Ten things Christians and Atheists can and must agree on

The point is that even if these disputes were sometimes solved with violence that doesn't mean that these societies were lawless.

 

1. The problem is with a-social violence.

2.What exactly do you call it when another nation via bribes and military force takes over another? My political terms may be rusty.

3. I'm not certain how you hope to prove that until christianity rocked up that everything was a free for all by showing warfare between groups. America for want of a better example is a nation heavily influenced by Christianity and it has been heavily involved in warfare for a large part of it's history.

It's common for a group to solve disputes with other nation via violence, what we are debating is the idea that before christianity all or indeed the majority of internal problems were solved with violence.

4. When did anyone here say that tribal societies had no voilence in them? Why else would they manufacture weapons?

5. Just before written law will do.

6. What's wrong with Americans? Some of them are quite nice and pleasant.

7. There's truth to every stereotype, but Scotland has alot more than drunken fighting. Scotland has a very rich history when it comes to intellectual thought, and trade for example, Adam Smith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

 

Must be the skirts and the rain and the endless bagpipes getting him down...

Wants to pack it all in & live in the land of Krispy Kreme .

More serious guess might be that endless bloody faff with Visas and border control.

 

Ah right! We're still on that. I thought we'd moved on, sorry.

1. The term "anti social violence" is a political sound bite designed to confuse the electorate. It doesn't mean anything. I mean, when exactly was the last time you participated in "socially acceptable violence". And yes I do appreciate the irony of that statement on a martial arts forum.
   
   So keeping that in mind what exactly are you talking about when you're talking about anti-social violence?
   
   
2. It's called a "coup d'état". Which is not what happened between Scotland and England. The people of Scotland may not have supported the union. However it wasn't illegal. Our head of state at the time acted entirely within his powers as head of state. Scotland was not annexed by England. It entered a legal political union. Not liking the terms hundreds of years later doesn't make it illegal.
   
   
3. I never said anything of the sort. What I did say was that before Christianity arrived in England, England had no written law. The rule of law was whatever the man in charge said it was. Which is true. The fact you've extended that to Scotland makes no difference.
   
   
4. Well it's impression I was given.
   
5. Hmm before written law. Well the Gaels were fighting for control of the Western Isles and pretty much all of the west coast of Scotland and everybody on the mainland was fighting over fertile lowland valleys. You can't send all your strapping young men out to harvest if there's no land or crops to harvest can you.
   
   Of course the arrival of Christianity didn't stop these disputes. But with the written law that came with it women and children were in theory protected. Scotland's warring factions now had rules of engagement.
   
   
6. It's not so much what's wrong with individual Americans. It's what's wrong with America. Which is a different discussion for another time.
   
   
7. Scotland indeed does have a very rich history. As does Russia, China, Korea, Israel and Iran. Scottish engineers and inventors funded by just about everybody and anybody with money practically invented the industrial revolution and continue to play a major role in the technological development of the world.
   
   That however doesn't change the levels of violence we have in Scotland. Much of it goes unseen. Most of it is never reported. You have to live in amongst it to know about it.
   
   In fact I was once told that more people had been killed in gang violence in Nitshill during the troubles in Northern Ireland than people had actually been killed in Northern Ireland as a result of the troubles. I'm not sure how accurate that fact is. But it's a damning indictment of a society that anybody would even have cause to make such a comparison.

No :evil:

 

1. It's a useful distinction I have seen used here a couple of times.

Social violence = People have an argument or dispute that results in violence.

A-Social Violence = Violence takes place without any social basis, muggings/random attacks.

2. I'll have to revise on that again, to my knowledge a large portion of scotland were in favour of the union, the wars had left their mark on communities and the majority had lost the initial will to fight and were willing to hand power over for some prosperity.

3. "Man in charge"- Is the bit I have trouble with, you make it sound like Scotland was ruled by mini-dictatorships, but we have plenty of reason to believe that pre-written law culture were run with councils. Many clan chiefs were chosen becuase they were the strongest warriors, but the idea that there existed no values in those times outside of might= right doesn't sit well with me.

4. Ah, I can see how I have made that sound, I was meaning very peaceful, in comparison to the popular notion that Scotland was a free-for-all riot until the contemporary idea of "civilisation" kicked in.

5. There are other jobs outside of war, but the point is, these wars were wars between factions, the factions themselves internally regimented themselves. Britain sees itself as peaceful and regimented, yet we're still fighting wars abroad.

6. Budapest is a beautiful city if you've ever seen it, it also has some horrible problems with crime, yet the stereotype of Budapest as a city is not seen as a Vice city hell hole.

There seems to be better things to dwell on when considering a nation.

 

Six things that christians and atheists can and must agree on:
1. Long lists of mildly sarcastic numbered points in response to other long lists of mildly sarcastic numbered points are not entertaining to other readers.
2. Neither are vast, wordy posts containing less-than-elegant rebuttals.
3. Grammar is not a funky optional extra.
4. Neither is wilfully ignoring it cute.
5. By the time a thread is 10 pages long, very few people still care whether there's a god or not.
6. Not any thread that has any religious content whatsoever is best as a battleground between fruitcake believers and snotty in-your-face atheists.

 

I personally don't believe in God, and I think praying is something useless. People, don't get angry with me, I said what I think and what I do.

 

Oh, that's fine mate. Just don't get all 'graaaaarrrrr I hate religion' on us. I'd be cool with you having a quiet faith in something bigger than yourself as well, as long as you didn't expect everybody else to toe the line.

 

Praying is far from useless. There might not be an almighty God out there to answer those prayers. But it's a form of meditation that helps some people get their mind in order. Not only that. But people who pray a lot like nuns and priests show similar brain function modifications as Buddhist monks who meditate a lot.

So praying has clear advantages for some. It just depends on why and how you do it.

 

#5, how true. by the 10th page, i'm thinking there actually is a hell and i'm living in it.

#6, count me as one of those in-your-face atheists. loud and proud!

 

Well to be honest it is rather interesting to try and figure out how a thread on christian and atheist agreement can go to ancient scottish government