Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Avatar 720 wrote:he said that people who do believe in fairy tales and are afraid of the dark, which implies that we're all mental or have some form of intellectual deficiency.

Being afraid of the dark is a rather normal human occurance, hard-wired on some level into humanity.

It (amoungst other reasons) is why we wanted fire and gathered together in caves, etc.

It is also why we gather together in mutual beliefs like religion. Because humans as a collective entity have a hard time believing that they don't have some importance or purpose in the universe: Surely becaue I think I am important, I must have been created by some powefrul entity who saw me as important as well...

So being afraid of the dark has nothign to do with mental illness, he is referring to the human tendency to want to believe that our existance has some pupose or value and isn't just a cosmic/biological "accident" (right planet combined with right components for life, mix and simmer until done...)

Lord Scythican wrote:

Not a Christian. There are many key differences between the two. Heck Christians prefer it if you convert from Catholicism to Christianity.


Key differences:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Christian.html

Catholicism is a division of Christianity. As far as i'm aware, there is no such thing as a 'Christian' Church. Although that seems to contradict it.
What i thought, is there are many divisions of Christianity (And this is on Wiki, which although 'unreliable' isn't always wrong) There isn't even one type of Catholicism. The 'state' religion of the UK for example is Protestant (which Henry 8th started i believe). I could be wrong, but i thought Christian was just the term used to catch all 'Christians' (people who read the 'Christian' Bible) groups. Which include Catholics, Protestants, Jehovers etc. I could have it all wrong and 'Christian' is actually a proper religion in itself (it seems likely i am wrong). But in that case, it makes no sense calling all the other denominations 'Christian' as well.

And the only reason Christians and Catholics will argue, is because they don't have the same reading of the Bible....

Graveyman wrote:The Catholic/Christian division baffles me. The Christian by definition believes that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior. Catholics believe this, therefore they are Christians. They are very different from most Christian groups but they are still Christians.

My family (Grandmother/Mother) were Catholic...and I recall some pretty heated "debate" taking place between them and our next door neighbors (who were Baptist) over some statues of Jesus (and others) that my Grandmother had outside the house.
This always amused me a bit as I thought they were all on the "same side".

Lord Scythican wrote:Regardless, if there is a Heaven, Ghandi should get a ticket.

If Heaven is based on good deeds, then there's no reason to deny Gandhi (at least the sanitized historical Gandhi) a place there. But a lot of Christians believe that the only way to receive entry into heaven is through acceptance of Jesus Christ as the son of god. Gandhi, not believing in the gospels, wouldn't be entitled to a place in heaven.

I don't think this is an intolerant or insulting opinion, it's their own belief, and they shouldn't be attacked for it.

I suppose if you really wanted to debate the issue I could make an argument as to why Gandhi should be denied a seat in Heaven.

Just to clear the air. I'm fairly sure Roman Catholicism is the largest division of Christianity....

Wow, how are we discussing whether a mild dig by Stephen Hawking is offensive, when we have the horrendous example of atheistic thinking that is Richard Dawkins to lambast? I mean, this is a man who describes religious faith not just as weakness, but as mental illness.

And seriously, if you are offended by Stephen Hawking, you probably need to get out a bit more. In Stephen Hawking's defense, and as a fellow atheist, people who believe in God do indeed come across to some of us as seemingly believing they have an invisible friend, just like in Fairy Stories. Plus, isn't God meant to be invisible? And your friend? And isn't it an invisible friend's job to help them stop being scared? Anyway, if you are scared of something as a Christian, aren't you supposed to ask God to help you find the strength to confront your fears?

He may have been a teensy bit tactless, but to start going on about it being offensive strikes me as more about oversensitivity on the part of the religious than him doing anything truly bad.

While we are on the subject of picking on the wrong party, why are we having a go at Christians, even of the Catholic variety? Go out look for vicious diatribes against non-believers and you'll find richer picking amongst the writings and speeches of Muslims than Christians, generally. I mean, both groups have their unpleasant side, but why pick on just the Cathlolics?

biccat wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Regardless, if there is a Heaven, Ghandi should get a ticket.

If Heaven is based on good deeds, then there's no reason to deny Gandhi (at least the sanitized historical Gandhi) a place there. But a lot of Christians believe that the only way to receive entry into heaven is through acceptance of Jesus Christ as the son of god. Gandhi, not believing in the gospels, wouldn't be entitled to a place in heaven.

I don't think this is an intolerant or insulting opinion, it's their own belief, and they shouldn't be attacked for it.

I suppose if you really wanted to debate the issue I could make an argument as to why Gandhi should be denied a seat in Heaven.

And that's my problem with it all

I don't think they should be attacked for it either. However saying someone like Gandhi is going to Hell is an attack on their beliefs as well. How do you reconcile such a thing? I have no idea. Naturally the Christian says you should just be a Christian, but the world doesn't work that way.

To the Catholic/Christian thing:

Many protestants believe that it does not matter what Jesus told the Apostles or how one lives their life. You can just believe and be saved no matter how much you sin and live like you don't really believe. These protestants will sometimes attack Catholics by calling them un-Christianlike since Catholics believe FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD. It is a simple statement that means you actually have to act on your belief. You cannot be Osama Bin Laden, but say you believe in Jesus, and expect God to just open his arms and say all your murdering and torturing and hating will be looked beyond. Catholics believe God is all merciful, but we need to at least attempt to live like we really believe what is in the scriptures.

My in-laws are catholic and one lived for years in preparation to be a nun. That link is funny because I’ve asked many of these questions before and that link gives a lot of similar answers-but they are all twisted to appear more heretical. I do have issues with what they believe, but no one I know believes what that link says they believe.

Fifty wrote:Wow, how are we discussing whether a mild dig by Stephen Hawking is offensive, when we have the horrendous example of atheistic thinking that is Richard Dawkins to lambast? I mean, this is a man who describes religious faith not just as weakness, but as mental illness.

And seriously, if you are offended by Stephen Hawking, you probably need to get out a bit more. In Stephen Hawking's defense, and as a fellow atheist, people who believe in God do indeed come across to some of us as seemingly believing they have an invisible friend, just like in Fairy Stories. Plus, isn't God meant to be invisible? And your friend? And isn't it an invisible friend's job to help them stop being scared? Anyway, if you are scared of something as a Christian, aren't you supposed to ask God to help you find the strength to confront your fears?

He may have been a teensy bit tactless, but to start going on about it being offensive strikes me as more about oversensitivity on the part of the religious than him doing anything truly bad.

While we are on the subject of picking on the wrong party, why are we having a go at Christians, even of the Catholic variety? Go out look for vicious diatribes against non-believers and you'll find richer picking amongst the writings and speeches of Muslims than Christians, generally. I mean, both groups have their unpleasant side, but why pick on just the Cathlolics?

I don't think anyone is getting overly offended. I seem to be the main 'Christian defender' here, and i'm not particularly offended by Hawkins statement, hes entitled to his view, i think someone in his position should be a bit more careful with what he says.

While Dawkins, well, did he do anything particularly interesting before his extremely anti-religious books came out? He's (afaik) made himself known because of these views, so what he says, while offending people is the only reason he is known, Hawkins statement although a lot less blunt, is still more vocal or important because of his position in society


And God, isn't invisible, or your friend.... I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. I can list some of the Christian attributes of God if you would like, none of them are 'invisible' or 'friend' just to clear that up....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whats very ironic, is how Jesus, this main pin in the Christian faith, was in fact not Christian.

In the past Hawking was pretty mild in his statements(thinking back to a brief history of time) on the matter of God at least accepting that he could not discount the possiblity a God like figure was needed to set the universe in motion. It seems with his work on M Theory and multiverse he has become more vocal and less tolarant. But I suppose if I had a working theory in quantam mathmatics that I felt was the next evolution in human understanding of the universe in which we lived and it happened to show there was no need for a God like figure or force to exist then perhaps I would get a little annoyed at the religous 'fairy tales' as well.

thedude wrote:In the past Hawking was pretty mild in his statements(thinking back to a brief history of time) on the matter of God at least accepting that he could not discount the possiblity a God like figure was needed to set the universe in motion. It seems with his work on M Theory and multiverse he has become more vocal and less tolarant. But I suppose if I had a working theory in quantam mathmatics that I felt was the next evolution in human understanding of the universe in which we lived and it happened to show there was no need for a God like figure or force to exist then perhaps I would get a little annoyed at the religous 'fairy tales' as well.

Maybe he's just a bitter bitter man. Didn't he get a divorce and got pwoned by Einstein in the rap off?

My blunt logic makes me unable to post in this thread without the Religious crying about offensive, even though they are permitted to flagrantly take the piss, and offend me every single day of my life.

Ill merely say that I agree with the good doctor, and it is a statistically proven fact, that the higher your level of educational attainment, the less interested you will be in our creation mythos, our first and worst attempt at an explanation for existence, created when we still thought the earth was flat.

Oh.. except for that bit. I said that too.

What was Stalin's excuse?

Maybe he's just a bitter bitter man. Didn't he get a divorce and got pwoned by Einstein in the rap off?

Lol you may be right. I for one believe it is easier for bitterness to creep in the older you get, i mean how could it not??? with these kids and their mtvs, and their MC hammers and their boom boxes, with there da da das and the wa wa waas

I guess it's just me, but the majority of offensive things I hear seem to be coming from the non religious.

mattyrm wrote:My blunt logic makes me unable to post in this thread without the Religious crying about offensive, even though they are permitted to flagrantly take the piss, and offend me every single day of my life.

Ill merely say that I agree with the good doctor, and it is a statistically proven fact, that the higher your level of educational attainment, the less interested you will be in our creation mythos, our first and worst attempt at an explanation for existence, created when we still thought the earth was flat.

Oh.. except for that bit. I said that too.

Who said religious people have the permission to take the piss? Afaik, there are people on both sides who take the piss.

Really, statistically proven? You can bend 'stats' anyway you like

Your worried about the religious crying out offensive? Well, i'm not going to say your offensive, but your post (unless a wind up for no good reason) is a bit pathetic. (i don't want to insult you, i don't know you, and you might not mean what i'm reading into your post, but seriously...)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:What was Stalin's excuse?

Didn't want to bow down to the Humans, haven't you watched Supernatural


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Graveyman wrote:I guess it's just me, but the majority of offensive things I hear seem to be coming from the non religious.

Are you religious?

rodgers37 wrote:
Who said religious people have the permission to take the piss? Afaik, there are people on both sides who take the piss.

What does this mean by the way?

Frazzled wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:
Who said religious people have the permission to take the piss? Afaik, there are people on both sides who take the piss.

What does this mean by the way?

What do you mean, what does this mean? mattyrm said that religious people are allowed to 'flagrantly take the piss,' Who gave them permission? Know one has permission to take the piss. He doesn't seem to understand that atheists also take the piss, its not a one sided thing.

I'm religious but not by much any more. I know everyone will say my view point is biased but I honestly don't think that is the case. I get just as annoyed when I hear religious people run their mouth and get offensive because as I see it that just make us look bad. I was brought up to spread the faith through actions not preaching.

Frazzled wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:
Who said religious people have the permission to take the piss? Afaik, there are people on both sides who take the piss.

What does this mean by the way?

I don't know, but it reminded me that I need to take a piss.

rodgers37 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:
Who said religious people have the permission to take the piss? Afaik, there are people on both sides who take the piss.

What does this mean by the way?

What do you mean, what does this mean? mattyrm said that religious people are allowed to 'flagrantly take the piss,' Who gave them permission? Know one has permission to take the piss. He doesn't seem to understand that atheists also take the piss, its not a one sided thing.

No more elementary.
WHAT THE HELL DOES TAKE THE PISS MEAN? I've never heard that phrase outside this board.

You've never heard 'that takes the piss' before?
Sorry thats not my fault, its probably just a term used in UK. Taking the piss is taking the mickey, insulting what ever you want to call it. Sorry didn't know thats what you meant.... Its quite hard to remember what terms are British and what terms are American, when most of out TV and Films are American...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Graveyman wrote:I'm religious but not by much any more. I know everyone will say my view point is biased but I honestly don't think that is the case. I get just as annoyed when I hear religious people run their mouth and get offensive because as I see it that just make us look bad. I was brought up to spread the faith through actions not preaching.

Yeah, i would actually rather have an argument with a religious person who felt the need to act like that. I have no idea who started this whole debate in the first place (not today, i mean in the wider world) but both sides weigh in, both sides have idiots, and both sides should get respect from the other. Its not fair to say no one can talk about it at all, its not even fair to exclude the people with, lets say more blunt views, everyone has an opinion, and some people don't like others opinion.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:
Who said religious people have the permission to take the piss? Afaik, there are people on both sides who take the piss.

What does this mean by the way?

I don't know, but it reminded me that I need to take a piss.

The gallon of coffee I drink tends to take care of that.

To throw another log on the fire I ask the posters to consider this...

Why should anybody respect someones religious beliefs? What makes your religious beliefs special that I have to respect them? You choose to believe in a deity (this covers the worship of any deity), that's your choice. It's not like you're a cripple, suffer from a facial disfigurment, are gay, stutter etc.

If I go out and choose to get rat-arsed and then play up, I can expect to be considered an idiot (at best), the same if I shoot myself full of drugs, run down the middle of the road naked or top myself in some stupid (Darwin awards) way. However if I choose to believe in something that there is no real tangible evidence exists then people have to watch what they say and be respectful.

On a personal level I wouldn't wish to be disrespectable to any of the believers on the board, but that's down to fact i try to be polite to people. Not because I'm concerned over hurting your feelings because I think the human race is crazy, for believing in something that there is no solid evidence exists.

Because we'll burn you at the stake?

People believe in all kinds of things there's no proof of. I have no proof of the existence of Europe, yet I believe there is a chance it exists.

You should just have a general respect for fellow human beings, and there beliefs. I'm not saying bow down to anyone, but unless they do something to deserve a lack of respect (like religious 'extremists' Even less extreme, like jamming their views down your throat, or atheists doing the same..) there is no reason why you should have any aggressive feelings towards others just because you don't believe in what they do.

You don't have to have respect, I just though it was a general trait of human beings. Obviously there are people who don't deserve that as much, and its up to you who you respect and don't respect...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Because we'll burn you at the stake?

People believe in all kinds of things there's no proof of. I have no proof of the existence of Europe, yet I believe there is a chance it exists.

Nice to see how seriously this is all taken.

@wolfstan

if you dont respect their belief system I guess thats up to you. But do respect their right to believe

Frazzled wrote:Because we'll burn you at the stake?

People believe in all kinds of things there's no proof of. I have no proof of the existence of Europe, yet I believe there is a chance it exists.

Brilliant!!!! Because that big old deity in the sky, who created the universe can't wipe me off the planet in an instant, he leaves it to his earth bound followers to make that decision ) Followers I would like to point out, who interpret the teachings from the same book in different ways.

Right we've finished converting or burning the non-believers in Europe what do we do now? .... Hold on a mo I know. I think God's favourite colour is Blue! You HEATHEN bastich!!! It's Yellow!!!. No it's not it's Magnolia. No you're all wrong he told me in my dreams it's Purple!!! Sheesh! )

Isn't it sky blue pink?

rodgers37 wrote:Isn't it sky blue pink?

Bugger, there you go another split off