Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

MaxWig · 31-03-2015 01:23PM

silverharp wrote: »

Condoms not available in Britain? I can't find that they were ever illegal. I'm sure the church of England was against them at some stage but it only shows that nobody with power should listen to them.

Who should they listen to?

(by the way, I'm not saying they should listen to the church. I agree that church opinion should not influence policy in health, education etc.)

jaffusmax · 31-03-2015 01:23PM

silverharp wrote: »

Condoms not available in Britain? I can't find that they were ever illegal. I'm sure the church of England was against them at some stage but it only shows that nobody with power should listen to them.

I loved this ad! From British TV I was a kid at the time and did blush when it came on!

silverharp · 31-03-2015 01:34PM

MaxWig wrote: »

That's such an abstract position. So you believe we can look at a society and measure the evil, then decide based on the removal of one aspect that evil would be lessened by removal of said aspect?

We get into really controversial territory here when we try to counter that argument.

It is my belief that a woman should have complete control of her contraceptive choices. Absolutely.

But I draw the line at suggesting that the removal of societal barriers/taboos around premarital sex etc. do not have consequences. They do

This is my point. Evil - if we accept some agreement on how to define it - is a constant. It does not get put in to a society by certain processes and removed by others.

It exists within every single one of us, and while certain beliefs and laws may be contrary to what I believe, there is no way of saying that what I believe represent the best chance at limiting evil in a society.

Policies can be evil , laws can be evil. Societies will make errors and hopefully learn from it. The church here for example does not . it takes society to ignore the church on an issue and move on.
If you take the contraceptive issue , mothers I'm sure have died or had their lives put at risk because they were denied a technology which existed. The right of people to make mistakes using the technology is morally less troubling to me than outright bans for spurious reasons.

MaxWig · 31-03-2015 01:57PM

silverharp wrote: »

Policies can be evil , laws can be evil. Societies will make errors and hopefully learn from it. The church here for example does not . it takes society to ignore the church on an issue and move on.
If you take the contraceptive issue , mothers I'm sure have died or had their lives put at risk because they were denied a technology which existed. The right of people to make mistakes using the technology is morally less troubling to me than outright bans for spurious reasons.

I absolutely agree with you.
Religion and medicine don't mix. Dreadful state of affairs.

silverharp · 31-03-2015 02:22PM

MaxWig wrote: »

I absolutely agree with you.
Religion and medicine don't mix. Dreadful state of affairs.

Aaaaahhhhhh! Why do you keep fighting the points along the way then? , its like a reverse what did the romans ever do for us.. Expect this time its what evil things have the church ever done as the list gets longer

MaxWig · 31-03-2015 02:31PM

silverharp wrote: »

Aaaaahhhhhh! Why do you keep fighting the points along the way then? , its like a reverse what did the romans ever do for us.. Expect this time its what evil things have the church ever done as the list gets longer

I simply have no idea how you get from these issues to 'the world would be a better place without religion'

MaxWig · 31-03-2015 02:36PM

silverharp wrote: »

Aaaaahhhhhh! Why do you keep fighting the points along the way then? , its like a reverse what did the romans ever do for us.. Expect this time its what evil things have the church ever done as the list gets longer

Any interest in the good things about religion?

No I'm guessing.

jaffusmax · 31-03-2015 02:44PM

MaxWig wrote: »

Any interest in the good things about religion?

No I'm guessing.

Yes you cant reject it and emancipate yourself then get on with your life!

silverharp · 31-03-2015 02:44PM

MaxWig wrote: »

I simply have no idea how you get from these issues to 'the world would be a better place without religion'

Because its avoidable , its akin to forcing doctors to use leeches for medical treatment when medicine has moved on. Would Ireland not have been a better place for gay people in Ireland if people didn't think that god hated gay people.? Is it not reason enough ?

hinault · 31-03-2015 02:46PM

silverharp wrote: »

Condoms not available in Britain? I can't find that they were ever illegal. I'm sure the church of England was against them at some stage but it only shows that nobody with power should listen to them.

The fact is that artificial contraception only generally became available in Britain from the late 1950's onwards.

silverharp · 31-03-2015 02:49PM

MaxWig wrote: »

Any interest in the good things about religion?

No I'm guessing.

I don't normally go for the weighing scales . By that logic a fascist dictatorship or communism can do good things. It doesn't matter if the underlying concept is either evil or simply false

MaxWig · 31-03-2015 02:51PM

silverharp wrote: »

I don't normally go for the weighing scales . By that logic a fascist dictatorship or communism can do good things. It doesn't matter if the underlying concept is either evil or simply false

Of course they could.

And communism is a good case in point.

There is nothing 'evil' or false about communism - except you rely on people to implement it.

MaxWig · 31-03-2015 02:54PM

silverharp wrote: »

Because its avoidable , its akin to forcing doctors to use leeches for medical treatment when medicine has moved on. Would Ireland not have been a better place for gay people in Ireland if people didn't think that god hated gay people.? Is it not reason enough ?

Not on it's own.

If a given religion can change it's views on gay people and contraception, and women priests etc. etc. , then the argument falls apart.

jaffusmax · 31-03-2015 02:56PM

MaxWig wrote: »

Not on it's own.

If a given religion can change it's views on gay people and contraception, and women priests etc. etc. , then the argument falls apart.

Christian Religions cannot change its view that if you don't give yourself up to god/christ then you will be denied eternal life and will be punished for all eternity, is that not an immoral and wicked concept that cannot change?

Societies can change, the core concepts of Religion do not! That is what makes it dangerous!

silverharp · 31-03-2015 03:00PM

hinault wrote: »

The fact is that artificial contraception only generally became available in Britain from the late 1950's onwards.

We are talking about something only developed from the 1930's( modern condoms) and the pill is a 50's 60's development . I can't find that they were specifically banned and i would imagine Protestant churches might not have been overly happy about them either.
The stance in Ireland was Catholic rules being made civil rules.

silverharp · 31-03-2015 03:03PM

MaxWig wrote: »

Not on it's own.

If a given religion can change it's views on gay people and contraception, and women priests etc. etc. , then the argument falls apart.

They havnt , gay people still have to keep their identity quite if they work in Catholic schools for example.

galljga1 · 31-03-2015 03:06PM

MaxWig wrote: »

Any interest in the good things about religion?

No I'm guessing.

I presume you jest sir. Good things? Surely not.

MaxWig · 31-03-2015 03:08PM

silverharp wrote: »

They havnt , gay people still have to keep their identity quite if they work in Catholic schools for example.

That's hardly the point.

As crass as many of the views you touch upon are, unless you are willing to speak about the positive aspects that religion offers to individuals, I find your argument brutally lop-sided and unsophisticated.

Religion provides solace to individuals in the face of terrifying existential crises, and for that reason, until there is an alternative, religion will remain an essential part of the landscape of humanity.

hinault · 31-03-2015 03:11PM

silverharp wrote: »

We are talking about something only developed from the 1930's( modern condoms) and the pill is a 50's 60's development . I can't find that they were specifically banned and i would imagine Protestant churches might not have been overly happy about them either.
The stance in Ireland was Catholic rules being made civil rules.

You were whinging earlier here about how Ireland only legalised artificial contraception in the 1980's. You lay blame for this delay at "the church"

It would appear that even non-Catholic countries did not have artificial contraception available generally until the 1950's eg Britain.

silverharp · 31-03-2015 03:18PM

MaxWig wrote: »

That's hardly the point.

As crass as many of the views you touch upon are, unless you are willing to speak about the positive aspects that religion offers to individuals, I find your argument brutally lop-sided and unsophisticated.

Religion provides solace to individuals in the face of terrifying existential crises, and for that reason, until there is an alternative, religion will remain an essential part of the landscape of humanity.

That's a different argument , if religion doesn't cause harm to non religious people then I don't care what people believe . if someone is raised atheist they are not missing out. Im pretty sure there will still be a Catholic church in Ireland in a 100 years , I just hope its defanged by then

MaxWig · 31-03-2015 03:24PM

silverharp wrote: »

That's a different argument , if religion doesn't cause harm to non religious people then I don't care what people believe . if someone is raised atheist they are not missing out. Im pretty sure there will still be a Catholic church in Ireland in a 100 years , I just hope its defanged by then

Defanged?

U love that term!!

I think a more prudent question to ask might be;

What are the genuine (and/or current) alternatives?

jaffusmax · 31-03-2015 03:25PM

silverharp wrote: »

That's a different argument , if religion doesn't cause harm to non religious people then I don't care what people believe . if someone is raised atheist they are not missing out. Im pretty sure there will still be a Catholic church in Ireland in a 100 years , I just hope its defanged by then

Amen to that

MaxWig · 31-03-2015 03:26PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

Amen to that

Everything has fangs !!

jaffusmax · 31-03-2015 03:26PM

MaxWig wrote: »

Defanged? U love that term!!

I think a more prudent question to ask might be;

What are the genuine (and/or current) alternatives?

I think u are missing the point, people can believe what they want but keep it to themselves.

silverharp · 31-03-2015 03:29PM

hinault wrote: »

You were whinging earlier here about how Ireland only legalised artificial contraception in the 1980's. You lay blame for this delay at "the church"

It would appear that even non-Catholic countries did not have artificial contraception available generally until the 1950's eg Britain.

Can you show be a link saying that all contraception was illegal in Britain ? They were certainly issued to troops during the wars 1 and 2
It still doesn't change the fact that they were being manufactured and sold legally . or that the Irish situation was a church inspired policy. For a country with a high emigration it woulnt have made any economic sense

jaffusmax · 31-03-2015 03:31PM

silverharp wrote: »

Can you show be a link saying that all contraception was illegal in Britain ? They were certainly issued to troops during the wars 1 and 2
It still doesn't change the fact that they were being manufactured and sold legally . or that the Irish situation was a church inspired policy. For a country with a high emigration it woulnt have made any economic sense

Hinlaut has a history of perverting history for his religious agenda, I would not bother asking.

MaxWig · 31-03-2015 03:31PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

I think u are missing the point, people can believe what they want but keep it to themselves.

Well....that's a realistic option!

How do you think we should handle the homelessness problem btw?

How should your taxes be spent?

Sssshhhhhhhhh! That's good....sssshhhhhh!

jaffusmax · 31-03-2015 03:32PM

MaxWig wrote: »

Well....that's a realistic option!

How do you think we should handle the homelessness problem btw?

How should your taxes be spent?

Sssshhhhhhhhh! That's good....sssshhhhhh!

I'm not a sociologist but neither are bishops and priests.

MaxWig · 31-03-2015 03:35PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

I'm not a sociologist but neither are bishops and priests.

No, but people do not keep their beliefs to themselves.

Civilisation was built upon the exchange of ideas.

You don't like some of them? Good for you!

But can you see the irony in telling someone to keep their beliefs to themselves?

I don't believe you should believe that!
I just can't tolerate your intolerance!
I really hate you for the way you hate people!

silverharp · 31-03-2015 03:39PM

MaxWig wrote: »

Defanged? U love that term!!

I think a more prudent question to ask might be;

What are the genuine (and/or current) alternatives?

Protection for non religious people from the beliefs of religious people particularly when it comes to state laws and provision of services.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments