Who is to say that Science and 'God' don't actually work hand in hand but over the years have been broken apart and people have now decided they are completely different?
Anyone can make up stories but Religion can't prove God exists and Science can't prove he doesn't.
Science doesn't have to prove a negative. It's up to religion to prove it as it is them making the claim.
but we've moved a long way from Paris and this thread is already being shamelessly used for trolling by maybe, baby/Gilan Swift/Angelwings.
Very good point re proving the negative
Atheist's are as bad as religious people on points like that.
Scientists have faith and belief that there is no God. They can't prove it and fair enough they don't have to. But why then do religious people have to prove their God(s) exist? Durely their faith and belief is enough for them?
I'm neither here nor there.
I'd like to believe there is something after death or those innocent people in Paris died and that was it.
So I guess I hope more than I believe that there is a Heaven, a Hell and a God.
Who is to say that Science and 'God' don't actually work hand in hand but over the years have been broken apart and people have now decided they are completely different?
Anyone can make up stories but Religion can't prove God exists and Science can't prove he doesn't.
Science doesn't have to prove a negative. It's up to religion to prove it as it is them making the claim.
but we've moved a long way from Paris and this thread is already being shamelessly used for trolling by maybe, baby/Gilan Swift/Angelwings.
Very good point re proving the negative
Atheist's are as bad as religious people on points like that.
Really? I am not aware of any incidents in the modern developed world of atheists killing and maiming religious people because they did not accept the atheist view of the world.
Who is to say that Science and 'God' don't actually work hand in hand but over the years have been broken apart and people have now decided they are completely different?
Anyone can make up stories but Religion can't prove God exists and Science can't prove he doesn't.
Science doesn't have to prove a negative. It's up to religion to prove it as it is them making the claim.
but we've moved a long way from Paris and this thread is already being shamelessly used for trolling by maybe, baby/Gilan Swift/Angelwings.
Very good point re proving the negative
Atheist's are as bad as religious people on points like that.
Scientists have faith and belief that there is no God. They can't prove it and fair enough they don't have to. But why then do religious people have to prove their God(s) exist? Durely their faith and belief is enough for them?
I'm neither here nor there.
I'd like to believe there is something after death or those innocent people in Paris died and that was it.
So I guess I hope more than I believe that there is a Heaven, a Hell and a God.
*sigh*
Atheists don't have belief in the absence of something. They lack belief in the existence of something.
If I told you I believed that Jesus is a miniature invisible polar bear who lives under my tongue and tells me secrets, you probably wouldn't believe me. The burden of proof wouldn't be on you, it'd be on me. After all, I'm the one who's come up with a ridiculous notion that makes no scientific sense. You've merely decided you don't believe it. And rightly so. It's ridiculous.
Who is to say that Science and 'God' don't actually work hand in hand but over the years have been broken apart and people have now decided they are completely different?
Anyone can make up stories but Religion can't prove God exists and Science can't prove he doesn't.
Science doesn't have to prove a negative. It's up to religion to prove it as it is them making the claim.
but we've moved a long way from Paris and this thread is already being shamelessly used for trolling by maybe, baby/Gilan Swift/Angelwings.
Very good point re proving the negative
Atheist's are as bad as religious people on points like that.
Scientists have faith and belief that there is no God. They can't prove it and fair enough they don't have to. But why then do religious people have to prove their God(s) exist? Durely their faith and belief is enough for them?
I'm neither here nor there.
I'd like to believe there is something after death or those innocent people in Paris died and that was it.
So I guess I hope more than I believe that there is a Heaven, a Hell and a God.
Nothing wrong with having belief, if that gives one the strength to carry on. That to me is what religion is all about, misplaced belief. A bit like me believing that Charlton will win the Premiership in my lifetime! I really don't have a problem with people following religion, but because it has the power to dominate and strike fear, it should not be imposed on anyone. Hence the reason why I said earlier that worshipping should be done in private.
I agree with that @queensland_addick I've no problem with people believing as long as they don't hurt or bother those that don't*. If belief helps someone through the night or makes them happy, that's fine with me. I just don't buy into it.
(*Unfortunately, not everyone adheres (or even agrees?) with this bit!)
It's easy to confuse a belief in the possibility of the existence of a divine creator/designer (call it God if you wish) and faith in a particular revealed religion based on scripture and an interventionist God. I do not discount the former (and neither do scientists, they can't explain everything!) - I do discount the latter.
It's easy to confuse a belief in the possibility of the existence of a divine creator/designer (call it God if you wish) and faith in a particular revealed religion based on scripture and an interventionist God. I do not discount the former (and neither do scientists, they can't explain everything!) - I do discount the latter.
That's fair enough @bobmunro - I take your point and agree that sometimes people (myself included) erroneously use the words 'belief' and 'faith' interchangeably. I agree I was guilty of that in my last post. Apologies.
How do.people feel about the news papers cartoon out tomorrow saying Mohammed we forgive you
Personally if think it's a smack in the teeth for the Muslims who stood along side jew and Christian and atheist in paris on Sunday to say they denounce the attack
Surely waiting before drawing a picture of the person they do not like images of within their faith
Freedom of speech, liberty I get but surely tact and humility go hand in hand with a civilised dream
How do.people feel about the news papers cartoon out tomorrow saying Mohammed we forgive you
Personally if think it's a smack in the teeth for the Muslims who stood along side jew and Christian and atheist in paris on Sunday to say they denounce the attack
Surely waiting before drawing a picture of the person they do not like images of within their faith
Freedom of speech, liberty I get but surely tact and humility go hand in hand with a civilised dream
1. Are you sure that the cartoon depicts what you say it does? To whom is the forgiveness aimed? Might the "audience" be the cartoonists themselves? 2. "Freedom of speech" encapsulates the rights of people to say, to write and to publish whatever they like, within the law. Equally, people have the right to offend. You (and me, and everyone else) do not have the right not to be offended. You do however have the right to express your views - within the same legal constraints - as anyone else.
You probably wouldn't have published those cartoons so soon. And, if I am honest, I probably wouldn't have either. But it's absolutely right that those who choose to do so are allowed to.
I have been reading a number of newspaper articles recently on the subject of freedom of speech - and tend to agree with what the majority of them say.
Do we truly have full freedom of speech? Well of course not, because as has been stated here it must fall within the letter of the law.
Personally, I think that there is a difference between freedom of speech (ie the freedom to say an opinion) and allowing people of all walks of life to go around insulting each other.
I haven't seen this cartoon, or any of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons so this comment in no way links back to that.
But I think we are in danger of taking free speech too far. We have our liberty and our freedom (or we should do without being subject to terrorism) - of course. And frankly, whether you are insulted or not, nobody should be shot sitting at their desk.
But as well as free speech, I was bought up on the values of respect. Free speech does not mean the licence to be rude or insulting about someone else. Not just around religion - in any walk of life.
One of the people I heard in an interview over the recent days (Between the attack at Charlie Hebdo and the attackers being killed) was a cartoon 'expert' who made a point that the satire in cartoons is not always meant to be funny. I think that today's cartoon is meant to be poignant rather than funny.
should have watched Panorama last night. Showed some moderate Muslims in the UK and the shit they get. Also showed a leading radical muslim leader who stated that they should use western tolerance in society to help them take over---he also supported execution for muslims who converted to other religions----but when this same question was asked of a so called "moderate" he refused to say it was wrong ! There is a Muslim TV Channel that has the constant strap of "a voice for the oppressed" and they also showed one of the governors of a "trojan horse school in Birmingham racially abusing white women (how the feck is he allowed to say that ?
Who is to say that Science and 'God' don't actually work hand in hand but over the years have been broken apart and people have now decided they are completely different?
Anyone can make up stories but Religion can't prove God exists and Science can't prove he doesn't.
Science doesn't have to prove a negative. It's up to religion to prove it as it is them making the claim.
but we've moved a long way from Paris and this thread is already being shamelessly used for trolling by maybe, baby/Gilan Swift/Angelwings.
Very good point re proving the negative
Atheist's are as bad as religious people on points like that.
Scientists have faith and belief that there is no God. They can't prove it and fair enough they don't have to. But why then do religious people have to prove their God(s) exist? Durely their faith and belief is enough for them?
I'm neither here nor there.
I'd like to believe there is something after death or those innocent people in Paris died and that was it.
So I guess I hope more than I believe that there is a Heaven, a Hell and a God.
I have no problem with other people following the religion of their choice. Live and let live, I say.
The only thing I would ask of them is to not shove it down my throat. If they want to live their life on their knees praying to their deity, fine, but don't tell me that I have to join them. I don't want to be persuaded, I don't want to receive the "Good News" I don't want to rejoice in the glory of the Lord. Please don't exhort me to do so.
Who is to say that Science and 'God' don't actually work hand in hand but over the years have been broken apart and people have now decided they are completely different?
Anyone can make up stories but Religion can't prove God exists and Science can't prove he doesn't.
Science doesn't have to prove a negative. It's up to religion to prove it as it is them making the claim.
but we've moved a long way from Paris and this thread is already being shamelessly used for trolling by maybe, baby/Gilan Swift/Angelwings.
Very good point re proving the negative
Atheist's are as bad as religious people on points like that.
Scientists have faith and belief that there is no God. They can't prove it and fair enough they don't have to. But why then do religious people have to prove their God(s) exist? Durely their faith and belief is enough for them?
I'm neither here nor there.
I'd like to believe there is something after death or those innocent people in Paris died and that was it.
So I guess I hope more than I believe that there is a Heaven, a Hell and a God.
I have no problem with other people following the religion of their choice. Live and let live, I say.
The only thing I would ask of them is to not shove it down my throat. If they want to live their life on their knees praying to their deity, fine, but don't tell me that I have to join them. I don't want to be persuaded, I don't want to receive the "Good News" I don't want to rejoice in the glory of the Lord. Please don't exhort me to do so.
I have been reading a number of newspaper articles recently on the subject of freedom of speech - and tend to agree with what the majority of them say.
Do we truly have full freedom of speech? Well of course not, because as has been stated here it must fall within the letter of the law.
Personally, I think that there is a difference between freedom of speech (ie the freedom to say an opinion) and allowing people of all walks of life to go around insulting each other.
I haven't seen this cartoon, or any of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons so this comment in no way links back to that.
But I think we are in danger of taking free speech too far. We have our liberty and our freedom (or we should do without being subject to terrorism) - of course. And frankly, whether you are insulted or not, nobody should be shot sitting at their desk.
But as well as free speech, I was bought up on the values of respect. Free speech does not mean the licence to be rude or insulting about someone else. Not just around religion - in any walk of life.
Respect is a two way street. Why should Western societies give an inch when Islamic societies are so intolerant of our values. Islam's views on homosexuality, female emancipation and religious freedom are shockingly backward and we should be free to attack and lampoon them. I'm sure your arguments are made with the best motives but to me they smack of appeasement. First they came for the cartoonists...
I'm a little undecided on where I stand with the latest cartoon. I'm all for freedom of speech (as long as it falls within the law) but it is a fine line between that and insulting people. I can understand the magazine and the makers wanting to show a response but it does feel a bit low to react in the way they did.
I think sometimes an act of defiance can send a very effective message.
I agree but I don't think this just offends extremists.
I understand your argument but if you have the time I would ask you to read this link I posted earlier blasphemy and Islam and say which bits you disagree with. Free speech has it's limits but offending somebody's view of how the world should be run can't be one of them.
I think sometimes an act of defiance can send a very effective message.
I agree but I don't think this just offends extremists.
I understand your argument but if you have the time I would ask you to read this link I posted earlier blasphemy and Islam and say which bits you disagree with. Free speech has it's limits but offending somebody's view of how the world should be run can't be one of them.
I'm not saying that the cartoons should be banned, they are within their right to print them. However there has to be a moral question asked over them. It isn't just about how some people think the world should be run, but if anyone writes, draws or says anything that could be found to be offensive by others is it not right to question them about it? I know I would. If it continued to happen then I'd be annoyed about it.
I agree colthe3rd - questioning things is how we make progress and reach reasonable conlusions. Saying things are 'blasphemous' is not. We can and should question ourselves and each other but that applies to Islam as well, and in this case particularly.
Everyone has the right to be offended. What people take offence to is none of my business. What is my business is when those taking offence believe that censorship of freedom of speech and expression is the way forward. Islam is intolerant and oppressive. I have no problem if that intolerance and oppression is kept within the boundaries of that religion but when it starts to spill out into my world then I do have a problem.
Comments
Atheist's are as bad as religious people on points like that.
Scientists have faith and belief that there is no God.
They can't prove it and fair enough they don't have to. But why then do religious people have to prove their God(s) exist? Durely their faith and belief is enough for them?
I'm neither here nor there.
I'd like to believe there is something after death or those innocent people in Paris died and that was it.
So I guess I hope more than I believe that there is a Heaven, a Hell and a God.
Atheists don't have belief in the absence of something. They lack belief in the existence of something.
If I told you I believed that Jesus is a miniature invisible polar bear who lives under my tongue and tells me secrets, you probably wouldn't believe me. The burden of proof wouldn't be on you, it'd be on me. After all, I'm the one who's come up with a ridiculous notion that makes no scientific sense. You've merely decided you don't believe it. And rightly so. It's ridiculous.
It is free to create an account and read the full article.
I've no problem with people believing as long as they don't hurt or bother those that don't*. If belief helps someone through the night or makes them happy, that's fine with me.
I just don't buy into it.
(*Unfortunately, not everyone adheres (or even agrees?) with this bit!)
Personally if think it's a smack in the teeth for the Muslims who stood along side jew and Christian and atheist in paris on Sunday to say they denounce the attack
Surely waiting before drawing a picture of the person they do not like images of within their faith
Freedom of speech, liberty I get but surely tact and humility go hand in hand with a civilised dream
2. "Freedom of speech" encapsulates the rights of people to say, to write and to publish whatever they like, within the law. Equally, people have the right to offend. You (and me, and everyone else) do not have the right not to be offended. You do however have the right to express your views - within the same legal constraints - as anyone else.
You probably wouldn't have published those cartoons so soon. And, if I am honest, I probably wouldn't have either. But it's absolutely right that those who choose to do so are allowed to.
Do we truly have full freedom of speech? Well of course not, because as has been stated here it must fall within the letter of the law.
Personally, I think that there is a difference between freedom of speech (ie the freedom to say an opinion) and allowing people of all walks of life to go around insulting each other.
I haven't seen this cartoon, or any of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons so this comment in no way links back to that.
But I think we are in danger of taking free speech too far. We have our liberty and our freedom (or we should do without being subject to terrorism) - of course. And frankly, whether you are insulted or not, nobody should be shot sitting at their desk.
But as well as free speech, I was bought up on the values of respect. Free speech does not mean the licence to be rude or insulting about someone else. Not just around religion - in any walk of life.
good 30 mins but some shout at the TV moments
I have no problem with other people following the religion of their choice. Live and let live, I say.
The only thing I would ask of them is to not shove it down my throat. If they want to live their life on their knees praying to their deity, fine, but don't tell me that I have to join them. I don't want to be persuaded, I don't want to receive the "Good News" I don't want to rejoice in the glory of the Lord. Please don't exhort me to do so.
You pray if you want to. I'm going down the pub.