Why do people who believe in religion think they have the right not to be offended?
The reason I ask was that I was speaking to a Muslim couple the other night at a dinner party and I expressed my believe that someone who had sex with prepubescent girls (Muhammad) should not be classed as any kind of prophet by decent thinking people. Well being a party mainly composed of the liberal left, the comment went down like a lead balloon.
That got me thinking, how come people with other strange beliefs do not get offended when you disagree with them to the extent religious folk do? For instance can you imagine someone from the flat earth society demanding the right to be protected from ridicule by law? What about people who think storks bring new born babies? I cannot see them ever demanding that the police should be called to arrest me for taking the piss out of them. What about people who believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden? I bet other intelligent, articulate and educated people would not feel the need to hold back from critism like they do with people of religion.
It just seems completely ridiculous that delusional fools who believe in "god" should expect this right not to be offended. I do get offended by a lot of things, the way religion can hold science back by having an input into legislation around stem cell research for instance. However, I do not demand the right not to be offended, what do the religious demand it?
Mozzer wrote: > Why do people who believe in religion think they have the right not to > be offended?
> The reason I ask was that I was speaking to a Muslim couple the other > night at a dinner party and I expressed my believe that someone who had > sex with prepubescent girls (Muhammad) should not be classed as any kind > of prophet by decent thinking people. Well being a party mainly composed > of the liberal left, the comment went down like a lead balloon.
I have to say, well done to you for saying that. It is true that their 'prophet' married and consummated his relationship to a NINE YEAR OLD child bride named Aisha. Disgusting doesn't quite cut it. So on top of him being a tyrant, warlord and cold blooded murderer, he was also a paedophile. I take my hat off to you for raising this at a dinner party with Muslims. LOL...well played. Don't let anyone give you grief for that....you stated the truth and nothing but. Good for you!
-- Legend11 Manchester United - Premiership Champions Three Times Running.
Mozzer wrote: > What about people who believe there are fairies at the > bottom of the garden?
C'mon now, steady on. I've seen fairies in the garden. OK, I had consumed about 150 fresh psilocybe semilanceata mushrooms at the time....but they were there. Perhaps they just exist in another dimension, and that hallucinogens temporarily break down the walls between dimensions? Whatever...I certainly aint ruling them out.
;)
Cough!
-- Legend11 Manchester United - Premiership Champions Three Times Running.
> Why do people who believe in religion think they have the right not to be > offended?
> The reason I ask was that I was speaking to a Muslim couple the other > night at a dinner party and I expressed my believe that someone who had > sex with prepubescent girls (Muhammad) should not be classed as any kind > of prophet by decent thinking people. Well being a party mainly composed > of the liberal left, the comment went down like a lead balloon.
> That got me thinking, how come people with other strange beliefs do not > get offended when you disagree with them to the extent religious folk do? > For instance can you imagine someone from the flat earth society demanding > the right to be protected from ridicule by law? What about people who > think storks bring new born babies? I cannot see them ever demanding that > the police should be called to arrest me for taking the piss out of them. > What about people who believe there are fairies at the bottom of the > garden? I bet other intelligent, articulate and educated people would not > feel the need to hold back from critism like they do with people of > religion.
> It just seems completely ridiculous that delusional fools who believe in > "god" should expect this right not to be offended. I do get offended by a > lot of things, the way religion can hold science back by having an input > into legislation around stem cell research for instance. However, I do not > demand the right not to be offended, what do the religious demand it?
> "Mozzer" <mozzer.moz...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:hd1s8b$s62$1@news.eternal-september.org... >> Why do people who believe in religion think they have the right not to be >> offended?
Probably because you're a 2 faced hypocritical wanker.
>> The reason I ask was that I was speaking to a Muslim couple the other >> night at a dinner party and I expressed my believe that someone who had >> sex with prepubescent girls (Muhammad) should not be classed as any kind >> of prophet by decent thinking people. Well being a party mainly composed >> of the liberal left, the comment went down like a lead balloon.
> Why do people who believe in religion think they have the right not to be > offended?
> The reason I ask was that I was speaking to a Muslim couple the other > night at a dinner party and I expressed my believe that someone who had > sex with prepubescent girls (Muhammad) should not be classed as any kind > of prophet by decent thinking people. Well being a party mainly composed > of the liberal left, the comment went down like a lead balloon.
> That got me thinking, how come people with other strange beliefs do not > get offended when you disagree with them to the extent religious folk do? > For instance can you imagine someone from the flat earth society demanding > the right to be protected from ridicule by law? What about people who > think storks bring new born babies? I cannot see them ever demanding that > the police should be called to arrest me for taking the piss out of them. > What about people who believe there are fairies at the bottom of the > garden? I bet other intelligent, articulate and educated people would not > feel the need to hold back from critism like they do with people of > religion.
> It just seems completely ridiculous that delusional fools who believe in > "god" should expect this right not to be offended. I do get offended by a > lot of things, the way religion can hold science back by having an input > into legislation around stem cell research for instance. However, I do not > demand the right not to be offended, what do the religious demand it?
Mozzer/Zal I agree with the fact that God is a creation of humanity and not the other way round but we really must remember the glib arrogant attitude that we take today is only due to the vast improvements to our living standards only made possible by capitalism. We should be maybe not so gung ho to attack people for their religious beliefs. My problem with all of this is the different tolerance that t the left show to Christianity but yet feel all other religions that were not developed in Europe are progressive.
So for starters I want to see the same polite respect paid to all religious beliefs but that they are just that personal beliefs and should not impinge in affairs of state.
The other week I went to the Montezuma exhibition at the British Museum. A seemingly tragic story yet only 500 years ago and parallel with the time of the Tudors. Montezuma king of the Mexacanee established their tribe in the place that is now Mexico city. Now the way they survived was by i) suppressing all those tribes in their vicinity and being the biggest bastards in that land and ii) on the crops they successfully grew. However all was not rosy as climate change- long before the Labour Party, Obama and the billionaires Gore stiffed us for as much tax as they could- left them seemingly in the lap of the rain and sun gods. Therefore the whole meseo American tradition of sacrifice really did take off. Its been estimated that just before the Spanish arrived Montezuma oversaw a religious festival where maybe as many as 80,000 prisoners were sacrificed.
However the enigma of Montezuma was that despite his power some historians feel he thought the time had come for the carnage to stop in fact eventually many preferred the depth of Christian religion which although eventually hypocritical eschewed the virtues of love. peace and tolerance so I reckon old Montezuma who for his apparent acquiescence to the Spanish was possibly stoned to death by his own people had really seen the writing on the wall and doubted ands maybe felt Christianity offered a better understanding of the human existence. So just like the romans1400 years earlier and the Vikings some 900 years earlier Montezuma saw Christianity as a far better thing than what had gone before.
So before we glibly scoff and dismiss anyone's faith we should recognise the role religion has played in organising and guide the collective psyche in all societies.Saying that I'm still an atheist but a tolerant one.
> Mozzer wrote: >> Why do people who believe in religion think they have the right not to be >> offended?
>> The reason I ask was that I was speaking to a Muslim couple the other >> night at a dinner party and I expressed my believe that someone who had >> sex with prepubescent girls (Muhammad) should not be classed as any kind >> of prophet by decent thinking people. Well being a party mainly composed >> of the liberal left, the comment went down like a lead balloon.
> I have to say, well done to you for saying that. It is true that their > 'prophet' married and consummated his relationship to a NINE YEAR OLD > child bride named Aisha. Disgusting doesn't quite cut it. So on top of him > being a tyrant, warlord and cold blooded murderer, he was also a > paedophile. I take my hat off to you for raising this at a dinner party > with Muslims. LOL...well played. Don't let anyone give you grief for > that....you stated the truth and nothing but. Good for you!
> -- > Legend11 > Manchester United - Premiership Champions Three Times Running.
>> "Mozzer" <mozzer.moz...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:hd1s8b$s62$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>> Why do people who believe in religion think they have the right not to >>> be offended?
> Probably because you're a 2 faced hypocritical wanker.
>>> The reason I ask was that I was speaking to a Muslim couple the other >>> night at a dinner party and I expressed my believe that someone who had >>> sex with prepubescent girls (Muhammad) should not be classed as any kind >>> of prophet by decent thinking people. Well being a party mainly composed >>> of the liberal left, the comment went down like a lead balloon.
> See what I mean. Fuck off and die spunk bubble.
> Redman
Obviously self-righteousness isn't confined to the religious.
> Mozzer wrote: >> What about people who believe there are fairies at the bottom of the >> garden?
> C'mon now, steady on. I've seen fairies in the garden. OK, I had consumed > about 150 fresh psilocybe semilanceata mushrooms at the time....but they > were there. Perhaps they just exist in another dimension, and that > hallucinogens temporarily break down the walls between dimensions? > Whatever...I certainly aint ruling them out.
> ;)
I was about to say the same thing. An interesting, pithy question ruined by a silly comparison. I am deeply offended. So were my tiny chums who, on warmer evenings, hang out amongst the sweet peas shouting insults at next doors gnomes.
>> "Mozzer" <mozzer.moz...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:hd1s8b$s62$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>> Why do people who believe in religion think they have the right not to >>> be offended?
> Probably because you're a 2 faced hypocritical wanker.
You do not make sense
>>> The reason I ask was that I was speaking to a Muslim couple the other >>> night at a dinner party and I expressed my believe that someone who had >>> sex with prepubescent girls (Muhammad) should not be classed as any kind >>> of prophet by decent thinking people. Well being a party mainly composed >>> of the liberal left, the comment went down like a lead balloon.
> "Mozzer" <mozzer.moz...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:hd1s8b$s62$1@news.eternal-september.org... >> Why do people who believe in religion think they have the right not to be >> offended?
>> The reason I ask was that I was speaking to a Muslim couple the other >> night at a dinner party and I expressed my believe that someone who had >> sex with prepubescent girls (Muhammad) should not be classed as any kind >> of prophet by decent thinking people. Well being a party mainly composed >> of the liberal left, the comment went down like a lead balloon.
>> That got me thinking, how come people with other strange beliefs do not >> get offended when you disagree with them to the extent religious folk do? >> For instance can you imagine someone from the flat earth society >> demanding the right to be protected from ridicule by law? What about >> people who think storks bring new born babies? I cannot see them ever >> demanding that the police should be called to arrest me for taking the >> piss out of them. What about people who believe there are fairies at the >> bottom of the garden? I bet other intelligent, articulate and educated >> people would not feel the need to hold back from critism like they do >> with people of religion.
>> It just seems completely ridiculous that delusional fools who believe in >> "god" should expect this right not to be offended. I do get offended by a >> lot of things, the way religion can hold science back by having an input >> into legislation around stem cell research for instance. However, I do >> not demand the right not to be offended, what do the religious demand it?
> Mozzer/Zal I agree with the fact that God is a creation of humanity and > not the other way round but we really must remember the glib arrogant > attitude that we take today is only due to the vast improvements to our > living standards only made possible by capitalism. We should be maybe not > so gung ho to attack people for their religious beliefs. My problem with > all of this is the different tolerance that t the left show to > Christianity but yet feel all other religions that were not developed in > Europe are progressive.
> So for starters I want to see the same polite respect paid to all > religious beliefs but that they are just that personal beliefs and should > not impinge in affairs of state.
> The other week I went to the Montezuma exhibition at the British Museum. A > seemingly tragic story yet only 500 years ago and parallel with the time > of the Tudors. Montezuma king of the Mexacanee established their tribe in > the place that is now Mexico city. Now the way they survived was by i) > suppressing all those tribes in their vicinity and being the biggest > bastards in that land and ii) on the crops they successfully grew. However > all was not rosy as climate change- long before the Labour Party, Obama > and the billionaires Gore stiffed us for as much tax as they could- left > them seemingly in the lap of the rain and sun gods. Therefore the whole > meseo American tradition of sacrifice really did take off. Its been > estimated that just before the Spanish arrived Montezuma oversaw a > religious festival where maybe as many as 80,000 prisoners were > sacrificed.
> However the enigma of Montezuma was that despite his power some historians > feel he thought the time had come for the carnage to stop in fact > eventually many preferred the depth of Christian religion which although > eventually hypocritical eschewed the virtues of love. peace and tolerance > so I reckon old Montezuma who for his apparent acquiescence to the Spanish > was possibly stoned to death by his own people had really seen the writing > on the wall and doubted ands maybe felt Christianity offered a better > understanding of the human existence. So just like the romans1400 years > earlier and the Vikings some 900 years earlier Montezuma saw Christianity > as a far better thing than what had gone before.
> So before we glibly scoff and dismiss anyone's faith we should recognise > the role religion has played in organising and guide the collective psyche > in all societies.Saying that I'm still an atheist but a tolerant one.
Good post, because it raises that question which all atheists must face, simply, if you want to influence others opinions uninvited, you should always remember that the doubts you might sew could take root and flourish. What then? Would you be confident that you have replaced what they had with something better in their lives? Something more comforting when comfort is all they need? Does the old, sick woman on her way to Lourdes, or the devout Muslim on his way to Mecca need to be told OUR version of the truth?
I have no problem living without faith in any of the active religions, but millions would. We might find that their faith is based upon, infantile reasoning, superstition, a blind unquestioning hope for which there is no evidence. But with all its obvious contradictions, and even allowing for the less than perfect activities of its leaders over the centuries, we should remember that religion has given us moral standards.
Our laws are a mixture of expediency and Gods word, which, in the west is mainly Christian based. It's understandable that they include commandments like,' thou shall not steal', because none of us want to be stolen from. I shouldn't fancy my neighbours ass or his wife's arse because I don't want him coveting mine. Very practical if we want a trouble free life. But is this expediency enough? Would it alone provide a basis of workable law if we didn't also have a deeper sense of right and wrong which came with our societies old religious beliefs? Would this concept of the sanctity of human life, which worries the anti abortionists so much, be such an issue . It carries no clout in a purely scientific sense.
A complex question which I am happy to discuss when the topic is raised or when I am invited. But I try to avoid being an atheist missionary, simply because I know that, when needed, there are so many who will find the teachings of Jesus far more comforting than those of Einstein.
> we should remember that religion has given us moral standards.
You really believe this? The bible if followed through to its word, encourages a system of morals which any civilized modern person, whether religious or not, would find obnoxious. Those who wish to base their morality on the Bible have either not read it or not understood it.
>> "Mozzer" <mozzer.moz...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:hd1s8b$s62$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>> Why do people who believe in religion think they have the right not to >>> be offended?
>>> The reason I ask was that I was speaking to a Muslim couple the other >>> night at a dinner party and I expressed my believe that someone who had >>> sex with prepubescent girls (Muhammad) should not be classed as any kind >>> of prophet by decent thinking people. Well being a party mainly composed >>> of the liberal left, the comment went down like a lead balloon.
>>> That got me thinking, how come people with other strange beliefs do not >>> get offended when you disagree with them to the extent religious folk >>> do? For instance can you imagine someone from the flat earth society >>> demanding the right to be protected from ridicule by law? What about >>> people who think storks bring new born babies? I cannot see them ever >>> demanding that the police should be called to arrest me for taking the >>> piss out of them. What about people who believe there are fairies at the >>> bottom of the garden? I bet other intelligent, articulate and educated >>> people would not feel the need to hold back from critism like they do >>> with people of religion.
>>> It just seems completely ridiculous that delusional fools who believe in >>> "god" should expect this right not to be offended. I do get offended by >>> a lot of things, the way religion can hold science back by having an >>> input into legislation around stem cell research for instance. However, >>> I do not demand the right not to be offended, what do the religious >>> demand it?
>> Mozzer/Zal I agree with the fact that God is a creation of humanity and >> not the other way round but we really must remember the glib arrogant >> attitude that we take today is only due to the vast improvements to our >> living standards only made possible by capitalism. We should be maybe not >> so gung ho to attack people for their religious beliefs. My problem with >> all of this is the different tolerance that t the left show to >> Christianity but yet feel all other religions that were not developed in >> Europe are progressive.
>> So for starters I want to see the same polite respect paid to all >> religious beliefs but that they are just that personal beliefs and should >> not impinge in affairs of state.
>> The other week I went to the Montezuma exhibition at the British Museum. >> A seemingly tragic story yet only 500 years ago and parallel with the >> time of the Tudors. Montezuma king of the Mexacanee established their >> tribe in the place that is now Mexico city. Now the way they survived was >> by i) suppressing all those tribes in their vicinity and being the >> biggest bastards in that land and ii) on the crops they successfully >> grew. However all was not rosy as climate change- long before the Labour >> Party, Obama and the billionaires Gore stiffed us for as much tax as they >> could- left them seemingly in the lap of the rain and sun gods. Therefore >> the whole meseo American tradition of sacrifice really did take off. Its >> been estimated that just before the Spanish arrived Montezuma oversaw a >> religious festival where maybe as many as 80,000 prisoners were >> sacrificed.
>> However the enigma of Montezuma was that despite his power some >> historians feel he thought the time had come for the carnage to stop in >> fact eventually many preferred the depth of Christian religion which >> although eventually hypocritical eschewed the virtues of love. peace and >> tolerance so I reckon old Montezuma who for his apparent acquiescence to >> the Spanish was possibly stoned to death by his own people had really >> seen the writing on the wall and doubted ands maybe felt Christianity >> offered a better understanding of the human existence. So just like the >> romans1400 years earlier and the Vikings some 900 years earlier Montezuma >> saw Christianity as a far better thing than what had gone before.
>> So before we glibly scoff and dismiss anyone's faith we should recognise >> the role religion has played in organising and guide the collective >> psyche in all societies.Saying that I'm still an atheist but a tolerant >> one.
> Good post, because it raises that question which all atheists must face, > simply, if you want to influence others opinions uninvited, you should > always remember that the doubts you might sew could take root and > flourish. What then? Would you be confident that you have replaced > what they had with something better in their lives? Something more > comforting when comfort is all they need? Does the old, sick woman > on her way to Lourdes, or the devout Muslim on his way to Mecca > need to be told OUR version of the truth?
There is only one version of the truth.
> I have no problem living without faith in any of the active religions, but > millions would. We might find that their faith is based upon, infantile > reasoning, superstition, a blind unquestioning hope for which there is > no evidence. But with all its obvious contradictions, and even allowing > for the less than perfect activities of its leaders over the centuries, we > should remember that religion has given us moral standards.
Moral standards? You have to be kidding, surely? On the contrary, religious people pick and choose from their scripture. Is stoning moral? Genital mutilation? Lying to children? Abusing children? Murdering and threatening infidels?
They conveniently pick the 'nice' parts of their scripture and claim the moral high ground. Then close their eyes to the naughty bits. That alone shows that we do not get our morals from religion. It's the other way around. Religious people get their morals elsewhere, so they know exactly what to pick and choose.
Those who ONLY rely on holy scripture and religious dogma for their morals and values are those who end their lives as suicide bombers. They are often bright well educated young men, who has been completely brainwashed by the 'values and morals' of their religion. They genuinely believe what they do is right and just.
> Our laws are a mixture of expediency and Gods word, which, in the > west is mainly Christian based. It's understandable that they include > commandments like,' thou shall not steal', because none of us want to > be stolen from. I shouldn't fancy my neighbours ass or his wife's arse > because I don't want him coveting mine. Very practical if we want > a trouble free life. But is this expediency enough? Would it alone > provide a basis of workable law if we didn't also have a deeper sense > of right and wrong which came with our societies old religious beliefs? > Would this concept of the sanctity of human life, which worries the > anti abortionists so much, be such an issue . It carries no clout in a > purely scientific sense.
Those are not religious values and morals. They're human morals necessary to sustain a civilized society. They just happened to be written down by religious people in a time where priests were the main authorities.
> A complex question which I am happy to discuss when the topic is > raised or when I am invited. But I try to avoid being an atheist > missionary, simply because I know that, when needed, there are so > many who will find the teachings of Jesus far more comforting than > those of Einstein.
> Why do people who believe in religion think they have the right not to be > offended?
> The reason I ask was that I was speaking to a Muslim couple the other > night at a dinner party and I expressed my believe that someone who had > sex with prepubescent girls (Muhammad) should not be classed as any kind > of prophet by decent thinking people.
Totally fictitious, you were at no dinner party this did not happen.
You made it up to post more religious or anti religious shite in your case to football NG's
In article <YdidnV6v0cR93mjXnZ2dnUVZ7oKdn...@bt.com>, les...@btinternet.com says...
> Good post, because it raises that question which all atheists must face, > simply, if you want to influence others opinions uninvited, you should > always remember that the doubts you might sew could take root and > flourish. What then? Would you be confident that you have replaced > what they had with something better in their lives? Something more > comforting when comfort is all they need? Does the old, sick woman > on her way to Lourdes, or the devout Muslim on his way to Mecca > need to be told OUR version of the truth?
So why should we be told THEIR version of the truth? Go figure eh!
In article <7ll560F3f3au...@mid.individual.net>, diablos_r0...@yahoo.com says...
> > The reason I ask was that I was speaking to a Muslim couple the other > > night at a dinner party and I expressed my believe that someone who had > > sex with prepubescent girls (Muhammad) should not be classed as any kind > > of prophet by decent thinking people.
> Totally fictitious, you were at no dinner party this did not happen.
> You made it up to post more religious or anti religious shite in your case > to football NG's
You're such a dick Diablos, you really are. It's obvious you don't have the acumen to discuss the subject matter so just decide to slag off the poster.
>>> "Mozzer" <mozzer.moz...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:hd1s8b$s62$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>>> Why do people who believe in religion think they have the right not to >>>> be offended?
>>>> The reason I ask was that I was speaking to a Muslim couple the other >>>> night at a dinner party and I expressed my believe that someone who had >>>> sex with prepubescent girls (Muhammad) should not be classed as any >>>> kind of prophet by decent thinking people. Well being a party mainly >>>> composed of the liberal left, the comment went down like a lead >>>> balloon.
>>>> That got me thinking, how come people with other strange beliefs do not >>>> get offended when you disagree with them to the extent religious folk >>>> do? For instance can you imagine someone from the flat earth society >>>> demanding the right to be protected from ridicule by law? What about >>>> people who think storks bring new born babies? I cannot see them ever >>>> demanding that the police should be called to arrest me for taking the >>>> piss out of them. What about people who believe there are fairies at >>>> the bottom of the garden? I bet other intelligent, articulate and >>>> educated people would not feel the need to hold back from critism like >>>> they do with people of religion.
>>>> It just seems completely ridiculous that delusional fools who believe >>>> in "god" should expect this right not to be offended. I do get offended >>>> by a lot of things, the way religion can hold science back by having an >>>> input into legislation around stem cell research for instance. However, >>>> I do not demand the right not to be offended, what do the religious >>>> demand it?
>>> Mozzer/Zal I agree with the fact that God is a creation of humanity and >>> not the other way round but we really must remember the glib arrogant >>> attitude that we take today is only due to the vast improvements to our >>> living standards only made possible by capitalism. We should be maybe >>> not so gung ho to attack people for their religious beliefs. My problem >>> with all of this is the different tolerance that t the left show to >>> Christianity but yet feel all other religions that were not developed in >>> Europe are progressive.
>>> So for starters I want to see the same polite respect paid to all >>> religious beliefs but that they are just that personal beliefs and >>> should not impinge in affairs of state.
>>> The other week I went to the Montezuma exhibition at the British Museum. >>> A seemingly tragic story yet only 500 years ago and parallel with the >>> time of the Tudors. Montezuma king of the Mexacanee established their >>> tribe in the place that is now Mexico city. Now the way they survived >>> was by i) suppressing all those tribes in their vicinity and being the >>> biggest bastards in that land and ii) on the crops they successfully >>> grew. However all was not rosy as climate change- long before the Labour >>> Party, Obama and the billionaires Gore stiffed us for as much tax as >>> they could- left them seemingly in the lap of the rain and sun gods. >>> Therefore the whole meseo American tradition of sacrifice really did >>> take off. Its been estimated that just before the Spanish arrived >>> Montezuma oversaw a religious festival where maybe as many as 80,000 >>> prisoners were sacrificed.
>>> However the enigma of Montezuma was that despite his power some >>> historians feel he thought the time had come for the carnage to stop in >>> fact eventually many preferred the depth of Christian religion which >>> although eventually hypocritical eschewed the virtues of love. peace and >>> tolerance so I reckon old Montezuma who for his apparent acquiescence to >>> the Spanish was possibly stoned to death by his own people had really >>> seen the writing on the wall and doubted ands maybe felt Christianity >>> offered a better understanding of the human existence. So just like the >>> romans1400 years earlier and the Vikings some 900 years earlier >>> Montezuma saw Christianity as a far better thing than what had gone >>> before.
>>> So before we glibly scoff and dismiss anyone's faith we should recognise >>> the role religion has played in organising and guide the collective >>> psyche in all societies.Saying that I'm still an atheist but a tolerant >>> one.
>> Good post, because it raises that question which all atheists must face, >> simply, if you want to influence others opinions uninvited, you should >> always remember that the doubts you might sew could take root and >> flourish. What then? Would you be confident that you have replaced >> what they had with something better in their lives? Something more >> comforting when comfort is all they need? Does the old, sick woman >> on her way to Lourdes, or the devout Muslim on his way to Mecca >> need to be told OUR version of the truth?
>> I have no problem living without faith in any of the active religions, >> but >> millions would. We might find that their faith is based upon, infantile >> reasoning, superstition, a blind unquestioning hope for which there is >> no evidence. But with all its obvious contradictions, and even allowing >> for the less than perfect activities of its leaders over the centuries, >> we >> should remember that religion has given us moral standards.
> Moral standards? You have to be kidding, surely? On the contrary, > religious people pick and choose from their scripture. Is stoning moral? > Genital mutilation? Lying to children? Abusing children? Murdering and > threatening infidels?
> They conveniently pick the 'nice' parts of their scripture and claim the > moral high ground. Then close their eyes to the naughty bits. That alone > shows that we do not get our morals from religion. It's the other way > around. Religious people get their morals elsewhere, so they know exactly > what to pick and choose.
Elsewhere? but where? Surely not from law and legality alone? Or do you suggest that our sense of moral values is only " do unto others" etc? Expediency without any base? Values are just a manifestation of practicality in operation?
> Those who ONLY rely on holy scripture and religious dogma for their morals > and values are those who end their lives as suicide bombers. They are > often bright well educated young men, who has been completely brainwashed > by the 'values and morals' of their religion. They genuinely believe what > they do is right and just.
Of course they do, just as those engaged in the Crusades thought that they were right and just. The abuses of religion are endless, Things done in the name of gods often cruel and inhuman. Our leading church sold forgiveness and a place in heaven to those who could afford it. They assisted Nazi war criminals to escape to S America. But this abuse proves little other than the world has many evil, corrupt people in it, and plenty of them were to be found in religions. And I never suggested that the teachings of all religions would provide a basis for a decent, fair and just society. Far from it.
You rightfully condemn child abuse, stoning, murdering non believers, etc and use these practices a evidence of how little part religion has played in laying down standards. None ,in your view. But I have to doubt whether we stone adulterers in the west. Or murder non believers. So maybe if those countries where these things are still practiced had at some stage become Christian these customs would have become unacceptable. But why, unless a religion, a more tolerant teaching had played its part.?
I disagree, that those who only rely on scripture and religious dogma for their morals end their lives as suicide bombers. This applies to one particular religion. and it tends to emphasise my point that, whether we like it or not, religion does have a strong influence. But this example is far too selective to have any merit. Isn't it equally true that in other places the same devout following of their faith has not produced saints....in the earthy meaning of that word.?
>> Our laws are a mixture of expediency and Gods word, which, in the >> west is mainly Christian based. It's understandable that they include >> commandments like,' thou shall not steal', because none of us want to >> be stolen from. I shouldn't fancy my neighbours ass or his wife's arse >> because I don't want him coveting mine. Very practical if we want >> a trouble free life. But is this expediency enough? Would it alone >> provide a basis of workable law if we didn't also have a deeper sense >> of right and wrong which came with our societies old religious beliefs? >> Would this concept of the sanctity of human life, which worries the >> anti abortionists so much, be such an issue . It carries no clout in a >> purely scientific sense.
> Those are not religious values and morals. They're human morals necessary > to sustain a civilized society. They just happened to be written down by > religious people in a time where priests were the main authorities.
So, you are saying that we get our codes from law? The sense of what is right or wrong simply from what is legal or illegal? Human values they might be
>> A complex question which I am happy to discuss when the topic is >> raised or when I am invited. But I try to avoid being an atheist >> missionary, simply because I know that, when needed, there are so >> many who will find the teachings of Jesus far
> You're such a dick Diablos, you really are. It's obvious you don't have > the acumen to discuss the subject matter so just decide to slag off the > poster.
I cannot see his posts so I must have him blocked, but you are right his reply reveals his inability to discuss the topic. If I remember right, as soon as I joined Usenet he started to follow me around posting personal attacks, so I plonked him. Some really weird people on here.
>>>> "Mozzer" <mozzer.moz...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:hd1s8b$s62$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>>>> Why do people who believe in religion think they have the right not to >>>>> be offended?
>>>>> The reason I ask was that I was speaking to a Muslim couple the other >>>>> night at a dinner party and I expressed my believe that someone who >>>>> had sex with prepubescent girls (Muhammad) should not be classed as >>>>> any kind of prophet by decent thinking people. Well being a party >>>>> mainly composed of the liberal left, the comment went down like a lead >>>>> balloon.
>>>>> That got me thinking, how come people with other strange beliefs do >>>>> not get offended when you disagree with them to the extent religious >>>>> folk do? For instance can you imagine someone from the flat earth >>>>> society demanding the right to be protected from ridicule by law? >>>>> What about people who think storks bring new born babies? I cannot >>>>> see them ever demanding that the police should be called to arrest me >>>>> for taking the piss out of them. What about people who believe there >>>>> are fairies at the bottom of the garden? I bet other intelligent, >>>>> articulate and educated people would not feel the need to hold back >>>>> from critism like they do with people of religion.
>>>>> It just seems completely ridiculous that delusional fools who believe >>>>> in "god" should expect this right not to be offended. I do get >>>>> offended by a lot of things, the way religion can hold science back by >>>>> having an input into legislation around stem cell research for >>>>> instance. However, I do not demand the right not to be offended, what >>>>> do the religious demand it?
>>>> Mozzer/Zal I agree with the fact that God is a creation of humanity and >>>> not the other way round but we really must remember the glib arrogant >>>> attitude that we take today is only due to the vast improvements to our >>>> living standards only made possible by capitalism. We should be maybe >>>> not so gung ho to attack people for their religious beliefs. My problem >>>> with all of this is the different tolerance that t the left show to >>>> Christianity but yet feel all other religions that were not developed >>>> in Europe are progressive.
>>>> So for starters I want to see the same polite respect paid to all >>>> religious beliefs but that they are just that personal beliefs and >>>> should not impinge in affairs of state.
>>>> The other week I went to the Montezuma exhibition at the British >>>> Museum. A seemingly tragic story yet only 500 years ago and parallel >>>> with the time of the Tudors. Montezuma king of the Mexacanee >>>> established their tribe in the place that is now Mexico city. Now the >>>> way they survived was by i) suppressing all those tribes in their >>>> vicinity and being the biggest bastards in that land and ii) on the >>>> crops they successfully grew. However all was not rosy as climate >>>> change- long before the Labour Party, Obama and the billionaires Gore >>>> stiffed us for as much tax as they could- left them seemingly in the >>>> lap of the rain and sun gods. Therefore the whole meseo American >>>> tradition of sacrifice really did take off. Its been estimated that >>>> just before the Spanish arrived Montezuma oversaw a religious festival >>>> where maybe as many as 80,000 prisoners were sacrificed.
>>>> However the enigma of Montezuma was that despite his power some >>>> historians feel he thought the time had come for the carnage to stop in >>>> fact eventually many preferred the depth of Christian religion which >>>> although eventually hypocritical eschewed the virtues of love. peace >>>> and tolerance so I reckon old Montezuma who for his apparent >>>> acquiescence to the Spanish was possibly stoned to death by his own >>>> people had really seen the writing on the wall and doubted ands maybe >>>> felt Christianity offered a better understanding of the human >>>> existence. So just like the romans1400 years earlier and the Vikings >>>> some 900 years earlier Montezuma saw Christianity as a far better thing >>>> than what had gone before.
>>>> So before we glibly scoff and dismiss anyone's faith we should >>>> recognise the role religion has played in organising and guide the >>>> collective psyche in all societies.Saying that I'm still an atheist but >>>> a tolerant one.
>>> Good post, because it raises that question which all atheists must face, >>> simply, if you want to influence others opinions uninvited, you should >>> always remember that the doubts you might sew could take root and >>> flourish. What then? Would you be confident that you have replaced >>> what they had with something better in their lives? Something more >>> comforting when comfort is all they need? Does the old, sick woman >>> on her way to Lourdes, or the devout Muslim on his way to Mecca >>> need to be told OUR version of the truth?
>> There is only one version of the truth.
> LOL....if only that were the truth.
Of course :-) Plenty of versions...but only one real truth.
>>> I have no problem living without faith in any of the active religions, >>> but >>> millions would. We might find that their faith is based upon, infantile >>> reasoning, superstition, a blind unquestioning hope for which there is >>> no evidence. But with all its obvious contradictions, and even allowing >>> for the less than perfect activities of its leaders over the centuries, >>> we >>> should remember that religion has given us moral standards.
>> Moral standards? You have to be kidding, surely? On the contrary, >> religious people pick and choose from their scripture. Is stoning moral? >> Genital mutilation? Lying to children? Abusing children? Murdering and >> threatening infidels?
>> They conveniently pick the 'nice' parts of their scripture and claim the >> moral high ground. Then close their eyes to the naughty bits. That alone >> shows that we do not get our morals from religion. It's the other way >> around. Religious people get their morals elsewhere, so they know exactly >> what to pick and choose.
> Elsewhere? but where? Surely not from law and legality alone? Or do you > suggest that our sense of moral values is only " do unto others" etc? > Expediency without any base? Values are just a manifestation of > practicality in operation?
>> Those who ONLY rely on holy scripture and religious dogma for their >> morals and values are those who end their lives as suicide bombers. They >> are often bright well educated young men, who has been completely >> brainwashed by the 'values and morals' of their religion. They genuinely >> believe what they do is right and just.
> Of course they do, just as those engaged in the Crusades thought that > they were right and just. The abuses of religion are endless, Things > done in the name of gods often cruel and inhuman. Our leading church > sold forgiveness and a place in heaven to those who could afford it. > They assisted Nazi war criminals to escape to S America. But this abuse > proves little other than the world has many evil, corrupt people in it, > and > plenty of them were to be found in religions. And I never suggested that > the teachings of all religions would provide a basis for a decent, fair > and just society. Far from it.
> You rightfully condemn child abuse, stoning, murdering non believers, > etc and use these practices a evidence of how little part religion has > played in laying down standards. None ,in your view. > But I have to doubt whether we stone adulterers in the west. Or murder > non believers. So maybe if those countries where these things are > still practiced had at some stage become Christian these customs would > have become unacceptable. But why, unless a religion, a more tolerant > teaching had played its part.?
Well I think you just prove my point there. 'A more tolerant teaching' suggests that morals do not come from the religion itself, but from the person/people interpreting it. 'You must not kill', wow that sounds reasonable, we'll teach that. 'Stone people to death for various crimes', wow that sounds awful, we won't teach that. So how do these people know what 'religious' values and morals to teach and which not to teach? They know exactly because they don't come from religion. Some morals and values from religion just happen to make sense at a given time and no sense at other times. As I said, religious people pick and choose.
Today it makes no sense that muslims aren't allowed to eat pork. But my guess would be, that at some point in history it was probably dangerous to eat pork because of some disease. So at some point it made perfect sense to 'ban' pork to protect people from disease. Since priests were the highest moral authority they of course made up a story about Allah not wanting them to eat pork. That was guaranteed to work, rather than just ban it by law.
> I disagree, that those who only rely on scripture and religious dogma for > their > morals end their lives as suicide bombers. This applies to one particular > religion. and it tends to emphasise my point that, whether we like it or > not, > religion does have a strong influence. But this example is far too > selective > to
> In article <7ll560F3f3au...@mid.individual.net>, diablos_r0...@yahoo.com > says... >> > The reason I ask was that I was speaking to a Muslim couple the other >> > night at a dinner party and I expressed my believe that someone who had >> > sex with prepubescent girls (Muhammad) should not be classed as any >> > kind >> > of prophet by decent thinking people.
>> Totally fictitious, you were at no dinner party this did not happen.
>> You made it up to post more religious or anti religious shite in your >> case >> to football NG's
> You're such a dick Diablos, you really are. It's obvious you don't have > the acumen to discuss the subject matter so just decide to slag off the > poster.
Nothing to do with that at all you paranoid dullard, this is a football NG Mozzer in his short time on these NG's (in his present guise) has moaned more than anyone about off topic posts and trolling. Yet here he is yet again crossposting his anti religious nonsense to football NG's in order to antagonise others.
I quite honestly have no interest in whether someone is religious or not but he is just as fundamentalist as others in ramming his anti religiousness down others throats.
See beyond the fact that he's a fellow kopite blowhard and realise he posts nothing about football.
> Nothing to do with that at all you paranoid dullard, this is a football NG > Mozzer in his short time on these NG's (in his present guise) has moaned > more than anyone about off topic posts and trolling. Yet here he is yet > again crossposting his anti religious nonsense to football NG's in order to > antagonise others.
> I quite honestly have no interest in whether someone is religious or not but > he is just as fundamentalist as others in ramming his anti religiousness > down others throats.
> See beyond the fact that he's a fellow kopite blowhard and realise he posts > nothing about football.
> Why do people who believe in religion think they have the right not to be > offended?
> The reason I ask was that I was speaking to a Muslim couple the other night > at a dinner party and I expressed my believe that someone who had sex with > prepubescent girls (Muhammad) should not be classed as any kind of prophet > by decent thinking people. Well being a party mainly composed of the liberal > left, the comment went down like a lead balloon.
> That got me thinking, how come people with other strange beliefs do not get > offended when you disagree with them to the extent religious folk do? For > instance can you imagine someone from the flat earth society demanding the > right to be protected from ridicule by law? What about people who think > storks bring new born babies? I cannot see them ever demanding that the > police should be called to arrest me for taking the piss out of them. What > about people who believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden? I > bet other intelligent, articulate and educated people would not feel the > need to hold back from critism like they do with people of religion.
> It just seems completely ridiculous that delusional fools who believe in > "god" should expect this right not to be offended. I do get offended by a > lot of things, the way religion can hold science back by having an input > into legislation around stem cell research for instance. However, I do not > demand the right not to be offended, what do the religious demand it?
I hear the fish restaurants in Riyadh are very good. Try the same conversation in one of those you heathen prick. -- “The original Templars' rite of the Fifth degree symbolically guided the candidate through the Devil's Pass in the mountains separating the East from the West (the Yezidi domain). At the fork of the trail the candidate would make an important decision: either to retain his present identity, or strike out on the Left-Hand Path to Shambhala, where he might dwell in Satan's household, having rejected the foibles and hypocrisies of the everyday world. A striking parallel to this rite is enacted within the mosques of the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine, an order reserved for thirty-second degree Masons. The Nobles have gracefully removed themselves from any implication of heresy by referring to the place beyond the Devil's Pass as the domain where they might "worship at the shrine of Islam." Once the celebrant has taken this degree, he embarks upon the Left Hand Path and chooses Hell in place of Heaven.”
In uk.sport.football.clubs.liverpool JN Andersen <justj...@stofanet.dk> wrote:
> Those are not religious values and morals. They're human morals necessary to > sustain a civilized society. They just happened to be written down by > religious people in a time where priests were the main authorities.
I find that Hitchens and Dawkins have made the best case here, that morals and ethics have been an evolutionary requirement for people to co-exist and thrive in even the most basic agrarian societies.
I am not too fond of blaming religions on all the bad things done by religious people, but the biggest moral problem for religions (in general) is stated very well byt one Steven Weinberg:
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. "
Sure, religion offers some deal of comfort for many people. But it also causes a great deal of pain and suffering for other people, both directly and indirectly. I find it hard, as an atheist, condone or connive these practices. I am not going to go out there and preach, or start handing out leaflets on the street corner. But I will support things like the Atheist bus campaign, strong separation of church and state (like the woman who won in the courts against the Italian state over crucifixes in classrooms), evolution in schools (luckily in Europe we don't need to fight against ID in schools, at least not yet) etc. I will also happily oppose things like blasphemy laws (an insult to our modern society, let God come down and file suit if he feels insulted), ID/Creationism is schools, separate Muslim/Jew courts for anything, womens oppression in the name of religion (yes, a huge problem for muslims) etc.
-- /jussi Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. * Victor Stenger
|
