NEWS: British Cleric Approves of Targeting Children

Idjiit said:

<huge snip>

You don't get how religion works. This has always been the case and both Islam and Christianity are highly interpretive Religions. The battle of "what the Bible really means" is one that's been fought since it's inception, and will continue to be fought until we eventually destroy ourselves.

The problem we have now is that even in the modern age fundamentalists in any religion are trying to do precisely what you're saying they should do - which is effectively reversing the progressive changes that Religions have made over the last few hundred years and taking a literalist view of their texts. You're right - people cannot take the Bible literally - it is full of contradictions, historical inaccuracies and scientifically invalid propositions and that kind of closed minded thinking is what's gotten us into this mess.

Your position only holds true in a Biblical literalist viewpoint, which is by far a minority viewpoint. But having a more interpretive viewpoint isn't any more wrong. Ultimately the Bible was written by men, not directly by God and therefore is subject to the errors of men. This doesn't mean that there isn't a God, that there wasn't a Jesus/Mohammed but it does give people the leeway to project whatever they want on to their religion, for better or worse.

If it's any consolation Christianity has adapted progressively to the moral needs of the times - your righteous anger is more appropriately guided at creating conditions around the world that will make all religious adherents get "the best" out of their Religion, instead of trying to strip it away.

Tell me - what is the problem with believing in a lie? Personally, if someone is a tolerant, loving and generally good person and believing in a lie makes them at peace - I couldn't really care less. We all live in our own personal little lies - as long as you're not enforcing your lie on mine, I don't really have a problem with it.

What does atheism offer religious people who obviously feel a need for some sort of spirituality? Spirituality is a product of humanity's biological makeup - it is here for a reason. To get people to dismiss Religion out of hand is ludicrous and pointless. There are billions of people for whom Religion forms a critical part of their personal and public lives and I would argue that Religion is on the whole a positive force. Don't let the more obvious negative aspects of organized Religion make you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Akrasia said:
a bunch of stuff

Idjiit said:

Wait... hyperbole? In a political argument on the internet? Say it isn't so!

Why don't you actually answer the question, Michael? What is the point in continually bringing up that terrorists are Muslims? We know it, the world knows it, the rest of billion+ Muslims who have absolutely nothing to do with nor condone terrorism know it. What is the point in continually rehashing this?

Idjiit said:

No, you at best appear to know how Catholicism works in Ireland.

You're right, they can't. But they don't need to. When the day is done, people are comforted and have their lives illuminated (for better or worse) by the Bible and other religious texts. They provide an invaluable service to them on a personal level, which is valid regardless of whether they texts are divine or not.

Because it appears to be a reliable guide to billions of people's lives around the globe. It doesn't matter what's "real" or not, it's wholly beside the point.

I happen to agree, but what's the point?

A leap away from tradion to what? Reason? Again - what does reason offer, spiritually? Nothing. The world is an amoral, fucked up place - how can reason provide solace? You may not feel a particular drawn to spirituality, ritual, etc. but an awful lot of people do - including a lot of highly intelligent people - philosophers, scientists, artists. To reduce religion to a "means of controlling the masses" is to greatly misunderstand the role of religion in people's lives.

I think you're mistaken, and you misunderstand the causality in this situation. There are many people who grow up without religion who eventual seek it out to fill a gap in their lives. You can dismiss these people as being "weak", or whatever you like, but the fact of the matter is that religion holds something that many many people need. I do not object to the "truths" that religion professes to teach - they're the unanswerable mysteries of being a human being. As soon as they step into the realm of the natural world - ie, creationism - you can bet I will object. But to teach "why are we here"? I couldn't care less as long as it isn't impeding on my rights as an individual - as a woman, as homosexual, whatever.

Religion has been used as a justification for powerful men's agendas, there is no question. But to define religion primarily as a "means to control" others is just simply false. No religious scholars (atheist or otherwise) agree with this assessment, and this attitude is one of the reasons we misunderstand the "Muslim problem". Islam isn't forcing people to bomb innocent civilians and shoot kids in the back - desperate men with an agenda are using Islam to justify their horrific deeds.

Must it? There are billions of people practicing religion throughout the world - the vats majority of people are religious. You're saying that all these people are worse off because of their religions? Even in my most arrogant young smart-assed atheist punk rocker days I would never say such a ridiculous thing. I'm sorry you feel that way.

That you're Irish goes 99% of the way to to explaining why you have such a deep hatred for religion. Try to look outside Ireland and look at what religion does for the rest of the billions of people on this planet.

Just as the powerlessness of the parliamentary monarch permits the legitimate rule of the party leader, so the powerlessness of the "insulated" monarch, who is an incarnation, results either in priestly domination or, at least frequently, in the seizure of power by a family that is not encumbered with the monarch's charismatic obligations and hence can provide the real ruler (major domus, Shogun). Here too, the formal ruler must be retained because only her/his specific charisma can guarantee the proper relation to the deities, which is indispensable for the legitimacy of the whole political structure, including the position of the actual ruler. If the official ruler has genuine charisma--if it is personal not derived--s/he cannot be removed in the same manner as the Merovingians, in whose case the papacy provided a charismatically qualified power for the legitimation of the new ruling house. If an incarnated deity or a descendant of deity (for example, the Mikado) exercises genuinely charismatic authority, any attempt at deposing not just the incumbent--which, of course, is always possible in some violent or peaceful manner--but the whole charismatic house will endanger the legitimacy of all powers and weaken all traditional buttresses of the subjects' compliance. Even under the worst conditions, therefore, such a removal is anxiously avoided by all groups which benefit from the existing order; it remains to be seen whether such a dethronement is permanently feasible even when the ruling dynasty is considered representative of an alien regime, as now in China [1911-13].

Max Weber