Being A Christian

[RickMcD]

I know you weren't asking me but you're getting my opinion anyway, whether you like it or not.

It depends on how you look at it. I would tend to take the view that it is the ones who control the scientific discoveries that have killed all those people. Saying that scientists are to blame would be like saying that Henry Ford was to blame for every death in a car accident.

I certainly blame Ford for shooting that nice boy Jesse James. You know my question was a bit tongue in cheek and it does depend on how you look at it. Henry Ford shouldn't get the blame for traffic accidents. That's down to the first guy that harnessed his horse or coos to a wagon. Or maybe we should blame whoever invented the wheel. Would he qualify as a scientist or an inventor? What's the differenc?

[saintnextlifetime]

Or that God was responsible for all the deaths that his creations had caused?

Perhaps, if he existed . .

[oaksoft]

Or that God was responsible for all the deaths that his creations had caused?

In fairness nobody has said that.

[oaksoft]

Or maybe we should blame whoever invented the wheel. Would he qualify as a scientist or an inventor? What's the differenc?

The job of an ordinary garden variety scientist is primarily one of discovery whether that be new laws governing the universe or new knowledge.

The job of an engineer is to then use that science to make useful objects - the application of science.

An inventor would be closer to an engineer primarily because they aren't discovering new science.

Plenty of overlap between them though and more than one person will consider themselves an engineering scientist.

[oaksoft]

Ah, a man of his word..............................

I changed my mind FFS now leave me alone.

[rea]

In fairness nobody has said that.

Hyperbole just like the post I was responding to

That's how rhetoric works.

If you use a rhetorical device to prove your point I can use the same in reverse

[rea]

I haven't ever seen or heard anyone claim that Henry Ford was infallible.

Nothing to do with fallibility.

The philosophical question is:

Is a creator responsible for what is done by other persons with his creator?

It does not matter to the question if the creator is God, Henry Ford you or my mother

Thoughts?

Edited March 7, 2016 by rea

[rea]

You do know that two of them are the same person.

Your name is Henry?

[oaksoft]

Nothing to do with fallibility.

The philosophical question is:

Is a creator responsible for what is done by other persons with his creator?

It does not matter to the question if the creator is God, Henry Ford you or my mother

Thoughts?

Alfred Nobel certainly thought so and created an annual peace prize out of guilt.

I think it depends on the motive.

Creating dynamite for mining and then having people misuse it is different from the creation of an organised religion which uses classic control, division and fear tactics to specifically prey on people for the purposes of power and money.

As I have said it is no coincidence that religion finds most success amongst parts of the world racked by poverty and lack of education.

Personal responsibility is obviously a consideration but targetting weak and vulnerable people is dreadful.

That is the history of many organised religions.

I cant think of too many instances where science has done this but I am willing to hear it.

Edited March 7, 2016 by oaksoft

[insaintee]

No, I'm your mother. Now get to bed you cheeky little scamp.

EDIT: Just so you know, I'm not really your mum - honest.

You do look like her, are you sure.

[insaintee]

No, but he is responsible for the "actions" of his creation. If your brand new car's engine fell out when you were driving along the road you would rightly hold the manufacturer (creator) liable. If you took a perfectly working brand new car and deliberately ran someone down, then that would be your fault, not the manufacturers.

It's quite simple really.

So you're against gun control

[insaintee]

Alfred Nobel certainly thought so and created an annual peace prize out of guilt.

I think it depends on the motive.

Creating dynamite for mining and then having people misuse it is different from the creation of an organised religion which uses classic control, division and fear tactics to specifically prey on people for the purposes of power and money.

As I have said it is no coincidence that religion finds most success amongst parts of the world racked by poverty and lack of education.

Personal responsibility is obviously a consideration but targetting weak and vulnerable people is dreadful.

That is the history of many organised religions.

I cant think of too many instances where science has done this but I am willing to hear it.

Like scotland and the united states

Of the top of my head Social darwinism, Eugenics, Tuskahallie, the scientific investigations in the aftermath of Hiroshima. Dr Mengalie

[faraway saint]

I've noticed something...................

Christians are as unfunny as feck.

Just an observation.

[insaintee]

I've noticed something...................

Christians are as unfunny as feck.

Just an observation.

Are you a christian?

I'm pretty sure Shull is

[faraway saint]

Are you a christian?

I'm pretty sure Shull is

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hate to say it..................

Rearrange.......................Told................so...................you.

[insaintee]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hate to say it..................

Rearrange.......................Told................so...................you.

I'll take that as a yes

[oaksoft]

Like scotland and the united states

Of the top of my head Social darwinism, Eugenics, Tuskahallie, the scientific investigations in the aftermath of Hiroshima. Dr Mengalie

On your first point, I did say "most success" in poverty stricken countries.

Scotland and USA were not rich countries when christianity was introduced here.

In both countries the strongholds for the religion are still to be found amongst the poorest.

On your second point, I did say "I couldn't think of MANY instances". I didn't use the word "any".

Anyway, you are comparing a twig with an entire forest there so not sure where you are going with that.

[Dibbles old paperboy]

I see you felt compelled to quote my post twice so I can only assume you think my comment a serious counter to your view.

I am NOT taking the humanist view. I don't want to "wage a war" on any faith. Quite the contrary. I want each and every belief to be treated with the same respect. I want each and every child to accept the diversity of their country's religious beliefs. I don't have a God, (or at least I don't know if I do. ), so I have no axe to grind against anyone's faith. IF you want religion to be taught in the classroom then it should be ALL faiths to allow for integration. The down side to that is that there will be no time to teach the kids anything else.

In non-denominational schools in RMPS pupils learn about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Humanism already, and pretty equally. How a school does time for reflection can depend on the ethnic make up of the school, usually main religious festivals (Christmas, Easter, Remembrance, Holocaust, Ramadan, Chinese New Year) are included in the 8 TFR events each year at high school (less than 1 per month) alongside inclusive topics like anti-bullying.

If you argue that teaching about religions should be removed from the school curriculum, whether you classify yourself as a humanist or not you are basically calling for the key policy of the humanists to be implemented... the only faith group to be allowed in to schools would be humanist schools visitors, RMPS (one of the fastest growing Highers in recent years would be dropped against the wishes of senior pupils) and the only view pupils would hear about the origins of the universe would be the humanist view.

[oaksoft]

You're as obsessed with humanists as dicko is with the SNP. Nobody apart from yourself is talking about allowing humanists into schools.

He's the only one talking about Humanists.

I have no idea why.

It's like another poster who seemed to suggest that the way to deal with criticism of religion was to say "Ah but science is also flawed".

It's a weird way to argue a point.

[salmonbuddie]

I think I can sum this up in a way that covers how everyone feels:

Some people are cϋnts. Some of those cϋnts are religious cϋnts.

Can we stop now? Please?

[oaksoft]

I think I can sum this up in a way that covers how everyone feels:

Some people are cϋnts. Some of those cϋnts are religious cϋnts.

Can we stop now? Please?

I'd love to but the religious mob are at it again trying to force their religious views over Sunday shopping on everyone else.

This is the sort of thing which needs challenged.

I am not overly confident that they won't get their way.

Edited March 9, 2016 by oaksoft

[salmonbuddie]

Naw. f**k off ya c**t.

You calling me religious? Outside. Right fukkin now!

[BuddieinEK]

I'd love to but the religious mob are at it again trying to force their religious views over Sunday shopping on everyone else.

This is the sort of thing which needs challenged.

I am not overly confident that they won't get their way.

Are they?

The only people I hear really making a fuss against it are a small group of self-serving hypocritical politicians!

[oaksoft]

Are they?

The only people I hear really making a fuss against it are a small group of self-serving hypocritical politicians!

I always thought the Tories had a majority in the UK parliament.

Oh dear did I get that wrong?

I was right sadly, the God Squad won the day.

[Dibbles old paperboy]

You're as obsessed with humanists as dicko is with the SNP. Nobody apart from yourself is talking about allowing humanists into schools.

You are showing your ignorance. Humanists have been in the schools for years. I was at a conference last week where 6 representatives from the Humanist Society took part on 5 panels for RMPS pupils. I didn't just imagine them being there.