Richard Dawkins backs plans for a bible in every school - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Terminutter;36120227]You clearly didn't read the fucking OP, then, seeing as Dawkins is stating that he wants people to read it so that they realise it's not a good book.[/QUOTE] Neither did you because he only said it's not a good moral guide, not that it's a rubbish piece of literature [QUOTE]Whatever else the Bible might be - and it really is a great work of literature - it is not a moral book[/QUOTE]

Dawkins is not the atheist pope. His words are not sacrosanct.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36121134]Dawkins is not the atheist pope. His words are not sacrosanct.[/QUOTE] I was replying to Terminutter, not making a general statement

[QUOTE=RobbL;36121100]Neither did you because he only said it's not a good moral guide, not that it's a rubbish piece of literature[/QUOTE] I'm sure that terminutter meant "good" in the sense of moral.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36119693]My point is that you can't impose a standard of one country on another from thousands of miles away, unless you're going to invade them.[/QUOTE] The fuck does this have to do with standards? Bibles should be out of schools. If your standard is to have religion in school then your standard can go fuck itself.

I'll leave it at this: the bible has a run-on sentence that lasts for around [I]two-hundred and twenty words[/I], and a third of them are "begat".

Have you guys ever noticed how seemingly anti-semitic the bible actually is? The bible makes the assertion that, if left unchecked, all the semites are going to simply start fucking each other and worshipping idols(happens a multitude of times in the bible). Moses turns his back for one minute, and the jews begin worshipping bulls and shit. I mean, the old testament doesn't put a lot of faith into the jewish people.

[QUOTE=Hellduck;36121313]I'm sure that terminutter meant "good" in the sense of moral.[/QUOTE] Sorry, people usually don't mean morals when they talk about good or bad books

[video=youtube;oC-fsFT7ZKs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC-fsFT7ZKs[/video]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36121726]Have you guys ever noticed how seemingly anti-semitic the bible actually is? The bible makes the assertion that, if left unchecked, all the semites are going to simply start fucking each other and worshipping idols(happens a multitude of times in the bible). Moses turns his back for one minute, and the jews begin worshipping bulls and shit. I mean, the old testament doesn't put a lot of faith into the jewish people.[/QUOTE] Bible is antisemitic, homophobic and racist. What did you expect?

[QUOTE=RobbL;36121900]Sorry, people usually don't mean morals when they talk about good or bad books[/QUOTE] But considering this argument has largely been about the morality of the bible it's a pretty safe assumption to make that he was talking about the morality of the bible.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36121900]Sorry, people usually don't mean morals when they talk about good or bad books[/QUOTE] They do when you're talking about "The Good Book." [editline]29th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;36121726]Have you guys ever noticed how seemingly anti-semitic the bible actually is? The bible makes the assertion that, if left unchecked, all the semites are going to simply start fucking each other and worshipping idols(happens a multitude of times in the bible). Moses turns his back for one minute, and the jews begin worshipping bulls and shit. I mean, the old testament doesn't put a lot of faith into the jewish people.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure there were still polytheistic pagan sects at that point. [editline]29th May 2012[/editline] that is until they were all murdered

[QUOTE=RobbL;36121900]Sorry, people usually don't mean morals when they talk about good or bad books[/QUOTE] People generally refer to the contents when they talk about good or bad books. Also, the bible's often called "the Good book" the "Holy book" and so on. The contents aren't consistant, it contradicts itself multiple times, so it gets bad marks on consistancy. The same goes for reliability, it's not reliable as a source due to being based on hearsay, rumour and the "word of god". It's not good for morals, as it condones slavery, capital punishment and how children who don't respect their parents are sinners who must be beaten and the like. If the contents are not moral, consistant and reliable, they are not good, ergo it's a bad book. The only thing going for it is the literature itself, which is passable at best, the sentence structure of a lot of it leaves much to be desired, and the writing style varies too much as it's an amalgamation of 30-70 odd books (81 if Ethiopian orthodox), letters and journals, cherrypicked to be merged together, with liberal amounts of bad translation scattered in.

[QUOTE=Hellduck;36122025]But considering this argument has largely been about the morality of the bible it's a pretty safe assumption to make that he was talking about the morality of the bible.[/QUOTE] It's largely been about whether it's a good work of literature and source (albeit unreliable) of historical information too you know

[QUOTE=Lankist;36111722] Also considering the fucking Vatican was cool with him doesn't fucking help. You'd think if Hitler was his own man,[I] he wouldn't have left the Vatican completely untouched while his forces occupied and burned Rome.[/I] [/QUOTE] Uh, Rome was nearly untouched by the war, physically anyway. The worst damage it received was by a few bombings, mostly by the Allies, but the damage was not significant.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36122349]It's largely been about whether it's a good work of literature and source (albeit unreliable) of historical information too you know[/QUOTE] But not primarily, considering it's Dawkins' intention to show schoolchildren that it's not a moral book.

[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;36122382]Uh, Rome was nearly untouched by the war, physically anyway. The worst damage it received was by a few bombings, mostly by the Allies, but the damage was not significant.[/QUOTE] Lankist also thinks The Troubles in Ireland were a religious conflict, so i'd take everything he says about history with a pinch of salt tbh

Shit I forgot to reply to the thing before. I know what I am talking about when it comes to Biblical and Babylonian history and law. From this knowledge, I know that Judaic law is not a step backwards from other Near Eastern civilizations. I am also sure that Greek laws that we know of were written and applied way after the laws from the Old Testament were made up.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36122449]Lankist also thinks The Troubles in Ireland were a religious conflict, so i'd take everything he says about history with a pinch of salt tbh[/QUOTE] The troubles in Ireland [b]did[/b] have a religious aspect. Catholic nationalists and Protestant unionist kids were encouraged not to mix, and there was violence, bullying and segregation based around it, with both adults and the kids. To say it did not have any religious aspect to it (you did) [QUOTE=RobbL;36112023]What the fuck? The Troubles in Ireland were 100% politics and 0% religion[/QUOTE] shows that you know very little to nothing about them. Let's quote James Craig (1st NI prime minister) [quote]All I boast is that we are a Protestant Parliament and Protestant State".[/quote]

[QUOTE=Terminutter;36122543] shows that you know very little to nothing about them. Let's quote James Craig (1st NI prime minister)[/QUOTE] It was nothing to do with religious belief or doctrine. Catholicism and Protestantism especially in Ireland have always been political and social institutions and factions more so than just Christian faiths

[QUOTE=Lankist;36105011] Uhh no it's an awful book and anyone who's actually forced themselves to read it realizes that. It is perhaps the most poorly written collection of historical fanfiction ever compiled. First it was written by jackasses in the desert. Then it was written by jackasses in the dark ages who wallowed in their own feces. Then it was written by rich fuckers in the Vatican who wanted to get more money.[/QUOTE] This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. It's being allowed into schools, and backed by Dawkins, because of the immense effect it has had on the English language. What of all of the idioms and phrases that came from the Bible? What of the literary traditions that it created?

[QUOTE=RobbL;36122622]It was nothing to do with religious belief or doctrine. Catholicism and Protestantism especially in Ireland have always been political institutions and factions more so than just Christian faiths[/QUOTE] 21/5/1966 UVF [quote]From this day, we declare war against the IRA and its splinter groups. Known IRA men will be executed mercilessly and without hesitation. Less extreme measures will be taken against anyone sheltering or helping them, but if they persist in giving them aid, then more extreme methods will be adopted . . . we solemnly warn the authorities to make no more speeches of appeasement. We are heavily armed [B]Protestants[/B] dedicated to this cause.[/quote] Not heavily armed Unionists, they specifically identified as Protestants, showing that they have a religious basis to it, or they would have included anyone of any religion supporting their cause. The Orange Order (I'll take it that you know what that is) explicitly forbid Catholics or those closely related related to Catholics from joining, another religious base. To play it as 100% political shows that you know nothing about it.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;36122792]21/5/1966 UVF Not heavily armed Unionists, they specifically identified as Protestants, showing that they have a religious basis to it, or they would have included anyone of any religion supporting their cause. The Orange Order (I'll take it that you know what that is) explicitly forbid Catholics or those closely related related to Catholics from joining, another religious base. To play it as 100% political shows that you know nothing about it.[/QUOTE] Religious belief played no part in it, the Catholic and Protestant churches and their followers were socio-political factions more than anything else, how fucking hard is that to understand?

[QUOTE=RobbL;36122839]Religious belief played no part in it, the Catholic and Protestant churches and their followers were socio-political factions more than anything else, how fucking hard is that to understand?[/QUOTE] Pretty hard, having been to Belfast, and visiting Dublin at least once every two years, having my family over the year I don't go, and knowing people who grew up in it and actually experienced it, y'know? If you're not going to provide sources, then chuir suas ort féin.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;36122903]Pretty hard, having been to Belfast, and visiting Dublin at least once every two years, having my family over the year I don't go, and knowing people who grew up in it and actually experienced it, y'know? If you're not going to provide sources, then chuir suas ort féin.[/QUOTE] I know plenty of people who were involved in the conflict, i've been over to both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland myself, and both my next door neighbour's sons who were in the British army were killed over there by a bomb. So I think we're on equal grounds. Following your logic, every war there's ever been between countries of differing religions is a religious war

To a degree, yes. If they are truly religious, it encompasses their entire lives and everything that they do, as nearly all major monotheistic religions are founded around a god who you should listen to and obey above all else. A truly religious person will make decisions based upon what their holy books / men / teachings state, and the decision to go to war or to support a political party comes after the god. God always comes first, it's the whole point of the religion, to go against the god's wishes or teachings is not acceptable for a true believer (though this invokes no true scotsman, as it's all down to what you believe religious to be). As the religion is above all, the decision to support a political party and to fight an opposing one has to come second, and has to agree with your religion. Religion is intrinsically linked to everything a religious person does, as the religious teachings are meant to cover everything.

The dominant factor of the conflict was that the Protestants were unionist and the Catholics were nationalist, not that the Protestants were Protestants and the Catholics were Catholics. End of. [QUOTE=Terminutter;36123125]To a degree, yes. If they are truly religious, it encompasses their entire lives and everything that they do, as nearly all major monotheistic religions are founded around a god who you should listen to and obey above all else. A truly religious person will make decisions based upon what their holy books / men / teachings state, and the decision to go to war or to support a political party comes after the god. God always comes first, it's the whole point of the religion, to go against the god's wishes or teachings is not acceptable for a true believer (though this invokes no true scotsman, as it's all down to what you believe religious to be). As the religion is above all, the decision to support a political party and to fight an opposing one has to come second, and has to agree with your religion. Religion is intrinsically linked to everything a religious person does, as the religious teachings are meant to cover everything.[/QUOTE] That's nonsense and has nothing to do with our argument

How does it have nothing to do with it? If they are religious by my definition, then deciding to support one party is based on religious teachings inspiring their political beliefs. The political beliefs clash, and they fight. Religion started it as the political parties were polarised by their differing beliefs which were based off the religions of the respective people. You seem to be acting as if people make decisions without consulting religion, when the religion is supposed to be the thing that they use to make their choice.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;36123238]How does it have nothing to do with it? If they are religious by my definition, then deciding to support one party is based on religious teachings inspiring their political beliefs. The political beliefs clash, and they fight. Religion started it as the political parties were polarised by their differing beliefs which were based off the religions of the respective people. You seem to be acting as if people make decisions without consulting religion, when the religion is supposed to be the thing that they use to make their choice.[/QUOTE] All you've proved there is that fundamentally, Protestantism and Catholicism are religions... wow Yes, Protestants are Protestants because of mainly religious reasons and Catholics are Catholics because of mainly religion reasons, but that doesn't add anything to your argument that The Troubles were a religious conflict Religion played a small part in setting up the socio-political climate that eventually led to the feelings that sparked the conflict, but that's it Anyway- [QUOTE]David Kidd is native to Belfast, and remembers The Troubles well. "I've seen bombs go off. I've had guns pointed at me. I've had people hijack my car. I've had guns put in my mouth," he told CBN News. Kidd said the war really was not about religion, contrary to popular belief. "The conflict in Northern Ireland has always been described as a religious one," he added. "The tribal identities are religious, but the issue was about control of the land. It was about economic advantage. It wasn't about religious issues."[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In the case of Northern Ireland, nationality, religion, and politics are so highly correlated that almost every person not born into a Catholic family is thus Protestant and therefore grows up to be a unionist. Every Irish child is born Catholic and will therefore grow up to be a nationalist. Because of this all of these words can be used interchangeably on either side; Protestant/British/unionist and Catholic/Irish/nationalist. The real issue with Northern Ireland was the partition, which caused a lot of conflict and a period of time which is commonly referred to as “The Troubles”. During the Troubles there was a myriad of violence between the two opposing sides. Terrorism was rampant and there were many riots and marches which ended in bloodshed. Northern Irish Catholics wanted to be a part of the Republic of Ireland or to be their own sovereign state; they did not, and still don’t, believe that the English had any genus of claim over Northern Ireland. The Protestants, on the other hand, wished to remain under British rule as it was beneficial to them. Under British rule, Protestants occupy the best jobs and get the best pay. Religion is really not even close to the issue in Northern Ireland, the root of the problem is land rights; who has the right to rule Northern Ireland? Both sides think that they are the best choice[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]What is the main cause of all the trouble in Northern Ireland? Is religion a big part of it? The conflict in Northern Ireland is usually explained in terms of the different constitutional aspirations of the two main sections of the community in the region. Many Catholics consider themselves to be Irish and are Nationalist in political outlook, that is, they would like to see the whole (nation) island of Ireland reunited (and independent of Britain). Most Protestants consider themselves to be British and are Unionist in political outlook, that is, they want Northern Ireland to remain part of the (union of the) United Kingdom (UK) of Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) and Northern Ireland. The correspondence between religion, culture, and political outlook is the result of a historical accident. During the 'plantation of Ulster' in the early 17th century the Scottish and English settlers, who moved to the north-east of Ireland to take ownership of confiscated lands, were Protestant and had strong cultural ties with England and Scotland. The native Irish who were forced from their land were Catholic and culturally Irish. Although religion was not the determining factor in the conflict between the people living in the region, it has a special significance as it was used as a marker to distinguish and discriminate between sections of the community. As a consequence of the plantation Protestants acquired land and wealth. Various pieces of legislation were introduced to reduce the status of Catholics. The inequalities between the two sections of the population persisted to the late 1960s and were the main cause of the civil rights movement that eventually led to the re-emergence of violent conflict.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RobbL;36123380]All you've proved there is that fundamentally, Protestantism and Catholicism are religions... wow Yes, Protestants are Protestants because of mainly religious reasons and Catholics are Catholics because of mainly religion reasons, but that doesn't add anything to your argument that The Troubles were a religious conflict Religion played a small part in setting up the socio-political climate that eventually led to the feelings that sparked the conflict, but that's it[/QUOTE] Catholicism and Protestantism have always had a political bent with their fights with each other. Protestantism itself was founded to free Henry VIII from the political influence of the Pope, so he basically could do as he pleased. The politics and religion in Ireland (and Britain as a whole, to a degree) have been tied together for so long now it's now impossible to say that the Troubles were solely political.