The Religion of Peace?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Cactus Annie said:
It doesn't say that in the Dictionary, only on Wikipedia, which in terms of accuracy isn't as reliable.

spiritualism |ˈspiri ch oōəˌlizəm|
noun
1 a system of belief or religious practice based on supposed communication with the spirits of the dead, esp. through mediums.
2 Philosophy the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.

From my computer's dictionary. I don't trust it as much as the heavy Chambers English Dictionary on my bookshelf, but I can't be arsed to get it right now.

According to Wikipedia atheism is compatible with neo-Paganism, Jainism and Buddhism. I don't know what Jainism is :hmm:, it's another thing I need to look up. My friend doesn't believe in Christianity, yet she's into Wicca.

A book I found in our shop: The Violence Of God & The War On Terror, by Jeremy Young, who's an Anglican Priest believe it or not. He argues that the image of God encourages violence.
Click to expand...

You're probably being too ridged in your defining of "spiritual". If you want to know if atheists believe in the supernatural, that should be self evident.... thought having just written that, I suppose it isn't always the case, but more often than not.

If you're asking whether religion has a monopoly on transcendent, reflective thought, the answer is no. I would argue that the 'spirituality' of atheism is truer to the nature of reality and much more useful
 
But aren't both the 'supernatural' and the 'transcendent' mean something that is unexplainable by certainly current Scientific terms? They both mean beyond physical reality?

I have heard of a few atheists who do believe in pantheism and souls. Hence why I am confused and only trying to understand
 
^^^

I don't understand why the UK let these people get away with what they say and their protests. I heard its all freedom of speech, but those extremists are abusing the privilege. Why not just deport them if they hate Britain and the British people? The UK government are looking like fools allowing those people to live, work and even live off the dole, yet they preach hatred for their country and people.

And supposedly those extremists are breeding like rabbits. So I guess the concern that Britain will become a caliphate isn't really irrational, right?
 
It seems Aeon, U2man and a few others think Reza Azlan can not write a credible book about Jesus of Nazareth, that is Jesus the man.

I don't recall you having that opinion.

Ironically, if Hitchens were alive I believe he would find much of the book credible as I believe most Jewish scholars would and most secular people with no axe to grind.
 
deep said:
It seems Aeon, U2man and a few others think Reza Azlan can not write a credible book about Jesus of Nazareth, that is Jesus the man.

I don't recall you having that opinion.

Ironically, if Hitchens were alive I believe he would find much of the book credible as I believe most Jewish scholars would and most secular people with no axe to grind.
Click to expand...

Oh, ok, I see why you made that comment now. I kinda made a point about the Azlan thing, but I'm not sure anyone responded (I probably agree with you on that one)
 
In regards to the Hitchens video, it is appalling that any criticism of Islam is considered hate speech. I get it that in Muslim countries, it is illegal to do that, so immigrants from those countries have problems in Europe, US, Canada and elsewhere because they're not used to it.

But it is ridiculous that some people are afraid of saying anything critical of Islam, especially in regards to extremist Muslims. If what Hitchens said is true that school children can't be taught The Three Little Pigs story, than that is irrational. And I was shocked when Archbishop Rowan Williams actually suggested that Sharia law be part of British law.

People like that are bowing down to radicals who only intend to hurt others. They are not the peaceful Muslims who live and let live. These want to force convert and set up caliphates. As a result, anyone who is overly defensive and apologetic toward radical Islam look like cowards and wimps, and those extremists are laughing their heads off. Bowing down to radical Islam also kind of confirms to extremists that their way is superior because it can get weak people to defend them.

I just don't understand why some people are willing to defend these extremists. They wouldn't defend neo-Nazis, Westboro Baptist Church, Hindu nationalists and so on. But they would stand up for those who wish death to anyone who mildly criticizes Islam. :scratch:
 
Basically, given my own politics, it's hard for me to have a favourable opinion of him. That's the basic gist of it. He was a reactionary.
 
What does that have to do with credibility? Also, I'm not sure reactionary describes him at all
 
Pearl said:
But coming from him and his choice of words doesn't allow much dialogue or anything constructive.
Click to expand...

His choice of words was matter of fact. The article put "Muslims as a group haven't achieved anything worthwhile since the Middle Ages" into his mouth
 
They also fail to mention that the whole thing started this way:

@RichardDawkins 6 Aug
On reflection @mehdirhasan may not believe winged horse. But on reflection can a man of his intelligence believe ANYTHING in Islam?

@RichardDawkins
"MUSLIMS GAVE YOU ALCHEMY AND ALGEBRA!!!!!". Indeed, where would we be without alchemy? Dark Age achievements undoubted. But since then?

@RichardDawkins 8 Aug
All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.

It was a reply to a boast someone tweeting him. But to point that out wouldn't fit the "omg Richard Dawkins is a racist" theme they're desperate to put forward.

Also, it was DAWKINS who tweeted this

@RichardDawkins 8 Aug
Trinity College Cambridge has more Nobel Prizes than any country in the world except USA, Britain, Germany & France. Remarkable fact.

Thanks for the investigative journalism, Huffington Post
 
Dawkins' sensible rebuttal is worth a read too. And the last point he addresses is funny if you imagine him saying it
 
Jive Turkey said:
It was a reply to a boast someone tweeting him. But to point that out wouldn't fit the "omg Richard Dawkins is a racist" theme they're desperate to put forward.
Click to expand...

Calling someone makes anti-Muslim comments a racist is silly, because Islam is not a race. Muslims could be any race: black, white, Asian, and so on.
 
I think it is time the Left admits that Islam is not playing according to rules...

Chris Hitchens saw that, Richard Dawkins sees it...

This is not about Christianity vs. Islam. This is about Western Civilization and everything we hold dear in the post-Enlightenmnet world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pearl
Egypt Heads to the Polls
Replies
22
Views
1K
AchtungBono
A
N
The dark side of Dubai
Replies
4
Views
960
The Sad Punk
The Sad Punk
financeguy
Geert Wilder's speech in Berlin
Replies
6
Views
935
cobl04
cobl04
financeguy
"Inside the violent world of Britain's new far right"
Replies
2
Views
681
Moonlit_Angel
Moonlit_Angel
financeguy
The cyclical character of capitalism-why boom and bust is unavoidable in capitalism
Replies
4
Views
807
financeguy
financeguy

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom