Liverpool FC need to return to the good old days when the players were born and bred locally. Dalglish, Keegan, McDermott, Kennedy, Lawrenson, Hansen, Grobelaar, Toshack, Molby ........ or were they just the Chelsea of the 70's buying the best talent available in the market?
José's claim is perfecty right.
Never ever have I've seen folks blowing up houses, condemning gay people and deny women their claim to just be able to live their lives in whatever way they want, in other words, not dismiss their rights to live their lives in peace and allow them to have a sexual life of their own - in name of atheism. NEVER.
My major question to so-called religious people: why care about us 'heretics' so much? Are you frightened, or what? Why just not allow us disbelievers to live our lives like we do, in peace, without any bothering us about a possible afterlife, which we don't believe in? What's your bother, to start with?
From what I understand from my Christian friends, part of the Christian faith is to propagate it and "save" non-believers from the terrifying prospect of spending all of eternity in hell. They preach and sometimes harrass out of "love". Pretty sure this was what Aloimeh alluded to in this thread too.
Thankfully I've never been harrassed by zealots to go to church or whatever. I admit I get irritated when a random Christian hands me a Christianity flyer on the streets, but I either take it and then throw it away after some suitable distance or politely decline. Singapore isn't the kind of country where you can get away with forcing your beliefs down another person's throat. (Not that it's always a good thing though.)
__________________
"But certain interests of particular people are so important that it would be wrong - morally wrong - for the community to sacrifice those interests just to secure an overall benefit. Political rights mark off and protect these particularly important interests. A political right, we may say, is a trump over the kind of trade-off argument that normally justifies political action." - Ronald Dworkin (RIP)
José's claim is perfecty right.
Never ever have I've seen folks blowing up houses, condemning gay people and deny women their claim to just be able to live their lives in whatever way they want, in other words, not dismiss their rights to live their lives in peace and allow them to have a sexual life of their own - in name of atheism. NEVER.
I don't think you're being totally fair here, Karin.
Atheists will use other motives to argue with, fight & hurt people. So, if religion isn't a motive, they will find and have found other reasons to hurt others because it's human nature..
Throughout history, a lot of people have been hurt and killed in the name of a god or gods, yes. IMO, that's because religion is one of the easiest methods to control people and have power over them. However, it's never been the only cause of misery brought on by humans. Atheists have and will find other reasons to hurt others just because it's in human nature.
Atheists will not blow up houses in the name of god but some of them will hurt other people badly for other reasons.
Besides, the people going from door to door to talk about Jehovah/god/... are peaceful people who will accept it quickly enough if you make it clear that you're not interested. I don't know what sort of experience you have had with them but I don't quite see your point with them (other than waking you up too early on a Sunday morning perhaps. )
It's no worse than saying no to a man or woman ringing your doorbell to try and sell you an insurance policy.
I saw this movie on tv recently:
God on Trial.
Spellbinding and I'm sure many in here would find that movie fascinating.
Last edited by Castafiore : 11-27-2011 at 10:38 AM.
Location: Sleeping in the house of my latest jumpoff.
Posts: 34,909
Re: "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible
IDGAF who is religious and who isn't, but the reality is, too many religious types, religious fundamentalists, are uneducated on real world matters, are extremely one-track minded, and basing your entire existence on a 2000+ year old book is incredibly naive, at the very least.
The Bible is fucking old. It's basically an ancient fable. So therefore, there will be ridiculous things within in for that reason.
The most important thing to note is that The Bible was written by a MAN and is, therefore, flawed like any human creation. It's not a magical book given to us by a wizard that created Earth 6000 years ago with infallible laws and guidelines to follow. The sooner religious fanatics accept it, the better it would be for the world.
__________________
20-10
Honestly banned Thanks mods, for taking out the trash
Expand, please.
You'll excuse me for not taking Indiana Jones as a source of authority.
My liking Pink Floyd music, Hitchcock's films, Rod Laver's style is subjective truth. No scientific theory can describe it.
An artist's creativity is subjective truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Har-Tru
How? How is it true?
I've explained it in the previous post. Reason is not everything in life. So thinking it is is thinking it's sacred.
By the way, in the French language, the 'supernatural' does not appear in the definition of 'superstition'. Hence if your post was corrected. The English language is Newspeak-like (meaning reduction). Wouldn't surprise me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunset of Age
I just cannot stop at wonder at what seems so scary about certain folks being atheist - aka a non-believer in any supernatural force - to start with.
I've always implied here that what was frightening to me was the belief that everything in life was rational and that irrationality should be wiped off (which means Art, Freedom, Love - or Hate-, Creativity, Beauty, etc.). Why should such blind faith in Science deserve such respect after all the harm done.
Some of these visionaries were deist - but anti-Christian - like Robespierre, for example.
If I were to choose between a Deist with such fanatical belief in Science and an atheist "derationalist" (like Nietzsche), I'll choose the latter without the shadow of a doubt, even if they're inconsistent. I haven't seen much of that on this thread.
By the way, it seems that atheist are more frightened than believers on this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clydey
Stalin's Russia was a form of state worship. It had zero to do with atheism. Stalin was an atheist, but his actions had about as much to do with him having a moustache, as has been pointed out many times.
I know. There's always a bypass anyway. While for the reverse thing, there's none, despite the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clydey
You need to brush up on your history. Read up on the inquisition.
Inquisition never reached France. And you'd better read my whole alinea instead of singling out every sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clydey
Who said scientists invented freedom?
I was sure the verb 'invent' would've been the problem. You link Science with Freedom, do you? I'm telling you that it's nonsensical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunset of Age
Yep, by a total overzealous religious IDIOT.
Sigh, once again, whence did ever an atheist do the likewise?
My liking Pink Floyd music, Hitchcock's films, Rod Laver's style is subjective truth. No scientific theory can describe it.
An artist's creativity is subjective truth.
I see what you mean. Those might be subjective, but they are true and are facts. They are both in accordance to reality and are the case (using OED's definitions of truth and fact).
In any case, what does this have to do with matters like the existence of God? The truth of a particular theological claim is of necessity objective. It cannot depend on the mind for its validity. Either there is a God or there isn't a God.
This is very often misused by many believers in today's Western societies. "It is my belief, it's just what I feel and have faith in...", "I'm not claiming it to be the universal truth, it's just my personal faith". Well nevermind that, we are still faced with an empirical claim. Either your beliefs are true or they are false.
Quote:
I've explained it in the previous post. Reason is not everything in life. So thinking it is is thinking it's sacred.
By the way, in the French language, the 'supernatural' does not appear in the definition of 'superstition'. Hence if your post was corrected. The English language is Newspeak-like (meaning reduction). Wouldn't surprise me.
Who said reason is everything in life?
Reason is the way to acquire knowledge and understanding through logical thinking. Any empirical truth can be verifiable through reason.
Quote:
I've always implied here that what was frightening to me was the belief that everything in life was rational and that irrationality should be wiped off (which means Art, Freedom, Love - or Hate-, Creativity, Beauty, etc.). Why should such blind faith in Science deserve such respect after all the harm done.
Who said everything in life is rational?
What do you mean by "all the harm done"? What damage has science done to mankind?
Quote:
By the way, it seems that atheist are more frightened than believers on this thread.
Frightened of what?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by philosophicalarf
Armstrong says in-competition testing will never catch anyone, only out-of-competition testing and the blood passport can.
Tennis has no blood passport system, and does basically no out of competition testing.
The methods and drugs used by Armstrong in 1999 would work in tennis right now, with zero chance of being caught (not slightly surprising to anyone familiar with the topic, btw).
I've always implied here that what was frightening to me was the belief that everything in life was rational and that irrationality should be wiped off (which means Art, Freedom, Love - or Hate-, Creativity, Beauty, etc.). Why should such blind faith in Science deserve such respect after all the harm done.
And no harm has ever been done by a blind faith in religion?
As an atheist, I believe that things like art, freedom, love and hate, creativity and beauty are all deeply human. They cannot be wiped away or extinguished because they're all part of what we are. The only difference is that I don't think any of it requires the license or presence of any god.
Quote:
By the way, it seems that atheist are more frightened than believers on this thread.
That's a matter of perspective, I guess.
Quote:
Inquisition never reached France.
That's not true. Take the wiping out of Catharism. In the south of France there were widespread inquisition trials.
Quote:
I was sure the verb 'invent' would've been the problem. You link Science with Freedom, do you? I'm telling you that it's nonsensical.
How is that nonsensical? If we take the Catholic church as an example, without science the church would define how we have to see the world, what we know about it and which books we're allowed to read - the way it did for centuries. Do you call that freedom?
Quote:
Between 1917 and 1991 in Russia, for starter.
You seem to think of atheism as the main goal or characteristic of socialism and communism. I'd say that's not the case and I'll repeat my previous statement about people having done (and still doing) horrible things both in the name of religion and ideologies that don't include the belief in any god.
Why should such blind faith in Science deserve such respect after all the harm done.
This is an interesting question because first, you’ve capitalized science and I’m not sure if that is intentional, and if it is intentional, I’m not sure what the intention was or means. Second, it’s interesting to posit that someone has blind faith in science (no cap) when the whole thrust of the scientific method is to question everything and demand proof of everything. Every scientific proof is subject to question and revision. This is a process that goes on continually.
In the United States in the last 10 to 20 years, it seems to have become fashionable to equate Science and Religion (caps intentional.) This seems to me to undermine both concepts. Certainly, it seems to put the two at odds, and that is the most detrimental of all. A serious scientist should be able to have a religious belief as well as faith in the efficacy of the scientific method just as one can have faith in religion as faith in the utility of the combustion engine. They aren’t at odds with one another because they aren’t attempting to explain or address the same things.
This is an interesting question because first, you’ve capitalized science and I’m not sure if that is intentional, and if it is intentional, I’m not sure what the intention was or means. Second, it’s interesting to posit that someone has blind faith in science (no cap) when the whole thrust of the scientific method is to question everything and demand proof of everything. Every scientific proof is subject to question and revision. This is a process that goes on continually.
In the United States in the last 10 to 20 years, it seems to have become fashionable to equate Science and Religion (caps intentional.) This seems to me to undermine both concepts. Certainly, it seems to put the two at odds, and that is the most detrimental of all. A serious scientist should be able to have a religious belief as well as faith in the efficacy of the scientific method just as one can have faith in religion as faith in the utility of the combustion engine. They aren’t at odds with one another because they aren’t attempting to explain or address the same things.
But they are.
As I've said before in this thread, we simply have to look at the origin of the universe. Both religion and science are trying to explain that thing. Science and religion do clash.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by philosophicalarf
Armstrong says in-competition testing will never catch anyone, only out-of-competition testing and the blood passport can.
Tennis has no blood passport system, and does basically no out of competition testing.
The methods and drugs used by Armstrong in 1999 would work in tennis right now, with zero chance of being caught (not slightly surprising to anyone familiar with the topic, btw).
As I've said before in this thread, we simply have to look at the origin of the universe. Both religion and science are trying to explain that thing. Science and religion do clash.
I am not a religious person, but I know that there are many scientists who have a belief in God. Having a belief in God does not mean you have to have faith in a creation myth or in the literal meaning of sacred scriptures of any particular faith.
The Religious Debate Thread : "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible etc
Re: "Misogynistic" passages in the Bible
Into music of the PROG-Dorky-kind? visit 
20-10
Thanks mods, for taking out the trash 
)
Frightened of what?
