|
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 States25558 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.)
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
