Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[Value Collector]

I used the word "alien " in the sense of; (Oxford Dictionary)

the 1. meaning in the oxford dictionary is belonging to a foreign country.

but look, I am not interested in arguing this point, you are clearly Xenophobic, But you clearly don't like the label.

 

[SirRumpole]

I am also in favour of the free market, I see nothing wrong with private companies marketing their produce to whom ever they want.

Marketing is one thing, commercial extortion is another. The fact that producers have to pay an external agency to say their product is suitable for a certain group of people is just a roundabout way of religion imposing itself on the free market. The market is no longer free, it comes at the cost of a licence fee to a religious organisation.

What is wrong with producers being able, of their own FREEWILL to write on their product that it is suitable for Muslims , without having to pay for that simple privilege ? If the consumer is not happy that the product satisfies the description, then they can take the supplier to court like anyone else.

 

[Calliope]

the 1. meaning in the oxford dictionary is belonging to a foreign country.

but look, I am not interested in arguing this point, you are clearly Xenophobic, But you clearly don't like the label.

Apparently being critical of supporters of the Islamic State justifies you labelling people as xenophobic. You have very narrow and extreme views. Of course you have no interest in arguing the point because you haven't any rational point to make.

 

[Value Collector]

Apparently being critical of supporters of the Islamic State justifies you labelling people as xenophobic.

If that's all you did I would be right there beside you, I have made many comments my self against them, just yesterday I uploaded a video showing their maggoty behaviour.

 

[Value Collector]

Marketing is one thing, commercial extortion is another. The fact that producers have to pay an external agency to say their product is suitable for a certain group of people is just a roundabout way of religion imposing itself on the free market. The market is no longer free, it comes at the cost of a licence fee to a religious organisation.

What is wrong with producers being able, of their own FREEWILL to write on their product that it is suitable for Muslims , without having to pay for that simple privilege ? If the consumer is not happy that the product satisfies the description, then they can take the supplier to court like anyone else.

Please don't make the same statement to me in 2 separate threads, it will get tiresome if I have to copy and paste my response in two threads.

But below I copied and pasted the response I made in the other thread.

_______________________________________________

They don't "have to" do it, no one forces them to do it. If they wanted they could probably just write it on there themselves, But it always is going to look better when it comes from an independent body who the members concerned trust.

for example, in the early 90's It became a big thing in the media that Tuna fishing was killing dolphins, and people who were concerned about that started avoiding eating tuna.

But not all fishing methods killed dolphins, getting the world wildlife fund to come and check your operations, and allow you to say "Dolphin safe, world wildlife fund approved" gives you a lot more creditability than just saving "trust us, we don't hurt dolphins"

It's not extortion.





The market is no longer free, it comes at the cost of a licence fee to a religious organisation. Provide me one example of a private company being forced to get certification.





What is wrong with producers being able, of their own FREEWILL to write on their product that it is suitable for Muslims , without having to pay for that simple privilege ? They can do that if they like, but it would be less credible to a Muslim consumer than a certification from a company they trust.

Just like sunglasses or sun screen that says "Cancer Council approved"

 

[SirRumpole]

Please don't make the same statement to me in 2 separate threads, it will get tiresome if I have to copy and paste my response in two threads.

No intention to be tiresome, I thought this discussion was better in the Halal thread, so I transferred to that.

 

[FxTrader]

However I make no apology for being supportive of Tink or anyone else being hassled by the pack mentality.

If it can be legitimately asserted that any set of individuals who contribute to the threads discussing religion have a "pack mentality" then that would be the religious contributors. They all sing to the same tune, religion is good for society because people do good things in its name (forgetting or dismissing all the harm its done over the ages), it's true because it was written in a magic book and it's useful, atheists are essentially evil because they have no moral code without a governing, imaginary celestial dictator telling them how to live and similar rhetorical rubbish.

If there is anything under attack here from atheists it's religion and religious belief and deservedly so. If you review this thread and others there has been far more invective and personal attack coming from the religious camp.

Asserting religious belief as some kind of personal virtue such that questioning such belief can be construed as a personal attack is a diversionary tactic used to gag debate and play the victim. Tink has deployed this tactic before to gain sympathy and change the focus of the discussion away from the many fallacies of her religion and the vile institution that perpetuates it.

I am an atheist, but I was raised according to Christian values, so I make no apology for preferring Christain values to alien Islamic values.

Agreed. However, any discussion of values should be in context of human wellbeing. The religious have no monopoly on ethics or values and their magic books are certainly not the best guide we have as a reference for establishing common values in society.

 

[Tink]

I haven't put down atheists, agnostics, etc.

All I asked of VC, was to acknowledge History, and if he actually knew what religion contributed in society, that was it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Western_civilization

I was trying to state, that our foundations had come from Christianity.

You can believe whatever you like.

 

[herzy]

I was trying to state, that our foundations had come from Christianity.

I don't know what you mean. Do you mean Western civilisation? Do you mean Australia?

 

[Tink]

I don't know what you mean. Do you mean Western civilisation? Do you mean Australia?

Both

 

[FxTrader]

I haven't put down atheists, agnostics, etc.

True, but the same cannot be said for other religious contributors or their apologists here. If they have departed the discussion it's likely that having their religious beliefs and incredible claims challenged and debunked was just too uncomfortable for them. If you come to a forum and declare you have certain knowledge of the eternal and origins you should expect a vigorous debate to ensue.

All I asked of VC, was to acknowledge History, and if he actually knew what religion contributed in society, that was it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Western_civilization

The Catholic Church’s contribution in particular, what a surprise. That there have been useful influences, outcomes and contributions from religions in relation to human behaviour does not detract from the core issue of the fantastic claims made by religion and the religious and the unjustified strong belief in the foundational mythology. You also omit the fact that many atrocities and evils have been perpetrated in the name of religion. Focussing only on the good actions people have undertaken in the name of religion is a blinkered view of its history.

I was trying to state, that our foundations had come from Christianity.

To what end? Should we all embrace and revere Christianity just because it brought some order to an earlier time in human history? Should we care if any of its fantastic claims are true? Should the aborigines also appreciate the wonderful impact Christian believers had on their culture?

 

[herzy]

Both

You made the statement that both Western civilisation and Australia have their foundations in Christianity. Presumably you mean this as a positive.

You pointed out earlier that it's impossible to speculate how a country or civilisation would have turned out had things been different.

Although that's not entirely true, wouldn't that mean we can't really know the influence that religion has had - either on Australia or on Western civilisation?

To me, the negatives are apparent. Christianity in England, Portugal, Spain and France seems to have led to a desire to colonise (and bring religion to the savages), which invariably lead to tragedy: see the indigenous populations of Australia and NZ, South America and North America, the civil unrest in Africa created by artificial colonial borders being drawn which didn't represent ethnic territories (this also applies to the Middle East), etc.

The positives, however, are less apparent: You claim that Christianity is responsible for the positive foundations of both Western and Australian civilisation. By that logic, countries and civilisations devoid of Christian influence would be worse off. However, there are many countries and civilisations which developed rigorous moral values and effective legal systems in the complete absence of Christianity. The fact that society can develop in a healthy way in the absence of Christianity would imply that Christianity was not an explanatory or causative variable.

Yes, Western countries have developed faster, but not better per se - and this could be for myriad reasons, such as better access to resources (access to water and trees/wood, no droughts in Europe, stable climates producing predictable harvests, etc), a relative lack of disease and warring neighbours, etc etc. These are all factors which make it very difficult to categorically say that all benefits of Western society are attributable to Christianity. A good example of this is the fact that all of the countries influenced by Christianity apart from the European ones are WORSE off (apart from the Europeans who have emigrated) than they were in the absence of Christianity.

Happy for you to explain to me otherwise.

 

[Tink]

Thanks for your replies.

I was talking about when Australia first settled, and though I put up Catholic, it was Anglican schools, as Knobby has stated a few times about History and schooling etc.

I have always enjoyed looking at Melbourne's History, Australia's too, and of course our lovely old architectural buildings which I have always loved, though we have lost a few over the years.

Where we were and where we are.

That was all I was stating.

That is enough from me in this thread.

 

[Ruby]

I haven't put down atheists, agnostics, etc.

All I asked of VC, was to acknowledge History, and if he actually knew what religion contributed in society, that was it.

But Tink, you HAVE put down atheists and agnostics, frequently! You attribute many of the ills of society - not to mention wars - to them.

If you are going to acknowledge history, then acknowledge all of it - the good and the bad. You like to cherry pick, and choose to ignore the terrible injustices the catholic church has wreaked upon mankind (in the name of Christianity) from its beginnings right up until today.

 

[Tink]

How many times do I have to say I have acknowledged the bad, but have you acknowledged the good, since you kept saying they couldn't read and write.
That is not true.

I am not going to get in this.

Exactly, GOOD AND BAD, not all bad as some of you keep portraying.

 

[Value Collector]

How many times do I have to say I have acknowledged the bad, but have you acknowledged the good, since you kept saying they couldn't read and write.
That is not true.

I am not going to get in this.

Exactly, GOOD AND BAD, not all bad as some of you keep portraying.

I acknowledge the good, My position has always been that religion has terrible side effects, and although it has done some good, none of the good stuff is owned by religion and all of it can be done in secular ways.

So to me religion is like pill that might have a practical use, but it causes cancer, and since there are other pills that have all the positive benefits but don't cause cancer, we should avoid the cancer causing pill.

You can prove me wrong, all you have to do is name some positive effects that can only come about through religious means, and can not be achieved in a secular society.

 

[herzy]

Tink I was hoping to engage with you. I'm not denying that there might be positives.

I'm asking how you know those positives were the result of religion?

Thanks for your replies.

I was talking about when Australia first settled, and though I put up Catholic, it was Anglican schools, as Knobby has stated a few times about History and schooling etc.

I have always enjoyed looking at Melbourne's History, Australia's too, and of course our lovely old architectural buildings which I have always loved, though we have lost a few over the years.

Where we were and where we are.

That was all I was stating.

That is enough from me in this thread.

How many times do I have to say I have acknowledged the bad, but have you acknowledged the good, since you kept saying they couldn't read and write.
That is not true.

I am not going to get in this.

Exactly, GOOD AND BAD, not all bad as some of you keep portraying.

Surely if the bad outweighs the good, then that's a problem? That's why it's important to objectively determine:
- if there was good that is attributable to religion
- if that good outweighed the bad.

Again, I'm not trying to attack your faith, or vilify religion per se - on the contrary, I'm hoping to hear the perspective of a religious person.

Acknowledging that there is bad isn't really helpful if we can't put the good and bad in context.

 

[Tink]

Herzy, by bad, I meant the child abuse.

I agree with what the Church stands for -- for the common good in society, family and life.

I have already been through this.

 

[FxTrader]

I agree with what the Church stands for -- for the common good in society, family and life.

Sorry but this is a very naive and superficial view of what the "Church" actually stands for. Yes, the Catholic Church does take public positions on values and morals in society. The basis of this presumed moral authority is their particular interpretation of Bible verses; hence the Church is a self-appointed proxy for God/Jesus when speaking about society, family and moral issues. It's about power on earth first and foremost, using religion as a tool to obtain it and the pulpit to reinforce it.

No church or religion should be deemed to have more authority than any other group or individual to determine what is moral and immoral or good and evil, this is a collective decision for society as a whole. The Catholic Church exits primarily to perpetuate itself and project its influence and power around the world. The flock of believers within it may belong to it for many reasons and inclined to do good things in response but the institution itself is rotten to the core.

 

[Value Collector]

I agree with what the Church stands for -- for the common good in society, family and life.

Common good?

For most of their history they would have put an outspoken atheist like me to death, how is this common good?