They have as much right to interfere in non church matters as atheists have to question and criticise their superstitious nonsense. People on here have objected to atheists making their views known so I was just evening up the score. (Not yet heard a reply as to why a god would create eye burrowing insects). I would like to see church leaders follow their holy book and condemn all wars and killing as against the 10 commandments and certainly not in keeping with what their founder would personally have done -could you imagine him lifting a Kalashnikov in ANY circumstance - nope because he DID believe in god
Off Topic Stephen Fry on the concept of God!
- Thread starter canary-dave
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I have not objected to Atheists making their opinions known. I have objected to their tone - their arrogance in stating as fact that everything which contradicts their own view is just so much superstitious nonsense. The Archbishop in question has not carried himself in the same way but has simply asked for more research.
Last edited:
Seems as if the church is wrong if they express a view, or just as wrong if they say nothing. Of course they have every right to speak out on almost any matter, especially if they have taken the time to find out the issues.
Don't wish to cause offence to anyone ...but I honestly do not see what right the church has to interfere in this particular issue . Ok , a lot of the great and the good ( the establishment ) still prop up the power structures of the church , largely for their own benefits .However , the majority of rational , educated and enlightened members of society no longer believe in a super daddy .
Perhaps the Church of England could concentrate their efforts on other important issues like the rise of radical Islam and leave matters of human progress to others .
Perhaps the Church of England could concentrate their efforts on other important issues like the rise of radical Islam and leave matters of human progress to others .
The Church has the right to criticize wherever and whenever it wishes - just like any other social grouping in a democracy, or would you deny them that right ?
The church act as if they deserve a special place in our society - which of course they have in the House of Lords, helping to legislate on us all. Why? - what percentage of the UK are now active Christians? I do not care what people who base their lives on a book which is totally contradictory, racist, sexist and homophobic preach to me - let them preach to each other. I think most atheists keep their views to themselves - I do too except on a forum like this where people only view it if they want a vigorous debate. Yet the church does not lose a trick to tell us what they think and what they think we should do. Afraid Cologne that faith IS superstition. It is just based on belief. Fair enough if you want to believe then do - no harm in that for the believer but why they adopt the moral high ground I do not know - they are no better nor worse than the population at large. At least science attempts to find a rational explanation for what is around us - they propose theories - test it with evidence and these are then accepted or rejected on scientific FACT. Believers in god have no such methodology- it is all in the heart and mind. Great- they could be right - but I doubt it.
Leo, if you deny the Church (and other religious groupings) the same rights as those given to every other social grouping in the UK. ie. to criticize and to form an extra parliamentary pressure group if they choose, then you are treading on dangerous waters. If you are prepared to consider muzzling religions in this way then you are also prepared to accept it the other way around ie. when a religious state muzzles all secular criticism from below ?.
Last edited:
In the UK it is perfectly reasonable for religious representatives to have their say as they no longer have such intimidating control over peoples lives. With improving education and information technology their views can easily be challenged by rational argument. The world is definitely not flat but round.
I suggest that the Church (and most people for that matter) knew that the Earth was round. Even the Ancient Greeks were aware of this.
Maybe a better example is the Catholic Church's insistence for decades that the Sun orbited the Earth despite Copernicus showing it plainly didn't.......
Let's get down to basics ...where is the evidence for the existence of God ?
Any idea why God's personality completely changed from the Old Testament to the New ? The God of the old testament is a thoroughly unpleasant character .. he set mankind a test which he surely knew we would fail ( total nonsense ) ..sin therefore enters his perfect creation . All is pear shaped at the time of Noah , so the rotten dictator decides to drown all but a few ( not the sort of loving creator I want to worship ) .
Ok , Jesus seemed like a thoroughly decent chap .. one of the reasons as a late teenager I looked up to him as a role model ( my other hero was Graham Taylor ) . Trouble is the whole Christ story .. coming down to save us and being crucified is a little odd ...why did our heavenly father choose this totally bizarre scenario ?
Throughout history, the established Church supported corrupt Kings ...No true Christian could sanction any war , torture heretics or bugger choir boys .
For centuries the established Church said the planet was 6,000 years old ...We now know it's millions of years old . Without free the thinking men of science , we would still be living under medieval conditions .
.....And as for democracy ...it just does not exist , it is merely an illusion . We dwell in a world where a greedy elite control far too high a percentage of the worlds resources . The likes of Murdoch control large sways of the media and basically brainwash the masses with their lies .
Any idea why God's personality completely changed from the Old Testament to the New ? The God of the old testament is a thoroughly unpleasant character .. he set mankind a test which he surely knew we would fail ( total nonsense ) ..sin therefore enters his perfect creation . All is pear shaped at the time of Noah , so the rotten dictator decides to drown all but a few ( not the sort of loving creator I want to worship ) .
Ok , Jesus seemed like a thoroughly decent chap .. one of the reasons as a late teenager I looked up to him as a role model ( my other hero was Graham Taylor ) . Trouble is the whole Christ story .. coming down to save us and being crucified is a little odd ...why did our heavenly father choose this totally bizarre scenario ?
Throughout history, the established Church supported corrupt Kings ...No true Christian could sanction any war , torture heretics or bugger choir boys .
For centuries the established Church said the planet was 6,000 years old ...We now know it's millions of years old . Without free the thinking men of science , we would still be living under medieval conditions .
.....And as for democracy ...it just does not exist , it is merely an illusion . We dwell in a world where a greedy elite control far too high a percentage of the worlds resources . The likes of Murdoch control large sways of the media and basically brainwash the masses with their lies .
Ah, a new moderate member of our forum, how refreshing - to counter the extremism of many here.
Welcome 1963!!!
I do not deny the Church - or any other group - the right to free speech. But I question why they are given privileged status by the BBC in particular (but also others) to have those views rammed down our throats by the "state media". Extra Parliamentary pressure group ????? Look at the House of Lords. I would not muzzle anyone but I would not expect the state broadcaster to always report their views. They represent a small proportion of the citizenry and should be accorded minority status. I could not care less what they think - I consider them slightly odd for believing that there is a god who gives a **** about humanity but have no problem with them if that is what they choose to believe.
Fan1963 - in America in some states it is illegal to teach evolution and inmany more creationism has to be taught as equally valid even though it is patently ridiculous.
I haven't done enough research on the science or the implications so I will hold my counsel for now.
That said it would appear that scientific advancement is rather overwhelming for religious institutions and they feel threatened. Probably with good reason for as we (homo sapiens) learn more the less relevant religion becomes and the more relevant our evolving morality gets.
Religion is based upon the few keeping the many in check (why else should the bible be only in Latin and the Koran in Arabic). That still holds today.
That said it would appear that scientific advancement is rather overwhelming for religious institutions and they feel threatened. Probably with good reason for as we (homo sapiens) learn more the less relevant religion becomes and the more relevant our evolving morality gets.
Religion is based upon the few keeping the many in check (why else should the bible be only in Latin and the Koran in Arabic). That still holds today.
I think that in some ways Leo I am forgetting about the differences between the countries we both live in. I know that the question of the separation of State and Church is a delicate issue in the UK. and certainly do not want the C of E to have any more power than they already have. The question of Bishops in the House of Lords (The existence of that house), the role of Elizabeth Windsor as head of the Church in England - all these are highly suspect and make me glad I left in 1989. However, those problems are peculiarly English. The intervention of the Church can take many different aspects. During a recent demonstration in which Pegida (A right wing anti Islamic movement in Germany - with close connections to the German Defence League) chose to march in Cologne (relegated to the other side of the Rhine) the Cathedral of the City - which has been lit up on every night for the last 69 years was blacked out, which made the whole scene look very eerie. This was the Catholic (Rheinland Catholicism is a bit different !) reaction to the shame of having Nazis showing their faces in Cologne.
I truly do not want to offend ... I do take an interest in history WW2 is of particular interest .
Food for thought in this link
http://alamoministries.com/content/english/Antichrist/nazigallery/photogallery.html
Colognehornet , I have a large archive / collection of original servicemen's photos albums ..I like to view the world "through their eyes" ..
I have several photo albums which have photos taken in Cologne ...2 belonged to British soldiers who were there at the end of WW1 1919 ..the city looked beautiful ... and then I have a further 2 albums where photos were taken at the same locations at the end of WW2 ...the city was devastated by allied bombing . Apparently , the Cathedral was left largely untouched because it was used as a landmark for the bombers . The world went mad .
Is there much of the old city left ? did they rebuild the old or is there a lot of postwar / modern architecture ?
Food for thought in this link
http://alamoministries.com/content/english/Antichrist/nazigallery/photogallery.html
Colognehornet , I have a large archive / collection of original servicemen's photos albums ..I like to view the world "through their eyes" ..
I have several photo albums which have photos taken in Cologne ...2 belonged to British soldiers who were there at the end of WW1 1919 ..the city looked beautiful ... and then I have a further 2 albums where photos were taken at the same locations at the end of WW2 ...the city was devastated by allied bombing . Apparently , the Cathedral was left largely untouched because it was used as a landmark for the bombers . The world went mad .
Is there much of the old city left ? did they rebuild the old or is there a lot of postwar / modern architecture ?
The arguments here seem to revolve around ethical values. Clearly many religious leaders have lacked what I would considered to be acceptable values, but so have people from every other walk of life. The problem occurs when people group together and corrupt each other. This happens in religious institutions, businesses, politics, everywhere. If one is in a group that holds particular (anti-social) values it becomes very hard to stand up to the majority in that group. See Stanley Milgram. The issue of gods is really a side issue. People justify their actions using any number of excuses. God is just one of them. History and perceived injustices to ancestors is another. Everyone has a right, in our societies, to comment of ethical and moral problems. Over time our responses to these problems change - usually for the better but sometimes for the worse (though that is a value judgement in itself).
I don't care what people believe in provided they behave in what I would consider to be a morally acceptable manner. I may consider praying or confession to be unnecessary, but if it helps people to reflect on what they have done and results in them being better people afterwards then great.
I don't care what people believe in provided they behave in what I would consider to be a morally acceptable manner. I may consider praying or confession to be unnecessary, but if it helps people to reflect on what they have done and results in them being better people afterwards then great.
Interesting interview with a Evolutionary Biologist from the University of Sussex. Whilst he supported the goal of this procedure, his consen is that the testing has been very sparse - it has only been tested on 4 Monkeys as Multi-organ animals. His other concern is that the relationship between Mitrochrondial DNA and Nucleus DNA is not clearly understood and thus the impact of breaking that relationship is not understood - so it seems that this is being rushed through without an adequate understanding of the risks.
I have huge reservations about interfering with the fundamentals of life and we see some of the results with natural genetic mutation, but for humans to go tinkering without a real understanding of the risks is too much. Same goes for GM crops, I huge concerns about the risks of deliberately mutated strains getting loose into nature.
I have huge reservations about interfering with the fundamentals of life and we see some of the results with natural genetic mutation, but for humans to go tinkering without a real understanding of the risks is too much. Same goes for GM crops, I huge concerns about the risks of deliberately mutated strains getting loose into nature.
Interesting interview with a Evolutionary Biologist from the University of Sussex. Whilst he supported the goal of this procedure, his consen is that the testing has been very sparse - it has only been tested on 4 Monkeys as Multi-organ animals. His other concern is that the relationship between Mitrochrondial DNA and Nucleus DNA is not clearly understood and thus the impact of breaking that relationship is not understood - so it seems that this is being rushed through without an adequate understanding of the risks.
I have huge reservations about interfering with the fundamentals of life and we see some of the results with natural genetic mutation, but for humans to go tinkering without a real understanding of the risks is too much. Same goes for GM crops, I huge concerns about the risks of deliberately mutated strains getting loose into nature.
I have huge reservations about interfering with the fundamentals of life and we see some of the results with natural genetic mutation, but for humans to go tinkering without a real understanding of the risks is too much. Same goes for GM crops, I huge concerns about the risks of deliberately mutated strains getting loose into nature.