RegiRoka
Roofer
I see you’re interested in religion and atheism. We spent years arguing that on the old websites, but here’s a reply to your question on the other thread:
Sixthswan said:
‘Both Islam and Christianity are incompatible with a secular state. There is corruption, child abuse and interference from both and they are both unwelcome.’
Astley, can you accept that ALL societies DO HAVE corruption and child abuse? If yes, then look again at Sixthswan’s logic:
Christianity and Islam are NOT COMPATIBLE with a secular society, BECAUSE they have corruption and child abuse.
Well, even by his own way of thinking, he’s demonstrably wrong: they are compatible.
All societies are corrupt and have child abuse + religion is corrupt and has child abuse = they are perfectly compatible.
He may say, ‘but we don’t welcome their interference’. All societies have cultural elements that ‘interfere’ with some people’s ideas of what is good and bad, because people will always argue over what is good and bad. Some people don’t welcome ‘interference’, other people will crave it.
He might say he’s talking about totally secular society, well no total secular society exists.
He might say he’s talking about a hypothetical secular society, in which case he’s indulging in fantasy. (Just what atheists accuse religious people of doing.)
Following on with the 'we'd be better off without God' argument, it’s at this point that some people attacking atheism say,
“Look at the most anti-religious states: the Soviet Union and Communist China. They killed millions and tortured, starved, imprisoned… and were totally corrupt etc. They most definitely interfered in terrible ways.” (All true.)
Some atheists counter this and say, “No, those anti-religious states were quasi-religious, because the people replaced God with the worship of the Leader and switched one religion for another: for example, they stopped believing in Jesus and Christianity, but put everything into Stalin and Communism. “The people in those countries were expected to worship the state. They expected the state to do everything for them.” (Similar arguments are still used to talk about Nazi Germany.)
Anyroad, I don’t really want to carry on with this on here. I think it’s great that you’ve got into it. I used to love Christopher Hitchens and the comedy of George Carlin. Perhaps, one of the best was Bertrand Russell. Sam Harris has lost it. Dawkins, to my mind, lacks something, but even he has admitted that he’s a cultural Christian, and he’s thankful for that, but the truth is…
I realise now that Christians and Atheists can’t really debate something like Christianity at all, mainly because most Atheists are not speaking the same language. Either by inability or malice: Hitchens was brilliant, but a lot of his arguments were ‘straw-man gotchas’. I see the same kind of stuff written on that thread you started, and I can’t be bothered to explain or go into fine detail with people who aren’t really open. Most people aren't open.
If you want to communicate more about this, send me a private message. (Perhaps we can also start deciding on who to grass on next.)
Sixthswan said:
‘Both Islam and Christianity are incompatible with a secular state. There is corruption, child abuse and interference from both and they are both unwelcome.’
Astley, can you accept that ALL societies DO HAVE corruption and child abuse? If yes, then look again at Sixthswan’s logic:
Christianity and Islam are NOT COMPATIBLE with a secular society, BECAUSE they have corruption and child abuse.
Well, even by his own way of thinking, he’s demonstrably wrong: they are compatible.
All societies are corrupt and have child abuse + religion is corrupt and has child abuse = they are perfectly compatible.
He may say, ‘but we don’t welcome their interference’. All societies have cultural elements that ‘interfere’ with some people’s ideas of what is good and bad, because people will always argue over what is good and bad. Some people don’t welcome ‘interference’, other people will crave it.
He might say he’s talking about totally secular society, well no total secular society exists.
He might say he’s talking about a hypothetical secular society, in which case he’s indulging in fantasy. (Just what atheists accuse religious people of doing.)
Following on with the 'we'd be better off without God' argument, it’s at this point that some people attacking atheism say,
“Look at the most anti-religious states: the Soviet Union and Communist China. They killed millions and tortured, starved, imprisoned… and were totally corrupt etc. They most definitely interfered in terrible ways.” (All true.)
Some atheists counter this and say, “No, those anti-religious states were quasi-religious, because the people replaced God with the worship of the Leader and switched one religion for another: for example, they stopped believing in Jesus and Christianity, but put everything into Stalin and Communism. “The people in those countries were expected to worship the state. They expected the state to do everything for them.” (Similar arguments are still used to talk about Nazi Germany.)
Anyroad, I don’t really want to carry on with this on here. I think it’s great that you’ve got into it. I used to love Christopher Hitchens and the comedy of George Carlin. Perhaps, one of the best was Bertrand Russell. Sam Harris has lost it. Dawkins, to my mind, lacks something, but even he has admitted that he’s a cultural Christian, and he’s thankful for that, but the truth is…
I realise now that Christians and Atheists can’t really debate something like Christianity at all, mainly because most Atheists are not speaking the same language. Either by inability or malice: Hitchens was brilliant, but a lot of his arguments were ‘straw-man gotchas’. I see the same kind of stuff written on that thread you started, and I can’t be bothered to explain or go into fine detail with people who aren’t really open. Most people aren't open.
If you want to communicate more about this, send me a private message. (Perhaps we can also start deciding on who to grass on next.)
