If people do ridiculous things then they will be ridiculed, there is no changing that in a free society.
You may call this being anti-Muslim but to most non believers it is common sense to question why people do extraordinary silly things due to it being in a holy book that was ]written over a thousand years ago.
I read the thread and called it as I saw it. The fact that I was then characterised as a 'religious poster' was bizarre tbh.
No you don't, no one does. Religious or atheist no one knows. If when the time comes we do just cease to exist then the atheists can celebrate how right they were or no wait they can't because they don't exist anymore. However if the day comes and we find ourselves in heaven or hell than us in heaven can celebrate how right we were and the atheists who sadly will be in hell can live for eternity knowing how wrong they were.
Seems like the religious get the better deal.
Or 'the religious' have wasted their life by repeatedly performing rituals if the post-death insurance policy doesn't pay out.
Notwithstanding the above, how have 'the religious' got the better deal in 'hell' ?
Moreover, have you got a guarantee certificate of your entry into 'heaven'? I'd be interested to see it.
Even though there are so any enlightened, rational, real life dealing type people in the world, religious people still outnumber them and have done for thousands of years. If that figure was reversed obviously there would be more atheists than believers and so they will have the greater majority keep that up for a thousand years and then religion might be a thing of the past.
Most people I deal with aren't religious and that's what matters to me, in fact around here every Sunday the churches are nearly empty.
Your confirmation bias is showing. The clear evidence of history is that religion is extremely robust, even against evidence that relies on scientific method.
Your own CB is also exposed by virtue of your post.
Please be specific about which religion/s have been scientifically evidenced as robust either historically or otherwise.
Nobody believes in any particular God when they are born - they have to be taught to have faith.
Children have to be taught everything. Their parents may choose to teach them atheism, knowing very well that it is a personal view (since the existence of the divine is not subject to empirical testing), but preferring to teach a personal view rather than leave the child to find out the varieties of possible views over time. That is their right as parents, just as it is their right, as long as they do not prepare them to be cruel and destructive to others, to teach them their own religious beliefs.
Or 'the religious' have wasted their life by repeatedly performing rituals if the post-death insurance policy doesn't pay out.
Again, not my experience at all. I have a close friend who is a hospice chaplain, and nothing is more common than for the most life-long atheist to wish for periods of spiritual reflection and even ritual towards the end of their lives. He is happy, as I am sure a lot of hospice chaplains are, to offer simple prayers, for example, which do not involve any asssumption of faith.
And 'insurance policy' sounds very fundamentalist. In real life, as opposed to hand-picked-for-idiocy-online, I can't remember anyone in a church suggesting that those present will be 'saved', while the people thronging Bluewater on a Sunday morning will not. Whatever happens to us after death is generally assumed to be of a similar, if unknowable, nature to most of our Christian population.
Children have to be taught everything. Their parents may choose to teach them atheism, knowing very well that it is a personal view (since the existence of the divine is not subject to empirical testing), but preferring to teach a personal view rather than leave the child to find out the varieties of possible views over time. That is their right as parents, just as it is their right, as long as they do not prepare them to be cruel and destructive to others, to teach them their own religious beliefs.
That has not been my experience at all. Where have you done your in-depth examinations?
Again, not my experience at all. I have a close friend who is a hospice chaplain, and nothing is more common than for the most life-long atheist to wish for periods of spiritual reflection and even ritual towards the end of their lives. He is happy, as I am sure a lot of hospice chaplains are, to offer simple prayers, for example, which do not involve any asssumption of faith.
How do you 'teach' atheism to a child? They are already atheist.
I find your second point interesting. I was a nurse previously, and I've got to say I didn't notice many of my terminally ill patients asking for the services of the chaplain. Nobody seemed to talk about God or religion much.
Children have to be taught everything. Their parents may choose to teach them atheism, knowing very well that it is a personal view.
And off you go again like a wind up toy. Atheism IS NOT a personal view, so please stop trying the usual tactic of dragging everything down to the level of belief. That old strawman rubbish has been done to death.
Children are taught FACTS! And the FACT is that the religious have come up with some nonsense and have failed to prove any of it in all of history. That isn't Atheism, that's just fact.
Atheist don't even exist, that is just a name given to describe people who the religious have failed to con into their nonsense.
Certainly ALL children should be protected from religion until such time that their brains have developed enough for rational thinking to see it for what it is.
The clue here is; why do religions try and indoctrinate the young? Answer: Because that is when they are vulnerable to being brainwashed and the religious know this and abuse it. Again with so many other things, if it wasn't religion behind it, it would be outlawed as child abuse.
So brainwashing of children and failure to be force to get help for their own condition is all OK as it's religion! One rule for them and one rule for everyone else.
Just curious, but how do the religious know their religion is the right one? And how are the other ones wrong?
I have studied them all (Theology degree) and came to the conclusion that Christianity was the one that had the most appeal for me. (Though I flirted with Buddhism).
But, when it came down to it, Buddha was a Prince, Jesus was a Carpenter, I am a socialist - no contest, really. Also, Christianity was the most Pagan - all that drinking the blood of God stuff. Irresistible.
You don't, as a Christian, have to think that all other religions are wrong. I daresay some fundamentalists do, but that's not the official line.
All people are made in God's image, all religions have some truth, even atheism.
I do wish, btw that anti-religious people would rid themselves of the view that all religion starts in the cradle. I had no religious upbringing, quite the reverse. I came to Christianity in my 30s. I was not brainwashed.
I might add that my faith is very much given to fluctuation. I have had lots of periods of atheism, many more of agnosticism, some of devout belief, mostly of indifference.
Hmmm that's an interesting perspective, however another way to look at it is that the religious are spending their lives making sure that they don't go to hell in the next life, hell doesn't seem like such a fun place really so ......... 2:1
Yeah, but a bit of a bummer if you've been taught to believe in the wrong religion. All that earnest avoiding of ham sarnies, or cutting off bits of their children's genitalia, or mea culpa-ing through life or whatever might be all for nothing if god exists and the only way to get to heaven is to own three cats for at least 2 years and eat a banana, daily.
I do wish, btw that anti-religious people would rid themselves of the view that all religion starts in the cradle.
I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that it applies to a 100% of people 100% of the time, but it really is self evident that it's true for the vast majority - most people's religion will be decided for them by their parents.
[QUOTE=wonkeydonkey;78601657]Children have to be taught everything. Their parents may choose to teach them atheism, knowing very well that it is a personal view (since the existence of the divine is not subject to empirical testing), but preferring to teach a personal view rather than leave the child to find out the varieties of possible views over time. That is their right as parents, just as it is their right, as long as they do not prepare them to be cruel and destructive to others, to teach them their own religious beliefs.
No, children have to be taught 'to think for themselves.' The golden rule being 'the majority are not always right.'
My own introduction to religion by my parents was facts. Their script went along the lines of:
"-A lot of people believe that a concept called God, heaven and hell exists etc.
- Some people don't believe that God, heaven and hell etc exists.
-No-one knows what the truth is, including parents and teachers, religious leaders and people (no matter how loudly some scream and shout that they do know!)
-Parents don't know everything. When you become a parent you don't all of a sudden receive the fountain of all knowledge!
- Always think for yourself, don't assume that the majority have the monopoly on truth."
We've followed a similar script for our children.
Again, not my experience at all. I have a close friend who is a hospice chaplain, and nothing is more common than for the most life-long atheist to wish for periods of spiritual reflection and even ritual towards the end of their lives. He is happy, as I am sure a lot of hospice chaplains are, to offer simple prayers, for example, which do not involve any asssumption of faith.
I have many family members and friends in the medical profession at various levels, care homes and indeed even a hospice. Their anecdotal feedback to me does not confirm your second-hand anecdotal feedback as being the norm for the majority of cases.
PS. My response to your post is in bold throughout the above text; plus I will try to address your other comments to me in a separate post
And 'insurance policy' sounds very fundamentalist. In real life, as opposed to hand-picked-for-idiocy-online, I can't remember anyone in a church suggesting that those present will be 'saved', while the people thronging Bluewater on a Sunday morning will not. Whatever happens to us after death is generally assumed to be of a similar, if unknowable, nature to most of our Christian population.
The bib below is a common mantra of a lot of religious people. Appears very much like a post-death insurance policy. Sadly, that's the crux of the control mechanism used by the few (mostly men) to coerce and control the majority into submitting into their control.
No you don't, no one does. Religious or atheist no one knows. If when the time comes we do just cease to exist then the atheists can celebrate how right they were or no wait they can't because they don't exist anymore. However if the day comes and we find ourselves in heaven or hell than us in heaven can celebrate how right we were and the atheists who sadly will be in hell can live for eternity knowing how wrong they were.
Seems like the religious get the better deal.[[/B]/QUOTE]
The bib below is a common mantra of a lot of religious people. Appears very much like a post-death insurance policy. Sadly, that's the crux of the control mechanism used by the few (mostly men) to coerce and control the majority into submitting into their control.
No you don't, no one does. Religious or atheist no one knows. If when the time comes we do just cease to exist then the atheists can celebrate how right they were or no wait they can't because they don't exist anymore. However if the day comes and we find ourselves in heaven or hell than us in heaven can celebrate how right we were and the atheists who sadly will be in hell can live for eternity knowing how wrong they were.
Seems like the religious get the better deal.[[/B]/QUOTE]
No not really. You could be in Heaven while your atheist children are in Hell.
[I
No not really. You could be in Heaven while your atheist children are in Hell.
That does indeed always strike me as a critical weakness in the fundamentalist position. Sounds very much like hell, doesn't it? C S Lewis (too early a generation to be called 'fundamentalist' perhaps, but some of his ideas were very odd) tried to reconcile it by saying that those in heaven felt 'intellectual sympathy' but not 'emotional sympathy'. I would guess that few people have ever been convinced by that.
It appears to me that said poster is being repeatedly targeted because s/he is the 'messenger.'
Why not bring a credible counter- view to the debate instead?
Targeted? Ha. If anything he/she is baiting for responses with the amount of drivel being spouted. Fair enough you have the right to be an atheist. But to attack people for the beliefs and think they should be driven out of society is exactly what an intolerant bigot would say. Also what does choosing to fast/participating in Ramadan have to do with an atheist view? Shame this thread has turned out this way because of one poster.
To bring the thread back on topic, Ramadan is not just a month to fast but to give to different charities or practical acts like picking up litter or other acts that benefit the community.
It's estimated that British Muslims donate over £100 million to aid charities during Ramadan alone and the rush alone brings a massive windfall to the UK that benefits the economy. Not to mention crime falls during this month too.
The sick and elderly are exempt from fasting however, it has been proved to provide many health benefits to the healthy that do participate.
These are just a few of the positives Ramadan brings.
Targeted? Ha. If anything he/she is baiting for responses with the amount of drivel being spouted. Fair enough you have the right to be an atheist. But to attack people for the beliefs and think they should be driven out of society is exactly what an intolerant bigot would say. Also what does choosing to fast/participating in Ramadan have to do with an atheist view? Shame this thread has turned out this way because of one poster.
To bring the thread back on topic, Ramadan is not just a month to fast but to give to different charities or practical acts like picking up litter or other acts that benefit the community.
It's estimated that British Muslims donate over £100 million to aid charities during Ramadan alone and the rush alone brings a massive windfall to the UK that benefits the economy. Not to mention crime falls during this month too.
The sick and elderly are exempt from fasting however, it has been proved to provide many health benefits to the healthy that do participate.
These are just a few of the positives Ramadan brings.
And what exactly are the health benefits of being hungry, thirsty and tired?
And what exactly are the health benefits of being hungry, thirsty and tired?
I do not know,
I am hungry now and I haven't eaten since 11 o'clock and thirsty haven't and had a drink since 12 o'clock there's no way I could go 16 hours
And what exactly are the health benefits of being hungry, thirsty and tired?
Hunger is part of the fast. I thought that that would be obvious. If you're thirsty then stop engaging in physical activity. If you're tired, lie down.
So simple yet people make it so hard for themselves.
It's estimated that British Muslims donate over £100 million to aid charities during Ramadan alone and the rush alone brings a massive windfall to the UK that benefits the economy. Not to mention crime falls during this month too.
The sick and elderly are exempt from fasting however, it has been proved to provide many health benefits to the healthy that do participate.
These are just a few of the positives Ramadan brings.
That's pretty darn good of them.
Is that just petty crime or serious stuff like murder and terrorism too? How about causing social unrest, such as marching against cartoons - is that put on ice for a month as well?
Comments
I read the thread and called it as I saw it. The fact that I was then characterised as a 'religious poster' was bizarre tbh.
Or 'the religious' have wasted their life by repeatedly performing rituals if the post-death insurance policy doesn't pay out.
Notwithstanding the above, how have 'the religious' got the better deal in 'hell' ?
Moreover, have you got a guarantee certificate of your entry into 'heaven'? I'd be interested to see it.
When they die they will cease to exist no time to worry about what they've done.
Read it again I didn't say that.
There's nothing I wish to show you, it's personal to me. You have your belief or non belief as it were so its of no interest to you.
With the greatest respect, I suggest you re-read my post, as it makes perfect sense.
Translation of your last line: you ain't got anything to back up your assertion - zilch.
Most people I deal with aren't religious and that's what matters to me, in fact around here every Sunday the churches are nearly empty.
So zilch evidence so far - oh dear.
Again, not my experience at all. I have a close friend who is a hospice chaplain, and nothing is more common than for the most life-long atheist to wish for periods of spiritual reflection and even ritual towards the end of their lives. He is happy, as I am sure a lot of hospice chaplains are, to offer simple prayers, for example, which do not involve any asssumption of faith.
And 'insurance policy' sounds very fundamentalist. In real life, as opposed to hand-picked-for-idiocy-online, I can't remember anyone in a church suggesting that those present will be 'saved', while the people thronging Bluewater on a Sunday morning will not. Whatever happens to us after death is generally assumed to be of a similar, if unknowable, nature to most of our Christian population.
How do you 'teach' atheism to a child? They are already atheist.
I find your second point interesting. I was a nurse previously, and I've got to say I didn't notice many of my terminally ill patients asking for the services of the chaplain. Nobody seemed to talk about God or religion much.
And off you go again like a wind up toy. Atheism IS NOT a personal view, so please stop trying the usual tactic of dragging everything down to the level of belief. That old strawman rubbish has been done to death.
Children are taught FACTS! And the FACT is that the religious have come up with some nonsense and have failed to prove any of it in all of history. That isn't Atheism, that's just fact.
Atheist don't even exist, that is just a name given to describe people who the religious have failed to con into their nonsense.
Certainly ALL children should be protected from religion until such time that their brains have developed enough for rational thinking to see it for what it is.
The clue here is; why do religions try and indoctrinate the young? Answer: Because that is when they are vulnerable to being brainwashed and the religious know this and abuse it. Again with so many other things, if it wasn't religion behind it, it would be outlawed as child abuse.
So brainwashing of children and failure to be force to get help for their own condition is all OK as it's religion! One rule for them and one rule for everyone else.
I have studied them all (Theology degree) and came to the conclusion that Christianity was the one that had the most appeal for me. (Though I flirted with Buddhism).
But, when it came down to it, Buddha was a Prince, Jesus was a Carpenter, I am a socialist - no contest, really.
You don't, as a Christian, have to think that all other religions are wrong. I daresay some fundamentalists do, but that's not the official line.
All people are made in God's image, all religions have some truth, even atheism.
I do wish, btw that anti-religious people would rid themselves of the view that all religion starts in the cradle. I had no religious upbringing, quite the reverse. I came to Christianity in my 30s. I was not brainwashed.
I might add that my faith is very much given to fluctuation. I have had lots of periods of atheism, many more of agnosticism, some of devout belief, mostly of indifference.
Yeah, but a bit of a bummer if you've been taught to believe in the wrong religion. All that earnest avoiding of ham sarnies, or cutting off bits of their children's genitalia, or mea culpa-ing through life or whatever might be all for nothing if god exists and the only way to get to heaven is to own three cats for at least 2 years and eat a banana, daily.
I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that it applies to a 100% of people 100% of the time, but it really is self evident that it's true for the vast majority - most people's religion will be decided for them by their parents.
No, children have to be taught 'to think for themselves.' The golden rule being 'the majority are not always right.'
My own introduction to religion by my parents was facts. Their script went along the lines of:
"-A lot of people believe that a concept called God, heaven and hell exists etc.
- Some people don't believe that God, heaven and hell etc exists.
-No-one knows what the truth is, including parents and teachers, religious leaders and people (no matter how loudly some scream and shout that they do know!)
-Parents don't know everything. When you become a parent you don't all of a sudden receive the fountain of all knowledge!
- Always think for yourself, don't assume that the majority have the monopoly on truth."
We've followed a similar script for our children.
Again, not my experience at all. I have a close friend who is a hospice chaplain, and nothing is more common than for the most life-long atheist to wish for periods of spiritual reflection and even ritual towards the end of their lives. He is happy, as I am sure a lot of hospice chaplains are, to offer simple prayers, for example, which do not involve any asssumption of faith.
I have many family members and friends in the medical profession at various levels, care homes and indeed even a hospice. Their anecdotal feedback to me does not confirm your second-hand anecdotal feedback as being the norm for the majority of cases.
PS. My response to your post is in bold throughout the above text; plus I will try to address your other comments to me in a separate post
Both words apply to him/her.
Also for God's sake stop over using the word "nonsense". It's you that's talking nonsense!
The bib below is a common mantra of a lot of religious people. Appears very much like a post-death insurance policy. Sadly, that's the crux of the control mechanism used by the few (mostly men) to coerce and control the majority into submitting into their control.
It appears to me that said poster is being repeatedly targeted because s/he is the 'messenger.'
Why not bring a credible counter- view to the debate instead?
Targeted? Ha. If anything he/she is baiting for responses with the amount of drivel being spouted. Fair enough you have the right to be an atheist. But to attack people for the beliefs and think they should be driven out of society is exactly what an intolerant bigot would say. Also what does choosing to fast/participating in Ramadan have to do with an atheist view? Shame this thread has turned out this way because of one poster.
To bring the thread back on topic, Ramadan is not just a month to fast but to give to different charities or practical acts like picking up litter or other acts that benefit the community.
It's estimated that British Muslims donate over £100 million to aid charities during Ramadan alone and the rush alone brings a massive windfall to the UK that benefits the economy. Not to mention crime falls during this month too.
The sick and elderly are exempt from fasting however, it has been proved to provide many health benefits to the healthy that do participate.
These are just a few of the positives Ramadan brings.
What are the health benefits of eating all your calories early and late and dehydrating all day?
And what exactly are the health benefits of being hungry, thirsty and tired?
I do not know,
I am hungry now and I haven't eaten since 11 o'clock and thirsty haven't and had a drink since 12 o'clock there's no way I could go 16 hours
Hunger is part of the fast. I thought that that would be obvious. If you're thirsty then stop engaging in physical activity. If you're tired, lie down.
So simple yet people make it so hard for themselves.
Is that just petty crime or serious stuff like murder and terrorism too? How about causing social unrest, such as marching against cartoons - is that put on ice for a month as well?