Christians told to treat atheists and agnostics with "deep esteem"

[Russ B]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Well if he wants to make money out of it, and people are willing to pay, that's their choice, personally, I don't need to read his book.

What I get concerned about is how many people will be influenced by his rubbish. He's already stated his purpose of the book is to make Christians doubt their faith.

[Jefferson T]

I mean no disrepsect by this, but surely if they have proper or true faith a book won't make them change their opinion.

At least I hope it won't

[Russ B]

Originally Posted by Jefferson T

I mean no disrepsect by this, but surely if they have proper or true faith a book won't make them change their opinion.

It doesn't quite work like that. Some have stronger faith than others, it doesn't make anyone's faith more true or proper than the next person.

Watching a football match, your team is losing with 5 minutes to go. It may look grim but that doesn't make your faith in your team any less valid.

[Jefferson T]

Fair enough, my opinion on what constitutes faith is biased anyway (for reasons I won't go into on here).

Cheers for clarifying tho

[moroboshi]

Originally Posted by Russ B

What I get concerned about is how many people will be influenced by his rubbish. He's already stated his purpose of the book is to make Christians doubt their faith.

How can you possibly say his work is rubbish? I found his case to be incredibly well argued, and put together in an intelligent and eloquent way. Dawkin's is the no.1 intellectual in the UK and I can see why.

The way I see it, there are two ways to reach a conclusion. The first is the scientific way - you collect all the facts, work out a theory to best explain them, then you arrive at a conclusion. That conclusion is of course always open to revision. That is how Dawkin's arrived at his conclusion.

Then there is the religious way - you have a concrete conclusion found in an ancient book, then you try to find anything to justify that conclusion. When facts fail, as they obviously would when dealing with the supernatural and magical type myths, you have to use that old religious 'get out of jail' card of 'blind faith'.

I've always been curious how religious people are able to believe in such things, as they're clearly impossible. A virgin birth? Rising from the dead? It's such silly nonsense and yet, and correct me if I'm wrong, has not yet passed into the 'of course it didn't really happen but just look at it as a moral story' category of religious thinking, as much of the bible already has. I guess the time will come eventually when all of the bible is 'just for the morals', but we're not there yet evidently.

So getting back to the original point, if Dawkins does manage to make religious people see the other side, and change their way of thinking from something based on magic and mystery, to one based on reason and evidence, then surely that can only be a good thing.

---------- Post added at 19:57 ---------- Previous post was at 19:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ B

It also says a lot of very wonderful things, but they don't make headlines.

So do you just ignore it's thoroughly vile attitude towards homosexuals? How can you justify such disgusting views?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by moroboshi

So do you just ignore it's thoroughly vile attitude towards homosexuals? How can you justify such disgusting views?

Easy, god changed his mind, didn't you get the memo?
Check your junk folder...

[Russ B]

Originally Posted by moroboshi

How can you possibly say his work is rubbish? I found his case to be incredibly well argued, and put together in an intelligent and eloquent way. Dawkin's is the no.1 intellectual in the UK and I can see why.

OK where do I start.

The book overstates the case against religion by blaming faith for practically everything wrong with the world. Suppose we woke up tomorrow morning and found that every denomination had disappeared. The Israelis and Palestinians would still be at each other's throats: their conflict is about land, liberty, and modernity, not faith.

Dawkins wants to get rid of religion totally - it is factual that religion is at the core of much of the world's philanthropy. Faith has underscored many social equity movements, from abolitionism in America to Gladstone's social equality movement, in which religious organisations such as World Vision ask that the wealth of the West be shared with the poor of developing nations. Obviously a person need not be religious to be philanthropic, but the knowledge that religion inspires generosity should not be sneezed at.

Originally Posted by moroboshi

The way I see it, there are two ways to reach a conclusion. The first is the scientific way - you collect all the facts, work out a theory to best explain them, then you arrive at a conclusion. That conclusion is of course always open to revision. That is how Dawkin's arrived at his conclusion.

Then there is the religious way - you have a concrete conclusion found in an ancient book, then you try to find anything to justify that conclusion. When facts fail, as they obviously would when dealing with the supernatural and magical type myths, you have to use that old religious 'get out of jail' card of 'blind faith'.

You've cleraly demonstrated your lack of knowledge on one subject while being heavily biased towards the other. People of religious belief to not get their views from grasping at poorly-put together ideas.

The problem here is not only do you not want to understand the opposing views, you're also happy to mock them. Kind of makes it hard for me to find the motivation to discuss this with you.

Originally Posted by moroboshi

I've always been curious how religious people are able to believe in such things, as they're clearly impossible. A virgin birth? Rising from the dead?

So a 'miracle' for you has to have a scientific explanation? So it's no longer a miracle then....

Originally Posted by moroboshi

It's such silly nonsense and yet, and correct me if I'm wrong, has not yet passed into the 'of course it didn't really happen but just look at it as a moral story' category of religious thinking, as much of the bible already has. I guess the time will come eventually when all of the bible is 'just for the morals', but we're not there yet evidently.

Clutching at straws.

Originally Posted by moroboshi

So getting back to the original point, if Dawkins does manage to make religious people see the other side, and change their way of thinking from something based on magic and mystery, to one based on reason and evidence, then surely that can only be a good thing.

Why? Are my views and beliefs any danger to you? Why would you be so arrogant and elitist to want to change my views, beliefs and lifestyles?

In fact what gives you the right to want to impose your views on me?

---------- Post added at 20:06 ---------- Previous post was at 20:04 ----------

Originally Posted by moroboshi

So do you just ignore it's thoroughly vile attitude towards homosexuals? How can you justify such disgusting views?

OK I think you might need to start reading a bible. I know that's a scary thought but you might actually get to what it actually says about homosexuals. And that is nothing. It's the armschair expert's favourite starting point to have a dig at Christianity by going on about what they think the bible says about gays. It's quite handy that 9 times out of ten (as in your case) they get it wrong.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ B

OK I think you might need to start reading a bible. I know that's a scary thought but you might actually get to what it actually says about homosexuals. And that is nothing. It's the armschair expert's favourite starting point to have a dig at Christianity by going on about what they think the bible says about gays. It's quite handy that 9 times out of ten (as in your case) they get it wrong.

Would that be that thin line I recall us discussing, between homosexuals (all fine and dandy), and homosexual behaviour (not highly regarded)?
I believe the phrase I had to use to get through your wriggling at the time was "a man laying with another man in the way that a man lays with a woman"

[Russ B]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Would that be that thin line I recall us discussing, between homosexuals (all fine and dandy), and homosexual behaviour (not highly regarded)?
I believe the phrase I had to use to get through your wriggling at the time was "a man laying with another man in the way that a man lays with a woman"

The bible makes no distiction between practising gays and those who commit adultary. Sexual sin is the key, not a person's sexuality as you well know.

edt: "wriggling"?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ B

The bible makes no distiction between practising gays and those who commit adultary. Sexual sin is the key, not a person's sexuality as you well know.

edt: "wriggling"?

Yes, as you are wriggling now.
Homosexuals are fine, just as long as they don't have sex with men, that's what you're saying isn't it?

[peanutkp]

I always struggle and I mean that in the sense of the bad way when you try and have this discussion, it tends to always end up one way. I mean that in the sense that every question asked is answered by another question in defence. And that's always a part of the question that can be answered in this way that feels pointless. But what you want answered is never is.

It really does end up stalemate everytime, but the one that loses out is normally the one with the questions everytime.

I hope you get what mean.

[Maggy J]

All the world's ills are not necessarily to be laid at the feet of religions and their followers.Most of them are purely to do with the love of money or power and a lot of atheists are just as likely to contribute to the world's ills in seeking them.

to point the finger and declaim that religion and followers of religion are to blame for every evil is a little simplistic.Evil walks the world in many guises and not all of those worship a god.

[Russ B]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Yes, as you are wriggling now.
Homosexuals are fine, just as long as they don't have sex with men, that's what you're saying isn't it?

I don't see 'wriggling' as answering a question.

Penetrative sex between 2 men is sinful according to the bible. Nowhere does the bible say anything to do with homosexuality is any worse than any other sin. Proverbs 6:16-19 tells us, "There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers."

Homosexual sex is not mentioned anywhere there.

Let me predict your next line: "So Russ, is it straight or homosexual people who have homosexual sex?".

Well seeing as gays are the ones having all this sex then maybe I wish I was one so I could get me a piece of action that they're all obviously up to

Oh and before you do your usual trick of lumping me in with all the "God hates fags" people, what 2 people get up to in private is none of my business or concern.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ B

I don't see 'wriggling' as answering a question.

Penetrative sex between 2 men is sinful according to the bible. Nowhere does the bible say anything to do with homosexuality is any worse than any other sin. Proverbs 6:16-19 tells us, "There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers."

Homosexual sex is not mentioned anywhere there.

Let me predict your next line: "So Russ, is it straight or homosexual people who have homosexual sex?".

Well seeing as gays are the ones having all this sex then maybe I wish I was one so I could get me a piece of action that they're all obviously up to

Oh and before you do your usual trick of lumping me in with all the "God hates fags" people, what 2 people get up to in private is none of my business or concern.

Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Leviticus 18:22: You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination.

So pretty clear, two blokes having sex = abomination and then put to death.

Of course, from the old testiment, so is this, like the rule about non-kosher food and now no longer an issue, or do you have two sets of plates and sinks in your house, lest dairy products come into contact with meat?
Does the "sacrifice" of your lord mean that anal sex between men is no longer an abomination?
Perhaps the Archbishop should have also said religious people should treat practicing homosexuals with deep esteem?