Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘faith’

Before I go on please let me introduce this is a theoretical concept to which some of it is based on the truth, while other facts are just media excitement about Haggard to which they might not have any truth about them, I don’t want to be sued. He was the spiritual and religious leader to many being the head of a form of evangelical Christianity in America and by creating energy he turned faith into a business where millions of dollars came in. In a lot of European countries churches, especially more traditional versions of religion, are finding it difficult to get funding to stop the walls falling down however, the new life church had an ‘campus’, so ignoring the personal investment for the moment there was a lot of money going into these places. Haggard himself attacked evolution and in Dawkins’ documentary told him to get out, after saying that Dawkins was arrogant, a word which would very closely reflect my opinion of Haggard. So let us turn to what this man of God has to say about people who are gay, don’t worry this is not the normal attack of me calling him a hypocrite that would be easy to do, he said that the bible is the word of God we don’t need to discuss what we believe since it is already written and therefore, it is not necessary to discuss ‘gay people’ because we all know what our position is. The bible says that it is a sin and those that are gay should be put to death, of course this is not word for word still it is the overall feeling of both Haggard and the bible. A couple of years ago the New Life Church had this to say about Haggard “Our investigation and Pastor Haggard’s public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct.” (1) In other words he took drugs and had sex with a man which, let me check, yes is a sin in the eyes of religion (all not just the version Haggart promoted). The focus is very much on the gay act rather than the drug taking. This is very sad and I mean that!

These are some of the words Haggard uses in a letter to the New Life Church which is reported in the Gazette of Colorado Springs on 5th November 2006 about his demise as the religious leader of about 30 million people: betrayal, horrible example, embarrassment, guilty of sexual immorality, problem, I am a deceiver and a liar, dirt, repulsive and many other terms which are all basically the same as going I did something really bad all of which are directed at the gay sex thing not the drugs (2). So let me be the judge, I find Haggard Not Guilty on the following accounts; taking drugs, having sex with a man and telling lies. Of course drugs and lying are very bad things still I don’t hold him accountable to his mistakes if he intends to work on them and change. He had every right to do those things if that is what he chooses to do, as long as it does not end up hurting anyone else in the process. There is no guilt with being gay and it is not immoral on any account, so I will reject the notion that Haggard as a free man should not do that sort of thing if he wants. Haggard is not guilty of being human! He is Guilty of promoting fear and hate being the former head of the New Life Church, it is an assumption if he did not believe and promote those things then he would be openly gay and perhaps remove the drug taking and lies which could be considered evidence of internal difficulties after the denial of himself. He is a prick don’t get me wrong and hypocrite along with arrogant; still he would be more of a man if he admitted the Church was wrong and his feelings are justified. Of course he will be forgiven has long as he keeps on denying himself after all there is only one ‘sin’ that could not be forgiven being that of denying the holy ghost. I think that it is very sad that he just cannot be who he is and the only reason I can tell stopping him from doing this is a dishonest, unjust, unclear book filled with lies and made up stories.

The route of Ted Haggard demise is inbuilt into the evangelical church, if not all religion, since it offers denial at all levels. Children are infected within this church to believe that gay people are at the subject of disgust and fear. The church also teach that abortion is wrong, Good things come from Jesus, bad things come from evil, that Global warming is not happening, that nonbelievers are subhuman, ghost or magical stories are disrespectful (apart from the magic that happens in the bible), that science is wrong and anyone not like they are should be punished. If children do things naughty they are accused of walking away from Jesus and will be punished at the highest level. They call this the Jesus Army and if you preach such things then of course children will grow up to deny themselves and hating others. There version of Jesus is not love, compassion and forgiveness! Whatever comfort or community that is created by the church is at a price that is too high. Where will it end? Artax13 points to the most disturbing result but conceivably the clearest perspective I have heard from in a while, responding to Haggard’s views about gay people, commenting that anti-Gay is just the same notion the Nazi’s had about Jewish people (3). That is where this will end; the parallel between anti-Jewish feelings promoted in Europe for a long time that caused the final solution among other acts and the views on every single person outside the evangelical church being directed towards children within the church is very much alike. That scares me and it shows we have not learnt what we should have. It also makes me sad that children are filled with foolish nonsense they did not ask for and do not need.

Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard
2. http://www2.gazette.com/display.php?id=1326184
3. http://youtube.com/watch?v=3XsCcKiCL2c

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Oh dear - www.goma.demon.co.ukI will take five of the ten ideas that were presented by Dave Jones in one of his YouTube videos, link is at the bottom, and I would like to do something different with them. The video is about how not to attack atheists so you can enter into a discussion rather than leaving it at that, it works much better into why no one should ever respect the religious arguments that are so often pushed towards us. Sticking with Christians and Muslims is useful as they are the two main groups to which we often find objection with, plus they are guilty of pretty much the same sorts of errors. Let’s assume that extremists often those that would also be called fundamentalists are unable to think for themselves through political coercion, brainwashing or simple craziness. It is the moderates that have the ability to think for themselves. Although this is comfortable it is not really true, I would rather just focus on moderate religious people and although this whole topic is part of a much larger discussion Dave Jones made me react and consider a slightly different approach. After getting some feedback on the things I have written, it does start to frustrate me after a while since I have to keep returning to the same points over and over again, as being religious appears to just mean that you have no ability to understand anyone else that does not think the same way as you do. I was also going to describe my feelings as hate although I want to make it clear that I don’t hate people, I do hate their beliefs which is completely different. Someone might be a kind, intelligent person who cares for their family and friends; I can accept this although it does not really come from religion at all. You might think it does but it does not. Ok, why don’t I like moderate religious people?

The Holy Book – the use of such books are taken to mean so much, in the critics of evolution they are often used as points of reference to which something is meant to suddenly click and the whole thing makes sense. It does not stop at what Jones argues being that nonbelievers don’t accept the holy books as God’s word, it goes further if we all make the assumption that it is then the implications are very clear. Either we have to stop learning more about the place in which we live or we have to do things that are immoral. I do go on about dinosaurs a lot; I am not really a fan still if the word reptile is meant to also include dinosaurs and this is the only mention of it in the bible, what we can take from that devalues what we already know, in the process ignoring it. Put this another way if you think that the post hoc explanation of reptiles on Noah’s Ark explains anything then you are just denying the right to access knowledge that does not agree with this, you will learn less just from one word than a body of research & theory. This is where the frustration is; partly as so much is ignored and secondly as so much is easily dismissed without consideration. The immoral refers to possible justifiable acts that holy books allow for and that is no account for the lack of intellectual honesty when using references, there are parts of all the holy books that mention depraved actions towards other humans if you never address them that makes you dishonest on all things.

Faith – it seems to be the less something has the evidence to back it up then the more faith that is required and therefore, the greater the weight belief becomes. It is like saying the less I know something for sure the more important the role of personal feelings have to become. This is just a ridiculous stand point to argue from, there is no reason to why your personal feelings should be given any weight at all, no one can check them and it is as equally possible first you had some basic understanding of religion and later personal feelings to back it up. Likewise the perspective that you must have faith in order to understand just creates a circular argument that never gets anywhere; no one should just believe stuff. The situation is often the other way around there is a lot of evidence that just does not agree with religion so why does anyone believe it; it is clear that religion does not work and is not true. The example of Stenger is useful; God is seen as transcendent, meaning he is outside of space and time still God is also omnipresent meaning that he exists everywhere – there is no way in which these two things can be true. The conclusion is that just because someone claims faith all that means is they have a personal feeling and feelings should never be something which are acted upon without anything else being there to back up those feelings, especially when the consequences are so serious. Having faith means you have accepted something because you have been told to; this is a major fault of character.

Evil concepts – all religions see certain groups as sub-human and not like the rest of us, for example Islam thinks that women should be treated like animals with their only goal to do things for men. A lot of Muslim people have commented that they respect ‘their women’, it is clear that your respect and disrespect are very much alike. Let us mention other people; it is clear in Islam that one difference is the only determining factor on how we treat them never mind what is the right thing to do or not. This I suggest is an evil concept, so is Hell I mean after all the guilt that catholic’s use over the death of Jesus they still have to blackmail with the threat of going to hell. If there was anyone that I would describe as evil it is mother Teresa, ignoring her inaction on treating the ill with medical care, she went around the world telling women that they had no choice. Surely if any woman wanted to have an abortion or use birth control it should always be up to them and it should never settle on others opinions. People promote the idea that religion is good when it is clearly never good at all; this is the most frustrating thing I have come across since it serves to simply create a distraction of the real issues that religious people support by their inaction to challenge.

The attack of atheists – the situation in America is very disturbing. It does not stop there though after all there are decisions that are being made based on religious grounds. If religion is never proven to be correct how can such directed decisions offer the right choice. This often leads to agenda based seeing; there everything is put into context of religious perspective removing the necessary debate about important issues. Often atheists are forced to defend their position once they put real issues forward, this creates noise and distraction. There is also the implication that somehow an atheist is someone that should not be trusted, at least we explain our position and will listen to a constructed argument against the things we believe in. This leads to the next issue…

Threats and insults – religious people often demand respect for their belief, even if they don’t show it back, they just don’t understand the objections are real. Too often I have seen threats mostly from Muslims, not exclusively; this just creates a reinforcement of things that are already known. The Danish cartoonists were simply demonstrating their opinions and how do people react, they beat them down and create violence, is there any wonder about the western view of Islam as just a group of violent people? Then others have to suffer in silence with their opinion as it might cause offense, Islam causes me offense in the first place! Christians that present intelligent design wonder why others see them as stupid; it is because they reject their own intelligence. They are insulting all of us when they expect us to believe something which they made up and then demand respect for. If you want to threaten or insult then go and do that somewhere on your own, if you want to create meaningful discourse then please go ahead. There appears to be an enemy of the week sometimes, there is an outcry for people just expressing what they think which is dealt with by violence, threats and insults. Are Muslims so scared of others that don’t think like them they need to resort to this? Those that do these things are more often than not scared and trying to convince themselves of what they say is right.

I want to keep coming back to this point; religious belief has serious consequences so if religion has anything other than the divine to do about it, then we must closely look at religion. If religious people are just left with metaphysical feelings then, it is religious people that need to be worried about faith and they should never interfere with the rest of us. Rather than stating there is no ‘truth’ behind religion, it tries to promote itself as truth and that is dangerous as well as a lie. Just because a religious person believes something is true, even if it is a strong feeling they do demand others should just accept this, why should anyone accept religion as true? I cannot remember who said this; religion is a prime example of a thing above evolution in action, it has won and keeps on winning even if it no longer works. Moderate religious people are the ones that are keeping it alive even though it is something that we should let die. What use, what point does religion serve anyone anymore? I am not taking away people’s hope here, if you are an adult then you are big enough to know the truth and I don’t understand what you are hoping to gain. Does it really matter if gay people become priests, are they not just people? Should ‘gay’ be before a person, I don’t think so. We have gone too far just to allow religion to simply rip us up again and anyone who is scared of a religion free society, then they should never fear, they are safer and better places. Religion has had its time and it failed! Now let us move to something that really does work…

Dave Jones YouTube Video – http://youtube.com/watch?v=oRGziCZSV_Q

Related post – https://therationalunderstanding.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/do-we-need-to-read-understand-the-bible-the-koran-or-the-torah-in-order-to-understand-religion-or-have-an-opinion-on-it/

Read Full Post »

I have said this before, it is actually pointless to argue with religious people about how their religion is wrong since this will never really convince them into change and you will put all that energy in only achieving a complete waste of your time. So this post is not addressed to those religious people rather those that are either non-believers or those that are not closely affiliated with what they are meant to believe as believers. In other words this is the guide to how atheists will take over the world; this is most likely how religion will be slowly removed from the societies that we live in. Using these points of reference might take a long time but I assure you that, although it might take as long as trying to convince religious people to give up, it will work (most likely) and you will end up making the world a better place in the process. Plus you won’t have to talk and argue until you get to the point that arguing with a whole new set of people without thinking about how your responding to them becomes normal because they are saying the same thing over and over and over again. At no point is violence used!

Should religion ultimately disappear? Yes! I read on the apostates of Islam, which is a group of ex-Muslim believers, that Muslims are the main victims of Islam. This is an interesting point and it also is true, it is Muslims that are dealt with unjustly within Islamic Law and it is them who suffer from the “false doctrine of hate and terror”. The terror is well known by the women of Islam! Christianity is based on an evil book, if you think that the bible is God’s word then you have to accept the bible as God’s word you can’t pick from it, even the bits where it says killing and raping are justifiable. In God’s word it is fine to kill those that deny god, are homosexual, talk back to their parents and pickup sticks on the Sabbath. They want to kill me for my lack of belief and all I want is them to listen to me for a change. Certainly the concept of hell and the guilt of Jesus has never anything to do with the divine. There are other religions and they each have their own reasons for logical objection, feel free to add them for me. Pascal’s Wager is the idea it’s better to believe in God even if reason can’t prove that God is real as you will in the end not lose anything. That is not true, you do lose out by belief and so do a lot of other people, this is not a new perspective on Pascal’s Wager I admit. Steven Pinker’s study on violent crime showed a massive drop at the time of Enlightenment, the period were religion suffered the most in Europe and it’s from this period of history we can learn how to remove religion across the world making it a safer place in the process.

 Image from www.martinfrost.ws

Step one – The tolerance for others opinions and belief structures! This might sound like a very stupid thing to say, especially when the idea of tolerance never really comes up in the new atheist movement, still remember that the more you allow for tolerance the more likely the atheist idea is allowed to grow. Without each of us having our own belief & respecting each other then it leads to the road of closing off all communication which is something that would harm science and atheism. During the Enlightenment once people had got fed up with conflict between different religions, people simply allowed others to believe what they wanted and this allowed for non-believers to have the breathing room that was necessary. In Julia Sweeney’s letting go of God, she makes a point by telling us of what her father said when she came out as a non-believer; her father said “why could you just not be gay!” It is funny how being an atheist or non-believer can be worse than being gay, still it shows us about the level of tolerance that is currently out there. This does provide a very big problem though, as atheists and non-believers we have to also show tolerance back, this does not mean acceptance at every level, we can question even though we cannot allow ourselves to become confrontational all the time. Confrontation only allows people to move away from us and what we want is people to come closer and ask us more questions so we can share the things that we have learnt. There is no chicken or egg question here, first tolerance and then atheism. This is a two way approach of course still at a practical level rather than simply attacking religious people demand tolerance and teach them about why we don’t believe. Demand respect for your non-belief and also respect other people’s views.

Step two – the idea of Social Justice! In America this idea is not very well used, it works in Europe and other English speaking countries like Canada for example, it might work well in other countries that I am not aware of. If we start taking care of each other, providing free health care, education and many other things then it is more likely that the need for religion is reduced. Sweden is a great example of this, it has a low crime rate and a healthy population, the level of non-belief is up to 85% depending upon the study used. I am not suggesting that there is a link between religion and crime (or anything else) religion does not create those things, it does tend to disappear when people’s lives are improved. Matthew Chapman describes the current situation as very bad in some societies, the church is the only place where people can go in order to experience community and it is also the only place where people can show care for others without being considered socialists or liberals. Just because it can only happen within the church never means that is a reason to why the church should never be challenged on other grounds. He does not say this is about America as a point of reference, I do rather consider his opinions about the land of the free, the richest nation on the planet, the one of only few that are so rich but consider each other’s needs so inadequately. So what can we learn from this? Taking care of each other is not only a worthy goal it also means a better, more rational society, this will push religion to the fringes as it will mean the need for it is reduced and only belief is left. When religious people only have belief left, let them decide for themselves and if Europe is any example the level of atheism will increase quickly.

Step three – empowering every person on the planet! I could simply state here that if you feel that you cannot achieve the first two steps then you have already given up, never give up and if you think that your efforts cannot make a difference ask yourself, did you try at all? Just because something appears too difficult it does not mean that it is impossible. Still this is not what I wanted to discuss in step three, I will leave it to Christopher Hitchens to make an interesting point. Hitchens said in one of his many attacks on mother Teresa that she was never a friend of the poor she was simply a friend of poverty. He of course means many things by this but one thing I noticed through his attack was that she after being given a lot of money never actually help the poor get out of poverty, rather the journey that was made was just dealing with the end result. She was given millions of dollars most of which was not spent on the poor at all; the point was that rather than empowering the poor she conceded to clear up the mess. Whether she even did that is debatable! We must empower women to make decisions about abortion for themselves, we must empower teachers to teach evolution, we must empower societies to allow them to determine their own laws, the more we empower people the better society will be. I have heard that empowering women is the most important step after all religion perhaps within every context treats women as the second class of humans. I don’t really know how to go about this, but start with your own life and then try to work outwards.

How do I know that this is true? Well it has already happen in some parts of the world and let’s be honest the difference between us are not really that great at all. Tolerance is an interesting thing, it something that has to be worked on and the next generation always seem to understand much more than their parents. Who does not want universal health care free to all? Other than those the benefit from such a system, since there are only few of them that makes the rest of us in a stronger position to change what is going on. There is no excuse for anyone to not demand universal health care free to all and not get it in America. I am not American and I do have universal health care free to all in my country, if it ever was removed I would burn down parliament. It’s a human right not a luxury. If you are against it then you cannot call yourself moral in any respect. I did not want to get political then but everything I say is political, so I can’t help it! Empowerment is difficult to achieve, maybe someone telling another they have a choice whether they can be a catholic or not, is enough to give them a chance to become an atheist. We can empower children by giving them a very useful skill, as well as a very easy one to teach – critical thinking! Religion one day will end and when that day comes I don’t think that it will be scary at all. I think there will be peaceful joy and the knowledge that the things we do while we are alive are so important we better do them right.

A little more on this matter…

 friendlyatheist.com

I have mentioned Pat Condell before and on his website it clearly states that he does not respect your beliefs! See earlier post: https://therationalunderstanding.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/pat-condell%e2%80%99s-christian-and-islamic-comments-and-the-feedback-he-gets/. Since atheism is not a belief system I don’t consider that Condell’s views as coming from a person within my group. I do understand why he is saying what he does but it is difficult to see why it is helpful to those that share his views on religion. In fact a lot of the websites about atheism that I have come across never practice what they hope to achieve, in order for people to understand why religion is at fault it needs to be explained in such a way that it does not form a personal attack from the start. Do people like Pat Condell think that their confrontational style really helps in their goals? It does not! We are just the same as those religious people if all we do is tell others they are wrong, we need to be better and explain why we think differently. I did find a blog called the friendly atheist, this is the best blog I have found so far and in particular the post titled “The Four Cs of Atheism”, it gives us a set of wonderful rules! http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/06/03/the-four-cs-of-atheism/ I will end on this note: we are all perhaps guilty of producing statements that we know will get attention, the point is once we get people’s attention we need to use it a lot better.

 

Read Full Post »

Image taken from - www.d.umn.edu One thing that amazes me is that science tends to work quite often; I don’t need to tell you that you already know. The point here is that it tends to work, still there are places where the misunderstanding of science comes in, these are my thoughts on how science sometimes is not based upon real knowledge rather agenda based needs. The aim of the positivists who had its home in part in Vienna, one of the most liberal places in the world at the turn of the last century, was to create an independent body of knowledge that in affect was a real reflection of the world as it exists. In truth as the result of the Vienna circle and those the preceded & came after the circle created three types of worlds, the members are most likely known to you such as Comte, Ayer and Carnap. Ok you have only heard of Comte, that’s ok the names are not that important here. The first world they created was that of Faith and habit, this world was seen as those unimportant things each generation picked up and their children adopted this meant very little because they could not be seen as true and were different from person to person. The second world was that of the metaphysical, in other words religion and its use of explaining the events that where happening. Since this again can’t be observed and tends to differ, this world was also dismissed. The third world was created by the rational and logical person, with the assumption of the scientific method; there are many assumptions in this method. The idea was not that these three worlds could survive side-by-side rather, the second world had replaced the first and the third would replace the second.

 Science as the key to Understanding the world – Science can get it very wrong – In the 19th Century there was a strong organic model that was adopted from the field of biology and was used on one group of people, the poor. This I could describe as the first type of eugenics formed by science, it saw those suffering from poverty not as the result of the society being unfair as it was at the time rather a different and dangerous race of people. At the time of the research there was a great worry about the conditions people were living in and the diseases that were being created by the support of the industrial revolution that were forming tightly packed cities. The poor were seen has having a choice about how they lived when clearly the choice was never given to them, there was no welfare state and if you did not work then you did not eat. Science got this approach wrong and was later dismissed as working and living conditions improved. Still this idea of the race of the poor came about because the scientists involved used their personal experience to understand a social problem and they were not objective.

Science as the progress of society – Newton published in “The Opticks” 1704 the results of how light when it goes through a prism Image from www.wikimedia.orgseparates into the colour spectrum, removing the idea that white light itself cannot be broken down and is only made up of one element. Why did this even matter to Newton? He could have not understood the benefits that would later be developed from this idea; in part we can thank him for the ability to understand radiation and infrared light which are also based on the same spectrum. Perhaps the drive to understanding the world was his greatest force. Newton did provide something much more useful, the idea of induction. I won’t go into induction that deeply here but it is the idea that first you can close the world off and take out the things you want to test putting them in an artificial environment in the process. In other words putting the objects of study into an experiment to see their nature & relationship and this is where science can also go wrong. Taking the objects of study outside of the real world so we can test them, means something more – it means that we are unable to test them in the world, so effectively science never deals with the reflection of the world. Just a controlled version of it! Most science is pushed into explanations of real world things, it is important to remember that science is simply a theoretical model and theories sometimes go wrong.

So why does Science appear to be a contradiction and wrong at times, it’s first that scientist belong to a society and being part of the society with values & social identities, those can get in the way of a rational and logical person. Although the aim is to remove the first and second worlds, they do exist and what we take from them affects who & what is studied and with what aims. This is still happening and if you don’t believe me maybe you would like to visit the Creationist museum in Kentucky. Even if the creationist museum is right, not that I believe it is, then there are still others to provide the contradiction. The second is the misunderstanding of science, it is in essence a working model of the world which does not mean that it will predict or be able to control events in real life from those working models. This is not to say there should be an abandonment of science, it is very useful. Things have come from science that are valuable and people rely on it every single day, so although it can be powerful that does not mean that science is 100% a true reflection of the world, rather it is closer to the true reflection than any other body of knowledge. Evidence that refutes current belief changes that belief and this is why the model of science keeps on growing. The ability to explain and provide is not enough, the ability to change and stand up against evidence is its greatest strength even if it can only be 95% effective at best.

We come to why science happened and took hold in Europe, this is not a simple question to answer because during the dark ages Europe dismissed science and others in the world had a much greater use of it. There came about a new set of social and historical conditions, this was a move away from the divine and the rejection of God as the one in control of the world. Human knowledge took control and this came about through four sets of general changes. With the development of the nation states across Europe it developed the idea of liberalization and social reform. The idea of making your country better and dealing with social problems was at least on the table and the solutions to the problems could be allowed to grow. There was also a change in attitude; people started to think that reason could hold the key to the ability of changing the world. If there was ever going to be a method of making life better science was seen as the most effective one to meet that aim. The old methods of the divine had its chance and it fail to make the necessary improvements. Religion itself caused the place where science could slowly form; it was because of differing religions that caused so many wars and conflicts that resulted in the social development of an understanding for the tolerance of new concepts and ideas. Once people got fed up with conflict they allowed others to think what they would like to and this opened the door for the scientific method. Last of all there was a change in the model of business; once the industrial revolution happened there was a value change in people and by this I mean how much they were worth to a society. With the development of the capitalist market just because someone was a lord it did not matter, money really did make the world go around. This rejection of the old ways allowed the successful and intelligent a place to do their work, rather than a presubscribed position being allocated.

The power of the new idea of humans and their role to play started the shift away from the traditional towards the new methods. The needs of humans became the force of the aims of science. They were able to work together to produce a new set of knowledge and the more success supplied, the higher the role and importance of science. This is of course is a very short history but it is the general direction that happened. I would like to put the reference links in here but that seems too lengthy a process however, if you are interested in the reference books please let me know and I will give them to you. I would recommend Smith’s Social Science in question, ISBN 0-7619-6041-4 if you are interested in learning more.

Read Full Post »

Ok first listen to this guy about how the Koran is wrong and that the bible is a more dependable source for historical accuracy. There are a few interesting things that I will highlight from what he is saying and then we can discuss why he is wrong, I will put his statements in blue they are not quotes just me summarising what was said. Before I go on I don’t know who this man is because the person that posted the video to youtube did not post his name and comments were not allowed. At the end he says however, that even if he was not a Christian he would still say these things – No, he has an agenda of his own faith that means that everything he think about in this area goes through the coloured glass of Christianity. Second, the audience, which seems to support him on these matters, also means that he is more likely to gain from insulting Islam and reinforcing Christian beliefs & values. So these things are based not on any kind of truth, rather on his own religious belief producing his own truth.

The Koran is not an accurate document – Really? Neither is the bible, it has been rewritten so many times which has resulted in it being more of a political document than an historical one. It also does not follow any evidence, according to the bible dinosaurs were created only 6,000 to 10,000 years ago despite at least 12 independent tests of dinosaur remains putting them living at least 65 years ago going up to 230 million years ago. Oh and now a museum in Kentucky USA based on the creationist perspective cites that dinosaurs were taken on Noah’s Ark. What is it called when someone makes statements about something things even though there is no mention in any historical artefact? Oh right, it’s called a guess.

Jesus was born talking Islamic scripture – This has to be the best statement ever! Oh of course the point here was that Muslims were making it up so that the “truth” would meet their own ends. This is so less believable then Jesus being immaculacy conceived which was just something the Roman Catholic Church made up in order to portray Jesus being born without sin. In fact those Christians that don’t believe Jesus being immaculacy conceived describe it as Jesus being the result miraculously Conception. And I know that Catholics will argue that the virgin birth and Immaculate Conception are different things, they mean the same thing in most people’s head but just to make sure Mary the mother of Jesus had a one way vagina which is a lovely expression Christopher Hitchens used. Any real proof that this happened Christians? *cough*

His second misgiving of Islam is that it is an historical inaccurate conception of Jesus – I don’t want to sound like a broken record but how they hell does he know that? Ok he also said that either the New Testament or the Koran is wrong and it’s more likely that the New Testament is right because it was basically written closer to the time the events are supposed to have happened. Bart Ehrman points out the mistakes in the New Testament resulting just from monks making mistakes in copying out new bibles. There is evidence for this and that these mistakes once made where recopied and the original meaning changing over time due to errors being recopying again and again. You want to talk about historical accurate documents, let’s start there.

My point is that twats like this man that comment on other religions when they don’t even care about looking at their own religious belief are not only inexperienced at thinking, they are also stupid. I admit I make comments about religion but I am not promoting one particular faith neither am I suggesting that somehow the floors in my belief systems are unimportant. The general point of this post – Don’t throw stones in glass houses. How is his statements anymore than a promotion of his own beliefs.

Read Full Post »

http://news-service.stanford.edu   Karen ArmstrongKaren Armstrong discusses in her Ted presentation the three Abrahamic religions, she is a well educated woman and although she is referring mostly to fundamental extremists I can’t help but apply it to the whole which means that I only agree in part with Armstrong’s points. She comments that compassion is the golden rule of all religions and that only once this is accepted and put into practice does someone truly understand God & the divine. However, there has been an abuse; those terrorists that use the Koran to commit murder and those that ignore the word of Jesus to judge others and commit uncompassionate acts. The conflict is where ego becomes more important than the golden rule of compassion and religion simply becomes a fault line. I agree with this point that people tend to use the surface differences to create a them and us, whether this is religion, colour or football teams there will always be these created divisions. I should not attack religion for the result of some people creating hate or lack of concern for others because of these insignificant differences, if I believe that those fundamental believers (not extremists, just fundamentalists) do show compassion in their everyday lives. Fundamental believers are those that believe in their religion and act in accordance.

So do I believe that fundamental believers show compassion in their everyday lives? Well, no. The evidence suggests that this is not true. Religion does not always live within evidence; I do however happen to live there. I could list a lot of examples here but let me start with just a few. Stem cell research in America could not be possible because religious groups consider 150 cells that could possibly, with no certainty, become a human more important, worth more protection than killing an alive house fly with 100,000 cells (Sam Harris). In Pakistani a sister can be sentenced by law to gang rape for a brother’s crime (Christopher Hitchens). There is a current attack on science that will see many children not taught about evolution because it steps on the grounds of the church (Richard Dawkins). These three examples are not the result of compassion, the first would deny people help from disease, the second is just wrong and the third lacks the rules that compassion allows us to understand others knowledge. I am not saying that some religious people are not governed by compassionate acts, still you cannot pick and choose what examples you’d like to keep hidden and others you would like to demonstrate. If “Religion is compassionate” is a true statement, where all evidence suggests that it is then it goes without saying that if one piece of evidence suggests that it is not, the whole statement becomes untrue. And these examples are not fundamental extremists, they are the norm.

Armstrong commented on her idea for a charter for compassion, where she would get popular religious leaders to sign up and it would help promote compassion within religious settings. As an atheist and God damm proud of it, I find it particularly disgusting that we have to remind religious people to be compassionate and stop causing trouble for the rest of us. I understand the point that is being made, the extremists that have taken over religion are seen as the enemy but that is not true anymore. People do all sorts of crazy stuff in the name of religion and it should never be accepted. As if people need to be taught how to read scripture correctly, as Armstrong suggests, presents a great worry – either they are simply using it for their own ends in which case they will ignore anything a rational person says or they have spent all this time missing the whole point of their own religion. I find this approach a little naive still there is always one choice that people have, people have a choice not to believe in religion at all. If you don’t like what people of the same faith are doing, then you can always leave it no one should ever force you to stay with a faith. If they do, it’s not about faith anymore it’s just about people trying to control other people. Armstrong talks with passion and I do respect her approach, even if I don’t always agree.

Another newspaper article has the same effect on me, where Armstrong comments on the pope’s ill timed statements directed towards Islam, it divides my opinion on her. To start with describing current anti-Islamic feelings in the west based on a historical perspective being that of the last thousand years is a wrong approach to make. I’m not involved in many conversations where such a detailed history is ever discussed and to be fair although there has been a media dominated frenzy in recent years it is not why people can come to dislike Islam. I dislike Islam, Christianity and Judaism, just to be fair I will say that now so this is not seen as an attack just on Islam, they are all equally distasteful. I do agree with Armstrong when she says that the Catholic Church should not judge the position of the Jihad since they are the ones that have caused countless murders of their own, at a much larger scale than Islam. Let’s not forget the role they took of condoms in Africa, they are committing genocide. Still getting back to Armstrong, there are two quotes that I found most interesting in her article, they are:

“But the old myth of Islam as a chronically violent faith persists, and surfaces at the most inappropriate moments.” & “They will convince more Muslims that the west is incurably Islamophobic and engaged in a new crusade.”

Of course, Armstrong here is maintaining her perspective that we should not go back to anti-Islamic thoughts and we should not blame violence on Islam. Let me say that this is a fantastic view on what Islam should be like but it’s not like that, the Islam of the world does not only exist in the Koran. The notion of a violent faith does persists, I could just talk about terrorists but that would mean your thoughts are moved away from Islam in its everyday sense, I don’t want to do that, I want examples you can’t dismiss as the acts of a few. A Muslim cleric claimed that the polio vaccine was a plot against them and this resulted in 2005 in another outbreak and the deaths of children. This is not violent but it still it’s important that children are being affected, there is also abuse of children going on in madrassas and mosques within the EU because they are seen as sensitive areas for police and social workers to enter. Ok so this leads me to the Dutch cartoons, these cartoons 3 of which were never made by the Dutch artists rather an Islamic propaganda organization caused a man in London to dress as a suicide bombing during the protests (the cartoons were never published in the UK), Was this an acceptance of a young Muslim man that violence and Islamic protest went hand in hand? How about the 139 people that died in Danish embassies? Is this a result of a peaceful religion? Sam Harris wrote that most of the crime committed in France was done by Muslim immigrants. These are the things that I hear about and there are lots more examples too, so why does Islam to me seem like a violent religion? Well for these reasons because the arguments are presented to me like so. In this sense I don’t need to understand a historical perspective or even the Koran in order to understand Islam. Still these are real perceptions of what is going on. While there is argument that it is inappropriate for the pope to make these comments, it’s never inappropriate to demand these issues be dealt with before any further discussion.

As I said I reject all religion so this is not me picking out one religion. Armstrong comments that since the 9/11 attacks on New York there has been an increase in unconscious prejudice towards Islam, this is true but at the end of the day every Muslim has to be blamed for this. I will tell you why, it’s because there is a sense that fundamentalist are the ones to blame, this is not the case. It is the moderate believers that are the origins for fundamentalists, if there were not moderates then there would be no fundamentalists. Most holy books are bases of violence that is how they have survived all this time, it’s the moderate approach that allows for the immoderate to use the process. Let’s go back to the idea of religion being used for political means and the case of the cleric stopping the polio vaccine. If we assume that this was just a political move, how did the cleric get support and power to perform these political acts? The answer can only be that religion, even those that of moderate religion supported this cleric because they thought the cleric being closer to God & performing his will and the respect that religion teaches about its own religious teachers. If those two things were not in place the power of one man would have been significantly reduced. Moderate religious people cause more harm than fundamentalists do, that is true across all Abrahamic religions. Look at priests and there abuse of children within the Catholic Church, they were able to do this because people gave priests the power and in turn disempowered themselves & their children. So while I accept that most religious people can be kind and the situation is far more complex than I’m presenting here, my perceptions are valid.

The west has always been Islamophobic, still at least in the UK people have been religion’o’phobic for a long while. Consider the difference between George Bush and Tony Blair, George Bush has tried to move away from religious wars against people to just wars against evil regimes. Religious statements have tip toed into Bush’s comments quite often. Tony Blair had to wait until he left office until he came out about his conversion to Catholicism, the British are suspect of religion and so they should be. Still for the average person on the street in the UK after the recent London suicide bombings they are more phobic than perhaps they were before because all they see is the death Islam can cause. This might be a natural reaction, even if it is not a correct one and it will repair itself with time. If you were to ask me I am more scared if Islamic countries or the USA on the bases of its religious intent directing its action, I would have to be honest and say I am more scared of the Christian USA than any Islamic countries. Both however, are justifiable as violent religions. I don’t agree with Armstrong on many things.

Newspaper article : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/sep/18/religion.catholicism

Read Full Post »