Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
hideous_enigma
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is
by hideous_enigma » Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:17 pm

Hexx wrote:I love it when Skarjo posts (on anything).


It turns me on as well.

*swoon*

User avatar
mic
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: I'm on my way...

PostRe: Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is
by mic » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:27 pm

hideous_enigma wrote:
Hexx wrote:I love it when Skarjo posts (on anything).


It turns me on as well...


I agree - Skarjo = sex.

Skarjo wrote:...It doesn't matter how rational the religionist might be who criticises the action of another religionist; the lack of any accountability inherent in religion means that the person who reads Leviticus and murders a homosexual cannot be logically criticised by the religionist pointing out the fourth commandment (or whatever 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is). The two passages contradict each other, and which you deem as 'right' is entirely subjective...


It's NOT a contradiction! Nor subjective! Taken out of context, I'm sure I could be just as liberal with any other ruleset.

Anyway, this accountability...

Skarjo wrote:...Atheism does not have such a body of instructions that any atheist can use to deflect blame or justify action; as such, no other atheist need be troubled by the actions of another.


And why should religionists be burdened with such responsibility? Does a holy book place its believer above the law? Does either God or other believers intercept the punishment of those who break the law in the name of religion?

We talked before (on that other porch :roll: ) about whether or not religionists deserved special treatment - and in the case of murdering homosexuals clearly they do not. So punish them already - we're presently bombing the hell out of half the Middle-East (which has nothing to do with religious fundamentalists , you understand?), so what more do you want? Why all the vitriol?

What, you think that if religion goes away, crime and war will cease? I believe such an opinion to be a) shockingly naive and, b) an underestimation of humanity's capacity for self-destruction.

User avatar
Phatman
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Stockton-on-Tees
Contact:

PostRe: Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is
by Phatman » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:45 pm

mic wrote:
Skarjo wrote:...It doesn't matter how rational the religionist might be who criticises the action of another religionist; the lack of any accountability inherent in religion means that the person who reads Leviticus and murders a homosexual cannot be logically criticised by the religionist pointing out the fourth commandment (or whatever 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is). The two passages contradict each other, and which you deem as 'right' is entirely subjective...


It's NOT a contradiction! Nor subjective! Taken out of context, I'm sure I could be just as liberal with any other ruleset


How isn't it a contradiction? Maybe I'm being a little slow, but I really don't see how it isn't.

mic wrote:
Skarjo wrote:...Atheism does not have such a body of instructions that any atheist can use to deflect blame or justify action; as such, no other atheist need be troubled by the actions of another.


And why should religionists be burdened with such responsibility? Does a holy book place its believer above the law? Does either God or other believers intercept the punishment of those who break the law in the name of religion?


Religious people choose to be organised into a group. They choose to be called Christians or Muslims or Jews. The term Atheist is a term society has given people with no belief in any deity. Atheists are NOT organised and DON'T believe all the same things. They just have one belief in common. You wouldn't ask all film directors to be responsible for one bad film. Religious people should be worried about people of their own faith commiting acts in the name of their religion, because there is a set rule book that every member of that religion studies from. It suggests something is wrong with that book if justification for an awful action can be found.

mic wrote:What, you think that if religion goes away, crime and war will cease? I believe such an opinion to be a) shockingly naive and, b) an underestimation of humanity's capacity for self-destruction.


I don't think many Atheists will say they want all religion to go away (although I can't speak for all Atheists, because we DON'T have a book with our beliefs in). Atheists generally just don't want Religions to get special treatment or special respect for their outdated, unprovable and often prejudiced beliefs. Atheists also don't want lives shattered or lost over doctrine.

"Fire Fighters are like Ghostbusters, except they fight fire - not ghosts"
User avatar
Skarjo
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is
by Skarjo » Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:08 pm

mic wrote:
Skarjo wrote:...It doesn't matter how rational the religionist might be who criticises the action of another religionist; the lack of any accountability inherent in religion means that the person who reads Leviticus and murders a homosexual cannot be logically criticised by the religionist pointing out the fourth commandment (or whatever 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is). The two passages contradict each other, and which you deem as 'right' is entirely subjective...


It's NOT a contradiction! Nor subjective! Taken out of context, I'm sure I could be just as liberal with any other ruleset.



How is it not a contradiction? In the same book; this infallible, word-of-God rulebook that all Christians believe is the most important holy book ever written has, clear as daylight, not only permission but instruction to put homosexuals to death. It also says 'thou shalt not kill'. Two directly conflicting statements, and you may well point to your favourite liberal passage about peace on earth and goodwill to all men, but I can guarantee that Big John the Psychopath can point to passages that justify his point of view too. This creates something of a conundrum for the Christians, as who is in the right is entirely subjective and as God has remained painfully quiet on the subject for 2000 years or so than I don't think we're going to settle it anytime soon.

mic wrote:Anyway, this accountability...

Skarjo wrote:...Atheism does not have such a body of instructions that any atheist can use to deflect blame or justify action; as such, no other atheist need be troubled by the actions of another.


And why should religionists be burdened with such responsibility? Does a holy book place its believer above the law? Does either God or other believers intercept the punishment of those who break the law in the name of religion?

We talked before (on that other porch :roll: ) about whether or not religionists deserved special treatment - and in the case of murdering homosexuals clearly they do not. So punish them already - we're presently bombing the hell out of half the Middle-East (which has nothing to do with religious fundamentalists , you understand?), so what more do you want? Why all the vitriol?

What, you think that if religion goes away, crime and war will cease? I believe such an opinion to be a) shockingly naive and, b) an underestimation of humanity's capacity for self-destruction.


When did I ever say that? That's such a curveball statement that you nearly got me off guard! I've never said anything like that all religion is responsible for all crime, and that eradication of one would eliminate the other. As you say, that would be daft.

Despite the fact that many believers do believe that their beliefs should be placed before the law, I shall concede that to the best of my knowledge most religions instruct that the law of the land should be respected.

My point, going back to what was said before, is that religionists must face up to the fact that to say that they believe in a certain religion and thus abide by its rules creates obvious and instant problems whenever one of it's followers uses the religion as a justification for an action. If they, as they very easily can, can point to a Bible passage and say 'this supports what I have' then it is, at the very least, the start of a discussion and debate over whether this is correct. Atheism can never, and will never, has this issue as as an idea it has no book, no scripture nor no rules. There is nothing a crime-comitting atheist can pull out of nowhere to defend and support his actions, which cannot be said for a crime-comitting Christian if the crime is alluded to as being biblically justified .

By the way, you're sexy as strawberry float too.

Karl wrote:Can't believe I got baited into expressing a political stance on hentai

Skarjo's Scary Stories...
User avatar
mic
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: I'm on my way...

PostRe: Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is
by mic » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:26 pm

mic wrote:...It's NOT a contradiction! Nor subjective!...


Phatman & Skarjo (altogether now...) wrote:...OOHHHH YES IT IS..!


With regards to the sixth commandment "thou shall not kill", this is better understood to mean "you shall not murder." Clearly, the Bible does not consider all taking of life to be murder, which is only the unlawful taking of human life. Neither does the command not to kill apply to animals or plant life, as God suggested that we could eat certain kinds.

Obviously killing during war would not be considered as murder. Some criminals (murderers, adulterers, Sabbath-breakers) could also be legally executed, as could those practicing certain abominations. It was therefore quite appropriate, back then, for homosexuals to be executed (let me finish!). Now, however, is quite a different story...

God had a plan for the Jews (Israelites), and they blew it! Remember, God was in their presence (in the form of the Shekinah). However, now that God's church is among the gentile (non-Jewish) nations, it would be ludicrous to kill everyone for their abominable practices! There'd be nobody left!

Again, the Jews had God's presence - Richard Dawkins himself would not have been able to convince them of His non-existence. More recently, we only have the Bible as evidence... don't you think that calls for a bit more leniency? Hence, it isn't that the Levitical laws are no longer valid (God LOVES gays - He just doesn't like it when they bum or poke each other in the mouth - sorry), but rather that God (and surely therefore by extension His believers?) are much more lenient towards abominable sins while they take the time to learn of Him (or not).

I don't really expect anyone else to appreciate this admittedly fine distinction, but there you go.

Skarjo wrote:…When did I ever say that? That's such a curveball statement that you nearly got me off guard…!


You can’t blame me for trying… I’m dyin’ out here!

Skarjo wrote:… I shall concede that to the best of my knowledge most religions instruct that the law of the land should be respected…


Much obliged.

Phatman wrote:...It suggests something is wrong with that book if justification for an awful action can be found...

Skarjo wrote:… If they, as they very easily can, can point to a Bible passage and say 'this supports what I have' then it is, at the very least, the start of a discussion and debate over whether this is correct...


Nothing wrong with debate – especially if the perpetrator is using misapplied or out of context evidence. For example (here we go again): if I read Darwin’s ‘Origin’, went on a killing spree of benefits cheats and then claimed that my victims were merely animals and, as they were a drain on resources, were therefore not fit enough to survive in modern society, necessitating my 'naturally selecting' them for termination, would all Ev-Bio’s* then be responsible?

*You may not like my example.

Stig
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is
by Stig » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:27 pm

Phatman wrote:Jambot speaks the truth, as does Mr Condell.

I have no problem with anyone choosing to follow their religion provided they don't expect special treatment for their unprovable beliefs. Unfortunately the majority of organised religions do expect special respect/special treatment to at least a minor extent. I reserve my right to criticise any religion the way I reserve the right to criticise any political party and I won't let any PC jobsworth tell me otherwise. If any of Sharia Law ever enters UK law, I will take zero notice.

User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is
by Alvin Flummux » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:31 pm

If any Sharia law enters UK law, it'll probably be their stuff regarding divorce, which is actually a great deal fairer than our system, so nobody with any common sense will have cause to complain anyway. Except Midtown.

User avatar
Rightey
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is
by Rightey » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:38 pm

What's their take on divorce?

Pelloki on ghosts wrote:Just start masturbating furiously. That'll make them go away.

Image
User avatar
Skarjo
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is
by Skarjo » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:45 pm

mic wrote:
mic wrote:...It's NOT a contradiction! Nor subjective!...


Phatman & Skarjo (altogether now...) wrote:...OOHHHH YES IT IS..!


With regards to the sixth commandment "thou shall not kill", this is better understood to mean "you shall not murder." Clearly, the Bible does not consider all taking of life to be murder, which is only the unlawful taking of human life. Neither does the command not to kill apply to animals or plant life, as God suggested that we could eat certain kinds.

Obviously killing during war would not be considered as murder. Some criminals (murderers, adulterers, Sabbath-breakers) could also be legally executed, as could those practicing certain abominations. It was therefore quite appropriate, back then, for homosexuals to be executed (let me finish!). Now, however, is quite a different story...

God had a plan for the Jews (Israelites), and they blew it! Remember, God was in their presence (in the form of the Shekinah). However, now that God's church is among the gentile (non-Jewish) nations, it would be ludicrous to kill everyone for their abominable practices! There'd be nobody left!

Again, the Jews had God's presence - Richard Dawkins himself would not have been able to convince them of His non-existence. More recently, we only have the Bible as evidence... don't you think that calls for a bit more leniency? Hence, it isn't that the Levitical laws are no longer valid (God LOVES gays - He just doesn't like it when they bum or poke each other in the mouth - sorry), but rather that God (and surely therefore by extension His believers?) are much more lenient towards abominable sins while they take the time to learn of Him (or not).

I don't really expect anyone else to appreciate this admittedly fine distinction, but there you go.


Ah, but that's the whole point. YOU have thought of many examples where killing would be justified, even necessary. As such, YOU have chosen to interpret Thou Shalt Not Kill as Thou Shalt Not Murder, and attached all kinds of terms, conditions and additions to it. This is you interpreting and altering the Bible to fit your own ideas. IN THE BIBLE, the instruction is 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. You have also chosen to interpret several other passages differently in order to make them fit in with a more lenient world view. However, this is nothing but your personal interpretation of the text, and someone who interprets it differently and acts upon it, positively or negatively, is still something that the community of believers must recognise and acknowledge.

mic wrote:
Phatman wrote:...It suggests something is wrong with that book if justification for an awful action can be found...

Skarjo wrote:… If they, as they very easily can, can point to a Bible passage and say 'this supports what I have' then it is, at the very least, the start of a discussion and debate over whether this is correct...


Nothing wrong with debate – especially if the perpetrator is using misapplied or out of context evidence. For example (here we go again): if I read Darwin’s ‘Origin’, went on a killing spree of benefits cheats and then claimed that my victims were merely animals and, as they were a drain on resources, were therefore not fit enough to survive in modern society, necessitating my 'naturally selecting' them for termination, would all Ev-Bio’s* then be responsible?

*You may not like my example.


Firstly, let's disinguish atheists from ev-bios again. The two are far from synonymous.

If it was someone using an idea like evolution to justify their actions then absolutely, discussion and criticism would be completely justified. This is an entirely different scenario; as when we are talking about ideas that actually have several inbuilt laws and principles (as evolution does) then discussing, debating and criticising the different ways of interpreting these laws and how they affect our world is entirely valid.

Indeed, Dawkin's own The Selfish Gene goes to great lengths to explore precisely why such a scenario does not call for justifiable 'cleansing' of those we perceive to be drains on society, and why it is in fact not even evolutionarily favourable or sustainable to pursue such a road.

But just to go back to the original point, this is precisely why atheism does not suffer from the same problems as religion in that it does not have laws, tenets, commandments blah blah blah. (Sorry, but I can't be bothered typing it again!)

Karl wrote:Can't believe I got baited into expressing a political stance on hentai

Skarjo's Scary Stories...
User avatar
Skarjo
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is
by Skarjo » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:46 pm

Rightey wrote:What's their take on divorce?


Public disgrace for her, an 'I Love Allah' mug for him.

Karl wrote:Can't believe I got baited into expressing a political stance on hentai

Skarjo's Scary Stories...
User avatar
Rightey
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is
by Rightey » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:50 pm

Skarjo wrote:
Rightey wrote:What's their take on divorce?


Public disgrace for her, an 'I Love Allah' mug for him.


I lol'd IRL, however I imagined that frowny picture of Mohammed on it with the words "I Love Allah" in a circle around it.

Pelloki on ghosts wrote:Just start masturbating furiously. That'll make them go away.

Image
User avatar
Mr Thropwimp
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Phantom
Location: Orb of Dreamers
Contact:

PostRe: Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is
by Mr Thropwimp » Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:24 am

I'll put my view this way: I call myself an agnostic. I don't give a gooseberry fool about the existence of a god - or lack thereof - so to me I see this as one side (the religious) trying to validate their own opinions while the other side does likewise, and in that process they try to use their own beliefs (you all are going to think your beliefs are the most rational, otherwise you wouldn't have those beliefs) to shoot down the opposition's. I mean, arguing with a Christian that his belief is wrong isn't really going to work is it? Conversely, arguing with an atheist that their belief is wrong is going to have a similar level of success.

Of course I only address the view of the (non-)existence of one or more gods. I have issues with the general ideals of both subscribers to particular religions and those who choose to argue their lack of belief in a god. One riling thing in particular is the notion of rationality and this supposed accountability. Everyone's (except those politicians, hur hur) accountable to the law of the land regardless of belief. Argument = null and void.

Apparently the Bible advocates the killing of gay people but also says no one shall be killed, and apparently killing can only be called murder if it breaks the law of the land, so this isn't a contradiction. Nice creativity, there. But, on the other hand, this doesn't matter either, because like with the laws we have in place, some become irrelevant over time and are ignored. We were all chauvinist before the Suffragettes stood up for women, and many things (women doing housework, not being allowed to vote, being objects, etc.) have become irrelevant over time. No one argues that, since they were rules in the past, they still are rules and they still are valid.

Anyway, I'll leave this for now while someone starts dissecting my post into small, chewable chunks.

$ilva $hadow wrote:charles lafonda click click boom
User avatar
gafgalash
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Land of the POKéMON

PostRe: Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is
by gafgalash » Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:34 pm

jambot wrote:How exactly is stoning to death a woman for infidelity rid the ruling elite of a powerful enemy? This is the punishment of a 'thought crime'. Dismantling the apparatus of the catholic church in any of its guises is power politics.


Isn't there symbolic value to "the punishment of thought crime"? Asuming you're talking about Iran, the association of the state with a creed (Islam=awesome), means that punishing deviant thoughts can strenghten the perceived power of the state. A weak state especially (like your garden-variety theocracy often is) might need to bully promiscuous women, meaning it is as much driven by power considerations as were the policies of someone like Stalin.

Still not a very nice thing to do, mind.

Also, this:

Phil Collins wasn't in Genesis at its genesis


only just compensates for this, even with the reflective statement:

I can't be bothered to argue with this. It's irrelevant, a misrepresentation of both fact and what I have written. I have an MA Hons (Oxon) in History*. If you do too, by all means, let's continue this academic nicety; otherwise let's stick to the point. Stalin wasn't bad because he was an atheist. And he did nothing in the name of atheism.

*edit: Actually this sounds pretty bad on reflection. I only raise this because you seem so utterly intent of giving me series of half-arsed history lectures, which are neither wanted nor needed. Or correct. And not so much because I'm pompous. Oh no.

Windmills do not work that way!
User avatar
Oblomov Boblomov
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Mind Crime, SSBM_God

PostRe: Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is
by Oblomov Boblomov » Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:37 am

Phil Collins is God?

Image
User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is
by Cal » Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:39 am

Mind Crime wrote:Phil Collins is God?


Not quite, but once upon a long ago he was a pretty damn good drummer (although, apparently, many professional drummers don't 'rate' him...). :?

On the wider questions of religion and law: I have no objection to any organised religion at all. None. Until they start trying to legislate for my way of life, my moral values, my freedoms. As a gay man, I have no interest at all in legislating their freedoms away, so why do they seem so determined, so much of the time, to legislate away mine?


Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Godzilla, kerr9000, more heat than light, Neo Cortex, Ploiper, PuppetBoy, Red 5 stella, Wedgie, Zilnad and 369 guests