Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, May 21, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments

Document Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

by Gregg Easterbrook, Beliefnet.com

Thanks to Florian Widder for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/103/story_10357_1.html

Faith makes people want to kill each other--but it's the best thing we've got.
Gregg Easterbrook
Israelis and Palestinians are killing each other by the hundreds in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Hindus and Muslims are slaughtering each other in India, herding neighbors into house or trains then setting them afire. Catholics and Protestants continue to kill each other in Northern Ireland. Sunnis and Shias have their arms wrapped around each other's throats throughout the Islamic world. And of course, on Sept. 11, 19 Muslims were so determined to murder helpless Christians and Jews that they were willing to die to shed the blood of other religions.

Not a terribly good reflection on faith, is it? If religion makes people want to murder each other, maybe religion is bad for the world.

Religion has certainly been bad for history. In recent decades alone, Hindus and Sikhs have been slaughtering each other, blowing up airliners and firing artillery shells into temples. In the fighting over Sri Lanka, Tamil Hindus have fired machine guns at school buses full of Sinhalese Buddhist children, and the Buddhists in turn have firebombed Hindu schools. Thousands of Chinese grew up as orphans because their Buddhist parents were murdered during World War II at the urging of Shinto priests.

Looking further back, huge numbers of Eastern Orthodox Armenians were murdered by Muslims at the turn of the century. Much of Europe's history has been a nightmare of Christian-on-Christian killing, including the 30 Years' War, in which an estimated 7.5 million people--one-third of the European population at the time--died owing to Catholic-versus-Protestant slaughter. England's history is full of Protestants murdering Catholics; France's history is full of Catholics murdering Protestants; Spain's history is full of Christians murdering Jews. Pretty much all of Europe is to blame for the Crusades, in which Christians murdered Muslims. This inventory could go on at considerable length. King Olaf Tryggvason's declaration from about the year 1000--"all Norway will be Christian or die!"--sums it up.

So is faith bad? The fact that religions preach love, but often generate violence, cannot be dismissed as a minor imperfection.

And if you talk of mere hatred--as opposed to all-out killing--the accounting is even more horrifying. Many faiths and denominations have throughout history dedicated themselves to hating other faiths and denominations. About 100 years ago, to cite one of many examples, Protestant denominations called the Pope the Whore of Babylon, while Pope Leo XIII declared Protestants "enemies of the Christian name." Sunnis and Shias have been denouncing each other since just a few years after the Prophet Muhammad died. The Eastern Orthodox church has in its past denounced Catholicism as a false religion. In 1997, a small group called the Union of Orthodox Rabbis declared that the Conservative and Reform movements of Judaism are "not Judaism at all." Intrigue among Buddhist and Shinto sects have led to much violence.

Considering this bill of attainder, it could be awfully tempting to turn away from religion as a retrograde or divisive influence. This seems to be the view in Europe, where rates of religious observance have been in sharp decline for a century. Today, just 10 percent of the citizens of the European Union regularly attend worship services of any faith; in the United States, the comparable figure is a little more than half. Europeans seem to be aware of the bloodshed that faith has cost in the past--religious killing has been comparatively rare in the United States, probably a reason observance remains relatively high--and to be saying, "To hell with it."

Killing in the name of God or belief, which shames every religion, ought to give the person of faith pause. But should it cause us to abandon faith? Would the world be better off if religion disappeared?

Some people would say yes, and since it's impossible to conduct this experiment, as faith is definitely not going away, we can't be sure. But when we observe the horror of religiously motivated violence or hatred, maybe the correct question is, Without religion would it be even worse?

What's really underlying many "religious" disputes is ethnicity, money, and national distinctions, factors that would exist regardless of whether anyone had ever heard the word "God." The fighting in Israel today, for example, is not primarily about religion--Jews, Muslims and Christians have coexisted fairly peacefully in that area for most of the last 1,300 years. Until recently, the Holy Land fighting was mainly about land, and whom it's been promised to. Palestinians hated Israelis because they viewed them as oppressors, not because they were Jews--although that hatred has turned lately to anti-Semitism. Israelis hated Palestinians because they viewed them as terrorists, not because they were Muslims--although, lately the hatred has turned anti-Muslim. If the land dispute could be resolved, the religious dispute would rapidly fade to secondary or tertiary status--though ethnic tensions pitting Ashkenazim and Sephardim against Arabs might drone on.

Similarly, the tension between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland has a religious component, but its essence is class-based and nationalist. Protestants in Northern Ireland tend to be well-off and Anglophile; Catholics, to be working class and to want the Brits out. Suppose religion vanished tomorrow morning, and these two groups divided themselves by arbitrary labels that had nothing to do with faith. Let's say one position was arbitrarily designated "Orange" and the other "Green." Do you think the conflict would instantly end? No, it would continue as before, if not worsen, since Christianity--both Catholicism and Protestantism--would no longer be present to urge each side to love its neighbor.

Similar ethnic, class, and nationalistic disputes underlie pretty much every fight that looks on the surface to be about religion. Suppose the Christian and Islamic faiths vanished. Sept. 11 might still have happened. Within the Arab world, where many resent the West, violent fanatics might have vowed to kill themselves solely on secular grounds. Indeed, it can be argued that since the mass murderers of Sept. 11 openly violated the Quranic prohibition against killing the innocent, they weren't true Muslims anyway. What they were was terrorist fanatics. And a certain number of people like this would exist in the world whether religious faith existed or not.

Men and women of all faiths must feel deeply chastened about the continuing violence in the name of religion. We ought to feel the very worst about violence, or hatred, perpetrated by those who say they believe what we believe. But this does not mean we should give up those beliefs. Rather, we must work to make belief sincere. Only then is there a chance the violence will stop.

Comments 101 - 132 of 132 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

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

102. Comment #43802 by alovrin on May 22, 2007 at 5:31 pm

 avatarTo David Robertson aka Wee scottish flea bite
"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.


Phew, You have really built yourself a castle in the air havent you. It is just impossible to attempt to have any kind of discussion with you, your sentence's are tortuous and your circular logic is the best I've seen yet, it's a fortress. Hope you feel safe in there as you watch the world slide into evil atheism HAHA.
Thanks for the invitation to offer a critique but I must decline, it would just be time I would feel robbed of. Actually I'd rather trim my toenails, or floss my teeth.
If I run into you again on this website and you start foaming at the mouth, as you seem to have a tendency to do. I'll just have to flag you as a troll.

Other Comments by alovrin

103. Comment #43846 by JDAM on May 23, 2007 at 12:45 am

Is this guy kidding?

He constructs a compendium of the many varieties of religions that are at each other's throats and then goes on to blithly blow off the religious aspects by positing that the conflicts are really due to other causes and therefore faith is not to blame.

Say what?? Although each religion supposedly is a religion of peace and love, the evidence obviously shows that its perfectly ok to chuck these deeply and reverently held tenents whenever some material aspect of your life is being bothered.

What's the bloody use of such "faith" anyway?

Other Comments by JDAM

104. Comment #43854 by Philip1978 on May 23, 2007 at 1:10 am

 avatarIs that it? That was rubbish!

You personally question all the time? Who or what are you questioning because you can't be asking the right questions if the only answer is "I believe because He is god"

Actually there is a whole mega market of gods to go with, I dare not list them all but you obviously are oblivious to the world around you. Why not Allah? Thor? The Malaysian Tea God? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? The list is endless and yet you picked old Yahweh off the shopping trolley and I have a fair idea why, will get back to that in a sec but first, the bible!

This god of the bible, is it the one before Emperor Constantine and his mates got their hands on it or after?

The bible is the most inaccurate and contemptible drivel I have ever had the misfortune of reading. The Inerrant word of your god? How come there are so many howling mistakes in it? Hardly any of the authors can agree on anything and think about how many translations its been through to get to you, what are the chances it might have changed somewhat from it original form? People thinking, hmm, that could do with touching up a bit? Why is the god in the old testament a complete bastard to everyone yet Jesus pops up in the new testament saying, sure he loves you etc? Incidentally, on the subject of god loving you, can you refute that quote by Epicurus, I am sure you have heard it so I wont bother quoting it unless you want me to. In all fairness your god is still a complete sod and always will be, I hope you realise that one day

Right, lets think about this, a good example is the story of Jesus, the existence of this chap alone is pretty laughable since there are no historical records other than the bible and yet this chap is wondering around Jerusalem doing miracles whilst on his suicide mission for his dad.
However, you go back 2500 years or so to the Egyptians and you have the god Ossiris and funnily enough his story is remarkably similar to that of Jesus. He performed miracles, dies and wakes up fighting ready to launch himself off to heaven. What are the chances of this story spreading to Jerusalem? Pretty high if you think about it, most religions around that time were spread by word of mouth, told in stories and passed down the generations. That is why you will find similar stories from the Sumerians etc entering into the bible

Then, this is the funny part, in 325 AD the Roman Emperor Constantine and his mates decide to have a meeting in Nicea . They end up voting on all sorts of things including what should go in the bible and what should not, Jesus's divinity won by 4 votes! Now was this your god deliberating over this or men? Was this an Emperor realising he could have control over a vast section of Europe by simply declaring a new religion? They cherry picked the gospels, created the heirachy of bishops etc, easter... the list goes on. All of these festivals that you celebrate over the years are all pagan festivals anyway, simply changed to make it easier for the pagans to adapt to the new religion.

See this is why I dont believe in your god or anyone else's, humans created their gods, not the other way around. You tell me

"I believe in the God of the Bible for the same reason that I believe that the world is round, it is and He is." (You believe your god is rotund? Needs to eat less divine pies?)

But your bible tells you the world is flat and 6000 years old, dear me David, oh boy have you been committing heresy! You have defied the lord himself, he will not be best pleased!


Now tell me, would you believe that if you grew up in Islamabad or 2500BC Egypt? No you would not, you would have been told otherwise when you were a kid and you would have trusted the adults who told you which god to believe in.

Saying you believe because you believe is simply not enough, you are not questioning enough or even using the right questions. Reason with yourself, I dare you to be an atheist for a day, look at the world differently and see how it feels. I believed possibly when I was a kid so I have technically been a Christian but rejected it when I was about 8. It was prayer that did it for me, I stopped praying and the world did not change in the slightest. I dare you to do the same and see what you come up with.

Sorry about the rant kids but I am aghast at how little it takes for poor David to believe in his sky god

Please think about your next post and I look forward to seeing what you have to say, cheers, Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

105. Comment #43864 by BillySands on May 23, 2007 at 2:29 am

 avatarDont worry about the rant Philip. Of course David wont address the facts in post, but we expect that. He may lie and say the bible says the earth is round, but he wont address the historical inaccuracies (cough quirinius!) or the other pagan gods with similarities to jesus - or indeed memes.
On a personal note though, I would like to know how old he is - I have always been facinated to know how long someone can live without a brain.

Other Comments by BillySands

106. Comment #44017 by Philip1978 on May 23, 2007 at 7:28 am

 avatarBilly, wasn't there that chicken that lived for a few years after it had lost its head? Some bit of its cerebellum hadn't quite been severed and it trotted around quite happily, became quite the celebrity from what I heard!

Other Comments by Philip1978

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.

Other Comments by LookToWindward

108. Comment #44127 by elvenearth on May 23, 2007 at 10:59 am

Comment #43666 by BillySands on May 22, 2007 at 8:45 am

I know! The point is that it is the words of a different culture and not part of the teachings of a god who is a source of perfect law and moral absolutes as David claims. A long time ago, he said that he did not need to justify why homosexuality is wrong, because it says so in the bible. The point I am making is that if this were a good and valid law - like those on murder and stealing, it would be obvious why it is wrong. Today, this is a big issue in the church, and my friends sister is only one casualty. It is something that will hopefully split the anglican church too.
It's a bit like slavery, the bible condones it, but some apologists say we have to take the culture into consideration, then it is OK. However, morally, slavery is always wrong, no if or butts. A hypothetical moral god would have said so - the same with women and homosexuals.
However, David does not hold the view that these words are the words of men, so that presents him with a problem. They are the commands of his god afterall. At best, all he can do is acknowledge that the bible is not a source of moral absolutes, and as you nicely pointed out, other non yahweh based cultures showed greater wisdom and fairness (do you have any links by the way?)


Well I certainly agree with you in part. If there is a God (or some kind of pre-existing external Ultimate/Absolute to the Universe) then to claim exclusivity of the Bible to knowledge of it is a limited and strange idea. Any knowledge of history, literature and science also clearly reveals that the ancient texts, contained within the variety of Bibles in existence, are imbued with unique cultural ideas - unique to the ancient world and thus not absolute in their scope or claims (at least for the most part).
However I wouldn't like to go to the extent of saying that this rules out some type of Tao like law imbued into the Universe, which people across a variety of regions and cultures have come to a knowledge of. Indeed I favour the idea. From this argument could spring the idea that the Bible too, even in the Jewish Scriptures, contains a record (of sorts anyway) of the realisation of certain moral truths developing in the cultures of the ancient world. The Ten Commandents and the Law of Reciprocity could be examples of this process (as in other parts of the Middle East). Anyway too complicated to get into here...

Regarding your statements on the issue of homosexuality. Only two fair arguments can really be made by Christians in any case (based on the internal logic of interpreting the Bible). The first would be to argue that a hypothetical 'Fall' caused non-ideal or technically unnatural things to come into existence. In otherwords, humans were created to come together as male and female. However the 'fall' caused caused male to male desires to come into existence. In a fallen world this then becomes in a sense natural. In otherwords to be homosexual would be in-built and natural and not by choice. Dismissing the Leviticus passages as tribally contextual, this would leave only certain NT passages for Christian's to use. They could argue based on these that the act is wrong, but no more so than sex before marriage. In otherwords one sin among many sins that people commit. Nothing particularly special about it at all.
The second argument would be to actually dispute the relevant NT passages. There are many idioms and disputations regarding the translation of Koine Greek. Many Greek words can have multiple meanings depending on their context. To complicate this scholars often have to guess at or seek to reconstruct the context. Two Greek words are of relevance here - Arsenkoitai and Malakoi (a link if you wish it: http://www.opendoorcenter.com/myths_&_facts.htm). Arsenkoitai is condemned as an a great sin along with fornication and gossip and others in (Romans 1:26ff). It literally means Arse F*#ker in English. But what does this mean? Some scholars argue that it only refers to Male Prostitutes or Promiscuous homosexuals. Meaning homosexuals by orientation are fine, monogamous homosexuals are fine etc. Conversely could it refer to any anal s#x at all - meaning male to female as well. I could go on, but I assume you see the difficulties of translation and interpretation. These aren't just endemic to the Bible by the way, but really any ancient text. Based on this an honest Christian would have to acknowledge that there is little basis for roundly condemning homosexuality by orientation based on Biblical texts. And please don't get me started on Sodom and Gomorrah...

Regarding Etruscan and Egyptian treatment of women. I based these statements on my own research while at University studying classics and history. I guess it should generally be noted that Roman women received much relative freedom compared to Greek and middle-eastern cultures (I generalise of course). The Celts are also often associated with remarkable freedoms for women, but this is somewhat disputed and they are more clearly European in any case. There are others of course - the Minoans, certain Persian sects etc... It is the Egyptians who are the most outstanding in this regard however (though they did have a penchant for sibling incest).

Some 'ok' links to wet your curiousity:

http://www.crystalinks.com/egyptianwomen.html

http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women_in_ancient_egypt.htm

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/522662

http://web.mac.com/heraklia/Dominae/context/index.html

Other Comments by elvenearth

109. Comment #44273 by Philip1978 on May 24, 2007 at 1:56 am

 avatarRight, sorry to go COMPLETELY off the beaten path here but I would like to remind you all that it is in fact Towel Day tomorrow! In memory of that hoopy frood Douglas Adams, an author who has been one of the best influences on my life. Here is a link for all you strags who have no idea as to the importance of knowing where your towel is!
http://www.towelday.kojv.net/
Enjoy!

Other Comments by Philip1978

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.

81. newatheist - my point was simply that, according to the evidence of this website, atheist rely as much on personal experience and their own personal revelations, as theists.


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?

"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?

87. Comment #43638 by bitbutter on May 22, 2007 at 6:57 am

" think you've already been presented with scenarios but here's another. You know beyond reasonable doubt that the man with the explosives strapped to him believes it's his duty to destroy your family who he has trapped in the same room. You're outside the room with a rifle, and you have a clear shot at him. What would you do?"

I'm sure you can appreciate the difference here. The man has explosives strapped to him. Of course I would kill him, if there was no other choice. However if there was a man who said that he believed it was okay to blow people up, I would not feel justified in killing him for his belief and conviction.


89. elvenearth

"ith faith, there is no reasoning possible, therefore you only need to know that 'the others' have different faith, to hate them."

Once again we have this tired old atheist mantra. It is wheeled out on every occasion, without any shred of evidence, and yet you guys are accepted as gospel that faith by definition cannot involve reason.


93. lostpoet - I presume you don't want to argue that the earth is round or even that it is flat!

97. Comment #43765 by bitbutter - and I do believe that the world is round because there is an enormous amount of evidence that says that it is. I also believe in the God of the Bible because there is an enormous amount of evidence for him.


98. Comment #43768 by scottishgeologist

"So tell me David, are Catholics Christians? A simple yes or no will suffice."

Yes, usually.

"Do you honestly believe that the Pope is the Antichrist? "

No, not at all!

And the point of these questions is?

99. Comment #43770 by TedWak
.
"I also question why some of these religious folk think they have to defend all "people of faith." Dawkins et al. may lump them all together but it's certainly not a natural or easy alliance, so why would they want to be lumped."

A good point. I agree totally.

The rest of your post is very interesting and thoughtful. Thanks.


102. 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.


104. Comment #43854 by Philip1978 - Philip, you obviously have a stunning knowledge of Constantine and the formation of the Bible, feel free to share it! I also find it interesting that you think that hardly any of the authors of the Bible agree with one another. That is about the intellectual standard I have come to expect from those whose hatred for God overcomes their normal rationality and tolerance. In your breathtaking ignorance and arrogance you managed even to assert that there are no historical records of the existence of Jesus. I can no more argue with that than I can argue with a flat Earther! Instead of googling your atheist websites can I suggest that you do some real reading and some real study and then perhaps we may be able to have an intelligent conversation!

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

111. Comment #44288 by Luthien on May 24, 2007 at 5:45 am

 avatar
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?


In Northern Ireland they used padlock up the swings in ALL the parks on a Sunday. Do you agree that this is a meanspirited thing to do?

Other Comments by Luthien

112. Comment #44291 by alovrin on May 24, 2007 at 6:07 am

 avatar
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.


Boy you are an expert at twisting ones words to fit your agenda. I told you why I can find no point offering a critique, but you refuse to accept my reasons and feel the need to see my refusal through the lense of your prejudice. You obviously think you know everyones mind who is at this website better than they do.


So Mind Boy let me play that game on you. Why are you so bitter and angry? You put a lot of work into your "Dawkins Letters" And I guess as you sat typing feeling very pleased with yourself as you ticked off the points on your board. You in your diseased feverish state saw in your minds eye little ole you humbling the mighty Goliath of Richard Dawkins.


So you put your letters up and waited and waited and waited nothing. Then one day you stumbled on this website and looked and looked all these reviews from other christians but not yours, That must have been crushing for you, Goliath didnt even see you. You are to small and insignificant, so in a fit you started posting displaying your intellect for anyone to see. OH Dear.
You are a sad man. Your mighty work goes unnoticed, as it should because it is tortuous drivel.

Finally you fall into the classic theist trap, you mistake atheism or non belief for a belief, if you were able to see from anothers point of view you would see how stupid this is. So calling me or anyone else here a fundamentalism exposes the paucity of your intellect. Save your rhetoric for those poor souls who people your pews, it may impress them, it doesnt impress me. And you will remain ingnored it seems.

Other Comments by alovrin

113. Comment #44294 by Luthien on May 24, 2007 at 6:20 am

 avatarLOL alovrin

Other Comments by Luthien

114. Comment #44297 by BillySands on May 24, 2007 at 6:30 am

 avatar
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?


Come come David tell the truth now. I even know people who have been kicked out of B&Bs for watching the TV on a sunday when the family were at church.
Is Luthien making it up too?
I dont see how you think I wish to impose my ways on others. It is that point I am protesting againt. There are some who want the ferry service, but the Sabbatatians want their way. They can after all choose not to use them and let everyone who wants to use them.

"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.


Evidence? I may get angry at disrespectuful christians. Would it suprise you to know that this week alone I have been out for coffee on three different occasions with three good christian friends? In fact, on one occasion (the day after a brights meeting) there was a friend from the brights in the same coffee shop and I was worried that he may inadvertantly say something that my christian friend could have found offensive - being a moral atheist of course, he didn't. If you read some of my posts on your site, you would have seen there were some folk there that I liked. Of course, some were complete twats too

Would it suprise you to know that I have travelled all the way to Harrisbugh to be best man at a missionary's wedding? So, where is your evidence for that statement?


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?

Just to put your mind at ease, I am straight - not that that should matter. I mean what is so wicked about it? It is a clear enough question.
I dont neccessarily think polygamy is wrong if all involved are aware of it and happy with it, and there is love. Personally, it's not my bag. Paedophilia is quite obvious really. It is usually non consenting and breaks the trust of the victim, leading to hurt and problems in forming other functional relationships - particularly with members of the opposite sex. It often leads to feelings of worthlessness and takes away the ability to enjoy relational pleasure. Victims often resort to drugs, alcohol, promiscuity (leading to further feelings of worthlessness and self loathing) and self harm. About a third of victims develop eating disorders too. Victims are scarred and their right to a fulfilled life is violated. I could rattle on - my former church had loads of such victims, and I got myself involved with one, so I know what I'm talking about.
How does that compare to a loving homosexual situation?

Actually, there is no real historical evidence for Jesus. The "best" is actually the josephus passage, and at best that has been tampered with - unless devout jews are in the habbit of calling folk the christ. At worst, it is a total fabrication. All other sources merely mention the presence of christian, or like josephus, were not contempories. Hard facts evaporate all your claims. May I suggest you read these?
http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/rise.php
http://www.exchristian.net/exchristian/2003/04/is-christianity-based-on-pagan-roots.php http://www.exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/05/historical-evidence-for-jesus.php
You are quick to dismiss people who give reasons to reject the bible, but you never provide any evidence. You ducked out of a quirinius debate, and one of the first things I ever challenged you on was the existence of Abraham - you provided no case - could it be you have no case?

Off to Skye for a few days, I'll take my bolt cutters just incase I want to play on the swings on sunday (admittedly, Portee is more enlightened than Stornaway - not sure about Uig though - they hold sevices in gaelic there! Actually some wee granny would olny speak to me in gaelic once in portree)

Other Comments by BillySands

115. Comment #44301 by Philip1978 on May 24, 2007 at 7:10 am

 avatarMy breathtaking arrogance? hehehehehehhe! Ok everyone, who here thinks I have breathtaking arrogance? If I have ever been wrong or mistaken I have accepted it and apologised for my behaviour!

I feel sorry for you, I don't hate you or your god!

Don't question my intelligence, that's even more pathetic, I have insulted nothing but your god and I asked you to go away think about it. Instead you insulted and poured scorn on me and made me out to be someone I am not.

I asked you some simple questions which you have not answered yet, you seem more intent on making me look bad.

By the way, I read other books other than the bible to gain knowledge and this is the only atheist website I visit regularly, I will go and dredge up what I can on Constantine and the Council of Nicaea in 325 and pass it on when I am not so busy

If however, all you want to do is bawl at me, forget it, I don't get intimidated by bullies, I have more important things to do

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

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.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

117. Comment #44305 by Philip1978 on May 24, 2007 at 8:04 am

 avatarCheers ghostbuster, will definitely have a good look and I really appreciate the help, I think I have a few books on the subject as well.

Though thinking about it, I would like an apology from WeeFree/Knox/David if I am going to do this for him, right now I don't think he deserves it

Other Comments by Philip1978

118. Comment #44363 by scottishgeologist on May 24, 2007 at 12:39 pm

 avatarBilly

I think it might be the case that the swings in Stornoway are no longer locked up on a Saturday evening. Actually, i heard a good story about it -someone reckoned it was NOT to stop the kids "sabbath breaking" but to stop the drunks rolling home from the pubs doing themselves a mischief!

But its true, they did used to lock them up. The fact that they dont now begs a question or two. Has God called some minister on the phone to say "OK, its alright, I'm loosening and lightening up a bit - take the chains off the swings!"

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

119. Comment #44370 by scottishgeologist on May 24, 2007 at 12:49 pm

 avatarDavid Robertson said:

And the point of these questions is?

Quite simple really. You brought up the issue of Catholics and I just wanted to know what you made of catholicism. After all, when you were ordained as a minister, you took a vow which says:


"I do hereby declare, that I do sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith, approven by General Assemblies of this Church to be the truths of God; and I do own the same as the confession of my faith"

The Confession of Faith unequivocally identified the Pope as the Antichrist. Yet you are saying that you dont believe it!!

Tell me what else do you not beleive that you publicly subscribed to? No wonder the fundies walked out of your church in January 2000....

If any of you are really bored, the details of this event are here (from Wikipedia):

Over a period from the late 1980s to 2000 some people in the Free Church of Scotland had concerns about allegations, both moral and spiritual, against Professor Donald Macleod.[1]

In January 2000 more than twenty ministers (some of whom were retired) refused to accept a decision of the General Assembly on this matter. Because of alleged contumacy, they were removed from their pulpits and forbidden to preach anywhere, and other ministers were given charge of their congregations.

Those expelled ministers and other sympathetic ministers now constitute the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing). They sued the Free Church of Scotland, claiming to be the legitimate owners of the property and assets held by the denomination. The court ultimately decided against them, and they deferred from pursuing the case by way of Appeal. They are less than 20% of the ministerial strength of the pre-2000 Free Church of Scotland


Sounds pythonesque, doesnt it?

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

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.


This topic has already been flogged in at least two other threads, but let's repeat it here for David's edification. Here is Sam Harris's quote in full…
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...

Now others on this thread have already addressed the phrase "may be justified". That in itself should be sufficient to convince anyone that Harris is not advocating wanton killing just for the beliefs people hold. However, the particular phrase "while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others" is perhaps the crux of the issue. To my mind, this at least implies that the perpetrators have moved beyond thought and belief, and have moved to action. Arguably, we now have a completely different set of circumstances and, in this context, Sam's quote makes perfect sense. Even David admits he has "no problem punishing people who have already acted inappropriately or criminally" or "dealing with those who have a previous record".

Then David muddies the waters concerning homosexuality by asking about polygamy and paedophilia. (BillySands– excellent response to that question by the way.). I was left wondering what one had to do with the others. I'm still wondering……………………………..

Other Comments by SRWB

121. Comment #44494 by Philip1978 on May 25, 2007 at 2:01 am

 avatarBelgium to this, I have decided I want my questions answered properly before I devote any more time to creating new ones

WeeFlea/Knox?/etc

I would like you to think about this question and then answer it nicely, I am not going to play word games with you because all we seem to be doing is insulting one another and quite frankly its getting us nowhere

When I asked why does it have to be your god and what makes him so special over the cornucopia of other gods I knew straight away what I thought the answer was, I wanted to hear your side of it.

In my opinion its simple, if you had been brought up in Islamabad you would not be a Christian, you would be a Muslim, if you had been raised in Egypt in 2500BC no doubt the Book of the Dead might have been handed to you at some point very much like how you probably got your bible. Ok so sometimes there are exceptions to the rule but on the whole your religion is the product of your environment.

Things could have been different for me, I went to a church of England school and my parents didn't tell me what they believed until I was about 12, they let me decide what to do. I chose when I was about 8 years old to stop praying and things went on from there. I made that choice because I wanted to see what the world was like if I didn't bow my head to the floor like everyone else and I have to say, it didn't change a thing. I really do suggest you give that some thought too but, I want this question answered first, why does it have to be your god?

If I get further abuse I will ignore you, if you want this intelligent chat then fine, I am all ears and ready to type!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

122. Comment #44497 by bitbutter on May 25, 2007 at 2:29 am

 avatar@weeflea

I'd like to second SRWBs latest post.

Despite perhaps being taken aback by his formulation, your answer to the rifle scenario indicates to me that you do agree with Harris.

Other Comments by bitbutter

123. Comment #45708 by BillySands on May 29, 2007 at 3:32 am

 avatarwot? still no david?

Other Comments by BillySands

124. Comment #45717 by Flagellant on May 29, 2007 at 4:26 am

 avatarI'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...

Oh dear, I do find interpreting the bible so tricky. LOL

[Punctuation (only) amended]

Other Comments by Flagellant

125. Comment #45720 by Philip1978 on May 29, 2007 at 4:40 am

 avatarIts ok Billy, he has been busy calling us fundamentalists on the Professor Winston post!! Seems he is not best pleased to say the least!

Other Comments by Philip1978

126. Comment #45747 by Luthien on May 29, 2007 at 5:35 am

 avatar124. Comment #45717 by Flagellant on May 29, 2007 at 4:26 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...


I did a quick search and found some a mention of it in discussion on the issue of sunday racing from the NI Assembly:

"Why should this industry be deprived of extra, much- needed income because of the Minister's and the DUP's failure to move into the twenty-first century with the rest of us? The fundamental bigotry of Maurice Morrow and Nigel Dodds before him is the only reason why this issue has been put on the long finger. The DUP is famous for saying "No". For many years its members have said this in councils all over the Six Counties: "No. You can- not go to the swimming pool on the day of rest, for we have closed the leisure centre. No. You cannot play with your ball, as it is a Sunday. You cannot play on the swings; we have chained them up to ensure that children do not enjoy themselves on the sabbath. No. We will not allow you to enjoy horse racing on a Sunday". Despite what the Minister says, that is the only reason why this legislation has not yet been introduced. The Six Counties is the last remaining area of the European racing industry that does not have Sunday racing, putting the industry here at a great disadvantage."

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports/001128.htm

As you can see, Paisly et al (the frisbeetarians as I like to call them) still have some way to go, but at least we have stopped them locking up the swings. :-)

Other Comments by Luthien

127. Comment #45765 by BillySands on May 29, 2007 at 6:46 am

 avatarCheers Philip
Maybe he has been embarrased enough here and wants to avoid debate and go straight to his pavlovian response of calling folk fundies

Other Comments by BillySands

128. Comment #45768 by Philip1978 on May 29, 2007 at 6:54 am

 avatarI expect he had the wind knocked out of him by my "breathtaking arrogance"! I know I am a scary man when I get ranting, the pure English hatred boiling inside me etc. I am surprised even you have the guts to swap posts with me, I guess some of you Scotsmen are more brave than others! hehehehe!

Other Comments by Philip1978

129. Comment #45785 by BillySands on May 29, 2007 at 9:05 am

 avatarPhilip
We are a nation of contrasts. We gave the world penicillin, steam power, the TV and telephone. However, we also gave the world David Robertson and David Livingston who paved the way for HIV spread in Africa.
By the way, we invented everything
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlSqCpHJObs
:-)

Other Comments by BillySands

130. Comment #45789 by pewkatchoo on May 29, 2007 at 9:29 am

 avatarBilly, I suggest you invite him out for a square go! Does yer mammy sew, well get her tae stitch that then!

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

131. Comment #45794 by Flagellant on May 29, 2007 at 9:45 am

 avatarThanks for the link, Luthien (126) (I love your avatar, by the way). I followed a bit of the proceedings and found the speakers almost as disputatious as those here (LOL). I found this bit, by McCartney, interesting:
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!

[Ed: spelling corrected.]

Other Comments by Flagellant

132. Comment #46050 by Philip1978 on May 30, 2007 at 4:35 am

 avatarHehehehe, I concede Billy, you have a marvellous country that has produced some amazing people and still is. Plus, I may be wrong, but I read somewhere that you guys invented curry!

pewkatchoo you are actually not too far from the truth, my mum is amazing at sewing plus she works part time at a doctor's surgery so mending my face after a good Glasgow kiss should be a breeze!

I promise I shall save my "breathtaking arrogance" and my "pure boiling English hatred" for the rugby pitch where it belongs!

Tally ho!
Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978
Reload Comments | Back to Top


Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: