Search results for:

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]

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.

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'.

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.

The question of who knew what is a very thorny question in German history and needs careful differentiation.

I think I know where you are going with this.

Homophobe.

i believe that 'angels do god's work' and are among us..

Why?

because i believe in love and the human spirit..

from an ancient belief which pre-dates Islam that originates from north africa..

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')

Racist and reported.

No, of course I'm not. I'm suggesting that people should feel comfortable speaking as it's interesting to listen to multiple viewpoints.

They should, regardless of their views, I don't think anyone would disagree. I just thought I saw a glimpse of the 'respect' that people feel should be afforded to religion.

Why?

God pays overtime, not only that but weekends are time and a half.

I would LOVE to hear this scientific basis for hating the Jews. Off you go then.

The statement:

"It follows a modern anti-Semitic line that was born out of science"

Does not (necessarily) make the claim that anti-semitism was born out of science.

Not trying to be picky, but by term do you mean spirituality or science? I think you mean spirituality, if so I think there is something to that.

Personally I think a lot of the 'science' that is banned around at the moment, is very similar to religion. Climate Change / Environmentalism is, imo, one of the best eg.s

The very debate is polarised between believers and non-believers. While I aways thought that scientists didn't *believe *in anything.

By this I don't mean that CC is made up, just that it seems that for a huge number of people out there it fills a very similar role. Especially when it comes to traditional style good Vs. evil. Bicycles = morally good, 4x4's = morally bad.

Agreed.

Making no comment on the issues themselves, the way people conduct themselves in support of their position is religious in nature.

This is true of many things people become passionate about, I am sure we all do it to some degree, intellectual honesty goes out the window and confirmation bias becomes the tool of choice.

It's a shame that those who don't wish to become embroiled in a long-winded, immovable and slightly aggressive argument are extinguished. I think Hugo7's first post (where he mentioned his grandfather) raised some decent points that ought not to be mocked.

I don't think anyone is mocking anyone else, are you simply saying that religious ideas should not be challenged ?

I am not saying in itself that the age of a belief makes it by default valid and applicable. However, it does make it worth looking at, think about movements like The Enlightenment. Dismissing old disciplines out of hand (which I think far too many people do), is not a wise choice.

I don't think anything has been dismissed out of hand, as you point out religion is our oldest science of the world and the reason we have largely jettisoned it's claims is that we have a better science of the world won over thousands of years.

Firstly, IMO human nature is human nature, people change very little.

I'd say we are profoundly different from our ancestors.

What is basic common sense now (through an inheritance of 150,000 years of accumulated knowledge) would have marked you out as a genius in 1800, a witch in 1500 and a god in 100BC.

A modern 12 year old girl (in another era) with even a passing interest in her school work could, with the germ theory of disease, quite literally save people's lives in their millions, demolish a thousand years of quackery and usher in an age of enlightenment in an afternoon.

part of the purpose of Ramadan is to spend time focusing on God and your family avoiding other distractions. So remove the God bit if you want and you have a good point. People will obviously counter this (as they do with xmas) by saying “oh but why do you need religion to tell you to do this, surely you can do this yourself…”

Yes of course you can. However, people usually don’t. People generally work best to routine. Having the routine of a set period of time when you do focus on loved ones.

You don't need religion to set a routine.

When you say without religion people won't form routines ("However, people usually don’t.") - I would say routine will happen with or without religion.

Well, to my knowledge most religions *start *with the premise of love.

I can't see that at all, religions start as an attempt to explain the world around us, it's science, religion is our first clumsy attempt at science, an attempt to remove some of the doubt and fear from the world.

What's the best quality video people have seen of this? The least shaky and highest resolution, but also one that shows the crash without lots of other scenes beforehand?

Best quality. Shakiness is part if the shot although you can dampen it in post.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Wow, just fucking insane, this prick needs to be fucking killed, really, you have children at critical mass, there are fucking children there and he could do this, fucking kill the cunt, the world simply doesn't need nor should tolerate having problems like this, put him in a fucking noose.

I feel terrible for the people involved and the man's son, what a fucking uniquley awful thing to do to your own son.

I'd pull the fucking lever myself.

I couldn't help myself.

There are no disbelievers during severe turbulence on a flight

In what ?

Hinduism ? Christianity ? Has it been tested and shown that people suddenly develop a belief in Ganesh, the elephant headed deity, in a life or death moment ?

I think if you don't believe that something exists - then a gun against your head or an aeroplane heading for the sea is not going to convince you that Shinto's uncountable number of spirit gods are suddenly real or Yahweh or our elephant headed friend - regardless of the folklore myth of instantaneous crisis conversion.

People will reach for a stranger's hand for comfort when they are desperately frightened, in fact scare people enough and they will do most anything to alleviate the fright, but we mustn't confuse fear with religious belief.

A point that I would like to make, which I think people often miss when they criticise religion, is that despite all the faults [/] they have been philosophising for thousands of years.

A point that I would like to make, which I think people often miss when they criticise racism, is that despite all it's faults, racists have been philosophising for thousands of years.

IMO anyone who indiscriminately dismisses this collective knowledge is taking [/] either a foolish or an arrogant stand.

IMO anyone who indiscriminately dismisses this collective knowledge is either foolish or arrogant or a darkie.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ok, joking aside, hopefully you took my point that antiquity is no measure of validity, if we want to claim antiquity as a measure of credible claims about the nature of the world then the Mesopotamians have a thing or two to say about the shape of the planet and the Chinese can tell us how the universe coalesced into a giant cosmic egg which held inside itself the opposed principles of Yin and Yang and when they were perfectly in balance Pangu (a fur covered primitive giant with horns) was born from this cosmic egg, Pangu then made the earth with his giant axe and the moon with his right eye.

Is it true ? Well it's older than the three currently dominant monotheisms so anyone who dismisses is either arrogant or a fool.

I am not sure which to choose, I think I would have to go with 'arrogant' - only in that choosing 'fool' might be a kind of self-refuting response.

Therefore in terms of approaches to life they have a lot of very valid and relevant points.

You have simple stated this, you may have used the word 'therefore' - suggesting that you have just made a argument supporting this claim but you have not made the case at all ?

Can you say why you feel 'they' have a lot of very valid and relevant points ?

I also think it would be worthwhile for all of the most ardent critics of religion to spend more time studying the teachings, as they would probably learn a great deal.

I also think it would be worthwhile for all of the most ardent critics of fascism to spend more time studying Mein Kampf as they would probably learn a great deal.

This is undoubtedly true, but you don't need to read Hitler to think fascism might be a failed political philosophy, nor do you need to read the insane ramblings of camel-herders to know that the claims of religion are largely rooted in faulty thinking, poor logic, confirmation bias, coercion and intellectual dishonesty.