No, it's factually correct. There are lots of religions which do not have Gods. By the way, tell Lewis about how repressed you are.
No, it's factually correct. There are lots of religions which do not have Gods. By the way, tell Lewis about how repressed you are.
That's quite curious to me. I've always thought that theism is the essential part of a religion, but I'm open to other definitions. At what point does it instead become a philosophy rather than a religion? And what is a religion, if not a theistic belief system?Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Well Buddhism is described as a religion, as is secular humanism in many parts. It's getting a bit deeper than I have the need or want to go into but, like you and your ilk were pretty intent on telling me, religion is different things to different people. And I'm not sure you get to tell Buddhists that their religion isn't a religion just because they don't believe in invisible, magic entities.
That's totally fair. Again, I wasn't coming out swinging here - this is something I hadn't really thought much about.
I wonder where the distinction between a philosophy and a religion really is.
If he believes he has to do [i]x/i], y, or z to gain favour then yes. So although it is 'totalitarian at its core' (finally), the fact that most people don't go along with everything, and they themselves don't see a problem with it... This undermines your given reasons for opposing religion slightly doesn't it?
Watson's being urged to apologise.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34484611
The git.
I really thought Watson and Fatpie were on to something, turns out it was all bollocks.
I forgot this was actually the politics thread.
Well unfortunately for you, he doesn't like to let you know where he stands. And no, it doesn't. Because in case you hadn't noticed, lots of people are getting thrown off buildings, raped and decapitated because of 'religion' if you want to use it that broadly.
You said you oppose it because you 'object to non-thinking, the rejection of clear scientific facts and many other things'. But if 'most people take it a 'la carte', and '[do] not think they are repressed in the least', then you're left with the 'other things' that (having said was not the case earlier) you've just identified as violence.
It seems strange that you would defend the Church of England despite it being 'totalitarian at its core'. Was all the anti-religion stuff really just anti-Islam?
Nooo, surely not?
Yes and, as I keep pointing out, some religions are obviously more dangerous than others. I do identify obvious violence within Islam, it's not really a big secret. That's why I keep saying 'religion' is too broad a term. Jainists are never going to commit any violence due to their religion. Stop ignoring what I tell you. I could easily level this kind of nonsense at you regarding immigration, some of which you say is good but you don't half hate the Muzzies.
I don't defend it, I still say it's wrong and we'd be better off without it. It's just not dangerous in the least. But you've shifted the conversation from the consequences of religion to its core, which are different things. It is mostly anti-Islam, yes. If we were having this conversation 70-80 years ago I would say it was mostly Catholicism. That's the problem when you keep saying 'religion', which encompasses only something in the region of 4,000 separate religions.It seems strange that you would defend the Church of England despite it being 'totalitarian at its core'. Was all the anti-religion stuff really just anti-Islam?
Just make sure you keep in touch with how things are:
If you oppose the 'consequences' (violence) of religion rather than its 'core' (totalitarianism) then the 'obvious violence within Islam' isn't a concern is it? Why oppose Islam if most Muslims take it 'a la carte' and don't carry out acts of violence? It sounds like you're opposed to violence rather than any particular belief system[s], which is nice to know (post #338), but think of all that time wasted watching/having religious debates when you could have been reading Gene Sharp.
I didn't say violence, you did. You keep trying to insert things I did not say and arguing against them. Stop it. I oppose the core as well but, as I am now saying for the third time, most people do not take religion seriously and do not follow core beliefs.
The 'core belief' of Christianity (for example) is that you accept Jesus as the son of God (and associated pish). and that through him you gain favour. If you don't follow that you're not really a Christian are you? Going around gay-bashing is peripheral stuff when you consider the central totalitarian aspect of it all.
You don't have any issue with the 'core' ('I don't think it being a bit stronger would necessarily repress anyone'). Your issue is with the 'consequences', which we can take to be violence from your willingness to accept the repressive aspect of it as well as your claims that violence comes from certain faiths. So again, why oppose Islam as a belief system when you're actually just a big fruity pacifist?
That's one core belief among many. I don't think they would put it as 'gain favour'. I'm not sure what this has to do with violence but I'm sure you're saving something really exciting on that.
And there you go making up things I never said again. I never said I 'never had issues with the core'. If I ever said that then show where I did. Why can't you ever argue in an honest fashion? You continually bring up things I did not say anjd do not think and then argue against them. I will continue to tell you to stop doing that.
Maybe at the point of rituals or worshipping/revering a god/person (then you can shove Buddhism into the definition).
You've accepted that the 'core' of religion is inherenty totalitarian, but you've also claimed that 'Jainism isn't repressive' (does it not depend on believing certain things for salvation?) and that a strengthened Church of England would not 'necessarily repress anyone'. That (along with your earlier confusion about repression and man-made laws) means your focus is on the 'consequences' of religion, in which case your opposition should be directed towards idiots and their actions rather than beliefs.
Yes, and that's why I keep saying that you shouldn't use 'religion' as a blanket term. That is why I separated theistic religion from the likes of Jainism. But why let such facts get in the way? And what you say after is incoherent nonsense. I should focus on individual's actions instead of their beliefs? Well I do. Unless it's obvious that their beliefs lead to their actions, which is rather often the case. You really do choose the most boring, pedantic, inconsequential things to argue about.
Your insistence on that distinction is irrelevant. Jainism still requires people to believe/do certain things in pursuit of salvation, which is why Christopher Hitchens used 'religion' as a blanket term when he called it totalitarian. But why let such facts get in the way?
It's one thing to accept that particular interpretations of Islam might provide justifications for violence, but you talk about the 'obvious violence within Islam' to criticise the entire belief system even though hundreds of millions of them don't act on this 'obvious violence'. If we got another David Copeland would you criticise anti-immigration rhetoric in its entirety?
Not really, there's no eternal punishment for not following rules within Jainism. Maybe you should research on that. As for Hitchens, he never mentions Jainism, and is very clear that his ire is directed squarely at Abrahmic religion. In case you hadn't noticed, his book title is 'God Is Not Great'. Jains do not believe in God. Now if you want you can keep directing the exact same points at me while I refute them in the exact same manner, but I'm sure even you would find that a bit tiresome.
As for Islam, which interpretation do you know which repudiates the actions of Muhammed? Just as I wouldn't criticise anti-immigration in its entirety (and I'm not anti-immigration, anyway), neither would you criticise pro-immigration because of Muslim immigrants. Something you completely ignored when I brought it up earlier. Any more non-sequiturs?
What has 'eternal punishment' got to do with anything? There wasn't an East German conception of hell. If you have to live your life in accordance with certain rules in pursuit of enlightenment and/or salvation then you are adhering to a totalitarian system, as it seeks (whether successful or not) to control the entirety of your behaviour. That is how Hitchens defined it, and it isn't 'very clear that his ire is directed squarely at Abrahmic religion', because in the aforementioned God is Not Great he says the following:
Although many Buddhists now regret that deplorable attempt to prove their own superiority, no Buddhist since then has been able to demonstrate that Buddhism was wrong in its own terms. A faith that despises the mind and the free individual, that preaches submission and resignation, and that regards life as a poor and transient thing, is ill-equipped for self-criticism. Those who become bored by conventional 'Bible' religions, and seek 'enlightenment' by way of the dissolution of their own critical faculties into nirvana in any form, had better take a warning. They may think they are leaving the realm of despised materialism, but they are still being asked to put their reason to sleep, and to discard their minds along with their sandals.
That (with my emphasis) reads remarkably like him calling Buddhism totalitarian. I should say I've just Googled that, so if you've read the book feel free to put it in context; but it's looking like you haven't actually understood Hitchens and what he was about.
As for Islam, I don't know of any interpretation that repudiates Mohammed's violence; but most of its adherents don't seem to be violent, so the belief system itself doesn't seem to be doing that much damage. If you place the emphasis on beliefs rather than actions you effectively absolve the individual, when they are the ones who choose to act on the shithouse version of something unlike the hundreds of millions who don't (I wouldn't criticise pro-immigration because of shit Muslim immigrants, but that's the point I'm making).
Shut up. Absolutely pointless talking with you when you repeatedly ignore what I say and repeat your same points over and over again. I don't care if you think I'm inconsistent (you are as well, if you use your criteria).
You went to the trouble to save that smiley? Says it all.
It's part of the board.
So it is. Still, you would have anyway. I'm glad I don't have to tinypic my victories now. Since it's so easy:
Ffs.
On Harold's hero's quote that Lewis posted:
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/print/2060
Watch this heroic woman finally get what we never knew out of Peter Hitchens - he doesn't like multiculturalism! Well done, moron. This is what I would describe as the typical lefty cunt. It's a bit like Lewis in here, actually - ascribe things to someone that they do not believe and never said.
Quick summary for those not watching:
"I'm saying this".
"No what you're really saying is this"
"No I'm saying what I am saying"
"No you're not you're saying this"
all a midst incessant interruptions, of course.
[Sir] Charles Moore giving it to Twatson.
He's absolutely bang on.
Watson is a disgusting, attention seeking fantasist who has no place being deputy leader.
One of the stated goals of an organisation he heads up.
Not a man to be taken seriously.Investigate and refine definitions of personhood and those criteria sufficient for the recognition of non-human persons.
"Celebrate" must be the worst word in politics at the moment.
As for Hitchens there, I don't know why he doesn't just say the Hijab's a bit rubbish.
Because it adds nothing. He believes in liberty, which means he is opposed telling people what they can or can't wear. Had he been given a chance to speak without being interrupted I think this would have been made clear.
That's fine, but believing in liberty doesn't stop him having his own opinion.
Peter Hitchens is a serious columnist, and he [supposedly] revels in not caring what people think about him, so how does he get himself into a position where he's having to argue about a baking contest with such a pleb? He doesn't do himself any favours half the time.
I've seen him say before that he doesn't like it and I think he would readily express that view here if the interview was longer and he was given a chance. That isn't what the twat was asking, though. He would say he also doesn't like baseball caps, but who cares?
Hitchens has touched on this today in a very long and very qe article. Here is the second half of it:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....ht-police.html
[Lord] Andrew Gilligan has given Corbyn/McDonnell a right going over, as only he can.
That picture of McDonnell with Gerry Kelly should be the end of him.
I think you'll find that article is a Tory smear.
Andrew Gilligan is so fucking good.
Lord Tebbit, whose wife, Margaret, was permanently crippled by the Brighton bomb, said: "It’s hard to think how Corbyn could sink any lower. It’s the classic definition of the snake’s belly. He betrays his hatred of democracy and his love of violence, which survives to this day.”
The bit about Diane Abbott is good. He's summed her up and given her a good solid smack in about forty words.
Whatever your politics, that article is pretty serious stuff when you're talking about the alternative PM.
I don't see how he survives until the local elections. No doubt the likes of Henry and Boyd will be in to apologise for them shortly.
It's hard to see how all of that isn't going to end up in political suicide. I don't purport to be an expert in British politics (let alone The Troubles), but surely supporting an organization that killed soldiers and politicians of the government you're attempting to run just isn't going to fly with the general public.
To put it into perspective, we had our own period of separatist violence (the Quebeckers, natch), and I can't even begin to fathom the idea of a former member/public sympathiser of the FLQ running for office in Quebec, never mind national office.
In the post Corbyn era it's acceptable to think or be associated with pretty much anything if you're on the left, as long as you're not an evil TORY.
The fascist left think they own the monopoly on morality. Always have, always will.
Everyone does. Nobody thinks of themselves as the bad guy.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote