









Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?
102. Comment #43802 by alovrin on May 22, 2007 at 5:31 pm
"The Dawkins Letters - Challenging Atheist Myths". It is now available in both the United States and in the United Kingdom. Although it has sold out and is currently being reprinted. You can still get a copy off Amazon. If you prefer not to waste your money then most of the articles are on the Free Church website. If you click on that Today's Issues section then you can access them. Also if you click on The Forum then you can make whatever criticism you want.
103. Comment #43846 by JDAM on May 23, 2007 at 12:45 am
Is this guy kidding?104. Comment #43854 by Philip1978 on May 23, 2007 at 1:10 am
105. Comment #43864 by BillySands on May 23, 2007 at 2:29 am
106. Comment #44017 by Philip1978 on May 23, 2007 at 7:28 am
107. Comment #44118 by LookToWindward on May 23, 2007 at 10:45 am
Some fair points, but let us not forget that religion is assumed to be hereditary, thus generating persistent communities. Political allegiance just doesn't work the same. If the labels were changed to 'Orange' and 'Green', the communities would fragment. Not only would children be more encouraged to examine their political persuasion rationally, but they are far less likely to be drawn into the tit-for-tat cycle.108. Comment #44127 by elvenearth on May 23, 2007 at 10:59 am
Comment #43666 by BillySands on May 22, 2007 at 8:45 am109. Comment #44273 by Philip1978 on May 24, 2007 at 1:56 am
110. Comment #44287 by The Wee Flea on May 24, 2007 at 5:35 am
79. pewkatchoo - Harris is talking about the belief. There is no problem in punishing people who have already acted inappropriately or criminally. There is no problem in dealing with those who have a previous record. But the principle that Harris enunciates is one that is profoundly dangerous that there are some beliefs which are so bad that holding them requires the death sentence.111. Comment #44288 by Luthien on May 24, 2007 at 5:45 am
82. BillySands - yes I am honestly telling you that wee frees don't lock up swing parks in the Outer Hebrides! And surely what they all community determines to do with its own transport is up to them. Why do you wish to impose your standards on everybody else?
112. Comment #44291 by alovrin on May 24, 2007 at 6:07 am
02. Comment #43802 by alovrin - of course you must decline. Why should you bother thinking about anything that is not your own position? Is that not the essence of fundamentalism? And please feel free to flag me as a troll - you are only proving my point.
114. Comment #44297 by BillySands on May 24, 2007 at 6:30 am
BillySands - yes I am honestly telling you that wee frees don't lock up swing parks in the Outer Hebrides! And surely what they all community determines to do with its own transport is up to them. Why do you wish to impose your standards on everybody else?
"ost appear to be angry at him. Not at jews or gays etc."
Sorry, Billy that just does not work. It strikes me that you seem especially angry at Christians.
I am more than happy to answer your question on homosexuality but in order to do so I need to know where you are coming from and what you mean. Could you tell me why you think polygamy is wrong and why paedophilia is wrong?
115. Comment #44301 by Philip1978 on May 24, 2007 at 7:10 am
116. Comment #44304 by ghostbuster on May 24, 2007 at 7:51 am
Philip1978: Go to www.jesusneverexisted.com for the info on Nicea etc. Humphries is excellent, to the point. www.newswithviews.com is a good site for the same illogic you have been arguing against, the rants of the memes so-to-speak, but it allows you to enter the "alternative" views without sounding like you only visit atheist sites. Additionally, there are some, not many, decent journalists on newswithviews as well. I visit Evangelical sites too-they do an awful lot of ranting about Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons etc. but one gets very tired of listening to people advance their ghost as being more important than another's, but it is sometimes interesting how they can dissect words--not only phrases, but words in the bible to twist into different meanings. One should invest time into studying how these people actually think, how they cement their thoughts. Apes are interesting, if nothing else; when Jesus said he who does not accept my reign should be brought before me and slain, well, slain has a real different meaning to the evangelical than the rest of us.117. Comment #44305 by Philip1978 on May 24, 2007 at 8:04 am
118. Comment #44363 by scottishgeologist on May 24, 2007 at 12:39 pm
119. Comment #44370 by scottishgeologist on May 24, 2007 at 12:49 pm
120. Comment #44434 by SRWB on May 24, 2007 at 5:30 pm
The Wee Flea said, in part, (post 110)But the principle that Harris enunciates is one that is profoundly dangerous that there are some beliefs which are so bad that holding them requires the death sentence.
The link between belief and behaviour raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense...
121. Comment #44494 by Philip1978 on May 25, 2007 at 2:01 am
122. Comment #44497 by bitbutter on May 25, 2007 at 2:29 am
123. Comment #45708 by BillySands on May 29, 2007 at 3:32 am
124. Comment #45717 by Flagellant on May 29, 2007 at 4:26 am
125. Comment #45720 by Philip1978 on May 29, 2007 at 4:40 am
126. Comment #45747 by Luthien on May 29, 2007 at 5:35 am
I'm really intrigued by this Scottish/Northern Ireland swing business. After all didn't Jesus say "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath"? [Mark 2:27]
Perhaps he really meant "men", excluding kids. But then again, perhaps he meant everybody except Scottish piss-heads, but then again...
127. Comment #45765 by BillySands on May 29, 2007 at 6:46 am
128. Comment #45768 by Philip1978 on May 29, 2007 at 6:54 am
129. Comment #45785 by BillySands on May 29, 2007 at 9:05 am
130. Comment #45789 by pewkatchoo on May 29, 2007 at 9:29 am
131. Comment #45794 by Flagellant on May 29, 2007 at 9:45 am
I believe that the fundamental nature of a democracy is that we must not use the institutions of the state to provide some sort of fire brigade or police force for delivering the moral, ethical or religious dictates of any religion. I fought against that in my criticism of successive Governments of the Republic of Ireland and their oppressive, Catholic theology in relation to social and economic matters. Equally, I am not prepared for some dark Protestant cloud of sabbatarianism to descend upon the Assembly.[My italics.]A good sign this, I think, coming from a Unionist. If the Assembly can junk some of the idiotic tenets that identify each community, while accepting the neutral or good bits, bloody good show. But faith schools? Aaargh!
132. Comment #46050 by Philip1978 on May 30, 2007 at 4:35 am
101. Comment #43795 by ratio on May 22, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Shuggy (71) wrote: "We couldn't ethically do it to children, but why not set up a couple of "Big Brother" style houses and give them those rules? Not only that, you (and the world) would be watching everything they did."What an interesting idea. It would actually be do-able but maybe not a commercial success. As an experiment it would have the obvious flaw that the uncertainty principle would be a major factor (behaviour is changed by the fact that we are observing it)but that's generally the case in the political/economic/sociology area. To me it would mean that conclusions would be less clear but not that no conclusions could be drawn at all. And it would depend on what hypotheses were being tested and how.
For example:
Two pools of willing volunteers who are prepared to identify themselves as committed Xists or Yists; random selection of an uneven number of participants for a particular trial; at the end of each period vote by participants to boot out one participant.
Hypothesis: the X/Yists when in the majority will vote to maintain their majority.
Unfortunately, the number of trials needed for statistical significance might make for boring television.
Other Comments by ratio