YourValentine
You sum it up perfectly, Mike. I have nothing to add :-)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Amazon
Sir GH, we clearly have completely differing viewpoints on morality and religion, and different views on what an ideal society looks like, so I'm not going to respond other than to say that you don't sound so different to some religious fanatics. Especially when you try to rationalize vilification of and discrimination towards Muslims (and Catholics).
The Real Wizard
"Rationalizing discrimination"... wow. So we're not allowed to point out the atrocities that people have committed in the name of religion without being accused of discriminating? And I'm an extremist because I refuse to accept the presence of something not proven to exist in the physical world?
It is people like you who condemned witches, Galileo, and Darwin in their time. We'd still be in the middle ages if religion got equal footing with secular advancement.
Somebody, anybody... please tell me one positive thing that organized religion exclusively can bring or has brought to the world, past or present. I've been waiting all my life to hear some kind of rationalization.
If you were the last theist on earth, would your God die with you? Or would he merely languish without a follower for eternity? Once you can realize why 34,000 religions in history (with the possible exception of Deism) have failed to find out the answer to that question, then you can begin to see how absurd most religious people look to the rest of us.
It is people like you who condemned witches, Galileo, and Darwin in their time. We'd still be in the middle ages if religion got equal footing with secular advancement.
Somebody, anybody... please tell me one positive thing that organized religion exclusively can bring or has brought to the world, past or present. I've been waiting all my life to hear some kind of rationalization.
If you were the last theist on earth, would your God die with you? Or would he merely languish without a follower for eternity? Once you can realize why 34,000 religions in history (with the possible exception of Deism) have failed to find out the answer to that question, then you can begin to see how absurd most religious people look to the rest of us.
john bodega
"Somebody, anybody... please tell me one positive thing that organized religion exclusively can bring or has brought to the world, past or present. "
If "personal comfort for a sane majority" is not a positive thing, then what is? You and I find comfort, or solace, or answers, or whatever it is we're after, in different places to religious people. I'm in the Albert Einstein camp, that doesn't need a God because I find the universe sufficiently wonderful and beautiful. I take comfort in the facts and wonders that I know exist already.
It's not like that for everyone. Other people (plenty of good people) get what they need from religion. I can't fathom it, but then they usually can't fathom what I consider to be 'the truth' because I get so entangled in the science of it that it starts to sound like spiritualism. Hehe.
People always point to religion these days as utterly evil. I put it to you that if it weren't religion being used to take advantage of the masses, it'd be something else. 'The church' is just an institution, and institutions have a tendency to fuck people on a regular basis. I think people like you (well meaning as you are, and I'd agree with a lot of what you say) should rethink exactly what it is you're on the warpath against. An attitude that 'religious belief has never brought anything positive' completely misses the real bones of the matter.
The remarkable inability for either side to do something as simple as get along with each other is what makes me want to spit. There is, despite the difference of opinions in this thread, plenty to agree about.
If "personal comfort for a sane majority" is not a positive thing, then what is? You and I find comfort, or solace, or answers, or whatever it is we're after, in different places to religious people. I'm in the Albert Einstein camp, that doesn't need a God because I find the universe sufficiently wonderful and beautiful. I take comfort in the facts and wonders that I know exist already.
It's not like that for everyone. Other people (plenty of good people) get what they need from religion. I can't fathom it, but then they usually can't fathom what I consider to be 'the truth' because I get so entangled in the science of it that it starts to sound like spiritualism. Hehe.
People always point to religion these days as utterly evil. I put it to you that if it weren't religion being used to take advantage of the masses, it'd be something else. 'The church' is just an institution, and institutions have a tendency to fuck people on a regular basis. I think people like you (well meaning as you are, and I'd agree with a lot of what you say) should rethink exactly what it is you're on the warpath against. An attitude that 'religious belief has never brought anything positive' completely misses the real bones of the matter.
The remarkable inability for either side to do something as simple as get along with each other is what makes me want to spit. There is, despite the difference of opinions in this thread, plenty to agree about.
john bodega
"So we're not allowed to point out the atrocities that people have committed in the name of religion without being accused of discriminating?"
Put it this way - I've never met a religious person that committed an atrocity. People who commit atrocities are users. They use whatever means they can find to get people to do what they want. Whose atrocities are we talking about? The Crusades? The Inquisition? It may have missed your attention but those people were seriously fucked up. If it wasn't God telling them to do what they did, then it would have been something else. It always is.
What you and I have got something against is institutions. Plenty of governments have gotten away with atrocities and abuse of human rights without invoking God. Plenty have done it under the banner of religious fervour. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't fucking matter if Atta crashed his plane to the words "Allah akbar" or "fuck Americans". He was a loony, who'd been raised on loony bullshit.
Be scientific about this. If one religious person commits murder, whereas the other religious person never lays a hand on anyone in their life, then religion is ultimately not the factor that causes the murder to happen. It can be dressed up to look that way. If you look at someone like Fred Phelps who says "God hates Fags, etc etc etc" it's easy to draw the conclusion that it's a problem based in religion. Ultimately, it isn't. He's been raised a certain way and he's too thick to break the pattern. The issue there is prejudice, not religion. Indoctrination.
One can't excuse the acts throughout history that have been perpetrated 'in the name of God' but basically, they're history. That's all. I know that here, today, there are plenty of people who believe in God who are not fucked up. I know a lot of them that would have plenty of reason to get angry at the suggestion that they ARE fucked up, and coincidentally they're usually too good natured to rise to such bullshit. They shake their heads at it, the same way I do. The difference being that I'm comfortable with the idea of life being very finite and the universe being full of nothing but a lot of gas and dust.
Put it this way - I've never met a religious person that committed an atrocity. People who commit atrocities are users. They use whatever means they can find to get people to do what they want. Whose atrocities are we talking about? The Crusades? The Inquisition? It may have missed your attention but those people were seriously fucked up. If it wasn't God telling them to do what they did, then it would have been something else. It always is.
What you and I have got something against is institutions. Plenty of governments have gotten away with atrocities and abuse of human rights without invoking God. Plenty have done it under the banner of religious fervour. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't fucking matter if Atta crashed his plane to the words "Allah akbar" or "fuck Americans". He was a loony, who'd been raised on loony bullshit.
Be scientific about this. If one religious person commits murder, whereas the other religious person never lays a hand on anyone in their life, then religion is ultimately not the factor that causes the murder to happen. It can be dressed up to look that way. If you look at someone like Fred Phelps who says "God hates Fags, etc etc etc" it's easy to draw the conclusion that it's a problem based in religion. Ultimately, it isn't. He's been raised a certain way and he's too thick to break the pattern. The issue there is prejudice, not religion. Indoctrination.
One can't excuse the acts throughout history that have been perpetrated 'in the name of God' but basically, they're history. That's all. I know that here, today, there are plenty of people who believe in God who are not fucked up. I know a lot of them that would have plenty of reason to get angry at the suggestion that they ARE fucked up, and coincidentally they're usually too good natured to rise to such bullshit. They shake their heads at it, the same way I do. The difference being that I'm comfortable with the idea of life being very finite and the universe being full of nothing but a lot of gas and dust.
The Real Wizard
Zebonka12 wrote:
"If "personal comfort for a sane majority" is not a positive thing, then what is? You and I find comfort, or solace, or answers, or whatever it is we're after, in different places to religious people."
Fair enough. And if there would be no extremism we'd all be fine. I've always said I respect their choices - but there are consequences. We do have extremism, and billions of people effectively support said extremism by not vocally condemning it. It is the average person who lets extremism happen, not only the extremists.
"If you look at someone like Fred Phelps who says "God hates Fags, etc etc etc" it's easy to draw the conclusion that it's a problem based in religion. Ultimately, it isn't. He's been raised a certain way and he's too thick to break the pattern. The issue there is prejudice, not religion. Indoctrination."
Great example. But here's my two cents - as long as most people are willing to accept the existence of something they can't see, they'll never be able to fully fathom how this same root ideology motivates people like Phelps. They're effectively doing the same thing - Phelps just takes it a step further by going out in the streets. If the majority of the USA realized that their basic mental patterns are no different from his, Phelps' antics wouldn't have a platform to exist.
"I put it to you that if it weren't religion being used to take advantage of the masses, it'd be something else."
Absolutely. It's the mentality that needs to chance, not the ideology. Mentality is the only thing that keeps ideology alive.
"If "personal comfort for a sane majority" is not a positive thing, then what is? You and I find comfort, or solace, or answers, or whatever it is we're after, in different places to religious people."
Fair enough. And if there would be no extremism we'd all be fine. I've always said I respect their choices - but there are consequences. We do have extremism, and billions of people effectively support said extremism by not vocally condemning it. It is the average person who lets extremism happen, not only the extremists.
"If you look at someone like Fred Phelps who says "God hates Fags, etc etc etc" it's easy to draw the conclusion that it's a problem based in religion. Ultimately, it isn't. He's been raised a certain way and he's too thick to break the pattern. The issue there is prejudice, not religion. Indoctrination."
Great example. But here's my two cents - as long as most people are willing to accept the existence of something they can't see, they'll never be able to fully fathom how this same root ideology motivates people like Phelps. They're effectively doing the same thing - Phelps just takes it a step further by going out in the streets. If the majority of the USA realized that their basic mental patterns are no different from his, Phelps' antics wouldn't have a platform to exist.
"I put it to you that if it weren't religion being used to take advantage of the masses, it'd be something else."
Absolutely. It's the mentality that needs to chance, not the ideology. Mentality is the only thing that keeps ideology alive.
magicalfreddiemercury
>> Sir GH wrote: We do have extremism, and billions of people effectively support said extremism by not vocally condemning it. It is the average person who lets extremism happen, not only the extremists. <<
This is an excellent point, IMO, and one that I feel contributes to anger on all sides. Where there is silence, it's natural to insert one's own thoughts - right or wrong - and wonder if the silence is fear to disagree, ambivalence or outright agreement. And where there is silence, those who are most vocal will receive the most attention, and thereby, the most power.
This is an excellent point, IMO, and one that I feel contributes to anger on all sides. Where there is silence, it's natural to insert one's own thoughts - right or wrong - and wonder if the silence is fear to disagree, ambivalence or outright agreement. And where there is silence, those who are most vocal will receive the most attention, and thereby, the most power.
The Real Wizard
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:
"And where there is silence, those who are most vocal will receive the most attention, and thereby, the most power."
Bingo - the formula for extremism.
"And where there is silence, those who are most vocal will receive the most attention, and thereby, the most power."
Bingo - the formula for extremism.
GratefulFan
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:
I do agree the media has, as usual, chosen to spin this in a way that makes the headlines stand out. But I also agree that the Cordoba Initiative has billed this improperly thus creating a unified defense against the entire project. I fear now, wherever they may propose to build, if this option falls through, will be considered improper for one reason or another. They’ve insulted and dismissed the feelings of those they say they want to give back to. There will be no about-face from that.
==============================================
Thanks for your thoughts magicalfm. I guess I would just add that the fact that the group is pushing forward is fairly predictable from a human nature standpoint. They've been pulling the idea together for years, and as they appear to feel that the true nature of the project has not been well communicated by the media it's only natural that they don't simply fold. Polling indicated that while 52% of New Yorkers overall object to the project (with 31% approving and the rest undecided), Manhatten itself is 42% in favour, 32% against with the rest undecided. So there is an argument that there is significant relative support in the area that will be most directly impacted by the presence of the centre. Given that, I'm not sure that the raw fact that the group hasn't withdrawn their plans in the face of what is actually a divided public response should really be held too much against them.
I do agree the media has, as usual, chosen to spin this in a way that makes the headlines stand out. But I also agree that the Cordoba Initiative has billed this improperly thus creating a unified defense against the entire project. I fear now, wherever they may propose to build, if this option falls through, will be considered improper for one reason or another. They’ve insulted and dismissed the feelings of those they say they want to give back to. There will be no about-face from that.
==============================================
Thanks for your thoughts magicalfm. I guess I would just add that the fact that the group is pushing forward is fairly predictable from a human nature standpoint. They've been pulling the idea together for years, and as they appear to feel that the true nature of the project has not been well communicated by the media it's only natural that they don't simply fold. Polling indicated that while 52% of New Yorkers overall object to the project (with 31% approving and the rest undecided), Manhatten itself is 42% in favour, 32% against with the rest undecided. So there is an argument that there is significant relative support in the area that will be most directly impacted by the presence of the centre. Given that, I'm not sure that the raw fact that the group hasn't withdrawn their plans in the face of what is actually a divided public response should really be held too much against them.
GratefulFan
Sir GH wrote:
If they continue to associate themselves with islam it's their own fault. They can always choose another spiritual path if they don't like certain things that come to accompany it over time. All the same I have no sympathy for catholics who hate being 'discriminated' against because the church has covered up child molestation for centuries. It's their choice to stay catholic, so they should be prepared to take the heat when it comes.
=================================
Though I'm not a particularly observant Catholic, I would laugh at anybody who tried to 'discriminate' against me for the criminal actions of a handful of priests who have nothing to do with me, any other Catholic person I know, or any of the dozens of priests I've seen practice over the years. I don't think it's something the average Catholic lives in much fear of.
If they continue to associate themselves with islam it's their own fault. They can always choose another spiritual path if they don't like certain things that come to accompany it over time. All the same I have no sympathy for catholics who hate being 'discriminated' against because the church has covered up child molestation for centuries. It's their choice to stay catholic, so they should be prepared to take the heat when it comes.
=================================
Though I'm not a particularly observant Catholic, I would laugh at anybody who tried to 'discriminate' against me for the criminal actions of a handful of priests who have nothing to do with me, any other Catholic person I know, or any of the dozens of priests I've seen practice over the years. I don't think it's something the average Catholic lives in much fear of.
magicalfreddiemercury
>> GratefulFan wrote: Thanks for your thoughts magicalfm. I guess I would just add that the fact that the group is pushing forward is fairly predictable from a human nature standpoint. They've been pulling the idea together for years, and as they appear to feel that the true nature of the project has not been well communicated by the media it's only natural that they don't simply fold. Polling indicated that while 52% of New Yorkers overall object to the project (with 31% approving and the rest undecided), Manhatten itself is 42% in favour, 32% against with the rest undecided. So there is an argument that there is significant relative support in the area that will be most directly impacted by the presence of the centre. Given that, I'm not sure that the raw fact that the group hasn't withdrawn their plans in the face of what is actually a divided public response should really be held too much against them. <<
I understand what you're saying and in this context, it makes perfect sense, though I have not seen a poll showing a majority for it. That's not to say it isn't true, just that I haven't seen it.
Going with that, however, the reactions have been genuine and the organizers have acknowledged 9/11 as the reason for wanting to build this center at this location. They claim sensitivity to views of islam as the reason and say they want to show “the west” that islam is peaceful. I am still confused as to how building a muslim-themed community center at Ground Zero will expose islam as peaceful when it stirs so much negative emotion to do so and they don't address it.
And just as an aside… the more the organizers refer to “the west” and islam in one sentence, the more it seems they are not for integrating but rather for further separating the two sides.
I understand what you're saying and in this context, it makes perfect sense, though I have not seen a poll showing a majority for it. That's not to say it isn't true, just that I haven't seen it.
Going with that, however, the reactions have been genuine and the organizers have acknowledged 9/11 as the reason for wanting to build this center at this location. They claim sensitivity to views of islam as the reason and say they want to show “the west” that islam is peaceful. I am still confused as to how building a muslim-themed community center at Ground Zero will expose islam as peaceful when it stirs so much negative emotion to do so and they don't address it.
And just as an aside… the more the organizers refer to “the west” and islam in one sentence, the more it seems they are not for integrating but rather for further separating the two sides.
Amazon
Sir GH wrote: " ""Rationalizing discrimination"... wow."
Yes, you are. In that post you say that if Muslims 'continue to associate themselves with Islam it's their own fault.' In previous posts you have said such things as 'so-called 'Islamophobia' is quite justified' (when there is Islamophobia and it certainly can not be justified) and that Muslims who want to change western culture to match their own (when, putting aside the fact there is not really such a thing as western culture, people have the right to attempt to change a culture in a legal and peaceful way) deserve to be villified; complained about Muslims having their own banks (which is like complaining about there being vegatarian restaurants) and have tried to explain away bigots and Islamophobes as simply not liking the ideology (when in fact millions of people have been persecuted and murdered because of their religion). That you would be surprised that I wold accuse you of 'Rationalizing discrimination'? Wow.
'So we're not allowed to point out the atrocities that people have committed in the name of religion without being accused of discriminating?'
Two comments. One, you are allowed to do whatever you want, just as I am allowed to respond any way I want. Although I wonder. In your ideal world, in which religion is banned, would believers be able to speak up? At all?
Two, you have rationalised discrimination and vilification in this thread (including from your own mouth), and my comment was not about your talking of atrocities committed in the name of religion (you seem to think you're brave for some reason).
That aside, yes, atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, but that does not mean that they were caused by religion. Wars have pre-dated religion, and even many religious wars were about power or personal glory or land. Terrorism has traditionally been less about religion than about power. During the 20th century, most of the major genocides and mass murders were not connected to religion. The Holocaust was about religious and racial hatred, but Hitler did not committ his crimes in the name of God. Stalin was essentially a paranoid dictator, just on a grand scale. Mao killed in his interpretation of Socialism, Amin was paranoid, Pol Pot wanted to create a 'worker's paradise', Rwanda was really an ethnic conflict, and Sudan was about power.
"And I'm an extremist because I refuse to accept the presence of something not proven to exist in the physical world?"
No, you are an extremist because you want to ban all religion. I asked '"Can't we simply allow all groups to have an equal footing? Including religious groups?' which is quite reasonable. You responded with 'No, never' and then went on to attack religion.
Well, guess what, you may not like religion (I don't really care), but in a liberal democracy, believers (or whatever you want to call them) have as much right as you to exist, to contribute, to lobby, to run for office, to pray in religious buildings and to go to religious schools. You may not like it, but so what? You can't expect everyone to have the same opinion as you. If you don't like it, well, then don't live in a liberal democracy.
It is clear as day that you want to deny me a voice, simply because I believe in God. That makes you an extremist, in the same way that Christian fundamentalists who only accept Christians are extremists. I wouldn't want to live in a theocracy, and I wouldn't want to live in your version of paradise.
"You're not a murderer, but let's say you supported Mark David Chapman's decision because you don't like The Beatles. Would you then condemn me for suggesting you support the idea of murdering rock stars? This is no different from choosing to remain with a religious ideology that has led to death."
This analogy doesn't make all that much sense. If believers are represented by Chapman, do The Beatles represent other believers or non-believers? Anyway, other than bigots and extremists, I have never expressed dislike of any group. It is not me, on these pages, who has expressed open contempt and in some cases dislike of those with a different viewpoint on God's existence.
Nonetheless, the idea that that I 'choose to remain with a religious ideology that has led to death' is absurd and offensive. Just so you know, people who kill in the name of religion are extremists. Abortion clinic bombers, the Jews in the Occupied Territories, Islamic suicide bombers, the Hindu fundamentalists in India; they do not represent the religion, and they are perverting the religious ideology. Do you think that as a Jew, I take pride in everything that Israel does? Of course not. Some of her actions have horrified and saddened me. There are numerous Jews in Israel, as well as in Australia and other countries, who make me embarassed that I share their religion.
Similarly, the Muslims that I know are not represented by the terrorists, the Catholics that I know are furious at the handling of the sex abuse allegations, and the Hindus that I've met are incredibly tolerant towards Muslims and non-Hindus. The religious ideology that they, and I, follow has not led to death. It has been hijacked by extremists who took their twisted interpretation to death.
"It is people like you who condemned witches, Galileo, and Darwin in their time."
People like me? Such a nice guy. Firstly, you don't know me. Secondly, it's comments like this that reveal what a fool and athiest fundamentalist you truly are. You do realise that not all religious people are the same? Believers don't all look the same, and we don't all believe the same things. You have such a black-hat view of the world, it's not funny.
"We'd still be in the middle ages if religion got equal footing with secular advancement."
Oh please. While nobody can deny the wonders of secular advancement, you can not deny the various inventions/discoveries which were created by believers and religious people (for example, the Muslims who made advancements in math and science were believers), and nor can you deny the art that was inspired by religion and was created by believers (for example the Sistine Chappel).
Religious institutions have been disappointing. The Catholic Church for example has been an embarassment, no doubt, and I have no time for them (especially as a Jew), but you seem to believe that as an athiest, you are intellectually superior to those deluded believers. Well, you aren't.
"Somebody, anybody... please tell me one positive thing that organized religion exclusively can bring or has brought to the world, past or present. I've been waiting all my life to hear some kind of rationalization."
Religion is not something where you write down the pros and cons, and if there are more pros, you will be pro-religion. Religion can not be ralionalized in such a way. People are attracted to religion for different reasons. For some, it's about joy, for others it is about inner peace, for others it is about a connection to others, for others it may be the pleasure to worship God with others, and for others it's something else.
Regarding what religion has given the world; among other things, it has delivered a moral code to society and gave a set of laws to societies which previously did not have a rule of law, or at least did not have one as we know it.
Yes, you are. In that post you say that if Muslims 'continue to associate themselves with Islam it's their own fault.' In previous posts you have said such things as 'so-called 'Islamophobia' is quite justified' (when there is Islamophobia and it certainly can not be justified) and that Muslims who want to change western culture to match their own (when, putting aside the fact there is not really such a thing as western culture, people have the right to attempt to change a culture in a legal and peaceful way) deserve to be villified; complained about Muslims having their own banks (which is like complaining about there being vegatarian restaurants) and have tried to explain away bigots and Islamophobes as simply not liking the ideology (when in fact millions of people have been persecuted and murdered because of their religion). That you would be surprised that I wold accuse you of 'Rationalizing discrimination'? Wow.
'So we're not allowed to point out the atrocities that people have committed in the name of religion without being accused of discriminating?'
Two comments. One, you are allowed to do whatever you want, just as I am allowed to respond any way I want. Although I wonder. In your ideal world, in which religion is banned, would believers be able to speak up? At all?
Two, you have rationalised discrimination and vilification in this thread (including from your own mouth), and my comment was not about your talking of atrocities committed in the name of religion (you seem to think you're brave for some reason).
That aside, yes, atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, but that does not mean that they were caused by religion. Wars have pre-dated religion, and even many religious wars were about power or personal glory or land. Terrorism has traditionally been less about religion than about power. During the 20th century, most of the major genocides and mass murders were not connected to religion. The Holocaust was about religious and racial hatred, but Hitler did not committ his crimes in the name of God. Stalin was essentially a paranoid dictator, just on a grand scale. Mao killed in his interpretation of Socialism, Amin was paranoid, Pol Pot wanted to create a 'worker's paradise', Rwanda was really an ethnic conflict, and Sudan was about power.
"And I'm an extremist because I refuse to accept the presence of something not proven to exist in the physical world?"
No, you are an extremist because you want to ban all religion. I asked '"Can't we simply allow all groups to have an equal footing? Including religious groups?' which is quite reasonable. You responded with 'No, never' and then went on to attack religion.
Well, guess what, you may not like religion (I don't really care), but in a liberal democracy, believers (or whatever you want to call them) have as much right as you to exist, to contribute, to lobby, to run for office, to pray in religious buildings and to go to religious schools. You may not like it, but so what? You can't expect everyone to have the same opinion as you. If you don't like it, well, then don't live in a liberal democracy.
It is clear as day that you want to deny me a voice, simply because I believe in God. That makes you an extremist, in the same way that Christian fundamentalists who only accept Christians are extremists. I wouldn't want to live in a theocracy, and I wouldn't want to live in your version of paradise.
"You're not a murderer, but let's say you supported Mark David Chapman's decision because you don't like The Beatles. Would you then condemn me for suggesting you support the idea of murdering rock stars? This is no different from choosing to remain with a religious ideology that has led to death."
This analogy doesn't make all that much sense. If believers are represented by Chapman, do The Beatles represent other believers or non-believers? Anyway, other than bigots and extremists, I have never expressed dislike of any group. It is not me, on these pages, who has expressed open contempt and in some cases dislike of those with a different viewpoint on God's existence.
Nonetheless, the idea that that I 'choose to remain with a religious ideology that has led to death' is absurd and offensive. Just so you know, people who kill in the name of religion are extremists. Abortion clinic bombers, the Jews in the Occupied Territories, Islamic suicide bombers, the Hindu fundamentalists in India; they do not represent the religion, and they are perverting the religious ideology. Do you think that as a Jew, I take pride in everything that Israel does? Of course not. Some of her actions have horrified and saddened me. There are numerous Jews in Israel, as well as in Australia and other countries, who make me embarassed that I share their religion.
Similarly, the Muslims that I know are not represented by the terrorists, the Catholics that I know are furious at the handling of the sex abuse allegations, and the Hindus that I've met are incredibly tolerant towards Muslims and non-Hindus. The religious ideology that they, and I, follow has not led to death. It has been hijacked by extremists who took their twisted interpretation to death.
"It is people like you who condemned witches, Galileo, and Darwin in their time."
People like me? Such a nice guy. Firstly, you don't know me. Secondly, it's comments like this that reveal what a fool and athiest fundamentalist you truly are. You do realise that not all religious people are the same? Believers don't all look the same, and we don't all believe the same things. You have such a black-hat view of the world, it's not funny.
"We'd still be in the middle ages if religion got equal footing with secular advancement."
Oh please. While nobody can deny the wonders of secular advancement, you can not deny the various inventions/discoveries which were created by believers and religious people (for example, the Muslims who made advancements in math and science were believers), and nor can you deny the art that was inspired by religion and was created by believers (for example the Sistine Chappel).
Religious institutions have been disappointing. The Catholic Church for example has been an embarassment, no doubt, and I have no time for them (especially as a Jew), but you seem to believe that as an athiest, you are intellectually superior to those deluded believers. Well, you aren't.
"Somebody, anybody... please tell me one positive thing that organized religion exclusively can bring or has brought to the world, past or present. I've been waiting all my life to hear some kind of rationalization."
Religion is not something where you write down the pros and cons, and if there are more pros, you will be pro-religion. Religion can not be ralionalized in such a way. People are attracted to religion for different reasons. For some, it's about joy, for others it is about inner peace, for others it is about a connection to others, for others it may be the pleasure to worship God with others, and for others it's something else.
Regarding what religion has given the world; among other things, it has delivered a moral code to society and gave a set of laws to societies which previously did not have a rule of law, or at least did not have one as we know it.
Amazon
"If you were the last religious person on earth, would God die with you? Or would he merely languish without a follower for eternity?"
Well, I don't consider God to have a gender, and I happen to believe that God is eternal. In Judaism, God is often referred to as the Eternal.
"Once you can realize why 34,000 religions in history have failed to find out the answer to that question"
One problem. That question isn't particularly important. It may be that '34,000 religions in history have failed to find out the answer to that question' but for most religions, it simply isn't that important a question. It certainly isn't important to me, or the other religious people I know.
"then you can begin to see how absurd religious people look to the rest of us."
To be honest, I couldn't care less whether you think I look absurd or not. I don't determine my morality, curiosity, intellect, or anything else based on you. In your response to Zebronka, you say that you respect people's choices. If you truly believe that, then you must respect the right of religious people and believers to operate as equal members of society. Otherwise, you are just as bad as the religious extremists you criticise, and you yourself are also an extremist.
Well, I don't consider God to have a gender, and I happen to believe that God is eternal. In Judaism, God is often referred to as the Eternal.
"Once you can realize why 34,000 religions in history have failed to find out the answer to that question"
One problem. That question isn't particularly important. It may be that '34,000 religions in history have failed to find out the answer to that question' but for most religions, it simply isn't that important a question. It certainly isn't important to me, or the other religious people I know.
"then you can begin to see how absurd religious people look to the rest of us."
To be honest, I couldn't care less whether you think I look absurd or not. I don't determine my morality, curiosity, intellect, or anything else based on you. In your response to Zebronka, you say that you respect people's choices. If you truly believe that, then you must respect the right of religious people and believers to operate as equal members of society. Otherwise, you are just as bad as the religious extremists you criticise, and you yourself are also an extremist.
The Real Wizard
GratefulFan wrote:
"Though I'm not a particularly observant Catholic, I would laugh at anybody who tried to 'discriminate' against me for the criminal actions of a handful of priests who have nothing to do with me"
Anyone who chooses to support an institution that systematically covers up the sexual abuse of children is part of the problem. If parents and their kids wouldn't go to that church, the religion would collapse and the abuse would be over instantly. Right now that seems to be the only way, as the church officials have made it painfully clear that they're more interested in their reputation and power than the well-being of those affected (as well as those who will be affected in the future, as it's not going to stop any time soon).
Everyone in the civilized world is aware of this problem, and millions of parents still take their kids to church every week. Therefore it's the parents' fault as much as the church's because they choose not to take an alternate path through life. What is their silence achieving? Do they not realize that their kids or nephews might be next? And when it happens, some of these parents accuse their kids of making up stories because they're too closed-minded to see past their view that their religion is flawless. Sadly that still happens, a lot.
"Though I'm not a particularly observant Catholic, I would laugh at anybody who tried to 'discriminate' against me for the criminal actions of a handful of priests who have nothing to do with me"
Anyone who chooses to support an institution that systematically covers up the sexual abuse of children is part of the problem. If parents and their kids wouldn't go to that church, the religion would collapse and the abuse would be over instantly. Right now that seems to be the only way, as the church officials have made it painfully clear that they're more interested in their reputation and power than the well-being of those affected (as well as those who will be affected in the future, as it's not going to stop any time soon).
Everyone in the civilized world is aware of this problem, and millions of parents still take their kids to church every week. Therefore it's the parents' fault as much as the church's because they choose not to take an alternate path through life. What is their silence achieving? Do they not realize that their kids or nephews might be next? And when it happens, some of these parents accuse their kids of making up stories because they're too closed-minded to see past their view that their religion is flawless. Sadly that still happens, a lot.
The Real Wizard
Amazon wrote:
"In your ideal world, in which religion is banned"
Where did I state that I'd like religion to be banned? Did I state somewhere that all evil is exclusively religious and that the world would be better in every way if it were banned?
"Secondly, it's comments like this that reveal what a fool and athiest fundamentalist you truly are."
And where did I state that I'm an atheist? The fact that I'm not a theist doesn't automatically make me an atheist (now who's seeing things black and white?).
"the Muslims who made advancements in math and science were believers"
Fair point. I didn't state that all advancement was exclusively secular, but the overwhelming majority of it was, especially when it mattered most, in the 17th century.
"You do realise that not all religious people are the same? Believers don't all look the same, and we don't all believe the same things. You have such a black-hat view of the world, it's not funny."
Please don't patronize me. I realize the plurality and complexity of beliefs and lifestyles in the world of theism. My point is that it's people who vociferously demand the right for their religious views to exist alongside secular advancement are blockading the advancement of the world in the interest of keeping outdated views alive. The viewpoints of the people who condemned witches, Galileo, and Darwin in their time are the same as those who condemn Sam Harris, Nicholas Sarkozy, and stem cell researchers today. The base mentality - acceptance of propositions on belief without evidence or regard to ramifications - remains the same.
Canada has moved far backwards in many ways over the last four years because of our conservative party's views - some religiously-based and others not. For example, earlier this year they cut off funds for abortions in third world countries - something we had paid into for decades. As a result, thousands upon thousands of women are going to go to an alley and get a botched abortion job. This is one of countless reasons why having religious people in power can be incredibly dangerous.
So, according to your definition of extremism, I guess I'm an extremist because I believe that mentality derived from 1 to 3 thousand year old writings should have no place in modern society. If it wasn't for secular advancement we'd still believe that the earth is the centre of the universe and that illnesses are caused by demons.
"In your ideal world, in which religion is banned"
Where did I state that I'd like religion to be banned? Did I state somewhere that all evil is exclusively religious and that the world would be better in every way if it were banned?
"Secondly, it's comments like this that reveal what a fool and athiest fundamentalist you truly are."
And where did I state that I'm an atheist? The fact that I'm not a theist doesn't automatically make me an atheist (now who's seeing things black and white?).
"the Muslims who made advancements in math and science were believers"
Fair point. I didn't state that all advancement was exclusively secular, but the overwhelming majority of it was, especially when it mattered most, in the 17th century.
"You do realise that not all religious people are the same? Believers don't all look the same, and we don't all believe the same things. You have such a black-hat view of the world, it's not funny."
Please don't patronize me. I realize the plurality and complexity of beliefs and lifestyles in the world of theism. My point is that it's people who vociferously demand the right for their religious views to exist alongside secular advancement are blockading the advancement of the world in the interest of keeping outdated views alive. The viewpoints of the people who condemned witches, Galileo, and Darwin in their time are the same as those who condemn Sam Harris, Nicholas Sarkozy, and stem cell researchers today. The base mentality - acceptance of propositions on belief without evidence or regard to ramifications - remains the same.
Canada has moved far backwards in many ways over the last four years because of our conservative party's views - some religiously-based and others not. For example, earlier this year they cut off funds for abortions in third world countries - something we had paid into for decades. As a result, thousands upon thousands of women are going to go to an alley and get a botched abortion job. This is one of countless reasons why having religious people in power can be incredibly dangerous.
So, according to your definition of extremism, I guess I'm an extremist because I believe that mentality derived from 1 to 3 thousand year old writings should have no place in modern society. If it wasn't for secular advancement we'd still believe that the earth is the centre of the universe and that illnesses are caused by demons.