Religion. Discuss ( or should that be argue )

Another example. All muslims are taught that everyone possesses two angels.

If that's true, the muslims ripped off the Dæmon from the Northern Light book.

bad bad musey.

If you're being serious here goes...

Simply put the argument runs along these lines:

• Jews are a race.
  
• They maintain their 'race' through selective breeding.
  
• Different races have different characteristics.
  
• The characteristics that Jewish people possess are negative / inferior.
  
  

If you follow this line of Anti-S, there are two main issues;

1. If Jewish people mix with non-Jews then it will have a negative impact on non-Jews via a supposed infection of the non-Jewish bloodline. However, people also tend to extend this to socially mixing, which isn't logical but follows the idea/theme of infection.

2. The selective/internal breeding makes it all the more necessary for non-Jews to establish a strong racial identity, in the same way Jews do.

This whole view is born out of pseudo-Darwinism-ish logic. It is premised first and foremost on the idea that Jews are in themselves a separate race. I think an Isrealie (history?) academic has recently done a very thorough study discrediting the idea of a 'Jewish Race' or even cognisant lineage stretching back to biblical times (the last bit has upset quite a few Isrealie politicians for obvious reason).

The point about it being different from earlier anti-S is that it is concerned specifically with race and *not *religion.

It seems fucking ridiculous to have to put this, but I will for the sake of morons:
**
I AM NOT AN ANTI-SEMITE. I AM EXPLAINING THE ARGUMENT FOR SOMEONE WHO SEEMED TO EXPRESS AN INTEREST**

That argument does not have a basis in science. That argument has a basis in prejudice which is justified by a pseudo-scientific explanation. I appreciate that what you originally wrote was just clumsy, and you're not really an anti-semite, but please be a bit more careful with what you're saying. And I might be extrapolating a bit much here but this is one of the things I think is often a problem with those who talk about how 'spirituality' is ok but 'religion' isnt.

Incidentally, back in the early 20th century, Eugenics was nothing like the dirty word it was post WW2. Most intellectuals believed it would be used by governments without a murmur.

Almac68 on ignore

lolz

If that's true, the muslims ripped off the Dæmon from the Northern Light book.

bad bad musey.

i've been scobled... lol x

last year a planning request was submitted in my neighbourhood to erect a community eruv. this received widespread criticism from what is a very diverse community.. There is one in Golders Green and others planned around the country

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv[/ame]

http://www.thejc.com/community/community-life/25996/st-john%E2%80%99s-wood-next-line-eruv

if permitted would be outside my house.. i have nothing against Jews, they worship or their practice in general, but can not understand why they insist on living in a ghetto environment to practise a rule only to break it with such a scheme..

Can you explain to someone (me!) who has never seen (or otherwise experienced) an 'angel' what form they take or what they do ?

(just trying to get an idea of quite what you mean by the idea that there are 'angels' amongst us doing 'god's work')

If look at this picture you can see one

it's very small the reflection is just visible in the window above the Hotel sign.

And there I was thinking the angel was the chap stood on Mama T's shoulder...

That photo brings a lump to my throat and a tear to my eye. Divine hot breath down the back of my neck. Finally, I believe. I too can see ‘it’. Just up there – look...he’s waving at me, beckoning; 'don’t be afraid child, the rates in here are really quite reasonable'.

is tynan an angel? i'd never saw that one coming.. lol

That argument does not have a basis in science. That argument has a basis in prejudice which is justified by a pseudo-scientific explanation. I appreciate that what you originally wrote was just clumsy, and you're not really an anti-semite, but please be a bit more careful with what you're saying.....

I don't want to sound arsey but the section you are referring to was not clumsy on that point, it was brief.

**…responding to the comparison of ancient religious texts to Mein Kampf… **

…

Is it [Mein Kampf] based on thousands of years of studying and teaching? IMO it is not. It follows a modern anti-Semitic line that was born out of science, as opposed to traditional anti-Semitism that stems from religion...

There is a widely accepted distinction between traditional and modern anti-S rhetoric. I did not say there is a scientific explanation or justification for anti-S. I was saying that the shift in discourse stems from a scientific rationalization rather than religious. In their simplest terms they are the same.

I was also making the un-subtle point that anything - religion, science or politics – can provide a framework for hate. Many of the negative attributes people associate with religion – *“religion is shit, look at how many people have died because of it…etc…etc…”** - can be levied at any number of things, and the ‘causes’ that people refer to are more to do with how individuals decide to categorize and classify.

*personally this statement really fucks me off, because it completely ignores the fact that the last century has seen a stupidly large number of deaths as a result of non-religious philosophies. It’s basically a stupid persons version of Stephen Fry’s argument – which is clearly brilliant. And also if you listen to Fry's closing words, he actually makes the point that the RC+ *could *be a force for good.

Angels appear in christian and islamic beliefs, you are familiar with the Archangel Gabriel?

well he is considered to be the the most important, and the only one who gets closest to God. His appearance to the Virgin Mary (Annunication) and Prophet Mohammed (revealing the words of Allah) which in turn became the Qu'ran are just two examples. I don't confess to seeing angels, i don't need to prove their existence, but i understand their purpose.. as celestial beings here to guide us, as messengers of God.

Another example. All muslims are taught that everyone possesses two angels. one on each shoulder. throughout there lives muslims are expected to greet them, acknowledge them, respect them, these angels never judge only observe and record each deed, one book for good, one for bad. when muslims die, these books are compared, and then that muslim is judged in their life to whether they go to cycling heaven or scrapheap hell.

I never feel alone, never truly alone, even if i haven't seen anyone all day, that inner peace is what keeps me strong. every challenge i face i do without fear. Every failure and success, is a test or a lesson, and some have been monumental. in fact humility is a powerful asset.

This is why I have belief. I don't confess to being muslim but i do understand how its teachings work. There is a greater love out there, you use your heart to find it.

Cheers for the reply.

And also if you listen to Fry's closing words, he actually makes the point that the RC+ *could *be a force for good.

Yeah that's the only problem I have with his speech, that bit.

If look at this picture you can see one

it's very small the reflection is just visible in the window above the Hotel sign.

That's no angel, that Barbara, I go to her place every Thursday lunch time for a 'massage'.

the last century has seen a stupidly large number of deaths as a result of non-religious philosophies.

The last century has seen a stupidly large number of deaths as a result of non-vegan philosophies.

The last century has seen a stupidly large number of deaths as a result of non-ecological philosophies.

The last century has seen a stupidly large number of deaths as a result of non-biosophical philosophies.

The last century has seen a stupidly large number of deaths as a result of non-taoist philosophies.

The last century has seen a stupidly large number of deaths as a result of non-Jainist philosophies.

. . . . and so on.

What point is being made here ?

There seems to be an argument made that non-religious philosophies were the cause of much of the 20th century's bloodshed because they were non-religious.

Which is a silly argument for many many reasons.

What is important to realise is that those programs that killed so many people were entirely religious in nature, totalitarian, dogmatic, absolutist, all subservient to the state or the dear leader.

This view that a large number of deaths were the result of non-religiosity paints the world as a comically crude dichotomy, you are either religious or non-religious and any (and all) actions taken by anyone outside of religion can be ascribed to the group as a whole.

So we have the Conservative party and the Labour party - and we have a man who has absolutely no interest in party politics - this man goes on to murder another man - the Conservative party announce how they are sickened by yet another killing by a non-Conservative.

I was also making the un-subtle point that anything - religion, science or politics – can provide a framework for hate.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukV82WsJa_k"]YouTube
- Anti-Laugh (Laughter of Hate)-Ricky Gervais[/ame]

To be fair, I'm not religious and I haven't killed anyone yet.

How do you calibrate your moral compass without The Good Book?

What, My Booky Wook?

How do you calibrate your moral compass without The Good Book?

It's a tour, someone else guides you.

Magnets.

Fuckin' magnets!

To be fair, I'm not religious and I haven't killed anyone yet.

Which is kinda' the point I was trying to make.

But . . . if you split the world into the religious and the non-religious - and then group everyone in each bracket as a single entity - it can then be said that someone in the non-religious group did XXX (insert a suitable crime here) and even though you yourself might be in the non-religious group you might not share any of the values, mores, morality (etc etc) held by the person or people who committed XXX.

That is essentially the what the "look at all the 20thC non-religious deaths" argument seeks to do, to describe everything outside of religious as a homogeneous whole, so the people who work on the Ferries at Calais and Dover and WHSmith in Cardiff are ascribed the same values as the leadership of North Korea and a polygamous tribe deep in the South American jungles.

Now let's imagine that tribe are at war with another tribe and their conventions tell them that the way to be victorious over their enemy is to kill everyone and bring back the heads of the enemy's women, to be cooked in a victory feast - and let's say that's exactly what they do and the story of this tribal conflict and head soup makes it's wey the the newspapers of Cardiff.

Some years later the bloke who works in WHSmith tells some vicar that he thinks the claims made by religion are stupid, to which the vicar responds by saying . .

The last century has seen a stupidly large number of women's heads cooked as a result of non-religious philosophies.

. . to which you can only really say, I think the claims made by religion are stupid and I think the actions of that South American tribe are reprehensible.

If the vicar sticks to the flawed logic of the non-religious death count argument, by this time he'll be thinking to himself:

". . . yeah, but it's your lot that did it".

brutality in terms of basic human instincts, has been around long before belief or religion

..and for the record, i haven't killed anyone yet either..

has this popped up at all, i know its maybe off topic, but on topic also

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/feb/28/census-religion-question

http://census-campaign.org.uk/what-is-happening/why-does-it-matter/

ok maybe it has been discussed somewhere else but in a thread about religion i think its kinda relevent.

has this popped up at all, i know its maybe off topic, but on topic also

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/feb/28/census-religion-question

http://census-campaign.org.uk/what-is-happening/why-does-it-matter/

ok maybe it has been discussed somewhere else but in a thread about religion i think its kinda relevent.