Will Europeans rid themselves of ignorance?

[phildwyer]

I mean, you must admit its a bit bizarre. What you call "religion" has been pretty much a *universal* human response to the world since the beginning of recorded history. For 6,000 years the greatest minds have researched, reasoned and debated abot this subject incessantly. And then *you,* Foggypane, come along--openly admitting to never having read *anything* at all on the subject--and happily declare that its all a load of rubbish. Why? Because you saw Richard Dawkins on the telly last week? I mean, don't you feel a *teeny* bit out of your depth here? The way you atheists are willing to take your weird beliefs on faith never ceases to amaze me. Sorry if I'm being harsh, but you guys really do scare me, the way you just accept the propaganda that you're fed. Just think, and maybe even read, a little bit before adopting these strange beliefs with such certainty, you might even enjoy it.

 

[nino_savatte]

That is absolute rubbish. I challenge you to find a single theologian of a monotheistic religion who holds this position. You might as well admit now that you don't know what you're talking about. Although it always interests me to see what wacky claims the atheist nutters will come out with next.

More bollocks from dwyer. It seems to me, it is you who has an agenda.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's because you can't.

You made a pathetic attempt at point scoring and you failed.

The thing is though Phil, even if you could demonstrate how clever and knowledgeable you are, you'd still come across as being a bit of a twat. That's the sort of thing that twats do.

Ah, but you have to admit that it provides us with a steady stream of amusement, sometimes alloyed with a sense of pity for those in direct contact with the ego that is "phildwyer".

It's a sad truth that phil's attempts to demonstrate his superior intellect often only succeed in showing his close-mindedness and illogicality.

Still, all grist for the mill of the rumoured book, I suppose.

 

[foggypane]

That is absolute rubbish. I challenge you to find a single theologian of a monotheistic religion who holds this position. You might as well admit now that you don't know what you're talking about. Although it always interests me to see what wacky claims the atheist nutters will come out with next.

I challenge you in return to find one who doesn't.

Ii've already told you, I'm not an atheist.

 

[foggypane]

I mean, you must admit its a bit bizarre. What you call "religion" has been pretty much a *universal* human response to the world since the beginning of recorded history. A For 6,000 years the greatest minds have researched, reasoned and debated abot this subject incessantly. And then *you,* Foggypane, come along-- B openly admitting to never having read *anything* at all on the subject--and happily declare that its all a load of rubbish. Why? Because you C saw Richard Dawkins on the telly last week? I mean, don't you feel a *teeny* bit out of your depth here? The way you atheists are willing to take your weird beliefs on faith never ceases to amaze me. Sorry if I'm being harsh, but you guys really do scare me, D the way you just accept the propaganda that you're fed. Just think, and maybe even read, a little bit before adopting these strange beliefs with such certainty, you might even enjoy it.

A People like Galileo were of course foolish to tangle with the great minds of the established Church, and were made to look pretty silly when their crazy notions got exposed.

And, as I said earlier, all the 'reasoning' in theology is based on an unprovable assumption.

B I never said any such thing

C never saw it.

D Please, don't come on about propaganda - as a religious apologist you are on very thin ice

 

[phildwyer]

I challenge you in return to find one who doesn't.

OK, Augustine. And all the others. The *only* theologian who might offer some support to your claim is Tertullian. I'd explain why this is in fact a misreading if I thought you'd ever heard of him.

 

[phildwyer]

And, as I said earlier, all the 'reasoning' in theology is based on an unprovable assumption.

What is that assumption?

 

[foggypane]

What is that assumption?

Isn't it blindingly obvious? The assumption that Augustine founded his theology upon.

 

[phildwyer]

Isn't it blindingly obvious? The assumption that Augustine founded his theology upon.

In his Confessions, Augustine recounts how, during his reckless youth, he once had sex beneath the communion table while a priest was saying Mass. He founds his mature theology on the assumption that this was a very bad thing to do. I take it you disagree?

 

[foggypane]

Master of the random, I salute you. Theology. Clue in the name. What would the main assumption - and it is an assumption - of a theologist be?

And, getting back to our challenge, are there any theologists who don't have faith?

(genuine curiosoty here: I'd guess there are a few who started wading through their studies and found themselves thinking it was all a bit dubious)

 

[phildwyer]

Master of the random, I salute you. Theology. Clue in the name. What would the main assumption - and it is an assumption - of a theologist be?

And, getting back to our challenge, are there any theologists who don't have faith?

(genuine curiosoty here: I'd guess there are a few who started wading through their studies and found themselves thinking it was all a bit dubious)

First of all, its *theologian.* Second, I take it you mean the existence of God. That is not an "assumption," it can and has been demonstrated logically. Third, you'll have to tell me what you mean by "faith." As you've used it so far, you seem to think it means "credulity" or "irrational belief" or something like that. It does not. Fourth, theology is a very difficult and complicated subject, and I can understand why you might not want to bother with it. That's fair enough. But it really is *stupid,* having decided not to look into the matter, to pretend that you know something about it. Agreed?

 

[foggypane]

First of all, its *A theologian.* Second, I take it you mean the existence of God. B That is not an "assumption," it can and has been demonstrated logically. Third, you'll have to tell me what you mean by "faith." As you've used it so far, you seem to think it means "credulity" or "irrational belief" or something like that. C It does not. Fourth, theology is a very difficult and complicated subject, and I can understand why you might not want to bother with it. That's fair enough. But it really is *stupid,D * having decided not to look into the matter, to pretend that you know something about it. E Agreed?

A I knew that.

B Gotcha!

C It precisely does, in this context

D I think the item of punctuation you are looking for is in fact " " "

E Nope. I have decided not to look into the matter at the moment, because of the deep flaw which I have been mentioning, i.e. the non-certainty of god.
I'm not pretending to know a great deal about it. I'm not entirely ignorant. I'd probably get an RE GCSE with a few days notice.
As I have, like you, no idea whether there is a god or not, it seems a bit silly to go into matters subordinate to that.

 

[phildwyer]

As I have, like you, no idea whether there is a god or not, it seems a bit silly to go into matters subordinate to that.

So your position is that it is impossible for anyone to have any idea whether or not there is a God? You are an agnostic? That is at least a reasonable position to hold, unlike atheism. I still don't agree with it though.

 

[foggypane]

Game, set and indeed match.

I've said several times that I'm not an atheist. I've also said several times that I don't know whether there's a god or not (like you ).

If you think that's a reasonable position, what on earth have you been doing wasting your mighty intellect on me for?

 

[foggypane]

Sorry, that was a bit ungracious.

I'll have a go at getting you to be an agnostic on another occasion. You know you want to, deep down.

 

[phildwyer]

Game, set and indeed match.

I've said several times that I'm not an atheist. I've also said several times that I don't know whether there's a god or not (like you ).

If you think that's a reasonable position, what on earth have you been doing wasting your mighty intellect on me for?

Forgive my confusion. I must have mixed you up with your mad atheist twin brother. You know, the one who goes around shouting stuff like this:

IT'S ALL MADE UP! Can't we keep shouting that? Why do we have to be polite all the time about this drivel? I mean, it's one thing being nice if someone is genuinely mentally ill, you don't rant at them about their voices being all delusions. But religious people? FFS, they choose to swallow the nonsense, it is our duty to laugh at them and call them names

 

[foggypane]

Forgive my confusion. I must have mixed you up with your mad atheist twin brother. You know, the one who goes around shouting stuff like this:

I forgive your confusion. Don't let it worry you. You are confused over the different concepts 'religion' and 'belief in a god'.

Religion is all made up. It materially affects my life when religious people try to influence public matters so I oppose that as an affront to my freedom.

I don't know if there's a god or not, (same as you) so technically I am an agnostic.

If you want to try for an equaliser, go ahead.

Do you know there is a god?

 

[phildwyer]

I forgive your confusion. Don't let it worry you. You are confused over the different concepts 'religion' and 'belief in a god'.

Religion is all made up. It materially affects my life when religious people try to influence public matters so I oppose that as an affront to my freedom.

I don't know if there's a god or not, (same as you) so technically I am an agnostic.

If you want to try for an equaliser, go ahead.

Do you know there is a god?

I do. But you are right about *organized* religion. It is indeed all made up and a load of bollocks to boot. Certainly it should not be allowed any influence on public life.

 

[foggypane]

I do. But you are right about *organized* religion. It is indeed all made up and a load of bollocks to boot. Certainly it should not be allowed any influence on public life.

A -HA! No you don't. You believe there is a god.

Last time I had this conversation was with a vicar called Priest. We got so drunk I can't remember how it ended up. Nice bloke.

nb. remember - "" not **

 

[foggypane]

I'm waiting.

taps foot and looks at watch

 

[Fruitloop]

I think it should be clarified whether what is meant by 'religion' is the generally recognised social phenomenon of religious belief, or phildwyer's entirely idiolectic 'Hegel and Baudrillard Drop Acid' theological musings. Unless this is cleared up at the outset there is no hope for this discussion, IMO.

 

[nino_savatte]

Is dwyer still at it? Fucking idiot.

 

[phildwyer]

I think it should be clarified whether what is meant by 'religion' is the generally recognised social phenomenon of religious belief, or phildwyer's entirely idiolectic 'Hegel and Baudrillard Drop Acid' theological musings. Unless this is cleared up at the outset there is no hope for this discussion, IMO.

We can do either as far as I'm concerned. As you say, I do have my own ideas on this matter, which have been widely acclaimed and are probably worth rehearsing again on here. I also have my opinions on organized religion which, basically, I regard as the Antichrist. I can tell you about either. It is up to you.

 

[nino_savatte]

We can do either as far as I'm concerned. As you say, I do have my own ideas on this matter, which have been widely acclaimed and are probably worth rehearsing again on here. I also have my opinions on organized religion which, basically, I regard as the Antichrist. I can tell you about either. It is up to you.

In your dreams, Walter Mitty; you're the only one who believes that.

 

[phildwyer]

In your dreams, Walter Mitty; you're the only one who believes that.

Maybe you should ask your friend Violent Panda.

 

[nino_savatte]

Maybe you should ask your friend Violent Panda.

You're not making any sense at all...but then nothing you actually say makes any sense - does it?

I shall take this as further evidence of your sociopathy.

 

[nick1181]

Well as I said earlier - we have thousands* of years of really unpleasant history to learn from about how difficult it is to stop being religious.

Apparently in the UK, church attendance is down to about 3%. How did we get this way?

I get the distinct feeling that there might be a correlation between religion and poverty - I don't know though. In NZ I was forced to do religious studies at school and the born-again contingient is pretty strong - the main thing that I hated about it is that it all seemed to be to do with obedience to authority. I just couldn't rid myself of this feeling that the main purpose of religion was for old people to try to control young people's sexuality.




* as opposed to 2000 years - not wanting to give Phil a chance to start wanking on and on endlessly about how clever he is compared to everyone else, and in fact no one else is really qualified to have an opinion. His opinions are acclaimed you know. Widely acclaimed even. Mind you, he is widely considered to be an utter twat as well, so what you win on the swings you lose on the roundabouts.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Maybe you should ask your friend Violent Panda.

Isn't "critically acclaimed by some sections of a narrow academic community" closer to the mark than "widely acclaimed", D***?

 

[nick1181]

Oh I'm sure it's more widley acclaimed than that. The Pope for example.

Or even God in fact. God sometimes rings Phil for advice on particularly knotty problems where his own level of expertise isn't up to scratch.


[Ring Ring...]

Phil : Orrite.

God (for it is he) : Orrite Phil, how's it going?

Phil : Oh you know, easy come, easy go. Little high little low.

God : A ha ha ha. Yes Phil, very good... So. What are you up to?

Phil : Bit of this, bit of that. Just chatting to some unbelievers on the web actually.

God : The Web?

Phil : Yea - it's a... err... It's a great big... errr.... It's actually quite technical. You probably wouldn't understand it if I did tell you.

God : Right. Yea, ok. I've been meaning to ask your advice about something Phil...

Phil : Go on?

God : It's... well... ... Promise not to laugh?

Phil : No, no, I promise.

God : I've been thinking about the syncretism between the Platonic Demiurge and the Johannite Logos...

Phil (frantic tapping of keys) : ...Ok?

God : And I think it might be best if I shaved my beard off.

Phil : Ok... I err... I mean (more frantic tapping of keys)... I err...

(sounds of divine blokey laughter going off in God's background...)

Phil : Phil... well I... ..... Are you taking the piss


God's line is engulfed in racaus hilarity before ringing off.

Phil goes back to trying to impress the vaguely unworthy people on U75

 

[TeeJay]

foggypane, you have listed various ways in which you claim religion has an impact on life in the UK. You ask:

"Why vicars on the radio?
Why faith schools with state money?
Why ... do religions have the ability ... to ... fuck around with my freedoms?"

and state

"Religious input into legislation still goes on.
Religious groups constantly attack freedom of speech.
...I don't lobby the Government for laws that will make this happen, I don't picket or threaten rival bands, and I don't hold angry protests in central London..."

A lot of people are given time on the TV and radio, not just people with religious beliefs. I don't see why it would be a good thing to ban all mentions of religious or spiritual belief from the airwaves. The only countries to do this are dictatorships.

I don't have a massive problem with people sending their children to schools run by a church or other group as long as the education meets national criteria and the education itself is balanced and open minded. I myself went to a "religious" school but this just meant we had chapel services - it didn't extent to how the academic subjects were taught or mean that we deviated from the normal subject or exam syllabus. There was a school chaplin but not all the staff were religious by any means, and the general culture was tolerant and open minded.

I don't see how religions have any ability to constrain your freedoms in the UK. They are only subject to UK law which is secular.

Your other points relate to groups of citizens lobbying the government, or individual politicians having certain personal beliefs, but neither of these is any different from anyone else lobbying the government or having ideological beliefs.

You haven't put forward any real reason why we have a "duty" to harass or insult people because of their beliefs, when these beliefs don't impact directly on your freedoms or lifestyle choices. Of course *some* religious groups try and get things banned, but so do other groups of people - this isn't exclusive to people with religious beliefs, and there are many people who have religious and spiritual beliefs who disagree and don't want to ban anything.

I accept that religion does have a role in oppressing people in many countries, but I don't accept that this really is a great issue in the UK or that in the UK context it justifies attacking every single person who has religious beliefs of some sort because many of them don't mess around with anyone else.

By all means attack people who are authoritarian, biggoted, who want to oppress and control others - but this isn't exclusive to 'religion' - in fact there have been many atheists who have done plenty of this as well.