Dawkins is seen at Mass-what a turnaround.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

Have to disagree with you. Of course the service itself is religious but as an atheist I dont see how my attending would be hypocritial.

If someone I know and loved died there would be no questiont hat I would go to the funeral. It is a sign of respect for the person that died. They chose their religion and how they'd like to be remembered and I would respect that and attend.

Similarly with weddings and baptisms, I wont marry in a church and if i had children i wouldn't baptise them but I will attend both. It is a celebration for someone else in the way they want it.

The last funeral I was at, id wager the majority of the people there were not there because of the religious aspect. It was to be there in memory of my grandfather, in support of my grandmother and in support of one another in a time of grief

---

well you actually do agree with me as all i stated was that the funeral service was a religious service and i asked would it be hypocritical of someone as passionately atheist as Dawkins to attend mass or a religious service.

It was just a hypothetical question to stimulate some debate but my opinion (and its just an opinion) is that it would be slightly hypocritical - Dawkins should just go to the wake/removal/party if he feels so passionately that the dead person doesnt have to answer to God or that he doesnt even have a God to answer to and no heaven to go to? Surely he should be handing out flyers outside the church telling everyone that theyre wasting their time? Or is it just easier to belittle peoples beliefs through a book?

But he wasnt even there for a funeral as far as i know - why the hell was he at mass in the first place! :confused:

Stop blaspheming against the Invisible Earth Supporting Rooster.

:D,sounds funny me saying that in this thread:).I mean thanks for pointing out what ive said before here,that Catholics get alot of abuse on here and if it was another religion getting the same abuse the poster would be banned.Im not going to call for you to be banned though Lionel for the following reasons,
A:ill turn the other cheek
B:your entitled to your opinion
C:if i did ignore A and B and did actually complain to the moderator here im not sure they'd take action.
Ill just pray for your soul tomorrow at Mass instead;).

Hey Virtruvian Man,what is dawkins pre planned answer to that question??i didnt hear it on that show anyway,all i heard was silence and stuttering,please tell me it though because for real id love to know the answer.
to Skstu,1:my dad was at deaths door a few years ago after a transplant op that had complications,docs gave up hope but we prayed-he recovered and is FINE now,CONICIDENCE???.2:My uncle in laws body was recovered from the rubble of the wtc after the 9/11 attacks,my aunt asked us to pray she would get his body back at least-she did,only 250 out of nearly 2,700 were recovered.THE DAY WE PRAYED A HOLY HOUR WAS THE DAY THEY FOUND THE BODY!!!!COINCIDENCE????
3:my aunt MIRACULOUSLY beating her depression when we started praying,COINCIDENCE????
ive other answers to but they are my top 3 at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eamo1

Hey Virtruvian Man,what is dawkins pre planned answer to that question??i didnt hear it on that show anyway,all i heard was silence and stuttering,please tell me it though because for real id love to know the answer.
to Skstu,1:my dad was at deaths door a few years ago after a transplant op that had complications,docs gave up hope but we prayed-he recovered and is FINE now,CONICIDENCE???.2:My uncle in laws body was recovered from the rubble of the wtc after the 9/11 attacks,my aunt asked us to pray she would get his body back at least-she did,only 250 out of nearly 2,700 were recovered.THE DAY WE PRAYED A HOLY HOUR WAS THE DAY THEY FOUND THE BODY!!!!COINCIDENCE????
3:my aunt MIRACULOUSLY beating her depression when we started praying,COINCIDENCE????
ive other answers to but they are my top 3 at the moment.

---

im not saying its a coincidence at all - i believe in the power of prayer - i just asked was it down to a God or catholic God? Your previous post suggested it was your Catholic faith that got your prayers answered. I just dont think anyone needs an organised religion to avail of this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

In fairness (and I'm not Catholic) the amount of abuse Catholics get on these boards is ridiculous, if it were any other faith you and a few others would have been banned long ago Lionel

---

That's nonsensical Jebus. it's okay to stick the boot into Socialists, Free-Marketeers, Environmentalists, Developers, Politicians, Criminals, Musicians, Actors and Celebrities but we can't diss faith systems? Balls to that.

I've never abused a Catholic on this board. I don't personalise abuse. I consider myself reasonably qualified and perfectly entitled to have a pop at Catholicism if for no other reason than I was reared and educated as one and most likely couldn't get excommunicated if I tried.

But if, in the interests of even handedness, you'd like to see me have a pop at some of the stuff my Protestant in-laws believe in I'll readily oblige ... like how the probably single most defining difference between Protestantism and Catholicism -that "man is saved by faith alone" is an editorial leap by Martin Luther that would make a modern tabloid editor blush at it's sheer brazeness.

But there's plenty of examples of similar out there. Protestantism is really just a couple of chinese whispers further down the track from Catholicism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eamo1

Hey Virtruvian Man,what is dawkins pre planned answer to that question??i didnt hear it on that show anyway,all i heard was silence and stuttering,please tell me it though because for real id love to know the answer.

---

Anyone who thinks you need religion to be moral is a borderline sociopath IMO. The very notion is ludicrous

Quote:

---

to Skstu,1:my dad was at deaths door a few years ago after a transplant op that had complications,docs gave up hope but we prayed-he recovered and is FINE now,CONICIDENCE???..

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

2:My uncle in laws body was recovered from the rubble of the wtc after the 9/11 attacks,my aunt asked us to pray she would get his body back at least-she did,only 250 out of nearly 2,700 were recovered.THE DAY WE PRAYED A HOLY HOUR WAS THE DAY THEY FOUND THE BODY!!!!COINCIDENCE????

---

:eek:

Merciful god returning the body

What about all the people who prayed and didn't get bodies back??

Are they less worthy than your family??

Quote:

---

3:my aunt MIRACULOUSLY beating her depression when we started praying,COINCIDENCE????
ive other answers to but they are my top 3 at the moment

---

I'd imagine there's pretty basic physcology at play here :confused:


Anyway here's a little example from my own life:

My aunt is a nun

Her brother died at a young age as the result of a house fire

Should her prayers not have been worth a bit more than your average therby saving her brother??

Or does god choose completely at random??

If so, why??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lim till i die

My aunt is a nun

Her brother died at a young age as the result of a house fire

Should her prayers not have been worth a bit more than your average therby saving her brother??

---

Fair point Ltid - I'm just surprised you couldn't persuade her to kick the habit:(

Your inverse logic about the apparently arbitrary nature of how prayers get answered suggests that God was actually to blame for the hijacking of the planes that flew into to the twin towers resulting in all the horrific loss of life.

But the strongest argument against the power of prayer really has to be the success Fr. Joe has brought to the local soccer club.:D:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

Just getting back to Dawkins Jewish comments, what do his supporters make of this direct quote from the man?

When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.

It's mildly anti-semetic, whilst also ignoring large parts of history to make a point against the Jewish lobby (the bold part). I only bring it up because Dawkins supporters tend to believe that the man's word is infalliable and this statement is one of the more ignorant I've read from a 'leading mind' in quite some time.

---

I'll tell you what I think of the quote. I think you've deliberately taken it out of context to try and portray him as an anti-semite. There's nothing anti-semetic mildly or otherwise in there and I'm unsure what you're referring to when you say he's "ignoring large parts of history to make a point against the Jewish lobby"

He was making a point that there's far more atheists out there than anyone, atheists included, realise and that if they were to somehow "come together" in a block like other groups (primarily religious denominations) do they'd have clout to influence the way the societies they live in are actually run.

Did he say something factually wrong in reference to a powerful Jewish lobby (I prefer Pro-Israel lobby...though, some right wing christian/republican groups aside, this is primarily a Jewish lobby) and it's huge influence on American foreign policy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MyTown

Your inverse logic about the apparently arbitrary nature of how prayers get answered suggests that God was actually to blame for the hijacking of the planes that flew into to the twin towers resulting in all the horrific loss of life.

---

But how come gods not to blame for the hijacking but when the building renders up a body ( :eek: btw) then it's gods good will??

Yiz can't have it both ways

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lim till i die

But how come gods not to blame for the hijacking but when the building renders up a body ( :eek: btw) then it's gods good will??

Yiz can't have it both ways

---

I'll stop.

IMO funerals are by & large a familiar ceremony that comfort people when someone dies. To claim everyone who attends a church funeral accepts that religion is ridiculous.

I believe non-believers, atheists (whatever term you want to use) are more abused by society that Catholics or other religious believers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

IMO funerals are by & large a familiar ceremony that comfort people when someone dies. To claim everyone who attends a church funeral accepts that religion is ridiculous.

---

I'm off to a months mind after work.:eek:

Whenever I roll a seven I've half an expectency that I'll be buried with the rites of the Catholic church. Why? Because while there was a time I'd have been arsed enough to arrange and leave instructions for a non-religious/secular/humanist "ceremony" I've now reached a point where I've concluded funerals are for the living -not the dead.

If those close to me get some comfort out of packing me off with a cross on my box, beads in my cold dead hands and a decade for the road ...what loss of mine is it to stop them?

Just so long as they play 'Streams of Whiskey' at some stage during proceedings I'll leave my contribution at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

I believe non-believers, atheists (whatever term you want to use) are more abused by society that Catholics or other religious believers.

---

Darn tootin ...But the gloves are off! We've taken back Sunday and now we're coming for Christmas ...sorry Xmas.:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

I'll tell you what I think of the quote. I think you've deliberately taken it out of context to try and portray him as an anti-semite. There's nothing anti-semetic mildly or otherwise in there and I'm unsure what you're referring to when you say he's "ignoring large parts of history to make a point against the Jewish lobby"

---

I've taken it out of context? Then so have every other media (right and left) outlet I've come across, find me on that hasn't had that down as a direct quote in the context of what Dawkins was speaking about, which is atheists getting more power through lobbying yes. And anyone who says that Jews monopolise the US foreign policy hasn't a ****ing clue what they are talking about, and shouldn't be spouting such nonsense. How am I taking that word monopolise out of context Lionel? Do you wnat a dictionary? Or will you at some stage admit that Dawkins isn't right about everything he spouts on about? You and the rest of the Dawkins brigade are as bad as fundamentalist Christians at times.

I'll clear up ignoring large parts for you too. Dawkins was saying in the interview that atheists could form a lobby group to push through their own ideas, and back-handedly refereed to such a group being better than religious lobbists as they wouldn't have a religious bias. What that says to me is that atheists are more suited to running a country than the religious, which completely whitewashs former atheist leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman Mao to name but a few. Again anyone who says that you need to be religious or atheist to run a country effectively is talking out their arse.

As for you never insulting Catholics, well by saying that their beliefs are nonsense you have personally insulted everyone of them, if you think differently so be it, I just don't see the attraction of you and your like in your efforts to put down people with different opinions to yourself. But please do start insulting other religions if you see fit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

I've taken it out of context? Then so have every other media (right and left) outlet I've come across, find me on that hasn't had that down as a direct quote in the context of what Dawkins was speaking about, which is atheists getting more power through lobbying yes. And anyone who says that Jews monopolise the US foreign policy hasn't a ****ing clue what they are talking about, and shouldn't be spouting such nonsense. How am I taking that word monopolise out of context Lionel? Do you wnat a dictionary? Or will you at some stage admit that Dawkins isn't right about everything he spouts on about? You and the rest of the Dawkins brigade are as bad as fundamentalist Christians at times.

---

The quote appears to be lifted from an entire chapter in The God Delusion where Dawkins argues that Atheists should be more assertive, should have a more concerted voice and should make their numbers count. Monopolise might not have been the word I'd use or not in that context but it is undoubtedly true that Americas Pro-Israel clique hold a huge sway over US foreign policy as it pertains to one of the worlds most politically sensetive regions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

I'll clear up ignoring large parts for you too. Dawkins was saying in the interview that atheists could form a lobby group to push through their own ideas, and back-handedly refereed to such a group being better than religious lobbists as they wouldn't have a religious bias.

---

..and why the feck shouldn't they? Right-wing religious can hold up medical research, assert control over the birth control and end of life decisions of those who don't share their beliefs and get Biblical Creationism taught as a legitimate science theory ....and atheists/humanists shouldn't argue their case? fcuk that.

Quote:

---

What that says to me is that atheists are more suited to running a country than the religious, which completely whitewashs former atheist leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman Mao to name but a few. Again anyone who says that you need to be religious or atheist to run a country effectively is talking out their arse.

---

Ah the old "Hitler was an atheist so Atheists MUST be bad" nugget. Look I dunno if Hitler believed in Jesus, Santa or anything else but I do know that in several speeches made before and in the earlier stages of WW2 he described himself as a decent Catholic. I also know that whatever else he believed in ... He believed in Belief. From the Wermacht standard issue belt-buckles with 'God Is With Us' emblazoned to the pamphplets given to teenage German maidens telling them to prepare for a life pre-occupied with "Children, Kitchen, Church" he and his regime were well into pushing, re-enforcing and instilling a strong religious bent in his people. Maybe it was because they understood the strong in-group loyalty and out-group hostility that religion can engender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

As for you never insulting Catholics, well by saying that their beliefs are nonsense you have personally insulted everyone of them, if you think differently so be it, I just don't see the attraction of you and your like in your efforts to put down people with different opinions to yourself. But please do start insulting other religions if you see fit

---

By your logic Catholics, other Christians and any other religious group insult my atheism by not sharing it. They have to consider my atheism nonsense or they wouldn't be adherent to their own belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

By your logic Catholics, other Christians and any other religious group insult my atheism by not sharing it. They have to consider my atheism nonsense or they wouldn't be adherent to their own belief.

---

Shh! You're not allowed say it aloud.

The teapot doesn't like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

The quote appears to be lifted from an entire chapter in The God Delusion where Dawkins argues that Atheists should be more assertive, should have a more concerted voice and should make their numbers count. Monopolise might not have been the word I'd use or not in that context but it is undoubtedly true that Americas Pro-Israel clique hold a huge sway over US foreign policy as it pertains to one of the worlds most politically sensetive regions.

---

It wasn't in the God Delusion, it was in relation to a lecture he gave recently I believe, I may be wrong but thats what has been reported. Either way using monopolise is ******** and is vaguely anti-semitic, but what you said is about as close as an admission that Dawkins may have got it wrong as I could possibly hope to get from one of his acolytes so I'm happy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

..and why the feck shouldn't they? Right-wing religious can hold up medical research, assert control over the birth control and end of life decisions of those who don't share their beliefs and get Biblical Creationism taught as a legitimate science theory ....and atheists/humanists shouldn't argue their case? fcuk that.

---

I never said I agree with the religious right running things (I'm pro-choice, pro-basic human rights, pro-sexual equality, pro-belief equality) equally I don't agree that atheists would make a better job of it, I just don't think that anyone can or should say that they would be more qualified to run this show based on their belief system, what would be next Dawkins and his ilk start outlawing religious beliefs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

Ah the old "Hitler was an atheist so Atheists MUST be bad" nugget. Look I dunno if Hitler believed in Jesus, Santa or anything else but I do know that in several speeches made before and in the earlier stages of WW2 he described himself as a decent Catholic. I also know that whatever else he believed in ... He believed in Belief. From the Wermacht standard issue belt-buckles with 'God Is With Us' emblazoned to the pamphplets given to teenage German maidens telling them to prepare for a life pre-occupied with "Children, Kitchen, Church" he and his regime were well into pushing, re-enforcing and instilling a strong religious bent in his people. Maybe it was because they understood the strong in-group loyalty and out-group hostility that religion can engender.

---

Hitler didn't believe in Christ, but he knew how to use religious beliefs for his own gain and so did so, but you've missed the point completely here. Hitler (amongst others) was thrown in as a valid example that atheists running things might not always equate to the government being better, which is what Dawkins seemed to be getting at

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

By your logic Catholics, other Christians and any other religious group insult my atheism by not sharing it. They have to consider my atheism nonsense or they wouldn't be adherent to their own belief

---

If they start saying that your beliefs are nonsense and that you're somewhat braindead for believing them, and then they go on..and on...and on...about it then yes I'd say they are, and I would equally call them on it. Point me in the direction of the board member that has gone on...and on...and on...about how stupid you are and I'll gladly go have a word

Explain to me Jebus how Hitler was an athiest when all the evidence we posess points to him being a religious person.

I can even find quotes from Hitlers speaches condemning athiesm.

Hitler was indoctrinated as a catholic like, I suspect, most of us here but later tried to found his own pseudo pagan Nazi religion, with himself as high preist. That makes him a religious guy to me, ailbit not a Christian.

Religious people tend to trot out this ignorance like you just did, despite Lional ritchie giving you the read on Hitler being one in the religous camp rather than the athiest camp. Take yourself off with Google and straighten yourself out.

Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were all indeed avowed athiests, but they were also communists so maybe their draconian and genocidal tendencies came from their politics rather. If we are throwing digs in here it's also worth mentioning that Stalin did train as a priest.

Another ignorance trotted out by religous people is how can you be moral if you are not religous. eamo1 asked me to provide Dawkins stock answer to this question and here it is...

"When a religous person puts it to me this way...my immediate temptation is to issue the following challenge. 'Do you mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward or to avoid his disapproval and punishment?'... If you agree that in the absence of God you would commit rape robbery and murder you reveal yourself to be an immoral person... If on the other hand you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under divine surveillance you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good."
The God Delusion pp 226-227

Now I am selectively quoting here to edit out his throwaway insults of religions and just give you the gist but if you think I am being disingenouos with context etc you can look up the referance yourself. I can go on with how Dawkins believe athiests get their morality but I'll just summarise by saying "the same way religious people do."

ie By observing what is acceptable in their society and thinking on the great utilitarianism / deontology sides of the ethics coin. Something we all do whether we think we are or not.

Just to say while I recently changed my position from a long long held agnosticism to athiesm I wouldn't consider myself a deciple of Dawkins who is boorish and arrogant and prone to wild conjecture as much as the religious people he is taking on. In fact I only bought his book to see what the fuss was about after reading a thread here on foot.ie.

I can see what he is trying to achieve though. He believes that most poeple in Western europe are practicing athiests even if they still hold an allegience to a creed - he thinks if they all come out of the closet and face up to what they really are then the world will be a better place. I think he has a point

I would advise anybody to read the work of a philosopher called Bertrand Russell instead. IMO his work along with Karl Popper's concept of "falsifiability" provides the foundation for a properly modern mind.

I didnt say you needed a religion to be moral but if you dont have one then what do you base moral's on?????
Dawkins was seen AT MASS for the last few wks,not funeral services.
To the person who said "that saying something is Gods will is convinentfor believers".One of the main reasons that the christian religion isnt popular today is that there is no catch in 1 of its most important aspects.EG;if we pray for something and we get our prayers answered its Gods Glory,yes.and if we pray and its not answred then its Gods Will,also yes.theres massive consolation and thus a certain peace in that its Gods will.its basically a win-win situ.and thats why its not popular today because today we are thaught that "theres always a catch",theres always a "*" sign next to something,read the small print etc,etc.
FAO lionel:i read a nice paragraph in a book just last night that made me think of you,ill post it tomorrow and then i eagerly await your reply.

I should lay my cards on the table, people are entitled to be as religious or irreligious as they wish. I won't force my opinons down their throats if they won't force theirs down mine.

One of my problems with some atheists and non-believers is their penchant for publicily berating religions ( and I include all religions in that). Dawkins is a typical example.

I have two questions for atheists/non-believers.
1) The stuff that went bang in the big bang... where did it come from?
Scientists aren't 100% clear on this one.
2) Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler had two things in common the first was they were the worst mass murderers of the 20th century, What was the second one? Don't know?, Well the second thing they had in common was.. THEY DIDN'T SUBSCRIBE TO ANY RELIGION ! Hitler , a lapsed catholic,was in to mystical mumbo jumbo influenced by many things. As an aside dietary experts reckon that the lack of protein in the vegetarian diets available in the 1920's 30's and 40's may account for his symptoms of maniacal behaviour while he was in power.
Stalin was a lapsed member of the Orthodox faith and Pol Pot was a lapsed Buddhist, and he was also a vegetarian as far as I know .

As Dave Allen used to say'' may your God go with you!'' :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

It wasn't in the God Delusion, it was in relation to a lecture he gave recently I believe, I may be wrong but thats what has been reported. Either way using monopolise is ******** and is vaguely anti-semitic, but what you said is about as close as an admission that Dawkins may have got it wrong as I could possibly hope to get from one of his acolytes so I'm happy

---

It's not anti-semetic and I don't disagree with his substantive point. I just said I wouldn't have used the word monopolise because it's the incorrect word. Note I said incorrect ...not mischievious, not hateful, not inciteful or malicious. So yes, saints be fcuking praised, Dawkins got something wrong. Still happy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

I never said I agree with the religious right running things (I'm pro-choice, pro-basic human rights, pro-sexual equality, pro-belief equality) equally I don't agree that atheists would make a better job of it, I just don't think that anyone can or should say that they would be more qualified to run this show based on their belief system, what would be next Dawkins and his ilk start outlawing religious beliefs?

---

You're raising the bar for yourself in the nonsense stakes now. Everyone with any political or religious belief reckons they'd make a better job of it than the other guy. So you're demanding a higher standard for Dawkins and Atheists in general and then sliding into hystionics about outlawing religions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

Hitler didn't believe in Christ, but he knew how to use religious beliefs for his own gain and so did so, but you've missed the point completely here. Hitler (amongst others) was thrown in as a valid example that atheists running things might not always equate to the government being better, which is what Dawkins seemed to be getting at

---

So you agree he believed in belief? Now why would and atheist believe in belief? In pure humble speculation I'll chuck in a Dawkins quote (paraphrased) of my own "...without religion good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things and bad people will occasionally do good things ...but in order to get good people to do bad things ...you need religion or something very like it."
By the way I could likely spend the day running through the names of profoundly religious despots many of whom based their admin style on their beliefs and no small amount of them still in office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

If they start saying that your beliefs are nonsense and that you're somewhat braindead for believing them, and then they go on..and on...and on...about it then yes I'd say they are, and I would equally call them on it. Point me in the direction of the board member that has gone on...and on...and on...about how stupid you are and I'll gladly go have a word

---

I'll mind myself thanks. Mercifully haven't found anybody on this thread going on and on and on and on and....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eamo1

FAO lionel:i read a nice paragraph in a book just last night that made me think of you,ill post it tomorrow and then i eagerly await your reply.

---

I'm veritably chomping at the bit I'm sure. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CTID

1) The stuff that went bang in the big bang... where did it come from?
Scientists aren't 100% clear on this one.
2) Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler had two things in common the first was they were the worst mass murderers of the 20th century, What was the second one? Don't know?, Well the second thing they had in common was.. THEY DIDN'T SUBSCRIBE TO ANY RELIGION !

---

1. I'm sure I don't know and scientists, who are far from 100% sure, would be queing up to talk to me if I did know. But just because I don't have the answer and may never have the answer doesn't mean that a. the answer isn't out there or b. that I should tie my boat to badly translated archaic middle eastern folk tales in it's absence.

2. dealt with previously

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eamo1

I didnt say you needed a religion to be moral but if you dont have one then what do you base moral's on?????
.

---

What's right and wrong. Do you really need a priest to know hat is right and what is wrong? What the Catholic church finds immoral includes using contraception. Do you agree? Or do you take the pieces that you innately know are immoral and wrong i.e. murder etc and use your own sense.

Why do you need something to base morals on outside the basic this is right and this is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

I have two questions for atheists/non-believers.
1) The stuff that went bang in the big bang... where did it come from?
Scientists aren't 100% clear on this one.
2) Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler had two things in common the first was they were the worst mass murderers of the 20th century, What was the second one? Don't know?, Well the second thing they had in common was.. THEY DIDN'T SUBSCRIBE TO ANY RELIGION ! Hitler , a lapsed catholic,was in to mystical mumbo jumbo influenced by many things. As an aside dietary experts reckon that the lack of protein in the vegetarian diets available in the 1920's 30's and 40's may account for his symptoms of maniacal behaviour while he was in power.
Stalin was a lapsed member of the Orthodox faith and Pol Pot was a lapsed Buddhist, and he was also a vegetarian as far as I know .

---

1. I have no idea. I don't pretend to know. But not knowing wont make me believe it was a higher being. There was a time people didnt understand the weather, didnt understand the world was round etc etc.

We may not know now but that doesnt mean we wont in the future. Personally I don't see a reason to belief in one thing based on not understanding another.

But am completely in agreement with you that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and while I will discuss mine I would never attempt to force them on anyone

2. I cant find the question in there, but I dont see how their atheism is related to their actions, any more than a priest abusing a child is because he's catholic. There are evil people in every walk of life and in every religion or non religion. They are for the most parts not evil because of their beliefs although beliefs are regularly used for an excuse for what is done. People make choices you dont have to be religious to know whats right and wrong, and being religious certainly doesnt mean you do know the difference between right and wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eamo1

I didnt say you needed a religion to be moral but if you dont have one then what do you base moral's on?????

---

I was unaware that Christian religions teach morals. Is this the do as I say not as I do rule? How do you explain the sexual abuse & subsequent institutionalised cover ups? Is this the problem with relying on someone for morals? If the priest does not say something is wrong then is it? Most Catholics seem to pick & choose so do they like some morals & not the other ones?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eamo1

richard dawkins did have a heated debate with david quinn on the ryan.tub show on rte radio.dawkins was stammering and stuttering when quinn asked him if he doesnt believe in God then what does he base moral decisions on etc?dawkins was shaken by this question and AVOIDED answering it by cleverly changing the subject.a tougher interviewer would have pressed him to try answer it,maybe he couldnt though:).

---

That's a pretty irrelevant point. To insinuate that people without religious or more specifically Christian belief cannot create or abide by their own moral code is ridiculous. There are many atheists who live decent lives by a Christian or general moral standard. Conversely there are many Christians who do the opposite. I just don't see where you're coming from with this point.

I was told that dawkings daughter or grand daughter was christened (Iasked this on the last thread but it wasnt answered), which would be a bit of a surprise

anyway I really think he is brilliant, and love wacthing him on the box. Have yet to read any of his books though

That Quinn fella gives me a right pain, he is an idiot...........and a smug one at that, i doubt very much if dawkins would be outwitted by him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennocelt

anyway I really think he is brilliant, and love wacthing him on the box. Have yet to read any of his books though.

---

Reading the God Delusion & its not a light read...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennocelt

I was told that dawkings daughter or grand daughter was christened (Iasked this on the last thread but it wasnt answered), which would be a bit of a surprise

---

Not especially. My parents are devout RCs, their grandson isn't baptised and unless he asks to be he wont be. They don't like that I'm sure but they got over it (quicker than I gave them credit for I must say).

I'm told Billy Connollys grandson is, along with his da, a season ticket holder at Ibrox. The sky didn't fall in and no-ones banned from the Big Yins house over it.

Eamo, there is a whole chapter devoted to the morality question in The God Delusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Stop blaspheming against the Invisible Earth Supporting Rooster.

---

I couldn't agree more. He'll be getting very angry at all this and He scares me when He's angry :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennocelt

I was told that dawkings daughter or grand daughter was christened (Iasked this on the last thread but it wasnt answered), which would be a bit of a surprise

---

Not sure why it would be that much of a surprise? I know many organised religions down play the role of women in the home, but very possible that his wife is Christian so he respected her beliefs, and I'm sure his son/daughter and their partner are old enough to make up their own mind about it with regard his grandchild.

Sure my own daughter will be christened, as I respect my wife's beliefs. Personally I'd like a pagan naming ceremony (to the Rooster), but then that won't get you into the local state school the same way as a baptismal cert will.

We could set up our own Roosterfarian schools!

:).so Lionel you said ye took back sundays and are taking back christmas,why??what did "we" do with Sundays and Christmas that was so bad,a day of rest where you werent dragged around shops by your girl etc.And christmas,a time of joy and peace which charities use to love as they would get loads of oppurtunities to collect money.now everyone spends their money on rip off priced presents that will be forgotten about in a few months,material things bring happiness,but only God brings real Joy.Answer the qs,what do ye NEED Sundays and Christmas for??????
What i mean with reguard to the religious&moral question is your voice inside you that tells you whats "right" and "wrong",where does that come from??its your consciencness yes?so we believe your consciencness comes from God,where do ye think it comes from??
my net connection isnt great these days hence my absence,but ill keep coming back when i can.

I always celebrate Yule, with mistletoe and holly. Celebrating the Winter Solstice on the 25th December is what my forefathers have done for centuries BC.

Here's an article from the Atheist Alliance on xmas:

Quote:

---

The Winter Solstice & Christmas

The Winter Solstice is the shortest day of the year, when the sun reaches its lowest point on the horizon. ("Solstice" literally means "sun stop.") In ancient times, pagans celebrated this day as a "rebirth" of the sun or a sun god, and the beginning of a new year.

In some cultures, the Winter Solstice was also a time to celebrate the birth or rebirth of a savior man-god (who was often connected with the sun). He was usually believed to be the offspring of a god father and a goddess or human mother, who was often a virgin.

---

Eamo, some things you need to know about xmas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eamo1

What i mean with reguard to the religious&moral question is your voice inside you that tells you whats "right" and "wrong",where does that come from??its your consciencness yes?so we believe your consciencness comes from God,where do ye think it comes from??

---

So you believe that only religious people are able to tell "right" from "wrong"?

People who don't believe in God have no basis on which to determine "right" and "wrong"?

My conscience, my sense of right and wrong, comes from the understanding of what results my actions will cause regarding myself and others.

what i said was where does your conscience come from if not from God??
And also,with reguard to the whole big bang theory lads.the answer is pretty obvious i would have thought,the very fact that there is a creation means theres a creator!!!the chair your sitting on right now(creation) was obviously made by someone(creator),this is a universal truth in ALL things lads,ill explain this concept to a 10 year old and they will understand it,so why cant ye????
theres a website which offers 250,000 dollars reward to anyone who comes up with 100% scientific concrete undisputable evidence with reguard to the big bang theory,ye should go try claim it.
im enjoying this discussion,i just wish my net connection allowed me to contribute to it more often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eamo1

what i said was where does your conscience come from if not from God??

---

Which one?

Conscience probably comes from belief in right & wrong as opposed to fear of supernatural being(s).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eamo1

theres a website which offers 250,000 dollars reward to anyone who comes up with 100% scientific concrete undisputable evidence with reguard to the big bang theory,ye should go try claim it.

---

That must be the sister site of the one offering reward for proof that there is a God. Besides I have faith in the big bang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eamo1

And also,with reguard to the whole big bang theory lads.the answer is pretty obvious i would have thought,the very fact that there is a creation means theres a creator!!!the chair your sitting on right now(creation) was obviously made by someone(creator),this is a universal truth in ALL things lads,ill explain this concept to a 10 year old and they will understand it,so why cant ye????

---

Who created the creator?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eamo1

what i said was where does your conscience come from if not from God??

---

I would suspect that morality is useful in evolutionary terms, easier for societies to form, etc. Asking where your conscience comes from if not from a god is little different to asking why a volcano exploded if not because of the fire god.

Quote:

---

And also,with regard to the whole big bang theory lads.the answer is pretty obvious i would have thought,the very fact that there is a creation means theres a creator!!!the chair your sitting on right now(creation) was obviously made by someone(creator),this is a universal truth in ALL things lads,ill explain this concept to a 10 year old and they will understand it,so why cant ye????

---

In fairness a 10-year-old's understanding of the universe is hardly a useful place to start in a belief in a god. Going by that criterion, Santa must bring kids presents at Christmas rather than their parents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eamo1

what i said was where does your conscience come from if not from God??
And also,with reguard to the whole big bang theory lads.the answer is pretty obvious i would have thought,the very fact that there is a creation means theres a creator!!!the chair your sitting on right now(creation) was obviously made by someone(creator),this is a universal truth in ALL things lads,ill explain this concept to a 10 year old and they will understand it,so why cant ye????
theres a website which offers 250,000 dollars reward to anyone who comes up with 100% scientific concrete undisputable evidence with reguard to the big bang theory,ye should go try claim it.
im enjoying this discussion,i just wish my net connection allowed me to contribute to it more often.

---

No one here has claimed they can explain creation, bar you. Not understanding it now though means nothing really.

Your 'so why cant ye' comment is petty and childish. You may be able to explain this concept to a child and they would believe it but this does not make it true.

Im not as ignorant to believe I know everything, I accept the possibility that I am wrong and there is a God and if i was presented proof Id accept I was wrong. However I havnt seen any and so Il continue to disbelieve.

Do you not find it ironic that you ask for proof of the big bang while providing no proof for your alternative of a God