Sorry, I didn't make this clear - there is atheism, the belief in no gods. Then there are Atheists, people who identify themselves in part by their lack of belief. You are correct in saying there is no doctrine - I never said there was. There is definitely a common attitude of hubris through knowledge that people who identify themselves as atheists tend to have, as though their second look and subsequent rejection of religion somehow qualifies them as geniuses. This is what I have fault with and refer to when I say Atheists.Originally Posted by gwahir
It doesn't help if I say I knew all this already, does it?
The bolded part is a vast load of bullshit. what about children indoctrinated to believe there is no God? regardless of the justifications given, their faith in the lack of God stems from what they were told as a child, not from some vague sense of intuition that something doesn't add up.
I mean there's the whole Nazi use of human experimentation. We can argue that the primary motivation was for the glory of the reich, but it could not happen unless the science was sufficiently advanced, thus the primary goal was advancing science. There's the whole unit 731, where the Japanese did things like vivisect live people (for fear decomposition would affect results) after infecting them with virulent diseases. This shit wasn't done in the name of religion, it wasn't done in the name of a political party or as torture to a subgroup of the population; it was done to advance science and understanding. I'm absolutely certain there are more examples of this happening, but these are the 2 off the top of my head.
For the names, iirc, it's Joseph Mengele and Shrio Ishii, respectively.
You're right - the ones that do it in the name of God are more honest about their intentions. They really believe they are doing it in the name of God.
Usually "in the name of greed/ambition/fear/hatred" makes for a terrible rallying cry.
While previously I gave groups of people who did terrible things specifically to advance science, if not in the name of it (something religious folk have done as well), here is someone who purposefully tortured people in the name of science: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Ewen_Cameron]Donald Cameron[url].
I found out about this in Naomi Klein's the Shock Doctrine, where one of Cameron's patients lives was completely destroyed by him. He did what he did not because he was paid to develop a method of torture for the CIA, but because he truly thought that erasing someone's mind and starting over was a good idea to cure mental issues.
No. It's pretty simple, too: Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about fucking kids and keeping your friends who fuck kids safe from laws.
which is a purely social factor, I might add, because the shared element could be replaced by any other hierarchical organizational system with the same effect (I'm lookin at you, Penn State).
I don't want this to turn into a "Nuh uh, YOU'RE wrong!" argument, but you really don't seem to know what the word "extremist" means. Here's a wiki definition, while I'm on the site:
Basically, you have different amounts of belief in a system and how much this system affects your life. Non-believers bottom the scale with 0 in both. Extremists tend to top the scale in both. There is a scale of extremists who will act in their own interest as well. Fanatics generally will not abuse the system for their own gain, but there are those who will as well. Of these two types, which do you think most likely to work their way to the top of a religious hierarchy? The ones who play the political game to win, motivated by self-interest.
In this way, those at the top are, in fact, extremists. Most religious folk I've met are pretty regular people who don't fuck kids, beat women or terrorize their neighbourhoods. They live their life according to their faith, but they don't make their faith the center of their existence, which is something an extremist does.
Yeah, I really can't argue that, nor do I disagree with it or try to make apology for what they do.
Religion doesn't invite extremism. Some people are inclined to it by personality, but most become extremists because of the situation that they live in. Things like poverty, lack of food, water, work and education will all lead to extremists popping up everywhere because the people have nothing else to live for, even if they wouldn't normally be inclined to be extremists. You're blaming the tool, mon ami.
Religions don't want you to be extremists. Those in charge of smaller groups may imply that you should be, but religions, if we're going to anthropomorphize them, just want you to be a part of them. If you're going to take part, you must follow all the doctrines perscribed. Here's the Baha'i list, you can tell me if it's horrifying and insane:
I mean, to balance this out, this summary is coming from a faith that views homosexuality as an illness to be cured, but you can't tell em that this kind of doctrine is going to turn people into monsters. Too much of what you're ascribing to religions stems more from people than the faiths they are a part of.
I agree, this is a reprehensible practice.
I wouldn't say a huge proportion of Americans, and I would also say very, very few educated or intellectual Americans. This brings up another topic - what of the people who have not the ability or inclination to decide for themselves what is true or not? There are plenty of people who exist entirely off of what they learned from their parents/community and attempts to later teach them tend to fail. This is another topic altogether, but my arrogant, armchair assumption is that they would be followers in any cause pitched to them properly (meets their needs, appeals through benefits etc.).
Again, this is politicians seeking to be elected playing, to a limited extent, their own beliefs, but mostly telling the people they see what they think they want to hear.
Would you give this moral imperative to someone who lives in Iran to protest what Iran does at the cost of their own lives? That moderates living under the yoke of Nazi Germany should do the same? It's a pleasant thought, and, if acted on early enough (when it is too difficult to tell what's going on because, again, religion is a single causal factor among many) will see change, but after this oppression has taken hold... it's not easy. You're blaming the victim at this point, or the witness.uh... i guess not, no, but i'm not sure what you're getting at with the question.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - why are you reading this as documented history instead of something like the Iliad? This is after-the-fact history writing by the victors, recorded in a book with many editors and translated a minimum of 3-4 times. To use this as provocation for anyone, especially since it applies to a world and worldview that existed over 2000 years ago, is completely insane.
I... I just don't understand. I can see the point of the parable (do as God instructs, pretty common as far as religion goes, and while 2000 years in the future, the crime and punishment seem at odds, it may not have at that time), but I don't understand how this is a terrible thing.
When I ask for context, quoting a paragraph isn't enough - you need to tell me significant points that occur before this passage and what it leads into. If I provide a random paragraph from a short story:
It doesn't make much sense, does it?
The other part of context is understanding this story in the perspective of someone who lives in a world where aqueducts haven't even been invented yet. It is a military history flavoured with God, IMO.
This is exactly what I was talking about - you need to provide full content, not a single line, and provide context for whatever passage you're quoting. Of course I'll agree with you if you provide me with only small enough bits that agree with your opinion. This isn't enough to explain what's happening.
In the interest of adding another bit of effort for myself, here's the first quote, in full:
First, I am unfamiliar with the book "Bukhari", but from what I internet detective'd:
So we're already dealing with a text applicable to a single sect of a schism'd faith. I am unaware of the important particulars that differentiate the Sunnis and the Shias, so don't take my word for it.
But if you want to get into the detail of "whoever changed the _____ religion, kill him." why do you think this is horrific? People who go to change the text or the meaning of scripture are trying to create their own faith - this is a pretty fuckin serious crime. On top of this, we're also dealing with a text that has been translated, although I'm relatively certain in this first case that the meaning probably wouldn't change too much.
It's difficult to get into why the idea of changing scripture is such a severe no-no with people who have no professed doctrine. The best analogy I can give is to say: what if someone decides to alter the scientific method? Why would they do that? Is it to improve it? Is it to make cheats easier to get away with? Does it enrich the changer? What impacts would this have on the community? and so on.
The last quote, from Qu'ran 8:12 comes again without context. It is handpicked from a verse that's talking about a larger army of unbelievers assaulting the smaller army of muslims, apparently in the city of Madinah. What kind of pep speech do you think they're going to get?
Man, you really should've looked up context yourself - the two you picked for Islam are either incomprehensible (because neither of us understand significant detail to correctly understand how that verse impacts the Islamic population at large, and because it's translated from another language completely), or, as I said in the first place, cherry picked to sound terrible out of context.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks