Paul ’s Comments (group member since Sep 12, 2010)

Paul ’s comments from the Atheists and Skeptics group.

Scott wrote: "Jesus was supposed to have come to erase all sin, not just the so-called "original sin" of Adam and Eve. There is no accounting for what inaccuracies some people will spout. BTW, I do believe the historical Adam and Eve are nonsense, as do most "Christians." It's called allegory these days."

Indeed, Scott, but many of the christian sects throughout their history have focussed on original sin as important, either for its own sake or as allegory for all 'sin' - possibly because the concept of sin is itself rather odd. Sin doesn't refer to doing wrong, but to disobeying god's rules.

George wrote: "I laughed out loud when I read argument 9. The doctrine of original sin falls apart if Adam isn't real. Gee, then he has to be real, doesn't he--along with Eve and the talking snake. If there's ori..."

It reminded me of what Dawkin's says in The God Delusion, something along the lines of when a modern christian admits that Adam and Eve are metaphorical that means that god got himself incarnated as Jesus (presumably to impress himself) and crucified to redeem humanity from a fictional sin committed by a fictional person.

This is actually hilarious. I can't help but note that the author doesn't claim any of these are reasons that the biblical Adam was actually real (that would be stretching credulity too far), but if this is what counts as logic and argument in the christian mind.

"Genesis is not a history textbook or a science textbook, but that is far from saying we ought to separate the theological wheat from the historical chaff. SUCH A DIVISION OWES MORE TO THE ENLIGHTENMENT THAN THE BIBLE." [my caps]

I almost feel like a bully for taking this on.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/10-...

Scott wrote: "Since you still have a monarchy, aren't you supposed to believe titled nobility just because they are divinely mandated?

Fortunately we chucked all that some 200 or so years ago."

To quote comedian Chris Addison, who I saw last week:

"I'm a republican - not in the American sense, obviously, because I'm not a twat."

Just the way these questions are phrased - in hospital it's "what is your religion?" / "none" / "we don't really have a space for that..."

The only reason that Warsi isn't the most hateful woman in British politics is because the tory party has people like Nadine Dorries and Teresa May. Where do they find these awful bigoted women?

I loved some of the comments on the BBC story, patiently pointing out that it is only the secularisation of society that has allowed a non-christian like her to achieve high office. It is only secularism that has broken the stranglehold that christianity had on this country that means the churches are now in the position of being FORCED to accept diversity!

I thought I'd post the BBC comments, as it is interesting to see the ratings on the comments; all the pro-religion comments are negatively rated while all the pro-secular comments are +three figures!
--------------
+42
8 HOURS AGO
I find the majority of comments on this article very encouraging for the future. In all circumstances now, whether it be work or personal life I very rarely meet people who are religious. People do indeed have the right to believe whatever they want but I certainly wouldn't help any form of growth in religious beliefs and the government certainly shouldn't either.

REPORT THIS COMMENT (COMMENT NUMBER 1569)
LINK TO THIS (COMMENT NUMBER 1569)


+144
Comment number 967. Happyface
10 HOURS AGO
She misses the point of secularism. It isn't that all religion should be stamped out, it's that in a democracy the government should represent everyone, whichever religion or moral code they subscribe to. It is preferable to have a government that engages in moral discourse while recognising different positions and beliefs than one that attempts to enforce a single religious doctrine on a people.



-158
Comment number 912. zee4
10 HOURS AGO
Those who say religion has no place are wrong and divisive themselves. Secularism is a belief forced on us every day. Those who attack religion (ie Christianity) do so extremely aggressively which often makes me question their argument. If there's no moral 'absolute truth' in life there cannot be a truth there is no absolute truth. The Christians I know love God and love others. That is no crime.



+212
Comment number 871. crossalways
11 HOURS AGO
It's precisely because of the predominance of secularism in the UK that has allowed the likes of Warsi to hold the office she does.

To throw religion back in the face of secularism is to deny the tolerance that is the point of secularism.

She needs to rethink.



+194
Comment number 726. erfalaswen
11 HOURS AGO
I am a member of a minority religion. If I happen to mention my faith or practice at work, I am cordially reminded to leave my personal life at home. I am happy to do so provided that the same rules apply to all religions. As far as public life goes, religion should be marginal. Worship or religious practice is a private act, it should not have any place in work or in government or in law.



+16
Comment number 699. Matt Marshall
11 HOURS AGO
I have no problem with religion being sidelined, as long as it's not replaced by militant atheism which is equally as obnoxious. Why people simply can’t keep their belief or non-belief system to themselves and not attempt to impose it on others or expect society make allowances for them because of it is beyond me. A secular society in the true sense of the term seems the most sensible approach.



+57
Comment number 698. timetoponder
11 HOURS AGO
I have no problem with anyone practising their faith but as I do not inflict my non beliefs on others, I would like them to respect mine. I do feel very uncomfortable in situations where I am expected to say prayers or any other religious acts because it make me feel hypocritical and uncomfortable.I would be more keen to accept if all religions respected each other. Surely that is the first step



-58
Comment number 415. slouching_towards_Bethlehem
12 HOURS AGO
I am an atheist who finds himself agreeing with a lot of what the baroness says. If you read the whole article you will find that she has no concerns about secularism, only aggressive secularism. Her fear is that those who attack religion, perhaps because of its rather chequered history, are often as evangelical and intolerant as the religious institutions they attack.

Some people need religion!



-44
Comment number 411. jammin_n_hummin
12 HOURS AGO
I do not consider myself a particularly religious person however, I feel that religion can adapt its role in a modern society and be a voice of unity and a cornerstone of morality acting as it has recently in its outspoken condemnation of the extreme face of capitalism.



+318
Comment number 202. Netfq
12 HOURS AGO
Religion has absolutely no place in government. The idea of forcing a particular religion on a country is just wrong! People have the right to choose what they believe or don't believe in. Religion and law should never be mixed.



+339
Comment number 199. Bearlicker
12 HOURS AGO
When religion attacks my lifestyle because I am gay, when I have nothing to attack religion, naturally I will defend myself. If religion would concern itself with attacking poverty, disease, etc. and not persecuting people using cherry-picked sections of their religious books, maybe those who disagree with those religions would not denounce them.



-182
Comment number 188. IICM
12 HOURS AGO
I think that it's quite sad that there are such a large number of angry people posting on this, no one can deny that religion is a huge part of are heritage. I personally do not see the problem with a faith that teaches kindness and compassion having a leading role in are society, it seems to me that in areas that there has been religion decline social problems have become a lot worse



+107
Comment number 180. J
12 HOURS AGO
What an odd thing to say in this today's modern society. As far as am aware we need to find ways to connect with each other. For me religions were supposed to make humans better and more human, but this is the exact same thing they failed to do. Most of them made it worse by putting up boundries between races, genders and even creating classess or so called castes within the races.



+316
Comment number 141. MSPMSP1
12 HOURS AGO
If consenting adults really wish to engage in religious activities, that is OK. However I would far rather live in a grown up society where religion, astrology and all other superstitious activities did not exist. In the sense that "believe" means thinking something is true without any rational evidence, I try very hard not to believe in anything.



+205
Comment number 108. TruthTyper
12 HOURS AGO
How can any person believing in religion seriously expect to be taken seriously? Does anyone else not get offended just at the notion of religion? Haven't we come far enough that we can put stories of divine intervention into the myth category like vampires & witches and all the other make believe characters that have been created to keep us tucked up in bed at night.



-123
Comment number 83. Will
12 HOURS AGO
I feel that in the UK at least, religion is gradually becoming less appropriate to our modern science and technology based lives. It looks to me like Global warming with it's faith based belief that to avoid retribution for our sins we must limit and offset Carbon is the modern day religion. It is certainly more palpable to the masses today.



+31
Comment number 82. Unusualj
12 HOURS AGO
Listening to Dawkins on the radio & having read his report & the above I despair. I have faith, I'm a scientist, I believe in equality, I believe in the human rights of ALL. Those who USE religion or secularism to attack & marginalise others are the same. Maybe if we concentrated on what is common to us all & not what divides us, we could so achieve much more good in this world.



-166
Comment number 16. Kev
13 HOURS AGO
Blimey, not this old business again! I get a bit irritated with all the coverage religion is given but I'm beginning to find the Dawkins crowd even more irritating. So you don't believe in something - we get the point! Please go away!

People who are fanatical about religion are bad enough, those fanatical about non-religion seem to be worse!



+487
Comment number 3. livelylefty
13 HOURS AGO
can we stop pandering to this nonsense? Do you know why religion is under threat? Because its a ridiculous anachronism that has no place in modern society or the modern mind. It was an out-dated way to explain things that we now explain with science, and is nothing but a hangover from a way to control the Medieval masses. Grow up, if it is actually the truth of the universe, it can defend itself

I have been considering a full marathon for a while (series and film).

You know the craziest thing anyone has ever said to me?

"Haven't you got enough books?"

I thought and thought, but I just could NOT work that one out...

Will wrote: "Seen that one wayyyyy too many times (if that's even possible)."

Odd. I understand every part of that sentence but somehow can't grasp the meaning. Too.. many.. times..

Nope. Drawing a blank here.

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/658...

Being a proud nerd, I was thoroughly prepared to be offended by this, but it makes an awful lot of sense...

Former archbish Carey's moronic response: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-...

The only accurate thing he says is that "councillors could simply pray privately before meetings." Yes, that's kind of the point - to remove it from the public arena where it is foisted on everyone else.

Numpty.

This just makes me think of something the great Irish comedian Dave Allen once said (I can't find the clip, unfortunately). It was just after Pope JP2 had visited Ireland and commanded the Irish people to "keep having babies". Allen didn't make (many) jokes about it, just had a fantastic rant about it being because of Catholicism and large families that Ireland had spent so long as the poorest country in Western Europe and what a fuckwit the pope was.

Scott wrote: "Senate Bill 349, sponsored by Sen. Jeff McWaters, R-Virginia Beach
Whoa, this guy is a relative or something. We have the same, not that common, last name. So I'm not the only dick in the family."

Hey, for a while there I was scared witless the republican ticket would be "Paul/Perry"!

Surely this is completely counter to federal rules and will be struck down?

This is a repost from the Liberal Politics group; I really am interested in opinions, so thought I'd ask here. Given the god-bothering nature of the current republican party, I guess it is relevant.

Mostly aimed at our US contingent, but all views welcome.

I was wondering who people thought is the most potentially damaging candidate the reps could field? It looks like it's down to either Romney or Santorum, short of an act of god (ha!)

Cain and Bachmann always seemed like joke candidates - although given the rest of the field, only barely. Gingrich and Paul seemed to stand out in that their main focus seemed to be economic - Gingrich in particular always comes across as someone who will say absolutely anything to get elected, and actually has no social convictions at all, while Ron Paul just seems to be channelling Ayn Rand, unsurprisingly. Perry (Shudder. I hope I am NOT related to that man) was a cartoon of a redneck politician. I'm amazed he got as far as he did.

Santorum really creeps me out. He seems so socially conservative it's barely believable he's a genuine contender. Granted, Romney isn't much better. Both of these, along with Bachmann, just seem to be so ideologically right wing. Is that just because the 'red button' issues (gay marriage, etc) are what they have to talk about?

I get most of my info on proceedings from left/liberal web sites like Alternet and freethought blogs which are, obviously, biased against them, a position that seems like common sense to me.

I defend my interest (obsession?) because the US is currently the most powerful country in the world, and in the UK we have an appalling tendency to follow them (although arguably the late and much reviled Keith Joseph was the midwife of Thatcherism and Reaganomics, so we're not entirely blameless in the relationship).

Part of me trusts the American people, and thinks that the further right the republicans go the better, as it will either destroy the party or make them return to sane, centrist politics. Another part of me is aware that every election in modern US history has been won by the party that spent the most money on it.

(It must be said, here in the UK I'm seriously considering learning Swedish or Danish and moving...)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-...

Good news. This was a deliberate attempt by a minority on the council to bring religion into local politics.

Yup, heard it from a few sources.

It's reckoned there'll be an appeal, of course, but as it's been dismissed on equality grounds that should be pretty strong, as I understand it.

I love how she's basically blaming them for her failure - "sometimes you have to think about what I'm saying" and all that crap.

here's the original article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...

Good article. As she says, at least he's consistent...

Thanks for the links, Par, signed and awaiting the FB one.

It is surprising how much of an effect these things can actually have.

Stephen wrote: "I always describe myself as a 'radical atheist', it has a bigger impact and stimulates more discussion."

Didn't Douglas Adams used to describe himself as that, as he was sick of people not knowing the difference between an atheist and agnostic? I guess that's rarely a problem these days!

Update: he wasn't just sacked

http://www.examiner.com/humanist-in-n...