The root of all evil

[Renton 17901]

Alright, I haven't read the book as a whole, but I've read extracts of it and other books, and have seen his documentaries, such as the one this thread is based on. I haven't even knocked the book anyway, but that doesn't mean I'm unaware of his arguments.

 

As for belief. I know this sounds completely stupid and delusional but the reason there's so many Christians with strong faith is because of countless personal meetings with God. I can guarantee some reading this probably have their head in hands already, but if so that just underlines their arrogance. I've seen many things which could only be considred the work of God, and those that atheists just haven't seen themselves. How can people disprove speaking in tongues? In other cases, why is it so many people think it's all in their head, not God speaking to them, yet it keeps re-occuring. I've heard lots of fascinating stories regarding people I know, where people have been told to speak to people, despite initially rejecting it, and in the end save people's lives because of it. I've also seen closes friends be in what looks like a trance or being possessed, like with laughter or crying, yet the events are still really peaceful and moving to them. This happening in huge Christian camps during worship. Why would this be?

 

Why are their millions of muslims who believe in Allah? Why are you right and they wrong? If that's not supreme arrogance then I don't know what is.

 

Allah and God are the same deity though. God was called Allah by the early Christians. The Islam faith believes in Jesus too, but not as God's Son, but as a prophet.

 

The difference is Renton, you're basically saying that religion is to blame for all the problems in the world - when someone has their own faith and beliefs questioned to that extent, you can surely see why they stand their ground, no? You have a (God given ) right to not believe in God; don't try and take that right away from the people who do believe.

 

No, actually I'm not saying religion is responsible for all the problems in the world, and I certainly don't want to stop people believing in God if they choose too. But at the same time I believe religion should have no special rights in law, and I believe there should be a complete seperation of church and state, and religious schools should be abolished so kids are less likely to be indoctrinated by mumbo jumbo. I'm more interested in secularism than atheism.

 

Also, I am priveledged to live in a country and continent where I have the right NOT to believe in God. But atheists are persecuted in many other countries. For instance in the USA, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

[Jimbo 133]

I'm not bothered what people believe as long as it doesn't have a harmful effect on others, it just amuses me when people claim that contradictory and historically unreliable documents such as the bible as being unrefutable evidence.

 

If people wish to have their beliefs and admit its all down to pure faith rather than having "evidence" then that is fine in my opinion.

[NJS 3989]

I haven't read any of the books mentioned, except of parts from Russell. I am reading Paine's "Age of reason" at the moment which is quite interesting.

 

Of course there are many flaws in the bible, but just concentrating on disproving religion by pointing them out is a bit nonsensical as not even the major Christian religions do take the bible that kind of literal anymore. With that kind of accusations you might wind up a couple of religious nutters, but that's all. It's far too simple to reduce the bible in that kind of way. Christianity and the understanding of the bible have always developed and its impacts on our modern "western thinking" are far deeper than the reduction on some historical inaccuracies suggest. The goalposts have been moved right from day one.

 

Things that made the goalposts move:

 

Proving Genesis is bollocks - all of a sudden it became a "metaphor" when the authors wouldn't have a clue what that was.

General progress in the understanding of the Earth and its place in the universe.

The printing press and the education of the masses to read.

The moral progress of civilisation (see how Christians were okay with slavery).

 

None of those were pushed by Theists - in fact I maintain the catholic church were and would be much happier now if only they had the ability to "interpret" the bible - nothing should cause more doubts that a browse of the OT.

 

As Dawkins says what we use to "cherry pick" the bible for the good parts are our own inate sense of morals we have as humans - if you take away the nice but obvious bits and ignore the really nasty bits as we're all a bit more civilised now what exactly is left? - the mythology of one small middle eastern tribe.

 

As I said people are moral for all sorts of good reasons - "thanking" religion for that or for any kind of progress is giving too much credit imo.

[Papa Lazaru 0]

Alright, I haven't read the book as a whole, but I've read extracts of it and other books, and have seen his documentaries, such as the one this thread is based on. I haven't even knocked the book anyway, but that doesn't mean I'm unaware of his arguments.

 

As for belief. I know this sounds completely stupid and delusional but the reason there's so many Christians with strong faith is because of countless personal meetings with God. I can guarantee some reading this probably have their head in hands already, but if so that just underlines their arrogance. I've seen many things which could only be considred the work of God, and those that atheists just haven't seen themselves. How can people disprove speaking in tongues? In other cases, why is it so many people think it's all in their head, not God speaking to them, yet it keeps re-occuring. I've heard lots of fascinating stories regarding people I know, where people have been told to speak to people, despite initially rejecting it, and in the end save people's lives because of it. I've also seen closes friends be in what looks like a trance or being possessed, like with laughter or crying, yet the events are still really peaceful and moving to them. This happening in huge Christian camps during worship. Why would this be?

 

Why are their millions of muslims who believe in Allah? Why are you right and they wrong? If that's not supreme arrogance then I don't know what is.

 

Its also arrogance to completely rubbish all the ancient religions as myths and stories made up at the time then claim chritianity/judaism/islam et al are compeltely true and beyond reproach when they are equally as ludicrous/unproven with the only difference being the ancient ones were IMO interesting.

 

Theres nothing arrogant about atheism, you don't ever have to prove something doesn't exist or isn't real, that burden of proof falls entirely on the person making the claims. Thats why its called faith, you take it with no real evidence. An atheist (whether believers like it or not) remains correct until categorical prove to the contrary is produced that everyone can see and believe beyond doubt.

 

If some geek came along and stated Jedis were completely true, they existed out there in space and that he felt he'd interacted with them/seen them in a vision etc. Nobody would ever say that those of us who think he's talking bollocks have to prove it, but apprently atheists (according to some) have to prove god doesn't exist...and they do by stating he doesn't and that there is no evidence he does!

 

Nobody has to prove anything, IMO. I couldn't give a shit if you believe or not.

 

I'm ecstatic for you, though if you couldn't care you didn't need to post that you couldn't care.

 

And people do have to prove something when they use it in arguments, when they use it to tell other people how to live their lives, what sexuality to be, what films/tv/plays you can and can't have shown because it offends their sensibilities and any other examples you could name.

 

The fact is if somebody wants to have a faith and a believe in anything that helps them, thats great and its a personal thing. They don't have to prove it to anyone and shouldn't feel the need to. But whenever religion (completely unproven) is used in arguments and affects the lives of people who don't believe it then there is a problem.

[NJS 3989]

No, actually I'm not saying religion is responsible for all the problems in the world, and I certainly don't want to stop people believing in God if they choose too. But at the same time I believe religion should have no special rights in law, and I believe there should be a complete seperation of church and state, and religious schools should be abolished so kids are less likely to be indoctrinated by mumbo jumbo. I'm more interested in secularism than atheism.

 

Also, I am priveledged to live in a country and continent where I have the right NOT to believe in God. But atheists are persecuted in many other countries. For instance in the USA, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

 

Thats pretty much my view - I think a persons beliefs (I actually accept Peter Beardsley as my God) are fine as long as they never leave the house. Teaching kids lies is what really pisses me off.

Edited January 6, 2007 by NJS

[Shearergol 0]

Alright, I haven't read the book as a whole, but I've read extracts of it and other books, and have seen his documentaries, such as the one this thread is based on. I haven't even knocked the book anyway, but that doesn't mean I'm unaware of his arguments.

 

As for belief. I know this sounds completely stupid and delusional but the reason there's so many Christians with strong faith is because of countless personal meetings with God. I can guarantee some reading this probably have their head in hands already, but if so that just underlines their arrogance. I've seen many things which could only be considred the work of God, and those that atheists just haven't seen themselves. How can people disprove speaking in tongues? In other cases, why is it so many people think it's all in their head, not God speaking to them, yet it keeps re-occuring. I've heard lots of fascinating stories regarding people I know, where people have been told to speak to people, despite initially rejecting it, and in the end save people's lives because of it. I've also seen closes friends be in what looks like a trance or being possessed, like with laughter or crying, yet the events are still really peaceful and moving to them. This happening in huge Christian camps during worship. Why would this be?

 

Why are their millions of muslims who believe in Allah? Why are you right and they wrong? If that's not supreme arrogance then I don't know what is.

 

Its also arrogance to completely rubbish all the ancient religions as myths and stories made up at the time then claim chritianity/judaism/islam et al are compeltely true and beyond reproach when they are equally as ludicrous/unproven with the only difference being the ancient ones were IMO interesting.

 

Theres nothing arrogant about atheism, you don't ever have to prove something doesn't exist or isn't real, that burden of proof falls entirely on the person making the claims. Thats why its called faith, you take it with no real evidence. An atheist (whether believers like it or not) remains correct until categorical prove to the contrary is produced that everyone can see and believe beyond doubt.

 

If some geek came along and stated Jedis were completely true, they existed out there in space and that he felt he'd interacted with them/seen them in a vision etc. Nobody would ever say that those of us who think he's talking bollocks have to prove it, but apprently atheists (according to some) have to prove god doesn't exist...and they do by stating he doesn't and that there is no evidence he does!

 

Nobody has to prove anything, IMO. I couldn't give a shit if you believe or not.

 

I'm ecstatic for you, though if you couldn't care you didn't need to post that you couldn't care.

 

And people do have to prove something when they use it in arguments, when they use it to tell other people how to live their lives, what sexuality to be, what films/tv/plays you can and can't have shown because it offends their sensibilities and any other examples you could name.

 

The fact is if somebody wants to have a faith and a believe in anything that helps them, thats great and its a personal thing. They don't have to prove it to anyone and shouldn't feel the need to. But whenever religion (completely unproven) is used in arguments and affects the lives of people who don't believe it then there is a problem.

 

But people act on their beliefs - you think people should have to prove their belief in order to act on it? If they can't prove that there is a God, do you think they shouldn't be allowed rights to follow the practices of their religion?

 

Out of interest, how are you directly influenced by Christians in this country, because you've obviously got some strong feelings on the matter?

[Isegrim 8907]

I haven't read any of the books mentioned, except of parts from Russell. I am reading Paine's "Age of reason" at the moment which is quite interesting.

 

Of course there are many flaws in the bible, but just concentrating on disproving religion by pointing them out is a bit nonsensical as not even the major Christian religions do take the bible that kind of literal anymore. With that kind of accusations you might wind up a couple of religious nutters, but that's all. It's far too simple to reduce the bible in that kind of way. Christianity and the understanding of the bible have always developed and its impacts on our modern "western thinking" are far deeper than the reduction on some historical inaccuracies suggest. The goalposts have been moved right from day one.

 

Nearly half of Americans believe in the Bible literally though.

I'd challenge those figures. Or better I say from those who really take it literally only a very small proportion is dangerous, i.e. religious nutters who take it literal and dispel modern science as well. Those people who just believe that there was a person called Jesus existed and believe in some of the moral teachings based on this do hardly cause harm. I'd say the vast majority of Americans firstly believe in their constitutional system and it's freedom rights. And a lot of these values have - like it or like it not - been developed on the foundations of Christianity. Modern Christianity is not thinkable without the age of enlightenment and therefore got far more "reason" than modern atheists often want to acknowledge. In fact the development of "reason" would be kind of unthinkable if it had come from Christian thoughts itself. That is something that seperates Christianity from more "barbaric" religions as Islam for example, it's ability to adapt. The pope had a kind of point in this regard.

[NJS 3989]

But people act on their beliefs - you think people should have to prove their belief in order to act on it? If they can't prove that there is a God, do you think they shouldn't be allowed rights to follow the practices of their religion?

 

Out of interest, how are you directly influenced by Christians in this country, because you've obviously got some strong feelings on the matter?

 

The Koran promises paradise to martyrs - should they act on it?

 

 

Bishops sit in the House of Lords, they vote on laws that effect me - I find that abhorrent.

[NJS 3989]

Nearly half of Americans believe in the Bible literally though.

I'd challenge those figures. Or better I say from those who really take it literally only a very small proportion is dangerous, i.e. religious nutters who take it literal and dispel modern science as well. Those people who just believe that there was a person called Jesus existed and believe in some of the moral teachings based on this do hardly cause harm. I'd say the vast majority of Americans firstly believe in their constitutional system and it's freedom rights. And a lot of these values have - like it or like it not - been developed on the foundations of Christianity. Modern Christianity is not thinkable without the age of enlightenment and therefore got far more "reason" than modern atheists often want to acknowledge. In fact the development of "reason" would be kind of unthinkable if it had come from Christian thoughts itself. That is something that seperates Christianity from more "barbaric" religions as Islam for example, it's ability to adapt. The pope had a kind of point in this regard.

 

In the last one I saw 51% of Americans believe the world is less than 10000 years old and Genesis is fact - thats 150 million morons.

 

Did the Christian church object to or campaign for the abolition of slavery?

 

Actually heres one with 53%: Poll

Edited January 6, 2007 by NJS

[Shearergol 0]

But people act on their beliefs - you think people should have to prove their belief in order to act on it? If they can't prove that there is a God, do you think they shouldn't be allowed rights to follow the practices of their religion?

 

Out of interest, how are you directly influenced by Christians in this country, because you've obviously got some strong feelings on the matter?

 

The Koran promises paradise to martyrs - should they act on it?

 

 

Bishops sit in the House of Lords, they vote on laws that effect me - I find that abhorrent.

 

 

"Verily, for the Muttaqun [righteous], there will be a success (paradise)"

 

The Bible says pretty much the same tbh

[Papa Lazaru 0]

 

But people act on their beliefs - you think people should have to prove their belief in order to act on it? If they can't prove that there is a God, do you think they shouldn't be allowed rights to follow the practices of their religion?

 

Out of interest, how are you directly influenced by Christians in this country, because you've obviously got some strong feelings on the matter?

 

Just trimmed the length of post a bit there!

 

Could depend on what act on their beliefs means. For me they can do anything they like (within the law!) that doesn't impact upon those who don't share their views and i'd apply that to most things tbh. There aren't many examples i can think where i'd have a problem with a person of any religion praticing their beliefs tbh, my problem is with people forcing those views on others and influencing things that affect us all (believers and non).

 

With me it has always been when anyhting gets censored, changed, or worst of all cancelled/banned on the basis of a religious argument. There is no other unproven thing (for want of a better word!) that could ever be used to ban tv programmes from broadcast, have films censored or plays picketted and cancelled etc. and thats the thing that annoys me. If i lived in the USA i'd explode

 

But basically i'm the same as Renton and NJS, i think people are entitled to any faith they like but it shouldn't be taught in schools as a subject or have any hint of it being fact applied to it should it be mentioned, that is for kids to decide themselves.

[Shearergol 0]

 

But people act on their beliefs - you think people should have to prove their belief in order to act on it? If they can't prove that there is a God, do you think they shouldn't be allowed rights to follow the practices of their religion?

 

Out of interest, how are you directly influenced by Christians in this country, because you've obviously got some strong feelings on the matter?

 

Just trimmed the length of post a bit there!

 

Could depend on what act on their beliefs means. For me they can do anything they like (within the law!) that doesn't impact upon those who don't share their views and i'd apply that to most things tbh. There aren't many examples i can think where i'd have a problem with a person of any religion praticing their beliefs tbh, my problem is with people forcing those views on others and influencing things that affect us all (believers and non).

 

With me it has always been when anyhting gets censored, changed, or worst of all cancelled/banned on the basis of a religious argument. There is no other unproven thing (for want of a better word!) that could ever be used to ban tv programmes from broadcast, have films censored or plays picketted and cancelled etc. and thats the thing that annoys me. If i lived in the USA i'd explode

 

But basically i'm the same as Renton and NJS, i think people are entitled to any faith they like but it shouldn't be taught in schools as a subject or have any hint of it being fact applied to it should it be mentioned, that is for kids to decide themselves.

 

Should evolution be taught in school?

[Renton 17901]

I haven't read any of the books mentioned, except of parts from Russell. I am reading Paine's "Age of reason" at the moment which is quite interesting.

 

Of course there are many flaws in the bible, but just concentrating on disproving religion by pointing them out is a bit nonsensical as not even the major Christian religions do take the bible that kind of literal anymore. With that kind of accusations you might wind up a couple of religious nutters, but that's all. It's far too simple to reduce the bible in that kind of way. Christianity and the understanding of the bible have always developed and its impacts on our modern "western thinking" are far deeper than the reduction on some historical inaccuracies suggest. The goalposts have been moved right from day one.

 

Nearly half of Americans believe in the Bible literally though.

I'd challenge those figures. Or better I say from those who really take it literally only a very small proportion is dangerous, i.e. religious nutters who take it literal and dispel modern science as well. Those people who just believe that there was a person called Jesus existed and believe in some of the moral teachings based on this do hardly cause harm. I'd say the vast majority of Americans firstly believe in their constitutional system and it's freedom rights. And a lot of these values have - like it or like it not - been developed on the foundations of Christianity. Modern Christianity is not thinkable without the age of enlightenment and therefore got far more "reason" than modern atheists often want to acknowledge. In fact the development of "reason" would be kind of unthinkable if it had come from Christian thoughts itself. That is something that seperates Christianity from more "barbaric" religions as Islam for example, it's ability to adapt. The pope had a kind of point in this regard.

 

I took that from the first post in this thread - 45% of Americans believe the world is less than 10,000 years old. If you've ever been to Texas, you'd hardly find this surprising. And of course one Texan, president Bush, believes in Armageddon and the Rapture. Does this not worry you? It scares the shit out of me, and it affects his policies, such as the Middle East and the environment.

 

The enlightenment was not driven by Christians, rather they have always opposed it. What I'm worried about is that we are in an age where science and rationality is being rejected, the enlightenment is in reverse, so to speak. As a passionate scientist and humanitarian this greatly depresses me, and I think it should be resisted. I wish there were more Richard Dawkins in this world.

 

Btw, might I add your dig at Islam being a barbaric religion, was that supposed to be an ironic joke?

[Isegrim 8907]

I haven't read any of the books mentioned, except of parts from Russell. I am reading Paine's "Age of reason" at the moment which is quite interesting.

 

Of course there are many flaws in the bible, but just concentrating on disproving religion by pointing them out is a bit nonsensical as not even the major Christian religions do take the bible that kind of literal anymore. With that kind of accusations you might wind up a couple of religious nutters, but that's all. It's far too simple to reduce the bible in that kind of way. Christianity and the understanding of the bible have always developed and its impacts on our modern "western thinking" are far deeper than the reduction on some historical inaccuracies suggest. The goalposts have been moved right from day one.

 

Things that made the goalposts move:

 

Proving Genesis is bollocks - all of a sudden it became a "metaphor" when the authors wouldn't have a clue what that was.

General progress in the understanding of the Earth and its place in the universe.

The printing press and the education of the masses to read.

The moral progress of civilisation (see how Christians were okay with slavery).

 

None of those were pushed by Theists - in fact I maintain the catholic church were and would be much happier now if only they had the ability to "interpret" the bible - nothing should cause more doubts that a browse of the OT.

 

As Dawkins says what we use to "cherry pick" the bible for the good parts are our own inate sense of morals we have as humans - if you take away the nice but obvious bits and ignore the really nasty bits as we're all a bit more civilised now what exactly is left? - the mythology of one small middle eastern tribe.

 

As I said people are moral for all sorts of good reasons - "thanking" religion for that or for any kind of progress is giving too much credit imo.

All nice and good, but you simply can't rewrite history. Would you have been able to express the same thoughts say 700 years ago. Hardly. Of course the authors of the bible could only express what they knew at that certain time. Though, that just shouldn't stop anyone later to adapt a more "modern" thinking even if it might get oppressed at first. And it might be right that mankind has some simple (a priori) morals. Though, your own example of slavery shows that it wasn't shared by everybody. Other cultures had no problem with slavery either. But again that doesn't take away that most of our modern western thinking was developed on the base of modern interpretation of the bible. The abolishment of slavery for example...

[Jimbo 133]

 

But people act on their beliefs - you think people should have to prove their belief in order to act on it? If they can't prove that there is a God, do you think they shouldn't be allowed rights to follow the practices of their religion?

 

Out of interest, how are you directly influenced by Christians in this country, because you've obviously got some strong feelings on the matter?

 

Just trimmed the length of post a bit there!

 

Could depend on what act on their beliefs means. For me they can do anything they like (within the law!) that doesn't impact upon those who don't share their views and i'd apply that to most things tbh. There aren't many examples i can think where i'd have a problem with a person of any religion praticing their beliefs tbh, my problem is with people forcing those views on others and influencing things that affect us all (believers and non).

 

With me it has always been when anyhting gets censored, changed, or worst of all cancelled/banned on the basis of a religious argument. There is no other unproven thing (for want of a better word!) that could ever be used to ban tv programmes from broadcast, have films censored or plays picketted and cancelled etc. and thats the thing that annoys me. If i lived in the USA i'd explode

 

But basically i'm the same as Renton and NJS, i think people are entitled to any faith they like but it shouldn't be taught in schools as a subject or have any hint of it being fact applied to it should it be mentioned, that is for kids to decide themselves.

 

Should evolution be taught in school?

 

 

Of course, there is clear scientific evidence of it.

[Renton 17901]

 

But people act on their beliefs - you think people should have to prove their belief in order to act on it? If they can't prove that there is a God, do you think they shouldn't be allowed rights to follow the practices of their religion?

 

Out of interest, how are you directly influenced by Christians in this country, because you've obviously got some strong feelings on the matter?

 

Just trimmed the length of post a bit there!

 

Could depend on what act on their beliefs means. For me they can do anything they like (within the law!) that doesn't impact upon those who don't share their views and i'd apply that to most things tbh. There aren't many examples i can think where i'd have a problem with a person of any religion praticing their beliefs tbh, my problem is with people forcing those views on others and influencing things that affect us all (believers and non).

 

With me it has always been when anyhting gets censored, changed, or worst of all cancelled/banned on the basis of a religious argument. There is no other unproven thing (for want of a better word!) that could ever be used to ban tv programmes from broadcast, have films censored or plays picketted and cancelled etc. and thats the thing that annoys me. If i lived in the USA i'd explode

 

But basically i'm the same as Renton and NJS, i think people are entitled to any faith they like but it shouldn't be taught in schools as a subject or have any hint of it being fact applied to it should it be mentioned, that is for kids to decide themselves.

 

Should evolution be taught in school?

 

Yes. Next.

[Renton 17901]

A serious debate on Toontastic. Who would have believed it?

[Shearergol 0]

 

But people act on their beliefs - you think people should have to prove their belief in order to act on it? If they can't prove that there is a God, do you think they shouldn't be allowed rights to follow the practices of their religion?

 

Out of interest, how are you directly influenced by Christians in this country, because you've obviously got some strong feelings on the matter?

 

Just trimmed the length of post a bit there!

 

Could depend on what act on their beliefs means. For me they can do anything they like (within the law!) that doesn't impact upon those who don't share their views and i'd apply that to most things tbh. There aren't many examples i can think where i'd have a problem with a person of any religion praticing their beliefs tbh, my problem is with people forcing those views on others and influencing things that affect us all (believers and non).

 

With me it has always been when anyhting gets censored, changed, or worst of all cancelled/banned on the basis of a religious argument. There is no other unproven thing (for want of a better word!) that could ever be used to ban tv programmes from broadcast, have films censored or plays picketted and cancelled etc. and thats the thing that annoys me. If i lived in the USA i'd explode

 

But basically i'm the same as Renton and NJS, i think people are entitled to any faith they like but it shouldn't be taught in schools as a subject or have any hint of it being fact applied to it should it be mentioned, that is for kids to decide themselves.

 

Should evolution be taught in school?

 

 

Of course, there is clear scientific evidence of it.

 

There is clear scientific evidence to lead to it's theory.

 

However, much of evolution is open to interpretation. None of the "theory" is fact yet.

 

In fact, we still don't know where humans technically came from (humans as we know them by the way).

[Papa Lazaru 0]

 

But people act on their beliefs - you think people should have to prove their belief in order to act on it? If they can't prove that there is a God, do you think they shouldn't be allowed rights to follow the practices of their religion?

 

Out of interest, how are you directly influenced by Christians in this country, because you've obviously got some strong feelings on the matter?

 

Just trimmed the length of post a bit there!

 

Could depend on what act on their beliefs means. For me they can do anything they like (within the law!) that doesn't impact upon those who don't share their views and i'd apply that to most things tbh. There aren't many examples i can think where i'd have a problem with a person of any religion praticing their beliefs tbh, my problem is with people forcing those views on others and influencing things that affect us all (believers and non).

 

With me it has always been when anyhting gets censored, changed, or worst of all cancelled/banned on the basis of a religious argument. There is no other unproven thing (for want of a better word!) that could ever be used to ban tv programmes from broadcast, have films censored or plays picketted and cancelled etc. and thats the thing that annoys me. If i lived in the USA i'd explode

 

But basically i'm the same as Renton and NJS, i think people are entitled to any faith they like but it shouldn't be taught in schools as a subject or have any hint of it being fact applied to it should it be mentioned, that is for kids to decide themselves.

 

Should evolution be taught in school?

 

Naturally! Its backed up by countless scientific evidence, its happening all the time and can be shown to be and its an important part of the biological sciences. If you want you can end that section of biology in school by saying, by the way the bible has another theory on how things came to be, check it out if you like!

[Renton 17901]

 

But people act on their beliefs - you think people should have to prove their belief in order to act on it? If they can't prove that there is a God, do you think they shouldn't be allowed rights to follow the practices of their religion?

 

Out of interest, how are you directly influenced by Christians in this country, because you've obviously got some strong feelings on the matter?

 

Just trimmed the length of post a bit there!

 

Could depend on what act on their beliefs means. For me they can do anything they like (within the law!) that doesn't impact upon those who don't share their views and i'd apply that to most things tbh. There aren't many examples i can think where i'd have a problem with a person of any religion praticing their beliefs tbh, my problem is with people forcing those views on others and influencing things that affect us all (believers and non).

 

With me it has always been when anyhting gets censored, changed, or worst of all cancelled/banned on the basis of a religious argument. There is no other unproven thing (for want of a better word!) that could ever be used to ban tv programmes from broadcast, have films censored or plays picketted and cancelled etc. and thats the thing that annoys me. If i lived in the USA i'd explode

 

But basically i'm the same as Renton and NJS, i think people are entitled to any faith they like but it shouldn't be taught in schools as a subject or have any hint of it being fact applied to it should it be mentioned, that is for kids to decide themselves.

 

Should evolution be taught in school?

 

 

Of course, there is clear scientific evidence of it.

 

There is clear scientific evidence to lead to it's theory.

 

However, much of evolution is open to interpretation. None of the "theory" is fact yet.

 

In fact, we still don't know where humans technically came from (humans as we know them by the way).

 

You're just being pedantic. The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming, if we can't treat it as a fact, then what is?

[Papa Lazaru 0]

A serious debate on Toontastic. Who would have believed it?

 

At the same time as posting leaders, Gemmil and Alex are absent, coincidence?

[Renton 17901]

A serious debate on Toontastic. Who would have believed it?

 

At the same time as posting leaders, Gemmil and Alex are absent, coincidence?

 

 

I think not.

[Shearergol 0]

 

But people act on their beliefs - you think people should have to prove their belief in order to act on it? If they can't prove that there is a God, do you think they shouldn't be allowed rights to follow the practices of their religion?

 

Out of interest, how are you directly influenced by Christians in this country, because you've obviously got some strong feelings on the matter?

 

Just trimmed the length of post a bit there!

 

Could depend on what act on their beliefs means. For me they can do anything they like (within the law!) that doesn't impact upon those who don't share their views and i'd apply that to most things tbh. There aren't many examples i can think where i'd have a problem with a person of any religion praticing their beliefs tbh, my problem is with people forcing those views on others and influencing things that affect us all (believers and non).

 

With me it has always been when anyhting gets censored, changed, or worst of all cancelled/banned on the basis of a religious argument. There is no other unproven thing (for want of a better word!) that could ever be used to ban tv programmes from broadcast, have films censored or plays picketted and cancelled etc. and thats the thing that annoys me. If i lived in the USA i'd explode

 

But basically i'm the same as Renton and NJS, i think people are entitled to any faith they like but it shouldn't be taught in schools as a subject or have any hint of it being fact applied to it should it be mentioned, that is for kids to decide themselves.

 

Should evolution be taught in school?

 

Naturally! Its backed up by countless scientific evidence, its happening all the time and can be shown to be and its an important part of the biological sciences. If you want you can end that section of biology in school by saying, by the way the bible has another theory on how things came to be, check it out if you like!

 

Do I have to spend time explaining the whole theory of evolution before we continue with this debate?

 

You realise that many parts of the Bible are backed by historical documents? Jesus was around at the time the Bible claimed, and he was also crucified. These are documents which have nothing to do with religion by the way.

 

In the same sense, evolution (the THEORY) has many facts too, and many things which are peoples opinion.

[NJS 3989]

But people act on their beliefs - you think people should have to prove their belief in order to act on it? If they can't prove that there is a God, do you think they shouldn't be allowed rights to follow the practices of their religion?

 

Out of interest, how are you directly influenced by Christians in this country, because you've obviously got some strong feelings on the matter?

 

The Koran promises paradise to martyrs - should they act on it?

 

 

Bishops sit in the House of Lords, they vote on laws that effect me - I find that abhorrent.

 

 

"Verily, for the Muttaqun [righteous], there will be a success (paradise)"

 

The Bible says pretty much the same tbh

 

Undoubtedly - I'm an equal-opportunities heretic.

 

 

Koran: 4:74 Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.

 

Deuteronomy: 13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; (13:6-10)

"Thine hand shall be first upon him."

 

If your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, "thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death."

 

Should "excused" beliefs allow people to murder non-believers as encouraged here?

[Jimbo 133]

A serious debate on Toontastic. Who would have believed it?

 

At the same time as posting leaders, Gemmil and Alex are absent, coincidence?

 

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head.