Raphael's Sistine Madonna. See it before the atheists ban it and burn it.
Sunday, 8 August 2010
The sort of filth Dawkins abhores
Raphael's Sistine Madonna. See it before the atheists ban it and burn it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
But I don't want to ban it or burn it...
I'm just goading one of my friends,in continuation of a discussion this weekend.
nice one, I'm glad of the goad as it gives me a chance to point out something I realised on reflection, many of your arguments from the weekend were strawman I'm afraid. Like this kind of idea really, how to get a positive action out of a lack of a belief is interesting. I realise you are on a bit of a wind up but you do believe in some kind of atheist plot to eradicate religion. It's similar to suggest that as you don't believe in hobbits you might be out to ban the lord of the rings!
My position on religion is simple. I think it's rubbish and I don't want it forced on kids. Otherwise I don't care, I'm just disappointed.
And as for the painting, personally I think it's great. Paintings like that accurately depict the nonsense it is.
cheers trooper :)
"I realised on reflection..."
Oh really.
"Paintings like that accurately depict the nonsense it is"
You see nonsense, I see a beautiful woman holding a baby.
Thank you. I'm glad you feel this way. I cannot stand the bigotry I g=face for believing in God albeit as a relaxed and questioning catholic. It is a beautiful picture and a beautiful cultural hertage we had.
If that's the Alison I know and love, you're very welcome (if you're another Alison, you're still welcome).
Matrix,
"My position on religion is simple".
That's my point: it's too simple.
You condemn the irrational part, and claim any benefit that might accrue can be achieved without any connection to religion. However, just as you don't need religion to tell you not to lie, cheat and steal, we can have all the negative effects that can be associated with religion without a belief in God, and rather than pick a fight with religions you consider well past their sell-by date, you should be more alert to the coercion exerted on children in the school system, and indeed society, to think in an orthodox way about such things as global warming, recycling, being a 'global citizen' etc, a sort of secular state worship, and when it's a near-monopoly, the sectional interests which set such agendas have a large degree of power. Such conditioning should be no more palatable to you than religious instruction, if the problem is children being fitted with blinkers (by which I mean what they put on horses, to limit periferal vision).
So if education is the issue, I would call for the rapid dismantling of the state school system, with independence for the schools. If you have a choice as a parent, you will find your secular academy, and other parents can send theirs to a church school, if they wish.
I think it's rubbish and I don't want it forced on kids.
nicely done.
i love how you snuck the idea that parents aren't to be permitted to raise their children as they see fit into the conversation.
I realise you are on a bit of a wind up but you do believe in some kind of atheist plot to eradicate religion.
go talk to Dawkins.
whether or not you, personally, have any or no position on eliminating religion, asserting to speak for atheists as a whole is profoundly disingenuous. because this most certainly is the goal of many atheists and has been since at least Marx.
Thanks. Yes it's me :) Decided to slowly make my way back into blogging & the blogosphere. Thought of you the other day when I was in the City and saw the statue of George Peabody. He's a philanthropist. I just remember you and I discussing philanthropy. You were right and I was wrong as usual.
Hope all's well with you?
x
Very happy to hear from you, Alison. You've been in my thoughts (and prayers!)
I vaguely remember the discussion, but can't remember what my opinion was - there's a chance I may now disagree - sometimes neither of us are right, or both.
Are the nasty atheists the little boys with the fake wings on their backs?
Word verification 'word' mongeri
Frank, you must only be looking at a little part of the picture! The word you mislay is cherubs. I'm not sure what 'fake' means in the present context. Are you suggesting someone other that Raphael added them?
Post a Comment