Religion (29)

Ehem. No. Not like that at all!

This is so true. How can the rational and the religious have any sort of civilised discourse? The fundamental belief of the secular mind towards religion is that is fairy stories and imaginary friends. The fundamental belief of most mainstream religions is that being an infidel gets you sent straight to hell, which is not to be taken lightly.

So when you have two sides, both of which think the other is fully unhinged, how can you have legit discussion? I mean it's like if half the people looked up and said the sky is red, you can't tell them it's blue, because they are looking at it and to them it's red. No amount of chapter and verse can change what to people on either side of the debate see as obvious.

Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: Why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: Why not marry safe science if you love it so much.

In debating something you are attempting to make someone change, or re-evaluate their position, but with a religious point of view they already “know” that they are right and so it becomes a pointless exercise, you stand more chance of getting an Arsenal fan to support Liverpool, in an Arsenal v Liverpool game while they simultaneously profess an undying love of Manchester United and begin worship of all things Chelsea.

Politics are not quite as intrenched as religion, and sometimes you can change peoples mind, or at least make them think about what they believe in, but the amount of times I've heard people say “I'll never vote Conservative because of Margaret Thatcher”, and when you ask them because she “destroyed the mines”, or “killed the north” or other rubbish. Apart from that fact that I believe Thatcher was a good thing for the country (and we could do with Thatcher Mk2) it is illogical to base voting now on the policies of 20 years ago. If someone was interested in looking out for their best interests then they would vote for the party with the policies that were in their interests, not based on some historical grudge (that may not even be based on fact in the first place).

I'll happily debate religion or politics with anyone, but I don't ever expect to be able to change someone's mind on either, or even manage to get them to rationally talk about a point, more often than not when someone sees their side of the argument failing the rational debate, they just get angry or change the subject, and hence religion and politics stop being discussed, I still remember the priest storming out of a debate on religion at college shouting back “I'm right because the bible is right”...

I totally agree

Me: So you believe in God and Angels

Nutter: Yes

Me: Why ?

Nutter: Because I've seen them and felt their presence.

Me: What, an old bloke on a cloud with a beard and people with wings who fly about with flaming swords and so gods work?

Nutter: Well I haven't actually seen them, but I know they are real.

Me: How?

Nutter: Well I just do!

Me: What if I said I believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Nutter: That would be stupid.

Me: Why?

Nutter: Because you've never seen it, you don't have any proof.

Me: And?...

Edited 25 Mar 10, 6:01 PM by Mattbucks

What a totally rational and logical point, all people who decide to live their life based on facts, things that are real, rational and tangible are obviously cunts, and so must everyone who thinks that they shouldn't have to give their money away to people who are too stupid and/or lazy to work, while at the same time support people who try to make a go of life, well that must be the obvious definition of a cunt.

Someone better tell the rest of the world, because last time I checked lunatics and people who over tax us and destroy our economy while doing the best to also fuck up society are usually referred to as cunts. Can you just check, in that dictionary dose it also say that “dark” is an abundance of light?

Ah, but if a whole pile of folk believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster their group would attract charitable status and extraordinary protection under the law. Particularly if they've believed it for a while and killed a pile of other folk over the matter.

Yrs. &c.,
Lord Mofu,
Antediluvian Order of Spitroasters, Donkeypunchers and Wolfbaggers.

Actually, the Pope should be apologizing to Galileo. It wasn't Galileo who was in need of a pardon. It wasn't Galileo who tortured and imprisoned someone for working out that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around.

It was the Catholic Church whose behaviour was reprehensible, not Galileo.

Ooooh, someone's sense of humour detector isn't working too well!

But - yes - you're right. People who are too ill/old/unendowed with the abilities others are born with - yeah, let them starve, and their kids too.

Ah semen. What is it about that ridiculous white secretion that pulls down the corners of an Englishman's mouth?
The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
A denizen of a right little, tight little island.

I hardly see that as atheist or Conservative policy, and I think you would struggle to find people in those groups who believe in that, it's never been about leaving the ill/old to starve, the issue that people right of centre politically have is the handouts to people who are too lazy to help themselves. I work damn hard for what I get paid, and I work long hours, and on days like today when I'm not starting until ten, that's because I'll probably be working until midnight tonight, yet Labour still sees fit to take more of my friends and I, to give it to people who won't get off their asses and get and at least try to get a job.