Tony Benn slams BBC on air for "capitulating to Israeli pressure"

silvasava

The_White_Horse wrote: »

so basically, it's ok for the jews to live under muslim/arab rule - then everyone gets on. but if the muslim/arab has to live under jewish rule - or even just the jews rule themselves, there is a problem. seems fair to me.

There are many arabs living in Israel perfectly happy & peaceful. In fact the Druze arabs (a nomadic tribe) adopt the country that they settle in. Druze arabs serve in the Israeli Army but not on the front line as the Israeli's believe that arab should not kill arab. Can't see many western governments following that stance

GeorgeHowell

PaulF81 wrote: »

I Bet most so called spiritual leaders are atheists

Everyone is entitled to an express an opinion, but how dumb is that one ?

Even the more honest among scientists (ie people unlike Dawkins) will admit that when they drill down to the very, very small, or extend out to the very, very vast there are all sorts of things that they can't explain, don't know or know about, and may never know or understand. Truly intelligent minds do accept the distinct possibility, if not likelihood, of powerful unknown forces, whether or nor referred to as religious phenomena. The arrogance of the so called intelligentsia that refuses to accept this notion, on the basis that if you can't perceive it directly then it can't possibly exist, is well known but does them no credit. For example not long ago the existence of electro-magnetic radiation other than visible light was not known about and radio and television would have been perceived as miraculous. Extreme political elements always tend to reject religion because it threatens the impression of omnipotence that they try to convey.

"The universe is not only stranger then we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine". Albert Einstein

Linton

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to an express an opinion, but how dumb is that one ?

Even the more honest among scientists (ie people unlike Dawkins) will admit that when they drill down to the very, very small, or extend out to the very, very vast there are all sorts of things that they can't explain, don't know or know about, and may never know or understand. Truly intelligent minds do accept the distinct possibility, if not likelihood, of powerful unknown forces, whether or nor referred to as religious phenomena. The arrogance of the so called intelligentsia that refuses to accept this notion, on the basis that if you can't perceive it directly then it can't possibly exist, is well known but does them no credit. For example not long ago the existence of electro-magnetic radiation other than visible light was not known about and radio and television would have been perceived as miraculous. Extreme political elements always tend to reject religion because it threatens the impression of omnipotence that they try to convey.

"The universe is not only stranger then we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine". Albert Einstein

Such a bizarre argument. Of course scientists dont know everything. As to your swipe against Richard Dawkins can I hazard a guess that you havent actually read anything by him. If you wish to start I would recommend his books on evolution.

Anyway back to the argument if that is what it is. The fact that science doesnt yet know about the whole of physics is not proof that mysterious supernatural forces exist. It may simply be that we havent yet characterised what could well be perfectly explicible natural phenomena. So the only completely rational attitude to that "evidence" must be agnosticism.

Richard Dawkins states in The God Delusion that strictly speaking he is an agnostic but points out that that agnosticism extends equally well to any or all of Zeus, Mithras, Baal, Jehovah or even Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot.

Sapphire

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to an express an opinion, but how dumb is that one ?

Even the more honest among scientists (ie people unlike Dawkins) will admit that when they drill down to the very, very small, or extend out to the very, very vast there are all sorts of things that they can't explain, don't know or know about, and may never know or understand. Truly intelligent minds do accept the distinct possibility, if not likelihood, of powerful unknown forces, whether or nor referred to as religious phenomena. The arrogance of the so called intelligentsia that refuses to accept this notion, on the basis that if you can't perceive it directly then it can't possibly exist, is well known but does them no credit. For example not long ago the existence of electro-magnetic radiation other than visible light was not known about and radio and television would have been perceived as miraculous. Extreme political elements always tend to reject religion because it threatens the impression of omnipotence that they try to convey.

"The universe is not only stranger then we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine". Albert Einstein

Trouble is, I find it very difficult to believe anything that is not based on actual proof – though I do acknowledge that there are probably many things that we do not yet understand.

PaulF81

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to an express an opinion, but how dumb is that one ?

Even the more honest among scientists (ie people unlike Dawkins) will admit that when they drill down to the very, very small, or extend out to the very, very vast there are all sorts of things that they can't explain, don't know or know about, and may never know or understand. Truly intelligent minds do accept the distinct possibility, if not likelihood, of powerful unknown forces, whether or nor referred to as religious phenomena. The arrogance of the so called intelligentsia that refuses to accept this notion, on the basis that if you can't perceive it directly then it can't possibly exist, is well known but does them no credit. For example not long ago the existence of electro-magnetic radiation other than visible light was not known about and radio and television would have been perceived as miraculous. Extreme political elements always tend to reject religion because it threatens the impression of omnipotence that they try to convey.

"The universe is not only stranger then we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine". Albert Einstein

And I suppose Iconoclasts and a whole host of religious nutters wanting to ban stem cell research and the like are going to help solve those mysteries? How?

Sorry, but from a very early age I didnt believe in fairies down the end of the garden. Religion is a complete curse on scientific progress, despite supposedly seperating state and religion, the majority have to pander to the minority religious viewpoint.

Unless you belive that it was right to suppress Galileo and still want to believe the earth is flat, and the Earth is at the centre of the Universe of course.

All down to simple minds not being able to cope with the concept that asking what exists after death is about as pointless as asking what exists before birth. They have even found the genetic programming in the brain that makes humans require a belief in a higher being and an afterlife.

Keep on believing in the fairies!

GeorgeHowell

PaulF81 wrote: »

And I suppose Iconoclasts and a whole host of religious nutters wanting to ban stem cell research and the like are going to help solve those mysteries? How?

Sorry, but from a very early age I didnt believe in fairies down the end of the garden. Religion is a complete curse on scientific progress, despite supposedly seperating state and religion, the majority have to pander to the minority religious viewpoint.

Unless you belive that it was right to suppress Galileo and still want to believe the earth is flat, and the Earth is at the centre of the Universe of course.

All down to simple minds not being able to cope with the concept that asking what exists after death is about as pointless as asking what exists before birth. They have even found the genetic programming in the brain that makes humans require a belief in a higher being and an afterlife.

Keep on believing in the fairies!

No group of people should be judged by extremists who may infest their nest.

Other than that a typical strident, arrogant, and predictable sort of response by this poster I'm afraid. Anyone who disagrees with him is clearly a simple, foolish flat-earther who merits no respect.

GeorgeHowell

Linton wrote: »

Such a bizarre argument. Of course scientists dont know everything. As to your swipe against Richard Dawkins can I hazard a guess that you havent actually read anything by him. If you wish to start I would recommend his books on evolution.

Anyway back to the argument if that is what it is. The fact that science doesnt yet know about the whole of physics is not proof that mysterious supernatural forces exist. It may simply be that we havent yet characterised what could well be perfectly explicible natural phenomena. So the only completely rational attitude to that "evidence" must be agnosticism.

Richard Dawkins states in The God Delusion that strictly speaking he is an agnostic but points out that that agnosticism extends equally well to any or all of Zeus, Mithras, Baal, Jehovah or even Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot.

How arrogant and blinkered that is ! To disagree with Dawkins automatically has to mean not having read anything that he has to say.

The fact that science cannot explain everything is certainly no proof that anything supernatural exists, but it certainly does not rule it out either.

For an agnostic Dawkins certainly gives a good impression of being a militant atheist. Perhaps he should change his stance somewhat in case of giving us the wrong idea.

Agnostics should not attack religion for its own sake. If they believe that they just don't know, then fair enough, so leave it at that. Attacking extremists who do terrible things in the name of various religions is another matter, but should be kept as a separate discussion.

Linton

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

How arrogant and blinkered that is ! To disagree with Dawkins automatically has to mean not having read anything that he has to say.

Anyone making comments like:

"Even the more honest among scientists (ie people unlike Dawkins) will admit that when they drill down to the very, very small, or extend out to the very, very vast there are all sorts of things that they can't explain, don't know or know about, and may never know or understand"

clearly hasnt..

The fact that science cannot explain everything is certainly no proof that anything supernatural exists, but it certainly does not rule it out either.

If the fact that science cannot yet explain everything has no bearing on whether supernatural beings exist why did you bring it up? There are an infinite number of hypotheses that are in the same boat: fairies at the bottom of my garden, the third planet of alpha Centauri being artificial and built out of plastic etc etc. Why dont you give all such possibilities equal status?

For an agnostic Dawkins certainly gives a good impression of being a militant atheist. Perhaps he should change his stance somewhat in case of giving us the wrong idea.

Agnostics should not attack religion for its own sake. If they believe that they just don't know, then fair enough, so leave it at that. Attacking extremists who do terrible things in the name of various religions is another matter, but should be kept as a separate discussion.

Why do you attack extremists - have you any proof they are wrong? Perhaps God does provide an eternity in heaven with unlimited supplies of virgins to all those who kill non believers.

If you read his writings you will see that Dawkins was spurred into action by the large number of religious fanatics, particularly in the US, who loudly proclaim that the bible is the word of God and so evolution is false, the world having been created in 4004BC, and try to prevent it being taught. Evolution is course Dawkins' scientific speciality.

GeorgeHowell

Linton wrote: »

Anyone making comments like:

"Even the more honest among scientists (ie people unlike Dawkins) will admit that when they drill down to the very, very small, or extend out to the very, very vast there are all sorts of things that they can't explain, don't know or know about, and may never know or understand"

clearly hasnt..



If the fact that science cannot yet explain everything has no bearing on whether supernatural beings exist why did you bring it up? There are an infinite number of hypotheses that are in the same boat: fairies at the bottom of my garden, the third planet of alpha Centauri being artificial and built out of plastic etc etc. Why dont you give all such possibilities equal status?



Why do you attack extremists - have you any proof they are wrong? Perhaps God does provide an eternity in heaven with unlimited supplies of virgins to all those who kill non believers.

If you read his writings you will see that Dawkins was spurred into action by the large number of religious fanatics, particularly in the US, who loudly proclaim that the bible is the word of God and so evolution is false, the world having been created in 4004BC, and try to prevent it being taught. Evolution is course Dawkins' scientific speciality.

No wonder Dawkins is your hero and role model, you talk the same sort of b******t.

Mentioning fairies, plastic planets, and flat earthers (a previous poster) in the context of discussing major and respected religions is just propaganda and hype intended to damage an argument by ridicule. Familiar but facile internet forum tactics.

Similar tactics is the smart-a**e (but failed) attempt to deflect the familiar complaint against militant atheists that they try to tar all believers of various religions with the same brush as extremists. As you then go on to admit in the last paragraph, Dawkins and his ilk's core argument is against fundamentalists and extremists, so their argument should be limited to that rather than attacking all religions and followers of them. Nobody who knows which end is up disputes the theory of evolution in its entirety. Dawkins essentially bases his whole argument on this, but it is possible to accept evolution without having to be atheist.

I feel a bit sorry for the militant atheists actually -- if they are right they can never find out for sure that they are right, whereas believers do at least have a chance to find out that they are right.

alleycat`

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

I feel a bit sorry for the militant atheists actually -- if they are right they can never find out for sure that they are right, whereas believers do at least have a chance to find out that they are right.

I actually really don't care much one way or the other but If you believe in god, die, and there is no god, how exactly do you find out you are right or wrong?

Probably shouldn't have tried to think about that on a Monday, i need a lie down.