Split from Welcome FAQ thread - Is there a God? Discuss

[minestrone]

A lot of what the Church peddled for years was complete claptrap, and Virgin may have actually meant betrothed.

I still do not know where the fish on a Friday thing came from but I never cared, I got fish and chips most Fridays.

[sasguru]

PS I recently bought "The Case for God" by I forget who. But I abandoned it when I realised a few pages in that she started talking about "God" assuming his/her/its existence without evening defining what that meant.
I found it interesting that all most of those in the West who argue for the existence of God take a monotheistic stance that stems from their background. It is surely the height of arrogance to ignore the pluralistic traditions of some of the oldest cultures in the world: the Indian and the Chinese.
As Adams suggests all arguments MUST start by assuming the lack of existence of God(s) (as we have plenty of sociological/anthropological/psychological explanations for why the concept exists in various ways in different cultures).

[minestrone]

Anyway, who is burning a Koran this week?

[sasguru]

Anyway, who is burning a Koran this week?

As pointless to burn a Koran as it is to burn a volume by the brothers Grimm.

[minestrone]

I fear that all may not have that attitude.

Rent a riot will be out in the usual places.

[Mich the Tester]

Anyway, who is burning a Koran this week?

Not me. I find that sort of thing childish and unnecessarily provocative. I don't need to agree with someone's beliefs to be able to deal with them in a civil and often cordial manner.

As well as that, this sort of action does nothing to persuade people of one's point of view; in fact it does the opposite. Turning debate between atheists, christians and muslims into something confrontational will simply reinforce people in their positions and their prejudices. Reasonable discussion, handling subjects one by one instead of a big 'my beliefs are better than yours' competition is much more likely to influence people's views or at least create an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.

[shaunbhoy]

PS I recently bought "The Case for God" by I forget who. But I abandoned it when I realised

.......there were virtually no pictures.

HTH

sasguru

[xoggoth]

I agree with Mich the Tester's post that stuff like that is childish and unnecessarily provocative but that does not in any way excuse the reaction. Getting annoyed is understandable, threatening violent reprisal over a symbolic gesture is unnaceptable.

In return for an insult by one tiny nutjob church that has been condemned by all the major church leaders, a Middle Eastern paper is talking of "a fire of rage that could consume swathes of the globe" and nobody would be surprised at more totally random attacks on Christians.

Do you really want to run the constant risk of attack because somebody somewhere thinks, in his view, that Islam has been insulted, even if the provocation was not deliberate as it was in this case? This case illustrates the threat that the shear irrationality and fanaticism of this religion poses for us all.

Moreover, it is not simply gratuitous insults that these fanatics and activists seek to ban. If we continue to make concessions to it in our own countries, how long will it be before one cannot criticise Islam at all?

[Mich the Tester]

I agree with Mich the Tester's post that stuff like that is childish and unnecessarily provocative but that does not in any way excuse the reaction. Getting annoyed is understandable, threatening violent reprisal over a symbolic gesture is unnaceptable.

In return for an insult by one tiny nutjob church that has been condemned by all the major church leaders, a Middle Eastern paper is talking of "a fire of rage that could consume swathes of the globe" and nobody would be surprised at more totally random attacks on Christians.

Do you really want to run the constant risk of attack because somebody somewhere thinks, in his view, that Islam has been insulted, even if the provocation was not deliberate as it was in this case? This case illustrates the threat that the shear irrationality and fanaticism of this religion poses for us all.

Moreover, it is not simply gratuitous insults that these fanatics and activists seek to ban. If we continue to make concessions to it in our own countries, how long will it be before one cannot criticise Islam at all?

Indeed, but you always have to think about who you're trying to influence. It seems to me that there are Muslims who are critical of the interpretation of their religion that's offered by the loony Ayatollahs and the Taleban/Al-Qaeda nutters; those people can be influenced by reasonable discussion, but if they're painted as nutters and insulted they may well have to decide where their loyalties lie and that decision might not be to our liking. I personally know muslims who happily say things in private like 'Islam is in crisis' or 'Islam has to reach out to others with a message of tolerance and peace', but feel scared to go public with these views; on the one side there are radical fundamentalist loons in their own communities or families who'll make their lives hell, and on the other side radical anti-muslim types who'll just shout them down and lump them in with the Osamas of this world. I can imagine that right now if you're a fair minded person who follows one of the Islamic varieties (Islam is certainly not homogenous), you'd feel quite nervous about doing anything other than keeping your mouth shut. On the other hand I think that fundamentalists are really a lost cause for reasonable debate, just as I think Neo-Nazis at the other extreme are a lost cause.

Those reasonable people need support, not preaching anger or koran burning.

Happily, western governments do sometimes provide support for muslims who are fighting against loony Ayatollahs; look at that lawyer fellow who´s got asylum in Norway after defending a woman who's about to be stoned to death. There should always be a place in civilised countries to help people like that.

But yes, it's also right to be unequivocal in stating that the law in a western country is the law for everyone, without exceptions for some religious group. I also say no to any incursion of Sharia or any other religious law in civil dealings; western Europe has led the world in defining freedom and human rights since the second world war (with some ugly exceptions) and that position has to be defended.

[shoes]

This case illustrates the threat that the shear irrationality and fanaticism of this religion poses for us all.

Anyone smart who gives it more than 5 minutes thought obviously realises that religion is about controlling the little people. Give them a boogie man who sees all they do to get them to behave. It has been useful as a mechanism for keeping order and giving comfort; It has a value.

That needs to be weighed against the bad. Tell the people that religion is to be tolerated because you want the controlled society it brings, and that leaves the door open for evil men to come up with religious reasons to cause chaos and suffering. "To get good people to do bad things takes religion".

We teach and tolerate religion for as long as it brings 'net good' to our society. In my view the bad is catching up with the good, and when religion brings more harm than good it will be time to bring it to a close.

The time will come when the ridiculousness of the whole thing will be pointed out, it will no longer be taught in schools and tolerated in our society. This will come when it causes more harm than good. We're getting closer to that point every day, despite the attempts of those with a vested interest in the status quo to keep the veil of ignorance in place.

Time to grow up, human race.