Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Light sensors cause religious row

1003 replies

OldLadyKnowsNothing · 16/06/2009 21:48

Story here.

Maybe they should just move?

OP posts:
HelloBeastie · 17/06/2009 22:22

mp is that really you? What's with the capitals?

ilovemydogandmrobama · 17/06/2009 22:26

Thanks lisalisa. I love learning about religions!

Am going to ask my cousin, an Orthodox Jew to explain it to me. He thinks since he just had his Bar Mitzvah, that he's off the hook!

HelloBeastie · 17/06/2009 22:26

lisalisa - when you say 'commandment' are you meaning one of the ten thereof? Or is this one of the Leviticus-type sub-commandments (genuine question, can't remember how they're phrased in Exodus) (and now can't remember whether it is in fact Exodus, without standing up to fetch a bible)

Poppity · 17/06/2009 22:32

Lisalisa Just caught up(very slow and easily distracted typer), and before I go I have to know the rules on sex

LeninGrad · 17/06/2009 22:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HelloBeastie · 17/06/2009 22:45

It was indeed Exodus, yay me.

poppity the rules on sex etc? having stood up to get a bible, and not wanting to waste said effort... At the risk of copying Jed Bartlett:

adultery covered in Deuteronomy 22
'menstrual pollution' covered in Leviticus 15.
purification after childbirth: Leviticus 12
the bit about gays being put to death that the USA fundamentalists love to quote is in Leviticus 20

Basically a lot about stoning to death and/or sacrificing pigeons. I'm sure someone somewhere has put the bible online, if you haven't got one.

onagar · 17/06/2009 22:59

jewishencyclopedia.com

"SHABBAT GOY: The Gentile employed in a Jewish household on the Sabbath-day to perform services which are religiously forbidden to Jews on that day. The Shabbat goy's duty is to extinguish the lighted candles or lamps on Friday night, and make a fire in the oven or stove on Sabbath mornings during the cold weather."

It does say it is technically wrong, but apparently that doesn't stop people.

Poppity · 17/06/2009 23:01

HelloBeastie thanks for the kind offer

I will check them out online. I actually had to pack all my books away when DS2 decided at 1yo that bookcases were in fact a climbing wall, but that's another story

So, is your DH religious, and you are no longer? You must be well practiced in these discussions then! I always wish I knew more actually, when I come to talk about it. It seems so terribly interesting at points.

Poppity · 17/06/2009 23:05

Oh my! Which version should I look in?

onagar · 17/06/2009 23:05

"I'm not saying that they exist. I'm saying that people feel "that there is a spiritual undercurrent to life, the connection with which helps them to grow into better and more thoughtful humans"

MP, that's all very well, but in this case we seems to be talking about actual gods with very precise rules and not just a feeling.

I wouldn't call a warm feeling supersition since it wouldn't fit the definition.

HelloBeastie · 17/06/2009 23:11

No, Dh is a kind of wishy-washy C of E but has an interest in religion/philosophy hence bible collection.
I am an ex-fire-and-brimstone protestant, hence the other end of the religion shelf is stuff like 'Atheism - the case against God' and 'Why people believe weird things' (that one's really good actually). Richard Dawkins is downstairs on the 'science' shelf.

Er, I guess... opposites attract? Oh, but the earnest conversations we had as students... Waste of shagging time, though, I suppose!

Poppity · 17/06/2009 23:14

Ok, I read Leviticus 15, what is mans' issue if it is not his 'seed of copulation'?

Is 'until the even', until evening?

How do these rules apply now? Surely no-one takes pigeons to their religious leader once a month?(ok, being facetious there, sorry)

off to read the others

FlappyTheBat · 17/06/2009 23:19

Have just come back to thread as my parents have been here this evening, thank you lisalisa for your posts.

Have learnt a lot from reading them!

HelloBeastie, we could be twins, although dh has very firm beliefs in the C of E but I am very much like you, didn't get on with being condemned to a life in hell, even if I followed all the rules.

UnquietDad · 17/06/2009 23:25

I don't see why Dawkins has to come up with anything "new", given that he is still arguing against the same points from the other side. Atheism's pretty difficult to make sound "new" because it's basically the same, single, sensible point. You can't really say it in very many different ways.

He has a hectoring style, granted, but I don't think this should be confused with religious fundamentalism.

Poppity · 17/06/2009 23:40

I have read those passages now, interesting that the things that simply can't apply any more are dropped, and yet other parts remain valid. I don't think I could stomach that even if I could believe.

That's a well balanced bookcase you have yourself there, one my boy would be proud to climb no doubt.

I'll look out for 'Why people believe weird things'.

I think you're right UnquietDad. He does challenge a well established way of thinking very publicly, and suffers due to that. It's unfair to say (as someone did earlier) that he wouldn't change his mind if the facts arose, that is surely supposition, not to say undermining his credentials as a scientist, and he is a very well respected and accomplished one.

LupusinaLlamasuit · 17/06/2009 23:59

'He does challenge a well established way of thinking very publicly'

Have kept out of this one, as never want to get in a punch up about others' beliefs and faiths but I can't let go that comment. Doesn't it strike anyone as slightly mad that it can be put that way these days, post-Englightenment and all?

When, and why, did atheism become such a public bete noir?

SolidGoldBrass · 17/06/2009 23:59

Well I'm going to continue calling superstitions superstitions. I'm all for people holding whatever superstitions suit them and believing any amount of old crap to be true. Where I'm going to take the piss out of them or challenge them is when they start demanding that other people inconvenience themselves or indeed suffer harm to accommodate superstitions they don't share.
And, to clarify: my suggestion that someone should tell this couple to go fuck themselves comes from the same place as would tell that stupid cow who sued British Airways to go fuck herself. People who adhere to any and all myth systems are just people, and the smarter ones either evolve ways of working round the irrational or frankly unethical bits, or decide to have been given a hint by their imaginary friend that actually, you don't need to bother about that bit now (ie there are lots of people who consider themselves believers/practitioners of a variety of belief systems who don't bother with all the piddly little rules about how many buttons to have on your shirt and whether or not to put cheese on chips but stick to the bits about being basically nice to everyone else and not fiddling your expenses).
SO I think this particular couple sound like a pair of attention-seeking, posturing twats irrespective of what particular bundle of nonsense they adhere to.

LupusinaLlamasuit · 18/06/2009 00:00

Englightenment?! Sheesh.

StewieGriffinsMom · 18/06/2009 00:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

LupusinaLlamasuit · 18/06/2009 00:19

That point however SGM is the fundamental incommensurability of the different views though isn't it? Dawkins - and other atheists - do not only make the point about rationality as a form of reasoning being the only criteria for good knowledge. They do, also, depend on the scientific method. The rules of which apply wherever one is or whatever one believes or has faith in.

Evans-Pritchard made the point that witchcraft is entirely rational; but that still doesn't make it generalisable.

UnquietDad · 18/06/2009 00:49

SGM, that's an odd and quite specific (and not in a good way) use of "rational".

Don't know why atheism became a bete noire. It just seems like common sense to me.

If you find Dawkins inflammatory, try Sam Harris, who is very good:

"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, ?atheism? is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma."

I disagree that Dawkins is not respected though; I wonder what the evidence for this is. (And people arguing with him or disagreeing with him is not evidence of not respecting him - quite the opposite....)

UnquietDad · 18/06/2009 00:54

Philip K Dick had a good rule of thumb. "Reality is that which does not disappear when you stop believing in it." I work on that principle.

Lucia39 · 18/06/2009 07:12

StewieGriffinsMom: "Dawkins isn't highly respected in his own field". What a ridiculous statement that appears to be based on complete ignorance of the man and his professional work.

Of course he has no respect amongst his colleagues. That's why he was given the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science and is a Fellow of the Royal Society!

I suggest you read some of his works and stop relying on the popular press for your information!

As to his animus towards religions he sees them as the cause of much ignorance, superstition, and violence in the world. In his view such myths are no longer needed because we now have a far greater understanding of science. Let's face it, no religion created this system by which we are communicating. It was the application of scientific principles and advanced electronics that has allowed you and I to converse as we are now doing! Likewise no religious work has ever explained the scientific origins of the universe, the evolution of life, or found a cure for disease!

Dawkins is also particularly concerned with the "creeping" creationism that is trying to make inroads into the Science curriculum in British schools and the establishment of so-called "faith" schools where all subjects are based on the myths contained in the OT and NT.

Dawkins, along with other scientists and philosophers is attempting to encourage the human race to grow up and put away its childish beliefs in Big Sky Daddies!

morningpaper · 18/06/2009 07:56

Dawkins is not widely respected in the field of theology/philosophy. That is quite true. There have been lots of eminent atheists who have been respected over the years. But he ain't one.

"As to his animus towards religions he sees them as the cause of much ignorance, superstition, and violence in the world. In his view such myths are no longer needed because we now have a far greater understanding of science."

The trouble with Dawkins is that his ideas of religion are based on gross characateurs that are not recognised by the majority of religious people! He also sets up this charming dichotomy of religion=good and science=bad. Well, religion didn't invent the atom bomb and it isn't religion that is leeching the world of it's resources. It isn't religion that is destroying our immune systems and planet. Science invented the internet - does that mean it invented those millions of child porn sites too? But while we accept that the following statement is silly: "OMG - we must get rid of science! It's come up with so many ways for humans to abuse and destroy themselves!" We somehow feel it's okay and pick and choose the bad parts of religious history as being the legacy that religion has left us with.

"Dawkins, along with other scientists and philosophers is attempting to encourage the human race to grow up and put away its childish beliefs in Big Sky Daddies!"

Ah, you see, this is the crux of the problem with Dawkins. What religious person would recognise this term? Of course - if you distill religious belief into the crudest elements of it's doctrines then you will come up with a ghastly 'big sky daddy' but then you are guilty of a blind reductionism and setting up a straw man. I'm a religious person and I'd love people to grow up away from beliefs in big sky daddies too! But for Dawkins this means become an atheist. For me it would be embracing a more generous interpretation of divinity. Just because the Big Sky Daddies don't exist, doesn't mean that the universe is without spirituality and the divine.

"When, and why, did atheism become such a public bete noir?"

Well I think the 'new wave' of atheists are not really helping themselves, which is a great shame. If only they were respectful and tolerant, then they could achieve much more. FGS they aren't even funny - their humour relies on humuliating people that they see as the shared enemy. Ho ho ho. There is no reason that inspired atheists could engage with people from multi-faith backgrounds in order to pursue agendas for positive social change. I've not met any thoughtful person who wants creationism in schools! But setting themselves as the enemy to theists prevents such dialogue and mutual engagement. Shame.

In the last couple of years there have been several occasions when my CHILDREN have been heckled by the children of "hardline atheist" chums, who basically take the piss out of their beliefs. They've been told "God doesn't exist, it's all a lie!" by 6 year olds, who have been encouraged by their parents to say such things. WHY on earth would anyone do that? It makes me want to cry. This is my culture, my heritage, it is something I want them to be proud of and to gain from. I want them to feel the peace and sense of homecoming that I do when I enter a church. Of course if they reject it all - that's absolutely FINE. But surely I have the right to teach them and bring them up as I see fit, without making them a target for bullies who want to sabotage my attempts to share the joy of my culture with them?

morningpaper · 18/06/2009 07:57

religion=good and science=bad

I should have proof-read that...

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.