| Blogs > jodogohoo |
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
 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. | ||
|
CutieBK
Sweden227 Posts
 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! | ||
Pholon
Netherlands6142 Posts
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. | ||
|
n3ac3y
United States108 Posts
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. | ||
|
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
@ 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. | ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
| ||
|
Noyect
Sweden129 Posts
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. | ||
|
n3ac3y
United States108 Posts
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. | ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
On May 18 2012 20:35 n3ac3y wrote: 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. | ||
|
n3ac3y
United States108 Posts
On May 18 2012 21:04 Skilledblob wrote: 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. | ||
|
zawk9
United States427 Posts
| ||
|
n3ac3y
United States108 Posts
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? | ||
|
zawk9
United States427 Posts
On May 18 2012 21:17 n3ac3y wrote: 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. | ||
|
zawk9
United States427 Posts
On May 18 2012 21:41 n3ac3y wrote: 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? | ||
|
n3ac3y
United States108 Posts
On May 18 2012 21:43 zawk9 wrote: 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. | ||
|
n3ac3y
United States108 Posts
On May 18 2012 21:45 zawk9 wrote: 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 | ||
|
ZessiM
United Kingdom232 Posts
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. | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
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.. | ||
|
Noyect
Sweden129 Posts
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? | ||
|
masterbreti
Korea (South)2711 Posts
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. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Escore
INu's Battles
Classic vs ByuN
SHIN vs ByuN
OSC
Big Brain Bouts
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Classic vs GgMaChine
Rogue vs Maru
WardiTV Invitational
IPSL
Ret vs Art_Of_Turtle
Radley vs TBD
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
