god hates ireland??

Whispered

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, people who believe in religion do give religion quite a bad rep ....

???? Thats not very fair is it? Tarring everyone who is not athiest with the same brush.

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote: »

???? Thats not very fair is it? Tarring everyone who is not athiest with the same brush.

How is this guy any different than anyone else who believes that a sky god tells them what is right or wrong.

Whispered

But if I quietly believe in a sky god (I dont but if I did) how am I giving religion a bad rep? The hatered he is preaching is totally different to someone going about their life with their own belief in god, dont you think?

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote: »

But if I quietly believe in a sky god (I dont but if I did) how am I giving religion a bad rep? The hatered he is preaching is totally different to someone going about their life with their own belief in god, dont you think?

But think about that for a minute.

Why are you "quietly" believing in a sky god?

You would only get a way with that if you believed that your sky god didn't want you to preach to the rest of of the world.

Or are you saying that you would pick a religion that doesn't require preaching? If that is the case how can you say you truly believe in it if you decided to pick it for such an arbitrary reason?

The "bad rep" isn't the specifics of what you believe your sky god wants you to do (eg. be quiet or shout from the roof tops). The bad rep is the person believe they are receiving instructions from a sky god.

Whispered

When I say quietly believe I mean the people, we all know, who believe in God but dont use that as an excuse to preach hatred - I mean seriously, how can you compare someone who goes to mass and has his own strong beliefs, which he is perfectly happy to keep to himself unless asked, to a man who uses his faith to create hatred. There is no comparison. To even suggest that a person who believes in God gives religion as bad a reputation as that man is ridiculous.

Pompey Magnus

What I think Wicknight is saying (I might well be wrong though) is that the act of delegating your moral decision-making to someone else is in itself the immoral act. You are in effect passing the buck when it comes to making important decisions. The "God hates Ireland" crew, the followers of Rev Phelps, were unlucky in the sense that the God they "gave" their morality to was a nasty God. People who go to mass and keep their faith to themselves are not immoral in these actions, but this is just a fluke of geography that they live in a community who believe in a nicer, benevolent God. That they would be willing to let any God, priest or book tell them what is right and wrong is where they have let themselves down and have done wrong.

At least that is what I took Wicknight as saying. If its not then let him clear it up .

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote: »

When I say quietly believe I mean the people, we all know, who believe in God but dont use that as an excuse to preach hatred

Because their religion doesn't tell them to. And if their religion did tell them do, what would they do? Abandon their religion? Unfortunately that seems unlikely.

helena.ryan wrote: »

I mean seriously, how can you compare someone who goes to mass and has his own strong beliefs, which he is perfectly happy to keep to himself unless asked, to a man who uses his faith to create hatred.

Because they both believe in a super powerful master who tells them what to do and how to behave. One just happens to believe in a super powerful master who doesn't tell them to shout about it, where as the other one does.

This is a serious point, so consider it well.

What is the actual difference between a fundamentalise Muslim sucide bomber and a Christian missionary who travels to South America to build houses.

They both truly believe that they are doing what their sky god commands them to do.

The difference is not in their faith, but simply in what they are told to do.

Tell the suicide bomber to go build a house he will go build a house if he genuinely believes that such a commandment comes from his sky god.

Tell the missionary to blow up a school he will go blow up a school if he genuinely believes that commandment comes from his sky god.

You can see how scary this is when you see Christians on the Christian forum attempting to justify the actions carried out by the Hebrews in the Old Testament, justify them by saying that they were carried out under orders from God and therefore cannot be wrong or immoral, even though they involve the slaughtering and slavery of men, women and children.

It is like any good Sci-Fi horror movie. Tell the robot to bake a cake the robot will bake the cake. Tell the robot to kill the crew of the space station the robot will kill the crew of the space station. The robot who bakes the cake is nor more or less moral than the robot who kills the crew members. The robot does what he is commanded to do, without the ability to reason on his own the morality of what is being asked. To say that the robot who kills the crew members gives the robot who bakes the cake a bad name is nonsensical. Both are simply doing what they are commanded to do, and neither has the ability to refuse. One robot just happens to be told to bake a cake, the other robot happens to be told to kill the crew of the space station. Swap the robots you get the same outcome.

Because at the end of the day, who says no to God?

Zulu

Wicknight wrote: »

Because their religion doesn't tell them to. And if their religion did tell them do, what would they do? Abandon their religion? Unfortunately that seems unlikely.

Not everyone is a fundamentalist Wicknight, there are plenty who wouldn't commit evil acts in the name of religion. They wouldn't have to abandon their religion - they be abandoning the church.

What is the actual difference between a fundamentalise Muslim sucide bomber and a Christian missionary who travels to South America to build houses.

Well for a start, one goes kaboom. :rolleyes:

They both truly believe that they are doing what their sky god commands them to do.

For a start your "sky god" comments, while I'm sure are very smart to you, smack of condescending arrogance. (just an fyi) Another point you might consider is the motivations behind their actions.

...but simply in what they are told to do.

By the church, not the religion.

Tell the suicide bomber to go build a house he will go build a house if he genuinely believes that such a commandment comes from his sky god.

I disagree. That is far too simplistic. These people are in horrendously impossible positions. They are disparate. For a start, striking back at their aggressor is a motivation. The fact their poverty stricken families will be rewarded is another.

Tell the missionary to blow up a school he will go blow up a school if he genuinely believes that commandment comes from his sky god.

:rolleyes: Simplistic beyond belief.

It is like any good Sci-Fi horror movie. Tell the robot to bake a cake the robot will bake the cake. Tell the robot to kill the crew of the space station the robot will kill the crew of the space station.

...and only religion is responsible for programming Robots. And redemption from being a robot??? To follow your religion?

There was a very interesting documentary on BBC (I think)*. It was about how atheism was the new religion. The presenter interviewed a host of religious people and atheists. The funny thing was, the atheists appeared as vehement in their opinions, and argued with as much zeal and any fundamentalist interviewed. Food for taught there.

* did a quick search there but came back with nothing

Because at the end of the day, who says no to God?[/QUOTE]

Whispered

I see your point, but my original post, was about how nutcases like him give all religions a bad name. It is very easy for an athiest or non christian to look at that and say that all christians must be mad if thats the sort of thing they preach. You are basicially agreeing with what I was saying about how religion can make people do awful things in the name of their god but I still cannot get my head around comparing him to someone who believes in god, goes every week to mass, tries to live properly (whether thats following his religions instructions or his own moral instincts).

I am not a follower of any religion, but I think that people doing charity work, whether or not it is through a church has to be a good thing.

Pompey Magnus

helena.ryan wrote: »

I am not a follower of any religion, but I think that people doing charity work, whether or not it is through a church has to be a good thing.

If you read "The Missionary Position" by Christpher Hitchens you might change your mind slightly. He gives an alternative look at Mother Theresa and how her works may not have been quite as good as they are made out to be, simply because of how she interpreted her instructions from God. Along similar lines the Catholic Missionaries of destroyed South American cultures thought that they too were doing charitable acts by bringing God to the pagans, when in fact there were doing incredible damage.

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

Tell the suicide bomber to go build a house he will go build a house if he genuinely believes that such a commandment comes from his sky god.

Tell the missionary to blow up a school he will go blow up a school if he genuinely believes that commandment comes from his sky god.

Sorry wicknight - I too think that's waay to simple.

The would-be bomber may do anything in the name of his religion as he has been effectively brainwashed throughout his life, and fed a diet of hatred and intolerance. But the missionary would not have been raised in such an environment that his own conscience would allow him commit mass murder. Hence IMO the lengths people will go to are not solely a product of their religion, but largely to do with the social environment they were 'educated' in.

Pompey Magnus

Dades wrote: »

Sorry wicknight - I too think that's waay to simple.

The would-be bomber may do anything in the name of his religion as he has been effectively brainwashed throughout his life, and fed a diet of hatred and intolerance. But the missionary would not have been raised in such an environment that his own conscience would allow him commit mass murder. Hence IMO the lengths people will go to are not solely a product of their religion, but largely to do with the social environment they were 'educated' in.

Just last week someone on the Christianity forum (can't remember who at the minute) couldn't rule out the possibility of killing their own child if they thought God wanted them to do so and I think they said they would like to think that they would do. This was genuine a Christian who was not brought up in some mad extremist madrassah so perhaps Wicknights comment may not have been quite so simplistic.

Whispered

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

If you read "The Missionary Position" by Christpher Hitchens you might change your mind slightly. He gives an alternative look at Mother Theresa and how her works may not have been quite as good as they are made out to be, simply because of how she interpreted her instructions from God. Along similar lines the Catholic Missionaries of destroyed South American cultures thought that they too were doing charitable acts by bringing God to the pagans, when in fact there were doing incredible damage.

Yes I agree, that there are people with good intentions who may be doing more damage than good, but the same can't be said for all charity workers. And no matter what way you put it, a charity worker cannot be compared to a suicide bomber?

robindch

helena.ryan wrote: »

I am not a follower of any religion, but I think that people doing charity work, whether or not it is through a church has to be a good thing.

Yes, on the face of it, that's quite reasonable. But there are three things that you need to bear in mind.

Firstly, many religious institutions do charitable work with the principal aim of spreading the religion rather than simply for the sake of helping people (did you hear the stories about the scientologists turning up in NY after 9/11, or the US evangelists who descended on the Far East after the tsunami, or the soup kitchens here in Ireland during the famine; etc, etc) As a percentage of the overall amount, relatively little organized charity work is carried out for charity's sake alone. Which is not to diminish the importance of work being done, but rather to point out that there's an ulterior motive that I think the religious should really be more open about.

Secondly, you need to ask if the people who are running the charity wouldn't be doing something similar anyway without the religion being there. I'm inclined to believe that many probably would. Decent, honest people are decent, honest people regardless of their religious convictions.

Thirdly, in the end, you have to come to some kind of balance and work out of the amount of "good" done by religious people at religion's instigation outweighs the amount of "bad" that's done at religion's behest. I'm inclined to believe that the bad far, far outweighs the good.

__plec__

that site is mad, they should do some research, we have dealt with fags, we have the smoking ban dont we

Zulu

In my opinion Scientology is not a religion.

Dades

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Just last week someone on the Christianity forum (can't remember who at the minute) couldn't rule out the possibility of killing their own child if they thought God wanted them to do so and I think they said they would like to think that they would do. This was genuine a Christian who was not brought up in some mad extremist madrassah so perhaps Wicknights comment may not have been quite so simplistic.

Talk as to the environment this particular Christian fundie was brought up in would be pure speculation, but just because he ain't Muslim doesn't mean he hasn't been shaped by an extreme environment.

More importantly on his boasts: talk is cheap - especially on the internet.

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

I disagree. That is far too simplistic. These people are in horrendously impossible positions. They are disparate. For a start, striking back at their aggressor is a motivation. The fact their poverty stricken families will be rewarded is another.

Dades wrote: »

The would-be bomber may do anything in the name of his religion as he has been effectively brainwashed throughout his life, and fed a diet of hatred and intolerance. But the missionary would not have been raised in such an environment that his own conscience would allow him commit mass murder.

I'm afraid guys I'm going to have to turn the charge of being overly simplistic back are you and say that it appears that you guys are being a little simplistic in how you view suicide bombers.

It would be very easy for us to understand, and rather comforting, if it was true that suicide bombers were poor, uneducated, desperate people just looking for some money for their families, or people who have since children been raised in an environment of hatred so they are "brainwashed" into devotion to their religion.

Unfortunately that is actually largely a myth.

Suicide bombers tend to be middle class. They tend to be well educated. They tend to be employed, often in good jobs. They tend to be socially popular. They tend to go looking for the more fundamental aspects of their religion, rather than being placed in religious schools from a young age by their parents. In fact they tend to come from moderate religious families, rather than fundamentalist ones.

The easy simplistic answer that suicide bombers and people prepared to kill in the name of their religion are fundamentally different to the rest of religious people, simply doesn't hold. Its comforting, it makes us feel safer, but it is a myth.

robindch

Zulu wrote: »

It's important to note that Scientology is not a religion.

You might want to check with the scientologists who seem to think it is.

Dades

__plec__ wrote: »

that site is mad, they should do some research, we have dealt with fags, we have the smoking ban dont we

Because you're new - you'll get the benefit of the doubt.
Welcome. I know your next post will be more constructive.

Zulu

cult tbh

Zulu

Sorry robindch, I remember being taught a set of criteria a movement had to achieve, before it was considered a religion. (ie the difference between religions and cults).

For the life of me, I can't remember them now. They went along the lines of !) a formal documented doctrine, 2) etc.. I'm searching the interweb, but it appears there is no agreement of such, therefore, what I was taught may just in fact be incorrect.
As such, I retract my previous comment.

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote: »

I am not a follower of any religion, but I think that people doing charity work, whether or not it is through a church has to be a good thing.

Well that goes back to the robot. The robot baking the cake is a good thing. The robot killing the crew of the space station is a bad thing. But the robot is exactly the same.

I would love to believe that there is some fundamental difference between a religious person who is a suicide bomber, and a religious person that is a missionary. I would feel a lot safer if I could dismiss the suicide bomber as being someone completely different to other religious people that I am surrounded by every day.

The the simple fact is that he isn't. He is not a monster, or a brainwashed child. He is simply a believer.

The faith people here have that when it comes down to it the fundamental instinct to be good will over rule religious belief is misplaced, in my opinion.

Zulu

Wicknight wrote: »

Unfortunately that is actually largely a myth.

Suicide bombers tend to be middle class. They tend to be well educated. They tend to be employed, often in good jobs. ...

All suicide bomber? Really? Care to actually prove that?

...or are you only talking about the 9/11 suicide bombers?

18AD

Wicknight wrote: »

I would love to believe that there is some fundamental difference between a religious person who is a suicide bomber, and a religious person that is a missionary. I would feel a lot safer if I could dismiss the suicide bomber as being someone completely different to other religious people that I am surrounded by every day.

If this were the case I'd be expecting to see a huge number of cases of non-believers being killed, wouldn't you?

All the best.
AD.

Zulu

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that goes back to the robot. The robot baking the cake is a good thing. The robot killing the crew of the space station is a bad thing. But the robot is exactly the same.

Interesting, so the robot is the exact same. ...and when we extend this example to humans (regardless of religion) all humans are the exact same? So the charity worker and the suicide bomber are the exact same. And the atheist and christian are the exact same. And the child and the rapist are the exact same
... except for their programming.

So you are proposing that we are solely a product of our nurture. It's an interesting point, but the general acceptance is that we our a product of both nurture and nature, as the proof of either one is as elusive as the other.

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

All suicide bomber? Really? Care to actually prove that?

...or are you only talking about the 9/11 suicide bombers?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4131

The fact that suicide bombers are usually mild-mannered members of the middle class seems counterintuitive. After all, the middle class tend to be well-educated, well-behaved, good family members—nothing like the bloodthirsty tough guys or criminals we imagine when we think of terrorists. They bear little resemblance to English football hooligans or rabble-rousers. No other form of violence has a higher proportion of females than suicide bombers, even though females are usually more conformist than males.

(that is a very good article btw on how unaggressive suicide bombers actually are)


http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/middle-class-suicide-bombers/

Economist Alan Krueger’s excellent work on terrorism — which we’ve discussed before — comes to the conclusion that suicide bombers tend to be surprisingly well-educated. They are not generally the poorest of the poor; in fact, they are more likely to be middle class members of society.


http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/mar/030307.joyce.html

JOYCE: Working at the University of Michigan and the National Center for Scientific Research in France, Atran has collected surveys of failed suicide bombers and of the families of successful bombers. These surveys were done by Pakistani relief workers, as well as Israeli and Western psychologists and economists. They also interviewed members of terror organizations and studied their literature. What the researchers found contradicted the stereotype of the terrorist fanatic.

Mr. ATRAN: These people are fairly well educated, mostly from middle class and not acting at all in despair.

Zombrex

18AD wrote: »

If this were the case I'd be expecting to see a huge number of cases of non-believers being killed, wouldn't you?

All the best.
AD.

I'm not following? Why would you expect to see this?

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

Interesting, so the robot is the exact same. ...and when we extend this example to humans (regardless of religion) all humans are the exact same? So the charity worker and the suicide bomber are the exact same. And the atheist and christian are the exact same. And the child and the rapist are the exact same
... except for their programming.

Well done for completely missing my point :rolleyes:

Do you actually have a reason for being here Zulu or are you just looking for an argument?

18AD

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not following? Why would you expect to see this?

Because it says it explicitly in the bible as far as I'm aware...

And possibly in Islamic scripture.