|
Edit: here is the talk i was at that inspired this blog post http://www.sfu.ca/tlcvan/clients/sfu_woodwards/2012-05-15_Woodwards_Islamophobia_8614/
Ahh, Hello! I'm here to share a personalish story. Main Points 1. i was completely against religions. ALL OF THEM. 2. i went to an event on islamophobia / religious intolerance and interfaith dialogue and discussion. 3. i came out of it a differentish person. i now respect religions and religious people lol
Alright so uhh how did this happen... My opinions against religion are sort of mixed with philosophy, nietzsche, existentialism, camus, etc... i pretty viewed religion as well... illogical, not rational, uhh not the best method to ask about and think about the meaning of life, values, ethics, etc...
I also thought of the conflicts between isreal and the islamic / arab world. and other religious conflicts and saw religion as something causing problems.
Anyways, after the event I went to, i realized that my logic / critical thinking was seriously flawed, and it still is, i shall work on that later, but uhh, i realized that it's more "humans do pretty shitty things" not "religion is inherently causing people to do shitty things" for example i thought of hitler and stalin and yeah, secular people have done pretty terrible things.
But along with this line of thinking, I realized that if islam, judaism, christian people can come together and be bros, i can too. i realized that, while there are crazy fundamentalists and etc... secular people also have legit and not so legit people. so then i thought about how while i still don't believe in god, souls, an afterlife, i am pretty similar to these people in the fact that we ask the questions of why are we alive and why is right and wrong and why is the meaning of living.
Anyways to wrap this up, I realized that while we all come from sort of different beliefs and values, the outcomes are the same or pretty close. We are all pretty good virtuous people living with integrity, thoughtfulness, and trying to do good.
|
That's great! I feel that religion has bad rap, partly because it is poorly represented by those who profess it. You should try reading some religious texts - Genesis is really great, as are the gospels, and I also highly recommend the daodejing.
|
You were right before. Religion asks us to believe something on faith (without evidence), thus believing in it does cause people to do outrageous actions. What did they say/argue that made you change your mind about each religion?
Btw the whole Stalin and Hitler being atheist or secular is a little old and I think has been debunked
|
@Roe: You are stating that because religion asks individuals to do something through faith, they must necessarily commit evil/bad actions as a result of their faith. Stalin and Hitler were not convinced by religion to do what they did; I am relatively sure that they exploited religion to achieve their political motives, but no more.
jodogohoo, I think the mentality you have is a good one
|
On May 18 2012 15:33 Roe wrote: You were right before. Religion asks us to believe something on faith (without evidence), thus believing in it does cause people to do outrageous actions. What did they say/argue that made you change your mind about each religion?
Btw the whole Stalin and Hitler being atheist or secular is a little old and I think has been debunked The argument isn't that secular people don't do bad things. It's rather that atheism/secualrism is never the motivation for their evil deeds in contrast to religion which is often times the motivation for horrible things. By the way, I don't think this argument is quite right. Stalin was killing religious people, so atheism was in fact the motivation for him.
|
On May 18 2012 15:33 Roe wrote: You were right before. Religion asks us to believe something on faith (without evidence), thus believing in it does cause people to do outrageous actions. What did they say/argue that made you change your mind about each religion?
Btw the whole Stalin and Hitler being atheist or secular is a little old and I think has been debunked
uhh i changed my mind because it seemed like it's small "fundamentalist" groups that are giving religion a bad rep while the majority of the people are just normal legit people living their lives.
but yeah you're completely right lol. i sort of... replaced bad logic with... more bad logic... i guess the stalin and hitler examples aren't very good
|
On May 18 2012 15:43 Aerisky wrote:@Roe: You are stating that because religion asks individuals to do something through faith, they must necessarily commit evil/bad actions as a result of their faith. Stalin and Hitler were not convinced by religion to do what they did; I am relatively sure that they exploited religion to achieve their political motives, but no more. jodogohoo, I think the mentality you have is a good one ahh yeah exactly lol. im not really satisfied with how i got to where i am but this mentality is definitely probably the one i want to have ^__^
but yeah, i guess it's the realization that people do bad things whether or not their are religious and blaming religion is.. sometimes the right thing to do, but probably not most of the time, but... i have no evidence or anything to support this claim. it seems legit but maybe i'm wrong
|
On May 18 2012 15:45 jodogohoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 15:33 Roe wrote: You were right before. Religion asks us to believe something on faith (without evidence), thus believing in it does cause people to do outrageous actions. What did they say/argue that made you change your mind about each religion?
Btw the whole Stalin and Hitler being atheist or secular is a little old and I think has been debunked uhh i changed my mind because it seemed like it's small "fundamentalist" groups that are giving religion a bad rep while the majority of the people are just normal legit people living their lives. but yeah you're completely right lol. i sort of... replaced bad logic with... more bad logic... i guess the stalin and hitler examples aren't very good
And you were exactly right. A select group out of a larger group doesn't represent the entire group. Basically what surfinbird said.
Your logic is sound; I think you might be too easily influenced keke ;P
Edit: if you want to build a stronger affirmation of your current position, an exploration of your position/introspection (i.e. self-debate)/even a friendly discussion with some others couldn't help. This is just imo, but you shouldn't be satisfied with a position if you're not sure how you got there--otherwise it could be easy for you to just bounce back and forth. ><
|
On May 18 2012 15:33 Roe wrote: You were right before. Religion asks us to believe something on faith (without evidence), thus believing in it does cause people to do outrageous actions. What did they say/argue that made you change your mind about each religion?
Btw the whole Stalin and Hitler being atheist or secular is a little old and I think has been debunked
but if religion didn't exist, people would find another excuse to kill and hate each other. Religion is just an easy way out and an easy excuse. Please tell me a passage in the bible or Koran that tells people to kill large numbers of people fopr no reason, or to hate people who are different? There isn't.
Religion isn't the cause, its more of an excuse to use. People will find a way to hurt or kill each other no matter the cause, wether it be for land, for respect, for a woman, for fun.
People aren't the problem, religion is. most religions teach people to be chartiable. Not to kill or hurt one another. Jesus himself preched love and kindness, its people who warp and take out of context passages in the bible to fit their need for hate, their need for putting someone below them, to feel better aobut them selves.
Athesists do it as well. By putting down people who have a religion, and saying their beliefs are dumb and wrong.
Here is a small talk by someone on the Koran. and it talks a bit about the most common passage used against islam by christians and by islamophobes.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/lesley_hazelton_on_reading_the_koran.html
|
I don't think you had a serious grasp of Nietzsche or Camus if appeals to the facts that religious people are just "normal legit people living their lives" and that atheists can do amoral things swayed you from your assent to their views. Nietzsche's entire thing against religion wasn't that it was immoral and caused people to do bad things and was illogical, but that it represented a lowering of the species of man. The moral impulse cultivated by (some) religions represented a weakening of man that shaped him into a herd animal. None of this is refuted by the fact that religious people are normal and legit, and in fact that fact just reinforces Nietzsche's views.
|
@masterberti: couldn't have said it better. It's people who exploit things for gain (personal or group) that are the problem.
People aren't the problem, religion is. most religions teach people to be chartiable. Not to kill or hurt one another. Jesus himself preched love and kindness, its people who warp and take out of context passages in the bible to fit their need for hate, their need for putting someone below them, to feel better aobut them selves. Aren't you essentially saying here and in your post that religion isn't the problem and people are, though?
|
On May 18 2012 15:50 Lixler wrote: I don't think you had a serious grasp of Nietzsche or Camus if appeals to the facts that religious people are just "normal legit people living their lives" and that atheists can do amoral things swayed you from your assent to their views. Nietzsche's entire thing against religion wasn't that it was immoral and caused people to do bad things and was illogical, but that it represented a lowering of the species of man. The moral impulse cultivated by (some) religions represented a weakening of man that shaped him into a herd animal. None of this is refuted by the fact that religious people are normal and legit, and in fact that fact just reinforces Nietzsche's views.
To be fair, Nietzsche is specifically talking about monotheism.
|
On May 18 2012 15:48 Aerisky wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 15:45 jodogohoo wrote:On May 18 2012 15:33 Roe wrote: You were right before. Religion asks us to believe something on faith (without evidence), thus believing in it does cause people to do outrageous actions. What did they say/argue that made you change your mind about each religion?
Btw the whole Stalin and Hitler being atheist or secular is a little old and I think has been debunked uhh i changed my mind because it seemed like it's small "fundamentalist" groups that are giving religion a bad rep while the majority of the people are just normal legit people living their lives. but yeah you're completely right lol. i sort of... replaced bad logic with... more bad logic... i guess the stalin and hitler examples aren't very good And you were exactly right. A select group out of a larger group doesn't represent the entire constituency. Basically what surfinbird said. Your logic is sound; I think you might be too easily influenced keke ;P Edit: if you want to build a stronger affirmation of your current position, an exploration of your position/introspection (i.e. self-debate)/even a friendly discussion with some others couldn't help. This is just imo, but you shouldn't be satisfied with a position if you're not sure how you got there--otherwise it could be easy for you to just bounce back and forth. >< the too easily influenced part is definitely true lol, but i'm starting to get better as time goes on =p
On May 18 2012 15:50 Lixler wrote: I don't think you had a serious grasp of Nietzsche or Camus if appeals to the facts that religious people are just "normal legit people living their lives" and that atheists can do amoral things swayed you from your assent to their views. Nietzsche's entire thing against religion wasn't that it was immoral and caused people to do bad things and was illogical, but that it represented a lowering of the species of man. The moral impulse cultivated by (some) religions represented a weakening of man that shaped him into a herd animal. None of this is refuted by the fact that religious people are normal and legit, and in fact that fact just reinforces Nietzsche's views. ahh you are very right. but nietzsche also had problems with science replacing religion as while religon may weaken man into a herd animal, seculizaton doesn't automatically cure this. or something like that... i will admit i am like piecing random stuff together.
my point is that i guess religion may weaken people, not being religious can still weaken people too or not necessarly give them strength to become an "overman" or something like that.
but i 100% agree with you that my grasp of nietzsche and camus is fairly poor
On May 18 2012 15:53 Aerisky wrote:@masterberti: couldn't have said it better. It's people who exploit things for gain (personal or group) that are the problem. Show nested quote +People aren't the problem, religion is. most religions teach people to be chartiable. Not to kill or hurt one another. Jesus himself preched love and kindness, its people who warp and take out of context passages in the bible to fit their need for hate, their need for putting someone below them, to feel better aobut them selves. Aren't you essentially saying here and in your post that religion isn't the problem and people are, though?
lol yeah, i also read it and though that there were some typos or something crazy going on lol
|
On May 18 2012 16:03 jodogohoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 15:48 Aerisky wrote:On May 18 2012 15:45 jodogohoo wrote:On May 18 2012 15:33 Roe wrote: You were right before. Religion asks us to believe something on faith (without evidence), thus believing in it does cause people to do outrageous actions. What did they say/argue that made you change your mind about each religion?
Btw the whole Stalin and Hitler being atheist or secular is a little old and I think has been debunked uhh i changed my mind because it seemed like it's small "fundamentalist" groups that are giving religion a bad rep while the majority of the people are just normal legit people living their lives. but yeah you're completely right lol. i sort of... replaced bad logic with... more bad logic... i guess the stalin and hitler examples aren't very good And you were exactly right. A select group out of a larger group doesn't represent the entire constituency. Basically what surfinbird said. Your logic is sound; I think you might be too easily influenced keke ;P Edit: if you want to build a stronger affirmation of your current position, an exploration of your position/introspection (i.e. self-debate)/even a friendly discussion with some others couldn't help. This is just imo, but you shouldn't be satisfied with a position if you're not sure how you got there--otherwise it could be easy for you to just bounce back and forth. >< the too easily influenced part is definitely true lol, but i'm starting to get better as time goes on =p Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 15:50 Lixler wrote: I don't think you had a serious grasp of Nietzsche or Camus if appeals to the facts that religious people are just "normal legit people living their lives" and that atheists can do amoral things swayed you from your assent to their views. Nietzsche's entire thing against religion wasn't that it was immoral and caused people to do bad things and was illogical, but that it represented a lowering of the species of man. The moral impulse cultivated by (some) religions represented a weakening of man that shaped him into a herd animal. None of this is refuted by the fact that religious people are normal and legit, and in fact that fact just reinforces Nietzsche's views. ahh you are very right. but nietzsche also had problems with science replacing religion as while religon may weaken man into a herd animal, seculizaton doesn't automatically cure this. or something like that... i will admit i am like piecing random stuff together. my point is that i guess religion may weaken people, not being religious can still weaken people too or not necessarly give them strength to become an "overman" or something like that. but i 100% agree with you that my grasp of nietzsche and camus is fairly poor You're clearly of a weak and inferior type. Explication would be wasted on the likes of you.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 18 2012 16:04 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 16:03 jodogohoo wrote:On May 18 2012 15:48 Aerisky wrote:On May 18 2012 15:45 jodogohoo wrote:On May 18 2012 15:33 Roe wrote: You were right before. Religion asks us to believe something on faith (without evidence), thus believing in it does cause people to do outrageous actions. What did they say/argue that made you change your mind about each religion?
Btw the whole Stalin and Hitler being atheist or secular is a little old and I think has been debunked uhh i changed my mind because it seemed like it's small "fundamentalist" groups that are giving religion a bad rep while the majority of the people are just normal legit people living their lives. but yeah you're completely right lol. i sort of... replaced bad logic with... more bad logic... i guess the stalin and hitler examples aren't very good And you were exactly right. A select group out of a larger group doesn't represent the entire constituency. Basically what surfinbird said. Your logic is sound; I think you might be too easily influenced keke ;P Edit: if you want to build a stronger affirmation of your current position, an exploration of your position/introspection (i.e. self-debate)/even a friendly discussion with some others couldn't help. This is just imo, but you shouldn't be satisfied with a position if you're not sure how you got there--otherwise it could be easy for you to just bounce back and forth. >< the too easily influenced part is definitely true lol, but i'm starting to get better as time goes on =p On May 18 2012 15:50 Lixler wrote: I don't think you had a serious grasp of Nietzsche or Camus if appeals to the facts that religious people are just "normal legit people living their lives" and that atheists can do amoral things swayed you from your assent to their views. Nietzsche's entire thing against religion wasn't that it was immoral and caused people to do bad things and was illogical, but that it represented a lowering of the species of man. The moral impulse cultivated by (some) religions represented a weakening of man that shaped him into a herd animal. None of this is refuted by the fact that religious people are normal and legit, and in fact that fact just reinforces Nietzsche's views. ahh you are very right. but nietzsche also had problems with science replacing religion as while religon may weaken man into a herd animal, seculizaton doesn't automatically cure this. or something like that... i will admit i am like piecing random stuff together. my point is that i guess religion may weaken people, not being religious can still weaken people too or not necessarly give them strength to become an "overman" or something like that. but i 100% agree with you that my grasp of nietzsche and camus is fairly poor You're clearly of a weak and inferior type. Explication would be wasted on the likes of you. lol =_=;;
|
On May 18 2012 15:53 Aerisky wrote: Aren't you essentially saying here and in your post that religion isn't the problem and people are, though?
People are religion, religion is people. If you try to split them up you get into logical fallacies. You can't talk about religion and act like people have nothing to do with it. How people can abuse religion is very important in evaluating a religion and it may be why that religion survived while others died out.
Anyway, this blog is funny. Views about objective facts that are objectively wrong need no respect. You can respect reliigous people without respecting their religion, though they may think they disagree. You can't be tolerant towards everything if you want to be a moral person. A society that tolerates 'everything' isn't the most civilized either. Tolerance is very important in a society. But tolerating something and respecting something are also entirely different things.
|
Fair enough, though my opinion is more precisely that religions are not the root of observed evil, wrongdoing, etc.; not that people and religions should be observed separately or in vacuums, to be sure.
And once again we get into semantics. Your definition of respect in this context clearly differs from OP's--that and you are arguing specific minutia. OP generally means that he can respect others regardless of creed, which is really good enough. You can also respect both people and how religion influences them, but it's -arguably- not your place to declare that others have no right respecting other religions, regardless of whether you consider them intellectually lacking for said action. You also don't really develop your individual/personal definitions of respect versus tolerance so I may or may not have stepped on that in my response--I apologize in advance if I've done so.
|
Blazinghand
United States25541 Posts
I'm glad you gained something from the interfaith dialogue. I personally believe that respect for the beliefs of others should be tempered with the fact that whatever their beliefs are doesn't give them special privilege to ignore the rules of society. I have friends who disagree with each other on the nature of god, or whether or not he exists, and that's totes fine. I think the problem happens when people try to force their beliefs or values onto other people, regardless of what those beliefs are.
|
On May 18 2012 16:44 Blazinghand wrote: I'm glad you gained something from the interfaith dialogue. I personally believe that respect for the beliefs of others should be tempered with the fact that whatever their beliefs are doesn't give them special privilege to ignore the rules of society. I have friends who disagree with each other on the nature of god, or whether or not he exists, and that's totes fine. I think the problem happens when people try to force their beliefs or values onto other people, regardless of what those beliefs are.
Yeah, basically "your rights stop where others' begin" sort of thing, ALTHOUGH this can get very complicated and messy, of course In general though, yeah: discussion, whether it's lighthearted banter or more deep/extensive discourses, is good--forcing of beliefs or persecution is bad.
Though the thing is, evangelical religions attempt to convert others at least partially because some honestly believe they are doing a good thing and making others' lives better, not necessarily for mere personal gain or what have you. Active attempts to convert others in this way can give the impression of attempting to impose beliefs. Likewise, atheists may attempt to convince theists to become atheistic because they truly feel that religion makes their lives worse. To be fair, though, there are still many theists/atheists who attempt to impose their beliefs on others for more selfish reasons as well ("circlejerks", feeling superior, etc.)
|
Austria2259 Posts
This brings me to one of the most memorable discussions of my life, after which I stopped arguing about religion ..
In short : Me, a friend of mine and her boyfriend were sitting at their apartment and after some talking we get to religion. Her being a Christian, him being a evangelic. Me, a known atheist.
Before we even started to argue about religion itself they had one of the fiercest arguments I have ever witnessed between them about what religion is and what religion is not, agreement still pending.
At the end we were sitting there, those two staring at me (I did not say a single word in ~ 30 minutes) and I could feel the tension. Those two wanted me to respect religion but had no idea what that was and how to qualify for it. In the end they just wanted me to tolerate their religion and both of them knew that - and could not open their mouth anymore.
Very interesting experience, was kind of mind expanding. What is religion ? There are very different views in the world and those two could not even come close to a definition.
Now not to understand me wrong : There cannot be a simple definition with a topic such complex - but they could not agree on even somewhat similar criteria. And in the end it is not a excuse to not tolerate it either. We should treat everyone with respect (until proven unworthy of our subjective respect) and religion is as bad a stereotype as any.
Well who cares what I think but religion does not make anyone bad or good. Whatever bad or good is ...
Oh and my grandmother always said that order would not be possible without religion (==Christianity for her). If people would not have received the ten commandments they would not know what was right or wrong. But I love that woman so short of some small arguments, we never got into a big fight about religion.
Do some people really believe that before Moses got that stone everyone was like "uh yeah killing people, seems fun. totally nothing wrong with that." I suppose it is sweet naivety to some .. it is plain dangerous to me. What if those people one day decide that god does not exist ? Maybe something faith shattering happens and they think that they can kill now.
It scares me that people really need religion to tell them what is right or wrong. (besides the fact that everyone ignores everything all the time - I personally doubt that Jesus would be very proud of this world). I would prefer if people did not kill each other because they themselves know that killing is wrong. But hey ... a man can dream.
Every atheist who tries to convert others, create a feeling of "we - them" or tries to exploit fear .. is as bad as anyone who does the same with religion. People just need to think for themselves and also realise that religion is something personal and if you chose to see some book/man/woman/tree/ape/e.t.c. as impeccable and undeniably true, just remember that it is your view .. Everyone who argues that I do not believe in the correct thing or live in opposite ways to some universal truth does not get a bit of respect and trust what so ever. Everyone who says the same and adds "as far as I believe, but for you -> each his own. What do I care about what you are doing?" gets the same kind of respect as anyone else. Easy rule. if you disrespect someone else and want respect ... well fail.
|
This thread really has some pretty amazing responses
Nice anecdote ^^ I am basically of the same opinion as you on this matter.
Edit: this feels like an unworthy response to a post into which you clearly put significant effort and time, but that's really all I can think of haha. I can see how it's a very memorable conversation/event.
|
Trying to understand others and expanding your horizons seems like really great things to do
Whenever I stumble over religious discussions I generally just stear clear. Have you ever heard two really educated physicists with different oppinions argue? Science or in this case a secular view of the world doesn't really make any difference if we still let our passions get the best of us when we debate.
Really nice blog and some great points by people posting here!
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
Let's see if we can keep this thread open...
My point of view: All religion, especially the "faith-based" ones, accept claims to believe in on bad evidence. Consequently I respect them about as much as people who believe Elvis is still alive.
@ OP Yes humans do pretty shitty things, and they can use religion or any other doctrine as a tool for it. The crux though is that religion makes perfectly moral people do wicked things. What parent would cut off part of their childrens genitals if not for religion. How many people have died after faith healing proved unsuccessful. In the town where I live (in the fkn netherlands) you can't get hired at 7 out of the 10 highschools if you're an atheist even though the nation is facing a teacher deficiency. Also the israel/palestine example is flawed. They're not just shitty people doing shitty thing using religion as an excuse. If we were to get it into our heads to give the jews north dakota to live in and have a jewish state that wouldn't solve the problem. What's more, people like the Westboros use religion to voice their opinion on gays. Of course you can say that this opinion doesnt come from religion, they just think gays are icky and they're shielding themselves behind their doctrines, but as long as we keep "respecting" these doctrines we're unable to criticise them properly. The question "why are we here" is a loaded one since in the premise of it you're assuming that there /is/ a reason or purpose to begin with. You're being dragged into their train of thought.
@ Roe. no, religion doesn't inherently mean people will commit evil deeds. Think of Jianism. Christianity/Judaism/Islam have a pretty bad track record though.
@ surfinbird. I don't know a lot about Stalin and his motivation but if anyone would use atheistm or some form of social darwinism to do evil at least we could all agree that he's an evil fuck. If someone does evil shit cause he thinks he's mandated by the creator of the universe that's hard to argue with.
@jodo. your beliefs are going to inform your actions. yes the non-fundies aren't going to fly planes into buildings but they're still going to, say, vote against gay marriage based on a belief based on bad evidence.
@masterbreti "find me passages in which people are killed for no good reason". How about Numbers 31:7-18, in which Moses' army conquers Midian and when the army brings the prisoners of war back to Mozes, he tells them to kill all the women and young boys too. They could keep the virgins for themselves. How about all the horrible shit God himself does for no reason? :/
Anyway, I agree with everyone that yes there is a small core of fundies in every religion (like the WBC and the 9/11 attackers) that make the whole religion seem bad. You can argue on whether they are just dicks and using religion as an excuse. Needless to say, a rotten subset of any group of people shouldn't cause you to disrespect the whole of it. HOWEVER, try to look at what religion does to perfectly moral people. This seems to be overlooked in the discussion so far but it's a pretty important part of the argument.
|
As an Atheist in the US ARMY. I deal with a ton of illogical people, soldiers and civilians alike. It pains me to see soldiers talk poorly about radical Islam when in reality I'm sure if roles were reversed "radical Christianity" would wind up being much of the same with different justifications for the same evil for imaginary nonsense.
We have a "chaplain", whose supposed to be their for soldiers whatever their beliefs are. That's just silly when you think about it... :/
Religions do not deserve respect: I shouldn't be expected to pray at meetings which include every soldier. That's called undeserved respect.
Some people can argue that not all religious people are evil, and that's true. Ultimately however, the end result is a increased likelihood of irrational behavior and an unsupported opposition to science and discovery.
People should grow up.
|
@ OP Yes humans do pretty shitty things, and they can use religion or any other doctrine as a tool for it. The crux though is that religion makes perfectly moral people do wicked things. What parent would cut off part of their childrens genitals if not for religion. How many people have died after faith healing proved unsuccessful. In the town where I live (in the fkn netherlands) you can't get hired at 7 out of the 10 highschools if you're an atheist even though the nation is facing a teacher deficiency. Also the israel/palestine example is flawed. They're not just shitty people doing shitty thing using religion as an excuse. If we were to get it into our heads to give the jews north dakota to live in and have a jewish state that wouldn't solve the problem. What's more, people like the Westboros use religion to voice their opinion on gays. Of course you can say that this opinion doesnt come from religion, they just think gays are icky and they're shielding themselves behind their doctrines, but as long as we keep "respecting" these doctrines we're unable to criticise them properly. The question "why are we here" is a loaded one since in the premise of it you're assuming that there /is/ a reason or purpose to begin with. You're being dragged into their train of thought.
What? Isn't that forbidden by law? What is this shit, Netherlands is one of the most atheistic country's in the world. This is just plain rediculous.
|
there is no point in respect for religions. But what you should do is tolerate it. If people want to believe in things then let them. There is no merit in arguing about someones beliefs when you will not be able to change them anyway. Feel free to say to religious people that you dont believe but leave it at that. Most religous groups had time over hundreds of years to find answers to your antireligion arguments, so you will never change their beliefs.
|
If you've been brought up with skeptical thinking being the norm, then chances are you'll be skeptical about other things in life, such as gays or black people being inferior or sick or whatever.. You'll probably ask yourself "What evidence is there to support this claim?".
If your've been brought up to accept things on faith however, that means you're willing to accept a life-changing claim with no evidence what so ever (no, the bible is not evidence, just as the ikea catalogue isn't). While this of course doesn't mean that all religious people are biggots or doesn't have a skeptical point of view in other areas of their lifes, to me it really lays the foundation for accepting anything as true. This becomes a really big problem when religion gets involved in politics. While many claim they do not try to impose their religion on others, they might then refuse to elect a president who does not believe in god, and voilá - a religious man controls one of the most powerful countries on earth, where on top of that the religious lobby is really strong.
Now you might say "but if a majority of the voters want those values in their leader it's democracy" and yes, it is. But moral and values do not come from religion. If they did, you would not know which parts of the bible should be taken literally and which ones should not. Most secular presidential candidates would have the exact same moral values. But 80% of the american people would not elect them based soley on them not believing in a fairytale.
Now, on the matter of respect. Many times when religious people talk about respect, what they really mean is immunity. I respect my neighbour's political views even though I do not share them. I do however question them all the time, as does he with mine. Sometimes one of us discover that our arguments are really flawed or based on false information, and we then change our views on the matter. That is respect. Asking never to be questioned is not.
|
On May 18 2012 19:12 Skilledblob wrote: there is no point in respect for religions. But what you should do is tolerate it. If people want to believe in things then let them. There is no merit in arguing about someones beliefs when you will not be able to change them anyway. Feel free to say to religious people that you dont believe but leave it at that. Most religous groups had time over hundreds of years to find answers to your antireligion arguments, so you will never change their beliefs.
So long as when they try to make prayer in public places, or organize government sanctioned religious events for the public you complain.
Allowing free pollution of young minds is the wrong approach.
|
On May 18 2012 20:35 n3ac3y wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 19:12 Skilledblob wrote: there is no point in respect for religions. But what you should do is tolerate it. If people want to believe in things then let them. There is no merit in arguing about someones beliefs when you will not be able to change them anyway. Feel free to say to religious people that you dont believe but leave it at that. Most religous groups had time over hundreds of years to find answers to your antireligion arguments, so you will never change their beliefs.
So long as when they try to make prayer in public places, or organize government sanctioned religious events for the public you complain. Allowing free pollution of young minds is the wrong approach.
allowing free speech is the right approach. Letting religious extremists spout their bullshit is more often then not more harmful to them then it's helping them e.g. Westborough or here in Germany there was big publicity on some islamic extremists most people wouldnt have heard of if they didnt give out Koran translations in public.
What I agree on is that the government has to act secular though ofcourse the actors themself often are not secular. Governments represent a whole country and thus must not support one religion because it's never the only religion in a country.
|
On May 18 2012 21:04 Skilledblob wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 20:35 n3ac3y wrote:On May 18 2012 19:12 Skilledblob wrote: there is no point in respect for religions. But what you should do is tolerate it. If people want to believe in things then let them. There is no merit in arguing about someones beliefs when you will not be able to change them anyway. Feel free to say to religious people that you dont believe but leave it at that. Most religous groups had time over hundreds of years to find answers to your antireligion arguments, so you will never change their beliefs.
So long as when they try to make prayer in public places, or organize government sanctioned religious events for the public you complain. Allowing free pollution of young minds is the wrong approach. allowing free speech is the right approach. Letting religious extremists spout their bullshit is more often then not more harmful to them then it's helping them e.g. Westborough or here in Germany there was big publicity on some islamic extremists most people wouldnt have heard of if they didnt give out Koran translations in public. What I agree on is that the government has to act secular though ofcourse the actors themself often are not secular. Governments represent a whole country and thus must not support one religion because it's never the only religion in a country.
So I think we are in agreement although the tone of your post suggests otherwise. I'm saying that for example, a school meeting a principle tries to start a prayer... parents should be outraged.
Or that whole "prayer day" fiasco where governments were basically saying "hey we recognize this." That's the things I have an issue with.
And I think the logic of religious extremism should be tolerated because it "hurts them more" doesn't have any real evidential merit.
There was a good blog post I read a while back about religious customs, and the what if scenario of: if it were your neighbors religious custom to go on his backporch let out a loud, I'm-Dying-like scream 4 times a night would we have any right to complain?
These are the hairy circumstances which invalidate all religion for me, and while I'm not for people losing their right to free speech it hurts that religion has this sheer immunity to logic which is infuriating.
|
Blaming the worlds problems on religion is being a reductionist of the worst kind. It certainly doesn't always help, but man has always found ways to kill plenty of people and cause plenty of suffering without a religious motivation.
|
On May 18 2012 21:32 zawk9 wrote: Blaming the worlds problems on religion is being a reductionist of the worst kind. It certainly doesn't always help, but man has always found ways to kill plenty of people and cause plenty of suffering without a religious motivation.
Can you name one motivation that has historically caused more damage to reason and human rights?
|
On May 18 2012 21:17 n3ac3y wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 21:04 Skilledblob wrote:On May 18 2012 20:35 n3ac3y wrote:On May 18 2012 19:12 Skilledblob wrote: there is no point in respect for religions. But what you should do is tolerate it. If people want to believe in things then let them. There is no merit in arguing about someones beliefs when you will not be able to change them anyway. Feel free to say to religious people that you dont believe but leave it at that. Most religous groups had time over hundreds of years to find answers to your antireligion arguments, so you will never change their beliefs.
So long as when they try to make prayer in public places, or organize government sanctioned religious events for the public you complain. Allowing free pollution of young minds is the wrong approach. allowing free speech is the right approach. Letting religious extremists spout their bullshit is more often then not more harmful to them then it's helping them e.g. Westborough or here in Germany there was big publicity on some islamic extremists most people wouldnt have heard of if they didnt give out Koran translations in public. What I agree on is that the government has to act secular though ofcourse the actors themself often are not secular. Governments represent a whole country and thus must not support one religion because it's never the only religion in a country. There was a good blog post I read a while back about religious customs, and the what if scenario of: if it were your neighbors religious custom to go on his backporch let out a loud, I'm-Dying-like scream 4 times a night would we have any right to complain?
This invalidates religion for you because you endorse the liberal faith. Keeping peoples beliefs bottled up in the private sphere is one of the most important values which sustains the liberal polity. I more or less agree with your position, but we should fight for the justice of imposing these values rather than assuming them as a universally true baseline that all people agree on.
|
On May 18 2012 21:41 n3ac3y wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 21:32 zawk9 wrote: Blaming the worlds problems on religion is being a reductionist of the worst kind. It certainly doesn't always help, but man has always found ways to kill plenty of people and cause plenty of suffering without a religious motivation. Can you name one motivation that has historically caused more damage to reason and human rights?
Only one? If we're going to talk about abstract causes in this way: greed.
Also I don't think religion has always caused damage to reason unless you endorse the enlightenment myth of the scientific revolution. Or were all scientific advancements made before the nineteenth century by religious folk completely worthless?
|
On May 18 2012 21:43 zawk9 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 21:17 n3ac3y wrote:On May 18 2012 21:04 Skilledblob wrote:On May 18 2012 20:35 n3ac3y wrote:On May 18 2012 19:12 Skilledblob wrote: there is no point in respect for religions. But what you should do is tolerate it. If people want to believe in things then let them. There is no merit in arguing about someones beliefs when you will not be able to change them anyway. Feel free to say to religious people that you dont believe but leave it at that. Most religous groups had time over hundreds of years to find answers to your antireligion arguments, so you will never change their beliefs.
So long as when they try to make prayer in public places, or organize government sanctioned religious events for the public you complain. Allowing free pollution of young minds is the wrong approach. allowing free speech is the right approach. Letting religious extremists spout their bullshit is more often then not more harmful to them then it's helping them e.g. Westborough or here in Germany there was big publicity on some islamic extremists most people wouldnt have heard of if they didnt give out Koran translations in public. What I agree on is that the government has to act secular though ofcourse the actors themself often are not secular. Governments represent a whole country and thus must not support one religion because it's never the only religion in a country. There was a good blog post I read a while back about religious customs, and the what if scenario of: if it were your neighbors religious custom to go on his backporch let out a loud, I'm-Dying-like scream 4 times a night would we have any right to complain? This invalidates religion for you because you endorse the liberal faith. Keeping peoples beliefs bottled up in the private sphere is one of the most important values which sustains the liberal polity. I more or less agree with your position, but we should fight for the justice of imposing these values rather than assuming them as a universally true baseline that all people agree on.
This is totally true. I do not expect religion to ever vanish completely. I do however wish that non-believers were more active in ensuring a line is drawn in the sand. This would reduce the spread of the jibberish and raise awareness for reason. The last big thing would just to show people in the world that not believing does not make you an evil villain, because they could SEE people standing up for non-belief, something that is far to scarce nowadays.
|
On May 18 2012 21:45 zawk9 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 21:41 n3ac3y wrote:On May 18 2012 21:32 zawk9 wrote: Blaming the worlds problems on religion is being a reductionist of the worst kind. It certainly doesn't always help, but man has always found ways to kill plenty of people and cause plenty of suffering without a religious motivation. Can you name one motivation that has historically caused more damage to reason and human rights? Only one? If we're going to talk about abstract causes in this way: greed. Also I don't think religion has always caused damage to reason unless you endorse the enlightenment myth of the scientific revolution. Or were all scientific advancements made before the nineteenth century by religious folk completely worthless?
A valid though, and I'm not going to play the what-if game of well "no religion would have moved things forward faster." either.
Going to eat, this is a great discussion though
|
On May 18 2012 18:04 Pholon wrote: The question "why are we here" is a loaded one since in the premise of it you're assuming that there /is/ a reason or purpose to begin with. You're being dragged into their train of thought. This is the most fascinating aspect of the debate on religion, for me. I feel that many people are simply NOT prepared to accept anything other than a universe of purpose. Religious or spiritual thought is very engrained in us by our nature, in my opinion. Even without religion, people are very superstitious. If religion did not exist, there would still be superstition. That people genuinely believe in concepts such as luck, in airy-fairy concepts such as destiny, as listening to ones heart and pursuing ones destiny are fairly incompatible with the kind of indifferent universe that an atheist is forced to settle upon. While atheists agree that those concepts that I have listed are nonsense, is there much basis to believe that there is a way in which we 'should' live? That happiness or utility of the greater good is the principle by which we should govern our lives and societies? That there is such thing as duty and justice? How are any of these concepts justifiable when there is no purpose in the universe?
We are tiny specks in this universe. The theists and atheists both know this alike. I feel as though religion provides a means of coping with this hugely daunting fact. It gives us the idea that, in this vast, chaotic world, somebody is watching over us. It lets us believe that when we die, we are not lost in the void To fear this daunting infinity is inherently human, and religion offers us a way to COPE with and RESPECT the fact that, at any moment, the universe might inflict upon us unimaginable horror and suffering. I feel like most atheists are atheists because either they are able to cope with this anxiety without the need for religion. To me, this amounts to distracting oneself from the fact, rather than rationally overcoming it. Philosophers such as Nietzsche and Sartre have attempted to come to terms with the implications of atheism rationally, and although I am only familiar with their work in synopsis, none have really presented accounts that I have found to be truly convincing means of overcoming this anxiety or fear of existence, and what might be around the corner for us.
To me, the refutation of scripture is easy. It is obvious that we should, where we can, base our beliefs upon empirical evidence. But it is clear that, in making that claim, I am making a claim about how we should live. And in order to say how we ought to live, I must invoke the principle of utilitarianism or deontologism, or some other concoction that is barely more plausible than the religion I am attempting to refute. As a result, I think we should be respectful of those who choose to believe in Theistic doctrine, and respect the doctrine by which they choose to live their lives. Our own doctrines are not much sturdier.
|
I think that all respect is something that must be earned.
I'll protect with my life peoples right to believe in insane things and live by whatever illogical dogmas they choose, but I won't respect anything or anyone trying to impose control on other people or abuse them in anyway. As that is no longer about you coping with the harshness of life, rather, being a dick. Abuse and control is what religious societies seem to be all about, everything else they could accomplish without the religious aspect..
|
On May 18 2012 22:16 ZessiM wrote: This is the most fascinating aspect of the debate on religion, for me. I feel that many people are simply NOT prepared to accept anything other than a universe of purpose. Religious or spiritual thought is very engrained in us by our nature, in my opinion. Even without religion, people are very superstitious. If religion did not exist, there would still be superstition. That people genuinely believe in concepts such as luck, in airy-fairy concepts such as destiny, as listening to ones heart and pursuing ones destiny are fairly incompatible with the kind of indifferent universe that an atheist is forced to settle upon. While atheists agree that those concepts that I have listed are nonsense, is there much basis to believe that there is a way in which we 'should' live? That happiness or utility of the greater good is the principle by which we should govern our lives and societies? That there is such thing as duty and justice? How are any of these concepts justifiable when there is no purpose in the universe?
Superstition is rather there because of the same reasons religion are. Human beings have a need to explain things. We're curious by nature and we see patterns where there are none because it has helped us survive. The easiest explanation to grasp why the sun came up was once that the sun was a diety. For something to be completely random, there has to be a chance that someone rolls a six on the dice ten times in a row. It's not luck, but it certainly seems easy to attribute it to something greater than ourselfs when "fortune smiles" on someone other than ourselfs. If we didn't look to super natural stuff as soon as we weren't able to explain something, then neither religion or superstition would likely exist.
On May 18 2012 22:16 ZessiM wrote: We are tiny specks in this universe. The theists and atheists both know this alike. I feel as though religion provides a means of coping with this hugely daunting fact. It gives us the idea that, in this vast, chaotic world, somebody is watching over us. It lets us believe that when we die, we are not lost in the void To fear this daunting infinity is inherently human, and religion offers us a way to COPE with and RESPECT the fact that, at any moment, the universe might inflict upon us unimaginable horror and suffering. I feel like most atheists are atheists because either they are able to cope with this anxiety without the need for religion. To me, this amounts to distracting oneself from the fact, rather than rationally overcoming it. Philosophers such as Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre have attempted to come to terms with this atheism rationally, and although I am only familiar with their work in synopsis, none have really presented accounts that I have found to be truly convincing means of overcoming this anxiety or fear of existence, and what might be around the corner for us.
I don't know anyone who fears the greatness of the universe. If you do, you're probably in a majority. To fear ones own death is however somewhat normal, but most people who fear this either fear the way they are going to die or they fear the unknown of what happens after death, because they believe in life after death. I don't think anything happens after death, that you just cease to exist, and this feels VERY safe to me because I can not suffer if I do not exist.
On May 18 2012 22:16 ZessiM wrote: To me, the refutation of scripture is easy. It is obvious that we should, where we can, base our beliefs upon empirical evidence. But it is clear that, in making that claim, I am making a claim about how we should live. And in order to say how we ought to live, I must invoke the principle of utilitarianism or deontologism, or some other concoction that is barely more plausible than the religion I am attempting to refute. As a result, I think we should be respectful of those who choose to believe in Theistic doctrine, and respect the doctrine by which they choose to live their lives. Our own doctrines are not much sturdier.
Why would you settle for saying "where we can" ? Imagine the VAST amount of knowledge we've gained as a race in the last 150 years. Go back another 2000 years, to where the explanation for everything really was super natural. Considering everything that we've been able to explain so far, that was previously attributed to God or something else that's super natural, why would you ever say that we should settle for paranormal explanation?
|
On May 18 2012 18:04 Pholon wrote:
@masterbreti "find me passages in which people are killed for no good reason". How about Numbers 31:7-18, in which Moses' army conquers Midian and when the army brings the prisoners of war back to Mozes, he tells them to kill all the women and young boys too. They could keep the virgins for themselves. How about all the horrible shit God himself does for no reason? :/
Still not what I was looking for. I'm not talking stories.
I should have phrased it this way. " Find places in the Koran, or the bible which it tell YOU, that you can kill someone for no good reason.
there isn't cases of them. There may be cases of "you can kill them if" Like the example I provided in the Koran, but its very specific, and still, its discouraged.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On May 19 2012 00:03 masterbreti wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 18:04 Pholon wrote:
@masterbreti "find me passages in which people are killed for no good reason". How about Numbers 31:7-18, in which Moses' army conquers Midian and when the army brings the prisoners of war back to Mozes, he tells them to kill all the women and young boys too. They could keep the virgins for themselves. How about all the horrible shit God himself does for no reason? :/ Still not what I was looking for. I'm not talking stories. I should have phrased it this way. " Find places in the Koran, or the bible which it tell YOU, that you can kill someone for no good reason. there isn't cases of them. There may be cases of "you can kill them if" Like the example I provided in the Koran, but its very specific, and still, its discouraged.
http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
All of these?
|
ahh ok uhh 1 small point i want to add 1. i guess my main point was that really thoughtful religious people, like professors of theology or what not are pretty legit. and while we may have different beliefs, we sort of went down the path of critical thinking and have sort of the same outcomes. now there ARE religious people who have superstitions and... vote against gays and other things, but there are also secular people who despite being secular... don't really engaging in critical thinking and just live their lives without trying to answer "the big questions"
so i guess... in a way... im sort of thinking of the various religions and philosophical reasoning as different roads that end up in the same place and as long as they reach the end, it's all good.
2. and uhh one bonus thing regarding meaning in life. I sort of adopt the view that in the long-run, in the long term, maybe a couple hundreds years in the future to like infinity, my life is meaningless, but in the short-run, or at least while im alive, life is pretty meaningful. and i sort of decided/was socialized by external influences that doing good things for other people and just living a happy, fun, virtuous life was meaningful.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
So you've given your own life meaning, that's pretty good I'm not saying life can't have meaning. But instead of presuposing that there is a meaning and question What it is, you rather asked Can life have meaning and if yes what should it be. These are different questions.
|
Your understanding of Nietzsche seems to be lacking. He never blamed religion for raising "intolerant" or illogical people lol.
|
OP, to be honest I think what you should take away from your experience is not what you were told in the discussion, but that you yourself do not think rigourously enough to have a well-formed opinion. For example, was any of the stuff they told you stuff you couldn't have thought about on your own if you'd been critical enough? What is to stop your opinion from making another 180 when someone else tells you something you didn't bother to think about?
Be very skeptical of yourself when you have realisations like this, because almost always it is a warning sign about you and not a new leaf being turned.
|
On May 18 2012 18:04 Pholon wrote: Let's see if we can keep this thread open...
My point of view: All religion, especially the "faith-based" ones, accept claims to believe in on bad evidence. Consequently I respect them about as much as people who believe Elvis is still alive.
Unless holy books are seen as metaphors and allegories. Which is the case for most educated believers.
I don't see the difference with people who believe in the Big Bang but have no clue about what it truly is and what it implies. Hell, I was just reading an article yesterday where astrophysicians were calling for another model because of the flaws there seemed to be not only in the model itself but in the evidence presented to support it.
Atheists seem to have this condescending idea that faith mostly relies on "supertitious" beliefs while they are themselves driven by reason. Well, when I see your average believer, and your average atheist, I simply see two idiots, no more, no less.
|
On May 19 2012 01:35 Kukaracha wrote: I don't see the difference with people who believe in the Big Bang but have no clue about what it truly is and what it implies. Hell, I was just reading an article yesterday where astrophysicians were calling for another model because of the flaws there seemed to be not only in the model itself but in the evidence presented to support it.
Sounds like scientific research!
Atheists seem to have this condescending idea that faith mostly relies on "supertitious" beliefs while they are themselves driven by reason. Well, when I see your average believer, and your average atheist, I simply see two idiots, no more, no less.
A number of atheists I personally know believe in scientific theories such as the Big Bang and evolution in the same way many Christians believe in God. They don't understand the mechanism or even the fundamentals of the science that supports them yet give them this blind faith because either everyone else around them believes the same thing or someone smarter than them said so. It's a really stupid reason to believe anything.
I'm glad the OP had this experience. Instead of acting like many atheists/agnostics and blindly waving an anti-religion banner because of a bad track record and sensationalist media he actually sat down with a bunch of average joe's and, surprise surprise, found that there was a huge difference between perception and reality. Those same atheist friends (as well as a bunch of my Christian friends) would get a lot out of interfaith dialogue.
|
On May 18 2012 15:01 jodogohoo wrote: I realized that if islam, judaism, christian people can come together and be bros, i can too.
This is the best line in your entire blog entryish.
|
@Servius_Fulvius: yeah, precisely. Belief without any questioning or exploration is pointless... interfaith dialogue as you said could definitely see some more instances.
Edit: never mind, you did already qualify what you meant and I probably skipped over that.
|
On May 19 2012 02:13 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 15:01 jodogohoo wrote: I realized that if islam, judaism, christian people can come together and be bros, i can too. This is the best line in your entire blog entryish.
Becoming plural is the essence of the religious experience.
|
I have been a Christian most of my life. Something that I don't get, which religious and secular people are both guilty of, is why a person can't agree to disagree. I have gay friends, atheist friends, Islamic friends, Mormon friends. etc; we don't see eye to eye, but we still get along.
I understand the argument that religion drives people to do crazy things, but I have always seen it as crazy things in crazy people. Hitler could have found a different motivation to do what he did, for example, and comparing a few radicals actions to the religion at a whole seems silly. Not every catholic priest molests boys, and many priests do a lot to help out their community. When I was down in El Salvador on a humanitarian trip, the pastor from the local church helped us dig latrines without asking a cent for payment or expecting anything from us. There were also many non-christians who helped out without expecting anything.
|
On May 19 2012 02:09 Servius_Fulvius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 01:35 Kukaracha wrote: I don't see the difference with people who believe in the Big Bang but have no clue about what it truly is and what it implies. Hell, I was just reading an article yesterday where astrophysicians were calling for another model because of the flaws there seemed to be not only in the model itself but in the evidence presented to support it. Sounds like scientific research! Show nested quote +Atheists seem to have this condescending idea that faith mostly relies on "supertitious" beliefs while they are themselves driven by reason. Well, when I see your average believer, and your average atheist, I simply see two idiots, no more, no less. A number of atheists I personally know believe in scientific theories such as the Big Bang and evolution in the same way many Christians believe in God. They don't understand the mechanism or even the fundamentals of the science that supports them yet give them this blind faith because either everyone else around them believes the same thing or someone smarter than them said so. It's a really stupid reason to believe anything. I'm glad the OP had this experience. Instead of acting like many atheists/agnostics and blindly waving an anti-religion banner because of a bad track record and sensationalist media he actually sat down with a bunch of average joe's and, surprise surprise, found that there was a huge difference between perception and reality. Those same atheist friends (as well as a bunch of my Christian friends) would get a lot out of interfaith dialogue.
You can't know and understand everything. Altough understanding evolution on a basic level should be mandatory for everyone, because it explains so many of life, anyway. You can trust the scientific method, it has been proven to work.
|
On May 19 2012 04:38 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 02:09 Servius_Fulvius wrote:On May 19 2012 01:35 Kukaracha wrote: I don't see the difference with people who believe in the Big Bang but have no clue about what it truly is and what it implies. Hell, I was just reading an article yesterday where astrophysicians were calling for another model because of the flaws there seemed to be not only in the model itself but in the evidence presented to support it. Sounds like scientific research! Atheists seem to have this condescending idea that faith mostly relies on "supertitious" beliefs while they are themselves driven by reason. Well, when I see your average believer, and your average atheist, I simply see two idiots, no more, no less. A number of atheists I personally know believe in scientific theories such as the Big Bang and evolution in the same way many Christians believe in God. They don't understand the mechanism or even the fundamentals of the science that supports them yet give them this blind faith because either everyone else around them believes the same thing or someone smarter than them said so. It's a really stupid reason to believe anything. I'm glad the OP had this experience. Instead of acting like many atheists/agnostics and blindly waving an anti-religion banner because of a bad track record and sensationalist media he actually sat down with a bunch of average joe's and, surprise surprise, found that there was a huge difference between perception and reality. Those same atheist friends (as well as a bunch of my Christian friends) would get a lot out of interfaith dialogue. You can't know and understand everything. Altough understanding evolution on a basic level should be mandatory for everyone, because it explains so many of life, anyway. You can trust the scientific method, it has been proven to work.
Strictly speaking, one does not "prove" that the scientific method works. How would that be possible?
|
On May 18 2012 18:04 Pholon wrote:
@ Roe. no, religion doesn't inherently mean people will commit evil deeds. Think of Jianism. Christianity/Judaism/Islam have a pretty bad track record though.
. I didn't say/mean they will commit "evil deeds", I said people will do outrageous actions if they believe in religion. Jainism is no exception: I think it could easily be argued that the level of pacifism and non-violence they preach and live by can be dangerous and outrageous in certain situations (isolationism and pacifism was actually a great part of why Hitler was left unchecked for so long, just as an example).
|
Appeasement in world war ii had nothing to do with religion. You are grasping at straws with that comparison. Outrageous is also a relative term, and if you merely consider as objective as possible of a definition for outrageous, (this isn't that formal of a discussion so I'll just leave the definition at that for now) religious and irreligious individuals do not logically differ in the degree of outrage of their actions. How does it logically follow that a religious individual will also commit an act considered [ultimately/holistically] reprehensible? Because you personally think that their beliefs are ridiculous must it follow that all subscribers to any sort of theistic belief system will have similarly ridiculous actions ?
|
Man, Nietzsche and Heidegger did not try to overcome religion with "rationality". Sartre attempted to, yeah, but his philosophy as a whole ended up being a rather naive affair and his critique of religion also ended up being quite shallow, not unlike the majority of the contemporary "New Atheists". Sartre's critique of Kierkegaard is really laughable, for example.
Nietzsche's critique of religion (most of it directed to Christianity, then Buddhism slightly, and Judaism in passing) didn't really have to do with "truth" or "rationality" but was primarily focused around the question of morality and his seeking of life-affirmation. The "death of God" wasn't a literal death of God or even really the death of the conception of God but rather the dismantling of preconceptions and axioms that lay beneath the structures of Western thought. Nietzsche wasn't just critiquing religion (Christianity) but he was also being suspicious of the sciences, and philosophy as a whole (metaphysics, epistemology, etc.). To be more penetrating, Nietzsche was suspicious of "rationality" itself. So to claim that Nietzsche came to atheism "rationally" is a little comical.
As for Heidegger, Heidegger CLEARLY gives space for theology pretty much right from the beginning of his philosophical tenure (just take a look at one of his early works, Phenomenology and Theology for god's sake). He may or may not have been a clear "atheist" depending on how you define what is an atheist. His philosophical projects were pretty atheistic despite how goddamned mystical his writings were from start to finish in the sense that he put a clear separation between philosophy and theology (which was influenced by Luther). But Heidegger has said that he was interested in writing a theology, or at the very least he said that if he was to write theology Being would have no place in it (in a mirror to how God had no place in the question of Being in Being and Time). Heidegger's main gripes with Christianity was how he thought that the question of Being was so obscured and muddled due to what he thought was the shitfest of "onto-theo-logy" that occurred when philosophy and theology mixed with each other. What Heidegger wanted to do was separate philosophy and theology from each other (a very Protestant way of thinking) so that he can really do what he thought was truly fundamental philosophy. And during this careful separating he then also gave theology room to breathe and do their own fundamental work (which Heidegger thought should take their cue from Luther). But again, Heidegger never tried to get away from religion due to "rationality".
|
On May 18 2012 15:56 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 15:50 Lixler wrote: I don't think you had a serious grasp of Nietzsche or Camus if appeals to the facts that religious people are just "normal legit people living their lives" and that atheists can do amoral things swayed you from your assent to their views. Nietzsche's entire thing against religion wasn't that it was immoral and caused people to do bad things and was illogical, but that it represented a lowering of the species of man. The moral impulse cultivated by (some) religions represented a weakening of man that shaped him into a herd animal. None of this is refuted by the fact that religious people are normal and legit, and in fact that fact just reinforces Nietzsche's views. To be fair, Nietzsche is specifically talking about monotheism. TIL that Buddhism is a monotheistic religion.
|
I'm almost 100% sure you wrote this while stoned out of your mind. Either way, I have respect for people, regardless of whether they are from a particular religion or not. Do whatever makes you happy, just don't force it on another person, you have no right.
|
On May 19 2012 09:48 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 15:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 18 2012 15:50 Lixler wrote: I don't think you had a serious grasp of Nietzsche or Camus if appeals to the facts that religious people are just "normal legit people living their lives" and that atheists can do amoral things swayed you from your assent to their views. Nietzsche's entire thing against religion wasn't that it was immoral and caused people to do bad things and was illogical, but that it represented a lowering of the species of man. The moral impulse cultivated by (some) religions represented a weakening of man that shaped him into a herd animal. None of this is refuted by the fact that religious people are normal and legit, and in fact that fact just reinforces Nietzsche's views. To be fair, Nietzsche is specifically talking about monotheism. TIL that Buddhism is a monotheistic religion.
Doesn't he specifically talk about the Jewish priesthood? Maybe I'm thinking of a different part of Nietzsche. Don't remember him ever talking about Buddhism.
|
On May 19 2012 09:56 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 09:48 koreasilver wrote:On May 18 2012 15:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 18 2012 15:50 Lixler wrote: I don't think you had a serious grasp of Nietzsche or Camus if appeals to the facts that religious people are just "normal legit people living their lives" and that atheists can do amoral things swayed you from your assent to their views. Nietzsche's entire thing against religion wasn't that it was immoral and caused people to do bad things and was illogical, but that it represented a lowering of the species of man. The moral impulse cultivated by (some) religions represented a weakening of man that shaped him into a herd animal. None of this is refuted by the fact that religious people are normal and legit, and in fact that fact just reinforces Nietzsche's views. To be fair, Nietzsche is specifically talking about monotheism. TIL that Buddhism is a monotheistic religion. Doesn't he specifically talk about the Jewish priesthood? Maybe I'm thinking of a different part of Nietzsche. Don't remember him ever talking about Buddhism. He talks about Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism. Buddhism he only really talks about later in life particularly in Antichrist as far as I know. His reading of Buddhism is interesting but kinda messy because he was working off of a flawed/limited understanding of Buddhism that the Europeans had at the time (you can chiefly blame Schopenhauer in this particular incident).
|
Haha, alright I'm completely outclassed by you guys and in over my head on this one, beyond expressing agreement and my fundamental beliefs. Are you guys all philosophy or theology majors/minors or have you just read extensively on these subjects?
I'll just enjoy reading
|
On May 19 2012 08:32 Aerisky wrote: Appeasement in world war ii had nothing to do with religion. You are grasping at straws with that comparison. Outrageous is also a relative term, and if you merely consider as objective as possible of a definition for outrageous, (this isn't that formal of a discussion so I'll just leave the definition at that for now) religious and irreligious individuals do not logically differ in the degree of outrage of their actions. How does it logically follow that a religious individual will also commit an act considered [ultimately/holistically] reprehensible? Because you personally think that their beliefs are ridiculous must it follow that all subscribers to any sort of theistic belief system will have similarly ridiculous actions ? I didn't say it had anything to do with religion (may well have, I don't know either way), I said pacifism and non-violence to the extreme is outrageous, and gave the WW2 example to illustrate a time where even a religion such as Jainism is not exempt from being fantastic and absurd.
I already told you, a religious person believes things without evidence. That's what faith is. That's what the core of religion and theism is. Even though I don't see it or can't measure it somehow or through any empirical means, it still exists. Once you believe that, your mind is opened to doing and believing more and more without evidence. They then go on to claim things that they couldn't possibly know, and that even they do not understand. This is outrageous both in the intellectual sense and its behavioural implications.
|
On May 19 2012 10:36 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 08:32 Aerisky wrote: Appeasement in world war ii had nothing to do with religion. You are grasping at straws with that comparison. Outrageous is also a relative term, and if you merely consider as objective as possible of a definition for outrageous, (this isn't that formal of a discussion so I'll just leave the definition at that for now) religious and irreligious individuals do not logically differ in the degree of outrage of their actions. How does it logically follow that a religious individual will also commit an act considered [ultimately/holistically] reprehensible? Because you personally think that their beliefs are ridiculous must it follow that all subscribers to any sort of theistic belief system will have similarly ridiculous actions ? I didn't say it had anything to do with religion (may well have, I don't know either way), I said pacifism and non-violence to the extreme is outrageous, and gave the WW2 example to illustrate a time where even a religion such as Jainism is not exempt from being fantastic and absurd. I already told you, a religious person believes things without evidence. That's what faith is. That's what the core of religion and theism is. Even though I don't see it or can't measure it somehow or through any empirical means, it still exists. Once you believe that, your mind is opened to doing and believing more and more without evidence. They then go on to claim things that they couldn't possibly know, and that even they do not understand. This is outrageous both in the intellectual sense and its behavioural implications. Religious people believe things without evidence, and so do all other people. Religious people accept a certain kind of claim, maybe that some infinitely wise/powerful/benevolent being exists, based on factors that do not qualify as evidence in the modern sense. Every single human accepts some statements without evidence proper, for instance the statement "The physical laws governing the future are very likely going to be the same physical laws as those governing the past."
You've chosen to draw your line between religious and non-religious folk in a silly place, and your conclusions are therefore themselves rendered silly.
|
I already told you, a religious person believes things without evidence. That's what faith is. That's what the core of religion and theism is. Even though I don't see it or can't measure it somehow or through any empirical means, it still exists. Once you believe that, your mind is opened to doing and believing more and more without evidence. They then go on to claim things that they couldn't possibly know, and that even they do not understand. This is outrageous both in the intellectual sense and its behavioural implications.
This is like the reverse of the slippery slope argument used by conservatives. Their belief in something without necessarily extensively questioning said beliefs does not directly lead to a "gateway irrationality" in that sense.
I know people who believe in their faith mostly because of some life-changing event which they felt originated from some sort of higher power and generally shifted their worldview around their faith but not completely beyond the bounds of reason, maybe you don't associate with the same people, but a lot of religious individuals are this way.
With regard to "claiming things that they couldn't possibly know/understand", it's really a grey area. You're arguing that theological texts state certain things which some would find hard to believe without immediately tangible, empirical evidence, and because religious individuals trust in these texts, they will go on to do increasingly irrational and dangerous things. If you want to look at it from a purely secular perspective, religion can clearly be beneficial in turning people's lives around. You speak as if their faith transforms them into a time-bomb of irrationality waiting to explode since they will also easily and rapidly absorb any type of other irrational belief.
Also, expressing belief in things does not equate to imposing their beliefs on others, refraining from doing so has mentioned as sufficient; as long as religious people are not force-feeding their presumable hogwash onto others or committing unspeakable violations of others' rights with their behavior regularly and en masse, nobody really has the right to take it away from them. Perhaps it's outrageous in the intellectual sense, but it's silly to argue that religion will lead to massively detrimental behavioral changes. I can say that there are many individuals much smarter, must more intellectually competent than you and I will ever be who are theists or atheists. Behaviorally, religion does not categorically imply that every religious person commits outrageous slippery-slope-esque levels of intrusion into others' lives through relative atrocities, which is what you're implying.
Call them stupid or intellectually challenged or weak-minded, put yourselves above theists, but the fact remains that there are theists intelligent and logical perhaps in all but their belief system--assumedly. You're drawing an awkward conclusion as well, as there are plenty atheists who do not challenge or explore their beliefs and examine evidence as well. Does that make them "right through ignorance"?
|
On May 19 2012 10:00 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 09:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 19 2012 09:48 koreasilver wrote:On May 18 2012 15:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 18 2012 15:50 Lixler wrote: I don't think you had a serious grasp of Nietzsche or Camus if appeals to the facts that religious people are just "normal legit people living their lives" and that atheists can do amoral things swayed you from your assent to their views. Nietzsche's entire thing against religion wasn't that it was immoral and caused people to do bad things and was illogical, but that it represented a lowering of the species of man. The moral impulse cultivated by (some) religions represented a weakening of man that shaped him into a herd animal. None of this is refuted by the fact that religious people are normal and legit, and in fact that fact just reinforces Nietzsche's views. To be fair, Nietzsche is specifically talking about monotheism. TIL that Buddhism is a monotheistic religion. Doesn't he specifically talk about the Jewish priesthood? Maybe I'm thinking of a different part of Nietzsche. Don't remember him ever talking about Buddhism. He talks about Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism. Buddhism he only really talks about later in life particularly in Antichrist as far as I know. His reading of Buddhism is interesting but kinda messy because he was working off of a flawed/limited understanding of Buddhism that the Europeans had at the time (you can chiefly blame Schopenhauer in this particular incident).
Ah, ok, I have not read the later Nietzsche. I always found him a bit too bombastic to be enjoyable.
|
On May 19 2012 00:28 Pholon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 00:03 masterbreti wrote:On May 18 2012 18:04 Pholon wrote:
@masterbreti "find me passages in which people are killed for no good reason". How about Numbers 31:7-18, in which Moses' army conquers Midian and when the army brings the prisoners of war back to Mozes, he tells them to kill all the women and young boys too. They could keep the virgins for themselves. How about all the horrible shit God himself does for no reason? :/ Still not what I was looking for. I'm not talking stories. I should have phrased it this way. " Find places in the Koran, or the bible which it tell YOU, that you can kill someone for no good reason. there isn't cases of them. There may be cases of "you can kill them if" Like the example I provided in the Koran, but its very specific, and still, its discouraged. http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm All of these? Looking forward to his response
|
On May 19 2012 11:46 Nibbler89 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 00:28 Pholon wrote:On May 19 2012 00:03 masterbreti wrote:On May 18 2012 18:04 Pholon wrote:
@masterbreti "find me passages in which people are killed for no good reason". How about Numbers 31:7-18, in which Moses' army conquers Midian and when the army brings the prisoners of war back to Mozes, he tells them to kill all the women and young boys too. They could keep the virgins for themselves. How about all the horrible shit God himself does for no reason? :/ Still not what I was looking for. I'm not talking stories. I should have phrased it this way. " Find places in the Koran, or the bible which it tell YOU, that you can kill someone for no good reason. there isn't cases of them. There may be cases of "you can kill them if" Like the example I provided in the Koran, but its very specific, and still, its discouraged. http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm All of these? Looking forward to his response
Yeah Deuteronomy is not a very nice book
|
On May 19 2012 11:46 Nibbler89 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 00:28 Pholon wrote:On May 19 2012 00:03 masterbreti wrote:On May 18 2012 18:04 Pholon wrote:
@masterbreti "find me passages in which people are killed for no good reason". How about Numbers 31:7-18, in which Moses' army conquers Midian and when the army brings the prisoners of war back to Mozes, he tells them to kill all the women and young boys too. They could keep the virgins for themselves. How about all the horrible shit God himself does for no reason? :/ Still not what I was looking for. I'm not talking stories. I should have phrased it this way. " Find places in the Koran, or the bible which it tell YOU, that you can kill someone for no good reason. there isn't cases of them. There may be cases of "you can kill them if" Like the example I provided in the Koran, but its very specific, and still, its discouraged. http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm All of these? Looking forward to his response
You do understand that the old testament is extremely metaphorical, and none of it is to be taken literally? Also each sentence you have provided, since the old testament has been translated from herbrew thousands of times of the course of human history, we get a very skewed version of a book that was very strict for its time. Most of those rules were likely threats by the clergy of the time to keep order. Listing so many rules was a way to keep people quiet and not to stir trouble.
Just putting it this way. I personally don't believe the old testament is much more than old stories thought up be wise thinkers to put fear into the followers. I want to talk specifically the new testament, and the Koran.
|
Well, there are at least four distinct authors in Genesis alone, so the problem is mostly thinking of the Bible as being a homogeneous work.
edit: and, of course, Christian theology explicitly rejects the ketuvim as something which should be interpreted literally. Christ dissolves the old law, forget in which gospel
|
On May 19 2012 11:16 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 10:00 koreasilver wrote:On May 19 2012 09:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 19 2012 09:48 koreasilver wrote:On May 18 2012 15:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 18 2012 15:50 Lixler wrote: I don't think you had a serious grasp of Nietzsche or Camus if appeals to the facts that religious people are just "normal legit people living their lives" and that atheists can do amoral things swayed you from your assent to their views. Nietzsche's entire thing against religion wasn't that it was immoral and caused people to do bad things and was illogical, but that it represented a lowering of the species of man. The moral impulse cultivated by (some) religions represented a weakening of man that shaped him into a herd animal. None of this is refuted by the fact that religious people are normal and legit, and in fact that fact just reinforces Nietzsche's views. To be fair, Nietzsche is specifically talking about monotheism. TIL that Buddhism is a monotheistic religion. Doesn't he specifically talk about the Jewish priesthood? Maybe I'm thinking of a different part of Nietzsche. Don't remember him ever talking about Buddhism. He talks about Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism. Buddhism he only really talks about later in life particularly in Antichrist as far as I know. His reading of Buddhism is interesting but kinda messy because he was working off of a flawed/limited understanding of Buddhism that the Europeans had at the time (you can chiefly blame Schopenhauer in this particular incident). Ah, ok, I have not read the later Nietzsche. I always found him a bit too bombastic to be enjoyable. The Antichrist is definitely worth reading. I usually find that almost all of Nietzsche's writings on Christianity to be important, especially his critique of Paul. In a sense Nietzsche's prime enemy really is Paul of Tarsus above anyone else as he makes it abundantly clear that for him Christ is tolerable to some degree because "Christ is an idiot," whereas Paul is not an idiot, and as such, is a dangerous man.
As for how one reads the Old Testament I'm going to have to highly disagree with you two because I am highly skeptical of this sort of reading of scripture in line with Liberal Protestantism both as an outsider to the faith and a student of theology.
|
You obviously know more about this than me. I didn't realize there was any controversy on that point.
I can't claim to know anything about Christianity, except that I've read a good chunk of the Bible (not a lot of Paul, I didn't like him)
|
As a person who graduated with a degree in Religious Studies, this is the one thing I learned: Religion is what you interpret it to be.
|
On May 19 2012 15:25 GrayArea wrote: As a person who graduated with a degree in Religious Studies, this is the one thing I learned: Religion is what you interpret it to be.
Did you ask for your money back?
|
On May 19 2012 15:35 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 15:25 GrayArea wrote: As a person who graduated with a degree in Religious Studies, this is the one thing I learned: Religion is what you interpret it to be. Did you ask for your money back?
That's not nice.
Belittling someone in this way doesn't serve to educate or to open people's minds. And in all honesty, when trying to open someone's mind it's best to not piss on their understanding, even if it is wrong.
There is an argument surely to be made as well about interpretation and what would replace religion if it were non-existant:
A man suffers from a heart attack and in his ordeal grabs hold of a bedpost and suddenly is fine. This man goes on a to create a religion around this amazing bed post and 1000's of years later the religion of "Bedaphost" is a thriving well into the 3000s.
I just am never fully convinced that getting rid of religion in the grand sense is ever possible.
|
On May 19 2012 12:38 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 11:46 Nibbler89 wrote:On May 19 2012 00:28 Pholon wrote:On May 19 2012 00:03 masterbreti wrote:On May 18 2012 18:04 Pholon wrote:
@masterbreti "find me passages in which people are killed for no good reason". How about Numbers 31:7-18, in which Moses' army conquers Midian and when the army brings the prisoners of war back to Mozes, he tells them to kill all the women and young boys too. They could keep the virgins for themselves. How about all the horrible shit God himself does for no reason? :/ Still not what I was looking for. I'm not talking stories. I should have phrased it this way. " Find places in the Koran, or the bible which it tell YOU, that you can kill someone for no good reason. there isn't cases of them. There may be cases of "you can kill them if" Like the example I provided in the Koran, but its very specific, and still, its discouraged. http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm All of these? Looking forward to his response Yeah Deuteronomy is not a very nice book
You think so? I'm almost finished with it (it's been my nightly reading for the last two weeks - yes, I read the Bible every night :p) and don't think it's very mean at all. It's kind of boring, but it's the last leg of the Pentateuch and has this "senior year" feeling to it. Whenever I see non-Christians in particular quoting this book to make them look bad they selectively leave out the parts where Moses is told that the Israelites are are going to fail miserably. The book is a huge step up from Leviticus which reads like a dry law book (oh wait..).
For the record, whenever I see "anti-theists" bring up old testament law to back a sweeping claim I can never take them seriously. This is a rough example, but it's like seeing someone gloss over an original copy of the US Constitution and saying "The U.S. is a terrible place because women aren't allowed to vote, LOL!" Don't worry, I feel the same way when "Christians" decide they want to spew hate on their fellow man using the same set of laws.
Sure, we can debate endlessly whether a particular passage is literal or figurative and whether the author is authentic or if the time period of X book is consistent with the events it describes. Let's not do that since it's way beyond the scope of the OP.
A man suffers from a heart attack and in his ordeal grabs hold of a bedpost and suddenly is fine. This man goes on a to create a religion around this amazing bed post and 1000's of years later the religion of "Bedaphost" is a thriving well into the 3000s. I just am never fully convinced that getting rid of religion in the grand sense is ever possible.
Adding emoticons to imply that this is a bad thing doesn't make you much better than the poster with the belittling comment. You speak of "opening someone's mind". Does this mean if someone's mind is "open" they see that faith is "wrong"? If so, then you missed the entire point of this thread.
In case you're wondering, this is the point:
But along with this line of thinking, I realized that if islam, judaism, christian people can come together and be bros, i can too. i realized that, while there are crazy fundamentalists and etc... secular people also have legit and not so legit people. so then i thought about how while i still don't believe in god, souls, an afterlife, i am pretty similar to these people in the fact that we ask the questions of why are we alive and why is right and wrong and why is the meaning of living.
The OP is 100% right, so if you're incapable of having a conversation with someone who holds a faith without trying to change them, think less of them, or prove them wrong by your personal lens of truth then you're just as bad as the religious bigots.
Edit: I have a different set of rants for religious people who resist science and discovery, so rest assured that I have a lot of problems with many individuals who also share my faith...
|
On May 19 2012 15:35 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 15:25 GrayArea wrote: As a person who graduated with a degree in Religious Studies, this is the one thing I learned: Religion is what you interpret it to be. Did you ask for your money back? Dont make conclusions if you havent experienced something for yourself. If you spend 4 years studying religions and draw a differenr conclusion, i will be happy to hear it.
|
On May 20 2012 02:22 GrayArea wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 15:35 sam!zdat wrote:On May 19 2012 15:25 GrayArea wrote: As a person who graduated with a degree in Religious Studies, this is the one thing I learned: Religion is what you interpret it to be. Did you ask for your money back? Dont make conclusions if you havent experienced something for yourself. If you spend 4 years studying religions and draw a differenr conclusion, i will be happy to hear it.
Well, I have spend <4 years, but I feel that there's certainly more to it than YMMV. At the very least, philosophical traditions within religions are not deserving of being dismissed. Augustine, to name just one, is not simply "what you interpret it to be."
There may be a weaker form of your thesis which I might endorse.
edit: And I'll say that I don't believe there's any difference between religion and philosophy, pace Heidegger above
edit again: And sorry if I sounded "belittling," but I do feel that if that was the ONLY thing you learned I don't see why you did it. Out of curiosity, what topic have you studied in particular?
and I do apologize for being flippant
|
On May 20 2012 02:38 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 02:22 GrayArea wrote:On May 19 2012 15:35 sam!zdat wrote:On May 19 2012 15:25 GrayArea wrote: As a person who graduated with a degree in Religious Studies, this is the one thing I learned: Religion is what you interpret it to be. Did you ask for your money back? Dont make conclusions if you havent experienced something for yourself. If you spend 4 years studying religions and draw a differenr conclusion, i will be happy to hear it. Well, I have spend <4 years, but I feel that there's certainly more to it than YMMV. At the very least, philosophical traditions within religions are not deserving of being dismissed. Augustine, to name just one, is not simply "what you interpret it to be." There may be a weaker form of your thesis which I might endorse. edit: And I'll say that I don't believe there's any difference between religion and philosophy, pace Heidegger above edit again: And sorry if I sounded "belittling," but I do feel that if that was the ONLY thing you learned I don't see why you did it. Out of curiosity, what topic have you studied in particular? and I do apologize for being flippant If you don't think there isn't any difference between philosophy and theology in the western tradition then you've been reading really wrong. Even those that tried to harmonize the two like the greater Catholic tradition and the Liberal Protestants still put a distinction between the two.
|
Yeah, I'm at odds with the western tradition on this one.
Pretty self-conscious of that.
edit: the separation between the two is my own version of "intellectual scandal"
|
No, not being able to distinguish between the two is the scandal and the main problem that people have with understanding the differences between the two when they are unread.
Just think about this for a second. For example, in Christian theology, what is the grounding for its discourse? What is the centre in which the dialogue must, in some way or another, revolve around or at least come back to, if not begin with it? What is its subject, and what is it subject to? Think about what constitutes a natural science like biology. What is the study of biology - what do biologists do? Then think about philosophy, not just a specialized field like ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, etc., but the practice as a whole.
If you can't understand the differences between theology and philosophy then you don't understand either. Of course there is a lot of overlap between the two as theologians of all ages are obviously influenced by the prevailing philosophical thought of its times, and philosophy is also influenced by the theological thoughts of its times (in the history of Western thought with the rise of Christianity, but also in the Islamic traditions) but there is a clear distinction.
edit: Imagine how silly it would be if a natural science had to refer and ground itself in biblical scripture. Those that do, in the present day, are all laughable.
|
I don't understand the distinction you are drawing. I thought about theology, and then I thought about philosophy (in the broad sense, not just analytic), and it seems like they are both simply concerned with fundamental questions of reality... I don't really see the difference. Aren't they both asking the same questions?
Can you answer the question you posed and give me an idea of what you are getting at? When I think about what theologians do and what philosophers do, it seems like they are doing the same thing, only theologians have more baggage.
Of course, I think theism is an enormous dead-end in the western tradition, so if "theology" is limited to theisms then maybe the source of the dispute is just that I don't think theology is a legitimate field, or that it doesn't have any legitimacy except insofar as it attempts to answer questions that are fundamentally philosophical.
edit: this is not supposed to be a diss on theologians; I spend a lot of time thinking about "god"
|
I have respect for spirituality. I don't have a lot of respect for religion... yet.
"What is happening in the world? You have a Christian God, Hindu Gods, Mohammedans with their particular conception of God, each little sect with their particular truth; and all these truths are becoming like so many diseases in the world, separating people. These truths, in the hands of the few, are becoming the means of exploitation. You go to each, one after the other, tasting them all, because you begin to lose all sense of discrimination, because you are suffering and you want a remedy, and you accept any remedy that is offered by any sect, whether Christian, Hindu, or any other sect. So, what is happening? Your gods are dividing you, your beliefs in God are dividing you and yet you talk about the brotherhood of man, unity in God, and at the same time deny the very thing that you want to find out, because you cling to these beliefs as the most potent means of destroying limitation, whereas they but intensify it. These things are so obvious."
|
I dislike religion because it's wrong. And I use that with both definitions: incorrect and immoral.
However, religious people are pretty much like anyone else. The main reason (that I see) that people are christian or jewish or muslim or whatever is that they want to be good people, and they think being a good christian or whatever is how you be a good person. This is a positive thing when considering humanity. We want to be good people.
Consider: how many people have you met that you think did not actually want to be good people? Maybe a few, possibly, but I've met nearly none. Most people just want to be good people.
The religions themselves are pretty terrible though. Whenever I've spoken to religious people (even quite moderate religious people) about their religion they say the most outrageous, random, idiotic, and downright immoral things. And usually this is from perfectly reasonable, nice people. For instance, I've heard a nice person say "I've made peace with my god so I'm not afraid to die." Now what I hear is downright suicidal, and so I back off. And of course anything to do with Hell always sounds childish, threatening, sadomasochistic, or immoral to me.
|
On May 20 2012 02:38 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 02:22 GrayArea wrote:On May 19 2012 15:35 sam!zdat wrote:On May 19 2012 15:25 GrayArea wrote: As a person who graduated with a degree in Religious Studies, this is the one thing I learned: Religion is what you interpret it to be. Did you ask for your money back? Dont make conclusions if you havent experienced something for yourself. If you spend 4 years studying religions and draw a differenr conclusion, i will be happy to hear it. Well, I have spend <4 years, but I feel that there's certainly more to it than YMMV. At the very least, philosophical traditions within religions are not deserving of being dismissed. Augustine, to name just one, is not simply "what you interpret it to be." There may be a weaker form of your thesis which I might endorse. edit: And I'll say that I don't believe there's any difference between religion and philosophy, pace Heidegger above edit again: And sorry if I sounded "belittling," but I do feel that if that was the ONLY thing you learned I don't see why you did it. Out of curiosity, what topic have you studied in particular? and I do apologize for being flippant Obviously that is not the only thing I learned from it. If that were it, there wouldn't be a degree, they could just write that on a paper and give it to me. It takes people a lifetime to even try to understand religion, and sometimes even that much time is not enough. For me to summarize not just one but all religions into one sentence is simply ridiculous. But if I could summarize something so vast and rich with content, culture, beliefs, history, key figures, etc. down to its fundamental in one sentence, that statement I made is my best shot.
|
I think its great that u had a revelation, however there is one distinction that I would like to make. In the case of Hitler and Stalin, yes they both were atheists, but it was not their atheism that made them do the stuff they did, to quote the great Richard Dawkins: "Both Hitler and Stalin had moustaches, yet we dont blame their moustaches for all the stuff they did" (not exactly correct, but the meaning is right) As opposed to for example the crusades which were Holy Wars and therefore motivated by religion. That being said, people can have their own opinions/Religions
|
Yes, atheism is like mustaches. And how did you find this thread?
|
It was revealed to him in a vision.
|
On May 18 2012 15:56 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 15:50 Lixler wrote: I don't think you had a serious grasp of Nietzsche or Camus if appeals to the facts that religious people are just "normal legit people living their lives" and that atheists can do amoral things swayed you from your assent to their views. Nietzsche's entire thing against religion wasn't that it was immoral and caused people to do bad things and was illogical, but that it represented a lowering of the species of man. The moral impulse cultivated by (some) religions represented a weakening of man that shaped him into a herd animal. None of this is refuted by the fact that religious people are normal and legit, and in fact that fact just reinforces Nietzsche's views. To be fair, Nietzsche is specifically talking about monotheism. Nietzsche was also batshit insane:
"The word Übermensch [designates] a type of supreme achievement, as opposed to 'modern' men, 'good' men, Christians, and other nihilists ... When I whispered into the ears of some people that they were better off looking for a Cesare Borgia than a Parsifal, they did not believe their ears." -Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
nietzsche's prefect man was a real piece of shit.
|
Nietzsche would put the emphasis on "real."
(whether he would be right to do so is another question)
|
|
|
|
|