|
Both extreme sides of this argument are so dumb really and the whole "respect" debate (we have ridiculous amounts of it over here atm) only serves to draw attention away from that fact.
Who cares if someone draws a depiction of something that's important to you, personally (for example, because there's more than one religious group good at being offended about more than one thing).. what does it change, really?
At the same time, if you know someone's offended by something why would you go do it several more times, just because it's your right?
Bunch of troll humans.
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. And the freedom not to like it. Just not the freedom to come to blows over it, violence is the line. Crossing it just proves you're silly and, frankly, so does trying to curb said freedom in favor of what you personally do or don't believe.
Generalizing whole swaths of people over the actions of some is just as dumb though, just saying.
|
On January 13 2011 06:47 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 06:27 Electric.Jesus wrote:
No, what I am trying to say is that is, on a very rational level, not justified to disrespect a person for holding religious beliefs when believing that there is no god is, basically, an equally unprovable belief. I think the scientolgy thing contradicts scientific evidence in more than one respect and there does not fall into the category that I would respect.
But consider a person that subscribes to a monotheistic religion and says: "I believe that god created the universe, imbued us with immortal souls and awaits us in paradise after we die."
These are views commonly held and none of them contradict empirical evidence the way are formulated, mainly because they exceed the limits of our kowledge. At this point not believing in god or life after death could be considered an equally religious belief, lets called is agnosticism. Disrespecting a point of view soley because I adhere to a different point of view seems pointless to me. Show me the great monotheistic religion that says "God created the universe, imbued us with immortal souls, and awaits us in paradise after we die" and ends it at that. Makes no metaphysical claims whatsoever, doesn't dictate our behavior, says nothing of unbelievers and blasphemy, and makes no judgments on human beings. Show me this amazingly brief holy scripture that apparently consists of only one line. Show me this fantastical religion.
I know a guys who considers himself Christian and who pretty much beliefs what I just wrote. Is that sufficient? Also, I am pretty sure, that is what Einstein believed (at least the "god created the universe thing"). If you read my post carefully, you will notice that I did not base my claim on a whole religion (if you can even clearly define it as a cohesive entity). My original post was about repecting individuals or their religious beliefs. I merely chose monotheistic so I would not have to write god/gods all the time. 
I said nothing of disrespect, unless you consider skepticism disrespect, which I think only a fanatic would agree with. Zero respect is not the same as disrespect and is what I am instead advocating. Zero respect, and the skepticism that all religions rightfully deserve.
Hm, maybe a bad choice of word on my part caused a misunderstanding. What is the opposite of respecting? Scepticism is something typical for scientific minds. Maybe it is even the equivalent to a relgious persons' believing. I pretty much encounter everything with scpeticism but I also know that scepticism is only useful in situations where it may contribute to generating knowledge.
|
I haven't read the entire thread at this point... Sorry if my post is redundant.
Terrorist attacks shouldn't be responded to by appeasing to the demands of fanatics, that is actually the diametrically incorrect response. It prove the methods of terrorist individuals are effective (emboldening their attacks). The problem is actually giving these fanatics any kind of support, rather than condemnation, for their actions and beliefs.
I might be unpopular for my view, but mainstream religion is more of a root cause than secular ideas. Religion is the springboard to carrying out their acts and the validity the mainstream religions actually give to the views (rather than simply calling it what it is, insane) of violent fundamentalists is absurd. Rather than just being able to say "That guy is fucking insane" we have to be respectful of others individual beliefs... Why exactly? Why is religion specifically sheltered from scrutiny? Most religious are moderate, they will condemn the actions but they have to recognize that they create the atmosphere where fundamentalists can, and will, carry out attacks.
Marcus Brigstocke said it better than me though...
"...(religious people) have to accept that they are the power base for the nutters.Without their passive support the loonies in charge would just be loonies, safely locked away and medicated, somewhere nice, you know with a view of some trees where they can claim they have a direct channel to God between sessions making tapestry drink coasters, watching Teletubbies and talking about their days in the Hitler Youth.
The ordinary faithful make these vicious, tyrannical thugs what they are. See, I get very angry that shows like Big Brother and Celebrity, insert title of wretched show here, still fill our lives with vapid, pointless, emptiness and I wish the producers and development executives would crawl back under the rocks they emerged from but the truth is they sell stuff people consume. Without the audience to prop it up, Heat magazine and fundamentalist religious fanaticism goes away. Imagine what humanity might be capable of if we had that kind of spare time."
|
On January 13 2011 07:17 Electric.Jesus wrote:
Also, I am pretty sure, that is what Einstein believed (at least the "god created the universe thing").
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Einstein
He used the word God to refer to the mechanics that the universe is governed by, not an actual omnipotent deity.
|
On January 13 2011 05:33 Neo7 wrote:
So you're saying we should not even bother putting forth the effort to learning why we should not respect a belief and simply assume they're all bad (including Atheist beliefs because unless you're a Nihilist, you believe in something)? That is an extremely shallow and some would argue lazy approach to understanding life. Comparing the actual faith of say Islam or Christianity to something such as slavery or genocide is extremely unrealistic to compare (that would be like comparing StarCraft to Microsoft Office...there's nothing to really compare).
Again if you can't even put forth the effort to understand a belief, you shouldn't make a judgement call. You can still distrust something until you know it inside and out which is a fair and safe way to go about things.
Sharia law = slavery for women.
|
On January 13 2011 07:17 Electric.Jesus wrote:I know a guys who considers himself Christian and who pretty much beliefs what I just wrote. Is that sufficient? Also, I am pretty sure, that is what Einstein believed (at least the "god created the universe thing"). If you read my post carefully, you will notice that I did not base my claim on a whole religion (if you can even clearly define it as a cohesive entity). My original post was about repecting individuals or their religious beliefs. I merely chose monotheistic so I would not have to write god/gods all the time. Hm, maybe a bad choice of word on my part caused a misunderstanding. What is the opposite of respecting? Scepticism is something typical for scientific minds. Maybe it is even the equivalent to a relgious persons' believing. I pretty much encounter everything with scpeticism but I also know that scepticism is only useful in situations where it may contribute to generating knowledge.
Oh, I have no doubt that such people exist. But no such established religion exists. And it is ultimately meaningless for such a person to describe themselves as part of any establishment, when such beliefs are the tenets of innumerable belief systems.
The established religions that we do have, however, are not defined by such irresolvable claims that are at the heart of all religions everywhere, but rather by the slew of metaphysical claims they make and their heinous results. That God judges us based on our thoughts and actions, such as depicting his prophet, and that thus such an act is blasphemous. This is the kind of belief that should be met with more than skepticism - it should be met with scorn and ridicule, not unwarranted respect!
|
On January 13 2011 07:23 Jswizzy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 07:17 Electric.Jesus wrote:
Also, I am pretty sure, that is what Einstein believed (at least the "god created the universe thing").
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Einstein He used the word God to refer to the mechanics that the universe is governed by, not an actual omnipotent deity.
That is a very sympathic religious belief. I guess there is no harm in sharing it.
|
Its just as hard for everyone to stop drawing it as it is for the muslims to not care about it
“Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view and demand that they respect yours.” Tecumseh - Shawnee
|
On January 13 2011 07:39 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 07:17 Electric.Jesus wrote:I know a guys who considers himself Christian and who pretty much beliefs what I just wrote. Is that sufficient? Also, I am pretty sure, that is what Einstein believed (at least the "god created the universe thing"). If you read my post carefully, you will notice that I did not base my claim on a whole religion (if you can even clearly define it as a cohesive entity). My original post was about repecting individuals or their religious beliefs. I merely chose monotheistic so I would not have to write god/gods all the time. Hm, maybe a bad choice of word on my part caused a misunderstanding. What is the opposite of respecting? Scepticism is something typical for scientific minds. Maybe it is even the equivalent to a relgious persons' believing. I pretty much encounter everything with scpeticism but I also know that scepticism is only useful in situations where it may contribute to generating knowledge. Oh, I have no doubt that such people exist. But no such established religion exists. And it is ultimately meaningless for such a person to describe themselves as part of any establishment, when such beliefs are the tenets of innumerable belief systems. The established religions that we do have, however, are not defined by such irresolvable claims that are at the heart of all religions everywhere, but rather by the slew of metaphysical claims they make and their heinous results. That God judges us based on our thoughts and actions, such as depicting his prophet, and that thus such an act is blasphemous. This is the kind of belief that should be met with more than skepticism - it should be met with scorn and ridicule, not unwarranted respect!
Then what about Bhuddism. As far as I know the Dalai Lama specifically said that a central requirement of Bhuddism must be that its teachings do not contradict the current state of scientific knowledge. In fact, he and other high ranking representatives of Bhuddism actively partitipate in neuroimaging studies to help scientists understand the neurobiological correlates of spiritual experiences. I guess you could respect that religion, right?
|
On December 13 2010 18:38 NearPerfection wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 18:36 Lightswarm wrote:Why can people not stand up to their right to express freedom of speech. Of course the images drawn by Mr. Vilks is degrading to Islamic people and he should be rightfully punished but he is not at all deserving of the death threats and whatnot he is getting. ![[image loading]](http://striderweb.com/blog/images/dogbody.jpg) One of the drawings by Lars Vilks. If any government puts the opinions and expressions of any radicals over the freedom of speech of their own people, it is clear that government is not fit to take care of its people. Any country faced with threats of this nature should stand up against it and not cower before the demands radicals like the extremists How should he punished? So what if it's insulting to Islam.
We have plenty of cartoons drawn of Christianity in the US, which is a predominantly Christian nation.
The terrorists need to realize that blowing themselves up will not get them anywhere. There religions is no more special than anyone else's.
Why can't I just have my religion, and they just have theirs? I don't care what they believe, as long as they don't attack others. Although the US kind of got itself overinvolved in the middle east and partially instigated the attacks.
|
On January 13 2011 09:53 jorge_the_awesome wrote:
Why can't I just have my religion, and they just have theirs?.
Because monotheist religions like Christianity and Islam cannot both be right. If Islam is right then Christianity is wrong and vice verse. The very existence of a competing religion is viewed as an attack.
|
On January 13 2011 09:59 Jswizzy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 09:53 jorge_the_awesome wrote:
Why can't I just have my religion, and they just have theirs?. Because monotheist religions like Christianity and Islam cannot both be right. If Islam is right then Christianity is wrong and vice verse. The very existence of a competing religion is viewed as an attack.
More reasonably because both promulgate different views of what is right/the way society ought to be.
People who believe that owning slaves is a right that should be protected, and people who believe that slavery is wrong do not inhabit the same space well.
|
c'mon bro..everyone knows that christianity is an old "pagan" religion based on sun worship.
people need to just live and let live...so what if I don't believe the same shit you do...get over yourself.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 13 2011 08:26 Electric.Jesus wrote:Then what about Bhuddism. As far as I know the Dalai Lama specifically said that a central requirement of Bhuddism must be that its teachings do not contradict the current state of scientific knowledge. In fact, he and other high ranking representatives of Bhuddism actively partitipate in neuroimaging studies to help scientists understand the neurobiological correlates of spiritual experiences. I guess you could respect that religion, right?
That's a nice start but not quite enough. A truly rational person wouldn't say: "This is what I believe and will continue to do so until experience proves my beliefs wrong". They would say: "These are my experiences, so lets see what set of beliefs fit them the best."
Apparently Buddhist texts contain examples of people creating objects with their minds (observable by onlookers) while meditating. Any truly rational person would say that the "holy texts" are wrong and these things either never happened or these people experienced some sort of shared illusion. While you can't absolutely rule it out I wouldn't even take the idea seriously until someone actually did it in a controlled experiment and got the whole thing on tape.
Even if you do allow your holy texts to be proven wrong, just the fact that you treat them as your main hypothesis is a form of extreme bias. Indeed, a truly enlightened Buddhist would see it as attachment and an example of "wrong view".
|
People are losing perspective here.
There are over 1 billion muslims in the world. To categorise those who bombed America in the same category as the rest is ridiculous. America has done a lot of negative things to muslims (supporting corrupt dictators, unqualified support for israel and causing conflict), but the majority of muslims frankly dont give a shit and just want to live peaceful lives.
Drawing pictures of Muhammad (any kind, even showing a little bit of face) is likened to a cardinal sin in Islam and is deeply offensive to the majority of muslims. It is similar to how western society views paedophilia (abhorrent but you know the classical greeks did it!).
With this perspective in mind, the cartoon didnt just deeply offend muslims, they actually took the piss out of him showing him as a bomber and terrorist. Why on earth would hundreds of thousands of people give up money so they can protest against this? Its because they are so goddam offensive to them.
SO to those who say no surrender to terrorist please stfu. Its a minuscule minority of muslims that did bad things and they also happen to have been directly supported (money and arms) by the USA in the past (See osama bin laden wikipedia).
The pictures are goddam offensive to a lot of people. It may not mean much to the western folk except for some cheap laughs, but get real and stop deeply insulting muslims.
|
On January 13 2011 11:24 UberThing wrote:
Drawing pictures of Muhammad (any kind, even showing a little bit of face) is likened to a cardinal sin in Islam and is deeply offensive to the majority of muslims. It is similar to how western society views paedophilia (abhorrent but you know the classical greeks did it!).
Sure, we see paedophilia as abhorrent. We also used to see homosexuality as abhorrent and disgusting. The reason why we continue to see paedophilia as wrong is that it involves hurting children.
Cultural taboos aren't all equivalent. They do have to be questioned and dispensed with if they prove to be unfounded. So yes, hurting children is wrong, drawing Muhammed isn't.
|
People just gotta lighten up, it's not hurting anyone, therefore it makes no sense to prohibit it.
People so serious these days...
|
Bisutopia19300 Posts
This is really upsetting. Its good to be passionate about religion but its going to far to threat with violence. Ofc there are people who will never learn and respect that mind. I'm personal against all forms of religion and so I think it sucks that we have to be controlled based on others beliefs.
|
On January 13 2011 11:38 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 11:24 UberThing wrote:
Drawing pictures of Muhammad (any kind, even showing a little bit of face) is likened to a cardinal sin in Islam and is deeply offensive to the majority of muslims. It is similar to how western society views paedophilia (abhorrent but you know the classical greeks did it!).
Sure, we see paedophilia as abhorrent. We also used to see homosexuality as abhorrent and disgusting. The reason why we continue to see paedophilia as wrong is that it involves hurting children. Cultural taboos aren't all equivalent. They do have to be questioned and dispensed with if they prove to be unfounded. So yes, hurting children is wrong, drawing Muhammed isn't.
You have a valid point. But it isnt merely cultural, it is religious.
Its more like telling jewish people not to eat kosher food.
Coming from a muslim upbringing, I can tell you people believe the Quran and base their whole life around it. The cartoons also took the piss out of muslims. This is why they dont just get silently irritated at people shitting on their beliefs, but visibly upset.
Would catholics get annoyed if someone showed the Pope having cartoon sex with jesus in the anus? I would think most adherent catholics would.
The western world is shitting on the muslim world. "Intervention" in the form of middle east wars has needlessly killed millions of people. Justifying intervention with the notion of freedom is bullshit. The west supports corrupt dictators in the middle east who suppress their subjects. Democracy? Iran is very democratic (with the caveat that it is a theocracy(but iranians wanted it) but the west wants "regime change". The palestinians elected a government in hamas. The west didnt like them so is now treaing Gaza as a prison. Overthrowing democratically elected government of iran twice via the CIA? Supporting the crazy terrorists in Afghanistan when the were fighting the russians that were the ones which actually caused 9/11?
The view of western nations in the muslim world is quite terrible to be honest. The notion of fairness and liberty as western ideals are ridiculous. Saying freedom of speech is a right is bullshit. Look whats happening to Bradly Manning who exposed the deceit? 23 hrs in solitary confinement. The wikileaks guy "deserves to be hunted like a terrorist"?
The muslim people have being seeing through the bullshit for a while but dont do anything because the Quran tells them the afterlife is where they will be rewarded. Those crazies who bombed america are just that. Crazy. They ignored bits of the Quran about peace just like you are telling people to in terms of the cartoons. They do represent the sentiment that america deserves retribution for its double standards and interference. But the Quran tells people not to do anything (be non-violent). If you take away this strict interpretation of the Quran all hell will break loose.
|
On January 13 2011 12:28 UberThing wrote:
Its more like telling jewish people not to eat kosher food.
It`s not like that at all. It's more like eating non-kosher food even though you know jews don't. No one is forcing muslims to draw muhammad.
On January 13 2011 12:28 UberThing wrote:
Would catholics get annoyed if someone showed the Pope having cartoon sex with jesus in the anus? I would think most adherent catholics would.
Of course they would be annoyed but being "annoyed" isnt a valid reason for limiting free speech. I'm annoyed every time someone says the earth is little more than 6000 years old but I wouldn't want it to be illegal for them to say that. (I might not want them teaching that in schools but that's a different issue)
On January 13 2011 12:28 UberThing wrote:
The western world is shitting on the muslim world. "Intervention" in the form of middle east wars has needlessly killed millions of people. Justifying intervention with the notion of freedom is bullshit. The west supports corrupt dictators in the middle east who suppress their subjects. Democracy? Iran is very democratic (with the caveat that it is a theocracy(but iranians wanted it) but the west wants "regime change". The palestinians elected a government in hamas. The west didnt like them so is now treaing Gaza as a prison. Overthrowing democratically elected government of iran twice via the CIA? Supporting the crazy terrorists in Afghanistan when the were fighting the russians that were the ones which actually caused 9/11?
No one in this thread has advocated for this.... It's very possible (maybe even likely) that muslims are being demonized by the west but that's not what this thread is about.
Edit: i found more stuff in this post that bothered me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
