Jesus Christ!
Is nothing sacred anymore?
Adult toys and lingerie retailer Honey Birdette was today placed on the naughty step by the UK's egg-xacting watchdog the Advertising Standards Authority for mixing sex and religion in a promotion over Easter. The seller of sex toys including Milano Pleasure Beads and vibrators named Dolly, Dita, Dallas and Bullet Bliss, sent …
This post has been deleted by its author
"Is nothing sacred anymore?"
nothing. this IS the intarwebs, after all. Rule 34 and all that.
besides, Easter is more a PAGAN spring equinox celebration in most cultures, with the fertility symbols like eggs and rabbits. Back in the middle ages (or something) Passover's proximity to the spring equinox made it convenient to "christianize" the pagan Easter holiday. Sure, there'll be a lot of passover Seders on Good Friday followed by Sunday church services, but those eggs and bunnies are all of Pagan origin.
So maybe the Adult Toy business can just say they're PAGANS, and are celebrating THEIR religious holiday?
Its offensive to me that I must treat people who claim to believe in a sky fairy with respect and not ridicule.
its offensive to me that people who work in advertising also claim to have any rights to respect
In this case, mixing the two should actually make a right?
.... with respect and not ridicule.
Maybe if your post showed that you'd made any effort to think about this beyond parroting Dawkins et al I'd respect your opinion. But you don't, so I don't. Note I don't need to ridicule you to disagree with your opinion, however ridiculous it may seem to me.
Many of the famous names in science believed in God. They were clear on what science is about and what religion is about and realised that they don't really cross over. A point that the fundamentalist scientists on this board seem to consistently miss.
Many of the famous names in science believeD in God, yes.
Of course science and religion wouldn't cross over if the latter didn't make claims the former could prove false.
Fundamentalist scientist? What's that? Someone who refuses to entertain proposition for which there is no compelling evidence whatsoever?
> "Many of the famous names in science believed in God. They were clear on what science is about and what religion is about and realized that they don't really cross over."
Science is about trying to find the most reliable answer a question you can using the available data we have, admitting when you're shown to be wrong and updating that answer.
Religion is about taking the most unreliable path we've ever had to an answer: blind faith that the answer given is correct.
See where they cross over? Answering questions.
See what religion fails to do? Actually answering the question in an honest way.
brainbone:
"Science is about trying to find the most reliable answer a question you can using the available data we have, admitting when you're shown to be wrong and updating that answer."Not according to Einstein:
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
brainbone:
"Religion is about taking the most unreliable path we've ever had to an answer"Not really... It's more about attempting to answer questions that science can't answer.
Physicist Paul Davies:
"Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves."
> "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
You completely misrepresent Eisenstein's position. He's basically just telling you to try adjusting your perspective. To not be afraid of challenging previously established science. To not be blinded by your bias of what you think you know. He's telling you to use the scientific method. He's not telling you to have blind faith in your hypothesis.
> "Not really... [Religion]'s more about attempting to answer questions that science can't answer."
Science has answered many of these questions. Often, the answer is "currently, we just don't know." It's the same answer religion should give you, if it was honest. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. To claim you do know when you don't or can't know, is not a valid answer.
brainbone:
"You completely misrepresent Eisenstein's position."Actually no, I quoted him. You represent him as having a position different to that quoted. How about Paul Dirac?
"I learned to distrust all physical concepts as the basis for a theory. Instead one should put one's trust in a mathematical scheme, even if the scheme does not appear at first sight to be connected with physics. One should concentrate on getting interesting mathematics."
"This result is too beautiful to be false; it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment."
brainbone:
"Science has answered many of these questions."
From The Existence of God (OUP : 2004), P. 53:
"Its degree of simplicity and its scope determine the intrinsic probability of a theory, its probability independent of its relation to any evidence. The simpler a theory, the more probable it is. The simplicity of a theory, in my view, is a matter of it postulating few (logically independent) entities, few properties of entities, few kinds of entities, few kinds of properties, properties more readily observable, few separate laws with few terms relating few variables, the simplest formulation of each law being mathematically simple. … A theory is simpler and so has greater prior probability to the extent to which these criteria are satisfied."
and
"It is crazy to postulate a trillion (causally unconnected) universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity (God) will do the job."
Have a nice day :-)
"It is crazy to postulate a trillion (causally unconnected) universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity (God) will do the job."
1) The universe just exists - always has done.
2) What superior being created the Universe?
3) God created the Universe.
4) What superior being created God?
5) God just exists - always has done.
Apply Occam's Razor.
Statement 5 is the same as statement 1 - but raises more questions about the nature of this omnipotent God to add to those raised by the nature of the Universe.
Therefore statement 1 has less variables - and is more probable to be the correct answer.
"1) The universe just exists - always has done."
Not according to modern cosmology. The universe came into being with the Big Bang. What caused the Big Bang? And so on... Personally I believe the Big Bang, not called that but invented by the Roman Catholic priest the Reverend Monsignor Georges Lemaître to preserve the Christian account of the Creation.
Your statement 1 is consistent with my view, but not the currently accepted scientific cosmology.
"Not according to modern cosmology. The universe came into being with the Big Bang. [...]"
With the Universe came Time and Space. Therefore "The universe just exists - always has done" is true within the framework of our concept of time.
What existed before that singularity may be entirely different - or may be just a minimal point in a repeatedly expanding and contracting universe. At the moment we don't seem to be able to decide if the current expansion will eventually change to a contraction.
"With the Universe came Time and Space. Therefore "The universe just exists - always has done" is true within the framework of our concept of time."The BBT claim is that the universe is ~13 billion years old. It cannot be infinitely old (always existed) AND 13 billion years old. It's one or t'other.
Our concept of time is at most a few thousand years old. Are you claiming that the universe didn't exist before then? You're somewhat incoherent on this matter.
> "when postulating one entity (God) will do the job"
And yet you can't really define what this "God" is. Is this god, this thing that can do anything and everything, not a complex entity? How did this complex entity come into existence? How does the postulation of it answer any questions with any degree of honesty?
Every god postulated so far is simply the ejaculate of mental masturbation. Deepity conjectures bolstered by unfalsifiable nonsense.
"And yet you can't really define what this "God" is."How about "God is everything that there is"?
"Every god postulated so far is simply the ejaculate of mental masturbation. Deepity conjectures bolstered by unfalsifiable nonsense."I suspect from your hysteria and rudeness that you are deeply troubled by something. Or you forgot to take your meds...
> "I suspect from your hysteria and rudeness that you are deeply troubled by something."
Yes. I'm deeply troubled by rampant peddling of bullshit. Further, it deeply troubles me that others are not troubled by this, or worse, enthusiastically engage in it.
"Can you name one question religion has answered?"Certainly :-)
What personal, life-orienting core commitments are consistent with my worldview?
A Christian, Muslim or Jew might answer: "To fulfill the will of God, or to obey God and enjoy him forever, or to be devoted to knowing God, or loving God."
Mine (I'm not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew): "To realise my personal potential for experiencing life, and to do as much good as I can for others in a world of social diversity and conflict."
Can you name one question religion has answered?
Shirley you're jesting. Everybody (well, Christians anyway) knows that God created the universe and all there is.
Now where's the joke icon for those who won't get it?
"Many of the famous names in science believed in God."
What is that supposed to prove other than the fact that there was no alternative in their societies at the time if they didn't want to be ostracised or even tortured etc.?
And what about all the non-Christian "names" from outside the so called Christian World? Presumably they don't matter because the weren't Christians. Correct?
You give religion a bad name. Thank god!
"What is that supposed to prove other than the fact that there was no alternative in their societies at the time if they didn't want to be ostracised or even tortured etc.?"What evidence do you have that Lord Kelvin, Wilhelm Röntgen, Pierre Duhem, Guglielmo Marconi, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Max Planck, Arthur Eddington, John Ambrose Fleming, Robert Millikan, Max Born, Arthur Compton, Ronald Fisher, Georges Lemaître, Kathleen Lonsdale, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Werner Heisenberg, Michael Polanyi, Mary Kenneth Keller, Mary Celine Fasenmyer etc were ever tortured, or threatened with ostracism for their science. As well as Nobel Prize winners, there are nuns, priests and theologians in that far from complete list. According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 65.4% of Nobel Prize Laureates identified Christianity as their religious preference. Christians have won a total of 72.5% of all the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, and 54% in Economics.
I note also that many non-Christian scientists also expressed a belief in God during the 20th C (Einstein for example). Maybe you're claiming they were tortured. I dunno, you don't seem to like providing any support for your assertions.
"You don't have to be tortured."
I'm truly relieved to hear that DougS. I really wasn't looking forward to it with any great relish ;-)
"Even fifty years ago, telling people you were an atheist might not get you the rack, but it probably would guarantee you didn't get invited to many parties."Depends on where you're living I imagine. I don't recall anyone in the part of semi-rural Australia I then lived having any great interest what your religious persuasion was. I suspect that would have already been perceived as infra dig. I can only remember one teacher at the high school I was attending having any obvious religious leanings. The chap who lent me the money to attend university (and later returned the money when I repaid him) was a lay preacher and I was firmly atheist in those days. I didn't ask for the loan and was somewhat surprised when he offered it.
I certainly accepted more invitations to parties than I should have; my studies suffered a little and I had to accept placement at one of the lesser institutions.
" I don't recall anyone in the part of semi-rural Australia I then lived having any great interest what your religious persuasion was."
Even in England 50 years ago it mattered what religious pigeon hole you fitted. Atheism was not an stated option - your birth religion was a given unless you formally adopted another one.
Churches controlled most of the primary and junior schools. Religious observance and church attendance were compulsory for pupils. RCC schools took it has their primary mission.
Even joining the Scouts or Girl Guides required an affirmation of religious belief.
At a theoretically non-denominational state secondary school we had to take part in the daily whole school religious assemblies - which were decreed by law. The only exceptions were for those minority pupils of the significant other religions - who had their own concurrent religious observances.
Who you could marry was generally limited by your respective religions. Mixed religion marriages were often either forbidden - or a source of shame and social stigma for you and any children.
Anyone who got married was expected to have a religious wedding - unless they were proscribed by their birth religion's dogma. A registry office ceremony was regarded as second-class and somewhat shameful for most people. Ditto for not having your baby baptised. Refusing to be confirmed - or refusing to be a religiously observant godfather was again considered a shameful reflection on your character and your family.
Sunday was almost a total close-down of shops, entertainments, or public transport. Even the recreation grounds had their gates locked or their equipment rendered immobile. Blasphemy crimes were still prosecuted.
Fifty years ago in England - the Swinging Sixties was the cusp when religion started to lose its grip on the majority of the population in England. TV no longer had to close for an hour at 6pm so people would go to church. Nor did the evening's broadcasts have to end with a clergyman delivering an Epilogue sermon.
It was still a long time before any official form had a space for "atheist" or "no religion".
Even joining the Scouts or Girl Guides required an affirmation of religious belief.
Still was ~25 years ago, "On my honour, I promise: to do my duty to God and to the Queen, to help other people, and to keep the Scout's code"
"Even in England 50 years ago it mattered what religious pigeon hole you fitted... "Yes, it was a great relief to leave England's green, unpleasant land to come and live in the Land of Under. You have my deepest sympathy...
"Yes, it was a great relief to leave England's green, unpleasant land to come and live in the Land of Under."
The scandals surrounding the Catholic Church and its schools in Australia are finally getting real attention. It would appear that - given its relatively small population - it had a more religious environment in the 20th century than did England.
Emigrants and settlers tend to perpetuate the religious and cultural observances of their original founding country - whereas the latter's culture moves on.
"It would appear that - given its relatively small population - it [Australia] had a more religious environment in the 20th century than did England."In England I attended a school established by the Church in medieval times; we had daily prayers and attended church every Wednesday morning. In Australia we never had prayers at school, nor did we attend church. So I'd say that Australia was less religiously inclined.
I'm not sure who the emigrants from Australia were that you refer to, but while the settlers (immigrants) did bring their religious convictions with them, the rather mixed nature of them has led to a reasonably successful multicultural and tolerant society.
"The scandals surrounding the Catholic Church and its schools in Australia are finally getting real attention. "
Not to mention the scandals of how evacuees and orphans shipped of to Australia were treated. And how the native peoples were and are treated. I don't think anyone, from any country or culture, should be casting stones here.
"how the native peoples were and are treated."So it's nice to see that the appalling level of violence committed against aboriginal women by aboriginal men receiving some media attention. Referring to this in "polite society" in recent decades has tended to result in accusations of denigrating aboriginal culture.
I was vocally not a christian 50 years ago, and I got invited to many parties. In fact, the only person who seemed to be distressed by my lack of religious tendencies was MeDearOldMum. She's long since forgiven me, good xtian that she is.
"They were clear on what science is about and what religion is about and realised that they don't really cross over."
The ability of the human mind to compartmentalise such that two opposing views can be held and believed to be true at the same time still astounds me. Is that science or the work of god?
"The ability of the human mind to compartmentalise such that two opposing views can be held and believed to be true at the same time still astounds me. Is that science or the work of god?"Definitely god, though I suspect work is the wrong word. I see it as irrefutable proof that god has a sense of humour.
Maybe you should live in a former colony where religion and government are separated (well, for the most part)
There are certainly no laws preventing advertising sex toys and Easter together here, though quite why one would think that's a good sales tactic is another matter altogether.
> "It's really not that difficult to respect somebody who holds different views to your own, is it?"
I treat other people's views and opinions like a penis.
It's all well and good that you have one, and that you're proud of it, but the moment you whip it out, start waving it in my face and telling me how great it is compared to anyone else's, is the moment I stop respecting, and start ridiculing.