Religion

  On 3/25/2012 at 9:08 PM, chassis said:

Please fuck off if you're just going to copy and paste large walls of text from some unknown source.

ok sorry i forgot to link it to the source.

 

but keep in mind you didn't deserve this kind of answer acting all rude boy like that :)

and i found that list in so many sites that i didn't even thought it was important of knowing where it came from, they're facts well known by most of us...

Still, the equivalent of what you did is like having a conversation with someone and them saying nothing and handing you a book.

  On 3/25/2012 at 9:46 PM, chassis said:

Still, the equivalent of what you did is like having a conversation with someone and them saying nothing and handing you a book.

if it's just that that you can obtain from what i said then it's your problem dude, one of the topic on discussion is how to make an approach to this matters to people who're blinded by religion (Christianity), and i suggested a dumb radical way how to... showing them the atrocities that had been practiced by Christianity over the years... Edited March 25, 2012 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

  On 3/25/2012 at 9:46 PM, chassis said:

Still, the equivalent of what you did is like having a conversation with someone and them saying nothing and handing you a book.

well, that wouldn't be such a nonsense... i believe you already felt that towards me, you simply wanted to hand me a book before we started any discussion...

I wouldn't say christianity is at fault here. Nor religion. Yes it has been used as an excuse, but behavior like this is of all times. Leave out religion, and people would still be fighting each other. You might as well blame tribal behavior.

 

Also, would you ban fashion if I show you a list of all examples where people have been killed because they wore the wrong clothes?

 

It's just a silly argument, imo.

  On 3/25/2012 at 9:58 PM, goDel said:

I wouldn't say christianity is at fault here. Nor religion. Yes it has been used as an excuse, but behavior like this is of all times. Leave out religion, and people would still be fighting each other. You might as well blame tribal behavior.

 

Also, would you ban fashion if I show you a list of all examples where people have been killed because they wore the wrong clothes?

 

It's just a silly argument, imo.

yes we may leave out religion and people would still fight but that's not what i was aiming for.

 

the point here is to show those religious people the atrocities that their "gods" have been making, in a way that they start questioning their concepts of "good" and "evil".

 

of course this could be applied in politics and whatever, but what i mean is, i don't see no political view that make someone uncomfortable about stroking his own cock...

  On 3/25/2012 at 9:58 PM, goDel said:

I wouldn't say christianity is at fault here. Nor religion. Yes it has been used as an excuse, but behavior like this is of all times. Leave out religion, and people would still be fighting each other. You might as well blame tribal behavior.

 

Also, would you ban fashion if I show you a list of all examples where people have been killed because they wore the wrong clothes?

 

It's just a silly argument, imo.

sorry but now that i re-read your post i can't agree with it, you might NOT as well blame tribal behavior? it's not the same thing, and if it takes anything to make you understand that, then i don't know what else to do... Christianity is not being used as an excuse to violence, the ways that Christianity were implied were brutally violent, there's no point in denying that...

 

 

and btw, i wouldn't need any examples, good or bad, to abolish fashion...

Edited March 25, 2012 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

  On 3/25/2012 at 10:10 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

  On 3/25/2012 at 9:58 PM, goDel said:

I wouldn't say christianity is at fault here. Nor religion. Yes it has been used as an excuse, but behavior like this is of all times. Leave out religion, and people would still be fighting each other. You might as well blame tribal behavior.

 

Also, would you ban fashion if I show you a list of all examples where people have been killed because they wore the wrong clothes?

 

It's just a silly argument, imo.

yes we may leave out religion and people would still fight but that's not what i was aiming for.

 

the point here is to show those religious people the atrocities that their "gods" have been making, in a way that they start questioning their concepts of "good" and "evil".

 

of course this could be applied in politics and whatever, but what i mean is, i don't see no political view that make someone uncomfortable about stroking his own cock...

 

If it were that simple, there wouldn't be a discussion. Apart from all the bad stuff, religion has brought consolation to many people. It's not all "good" or "bad".

 

And in a more general way, a logical argument or "rational thinking" won't be the thing which would convince religious types. Thinking that would be the solution is an important reason why religious people "hate" atheists. Or why atheists are seen as snooty. For starters, rationality and being religious aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Just like atheists can be pretty irrational, btw. But this discussion is more like beating a dead horse with a stick, imo.

 

Btw, I'd argue that any concept of "good" and "evil" should be questioned. Not only the ones inspired by religion. And it is not rare politics use religion as a means to make something immoral.

  On 3/25/2012 at 9:58 PM, goDel said:

I wouldn't say christianity is at fault here. Nor religion. Yes it has been used as an excuse, but behavior like this is of all times. Leave out religion, and people would still be fighting each other. You might as well blame tribal behavior.

 

Also, would you ban fashion if I show you a list of all examples where people have been killed because they wore the wrong clothes?

 

It's just a silly argument, imo.

 

Its not a silly argument in any sense. By your same framing of this argument, totalitarianism should be acceptable, because democracies still declare war on each other.

 

Rationality is the only proven way humanity has to understand its surroundings. Because of this, it makes logical sense to use and believe in those processes above others that do not use any proven ways to understand.

 

I do not understand how this is snooty in any sense.

  On 3/25/2012 at 10:44 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 3/25/2012 at 9:58 PM, goDel said:

I wouldn't say christianity is at fault here. Nor religion. Yes it has been used as an excuse, but behavior like this is of all times. Leave out religion, and people would still be fighting each other. You might as well blame tribal behavior.

 

Also, would you ban fashion if I show you a list of all examples where people have been killed because they wore the wrong clothes?

 

It's just a silly argument, imo.

 

Its not a silly argument in any sense. By your same framing of this argument, totalitarianism should be acceptable, because democracies still declare war on each other.

 

Rationality is the only proven way humanity has to understand its surroundings. Because of this, it makes logical sense to use and believe in those processes above others that do not use any proven ways to understand.

 

I do not understand how this is snooty in any sense.

 

I disagree with your reading of my argument. Or like you call it, framing. All the listed historic events took place with certain goals or reasons. In this context, the focus is on religious reasons. But these events happened because of many reasons. And my "frame" was that religion, or christianity, was mostly used as an excuse. You can think of the inquisition as an institution which was inspired by religion. But from my point of view, religion was not much more than one thing which brought together the people behind the institution. Just like language, clothes, a common history, or even music can bring people together.

It is not the religion in itself which makes a group of people killing other people. Whenever people kill people out of religion, there's always some deeper reason. Religion is not the reason people have a thirst for power, for instance. The thirst is already there. Religion is one of many tools in acquiring power.

 

I'm afraid we're probably on a completely different wavelength here.

Edited March 25, 2012 by goDel

well, ok, it's not the religion in itself and its concepts who to blame... but the religious people themselves. because when you mix a good concept in the mind of bad persons that concept turns upside down.

Well, I haven't got much to say on the matter, but whenever there's a religious conflict, you will never fully understand it by focussing on the religious aspect. Religion is a part of peoples identities. The conflict is probably about a whole lot of stuff. And the fact that religion is being brought up only shows people feel their identity is at stake. Amongst other things. And those "other" things tend to be way more important.

 

In order to understand the conflict, you have to look past the religions.

 

IMO.....

I don't think that would suffice though. That's like saying you have to discern the real influence for something by overlooking other influences.

i'm not trying to get to anal in this discussion cause like any other discussion i haven't got much constructiveness to use...

 

it's just that, someone mentioned that most of the religious people don't even ask themselves why they believe it, mostly common on young lads.

 

now, if we ask these young people why they do believe, they'll probably answer that they believe because most of the people around them also do, and that a "belief" that is spread to almost half the world population can not be wrong otherwise half of the world would be wrong.

 

in this particular situation i think is productive to present these young lads the reasons why half of the world share this "belief"...

@goDel

you sort of corner yourself by equating religion with tools, tools have different uses and potencies. although i'm shooting from the hip here i'd bet that religion, the way it got institutionalized in europe for example, made it easier for rules to organize crusades and other nasty stuff, don't think it can be discounted as a variable in such cases.

Edited March 25, 2012 by eugene

!?

 

I don't understand.

 

For starters, I think we have a different view on what religion actually is. If I read you correct, you see religion mostly as a means to understand the world. If that's your view, I'd have to disagree with it. Those uses of religion are pretty rare. And have more to do with extremism, imo. And extremism is a different beast than religion. It's a beast of its own, so to speak.

 

@smetty.

Edited March 25, 2012 by goDel

  On 3/25/2012 at 11:26 PM, eugene said:

@goDel

you sort of corner yourself by equating religion with tools, tools have different uses and potencies. although i'm shooting from the hip here i'd bet that religion, the way it got institutionalized in europe for example, made it easier for rules to organize crusades and other nasty stuff, don't think it can be discounted as a variable in such cases.

 

True.

 

But to put it differently, if you were to judge those rulers, would they be guilty because of their religion? I won't say religion should be discounted in those cases. I will say however, that religion is not the thing which made them guilty. Nor would religion plead for them being not guilty. ("They couldn't help themselves - religion made them irrational, and therefore not guilty.") It's a relevant aspect of the listed crimes, if you will. It might have been a motive. And in a rare case it might have been the primary motive. But again, I'd argue these last cases have more to do with extremism than with religion.

  Quote

"They couldn't help themselves - religion made them irrational, and therefore not guilty."

religion is not always something that you pick voluntarily in addition to some natural reason and logic, it can replace the whole worldview and logic n' reason. people are born into it without any choice and do things according to it that might seem immoral to the western-liberal you. it comes down to good ol' cultural relativism in the end.

  On 3/26/2012 at 12:09 AM, eugene said:

  Quote

"They couldn't help themselves - religion made them irrational, and therefore not guilty."

religion is not always something that you pick voluntarily in addition to some natural reason and logic, it can replace the whole worldview and logic n' reason. people are born into it without any choice and do things according to it that might seem immoral to the western-liberal you. it comes down to good ol' cultural relativism in the end.

 

Although you touch a relevant point, I don't see how that would change my argument.

 

Should Afghan bombers be pleaded not guilty in the case they have been brought up to have a world view where their behavior is justified by their beliefs/logic/religion? They didn't have a choice, right? There aren't many cultures which would plead them free either, I'd think.

 

I'm not sure what your point is, tbh. But if it is: by ways of cultural relativism, anything can be argued to be either good or bad, even if it's the complete opposite to what, for instance, western culture says (eg. "Killing christians is good"). And cultures can be heavily influenced by religion. Therefore, religion should not be discounted as merely a tool.

I'd still say examples where this is the case are extremes and not normal. The average religious culture does not have rules that say "killing people with other beliefs is OK". A somewhat less extreme example would be cultures where people with different religions have a different status. But that's a different beast altogether, imo. For instance, apartheid had hardly anything to do with religion, but it can be awfully similar to being a christian in a muslim world. Or a palestinian in israel. (i kid. i kid.)

 

Again, that has more to do with tribal tendencies, than with religion.

Edited March 26, 2012 by goDel

that's a classic anthropological dilemma you're bringing up, i'd replace "they didn't have a choice" with "they believed they were doing the right thing" though. the question of how the afghan bombers are tried is a matter of interest and power after all, not cultural understanding and tolerance.

 

religion as tool is something you brought up initially, it's obviously much more than that, but it still can be exploited as a tool.

my argument is simple: i believe that religion itself (shouldn't generalize here but lets ignore it for now) has something that it makes the believers more susceptible to acting immorally (from our pov and understanding of morals). or in other words, it just seem very plausible to me that religious people suspend skepticism and follow the greater cause, whatever it may be, more easily than non-believers.

i think it's been brought up earlier - the old testament itself condones genocide, of course it doesn't get interpreted literally but it still might have some effect given the holy status of bible together with the motive of superiority of hebrews, and that's just one example.

you come off very universalist, it makes some sense in our heavily globalized world with the western values dominating, but there's still a shitload of variance and fucked up shit (again, from our pov) going on out of reach of phone cameras that's locally considered normal.

  On 3/25/2012 at 6:25 PM, Franklin said:

Dawkins gets a lot of flack these days but someone has to get the ball rolling in contemporary society.. He's stated that publicly and understands that most people's opinions of him are increasingly negative. He is, however, merely espousing a middle ground or Neutral position (we don't know so let's keep all arguments on the table for scientific study) as a replacement to the extreme position of major religions (we know and don't need to prove anything). It's funny by the way that he gets so much negative press for a neutral position. He argues, just like the rest of the so-called "four horsemen" and myself and smetty here that though believing in fairy tales can sometimes bring small groups of people together and help us sleep at night but it stunts our race. it allows for all the things that I said in my previous post which brings far more negatives and than positives for us, and for succeeding generations. And it goes back to that bertrand russell vid. in that catholic wedding thread where he argues that purposeful belief (you could insert "faith" easily) in things that are not true will not lead to good.

 

that's a big argument but I don't think it's a tough one to back up.... even Pinker's history of the decline of violence (in his book The Better Angels of our Nature) gives a great insight as to the violence that christianity has promoted and enforced over the last couple thousand years is a strong argument for the elimination of Gods that are violent as fuck at least (partially why I'm not as opposed to eastern religions)

 

Mostly I'm just against ignorance. I refuse to believe that we are better off believing in "feelings" and in having "faith". To me that's (at least) intellectual laziness and just like parents of lazy kids we ought to kick people in the ass and get them off the couch and participating in real life.

 

Could you imagine if instead of regular sunday school (which is a fucking atrocity that I would also argue borders on child abuse) children around the world got lessons in virtue ethics, in actual history, and were taught contemporary theories like evolution and maybe even some experimental physics lessons on how the world may have come about for fun?

 

So, for dragging us kicking and screaming into a world like this I will support Dawkins and harris, and dennett,and hitchens, and whoever else comes along and is brave enough to attack the religious right.

 

 

Dang, had a reply all typed up and the back button deleted it. Basically I question how many people Dawkins et al have actually converted, I think his snide "holier than thou" (heh) attitude has closed eyes and ears before they had the chance to be opened. When you watch these videos of him and his pals, you see they are only speaking (even pandering) to the already converted. People don't change their minds because you defeat them with logic, you need to lay our your beliefs plainly, with respect to the opposing viewpoint. "Get more flies with honey than vinegar" and all that.

 

Personally if I wanted to open the eyes of someone I considered narrow-minded, I'd show them Sagan's "Cosmos" or something like that. Give them something positive first, expose them to the wonder of the universe, and the rest would probably come naturally. Or not. But I still maintain beating people over the head with "your God doesn't exist" doesn't open a dialogue or help matters.

  On 3/26/2012 at 2:37 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 3/25/2012 at 6:25 PM, Franklin said:

Dawkins gets a lot of flack these days but someone has to get the ball rolling in contemporary society.. He's stated that publicly and understands that most people's opinions of him are increasingly negative. He is, however, merely espousing a middle ground or Neutral position (we don't know so let's keep all arguments on the table for scientific study) as a replacement to the extreme position of major religions (we know and don't need to prove anything). It's funny by the way that he gets so much negative press for a neutral position. He argues, just like the rest of the so-called "four horsemen" and myself and smetty here that though believing in fairy tales can sometimes bring small groups of people together and help us sleep at night but it stunts our race. it allows for all the things that I said in my previous post which brings far more negatives and than positives for us, and for succeeding generations. And it goes back to that bertrand russell vid. in that catholic wedding thread where he argues that purposeful belief (you could insert "faith" easily) in things that are not true will not lead to good.

 

that's a big argument but I don't think it's a tough one to back up.... even Pinker's history of the decline of violence (in his book The Better Angels of our Nature) gives a great insight as to the violence that christianity has promoted and enforced over the last couple thousand years is a strong argument for the elimination of Gods that are violent as fuck at least (partially why I'm not as opposed to eastern religions)

 

Mostly I'm just against ignorance. I refuse to believe that we are better off believing in "feelings" and in having "faith". To me that's (at least) intellectual laziness and just like parents of lazy kids we ought to kick people in the ass and get them off the couch and participating in real life.

 

Could you imagine if instead of regular sunday school (which is a fucking atrocity that I would also argue borders on child abuse) children around the world got lessons in virtue ethics, in actual history, and were taught contemporary theories like evolution and maybe even some experimental physics lessons on how the world may have come about for fun?

 

So, for dragging us kicking and screaming into a world like this I will support Dawkins and harris, and dennett,and hitchens, and whoever else comes along and is brave enough to attack the religious right.

 

 

Dang, had a reply all typed up and the back button deleted it. Basically I question how many people Dawkins et al have actually converted, I think his snide "holier than thou" (heh) attitude has closed eyes and ears before they had the chance to be opened. When you watch these videos of him and his pals, you see they are only speaking (even pandering) to the already converted. People don't change their minds because you defeat them with logic, you need to lay our your beliefs plainly, with respect to the opposing viewpoint. "Get more flies with honey than vinegar" and all that.

 

Personally if I wanted to open the eyes of someone I considered narrow-minded, I'd show them Sagan's "Cosmos" or something like that. Give them something positive first, expose them to the wonder of the universe, and the rest would probably come naturally. Or not. But I still maintain beating people over the head with "your God doesn't exist" doesn't open a dialogue or help matters.

 

Isn't it naive to assume that if you essentially say their belief system is flawed in anyway regardless of the niceties you use to dress it up, that it would help change their mind?

I've just read (though at points, selectively skimmed) this thread. Lot of great posts, lot of comments I wished I could of commented on but don't wish to re-hash. I feel obliged to add my 2 cents. I apologize for any vagueness. If you wish for more details, feel free to PM me.

 

I was raised Christian. Unlike a few of my peers, it wasn't through an evangelical or fundamentalist sect, just general Protestantism (couple church affiliation changes, that's about it). Both my parents are religious, my mother is without a doubt more so, and I think she is for very sincere reasons. At one point I went to a Catholic school for a year (it was between moves) which gave me further insight into that doctrine. I was a military dependent so I moved around a lot and as a family we didn't stay in one neighborhood or with one church as I grew up. But all in all, it was pretty typical and by no means a tramatic or regretful experience in say, a more cultist group or a fringe church or some insance non-denominational megachurch.

 

I look back at all of it with absolute intrigue. In retrospect, I know I have always struggled with my believe in the tenants of Christianity and God. I'm not talking about the moral teachings of Christ either, many of which ironically stand against much or what the loud conservative Christians of spew lately. I struggled with the concept that you had to accept Jesus as your savior to be saved (or as some would play up more than others, be doomed to burn in hell). I would have friends who were Buddhist or Jewish or whose parents were irreligious, and later friends who were athiest, and I could never understand why they couldn't "go to heaven" for such an arbitrary reasons. In 4th and 5th grade I noticed classmates who would have issues with readings about the Epic of Gilglamesh (the deluge part especially) and it's historical connection to the story of Noah's Ark as well as science discussions about the actual age of the Earth and the Universe. I would wonder if I should feel bad for their ignorance, or feel guilty myself for not truly "believing in the Bible." Years ago (but thankfully since resolved) I dealt with the consequences of living together with my partner out of wedlock by having relationships with certain family members suddenly strained. And also, we're now married, so in retrospect the drama at the time was especially needless.

 

I don't consider myself very religious anymore. That said, I'm still spiritual and by no means an athiest. I've been agnostic, but at this point I consider myself too interested in belief systems to embrace that stance either. I'm still searching. I'd call myself of theist in a very broad and vague sense. I have a great respect for many of my religious friends and family and for certain community churches and charitable, non-politically motivated relgious groups as well. Still, I'm completely disgusted and disturbed by much of contemporary religion, especially in America and especially in the context of worldwide politics. I get absolutely infuriated when devout Christians demonize Islam or Evangelicals criticize sects like Mormanism. I remain sympathetic to my athiest friends, many of whom are better and kinder people than most self-described Christians. They remain private about their irreligion because anyone who "doesn't believe in something" is essentially a pariah in most of America. And of course the consequences of terrorism and state dictorships, etc. but that's could fill pages of countless other threads...

 

It sounds snooty, but I find myself too intelligent and far too curious to find comfort and ease in a particular religion or dogma. I am absolutely fascinated by how arbitrary religion is when it's looked at historically. Gnostic and esoteric practices appeal to me because of their natural adversity to strict doctrines embraced by powerful religious entities. It's arguable that the stance of religious beliefs in relation to contemporary society and politics is worse than ever, at least in rhetoric and public policy. We give more attention and power to the kooks at the 700 Club and Megachurch community than the intellectual theologists and philosophers of today. I know things like the Crusades and the 100 years war were worse in terms of deaths and destruction, but sometimes I feel like we're at the cusp of that now. An excellent example? The Book of Revelations. It wasn't added to the canon until the 400s. It's relevance has been debated often and many have concluded, at best, that it is allegorical or Preterist (i.e. settled historically in the 1st century AD). Now because of the popularity and legitimacy given to evangelical Christian groups it's influencing the decisions of many major American politicians when it comes to foriegn policy in the Middle East, particulalry with our relations with Iran and Israel. It's insane to think that such delusions are affecting all of us when it comes to the laws proposed and passed in this country regarding gay rights, medical legislation, and civil liberties.

 

I've said this in multiple threads now, but I hope this time is looked back in absolute embarrassment quite soon. I look to places like Europe with hope when it comes to an embrace of secularism that is balanced with respect, not endorsement, of religious beliefs. That's the kind of society I want for my children. Fingers crossed it will go in that direction here in the States.

Edited March 27, 2012 by joshuatxuk