Multiple shootings in Paris

gramps said:
Or as one Muslim trader in my area told the local news, after she had ordered 1,000 to sell in her newsagents shop, "It's a business thing, I'm just a small newsagent shop and can make some extra money".
But I wonder how many buying the magazine and using the 'logo' has anything to do with a genuine affinity to the cause and how much is jumping onto the popular bandwagon, like so many other things that are popular at the time.
Click to expand...

I totally agree that Charlie Hebdo are 'cashing in' on the situation but as they are giving the money away to the victims families i've not got any issue with that. Same with the retailers, they are making some extra cash but without them there wouldn't be any distribution and therefore no money to give to the families.

I just think it's poor taste to be cashing in on these items on eBay as a one off after buying them from a retail outlet.

Just my personal opinion and hardly the worst behaviour in this situation.....
 
mjScall said:
I really hope the majority are just joke bids that never get paid!
Click to expand...

No doubt there are sheep people out there dumb enough to pay it.
 
mjScall said:
I totally agree that Charlie Hebdo are 'cashing in' on the situation but as they are giving the money away to the victims families i've not got any issue with that. Same with the retailers, they are making some extra cash but without them there wouldn't be any distribution and therefore no money to give to the families.

I just think it's poor taste to be cashing in on these items on eBay as a one off after buying them from a retail outlet.

Just my personal opinion and hardly the worst behaviour in this situation.....
Click to expand...

I don't actually accuse Charlie Hebdo of 'cashing in', I doubt that would be their motive ... but who knows.
In my mind many others certainly are using the whole event to profit either financially or from a sense of being 'in with the crowd'.
 
Garry Edwards said:
we could argue that all religious belief is a product of ignorance, very few educated people hold strong religious beliefs, if any
Click to expand...


Um,

Pope Francis's native language is Spanish but he also speaks Italian, Portuguese, French, German, Ukrainian and Piedmontese (a language spoken in the Piedmont, an area in northern Italy). Of course Pope Francis is also conversant in Latin- the official language of the Holy See.
Click to expand...

He claims not to be able to speak English very well and apparently only knows swear words in Genovese.

He's also expected to be able to read Ancient Greek and biblical Hebrew to a decent level. I think it's safe to assume he paid attention at school. Last time I checked, most people seemed to think that he had reasonably strong religious beliefs.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Um,



He claims not to be able to speak English very well and apparently only knows swear words in Genovese.

He's also expected to be able to read Ancient Greek and biblical Hebrew to a decent level. I think it's safe to assume he paid attention at school. Last time I checked, most people seemed to think that he had reasonably strong religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


Not to second guess the original poster I would assume he meant scientifically educated, which in terms of religious belief is the only education that would potentially be mutually exclusive (if you were to try and be a fundamentalist in that chosen religion and also scientific). I know there are a fair few religious scientists however they are in an extreme minority.
 
mjScall said:
Not to second guess the original poster I would assume he meant scientifically educated, which in terms of religious belief is the only education that would potentially be mutually exclusive (if you were to try and be a fundamentalist in that chosen religion and also scientific). I know there are a fair few religious scientists however they are in an extreme minority.
Click to expand...

You might want to have a look at a man called Antony Flew.
 
mjScall said:
Not to second guess the original poster I would assume he meant scientifically educated, which in terms of religious belief is the only education that would potentially be mutually exclusive (if you were to try and be a fundamentalist in that chosen religion and also scientific). I know there are a fair few religious scientists however they are in an extreme minority.
Click to expand...

Jesuits?

In fact, to get back somewhere near the original topic, Islam and science have historically got along pretty nicely.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Jesuits?

In fact, to get back somewhere near the original topic, Islam and science have historically got along pretty nicely.
Click to expand...

Like I said it would only potentially be mutually exclusive, I don't know a huge amount about religions other than that out of the 'big' ones generally fundamentalism is incompatible with science. The Vatican have lots of scientists but they don't believe in a literal translation of the bible, that was really the only point I was trying to make.
 
mjScall said:
Not to second guess the original poster I would assume he meant scientifically educated, which in terms of religious belief is the only education that would potentially be mutually exclusive (if you were to try and be a fundamentalist in that chosen religion and also scientific). I know there are a fair few religious scientists however they are in an extreme minority.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about religion -v- education generally, I don't want to pick out any particular religion, but I think it's fair to say that the Roman Catholic church as had an ongoing run-in with all types of educated people over the years. Renowned physicists, such as Galileo, placed themselves in extreme danger by daring to point facts out to them. They tend to prefer their own experts, such as the bright spark who found that beavers are fish not mammals.

And then there's the redneck fundamentalist in the good old US of A who stick to their belief that God created the earth and everything in it in 6 days, and ignore all the scientific evidence to the contrary. I stick to my original point, religious extremists (of all colours) won't diminish until education makes them realise that they're talking b*****ks.
 
gramps said:
You might want to have a look at a man called Antony Flew.
Click to expand...

flew was a prominent aetheist for much of his life who only converted to deism as his life drew to a close ( a classic attack of "surely it can't have meant nothing") , also even after revising his views he wasnt exactly religios per se... in fact he was scathing about both the god of christianity and the god of islam, saying instead IIRC (having not used google) that he believed in the sort of god arristole espoused ie a higher power rather than a godhead
 
Garry Edwards said:
I stick to my original point, religious extremists (of all colours) won't diminish until education makes them realise that they're talking b*****ks.
Click to expand...

well John T Scopes and Clarrence Darrow tried... it didnt do Scopes much good (for those that don't know Scopes was proseuted in america for teaching evolution as fact, Darrow defended him but ultimately lost - although the guoilty verdict was overturned on appeal)
 
big soft moose said:
flew was a prominent aetheist for much of his life who only converted to deism as his life drew to a close ( a classic attack of "surely it can't have meant nothing") , also even after revising his views he wasnt exactly religios per se... in fact he was scathing about both the god of christianity and the god of islam, saying instead IIRC (having not used google) that he believed in the sort of god arristole espoused ie a higher power rather than a godhead
Click to expand...

Actually Flew changed his view when DNA was 'discovered' and he realised that it was impossible without an intelligent designer.
 
andy700 said:
I think that you and anyone else who thinks that religion - Catholic and Protestant - and the marches carried out by Protestants in order to celebrate a victory by a Protestant army over a Catholic one, has nothing to do with the troubles, are either totally deluded or being deliberately dishonest - take your pick.
Click to expand...

Andy, I don't know your knowledge or experience of the history of the troubles. I lived in northern Ireland most of my life. I have no allegiance to either side. I have witnessed shootings, bombings and riots first hand. People assume that it is Protestant against Catholic...the marches are all symbolic and historic re enactments of past history..the battle of the Boyne, the sham fight, the siege of Derry etc and a celebration of a particular section of a community......and also note that Catholics also hold their own parades and marches of celebration.....and yes there are people from both religions who hate the opposite religion but this does not make the troubles a religious war.
The conflict was primarily a political one, but it also had an ethnic or sectarian dimension,although it was not a religious conflict.A key issue was the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. Unionists/loyalists, who are mostly Protestants, generally want Northern Ireland to remain within the United Kingdom. Irish nationalists/republicans, who are mostly Catholics, generally want it to leave the United Kingdom and join a united Ireland. Another key issue was the relationship between these two communities. The conflict began amidst a campaign to end discrimination against the nationalist minority by the unionist-dominated government and police force.

Spain has an equivalent issue with ETA, both sides are Roman Catholic so you cant claim that is religious based.... same thing just a different country.


PS. I am certainly not deluded :D
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
No.
Click to expand...

If you didn't then you don't know the definition of the word realised........

You seem to have posted the definition above without realising how it is obviously incorrect in the context you used it.

Faith and facts are not the same thing
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
Actually Flew changed his view when DNA was 'discovered' and he realised that it was impossible without an intelligent designer.
Click to expand...
?

From what information I can find, that is not the case. He changed his mind at the age of 81, 50 years after DNA was discovered. And how you conclude DNA could not be without an Intelligent Designer?

Edit,
Not sure if this worth pursuing...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is not fact though gramps.

I don't want to side-track the thread over this but, in the context of the scientific education discussed earlier, It is important that religious belief presented as fact is challenged.

I'm very happy for you to believe in intelligent design, but not happy for you to present it as fact.
 
Flew attributes his change of heart to an understanding of DNA, you can hear him tell you that directly from interviews in a number of videos (eg on youtube) and the book he wrote about that change ... we are not talking about me, I don't need DNA to know that there is an Intelligent Designer, or Creator.
 
simon ess said:
It is not fact though gramps.

I don't want to side-track the thread over this but, in the context of the scientific education discussed earlier, It is important that religious belief presented as fact is challenged.

I'm very happy for you to believe in intelligent design, but not happy for you to present it as fact.
Click to expand...

I'm not happy for you to suggest it isn't fact but I just have to live with that.
 
gramps said:
I'm not happy for you to suggest it isn't fact but I just have to live with that.
Click to expand...

but it isn't a fact, quite plainly and obviously it is not a fact that DNA 'requires' an intelligent designer.

If that is what you believe then of course you think that it requires one, but that in itself does not make a fact.

surely thats the whole point in a belief system, is that it doesn't require any facts, as it is what you believe?
 
mjScall said:
but it isn't a fact, quite plainly and obviously it is not a fact that DNA 'requires' an intelligent designer.
Click to expand...

I doubt Antony Flew would agree with you for the reasons he himself states ... personally I have many reasons to accept an Intelligent Designer but that's not within the scope of this thread :)
 
gramps said:
I doubt Antony Flew would agree with you for the reasons he himself states ... personally I have many reasons to accept an Intelligent Designer but that's not within the scope of this thread :)
Click to expand...

Well if he stated it as fact then he was wrong as it was his belief and not a proven scientific fact.

I don't even need to know your reasons for believing in intelligent design to know that I am perfectly willing to accept them as valid reasons for your belief. I would never question another persons belief about religion (it is far too important and personal a decision to have another person attempt to dictate it to you).

I guess our disagreement is on the differences between fact and belief, so as above we can agree to disagree :)
 
mjScall said:
I guess our disagreement is on the differences between fact and belief, so as above we can agree to disagree :)
Click to expand...

For sure ... some people find anything to do with God hard or impossible to accept, so quoting anything 'God' will never be accepted by them as fact :)
 
gramps said:
For sure ... some people find anything to do with God hard or impossible to accept, so quoting anything 'God' will never be accepted by them as fact :)
Click to expand...

thats because it isnt a scientific fact that until proven , and proof (as opposed to faith) require evidence.

stating that DNA could not exist without an intelligent designer is a false premise (or at best an opinion or belief) it isn't proof or evidence - in fact many would say the oposite, that DNA evidence demostrates a common ancestor and thus that man evolved instead of being designed.

There are also things like the golden mole rat , which has functional eyes but that are permanently shut which militates against intentional design ... not to mention the one that all the men here can associate with , if you were designing a human, why the hell would you put the testicles on the outside ? ;) ( The evolutionary reason is to do with heat control - but for an all powerful designer wouldn't creating heat proof sperm be a 'better' solution )

End of the day the only incontrivertible fact about god is that many people believe that He/She/It exists, but even believers can't agree on what form this creator takes (and back on topic it is deeply sad that many have chosen to kill each other over this disagreement)

Incidentally Anthony Flew also described both the christian and islamic gods as despotic, likening them to "a cosmic sadam hussien"
 
Last edited:
The fact that something exists does not depend on proof being available, it only requires proof to satisfy the needs of those who doubt. I am not talking 'gullible' here I am talking evidence including both of a physical and spiritual nature.

Of Flew, he stated that, "it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.”
(There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top