Home & Garden1 min ago
Without Christianity....
85 Answers
........ would we have western values? Even Richard Dawkins appears to acknowledge this debt. Is his atheistic stance softening? I see him now referred to as an 'agnostic' (as well as a secularist and humanist).
Recently, sitting in Winchester Cathedral listening to the peal of the bells he tweeted; 'So much nicer than the aggressive-sounding "Allahu Akhbar", or is that just my cultural upbringing?'
Does this not show him as someone brought up in a Christian civilization which he can not eschew, and if he, the guru of several ABers cannot, can they?
Recently, sitting in Winchester Cathedral listening to the peal of the bells he tweeted; 'So much nicer than the aggressive-sounding "Allahu Akhbar", or is that just my cultural upbringing?'
Does this not show him as someone brought up in a Christian civilization which he can not eschew, and if he, the guru of several ABers cannot, can they?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
QM //I have no idea what the actions of the Metropolitan Police or the British government have to do with Dawkins' religiosity (?) having a possible "flip-side". //
Would you not agree that Dawkins and his ilk have contributed to secularising 2 or 3 generations of people in the West, a secularisation which leads us to the state where we can deny sanctuary to persecuted Christian, Asia Bibi and see an elderly street preacher handcuffed for reciting from the bible.
All while the hypocritical British government-leader enjoys the photo opportunity of being seen going to church with her husband each Sunday.
Would you not agree that Dawkins and his ilk have contributed to secularising 2 or 3 generations of people in the West, a secularisation which leads us to the state where we can deny sanctuary to persecuted Christian, Asia Bibi and see an elderly street preacher handcuffed for reciting from the bible.
All while the hypocritical British government-leader enjoys the photo opportunity of being seen going to church with her husband each Sunday.
A few decades ago, and within my lifetime, the current situation would have been unthinkable. Not everyone was a card-carrying Christian, but they understood it was the prevailing ethos of Britain.
Just as the Imams and hate-preachers have turned moderate Muslims into extremists, so the radical atheist authors have contributed to turning moderate Laissez - faire Christians into denigrators and bigots, showing scant concern for the plight of persecuted Christians, - and that includes the Archbishop of Canterbury and our own dear leader even.
https:/
Just as the Imams and hate-preachers have turned moderate Muslims into extremists, so the radical atheist authors have contributed to turning moderate Laissez - faire Christians into denigrators and bigots, showing scant concern for the plight of persecuted Christians, - and that includes the Archbishop of Canterbury and our own dear leader even.
https:/
^That isn’t the fault of Richard Dawkins and his ‘ilk’. You, Khandro, are without doubt the most confused man I’ve ever encountered. You go to great lengths to defend religion – any religion including Islam – and yet when the religious do something that you disagree with suddenly it becomes someone else’s fault. When people like you – and the Archbishop of Canterbury - stop defending religion simply because it is religion, you might ... just might ... see the light.
QM; I've no idea what is going on in that video nor why you put it on, perhaps you can explain?
naomi; I may well appear "without doubt the most confused man I’ve ever encountered." for that honour, I can only think you must have been leading a very sheltered life.
No society in the history of human existence has survived without religion. The USSR tried that and look what happened, the more people are won over to your atheist group, either by commitment or laziness, the higher the probability that it will be replaced by some other religion, do I need to spell that out?
Amazon.co.uk User Recommendation
naomi; I may well appear "without doubt the most confused man I’ve ever encountered." for that honour, I can only think you must have been leading a very sheltered life.
No society in the history of human existence has survived without religion. The USSR tried that and look what happened, the more people are won over to your atheist group, either by commitment or laziness, the higher the probability that it will be replaced by some other religion, do I need to spell that out?
Amazon.co.uk User Recommendation
Khandro, //The USSR tried that and look what happened, the more people are won over to your atheist group, either by commitment or laziness, the higher the probability that it will be replaced by some other religion//
Nonsense! The USSR wasn’t founded in the name of atheism and I’ve no idea why you’re recommending that book to me when you’re the first to defend faith. You can't have it both ways.
The sole reason Asia Bibi hasn’t been offered asylum in this country is the very same as that which quite shamefully induced the European Court of Human Rights to deny a woman her human right to freedom of speech by supporting the Austrian court’s decision in finding her guilty of blasphemy despite her having spoken the truth - that reason being the undoubted possibility of civil unrest. In short, the ECHR together with the Austrian courts were afraid of the likely reaction of Islamists in Europe. Both decisions, despite being very clearly morally wrong, were as a direct result of the effects of faith so if you want to play the blame game, don’t blame Richard Dawkins and his ‘ilk’ because they acknowledge the damage religion inflicts and, to your chagrin, they have no hesitation in speaking out. No Khandro. Point your finger where it belongs - at faith – and at the people, like you, who support faith – because faith is precisely the source of the current ills of this world. The atheists can only sit by and watch the inevitable destruction that, as sure as eggs is eggs (as 'they' say) must eventually come.
Nonsense! The USSR wasn’t founded in the name of atheism and I’ve no idea why you’re recommending that book to me when you’re the first to defend faith. You can't have it both ways.
The sole reason Asia Bibi hasn’t been offered asylum in this country is the very same as that which quite shamefully induced the European Court of Human Rights to deny a woman her human right to freedom of speech by supporting the Austrian court’s decision in finding her guilty of blasphemy despite her having spoken the truth - that reason being the undoubted possibility of civil unrest. In short, the ECHR together with the Austrian courts were afraid of the likely reaction of Islamists in Europe. Both decisions, despite being very clearly morally wrong, were as a direct result of the effects of faith so if you want to play the blame game, don’t blame Richard Dawkins and his ‘ilk’ because they acknowledge the damage religion inflicts and, to your chagrin, they have no hesitation in speaking out. No Khandro. Point your finger where it belongs - at faith – and at the people, like you, who support faith – because faith is precisely the source of the current ills of this world. The atheists can only sit by and watch the inevitable destruction that, as sure as eggs is eggs (as 'they' say) must eventually come.
naomi ; I've given you a link to Douglas Murray's book and now I give a link to a lecture given by Roger Scruton in Oslo, both of which I agree whole-heartedly with and they encapsulate exactly what feel on this subject so If I am "confused", then both Murray and Scruton must be too. n.b. Considering Scruton's talk was back in 2011 it was remarkably prescient.
The USSR pulled down the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in the heart of Moscow (there's old film footage on youtube of them doing it )
That cathedral is now back . The gates of hell did not prevail against the church , as Jesus promised to Peter .
It is politics , not faith , which is the source of the current ills in this world . If it wasn't for peoples' faith in a higher goal society would fall apart .
That cathedral is now back . The gates of hell did not prevail against the church , as Jesus promised to Peter .
It is politics , not faith , which is the source of the current ills in this world . If it wasn't for peoples' faith in a higher goal society would fall apart .
Khandro, you yourself introduced the idea of street preachers to the thread. Accordingly, I felt perfectly entitled to continue that theme with an appropriate video also dealing with a street preacher yelling in the market-square of a Scottish town.
The headline of the video reads: “Boy takes down hate preacher”, which explains exactly what is going on, so I am puzzled as to why you fail to grasp that.
Much to the amusement and pleasure of bystanders, a Scots lad in blue jeans and playing his bagpipes appears. He approaches the preacher who goes quiet. The boy's idea clearly is, “If you, the preacher, have a right to create a noise here, then so have I!” The key difference is that the people there clearly enjoy his “noise” and support his view.
The arrival of the police van would suggest that the preacher’s yelling was terminated to the joy of the spectators.
Street preachers are generally an abomination and that, in answer to your question, is "why I put it on".
The headline of the video reads: “Boy takes down hate preacher”, which explains exactly what is going on, so I am puzzled as to why you fail to grasp that.
Much to the amusement and pleasure of bystanders, a Scots lad in blue jeans and playing his bagpipes appears. He approaches the preacher who goes quiet. The boy's idea clearly is, “If you, the preacher, have a right to create a noise here, then so have I!” The key difference is that the people there clearly enjoy his “noise” and support his view.
The arrival of the police van would suggest that the preacher’s yelling was terminated to the joy of the spectators.
Street preachers are generally an abomination and that, in answer to your question, is "why I put it on".
benhilton, /It is politics , not faith , which is the source of the current ills in this world .//
More accurately the politics of a particular faith is the source of the current ills of this world … or do you too prefer to ignore that? Without the faith the politics wouldn’t exist.
Incidentally, there were always working churches in the USSR – not supported by the state – but working nonetheless.
More accurately the politics of a particular faith is the source of the current ills of this world … or do you too prefer to ignore that? Without the faith the politics wouldn’t exist.
Incidentally, there were always working churches in the USSR – not supported by the state – but working nonetheless.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Tory Donor Lord Bamford Funds The Reform...
News18 mins ago
Religion & Spirituality - What...
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles42 mins ago
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|