the church of satan claims to be the most tolerant of religions :eek: im in whos with me
Printable View
the church of satan claims to be the most tolerant of religions :eek: im in whos with me
honestly though i think the reality is most relgions are based on good old yarns past down from genaration to genaration and lets face it they are good stories but how much scientific proof is there at the moment that were all going to heaven or hell ???
I find that pretty insulting :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
re. Israel taking Palestine as 'Gods own people' i think it's more down to the fact everyone felt guilty for not being able to stop the holocaust...correct me if i'm wrong
He is sheer and utter evil. I make no apologies for saying it. How many millions of lives could have been saved from AIDS but, no that isn't a christian thing to do at all :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by liam88
They were given it for that reason. But they believe they are entitled to it because god chose them to live there/Quote:
Originally Posted by liam88
Re: The Pope,
His teachings of no contraception are certainly somewhat to blame for a lot of Aids in this world. The Catholic church is stuck in the 18th century and needs to be completely revamped.
Re: Israel
They have always claimed a right to the land of Israel and were given it as a sympathy vote after WWII. The biggest mistake ever made. Religion is largely to blame for the troubles in the Middle East and over the next 30 years we are going to see that area erupt into massive war.
Whoa, there fellas!!! :eek:
Early on in this discussion, it was asked that the debate didn't descend down into the boring old religion is rubbish/ religion is not rubbish argument. It seems that's where it's going. We've had that before and it gets us nowhere. :( :(
The thread started with a query over what were the differences between Catholicism and protestantism, and spread out from there. If people want to expand and include reasoned arguments for atheism or agnosticism, then go right ahead, but please try and keep away from the descent into the "If you believe that then you're stupid" school of arguments. Thanks.
Not really, old Sadam ran a secular regime, the primary concern like most of the wars in that area (save Palestine) was oil and who would be the local power broker in that area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
It's funny how some people complain about being forced fed religion and then come on and force feed us with their own pack of lies. Eg: Pope's 'pure evil' . Pope will 'kill more people than communism in the third world'. Religion 'started WW1'. Well if you are going to go down that road, the Inquisition had nothing whatsoever to do with religion: It was just the Spanish getting rid of traitors and people of other ethnic groups (in the same way that Stalin and his successors' areligious USSR did). In fact by Eanna's own list of wars to do with religion I'd tick nationalism beside all of them. And of course it must have been pretty peaceful in Western Europe before the reformation. Ooops. Forgot about the 100 years war for a minute. And of course this intolerence can't pass by without resorting to fascistic tendencies. Ie: No religion to be discussed or promoted outside the home. TV not to promote or indulge in religion, especially the religion of 95% of the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by green goblin
The worst thing about this is that these statements are from someone I know ISN'T stupid nor ignorant. Eanna, I use contraception when and where I choose. I've got JUST 3 kids and what by most people's margins is a healthy sex life. When I go to church I see people with equally small families. How do you think we all manage that? Use a thermometer before a sh*g. :rolleyes: I lived with my wife before marriage. The priest who married us knew it too. He still married us.
Exile: You talk about scientific proof but what is the proof that we descend from monkeys? If they are 'our cousins' we'd at least be able to produce a hybrid (like a mule) with monkeys without referring to embryo manipulation. But apart from Social-Darwinism (that Irish and Blacks are the missing link) and a few unfortunates in 19C travelling circuses no one seems to come up with why this has never happened. That is why - and here is the key word - its called the THEORY of Evolution. As for the big bang THEORY? :D :rolleyes: Life from total sterility: As much 'an old yarn' as a bloke in a beard making the universe in seven days. If you are going to refer to science, with the intention of sounding clever, at least refer to Scientific FACT not Scientific (unproven) theory.
While on this point, I think it worth pointing out that, to me at least, atheism seems to be a belief in iteself. It is not an absence of belief, as is implied, but in fact a belief/certainty that there's nothing out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
This is as unprovable as belief. And therefore requires as much faith... :o Just as you cannot logically prove God, you cannot logically disprove him.
As for the "All wars are started by religion" argument... Well, to quote the well known atheist Marx, "The history of all struggle is a class struggle". :)
Wonderfully put. I'm putting you forward for a spot on the Halleluiah Channel. They're looking for someone to fill the early evening slot between 'The Big Bird Sermon for Kids' and 'An Evening with the Rev. W. McCrea.' :DQuote:
Originally Posted by green goblin
Can't wait. My clapping just got even happier. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by lopez
I shared a house with a niece of his whilst at university, and as a result I once had the dubious pleasure of an evening in the man's company. "Dour" was invented just to describe people like him. The type of individual for whom Rich Tea biscuits are too extravagant.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
His niece wouldn't dare tell him I was papish Irish, so I made sure he found out. :eek: Cue an awkward silence. Still, it was better than actually talking to him...
:D PP
That's just like saying there should be no Eircom League coverage on RTE, just some general sports magazine 'cos that will cover everyone! The fact is that a lot of people get alot of benefit from RTE broadcasting the Angelus. Notwithstanding whether RTE should or shouldn't broadcast stuff about other faiths, Irish Catholics pay their licence fee too and are entitled to a program aimed at them (all 60 seconds of it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
"Rich tea biscuits...." Genius. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Plastic Paddy
Well done for refusing to be cowed by the old misery. :)
I'm not force feeding anyone anything- its a discussion. What I'm saying isn't lies, just what I believe. I have not rubbished anyone's beliefs at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
He is. He will. I didn't say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
agreed. But was it not backed by the church. Like I've been at pains to point out, I'm not condemning Catholics for the appalling behaviour of their hierarchy. That would be like saying (to use your example) that everyone who read Marx was evil. I didn't and wouldn't say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
so would I. But nationalism is about identity and religion is a huge part of identity. Its all inextricably linked.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
I made that comment slightly tongue in cheek- I know that will never happen, but what I was getting at is that I believe its a very corrupting force in society in many ways, and that belief is a private thing, so there's no need for it to be broadcast the way it is. And I didn't say TV wasn't to indulge religion, in fact I suggested it adopt a more broadened approach and deal with other religions- 95% is a figure thats very debatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
This is another thing that I don't get. If you don't agree with the policies/practices of the church why are you a member? Its like joining a political party because you agree with one or two policies but not the others :confused: Also, given the fact that probably a majority of Catholics DO adopt this approach to their church (i.e. obeying what they chose) why has the Church not moved on to accept the beliefs of its members- why do people stay members of something which they profoundly disagree with. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
No dissing Flavor Crea on my time, PP. I've got an album of his called '20 Greatest Gospel Greats'. It's perfect for when you want to wrap up a party sharpish (I had to wheel it out two days before Christmas). It even gets rid of any persistent Jehovah's Witness that won't take no for an answer. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Plastic Paddy
BTW: I know a gentleman never discloses these sort of things but did you...ahem...with...ahem...Flavor's niece? :o
You've not rubbished other peoples beliefs (others have though) but you've done what you accuse religions of doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
You said he was 'responsible' for more deaths in Africa than communism. Aids is spread mostly by multiple partners and the lack of any barrier contraception, no? Well why don't people stick to one partner? This isn't a religious question. AFAIK, all atheists are not swingers and adulterers. This commitment is universal. If you are talking about birth control, that's another thing. But King Karoly isn't the African CEO of Durex. And you've always got the 'John Holmes' method if all else fails.Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
I was being tongue in cheek myself. The inquisition was (almost) wholly religiously driven - I'd say wholly because there was further harassment of 'conversos' after they converted: e.g. Having a day off on Saturday, refusing to eat pork, etc. In addition the nazis persecution of the Jews was on wholly racial rather than religious lines. For example: Christian converts were gassed; the Nurenmburg laws were that Jews would be classed on racial lines; Jews were classified as thus with just one 'racial' Jewish grandparent. German converts to Judaism would not have been gassed although if they did not renounce their new religion they probably would have ended up in Auschwitz, like other dissenting religions that refused to acknowledge the nazi state (Jehovah's Witnesses principally and 'maverick' members of the established churches).Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
It is not always inextricably linked. Some of the most vocal anti-Irish media people during the troubles in Britain were RC. Eg: Paul Johnson, the cartoonist JAK, Robert Kilroy-Silk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
On the other hand many in the pantheon of Irish republicanism/nationalism are Protestant. When was the last time that there was a civil war over religion in Europe that was between two groups of the same nationality but different religion? In Britain it was 1640's (I'm being generous as this was a royal versus parliament war0. Holland and Germany (the two countries in Europe with greater RC/Protestant divisions than Britain (Germany admittedly only around since 1871)) haven't had AFAIK a civil war since then over religion. Yugoslavia is split on national lines although religious allegiance is stronger within the national identity. Spain was religion part of a rightist coalition including fascists against a leftist coalition.
What I'd agree is corrupting is church dictating to non members. In Ireland this was through divorce and contraception which discriminated against non-RCs. Also a broader acceptance of other beliefs in school (a form of secularisation but not to the point of banning headscarves as in France). However, while RC attendance has dropped in recent years - through nothing to do with God but everything to do with pervert priests - Ireland still has a high church attendance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
You have a point. I am a member but it hasn't been without difficulty. My parents left and do not go to church apart from the usual (marriages, deaths, FACT, etc). The things I disagree with the RC church are things that have been added and are nothing to do with the bible, are open to interpretation or are now irrelevant. Priests not marrying, the ban on women being priests, contraception, abortion (rape), homosexuality, sex within marriage. And besides, what is discarding one organised religion for another going to prove. As you suggest, religion does not need organised religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
enough is enough lads is there any scientific proof of the good man above or the great man below
The thing that I don't get about religion is that people claim to be practising Catholics but ignore church teaching on contraception, extra-marital sex, etc., don't believe in trans-substantiation, don't believe in miracles, don't believe in papal infallibility, don't believe in hell, etc., etc. Why can't they just admit to themselves that they're not Catholics.
Any scientific proof that we are related to monkeys (Wayne Rooney obvious exception)?Quote:
Originally Posted by exile
I'm not a Catholic. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
Aside from Wayne Rooney there is Luke Chadwick -and after Luke there is volumes upon volumes of well corroborated scientific evidence that we are indeed decended from some sort of a "monkey-like" primate AND from something closer to a vole, mole, stoat or rat prior to that again. If it was a murder case -there'd have been a hangin' ages ago. Frankly I don't get why so many religious types have such a big hang up about it when the fact of evolution does not automatically exclude the possibility of a "God"Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
No but it means that the genesis creation myth isn't true which some religious types can't take.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
fair enough -but surely only the most staunch bible worshippers put so much stock in the old testament? Is the "gospel" they swear by not the new?
It's called the Theory not the Fact of Evolution which sort of undermines its credibility. While there are similarities between man and primates a number of things are different. We like to think chimps are so clever but on a human scale they are little more intelligent than David Beckham. In fact why are humans so far advanced than any other animal? Secondly, while a donkey and a horse can produce a (sterile) hybrid, why can't humans and monkeys do the same (FFS, plenty of people have tried)? When did they become so far separated? Take your point about it not excuding God, but it also sounds ludicrous to me even if I was an atheist. A force of greatness we just don't know about or a brand of monkeys changing into humans (no hair, bigger noses, able to invent machines) over millions of years. They're both on the face of it laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
Never had the benefit of a religious education at school but one of the nuns at the Nymphomaniac College Conchita went to claimed it was a load of Jackson Pollocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
There's no such thing as scientific FACT (can't write that word except in capitals of late it seems!), all scientific 'knowledge' is theoretical. You can't prove any theory, the only way they have any credibiltity is if they explain current phenomena and can predict future observations. Bacteria becoming resistant to anti-biotics shows life changing to suit changing conditions which fits in with evolution whereas it doesn't fit with the creationist theory if any sensible person really believes that.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
Watched a programme on BBC2 the other day about the death of Thomas A Beckett. Claimed he was 6ft in an era when the average age was 5'2''. Things change. So what. My point is why did some bacteria stay bacteria while other bacteria became humans. If you believed that we came originally from pond life, then good for you. Just let others, including myself, believe in our own fairy tales.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
are you saying you dont belive in darwins theory of evolution??
Random chance I suppose, I'm not too familiar with the mechanics of DNA mutations. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
I'm not stopping you, believe whatever you want. I just don't think creationism stands up to rational thought. If it works for you, fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
join me at church of satan :D :D were not here for a long time but a good time :D
Nah, that Satan looks a bit too camp. :D
and just to clarify things we dont sacrifice kids or anything just goats and chickens :D
No child sacrifices? Now I'm definitely out. ;)
guilt or no guilt to say "god promised us this land" as an excuse to commit genocide against the palestinians is ludicrous.Quote:
Originally Posted by liam88
they have some cheek to claim theyve been oppressed/suffered for millenia then they go and visit this suffering upon the palestinians.
satan looks a bit gay.
though much of your beliefs make sense
i like this one:
Quote:
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him
I don't mean to be rude Eanna, but I think that your anti-religious zeal is creating a very selective understanding of history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
Yes - religion was involved to some degree in a number of the above conflicts. But that is simply a reflection of the fact that religion has been a fundamental element to both individual human existence and society in general for thousands of years.
Just because 2 cultural/ethnic/national groups clash, and they happen to be from different religious backgrounds, doesn't necessarily mean that religion must be somewhere near the root of that conflict. Even by your own tally above, the majority of conflcts listed were not motivated by religion, and that's without questioning some of your assertions (again, the conflict in Northern Ireland is caused by 2 competing cultures both claiming legitimacy over the exclusive use of the same territory. The 2 groups just happen to be easily characterised along religious lines. If everyone in Norn Iron woke up Jewish tomorrow, there'd still be rows between those Jews who wanted to be British and those who wanted to be Irish).
Nationalism was a major, if not the leading and in many cases sole, cause of all but 1 of the above conflicts (Vietnam being the exception, - though it would be easy to argue that America's enforcement of it's own political ideology upon other countries was and still is in itself a form of US nationalism).
And whilst a minority of Jew's may claim they have a biblical right to the land that is Israel, it is certainly not all Jews. There are even a number of strict Jewish religious sects who are vehemently anti-Zionist and believe that returning to Israel is AGAINST the will of God, but I see you've chosen to ignore them. Regardless - the land the Israeli's now occupy wasn't "given to them", and scriptures were certainly not used as justification by the Allies at the time they were considering what to do with the region (post Holocaust guilt and the need to create a homeland where the Jews could feel secure was actually the key factor for Britain and the US at the time). To clarify - when the British ran the Plastine Mandate post WW2, they did their usual 'divide and conquer' by promising both the Jews and the Palestinians roughly the same thing. The Palestinian Jews, who were in a guerilla war with Britain at the time, saw an opportunity to strike before anything concrete was put in place regarding the creation of an Israeli and Palestinian state, and as the British army withdrew from the area they siezed their weapons and the land that eventually became Israel.
Regardless of any perceived biblical claim to the land of Israel by the Jews-
their claim to Israel is as much to do with the concept of traditional homeland as it is religion. They were exiled from their region of origin so long ago that the bible just happens to be the main 'proof' that it ever was their homeland.
If England had cleared all the Irish out of Ireland during the Plantation and replaced them with Scots and English (as indeed was their plan) would you now oppose the right of the exiled Irish to return to their traditional and historic homeland ? The only difference between the claim of the Irish to the 6 counties of Northern Ireland and the claim of the Jewish nation to a homeland in what is now Israel is chronology.
In summary - just because 2 distinct cultural/ethnic/national groups are in conflict, and they happen to be affiliate to different religions, does not necessarily mean that religion MUST be somewhere near the root of that conflict. Yes - in such circumstances differences in religion can often help to exacerbate the conflict, but usually no more so than many other differences between the groups (skin colour, language etc).
There's way more proof that we are descended from monkeys than some big guy with a beard living in the clouds that created this planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
If you believe in the proven subject that is science then it is very difficult to believe in theology.
I still think religion is good because it creates hope and a reason for people to live a moral life.
If people here are trying to look at things logically, then agonsticism is the only thing that makes sense: There might be God, there might not, and it's logically impossible to prove one way or the other. Atheism is as much a logical nightmare as belief, as you cannot prove there is no god in the same way you cannot prove there is.
But this what the word faith is all about, here. Something far more interesting than simple binary certainties some people seem to want in their lives. If God was a certainty, then we woudl not need words like 'belief' and 'faith'. We'd know God in the same way we're reasonably confident in gravity, electricity, biology, and so on.
Sorry to bring it down to a crass level, but it's a bit like when Indiana Jones steps out into nothing in Radiers of the Lost Ark III. There's nothing there, he's walking out into nothing, but he closes his eyes and believes, steps out in faith... and suddenly there's a path he'd never noticed before. It's not suddenly there, magically, because he closed his eyes and beleived and it appeared out of nowehere, rather it was there all the time in front of him but he just never noticed it before.. :)
As a Chrsitian, the creation vs evolution debate has never bothered me - or interested me, that much. What the bible actually says (if you read it with a less literal mind), is that first there was nothing, then a big explosion, then matter formed stars, then planets, then water formed, then plant life grew up from nowehere, then life appearded in the sea, then on land, and then finally humans came along and messed it up for everything. I'm sorry, but where does this contradict Darwin :confused:
I think a lot of people get hung up on the timescales and outrageously large numbers in the Old testament, quite needlessly.
And what proof is that? That we 'share' DNA with monkeys, yet a human can't have anybody's blood.Quote:
Originally Posted by finlma
As GG says, the belief in evolution needs faith. I read an article in the London Evening Standard yesterday that a scientist last month (?) shocked the world by admitting that he believed 'God' (ie: a creating force) lives/lived. Something about multiple universes (all very technical and the article was a 'why did God let the tsunami kill so many?' type of article). I can't paste the article but this might prove interesting reading for those that believe Scientists are all atheists.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/featu...4872%2C00.html
you also have to understand that the Church created symbols and ideals of worship.
for example St. Patrick the idea od st. patrick is two people intertwined.-which was writen down 400 years after the real st. patrick was in ireland.
St. Augustus of Hippo(northern africa) was seen as White and written about much later on.
A D.F.B. by any chance? :) :oQuote:
Originally Posted by davros
Still waiting to see that "Fenian prods on tour" flag you promised us, Dav. :)