January 22, 200817 yr maybe so scott, but im not so sure a weak willed liberal religion like christianity will stand up to the strength and passion of islam. i am talking long term here.....
January 22, 200817 yr maybe so scott, but im not so sure a weak willed liberal religion like christianity will stand up to the strength and passion of islam. i am talking long term here..... Not sure what you're arguing for here mate... Are you arguing for a stronger, more authoritarian type of Christianity such as existed in the past...? If so, that would certainly be quite literally going back to the Dark Ages, and I wouldn't have thought that someone who puts across the arguments of Richard Dawkins would be in favour of something like that... You and me would probably be amongst the first ones to be denounced as "heretics" if this were to happen mate... Be careful what you wish for..... Militant Christianity is certainly no more desirable than fundamentalist Islam dude....
January 26, 200817 yr "Stalinism" or "Maoism" (which is what it was..) aint Marxism mate, not even close... Get your facts straight on that one at least.... That equals to sayng catholicism or anglicanism ain´t christianity mate... Things work pretty well in books but the problems start when people try to put it in practice...
January 26, 200817 yr its a logical conclusion that over time muslims would get into positions of power and disproportionately have a voice. its abit like the jews have in our society, so many in parliament, the media, etc ... now we have a holocaust remembrance day for the jews ffs! ... ive only ever met a handful in all my 51 years! ... ive met far more eastern europeans!!! i can see a weak christian faith being eventually ousted by a strong muslim faith, and the % doesnt have to be in favour of muslims, all they need is the voice. The muslims in western Europe??? Imigrants or sons of imigrants... the more they embrance the society, the weaker their religious convictions tend to be aswell. I know several people of muslim origins here in Brazil... As they are all integrated in society, I can´t metion ONE of them that is particularly religious or even bothers going to a mosque or having a copy of the quran at home. Most of them tend to adopt the local religion because of mixed marriages. This is not real growth of a religion, you don´t see people converting to islam often.
January 27, 200817 yr , you don´t see people converting to islam often. the point is that once you never saw it AT ALL. the reason?, there was a very low islamic presence, its obvious that with a greater presence and the pc brigades all encompasing approach that islam WILL grow , the question is.... in time, just how far? with or without america/the west interfering in islamic countries business there WILL always be a 'mad faction' of extremists who will terrorise the west. (im not saying the west didnt help the situation, merely that it has always been a problem to a lesser degree).
January 27, 200817 yr Not sure what you're arguing for here mate... Are you arguing for a stronger, more authoritarian type of Christianity such as existed in the past...? If so, that would certainly be quite literally going back to the Dark Ages, and I wouldn't have thought that someone who puts across the arguments of Richard Dawkins would be in favour of something like that... You and me would probably be amongst the first ones to be denounced as "heretics" if this were to happen mate... Be careful what you wish for..... Militant Christianity is certainly no more desirable than fundamentalist Islam dude.... lol.. nope... dont take things out of context! the point is that in these scientifically enlightend times many of us conclude that christianity is bollox, religion is bollox, but around the world other societies are more accepting of these medieval practices. its this fact that means islam is a hotter, more passionate, religion then xtianity.
January 27, 200817 yr lol.. nope... dont take things out of context! the point is that in these scientifically enlightend times many of us conclude that christianity is bollox, religion is bollox, but around the world other societies are more accepting of these medieval practices. its this fact that means islam is a hotter, more passionate, religion then xtianity. The weird thing is though, that when you look at history you'll actually find that Islam in its infancy was actually leading in the fields of scientific and medical research, it was Christianity that was holding things back (and still does to an extent, take the example of stem cell research as a case in point..), the likes of Galileo were being persecuted by Catholic, Christian societies.... Something went seriously wrong with Islam somewhere along the line....
January 28, 200817 yr .... Something went seriously wrong with Islam somewhere along the line.... and christianity IF it is the word of god.... pretty conclusive evidence that it ISNT! :lol: fortunately our brains have or are sussing things out for ourselves and are not relying on dark age supersticion.
January 31, 200817 yr and christianity IF it is the word of god.... pretty conclusive evidence that it ISNT! :lol: fortunately our brains have or are sussing things out for ourselves and are not relying on dark age supersticion. Congratulations for having such an evolved brain. I just wish that Isaac Newton or Blaise Pascal were not that dumb and supersticious. It´s too bad that our entire western society has been raised around the thought of people like Plato, Aristotle, Agostinius, people who were dumb enough to believe in God... So now that we discovered they were dumb, we need to start it from zero. Forget about the Big Bang theory, developed by a man who was "dumb" enough to be a priest... Forget about the Origin of the Species, a book that was so dumb it credits the merits of biodiversity to an imaginary God in its last paragraphs!!! We need to forget about all the great thinkers of our history, and rely on Dawkins and Sagan, lol.....
January 31, 200817 yr Congratulations for having such an evolved brain. I just wish that Isaac Newton or Blaise Pascal were not that dumb and supersticious. It´s too bad that our entire western society has been raised around the thought of people like Plato, Aristotle, Agostinius, people who were dumb enough to believe in God... So now that we discovered they were dumb, we need to start it from zero. Forget about the Big Bang theory, developed by a man who was "dumb" enough to be a priest... Forget about the Origin of the Species, a book that was so dumb it credits the merits of biodiversity to an imaginary God in its last paragraphs!!! We need to forget about all the great thinkers of our history, and rely on Dawkins and Sagan, lol..... but those people might well have believed in a god (not the christian one though...lol) when they formulated/collated 'anti' god theories, but then again in those times it was the best explaination! its a non argument, you cant compare people from the past with today as today we are far more scientifically developed, we know far more about the universe then what they did. the point stands.... religion IS a dark age hypothosis, which unlike science, and mankind, hasnt evolved in 2000 years. religious types still cite their 'right to believe', but believe in what? something comfortable maybe, but you dont really have to think too hard about the whole theory to see the glareing discrepancies.
February 4, 200817 yr the point stands.... religion IS a dark age hypothosis, which unlike science, and mankind, hasnt evolved in 2000 years. religious types still cite their 'right to believe', but believe in what? something comfortable maybe, but you dont really have to think too hard about the whole theory to see the glareing discrepancies. Spot on, you've pretty much nailed on the head precisely what religion is - a crutch, a comfort zone... Religion creates emotional and intellectual cripples who cling onto their "crutches" when they'd likely be better off without them... They'd certainly be more free without them....
February 9, 200817 yr but those people might well have believed in a god (not the christian one though...lol) when they formulated/collated 'anti' god theories, but then again in those times it was the best explaination! its a non argument, you cant compare people from the past with today as today we are far more scientifically developed, we know far more about the universe then what they did. the point stands.... religion IS a dark age hypothosis, which unlike science, and mankind, hasnt evolved in 2000 years. religious types still cite their 'right to believe', but believe in what? something comfortable maybe, but you dont really have to think too hard about the whole theory to see the glareing discrepancies. My point is that, atheism and intelligence have no strict relation. This is a myth. I know several intelectual people who have deep religious principles, and many so-called "atheist" whose knowledge comes only from wikipedia. It is a very dull idea that, even tough we certainly know more about the universe then people did in the past, we are somewhere near of having a final knowledge about it... we are really in the dark. Plus, I´m not really talking about "dark age" people in past centuries. Francis Collins who cracked the human genome code, for example, is not a medieval man, but one of the biggest scientists today. I don´t believe in this whole "dark age" talk... scientific knowledge is always developing and sometimes recent theories change what was considered truth for years... but still there is no scientific discovery in this thousands of years of humanity that makes the existence of God impossible. This "enlighted" times we have just lived (20th century) was also the most brutal century in the history of humanity... the 21st century is not walking to be any better then that. In the future when people look back at this civilization whose life has no meaning and to whom killing people who are useless or a weight to society is considered morally "ok", where people who have health and money commit suicide because they just notice there is no reason to live, they will look back and say we lived in dark ages too.
February 9, 200817 yr My point is that, atheism and intelligence have no strict relation. This is a myth. I know several intelectual people who have deep religious principles, and many so-called "atheist" whose knowledge comes only from wikipedia. It is a very dull idea that, even tough we certainly know more about the universe then people did in the past, we are somewhere near of having a final knowledge about it... we are really in the dark. Plus, I´m not really talking about "dark age" people in past centuries. Francis Collins who cracked the human genome code, for example, is not a medieval man, but one of the biggest scientists today. I don´t believe in this whole "dark age" talk... scientific knowledge is always developing and sometimes recent theories change what was considered truth for years... but still there is no scientific discovery in this thousands of years of humanity that makes the existence of God impossible. This "enlighted" times we have just lived (20th century) was also the most brutal century in the history of humanity... the 21st century is not walking to be any better then that. In the future when people look back at this civilization whose life has no meaning and to whom killing people who are useless or a weight to society is considered morally "ok", where people who have health and money commit suicide because they just notice there is no reason to live, they will look back and say we lived in dark ages too. eh?... one minute youre (wrongly) suggesting that we are 'somewhere to having a final knowlege of it' then state that in the future we will be regarded as living in the dark ages?... thats a contridiction surely?.. and whilst science cannot disprove a 'god' nor can it prove it either..
February 9, 200817 yr eh?... one minute youre (wrongly) suggesting that we are 'somewhere to having a final knowlege of it' then state that in the future we will be regarded as living in the dark ages?... thats a contridiction surely?.. and whilst science cannot disprove a 'god' nor can it prove it either.. It´s not a contradiction, because I said it´s a dull idea that we are supposedly with a final knowledge about the universe.... which means I don´t agree with this idea at all. No matter how much science has evolved, I don´t think an average 21st century person knows more about the universe then a genius in the previous eras... We are not wiser then Isaac Newton or Charles Darwin just because we have internet and hot shower.
February 10, 200817 yr It´s not a contradiction, because I said it´s a dull idea that we are supposedly with a final knowledge about the universe.... which means I don´t agree with this idea at all. No matter how much science has evolved, I don´t think an average 21st century person knows more about the universe then a genius in the previous eras... We are not wiser then Isaac Newton or Charles Darwin just because we have internet and hot shower. thats simply not true.... the average person DOES 'know' more then them... we know about black holes for eg, electricity, nuclear power etc...
February 10, 200817 yr Well, the last time I looked, Scotland was still part of the UK, whether you like it or not mate... Actually, I heard that the attack at Glasgow airport had more to do with the transferrance of power from Blair to Gordon Brown and the fact that he was born in Govan.. Interesting topic this. (still in the middle of reading all the posts) Sorry 'G. Fiendish' but Brown was actually born in middle-class Giffnock, a couple of miles just over the city boundary in Glasgow's South-side.
February 10, 200817 yr Sorry 'G. Fiendish' but Brown was actually born in middle-class Giffnock, a couple of miles just over the city boundary in Glasgow's South-side. Still Glasgow though innit....? :P I couldn't remember the actual suburb, so I stupidly looked up Wikipedia..... :angry: You'd think they could at least get basic information like that correct, wouldn't you...?
Create an account or sign in to comment