I believe in.
OK I'm cherry picking. But I went to catholic schools a long time ago and nobody ever told me to commit genocide, enslave people or subject them to any sort of punishment.
I was taught to try to understand how circumstances may affect a person's attitude and actions. I was taught never to write anyone off; including myself. I was taught that the Bible is a collection of myths and legends common to the whole of the ancient middle east and from which at least three great religious and cultural traditions derive. I'm probably more upset by religious fundamentalism than many atheists because it gives religion a bad name.
1
 Roadrunner5 07 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:

> But, the holy books do advocate genocide, slavery, barbaric punishments and a whole raft of evil.

The Old Testament is a bit angry I'll give you that.. God had a temper but the New is much softer and forgiving.
 wercat 07 Apr 2015
In reply to Pete Pozman:
I had a similar schooling in the C of E in the 60s - our headmaster was a priest and maths teacher had a position in the Cathedral Choir. We were taught Science properly, as well as Scripture, Latin etc. We learned binary in maths it being the new age of computers and the headmaster,the priest, was the one who told us that we had a small tailbone and that we had descended from monkeys - surprised a few of us! We learned that no-one took the Old Testament literally, though where the new fundamentalism came from I don't know. We didn't see a conflict between science and religion as religion covered a different sphere altogether.


In some ways those seem like more enlightened days, obviously not others, in hindsight.
Post edited at 16:39
 Pete Pozman 07 Apr 2015
In reply to wercat:

Our geography teacher used to kneel down and pray at the beginning of every lesson. Then he'd get up and tell us all about plate tectonics and even though it could only have happened before the Garden of Eden (sic) there was no conflict of ideas.

 Roadrunner5 07 Apr 2015
In reply to wercat:
> . We didn't see a conflict between science and religion as religion covered a different sphere altogether.

> In some ways those seem like more enlightened days, obviously not others, in hindsight.

This was SJ Gould's thinking 'Science is the Aging of Rocks, Religion is the Rock of Ages'..

Its only a few areas, fundamentalists who really do take it as word, I was listening to a Christian Radio show the other day and it had a foreign policy section and they were discussing Israel an Palestine. In all seriousness they were talking about the impact regions instability would have on the Rapture... and then quoting the bible for why Israel should be the land of the Jews..
Post edited at 17:00
1
 Thrudge 07 Apr 2015
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Hitler was a christian? No.

Hitler was a Christian. Yes. You don't get to decide who is Christian and who isn't. And neither do I. The evidence does. And the evidence says Hitler was Christian - by birth, by upbringing, by self declaration, by inclination, and by practice (although, as I pointed out above, some of the practice could - in his later years - as easily be accounted pragmatism as it could piety).

If you're a Christian, I can see how being in the same camp as Hitler would be an offense to your moral sensibilities - but you being a million miles from Hitler in moral terms does not exclude him from your club. It merely makes him an obnoxious member of that club.


> where does it get us to assert that Nazism is a christian ideology?

I didn't assert it (in fact, I explicitly doubted it) and I don't see anyone else asserting it. What I did do was to deny Christian apologists the means to trot out the old lie of 'Hitler was an atheist' and follow it up with, 'therefore atheism is bad, just look at this big scary example'. Hitler was a Christian.

Nazism was a primarily political ideology with very strong religious undertones. Not a primarily religious ideology like, say, ISIS.

On a related point, it's worth noting that the religious basis of Nazism was Catholicism mixed with a bit of Norse mythology, in an attempt to synthesize a new religion. And Nazism was heavily propped up by the Catholic church. The first pact Hitler made on coming to power was with the Catholic church: the Reichskonkordat. His birthday was celebrated in German churches by Papal decree. Pope Pius XII was aware of the death camps and turned a blind eye. Lots and lots of involvement of mainstream Christianity.

I realise that the preceding paragraph does not bear directly on your question of 'Hitler - was he or wasn't he?' but I do think it's worth bearing in mind as in indicator of how the regime (as opposed to the individual) operated.
 wercat 07 Apr 2015
In reply to Tony Naylor:

At the same time those who profess "to be Christian" as,say, Tony Blair, but who don't live by the tenets of Christianity cannot claim to be Christians. ("The Pharisees" type referred to in the Gospels. By that definition Hitler's Christianity is indeed questionable whatever his "profession". Also your same argument re "choice" prevents the Nazi assertion of some kind of Christian basis from having a true basis in Christianity.

KevinD 07 Apr 2015
In reply to wercat:

> At the same time those who profess "to be Christian" as,say, Tony Blair, but who don't live by the tenets of Christianity cannot claim to be Christians.

Who decides the tenets of Christianity? Is there a clear list in the bible?

> By that definition Hitler's Christianity is indeed questionable whatever his "profession".

Selective definitions will manage that. However it doesnt deal with the issue that, regardless of his personal beliefs, his use of Christianity helped gain votes regardless of his other actions.
 Roadrunner5 07 Apr 2015
In reply to Tony Naylor:
Not sure 'heavily' is right..

It's easy to be critical but the church was in Nazi territory during most of the war. It couldn't come out and condemn the nazis because it also feared for itself and it's followers..


In reply to wercat:

> At the same time those who profess "to be Christian" as,say, Tony Blair, but who don't live by the tenets of Christianity cannot claim to be Christians.

As sir chasm pointed out, this is the no true Scotsman fallacy.

There is no universally agreed list of such tenets. Religions have been falling out with themselves never mind each other for millennia for this very reason.
 Roadrunner5 07 Apr 2015
In reply to Tony Naylor:

From the wiki page on nazis and Catholic Church during the war..

"Pius XII became Pope on the eve of war and lobbied world leaders to prevent the outbreak of conflict. His first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus, called the invasion of Poland an "hour of darkness". He affirmed the policy of Vatican neutrality, but maintained links to the German Resistance. Despite being the only world leader to publicly and specifically denounce Nazi crimes against Jews in his 1942 Christmas Addres, controversy surrounding his apparent reluctance to speak frequently and in even more explicit terms about Nazi crimes continues.[1] He used diplomacy to aid war victims, lobbied for peace, shared intelligence with the Allies, and employed Vatican Radio and other media to speak out against atrocities like race murders. In Mystici corporis Christi (1943) he denounced the murder of the handicapped. A denunciation from German bishops of the murder of the "innocent and defenceless", including "people of a foreign race or descent", followed.[2]"

You also fail to mention the later statement the Vatican smuggled into Germany in the late 1930's warning about the Reich.. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_brennender_Sorge

Maybe they could have done more but they weren't heavily supporting the nazis..
 john arran 07 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> It's easy to be critical but the church was in Nazi territory during most of the war. It couldn't come out and condemn the nazis because it also feared for itself and its followers..

Admittedly my Catholic indoctrination is now very much historical but from my understanding the example of Jesus Christ would suggest the fear of persecution to be no impediment to the determination to do will of God. Are you therefore suggesting that the pope at the time considered Hitler to be a messenger from God?
 Thrudge 07 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:
> Maybe they could have done more but they weren't heavily supporting the nazis..

I suppose it depends on how you define support. If the leader of one of the largest religions ever to exist, a religion that spans continents and includes many political and miliray leaders as its members, turns a blind eye to the Holocaust, is that support? Or indifference? Or merely political acumen?

"Throughout the Holocaust, Pius XII was consistently besieged with pleas for help on behalf of the Jews.

In the spring of 1940, the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Isaac Herzog, asked the papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Luigi Maglione to intercede to keep Jews in Spain from being deported to Germany. He later made a similar request for Jews in Lithuania. The papacy did nothing.(5)

Within the Pope's own church, Cardinal Theodor Innitzer of Vienna told Pius XII about Jewish deportations in 1941. In 1942, the Slovakian charge d'affaires, a position under the supervision of the Pope, reported to Rome that Slovakian Jews were being systematically deported and sent to death camps.(6)

In October 1941, the Assistant Chief of the U.S. delegation to the Vatican, Harold Tittman, asked the Pope to condemn the atrocities. The response came that the Holy See wanted to remain "neutral," and that condemning the atrocities would have a negative influence on Catholics in German-held lands.(7)

In late August 1942, after more than 200,000 Ukrainian Jews had been killed, Ukrainian Metropolitan Andrej Septyckyj wrote a long letter to the Pope, referring to the German government as a regime of terror and corruption, more diabolical than that of the Bolsheviks. The Pope replied by quoting verses from Psalms and advising Septyckyj to "bear adversity with serene patience."(8)"
- http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html

For me, though, this is by the by. My main aim was to counter the oft-repeated "Hitler was an atheist". He wasn't and I think I've provided enough evidence to start anyone off in their own investigations in that direction.

On the subsidiary question of who is a Christian and who isn't, there is much more fun to be had. We've just heard a claim that Tony Blair is not a Christian. I think the Catholic church, who not too long ago welcomed him into its arms, would beg to differ. They might squirm if questioned about some of his behaviour, but they don't appear to be anywhere near excommunicating him. He says he's a Catholic, the Catholic church accepts him as a Catholic, he attends services.... he's a Catholic.

More generally, who gets to decide who is a '*true* Christian' (or Muslim, come that)? Surely the only authorities are the respective foundational texts, the holy books? The books that their believers have insisted again and again for thousands of years are the Word of God. Surely these these carry more weight than any puffed up modern prelate, or the agitated fleas on forums, such as you and I?

What do the texts say? They say that we should be calm and thoughtful, considerate and wise, cautious and compassionate, loving and charitable. They say we should be vengeful and violent, intolerant and murderous, inquisitorial and relentless, we should stone and beat and torture and burn our neighbor if he does not believe as we do, and our own family if they stray from the path we follow. So who is the 'true' follower and who is not?




 Pete Pozman 07 Apr 2015
In reply to Tony Naylor:

Time for a move...
 wercat 07 Apr 2015
In reply to Tony Naylor:

"They say that we should be calm and thoughtful, considerate and wise, cautious and compassionate, loving and charitable" This is essentially the christian teaching that TB and Ireceived at the same school a couple of years or so apart. The second half is familiar from Old Testament texts but Christianity is the essence of what is taught in the New Testament.

I cannot reconcile TBs actions with anything we were taught at the same school
 Thrudge 07 Apr 2015
In reply to wercat:

>The second half is familiar from Old Testament texts but Christianity is the essence of what is taught in the New Testament.

Well, I think that raises two questions:

1) Who are we to put aside the Word of God as embodied in the OT. And if we are going to put it aside, does it mean that it wasn't the Word of God after all?

2) The NT isn't exactly all love and peace. One of it's central messages is that you do as your God bids you or you'll burn in Hell forever. Hitchens put it rather pungently: "It's not until we get to gentle Jesus, meek and mild, that the idea of eternal torture for minor transgressions is introduced". (Quote from memory, so it may not be strictly accurate, but it's close).

Then there's the NT view of slavery:

"The New Testament makes no condemnation of slavery and does no more than admonish slaves to be obedient and their masters not to be unfair." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible

There's plenty more in the NT that's reprehensible besides the torture in Hell and the slavery, but you get the gist.

BTW, I'm not looking to turn this thread into a good old bout of Christian bashing - what I'm aiming at, in a rather round about way, is two things:

1) To respond to the OPs question of *why* ISIS do some of the terrible things they do. (My contention is that they use religion as a justification for and enabler of temporal power. And that all religions tend to do this).

2) To point out that the good people who say 'religion is about being good' are no more correct than those who say it's about chopping off heads, because both views are justifiable with reference to the foundational texts.

And I suppose I've got a third, subsidiary, aim which is to bat away the idea that "Hitler was atheist, so atheism is bad - look where it leads!"
 Roadrunner5 07 Apr 2015
In reply to Tony Naylor:
Has anyone said that regarding Atheists?

I took that as bad people do bad shit whether there is religion there or not .. Not that being atheists led them to doing bad shit.

Regarding the NTs stance on slaves, that was the times, it's like criticizing Churchill for being racist.. People were then.. People thought slavery was right. They thought this for a good 1800 years after Jesus..

We'll agree to disagree regarding the church and hitler anyway as we"ll totally derail the thread and there was one on that subject recently.
1
 krikoman 08 Apr 2015
In reply to Tony Naylor:

> In the spring of 1940, the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Isaac Herzog, asked the papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Luigi Maglione to intercede to keep Jews in Spain from being deported to Germany. He later made a similar request for Jews in Lithuania. The papacy did nothing.(5)

Aren't the Israeli government and it's supporters always telling us the Palestine is a fictional place that never existed as a state?
1
 Mike Highbury 08 Apr 2015
In reply to krikoman:

> Aren't the Israeli government and it's supporters always telling us the Palestine is a fictional place that never existed as a state?

No.
 winhill 08 Apr 2015
In reply to wercat:

> "probability is that even a very rare event has happened an infinite amount of times. "

> what, like a God coming into existence and creating other universes?

Yes, precisely.

In a closed system, a finite world, a universe, as Occam found, there is a certain attractiveness to the monotheism posited by Bronze Age desert Judaism.

This is still seen today as conversations about god are predominated by a fixation with a singular entity.

However if the Infiniverse begat god then the Subtle Knife cuts in a different direction. An infiniverse that can create an infinite amount of gods is much less complex than one that can only create one. Or rather an infiniverse than can create an infinite amount of supernatural entities, a subset of which have properties that align with our projections of which predicates allow us to label them Gods, is less complex than an infiniverse that is limited to just creating one.

Similarly an entity that transcends an infiniverse is vastly more complex than one that transcends a universe.
 malk 08 Apr 2015
In reply to Tony Naylor: why do cops do some of the terrible things they do?
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/07/south-carolina-police-office...


1
 Sir Chasm 08 Apr 2015
In reply to malk:

In the US there's a good chance they're religious, so that's probably why.
1
 Roadrunner5 08 Apr 2015
In reply to malk:
At least he's been charged with murder. It's going to be very hard to justify this one. 8 shots at someone running away.. And caught on camera.


1
 TobyA 08 Apr 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> In the US there's a good chance they're religious, so that's probably why.

Except the guy (also in one of the Carolinas?) who described himself as a "new atheist" who is now facing the death penalty for murdering the three Muslim family members over possibly a parking spot or possibly a hatred of religious people.
1
 Sir Chasm 08 Apr 2015
In reply to TobyA:

Except the question was about the police (I wouldn't waste too much time on this).
 lowersharpnose 08 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

Regarding the NTs stance on slaves, that was the times

You and loads of other christians are happy to ditch the bits of text you deem to be wrong.

This editing appears much harder for Muslims to do with their texts. What is written is the word of god and is true and cannot be changed.

That is a big problem. Maybe the big problem.
 Roadrunner5 08 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:
We all do that..

How many UK laws do we ignore as they are out if date?

Don't we still have to do so many hours archery practice on the village green?
 Sir Chasm 08 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:


> Don't we still have to do so many hours archery practice on the village green?

None in the UK http://archery.mysaga.net/archlaws.html I don't know about your country.
 Roadrunner5 08 Apr 2015
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Here's some.. I thought there was one about shooting a Welshman across the dee..

http://britainexplorer.com/feature-articles/item/170-curious-british-laws



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568475/Ten-stupidest-laws-are-named...
Post edited at 14:26
 Sir Chasm 08 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

I gave up after finding the first 2 on the telegraph list are plain wrong (google the law commission legal oddities, there are some strange ones).
 lowersharpnose 08 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

That Telegraph list is mostly fabrication.

Anyway the point is that Christians are mostly happy to reject/edit a load of their sacred text as junk.

Whereas it appears that amongst Muslims, far few are prepared to reject/edit portions of their sacred text.

 Roadrunner5 08 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:
I think it's interpretation/translation isn't it?

I'm just saying we all pick and chose, that's what common sense is.

Maybe but I think we are talking about a slim tip of a huge pyramid.


KevinD 08 Apr 2015
In reply to lowersharpnose:

> Whereas it appears that amongst Muslims, far few are prepared to reject/edit portions of their sacred text.

It is more difficult since for the Quran that is specifically said to have dictated by god. The Hadith has a more ambiguous status.
Whereas for christianity its more god inspired, plus written over a far longer time, and hence more flexibility. Although of course some take it more literally than others.
 MikeTS 08 Apr 2015
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> Yet some of the most murderous regimes of recent history have been atheist...

The greatest murderers have been genghis khan, Mao, Stalin and pol pot. N
1
 mbh 08 Apr 2015
In reply to dissonance:

if that is true, that the Quran is regarded as bein gthe immutable word of God, while the bible is thought of as God's word as interpreted by people of a given time, then Islam does have a problem, if indeed it does talk of lopping off hands, killing unbelievers and so on.

Leaders, religious or otherwise, set the tone, and where that tone encourages depravity, depravity generally follows.
 malk 08 Apr 2015
In reply to mbh:

and a shooting of an unarmed man in the back by a cop is one result..
1
 Roadrunner5 08 Apr 2015
In reply to malk:
How?

This murder seems like the typical police over reaction, racism and above the law mentality.. Not sure it's religion? Or leaders..


Post edited at 16:11
1
 off-duty 08 Apr 2015
In reply to malk:

> why do cops do some of the terrible things they do?


A bit left field? Surely a topic for a separate thread - unless there is some religious element that I am unaware of.

Good example of stereotyping a group by the actions of an individual though, so well done there, though I am not sure that was your intention.
In reply to off-duty:

> A bit left field? Surely a topic for a separate thread - unless there is some religious element that I am unaware of.

Evening all, Isn't the official religion of the Babylon Freemasonry?


1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...