Terry Jones- Burn the Quran day

Growler wrote:Vilks

Para 1 ..... thank you, and I'll forgive your ignorance this time . Hence my dig about you being obtuse - it really did seem as though you were deliberately missing the point.

It's pretty well documented that the Russian Orthodox Church was a huge institution before the revolution. The Communist regime separated church and state, thus reducing its power and influence. Whilst religion was never expressly outlawed, church property was confiscated or destroyed, and believers were harassed, persecuted, imprisoned or indeed executed. Under Stalin, the number of churches fell from 29,000+ to fewer than 500. Whilst it's true that he did "revive" the church following the Nazi invasion of 1941, this was simply a matter of political expediency. He understood that it would probably encourage greater patriotic support for the war effort - since it was revived in name only and was never granted any real influence.

Para 2 ...... we all make sweeping statements, no worries. As for the teaching of creationism hindering youngsters trust and enthusiasm in science, I can't agree. I don't think it put people off in the past, when RE was a central part of the school curriculum. Now, its generally only faith schools which teach "old-style" RE. Whilst it's true enough that science courses have lost a degree in popularity in recent years, I suggest that's down to students having far greater choice of subject (especially at university), many of which are far less taxing on the brain, and far easier to attain a pass in. As religion seems to be declining in popularity I can't really see that as a reason for fewer people going into science.

Para 3 ..... I'm flattered that you credit me with some degree of intelligence, but I have to say you're wrong again ..... I am a creationist. When you concede that science and religion can co-exist to an extent, I believe the extent is much greater than you think. Forgive me for plagiarising a few lines from something I read last week, but it explains what I'm trying to say better than I ever could in my own words ...... ( he's an Oxford Professor of Maths, so far cleverer than I )

Quite simply, it's not a choice between the two. Many people confuse law with agency. God and his creation, or the laws of nature? By the same token .... Sir Frank Whittle, or the laws of physics? It's a confusion of category, since while the laws of physics explain how the jet engine works, somebody had to create the thing - build it, fuel it, and fire it up - laws themselves couldn't do that. Although he needed knowledge of the laws of physics, the task of actually bringing the jet engine into being needed the genius of Sir Frank as its agent. You can see what I'm getting at ?

To me, the universe was built to a rational, intelligent design. You may disagree, but to me, faith in a divine creator makes perfect scientific sense - I just can't imagine that the univeral laws of nature are a result of random lucky co-incidences.

Para 4 ....... Touche, I guess I deserved that.

I know I can be a sarky bugger at times - please don't let it put you off sparring with me. There are few enough of us prepared to spout bollox on here, so I'd hate for you to avoid me. You seem pretty well read in comparison with many of your age group I know, and you're certainly not stupid.

Your whole post looks like an olive branch - one which I'll gladly accept.

doremi wrote:Having grown up where I have, I know there is nothing as effective as blind faith and religion in bringing down the red mist, to destroy any shred of humanity and decency, to turn normal decent human beings into inhuman merciless killers. Religion does turn good men into crazed bloodthirsty killers capable of anything, however depraved.

Growler wrote:No, I'm not a creationist as you describe. It's plain that the world is millions rather than thousands of years old, and I don't dismiss evolution out of hand.

However, while accepting that various creatures have adapted over the millenia, I'm not totally convinced by every aspect of it. To give an example - if, as it's sometimes proposed - we humans evolved from apes, then why do we still see apes ? surely they should have died out, like every other evolved creatures predecessor?

I'm a creationist in as far as while having no reason to dismiss the big bang theory as to how the universe came into being, I see it as purely an explanation of the events. As I said above, the laws/theory couldn't have caused it to occurr.

I find it easier to accept that God "lit the blue touch paper" so to speak, than to imagine that at some distant point back in time - suddenly out of absolutely nothing came our universe, along with all the laws of nature working perfectly from the beginning.

skully wrote:Seems like we have a stoopid farker in Aus as well. ....

Brisbane-based lawyer Alec Stewart, a self-professed atheist, is seen smoking what appear to be marijuana joints made up of pages from the Koran and the Bible."

Merlin wrote:And you know they were initially "good men" just how exactly ... indeed, what made them good in the first place ...?

Where did the "blind faith" originate - and why, as free thinking people in an alleged democracy, was that "blind faith" not questioned?!
Or were you just assuming/taking for granted that they were born 'good' men in order to make a point that religion, after all, contrived to make them bad!

I'm no religious freak, nor do I profess to be anything or follow any set piece for or against any form of religion for that matter, but the pontifications in some of the posts on here, mainly through assumptions and interpretations, are nothing short of hilarious!

Whether you and TO are from India, or whether you guys are Hindus or not - I frankly don't GAF.
The bottom line is that the two of you willingly cast your own personal aspersions about other religions and their followers, of which you clearly have limited knowledge (other than perhaps what you've read or have been indoctrinated with from an early age) - and, as a consequence, I thought it necessary to make the point about religious fervour amid the 1 billion Indians who worship a whole host of varying gods and godesses of varying species and origins!

But let's stop short of burning the Kama Sutra (along with the Bible and Koran - as you proposed) ... this is a book worthy of the top shelf in WH Smith's alongside Men Only and Mayfair but without the pictures !

Eric Air Emu wrote:So are we all at least agreed that the pope is a stupid old c*nt?

skully wrote:Maybe we should start slagging of the Koran. It might get traffic up a bit.

It might also get us fire-bombed.

Growler wrote:No, I'm not a creationist as you describe. It's plain that the world is millions rather than thousands of years old, and I don't dismiss evolution out of hand.

However, while accepting that various creatures have adapted over the millenia, I'm not totally convinced by every aspect of it. To give an example - if, as it's sometimes proposed - we humans evolved from apes, then why do we still see apes ? surely they should have died out, like every other evolved creatures predecessor?

I'm a creationist in as far as while having no reason to dismiss the big bang theory as to how the universe came into being, I see it as purely an explanation of the events. As I said above, the laws/theory couldn't have caused it to occurr.

I find it easier to accept that God "lit the blue touch paper" so to speak, than to imagine that at some distant point back in time - suddenly out of absolutely nothing came our universe, along with all the laws of nature working perfectly from the beginning.

Clamson wrote:
But just because science can not currently explain something doesn't mean it must have been a god. Things that once were worshipped are now explained.

tac wrote:LIke woody believeing he'll get laid one day . . . .