At 11/27/07 06:39 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Because Australians never say bollocks.

No Australian born Australians I know have said it.

At 11/27/07 05:24 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: My Idea, the crusades would have happened anyway with or without relligion (it just gave it flavor)

Because recapturing sacred holy ground has nothing to do with religion.

At 11/28/07 07:26 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: "Those dark skinned folk sure do have a lot of treasure and land."
"You thinking what I'm thinking?"
"Get out your Bible...we're going to justify this."

"King William is telling us to go and kill Muslims."
"Well fuck him."
"The Pope is telling us to go and kill Muslims, saying it's our divine will and that Muslims are less than human, and the Pope has papal infallibility, and is telling us to do it for Christianity."
"K."

You do have to appreciate, btw, that if the Pope has Papal infallibility, the Crusades were commanded by God, and if the Pope doesn't have Papal infallibility, much of your dogma has no basis.

If war dares to cross sectarian lines, it gets a little more ingrained.

At 11/28/07 08:08 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: In my humble opinion, money is the cause of all wars. Religion is just the best excuse.

Money may start a lot of wars, but religion continues them. If wars were solely about money, that would be lovely and simple, but when ideology gets mixed up with it the war seems prolonged and unwinnable.

There have, of course, been ideological battles fought that weren't about religion, like the cold war, but there have been a lot more that were about religion.

No-one has ever said 'religion is the cause of all wars'.

The civil war in Iraq at the moment can trace its roots back to Western imperialism, cutting up the Middle East and sharing it out with no regard to the sectarian divides, but the sectarian divides have always been there, as an inevitable consequence of organised religion, and were just waiting to flare up.

I just had a very interesting conversation about Atheism with this guy on Youtube.

He was suprised at what I was saying. He thinks that all Atheists are angry and hatful.

What a prick lol

At 11/28/07 10:27 AM, Brick-top wrote: I just had a very interesting conversation about Atheism with this guy on Youtube.

He was suprised at what I was saying. He thinks that all Atheists are angry and hatful.

What a prick lol

Some guy leaves me messages saying that atheists are like spoilt little rebel brats and are don't want to do what god says we should.
Funny bloke that.

At 11/29/07 12:18 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 11/28/07 10:27 AM, Brick-top wrote: I just had a very interesting conversation about Atheism with this guy on Youtube.

He was suprised at what I was saying. He thinks that all Atheists are angry and hatful.

What a prick lol

Some guy leaves me messages saying that atheists are like spoilt little rebel brats and are don't want to do what god says we should.
Funny bloke that.

I'm sure you sent him lots of love back lol.

This guy removed his video. But luckely someone re-posted it for the lulz.

This one made me laugh.

And this is just plain stupid. However the video was removed by the user, so naomi94 kindly reposted it just so we can all point and laugh.

Me want join!

Religous morals are good, but the stories aren't true.

At 11/29/07 10:34 AM, neon-dude wrote: Me want join!

Religous morals are good, but the stories aren't true.

The morals are good! So killing homosexuals, stoning children who disobey their parents, slavery, sacraficing animals and brutally murdering anyone who works on a sunday are good morals? Have you even read the bible? Retard.

At 11/28/07 12:19 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: Imperialism is the highest form of Capitalism; and Religion and Ideology are often merely extensions of the super-structure the state uses to keep itself in control.

That's very true, Marx was right, but you're not putting much of a gloss on religion here and that confirms the point that religion has very profound negative use in the world today.

Wars are about the state preserving itself and elements of the super structure such as Religion come in handy to create war.

True, religion is being badly used. Even if it's a positive thing that gets continually used badly, then maybe organised religion shouldn't exist as a force in the first place. Even if wars are started over commodities, the religious influence on those wars worsens the problem.

Really? I hear it alot on the BBS.

Well no-one sensible says 'religion is the cause of all wars'. There are quite obviously many wars that had nothing to do with religion, like the Opium Wars, but war + religion = lasting sectarian tension, based entirely on religious lines. With people going to crazy preachers, which are also inevitable, especially with dealing with such notions as life and death, and then causing even more mayhem.

It's tribal over there, not Religious and then even that - your Chief will only be looking at expanding his wealth.

The conflict is not tribal. The divide is on very apparent religious lines. Sunnis and Shi'ites have exactly opposite opinions on the topple of Saddam and the future of Iraq, and that's because they're all crazy about religion over there - if they had figured it out to keep religion out of the public sphere and out of public life a bit more over there, then the problem would be perhaps non-existent.

At 11/29/07 02:58 PM, distantgamer wrote:

At 11/29/07 10:34 AM, neon-dude wrote: Me want join!

Religous morals are good, but the stories aren't true.

The morals are good! So killing homosexuals, stoning children who disobey their parents, slavery, sacraficing animals and brutally murdering anyone who works on a sunday are good morals? Have you even read the bible? Retard.

There are a couple of good moral parables in the Bible, between the irrelevance and the nonsense, and the 'buck up boyo, you owe God' morals, and the evil ones, but Jesus had some alright moral parables, if you ignore some of them.

That's reason enough to believe, for some people. I do think Aesop's Fables are somewhat worthy as a comparison. And Aesop is far more consistent with decent advice.

At 11/29/07 03:39 PM, Earfetish wrote: The conflict is not tribal. The divide is on very apparent religious lines. Sunnis and Shi'ites have exactly opposite opinions on the topple of Saddam and the future of Iraq, and that's because they're all crazy about religion over there - if they had figured it out to keep religion out of the public sphere and out of public life a bit more over there, then the problem would be perhaps non-existent.

The problem is ethnic goups that dont like each other, relligion is just one part of what makes a group a group.

Getting rid of relligion would just divide people and cause more conflict.

So I guess from your point of view its huzzah for globolization and conformity so humans are all the same (just like you of coarse)

At 11/29/07 04:01 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: Only in the wrong hands - I don't mind it when people attack hypocrisy but I don't understand any attack on honest Religion.

When it comes down to it, you really did pinpoint it; a lot of my issues with religion is how it is used as a form of social control. Social control is a block to us becoming a truly enlightened society. The individual is more important than the state, and if we disagree on that, maybe we'll never agree on whether religion is bad or whether it's useful, but we would still both agree that any form of social control can be used for evil.

It kinda conforms with my libertarian politics; larger functions should have no unnecessary impact on the world at large, should not be segregating people, and everyone should be free to get about with their lives. If people insist on organised religion, then it should be far fucking quieter than it is nowadays. I don't want to hear the Pope's views on condoms, nor do I want the third world to hear those views. And he says something slightly bad about Islam, suddenly he should be killed - shows you the segregation it's causing, even today.

And it's totally false - the simple fact that there are lots of religions that can't coincide together and were quite simply caused from societal pressures towards a people, neatly shown in Viking and Aztec mythology - if you need 'God' as an answer for everything, fine, but don't pretend you know his mindset in a book, don't tell me about it if you do, and don't even open your mouth to politicians. Or my potential kids.

I have no problem with believing in God and Heaven, but I don't like the organised religion influence on the world today. I think organised religion is a notion that can really be done away with, at least in the West. I think we really need to be frank about Islam, and the way we treat religious dialect nowadays is not helping any hope of frankness.

I find it hard to draw parallels when it comes to that and people on suicide bombing missions.

You might like listening to the Priest; that doesn't make it any more true, and it doesn't mean the Catholic church doesn't have excess influence.

Do you think the majority of Roman Catholics [not many of us practising ones left in our society] would go to war on the whim of the Pope?

If the Pope started ranting about Muslims, in this particular climate, I would imagine a lot more Catholics would join the army.

Culturally, spirituality is having less and less importance and we can see Religion fading out before us - are you really going to hound the last of the Christians when they're just a handful of people in a room listening to the Priest while the overwhelming majority of the country sits at home watching CSI?

Yes. Religion is still of real global significance, including Christianity. One only needs to look at the US to see the power of Christian minorities.

But alot of Religions even forbid their members from military service, can you see a danger in that?

I would point to the conflicts these religions have been in. As well as any input these religions have that alters everyone's inner humanist, life-focused, tolerant selves.

You see it in Pakistan aswell - Musharraf has areas of overwhelming power based on his tribe, as do alot of his political opponents.

If the tribes want to start two or three separate countries based on religious grounds, then the tribes are religiously segregated.

At 11/29/07 06:33 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: The problem is ethnic goups that dont like each other, relligion is just one part of what makes a group a group.

The problem is, religion is such a powerful philosophy it can overcome tolerant humanism and morality, and allow people to do evil. Like the caste system in Hinduism, or the balls and will to kill a bunch of innocent people. Or to hound gays and protest funerals. And it's the same holy books as the tolerant moderates are reading. So much bad stuff.

Getting rid of relligion would just divide people and cause more conflict.

It would be one less major dividing line.

So I guess from your point of view its huzzah for globolization and conformity so humans are all the same (just like you of coarse)

My point is that a tolerant humanist moral system in a rational democracy is better than Sharia Law under a centuries-old Theocracy, or what the Christian fundies want in the US, and every time the Pope has put any controversial opinion into current affairs it's been a bad one, and you're talking shit if you claim otherwise. I'm not encouraging imperialism and conformity, but you're encouraging theocracy if you say that a Muslim fundamentalist culture is as good as ours and shouldn't be challenged on some major issues.

But yeah; fuck religion, because fuck social control. If this lovely Western Democracy had less social control, it would be better. By social control, I mean ideological control, and any law or social disapproval of our freedom to do whatever we like to ourselves and our lives (like drugs) or with consenting adults (like gays and hookers and protected sex) and should be able to discuss any ideology (like religion) in the most frank and honest terms. Although we wouldn't feel inclined to, because we wouldn't even notice religion.

I think there's a rational moral code somewhere behind all the entanglements of bogus superstition and socially-enforced viewpoints, and behind it lies our ideal society.

Hey guys.

I have a question for my fellow Atheists (and the Religious visitors)

Do you think that Aliens are real?

Now by Aliens I mean the E.T styled and simple forms of bacterial life.

Because I've been thinking about it recently.

I find it hard that Aliens (with flying saucers and anal probes) But I find it very easy to believe that simply forms of life exist adapting to the planet that they are on. Does it make me logical? Or do I have a superiority complex because I hate the idea that something more complex and intellegent exist in the universe?

Something to consider.

At 11/30/07 08:55 PM, Brick-top wrote: Hey guys.
Something to consider.

I've always thought that belief in aliens (but not UFOs, just aliens, somewhere on some distant rock) is mere speculation and doesn't necessarily infringe on the atheist or skeptical mindset. Aliens may well exist - it's a far more reasonable belief nowadays than it was before we knew about the stars and galaxies and were less universally aware.

I would imagine there are some life-forms elsewhere in the universe, but would admit it's speculation, I could never be sure, and would be satisfied with any disproof. Whether they're intelligent is also simple speculation - you do have to appreciate that the universe is very large and very iold, of course, and that it's not incredibly unlikely another species, at some point, pondered deep questions.

At 11/30/07 08:55 PM, Brick-top wrote: I find it hard that Aliens (with flying saucers and anal probes) exist somewhere in the universe. But I find it very easy to believe that simple forms of life exist. adapting to the planet that they are on. Does it make me logical? Or do I have a superiority complex because I hate the idea that something more complex and intellegent exists in the universe?

Fixed before Kent Hovind is released from prison.

Now I need to add more text.

At 11/30/07 09:20 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: Are you denying that Christianity has largely faded from the mainstream in Great Britain?

Not in the slightest. What's good about England was summarised in the headline 'Blair feared 'religious nutter' label'. I'm talking in a more global sense.

If third world catholics want to get bad advise from the Catholic church about jonnies, then it is up to other people to challenge that advice.

Tamil tigers

And religion isn't used to control British society, but it's definitely a mechanism of social control, You admitted it yourself, saying it was an extension of ideology state uses to control. I agree.

Fundamentalists are Christians, indeed. That's a problem the Muslims have as well - they hate to admit that their religion has anything wrong with it, and will say the fundies are just intolerant bastards who latch on to anything. Despite that many wre tolerant before becoming fundamentalist.

And we need to stand up against religion, particularly Islam at the moment but what would be important would be standing up to the more benign, but still harmful, Western religions, too. And I think what's essential is solid secularism challenging Islam.

Check out this shit >:(

At 11/30/07 09:30 PM, Earfetish wrote: what's essential is solid secularism challenging Islam.

How do you "challenge Islam"?

Challenge who in Islam? Where abouts?

At 12/1/07 09:36 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: It's a bit like "Challenge Ant", on SMTV Live. I'd imagine.

Yes.

And if the Secularists gamble and lose, they have Sharia Law imposed upon them.

At 12/1/07 09:34 AM, Mr-Pope wrote: How do you "challenge Islam"?

Challenge who in Islam? Where abouts?

See this is where other people who know successful foreign policy should step in, but I've thought our current mission of imposing secular democracy at the point of a gun is going to be largely ineffective. I'd reckon we should sanction every theocratic country until it allows for open elections and loses cruel and unusual punishment, and every country in the world other than the Middle East should print pictures of Muhammed. I would also advise focussing on the youth movements in these respective countries, who are a lot like our first-generation immigrants, yearning for freedom and a lack of religious dominance, and taking over their ideology from within. Like the youth movement in Iran is totally anti-Ahmejinedad (sp) and we're not going to reach our goals without engaging with them.

We can't successfully lose a theocracy that's so ingrained in the minds of the populace without being very frank about religion. Or Islam. And the Muslim Council of Great Britain couldn't be less helpful - the people who are currently doing the necessary arguing all seem to be in the BNP or UKIP, because even the Tories are so weak-wristed they wouldn't dare say 'an Islamic theocracy is culturally inferior to a secular democracy'.

At 12/1/07 10:25 AM, Earfetish wrote: 'an Islamic theocracy is culturally inferior to a secular democracy'.

Before anyone starts talking crap about 'cultural racism' when I insult hell-holes like Iraq, I would like to say that many Muslim preachers have no problems whatsoever saying 'an Islamic theocracy is culturally superior to a Western democracy'. To me, it's as racist as saying 'Britain is culturally superior to Victorian Britain'.

At 12/1/07 10:17 AM, Earfetish wrote: I'd reckon we should sanction every theocratic country until it allows for open elections and loses cruel and unusual punishment

It would cripple the West. Saudi Arabia, for example, wouldn't accept it, and would simply move even more of their business East to Russia and China. And if we allowed countries who are important to us to be exempt, we would be accused, rightly, of rank hypocrisy, and alienate even more of the Muslim population.

And how do "we" (America and Britain, I assume), have the moral high-ground here? Whilst we're still going on rampages around the globe under the deceptive guise of fighting Islamic terror? And it's not as if we don't engage in a bit of torture now and then.

And the Muslim Council of Great Britain couldn't be less helpful

How so?

the people who are currently doing the necessary arguing all seem to be in the BNP or UKIP, because even the Tories are so weak-wristed they wouldn't dare say 'an Islamic theocracy is culturally inferior to a secular democracy'.

Really? The BNP are doing necessary arguing?

At 12/1/07 11:06 AM, Mr-Pope wrote: And how do "we" (America and Britain, I assume), have the moral high-ground here? Whilst we're still going on rampages around the globe under the deceptive guise of fighting Islamic terror? And it's not as if we don't engage in a bit of torture now and then.

'We' have the moral high ground because we have a secular democracy that doesn't have Sharia Law. I would rather 'we' involved Russia and Europe, and didn't involve going around the globe getting into wars for no apparent reason. I disagree with our globe-trotting, but I don't think we should just let fundamentalist Islamist theocracy 'get on with it'. You do have to appreciate that this religion/politics hybrid wants to take over the world, too.

Just because I don't like the way the Middle East is going, does not mean I agree with carpet-bombing the whole place. I would say 'we' should be non-interventionist, but the global community needs to be a lot more disapproving.

And the Muslim Council of Great Britain couldn't be less helpful

How so?

By continually saying that Islam is flawless and the West needs to change, by refusing to protest or demonstrate against any shit that's happening in the Middle East but getting fired up by Muslims serving people alcohol in Tesco, and by continually promoting the clash of cultures, encouraging Muslims to be isolationist and to feel at-odds with British society, and by constantly refusing to allow any criticism of Islam in Britain or for Westerners to claim there's anything wrong with Islam in Britain. I remember watching an interview where the interviewer said 'and according to this poll, 35% of British Muslims want Sharia Law in the UK,' and the Muslim Council guy's response being 'we'd rather focus on the 65%'. Instead of, 'yes, we have some issues'.

Really? The BNP are doing necessary arguing?

Don't get me wrong, I don't support the BNP, or the UKIP, and I really really don't support their generalisations, where they seem to accuse every Western Muslim of being radicalised and treat Islam as a scourge that needs to be wiped from the nation (rather than lived harmoniously with, and at least I treat every religion equally), but I would like a more mainstream politician to say something proper about the Middle East, rather than apologetic. Especially some anti-war politicians. It's only people like Christopher Hitchens that say anything about the Middle East that isn't a generalisation, and he's still pro-war.

Like, I agree with Hitchens and Galloway equally; when Galloway points out how it's all our fault, I'm on his side, but you don't have to be either/or, you can say 'we made the mess, but fuck religious fundamentalism, but war's not the answer.

I don't support the BNP or UKIP, at all. I love multiculturalism. One of the best aspects of Western culture is multiculturalism.

At 12/1/07 05:59 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Check out this shit >:(

Why am I not supprised

At 12/1/07 11:24 AM, Earfetish wrote:

:'We' have the moral high ground because we have a secular democracy that doesn't have Sharia Law.

"They have the moral high-ground because they don't interfere or impose their views or ideologies on far-away sovereign states".

meh

I disagree with our globe-trotting, but I don't think we should just let fundamentalist Islamist theocracy 'get on with it'.

But what benefit does it have for us? Imposing carte blanche sanctions would be economic suicide. Being Earth's moral arbiters is unfeasible.

The only way I can see us actively (and genuinely) combating "Islamist theocracy" is when it directly threatens us, and that isn't the case currently. A 100 - 1000 Western deaths every half a decade through terrorism originating in Saudi Arabia, for example, is a small price to pay for a booming economy and high standard of life.

You do have to appreciate that this religion/politics hybrid wants to take over the world, too.

Is it though? I haven't seen Iran looking to invade any none-Islamic countries recently. Seems a bit sensationalist.

Like, I agree with Hitchens and Galloway equally; when Galloway points out how it's all our fault, I'm on his side, but you don't have to be either/or, you can say 'we made the mess, but fuck religious fundamentalism, but war's not the answer.

To be honest I agree, essentially. But the change in politics of the UK and US that would be required to allow this to happen looks too large to even contemplate.

At 12/1/07 12:45 PM, Mr-Pope wrote: "They have the moral high-ground because they don't interfere or impose their views or ideologies on far-away sovereign states".

meh

I agree that we shouldn't be invading other countries, but there is a point when you should try and impose your views on other places. If somewhere is using cruel and unusual punishment for non-crimes, then the culture allowing it should be disapproved of. We have no bones about calling the USA out, as a global community, whenever it breaches human rights, so why not really scrutinise the Middle East, or specifically, those countries based upon an Islamic government, where such human rights abuses are far more widespread?

But what benefit does it have for us? Imposing carte blanche sanctions would be economic suicide. Being Earth's moral arbiters is unfeasible.

I don't think it would really be that hard to get the global community involved in this. I think a lot of the problems is that they feel being harsh on Islamicist states is siding with the US and the UK and therefore their wars, but if we encouraged the global community to really stand up for free speech and human rights, most of the world could go for one of the two. If they felt part of an international coalition. We need to engage Westernised Muslims a bit more, too; if we could get Muslims shouting 'not in my name' about human rights abuses and anything else the Muslim world is getting up to, then I think it would really solve a lot of conflict.

The only way I can see us actively (and genuinely) combating "Islamist theocracy" is when it directly threatens us, and that isn't the case currently.

I think that's the time when we should be invading, yes, when a country is attacking us.

A 100 - 1000 Western deaths every half a decade through terrorism originating in Saudi Arabia, for example, is a small price to pay for a booming economy and high standard of life.

The problem goes deeper than the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; terrorism is a very ideological battle, too, and guns don't prove themselves to be the best weapons against dangerous ideology.

You do have to appreciate that this religion/politics hybrid wants to take over the world, too.

Is it though? I haven't seen Iran looking to invade any none-Islamic countries recently. Seems a bit sensationalist.

That's correct, but there are some preachers who are calling for a new Islamic state in Britain. And you should read the Muslim Council of Great Britain's Muslim Manifesto - totally isolationist
http://thepoolbar.blogspot.com/2007/07/m uslim-parliament-of-great-britain.html

To be honest I agree, essentially. But the change in politics of the UK and US that would be required to allow this to happen looks too large to even contemplate.

Aye maybe I dunno, the opposition parties fundamentally agree with me on some points.