»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Bashing other religions?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Bashing other religions? |
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois 
|
Why do it? Doesn't it go against our faiths? If people were devoted to their faith won't they take the time to understand one another and just leave it at that? Let bygones be bygones? Thoughts anyone? |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Zach Booker-Scott - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Totally with you on this Zach. Anyone who says my religion is right and yours is wrong loses a good deal of credibility imho.  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I only bristle at attempts of conversion. *shrug* I've said it before, but I'm willing to repeat myself *grinnin'* Studies of comparative religion fascinate me, because I consider the bigger picture as like...a puzzle. So just as I try to put together a jigsaw puzzle, I do the same with the world's religions, both current and historical. I look for the similarities first.I find that this approach makes for friendlier discussions. Sadly, it's the proclamation of "one true" religion that bristles the emotions of folks.I tend to think that what is true for one is not necessarily true for another. I hope you find some understanding and comfort in that. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
It depends on your definition of bashing. Telling someone their religion is wrong isn't, to my way of thinking, bashing them. For example, those who believe in faith healing to the extent they refuse medical treatment for themselves and their children won't ever get a silent nod of acceptance from me. I think that tenant of their religion is flat out wrong and I won't ever stop trying to convince them. Ditto religions that dehumanize women and children or condone the unnecessary taking of human life. Tolerance should never mean standing by in silence while people are being hurt. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Someone once said that religious wars are fought by two groups trying to show who has the best imaginary friend. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't think any religion is so onefold that the religion itself may be rightly called good or evil. Religions are complexities, including many things of varying wisdom and stupidity. Instead of trying to call a whole religion "good" or "evil", I think it is better to praise the wisdom where the wisdom is and speak against the problems where the problems are, but not without as much respect and sympathy as possible. For which religion sets out to do wrongs and evils? None that I know. But rather the wrongs and evils are from confusion and misunderstanding rather than an evil intent. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Stated like that it may not be "bashing", it merely makes the teller look rather foolish, especially if he or she is implying that they know what is right. quote: Specificity adds to the credibility of the statement. Thus rather than condemning a whole system or credo a teller who focusses on an apparent negative practical result of employing a belief looks rather less ridiculous imo. Regrettably though, consistent and researched analysis in such instances is rare, practical examples of harm are often seized on as mere window dressing for wholesale condemnation based upon the mutually exclusive argument: "I'm right therefore you must be wrong". Leaving aside the "what is right and wrong", "what is hurt?" debate, I'll agree with you that systems of belief that advocate physically hitting, cutting or murdering people are probably not desirable. Rather more difficult to condemn outright, mainly because of evidential difficulties, are those that impose mental chains or mental assassination. Where I take strong issue with much mainstream opinion is in the area of presumption. I don't agree that just because a majority in a culture believe a system is the way to go, it makes it "right". You mention "faith healing" and "medical treatment". A blanket condemnation of faith healing or any other form of alternative method of restoration in favour of conventional medicine is imv unsustainable. I have no problem at all with you saying: "in that instance and that instance and that instance faith healing didn't work, so I have grave reservations and I intend to tell people they are wrong to use it based upon that evidence", I do however have a big problem with you saying: "conventional medicine is the only way and accordingly all other systems are wrong". If an adult of clear mind wants to refuse conventional medical treatment for any reason whatsoever I think that's absolutely fine. Children, dependants and those with mental difficulties are a different and much more difficult matter. No time now. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Religions DO bash each other and that's a clear fact, which I consider pretty ridiculous. I think most of this bashing, though, comes from the religious leaders more than the rank and file, leaders who have their own criteria as far as stirring the pot for their own benefits. The simple fact is that NO religion can be sure their religions is the only true one, unless they can show someone who has returned from the grave to verify it....and please don't say Jesus unless you can produce him. Religion is a belief....period. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Lack of specificity detracts from the credibility of statements, too. quote: You don't need evidence to condemn a practice or belief. Which shouldn't be confused with condemning a person. quote: And I would probably agree. Which is precisely why my earlier statement was worded as it was. quote: Again, I would, too. I also have a big problem with people implying I said something I didn't. For the record, I believe very strongly in the power of faith. I believe in the existence of supernatural healing. I believe in miracles. I do not believe God sits around at our beck and call. Sometimes the miracle predates our prayer and has a scientific name. Like penicillin? quote: Explain to me, Moon, how that statement is any different from saying, "If an adult of clear mind wants to slit their wrists for any reason whatsoever I think that's absolutely fine." quote: Everything is a belief, Mike. Everything. And please don't say Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, or Sir Isaac Newton unless you can produce them? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Lol very droll Ron. Of course you don't have to accept that statement as credible, it's an opinion based upon my personal observation. The difference is that I am not claiming I am right. quote: No you don't. But if you do so without it don't expect to be taken seriously. quote: Sorry Ron maybe I misunderstood I thought I heard you say that you rejected the element (tenant (sic) was the word you used) of faith healing that refused medical treatment. That is kind of the point of faith healing isn't it? aren't you effectively saying: "your method is wrong, you should be using conventional medicine?" quote: Yes, apologies wrong I see how you read it. I had switched to a generic "you" without adequate signposts. I didn't mean you personally, but "people" - I must stop doing that  .quote: Well that reveals your mindset much better than anything else you wrote Ron Clearly you equate a refusal of conventional medicine with a death-wish. I'm a million miles apart from you here, and I can't quite believe you have the audacity to imply that someone who refuses medical treatment is as good as slitting their wrists. If only the record of medical science could justify such an implication! Far from it unfortunately. The reason it's different is simple: if someone is going to slit their wrists then it's a pretty good bet that they will lose blood and eventually die, ergo they want to die. A refusal of medical treatment in no way implies someone wishes to die. Quite the reverse in some cases. And in the final analysis, which I know you will seek to extract from me so I might as well be frank now, I believe that, yes, it is the prerogative of every sane and capable adult to choose whether to accept medical assistance or not even if he/she is being advised by medical doctors that without it he/she is 100% likely to die more quickly than with. Maybe you think that's tantamount to suicide? I disagree. If you don't believe what the medical doctor says then clearly it isn't suicide; if you do then it's more difficult, but I'd argue that there's a difference between "taking" your own life and "failing to save" your own life. Now I suppose we're going to have the assisted suicide debate. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Everything is a belief? Ok, i'll grant that but some beliefs are based on fact and some aren't. Some start out as pure beliefs and become substantiated by facts. Some remain beliefs only through lack of fact. The fact that the planets revolve around the sun began as a belief and was subsequently supported by fact. The fact that the Earth was flat was a belief, non-supported by fact, which vanished when facts proved differently....although i dare say that, if one looks hard enough, one may find a group that still believes the Earth is really flat. (which will not change the facts).Religion is a belief supported by faith. Are there facts that support a superior force, being, or God? Good question. I thought about that in the hospital recently. When the doctors told me that my intestine was punctured, my thought was, "Oh, no! That means the contents of the intestines have spilled out to infect other things!". The docs then told me that, at the instant of puncture, the white cells rushed to the area to form a kind of bubble around the puncture area to contain it. I remember thinking what an amazing thing that was, how incredible that the human body had that knowledge and ability to do that. I found myself thinking that, with such incredible intricasies of the human body imbedded, one had to conclude that it was created by some form of intelligent grand design. How does one view the body any other way? Believing in some divine creator, though, does not necessarily mean that it resembles anything organized religions portray. The religions base those portrayals on faith only. Is there a Heaven that the Christians portray where you can go (but only if you accept Jesus as your Savior?) Are there 74 virgins waiting? Is there a hell? Is God watching your every move? Does He hear your prayers or is it the power of positive thinking that makes the difference? Are there pearly gates? None of these things are supported by facts so how can the religions claim that their beliefs are the only true ones? As I said, I don't think the rank and file have a problem. It has traditionally been the religious leaders who have instigated the hatred or disdain between religious groups. They do it to build memberships, to recruit people to fight (as is being done now) or for expansion, like the original crusades, or for power and profit, like the inquisitions and witch trials. The "bashing" comes from the top. Those who follow it are just pawns.. my humble opinion.... btw, Ron, Ayn Rand was produced many times. I would venture to say more people saw her than Jesus  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I condemn anyone (or anything) that would blow up the planet Earth. I have no evidence that would be a bad thing, but I suspect most people would take my condemnation seriously and probably agree with me, too. Killing is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Slavery, in the field or in the family, is wrong. I don't generally offer evidence to support such condemnations, though I suppose if someone had to ask me WHY killing was wrong, I could probably come up with a few thoughts. Whether someone takes my opinions seriously is their problem, not mine. quote: No, Rob, I'm sorry but I think you're keying on the wrong part of the quote and question. My emphasis was not on equating the two choices so much as on "for any reason whatsoever." The implication you gave me was that a person could do anything they want as long it is their choice and directly hurts no one else. My point was that personal freedom still has limits. Nonetheless, my problem is not with the person who refuses treatment for themselves. My problem is with the ones who impose those standards on their family. In either case, however, I feel no obligation to remain silent when I am convinced they are wrong. There is absolutely nothing disrespectful in telling someone you believe they are wrong. You just told me I was wrong, after all, when my fat fingers typed tenant instead of tenet and neither my spellcheck nor my proofing caught the error. Were you being disrespectful? Or extremely helpful? I prefer to see it in the latter light. quote: I haven't seen any planets revolve around the sun, Mike. Have you? How can we agree something is a fact if neither of us has ever experienced it? Perhaps you'd like to offer me a fact that isn't based on our shared faith in science? quote: Are you really going to base your belief on a numerical comparison, Mike? How many people would have had to "see" Jesus for you to accept him as an historical figure? Just out of curiosity, Mike, do you think Ayn Rand was seen by more people than Santa Claus? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Why not? In every sphere of life, from sport to politics, it’s considered reasonable to voice your disagreement when someone offers an opinion that you don’t agree with. Religion has traditionally been exempt from this rule, religion is considered off limits – why is that? A group of nut jobs fly a couple of planes into two buildings in the name of religion, praising Allah and claiming their place in heaven, a cornerstone of their religious beliefs, and we’re supposed to say nothing? Dawkins saw the irony, the elephant in the room that everyone seems unable to see or are too polite to mention. My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place. -- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004) Let bygones be bygones? Not this atheist, if I see an elephant I'm reserving the right to leap up and down shouting "Pachyderm". |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
In which case, you should certainly start jumping up and down right now, Grinch. If there was anything that 911 and the Iraqi invasion had in common it was that both gave lip service to their respective religions, while neither had anything at all to do with faith. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
The dipsticks who hijacked the planes had faith, the low life religious teachers who brainwashed them into believing the claptrap about virgins and heaven had faith and the hypocritical religious leaders calling for unity all claim to have faith. You could argue that it’s misplaced, some darker shadow of true religious faith, but the fact remains that their faith is a derivative, a consequence, of religion – in the same way that refusing medical care is a consequence of faith. Without religion acts of religious barbarity and religious stupidity can’t exist. I see a bunch of pachyderms Ron, some are harmlessly milling around the empty waterhole but some of the young bulls in must look pretty darn dangerous. You could claim that they aren’t staying true to their elephant roots, that they’re a darker shadow of the general elephant population but you can’t argue that they aren’t elephants. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I haven't seen any planets revolve around the sun, Mike. Have you? How can we agree something is a fact if neither of us has ever experienced it? Oh, please, Ron. Don't go down that path. You are much too intelligent for that. No, I haven't seen the planets revolve. I haven't seen blood pass through my heart, either. I've never watched an atom split nor seen nutrients being extracted by my body from the food I eat. I've never seen hydrogen mix with oxygen to form water. I never saw a dinosaur or a knight. I did not see DaVince pait the ceiling of the sistine chapel. If you are going to base facts on only what you yourself have seen, I don't envy you your outlook on life. Just out of curiosity, Mike, do you think Ayn Rand was seen by more people than Santa Claus? Yes, although I believe the number of people who have seen Santa is equal to those who have seen Jesus. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “But listen carefully to the utterances of Mr Ahmadinejad - and there is another dimension, a religious messianism that, some suspect, is giving the Iranian leader a dangerous sense of divine mission” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/150781 8/Divine-mission-driving-Irans-new-leader.html “Mahdaviat means "belief in and efforts to prepare for the Mahdi."” http://www.danielpipes.org/3258/the-mystical-menace-of-mahmoud-ahmadinejad Despite years of having, through the media, experienced "suicide bombers” we still seem incapable of comprehending the fact of those willing to die killing others for their faith. . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Without religion, Grinch, acts of barbarity and stupidity would just get blamed on something else. Men mostly do what they want to do, then look for ways to justify it. Those who truly act out of a conviction, I think, are extremely rare. Sure, you can blame 911 on religion. You can just as easily blame it on the color of their skin or their gender, two other commonalities. I don't believe any of the easy answer are the right ones, though. quote: But isn't that exactly what you were suggesting we do when you said, "... and please don't say Jesus unless you can produce him?" The greater question, Mike, is why do you privilege Newton over Moses or Copernicus over John the Baptist? The fact that you are absolutely convinced that your faith in science is deserved doesn't mean that it's not still faith. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I agree with Ron's answer. But also add that such a thing may be said about many an other thing that is generally meant to enhance and help life: it may be turned up so down into a harm. The same fire that is meant to be a torch and lead people through the dark may also be used to burn down people's houses. Would you suggest that the torch is the problem instead of the harmbringing manners of using the torch? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The greater question, Mike, is why do you privilege Newton over Moses or Copernicus over John the Baptist? Well, to begin with, we know that Newton and Copernicus existed as more than characters in a book. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
We do? I never met either Newton or Copernicus, Mike. Nor have I ever met anyone who met them. Are you asking me to accept their existence on faith? I think you continue to miss my point, Mike. Your reliance on authority, whether scientific or historical, is no less faith based than a Christian's reliance on authority. You believe Newton and Copernicus existed because someone told you they existed. Someone you apparently trusted. There's nothing wrong with that, either. But when you doggedly insist your authorities are right, you're doing exactly what you accuse religion of doing. That, of course, is the paradox of faith. When you are absolutely convinced you are right, it's very difficult to image the possibility of being wrong. Faith turns beliefs into . . . facts. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Which means that you tell faith healers they are wrong simply for your own amusement rather than with any serious or genuine attempt to make them see that they are wrong? quote: I have to admit I didn't pick that up before from what you said. As you see from above I specifically excluded children and dependants (mental or physical) from what I was saying. I'd agree with you that this is a whole different ball game - a very difficult ball game. It introduces the whole issue of who is best qualified to decide what is best for someone who can't make decisions for themselves. I admit I am undecided. Probably I am undecided because I can't apply my usual broad brush approach satisfactorily. I suspect there is no acceptable "general rule", it may be that the only approach is a case by case basis. quote: Yes you are right. As for tenet. FYI as a measure of the respect I have for you and your use of language I spent about 20 minutes in several different dictionaries and reference books including my old leather bound 19C copy of Websters making absolutely sure that "tenant" was wrong! Then I spent another 10 minutes fretting over whether I could resist the smug (sic). In the end my evil nasty side won. quote: At least we agree completely on the important things. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
We do? I never met either Newton or Copernicus, Mike. Nor have I ever met anyone who met them. Are you asking me to accept their existence on faith? Wow...that's about all I can say to that. You win, Ron. I cannot assume that anyone who died before I was born ever existed. Their graves could be hoaxes. Their scientific papers could be forgeries. Their published works could have been created by Sir Francis Bacon...if indeed HE ever existed. There is a wealth of circumstantial evidence that these people existed. Is there any that Moses, John the Baptist, Judas, Jesus or any of the cast of thousands did, with the exception of the fact they are mentioned in the Bible, written by unknown authors? You see a comparison between the two? Then bless you, my son. BTW, not having met you, I can't really be certain YOU exist. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Heh, Mike you worked it out at last! It's a dastardly female plot dreamt up by Nan, Kit and Sharon at Niagara - the site is owned and controlled by a cuddly erudite bot in a baseball cap. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Of course you can, Mike. What you probably shouldn't do, however, is use that ad hoc argument that anyone who died before you were born couldn't exist because you can't see them. Newton, Copernicus, Robin Hood, and King Arthur should all be approached with exactly the same skepticism and willingness to examine the evidence. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Even if an account of someone is very limited or full of myths and supernatural descriptions it doesn't mean the person wasn't actually a person. Many things in an account about someone may be out of proportion, but none of that is evidence for or against the truth that the person was or was not an actual human being, anymore than a work that truly is meant to be fiction is evidence that a character in that work of fiction is not sketch of someone that the author actually met in his own life. For the most part I think we should respect an account about a person that is meant to be about a true person as about a true person and an account meant to be about a fictional character about a fictional character, unless by unlikeliness we have convincing evidence to the contrary. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
For the record, Ron, I haven't stated anywhere here that there is no God, no Jesus, Moses or anyone else. What I did say was that anyone who has those beliefs, as well as the beliefs of other religions, base those beliefs on faith, and not fact. Does that mean they can't exist? No, but it means that, through a lack of facts, faith is the determining factor. I believe that Newton, DaVinci and the others have had their existence supported by facts, even though I haven't met any of them. The point is that any religion that claims theirs is the only true religion and their god is the only true god is not basing that on anything but their faith and, as such, makes their actions wrong when attacking others who have similar beliefs concerning their own religions. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I'm sorry you don't see the parallels, Mike. You insist there are facts supporting the existence of Newton and DaVinci? Yet, your acceptance of that evidence as fact is based wholly and completely on your faith in science and history. It's all hearsay, all based on an appeal to authority. The only difference I see between what you're doing and what a holy man does is that you and he look to different authorities. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What makes you believe what tells you about Newton is knowledge but what tells you about Moses is not knowledge? Is it because the account of Moses includes God and some supernatural events? When I say knowledge I mean knowledge exprest in words and accounts that go back to people that actually knew Moses or knew Newton. [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-20-2009 03:04 AM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Acts of barbarity and stupidity would certainly still occur, barbarity and stupidity isn’t after all confined to the religious among us. However acts of barbarity and stupidity would be reduced if religion didn’t exist, take the two examples already given. Some misguided souls believe that faith, and faith alone, is sufficient to heal any disease or ailment, they have bought into the belief that their god will intercede and that there’s no need for modern medicine. This stupidity is dependant on religious belief, granted if you take away religion you’d still have idiots avoiding proven medical treatments for various other, equally stupid, reasons but those people who profess that their only reason was based on religious belief would be beating a path to the local hospital. The same goes for the numbwits who are willing to incinerate and eviscerate themselves and as many unbelievers as possible by flying a plane into a tall building. Take away the promise of eternal life in heaven and virgins aplenty created by religious belief and the plan would somehow lose its shine. I can almost hear the conversation now: “Listen Ahmed, I want you to hijack a plane next Tuesday and fly it into that tall building over there at 220 miles an hour” “Err.. ok.. but what’s in it for me? Do I get eternal life in heaven and a whole bunch of lusty chicks to sate my every need?” “Well no, but it will really P off those infernal Americans” “Hmm.. In that case no thanks, I’m busy Tuesday and besides if this is the only life I get I’d pretty much like to keep it for a while if that’s ok with you” |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Grinch, you might as well blame capitalism as religion, as certainly more people avoid medical treatment because they don't have the money as avoid it because they believe it unnecessary. Seems to me, instead of placing the blame at the top of a chain, we could move down a few rungs and blame both instances on poor education. There are a whole lot of people who are wrong in a lot of different ways for a lot of different reasons. Religion doesn't even scratch the surface, and throwing out the baby with the bath water has never been a very good answer. Get rid of religion and you would still have Japanese Kamikaze and German Luftwaffe JG300s ramming into enemy vessels for their country instead of their god. Whether it's a certain death like suicide bombers or a probable death like the brave men at the Alamo, there are always men and women willing to sacrifice themselves for a greater ideal. And that ideal has never been constrained to a god. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
In the case of the barbarous and stupid acts mentioned Ron we don’t need to attribute blame. The perpetrators of those acts are more than willing to give us the actual reason they occur and the reason they offer is wholeheartedly religious. The original post suggests that religion shouldn’t be “bashed”. I believe that when acts of stupidity and barbarity are perpetrated based on the mumbo jumbo that religion promotes it should be biffed, bashed and generally berated to highlight the stupidity. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
You are right in respect to the wrongness, Grinch. But it is not right to say or suggest all religion is that wrongness, for it is not. "Bash" the wrong where the wrong is in the religion, not (the) religion as a whole. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And, of course, they would never lie to you? Ask anyone why they do something and, nine times out of ten, they'll give you the wrong answer. Some will lie, most just don't know. That's why surveys are notoriously unreliable. Condemn the action, by all means. Blaming their justifications, however, is fruitless. Indeed, blaming religion is little different than blaming democracy or capitalism for their equally copious stupidities. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It is like blaming poetry for a bad poem. [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-20-2009 01:31 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Doesn’t that undermine your own statement? quote: How do you know they’re not lying to you when they claim to believe in faith healing Ron? There’s no need to answer that. The reality is that it doesn’t matter whether they’re lying or not. You’re refusal to offer a silent nod isn’t dependant on the truth of their belief it’s a reaction to the possible consequences if their statement goes unchallenged. Stupidity and barbarity are easily perpetuated if left unchallenged. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: How exactly is claiming the freedom to challenge dangerous religious beliefs anywhere remotely like blaming poetry for a bad poem? That makes no sense at all. It’s more like claiming the freedom to criticize a bad poem. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: But so is displaced disrespect, Grinch. It is one thing to specify something as wrong, but applying everything of the religion into that "wrong" is displacing the blame or reproach quite out of proportion. There are just as many if not more examples of people of people that are not included in such religions (including atheists) committing evil deeds. By the same principle we could just as easily take those examples and try to put the blame on their lack of believing in a religion or a god for those wrongs. Meanwhile, however, the majorities of people including both people that are believers and people that aren't believers, succeed everyday in not committing such crimes. Certainly the majority of religious people that commit crimes also don't commit them for especially religious reasons. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: It is when it paints the whole religion as if it is in the same category as a bad part or manner of practicing the religion. It is like taking the whole of poetry in general and blaming it for a specific poems that have obscenities in them or mismetered sonnets, etc. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I’ve no idea what this is supposed to mean who the heck has supposedly “displaced disrespect”? The terrorists? The faith healers? quote: I’m saying some religious beliefs are bad and they should be pointed out as such not avoided because they fall under the general umbrella of “religious beliefs”, how is that out of proportion? quote: Any atheist that flies a plane into building in return for a place in heaven is, by definition, clearly not an atheist. quote: So we shouldn’t bash the numbwits who commit crimes in the name of religion because some religious people commit non-religiously driven crimes? I can’t think why that should be a consideration. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It might be if someone had actually done that but as nobody has it’s a little redundant. . |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Humm, you old cynic, that explains a lot. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'm sorry you don't see the parallels, Mike. Believe me, Ron, I'm not sorry at all. If I were unwilling to give science and history proper due for my beliefs to be based on, I would feel sorry. If I were to believe that DaVinci's existence was no more valid than Jesus's existence, I would be sorry. If I did not believe the comparison between the two was ludicrous, I would be sorry. ...or maybe I'm just sorry |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Sorry if I mistook your meaning earlier. If you mean a specific part or sub-belief within a religious belief system then we are in agreement. What I was speaking against was throwing pessimism and disrespect at a whole or general religion itself (such as Islam or Christianity). If there is a specific part or subbelief of one of those religions, a specific part or subbelief that is disrespectful, then I agree with "bashing" that specific part or subbelief as far as it is disrespectful or harmful. The part that I find very wrong though is "bashing" Islam in general or "bashing" Christianity in general or any other religion in general for a part or subbelief under the "umbrellas" of those widereaching religions. For the religious belief systems as wholes have much more than may ever be generalized or written off as "bad". |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. If I were confident of: the best food and drink, and seventy renewing virgins, and perpetual arousal, I’d be tempted to submit . . . . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bashing other religions is wrong (for "bashing" implies something done for its own glee). But saying certain religions are wrong at points is little different than saying anything else is wrong at points. If you're going to be a relativist with religion, you must explain why such relativism stops short of everything else. And Mike, the characters of the New Testament (as well as much of the Old) have extrabiblical confirmations as well. All ancient historical narrative (notice that I'm insisting that not all ancient writing is of this type) is relatively sparse in comparison to our present blogging world. That doesn't make the existence of those characters (or even the details we do have of them) automatically doubtful. If it does, you've accepted quite a dogma yourself. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, a question... which position is more reasonable ... one which rejects all religion as "poison" even though not all religion leads to bad behavior, and some even to good ... or the position which assumes (as with every other category) that religion itself has right and wrong answers? There has been bad science too, and yet it would be unreasonable to disparage the whole kit-n-kaboodle of scientific endeavor. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, quote: I would say the reason is that not everything has the artistic complexity of religion. Robbing a bank for example is a specific act, rather than a group of traditions, lore, rites, etc, that make up a religion. A religion including many sundry learnings, texts, rites, etc is generally too manifold to generalize as right or wrong. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Neither. One dismisses without evidence and one accepts without evidence and both beggar belief. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I think it may be possible that we are confusing religion with the uses people make of it, in much the same way that we are apt to confuse science and the uses people make of that. Various pieces of religious doctrine can and do sound on occasion pretty absurd when taken out of context or when distorted for satirical purposes. For all I know they may actually be as absurd as they sound, though I don't believe there is enough evidence to discard many of these beliefs or interpretations of these beliefs out of hand. The same satiric hand may stretch an absurdity from most any cherished point of view, should its artistry be turned to such purposes. The history of science is littered with such lampooned shipwrecks, and science is likely to cause many more a proud and watertight theory to founder on the shoals of ridicule and evidence. It is helpful to the discussion in general, though, if a specific example can be given. Which belief is being bashed? by whom? and is the bashing useful or not in the opinion of the commentator? Lest we forget, somebody evidently thought it was useful to make the comment in the first place. Was it simple stupidity? Did they have some point? Was it racism? What was the deal after all? Myself, I'd rather have a huge No Bashing sign posted in general; but then what do you do when the current Iranian President (my wife tells me) makes a statement that the initials BBC do not actually stand for British Broadcasting Company, as I've thought over the span of my life this far, but really stand for Bahai Broadcasting Company. It is not all that long ago that the Iranian Revolutionary government took the Bahai religious council and executed them for — I believe — treason. Part of the major position of the Bahai faith is that they take no political positions. President Mahmoud Ahmadinijad is bashing big-time there and showing a very unpleasant side of Islam. What do we (I, for sure, and perhaps you) do about our (my own, certainly, and possibly your) urge to bash back. I'm doing my own little bit here to try to put this onto a more concrete basis. If you find my example uninteresting, I'm interested in other examples; but the generalities thus far I've found difficult to follow. Perhaps I've never really gotten out of the Lincoln Logs stage of Childhood, or playing with blocks. Comments? Also, Ron, I'm not certain that a well done survey is notoriously unreliable. If the sample is well gathered, it should have a perfectly acceptable confidence interval. If you're talking about the exit-poll data from the last few elections, I'd be more interested in seeing how the actual votes were counted and by whom and under what circumstances. That information is a much more likely source of variation in the data (at that level) than a difference in exit poll data from the actual vote count. I'd be interested in your thinking on the matter though, since you actually seem to believe differently, and you should have some reasoning behind it worth considering. You usually do. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: My apologies. You seem to articulate the views ala Dawkins often enough, that I mistook you to share them. I'll just once again point out that the religious/non-religious distinction doesn't fall along the lines of "no evidence versus evidence". Rather they interpret the evidence differently according to their presuppositions. Belief or unbelief in God (to quote Rob Bell) is a "posture of the heart". Bob, well said about confusing religion and the uses thereof. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I share some of them – the good ones. For instance I think Dawkins is largely right about evolution. He’s so far missed a couple of big points though, like the simple explanation for the Cambrian explosion and the real mechanics of speciation but I’m fairly sure it’ll dawn on him given time. His ideas regarding religion being a virus of the mind are interesting – I agree with the basic analogy and similarities but not the conclusions or the negative connotations he draws. . |
||
|
andrem422 New Member
since 2009-07-01
Posts 1Pennsylvania |
Why is it not acceptable to critique other religions? Bashing may be too harsh a word, but isn't most of what humans believe based off of a critique or a questioning of another persons beliefs? No two people agree on everything, and that's okay. People can have different opinions on music, movies, books, clothes, etc. but the second someone mentions religion or politics people usually put their hands into the air and walk away from the situation because people become so personally offended when you disagree with their beliefs. That's probably mostly because these two areas attempt to tell us how to live our lives, and that other people should live their lives like we do. They make it our personal responsibility to make these people believe in the same things we do to "benefit" both parties. That is pretty ridiculous when you think about it. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: But isn't saying that no one should do so (try to persuade others to believe something, or to see something in a different light), doing the very same thing? In saying that something is ridiculous, aren't you implicitly saying that another (your own) point of view is not so ridiculous, more urbane, just, wise, etc ... ? The only difference between such a point of view, and a genuinely religious (or even unabashedly political) point of view, is that the former is inconsistent with its own moral imperative, and unaware of its own universal aims. That being said, I still think the deepest disagreements can be without malice, rancor, and even harbor seeds of friendship. And though I would say that this is all by the grace of God, maybe disagreeing parties can at least agree that it is sometimes so. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I think both of you have valid points. I think it unfortunate that humans have historically had such a difficult time drawing a distinction between suasion and force. Some would say that there is no need for a distinction. This is some of the same trouble we have around our own freedom of speech discussions, where everyone wants to be free to say what they want, and where it becomes difficult to get people to take responsibility for the outcomes of what they have said. You know, like crying "Theater!" at a crowded fire, or something of that sort. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
