Topic: Freedom of speech

[LondonRapLondon]

Ok in the new testament is there a passage that says no to women being a Bishop?

I'm not an expert on any religion. Best for you to consult a scholar on the said religion.

[Chakan]

I'm not an expert on any religion. Best for you to consult a scholar on the said religion.

Well you're talking like one so i'm addressing you. Your contention, is they are being forced by people to change their religion, against their will. Their religion comes from the bible, so surely you must know if there is or isn't a passage in the bible that states woman can or cannot be bishops?

[zero zero]

Another Apologetics slogan.

You just shifted the burden of proof. That's all you did.

There isn't any proof, you plonker. How can I prove that something that doesn't exist, doesn't in fact exist?

My thinking as an atheist: There is no proof of existence of God. He doesn't exist. FIN

I don't have to prove a fucking thing. I'm religious though, which throws your homogeneity of atheists theory out a tad.

[Corkboy]

I'm not an expert on any religion. Best for you to consult a scholar on the said religion.

Atheists are generally the most well informed people on religion, more so than religious people.



Ask away, I'll do my best.

[TepidT2O]

I'm not an expert on any religion. Best for you to consult a scholar on the said religion.

Ha ha...

Bring up the argument and then shift the responsibility for discussing it's validity....sweet.

[LondonRapLondon]

Oh the irony. I bet you are also a follower of Xenu because hey why not? There is no evidence he doesn't exist.

You know what, I'm not interested in this Atheism stuff.

There's loads of little debates between Theists and Atheists on the net...if you are angling for one...find one of them.

However better still, rather than the mockery, pride and dick showing (and acting like dicks) contests masquerading as debates with Atheists just go away and think about things sincerely yourself.

Don't let Dawkins or anybody else think for you. Contemplate on matters deeply and see for yourself.

[LondonRapLondon]

Ha ha...

Bring up the argument and then shift the responsibility for discussing it's validity....sweet.

Stop being immature.

The commentator was asking a specific ruling based on the Bible. Rather than being intellectually dishonest, I simply referred him to an expert.

[KiNki]

Atheists just go away

The discussion is about freedom of speech. 

A religious scholar wants to curb the speech of a female scholar.

[Twelfth Man]

Don't let Dawkins or anybody else think for you. Contemplate on matters deeply and see for yourself.

You act like Dawkins invented Atheism. I read Isaac Asimov's guide to the Sciences, cover to cover when I was about nine (30 odd years ago), that was more than enough to confirm suspicions that I already had. No Dawkins was around then. I haven't read any of his non-science stuff, yet think exactly like him. And I came to that position independently.

[electricghost]

Playing devil's advocate, there were no churches when the new testament was written, so that's taken out of context.

 I think that's open to debate, but it's not taken out of context as it doesn't matter if there were literal places of worship. The way women were spoken of here demonstrates that getting to the position of Bishop for a woman was just a non starter

[TepidT2O]

Stop being immature.

The commentator was asking a specific ruling based on the Bible. Rather than being intellectually dishonest, I simply referred him to an expert.

He was merely asking you to justify your position that the church wasn't being intellectually dishonest.  Not an unreasonable thing to ask.

No need to use personal insults.  Cheers.

[LondonRapLondon]

Atheists are generally the most well informed people on religion, more so than religious people.



Ask away, I'll do my best.

Give up with the pro-Atheism internet fad.

I'm off to bed. Have a nice night everybody.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Have I missed something? I remember a time when you were one of the in-crowd, wielding the ice pick, or changing people's custom titles.

The incrowd seem to becoming increasing intolerant.  It sits uneasily.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

His (evidence-free) defence of the Taliban was absurd. I wouldn't normally dignify his bizarre (and predictable) comments with a considered response. However, if you'd bothered to read on, you'd have seen I did quote the Taliban themselves on why they destroyed Bamiyan (ie for religious reasons to do with their faith).

For myself, yes, I consider the Taliban to be a fascist movement. Islamo-Fascist if you like. The idea that you can "split the difference" between what they say and what the democratic West says and "come to the truth" is contemptible.

And PS, no one's trying to take his free speech away as you said. Only you and the other Mods have the power to do that anyway. And of the several Mods who are also ridiculing the poster in  question I don't believe a single one of them has tried to mute him. Fair play. Why should they?

I did read on mate - and it was not necessarily aimed at you.  A ban or a mute is only one way of limiting somebody's freedom of expression, being constantly shouted down by the mob is another.

I'm not defending his position just worried about what is becoming something of a trend on here.  It would be a shame for the standards of the main board to leech into other areas of the site. 

[LondonRapLondon]

He was merely asking you to justify your position that the church wasn't being intellectually dishonest.  Not an unreasonable thing to ask.

No need to use personal insults.  Cheers.

Have you got two accounts and you got confused?


Cos you're saying 'he' yet it's you! Why are you referring to yourself as the third person?

And for the record, you (or 'he' which is still you) were being facetious.

[Chakan]

Have you got two accounts and you got confused.


Cos you're saying 'he' yet it's you! Why are you referring to yourself as the third person?

And for the record, you (or 'he' which is still you) were being facetious.

Separate accounts, i'm asking you to justify what you said. You still haven't answered me btw.

[TepidT2O]

I think that's open to debate, but it's not taken out of context as it doesn't matter if there were literal places of worship. The way women were spoken of here demonstrates that getting to the position of Bishop for a woman was just a non starter

I'm not sure it does in context of the scripture....
In Corinthians there is an argument that the women referred to are high status women who would naturally have assumed the role in the ministry..... The context is that they weren't supposed to just walk into the ministry it was supposed to be much more merit based than that....

Anyway, that's my recollection of the argument for women priest some (25?) years back.  Just goes to show how unclear biblical texts are on something that some religious types are prepared to claim is so clear cut.

[zero zero]

The incrowd seem to becoming increasing intolerant.  It sits uneasily.

The thing about tolerance is that you don't have to tolerate everything. I'm intolerant about homophobia. This isn't a bad thing. It sits fine with my belief that all humans are equal and shouldn't be discriminated against. I'm rigid on this belief. Far from being a 'bad thing' I'm proud that there's nothing anybody can ever say to shift me from my belief till the day I die.

What we've seen this evening is an intolerance of stupidity and frankly moronic claims none of which are backed up by anything at all. As an atheist I'll send LRL good vibes that one day he'll find wisdom.

[TepidT2O]

Have you got two accounts and you got confused?


Cos you're saying 'he' yet it's you! Why are you referring to yourself as the third person?

And for the record, you (or 'he' which is still you) were being facetious.

No I really wasn't being facetious.

I think it's an utterly valid question.

[Corkboy]

Don't let Dawkins or anybody else think for you. Contemplate on matters deeply and see for yourself.

Give up with the pro-Atheism internet fad.

I'm in my mid forties. I've been an atheist since I was about 12 and I didn't read any one book or listen to any one voice to get that way. You seem to like putting people in boxes with labels on them.

[oldfordie]

No it's not the default position. That's just another one of those slogans that Atheist Apologists present to their crowds.

 Prof Bruce Hood's studies point to the human brain being hardwired for a belief in the supernatural.

Of course they are, What's his point ? everyone's scared of the unknown, that's what supernatural means, anything that can't be explained by science. Something we know for certain exists but cant explain.
If you mean the human brain is hard wired to believe in Poltergeists etc. then that's a different subject. I would class that as superstition.
Superstition is an irrational belief/fear of something  blindly without any proof it even exists.








 

[LondonRapLondon]

I'm in my mid forties. I've been an atheist since I was about 12 and I didn't read any one book or listen to any one voice to get that way. You seem to like putting people in boxes with labels on them.

I never said you read a book.

And I'm talking about those people who force their Atheism onto others on the net (Pro-Atheism internet fad). I'm not saying you're new to your views on Atheism

[TepidT2O]

Perhaps we should get back to discussing freedom of speech?

LondonRap and I may disagree about religion, but he's clearly not a bad chap and discussing religion  isn't really the point of the thread...

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

So a belief in the supernatural doesn't come from God - it's a physical and biological thing linked to our bodies.

Well if you believe in God, our bodies come from God anyway so the argument is kinda redundant Al.

[zero zero]

If you mean the human brain is hard wired to believe in Poltergeists etc. then that's a different subject. I would class that as superstition.
Superstition is an irrational belief/fear of something  blindly without any proof it even exists.

I agree.

And an irrational belief/love and trust of something blindly without any proof it even exists is... faith.

[LondonRapLondon]

No I really wasn't being facetious.

I think it's an utterly valid question.

Well I don't. So let's squash it.

And please do tell me if you have two accounts as you mentioned yourself as 'he' in that exchange

[TepidT2O]

Well I don't. So let's squash it.

And please do tell me if you have two accounts as you mentioned yourself as 'he' in that exchange

Night Jim Bob.

[Chakan]

Well I don't. So let's squash it.

And please do tell me if you have two accounts as you mentioned yourself as 'he' in that exchange

The "he' he was referring to was me. I have my own account thanks.

[LondonRapLondon]

The discussion is about freedom of speech. 

A religious scholar wants to curb the speech of a female scholar.

Where did you get that 'Atheists just go away' quote from?

I didn't say it. Weird.

[Corkboy]

Perhaps we should get back to discussing freedom of speech?

Alright.

NAMBLA. North American Man/Boy Love Association. I'm not even sure if they exist, really, but searching was making me feel creepy so let's assume they do.

How do we all feel about their right to free speech?

[Max_powers]

You know what, I'm not interested in this Atheism stuff.

There's loads of little debates between Theists and Atheists on the net...if you are angling for one...find one of them.

However better still, rather than the mockery, pride and dick showing (and acting like dicks) contests masquerading as debates with Atheists just go away and think about things sincerely yourself.

Don't let Dawkins or anybody else think for you. Contemplate on matters deeply and see for yourself.

I came to the conclusion myself that a belief in god is silly. I have never read any book by Dawkins or any other popular atheist. So thanks for that. I wasn't really angling for a religion vs atheism debate.  This thread is about Freedom of speech, I wanted to merely point out your flawed logic and factual inaccuracies when you claim that religions don't change over time and when you claim that the religious books are not full of contradictions.

So take a minute and look at how society and religion has changed in past 2000 years or so. The change that has happened in Christianity has been for the better, I for one would not want to live in a society where witches are burnt and people were burnt alive for Heresy. So having some female bishops is not a big deal in comparison.

I am sure now you will point out that all the "good"(or what you would be consider to be good) changes in Christianity have come about from Christians discovering the truth and from ambiguous  biblical passages being re interpreted. All the bad changes have come from secular organizations pressuring the poor old church into changing its way. If you think this way then give your head a shake. Enlightenment was a largely secular movement that bought sweeping changes to the power and authority of church and caused a subsequent boom in scientific and technological advances. If it weren't for that we probably wouldn't be sitting on a computer having this argument, we probably would be scooping out Horse manure all day.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Alright.

NAMBLA. North American Man/Boy Love Association. I'm not even sure if they exist, really, but searching was making me feel creepy so let's assume they do.

How do we all feel about their right to free speech?

Their right to free speech is overruled by the right to safety of others and so forfeited.  As I said at the start of the thread there are very few cast iron rights, everything is a balancing act between conflicting rights and responsibilities

[Max_powers]

Alright.

NAMBLA. North American Man/Boy Love Association. I'm not even sure if they exist, really, but searching was making me feel creepy so let's assume they do.

How do we all feel about their right to free speech?

Should probably be treated something like how they treat extremist religious or political groups. In that allow them free speech as long as they are not promoting violence and issuing threats etc but monitor all members because surely a lot if not all of there members are paedophiles.

[Corkboy]

One all folks, with only minutes gone.

[KiNki]

Where did you get that 'Atheists just go away' quote from?

I didn't say it. Weird.

You require proof?  arf.

i selectively took the words and deleted the whiney shite around it as i felt that was the general whiney shite you were wishing to convey. 

So anyway you're views of a male religious scholar wanting to curb the speech of a female religious scholar wishing to impart religious information to people seeking to learn about religion?

[SP]

'Zealous application of Occam's razor' is an interesting phrase. Can you expand on it?

I appreciated this, even if no one else noticed.

[SP]

I think the bigger discussion is, is it intellectually honest and morally correct for secular outsiders to force a particular Church to go against it's teachings in order to placate secularists and ingratiate itself with the wider public.

I think a religious establishment loses a lot of credibility when it begins to change just for these reasons. When a religion stops being an organic whole that's when issues of hypocrisy and inconsistency arise.

It is the Church of England. It does not do credibility.

[Corkboy]

Enlightenment was a largely secular movement that bought sweeping changes to the power and authority of church and caused a subsequent boom in scientific and technological advances. If it weren't for that we probably wouldn't be sitting on a computer having this argument, we probably would be scooping out Horse manure all day.

From what I understand, we had pretty sweet lives back before agriculture. Hunter gatherers worked very small hours, spent most of their time arsing around and screwing.

[KiNki]

From what I understand, we had pretty sweet lives back before agriculture. Hunter gatherers worked very small hours, spent most of their time arsing around and screwing.

Very family/group orientated, gender bender roles too, women could hunt and gather, men could mind the kids and cook if they wanted,....where'd it all go wrong.

[macca888]

Can somebody clarify something for me please? Do I need to make any alterations to my chess set?