A good illustration of the politics of religion. This is what you get if you give in to threats - instead of defending your right to free speech. All religions are “evil and inhuman” if you ask me. But now you can get killed if you say it about the wrong one in the wrong place.
I guess some religions are more equal than others…
I beg to differ from you here…
One should not debunk RELIGION because of the reaction of individuals…
Nor should one debunk forums like these because of wrong or feeble arguments by members etc…
I think religion has a place - even though THOUSANDS has been killed in the name of religion…
Mostly by radical Individuals within the religion with a misconception of the means/motives/purpose of religions. 8)
That is precisely why one should vigorously debunk religion: it’s an emotive pursuit, not an intellectual or empirical one.
Religions are always a haven for intellectual sloth. With sufficient faith and an appropriate amount of convoluted thinking, a beliver can justify any action he or she chooses to take, and that is where its true danger lies.
If Muslim and Catholic were to become aware of the hollow folly of their most cherished beliefs, they’d have nothing left to quarrel over, and the world would in consequence be a safer place for all.
'Luthon64
The suggestion that anything outside of intellectual or empirical persuits is “hollow folly” is your opinion, and I respect your right to it. ???
Unfortunately it does not make everything outside your paradigm abide by your personal viewpoints.
I think this specific debate has been going on for as long as I can remember, and I think it would be unjust to start another one… There’s enough other forums for that…
Your opinion is noted, and so is mine… ;D
As far as your statement that the world would be a safer place if religious folly was removed, I could not agree more…
Unfortunately we would still be stuck with issues like:
Greed, Selfishness, Nepotism and all the other things non-religious things that creates conflict.
Of course religion has it’s place. It belongs in the same place as horoscopes, perpetual motion machines and the tooth fairy. That is, believes that has no basis in fact but people cling on to it because there is a need for it.
It is dangerous like all the other ideas in that bunch, because it gives room for irrationality and discourages critical thinking.
People will always do stupid, hurtful and evil things - but somehow the notion that this is OK as long as your believe system condones it, is still with us after hundreds of years. It is important to show religion as just another flawed idea, not something that is sacred and should be left alone.
By this I do not imply that you can not be religious. You can believe whatever you want. But I will hold all your believes up to the same rules. So you better have something to back up those believes.
edit: And by you, I don’t mean you specifically 
Now you’ve done it!!! My horoscope said that you would imply that the tooth fairy is as unreal as not believing in anything
;D
Nopes, I agree that a lot of folks use it as a weapon, crutch, excuse etc…
Anyway I guess we could also say that “This is why we don’t need cars/guns/booze”
It’s not cars/guns/booze that kill people, it’s people… It’s not religion that starts wars, it’s people not doing what their religion intends etc…
Though not, I take it, one that you agree with. I, too, respect your right to disagree.
Sorry, I don’t understand what this is supposed to mean.
So it has, though I disagree that it isn’t worth debating yet again. It’s an eminently important issue.
But clearly you consider it insufficient to denounce such folly, yes? If so, why?
Undoubtedly so, but that is irrelevant to the argument: the fact that other evils exist in the world does not and cannot excuse the presence of any one specific evil. It’s like saying, “there’s no point in regulating firearms so as to reduce murder statistics, because people will still have access to knives.” If we reasoned that way, we’d never get anything done for arguing in circles.
'Luthon64
Unfortunately it does not make everything outside your paradigm abide by your personal viewpoints. Sorry, I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.What I mean is the fact that if YOU don't believe in something, it is not proof of it's non-existence. If was someone was born and grew up in a 4 meter cube, with food and water shoved through a hole in the wall, then THAT would be his entire world. Anything outside it would not exist, except for the "mystical" appearance of his food and water every day..... To him, in the cube, the rest of the world, or television or war would not exist..... However - you and I who exist outside the cube knows that there is more. The fact that he does not know it, is NOT proof that it does not exist, he has just not had the chance to experience it. Even if a door should "magically" appear for him to leave the cube, and he chooses not to, the rest of the world does not cease to exist because he chooses not to see it. It's like closing your eyes and claiming that every time you do that, everything around you vanishes....
So it has, though I disagree that it isn't worth debating yet again. It's an eminently important issue.That would be up to the moderator I guess(Whether one should re-invent the wheel) ;-) ...though I do find it slightly odd that you call something that you don't care for or believe in "an eminently important issue"
But clearly you consider it insufficient to denounce such folly, yes? If so, why?I do, and did.... I think you assume that if someone is religious or Christian, then they all believe exactly the same thing..... It might be on this point that we differ..... I do believe in evolution, but not necessarily in Darwinism etc.... I do believe in God and that Jesus died on the cross.... I do not believe in killing those who oppose my beliefs....
A lot of the things that so-called religious people do, is folly, and THAT I renounce. You will also find that most of the “follie-rs”(for lack of a better description) are radicals that are opposed and denounced by their own religious leaders.
As far as your original article is concerned… an unforgiving attitude is not confined to religious issues, but throughout everyday life.
Sounds like an interesting viewpoint - care to elaborate? Maybe make a new thread though…
Please point out where I have argued that my non-belief is proof of a thing’s non-existence.
This is a non sequitur. The fact that I believe the content of an idea to be nonsense says nothing about the significance of the outcomes that could ensue from holding the idea. A sangoma believes that diagnosis and cure are effected with the assistance of the spirits of ancestors. I consider that idea to be nonsense. I also believe it to be dangerous because people’s lives may be unnecessarily imperilled thereby, and therefore the idea is important in the sense of warranting close examination and critical appraisal.
I know that is not the case, and I don’t assume this at all. Nor do I dispute that there are levels of fanaticism from placid tolerance all the way through to rabid bigotry. It is of course the latter end of this spectrum that concerns me most.
But it is puzzling that such disagreements on matters of interpretation exist in the first place. After all, each party has access to precisely the same source material, yet we have an enormous range of different responses to it, and each one insists that it, and only it, is the only correct one, all the rest being misguided.
Er, what “article” are you referring to here? As I tried to explain earlier, the fact that intolerance exists in other contexts cannot be used to argue in favour of it in the case of religion.
'Luthon64
Please point out where I have argued that [i]my[/i] non-belief is proof of a thing's non-existence.That was never an argument on your side, but more of an statement/explanation on my side - even though your statement..
That is precisely why one should vigorously debunk religion: it's an emotive pursuit, not an intellectual or empirical one.can be used to justify my statement. Something you see as an "emotional persuit" should be "vigorously" debunked.... because of what YOUR perception is of
hollow folly of their most cherished beliefs, they'd have nothing left.... That sentiment was my point.... :o
This is a [i]non sequitur[/i]. The fact that I believe the [i]content[/i] of an idea to be nonsense says nothing about the significance of the outcomes that could ensue from [i]holding[/i] the idea. A sangoma believes that diagnosis and cure are effected with the assistance of the spirits of ancestors. I consider that idea to be nonsense. I also believe it to be dangerous because people's lives may be unnecessarily imperilled thereby, and therefore the idea is important in the sense of warranting close examination and critical appraisal.I fully agree, and I was supposed to have made it clear that I was actually joking.... Geez... I'm Afrikaans, so I had to go look up [i]non sequitur[/i] ;D I especially agree with the "close examination and critical appraisal."
there are levels of fanaticism from placid tolerance all the way through to rabid bigotry. It is of course the latter end of this spectrum that concerns me most.Ditto!!! ::)
[quote="qrios post:8, topic:1554"] You will also find that most of the "follie-rs"(for lack of a better description) are radicals that are opposed and denounced by their own religious leaders. [/quote] But it is puzzling that such disagreements on matters of interpretation exist in the first place. After all, each party has access to precisely the same source material, yet we have an enormous range of different responses to it, and each one insists that [i]it[/i], and only [i]it[/i], is the only correct one, all the rest being misguided.I think part of the the problem is that everything is not black or white... It is the grey areas that cause the problems.... YOUR interpretation of religious folly, and MINE will differ.... That is why we discuss it.... :)
[quote="qrios post:8, topic:1554"] As far as your original article is concerned..... an unforgiving attitude is not confined to religious issues, but throughout everyday life. [/quote] Er, what "article" are you referring to here? As I tried to explain earlier, the fact that intolerance exists in other contexts cannot be used to argue in favour of it in the case of religion.Sorry, I was actually referring to [b]bluegray V[/b]'s opening link about the Pope....
Please bear in mind that I am not your enemy(MY statement, not yours)so I would like to discuss stuff, rather than argue over it.(once again MY statement, not yours)
Greets
qrios
No, here you are misinterpreting what I have written. The vigorous debunking of religion is necessary because its tenets exploit and encourage the same kind of shaky epistemology that underpins the sangoma’s beliefs about medicine - these beliefs are emotively held, rather than evidence-based. It’s got nothing to do with any desire - by me or anyone else - for taking something away from somebody else merely because I disagree with them. That would simply be malicious and arrogant. But I must confess that I find it curious that you concur in the case of the sangoma, but not in the case of religion.
I was under the impression that such is the situation and what we are up to. Why would you think otherwise?
'Luthon64
Quote from: qrios on Today at 19:43:58 Please bear in mind that I am not your enemy(MY statement, not yours)so I would like to discuss stuff, rather than argue over it.(once again MY statement, not yours) I was under the impression that such is the situation and what we are up to. Why would you think otherwise?It might be the slightl aggressive tone that I detected during your previous post... ???
Concerning the rest of the discussion… I think the main problem(if one could call it that), is the fact that we differ regarding the perception of the term religious
I think that we agree on the basic principles of the misuse of religion or religious principles, and that one of the main differences is that I label myself Christian, whereas you label yourself an atheist…???
BTW What does Autophagous mean???
As I said - some religions are more equal than others
I
Yeah… guess so… I think that’s why we do all the fighting… to see who can be the most equal!!! ;D
Sorry for the delay in responding, but I also have other responsibilities to attend to.
If my words came across as aggressive, I apologise - it was not my intention that they should be thus. By the same token, I felt that in some cases your messages were unduly accusatory (capitalising “YOU” and “YOUR,” as though to emphasise these). It is a fact - a fortunate or unfortunate one, depending on who you ask - of forums that tone of voice is not easily distinguishable from the written word, and linguists are agreed that such tone accounts for a significant fraction of interpersonal communication. Oh well, what can be done?
Agreed, but please do not make the very common mistake of classifying atheism as “just another religion.” It is not. I do not know who said it first, but one of the best analogies I have come across is this: “Atheism is a religion like ‘bald’ is a hair colour.”
As for my perception of the term religious, I think one of its central defining attributes is, as I indicated elsewhere, that a group of interrelated ideas is emotively held, rather than based on any clear compelling evidence. Another characteristic is that these ideas are about metaphysical issues, in particular man’s place in, and relationship to, the universe and its supposed origins.
From Greek, it means “self-consuming” or “self-eating” - see here.
'Luthon64
It is a fact - a fortunate or unfortunate one, depending on who you ask - of forums that tone of voice is not easily distinguishable from the written word, and linguists are agreed that such tone accounts for a significant fraction of interpersonal communication. Oh well, what can be done?Yea... is sort of a bummer.... As far as my CAPS is concerned, it was in reference to you(Anacoluthon64) and not to people in general... I have now resorted to [b]this[/b] or [i]this[/i], which looks a tad friendlier.. ;D
No… I don’t see atheism as a religion at all…
What I meant concerning “perception of the term religious” is that even within Christianity there are several trains of thought or dogmata. My perception has been that non Christians or non-believers tend to categorize Christians according to their experience of Christianity. This albeit somehow natural, is wrong and I feel that a lot of misconceptions about Christianity are formed that way.
A further discovery that militates generically against religion: It promotes making false and hypocritical accusations of rudeness towards non-believers.
In fact, that whole site is tasty and nutritious.
'Luthon64
;D To be religious,one has to have faith,the mere I just say so of credulity! :’( :’(
The article is a good example where a leader of a sub group(in this case RCC) says something and the whole group(in general Christians) suffers.
It’s also not only a religious problem (as you stated in your topic title “This is why we don’t need religion”) but a humane problem, for example: Let’s say the British president made a public remark “All Chinese people are inhuman and stupid” and someone (in this case a Chinese) killed a British soldier in China. Will you say something like “This is why we don’t need politics”?
I say it’s a humane problem because it’s human nature to be critical and “beter wetend”(Sorry for the Afrikaans, the English phrase for “beter wetend” just slipped my mind). To make a long story short, what the pope did was “rude”. But that by itself is not a good reason why we do not need religion.
The statement (“This is why we don’t need religion”) is more a personal opinion than anything else.
Regards,