Syme gives a pretty good point by saying:Originally Posted by gwahir
And on top of this, as an analogy, when you raise your children, ideally, you raise them to be themselves, but also to do good as themselves. You train them when they're young to do the right thing, but the idea is to instill in them the concept that they are responsible, for their own actions and the consequences from them. If you continually save them from the consequences from their actions, they get the idea that anything they do is fair game, and every society is littered with people who epitomize this through reckless action that goes unchecked. But that's straying from the point.
The point is if you overbaby your child, like what you're implying by putting their lives on railway tracks and having them achieve a preconceived notion of success based entirely on your own desires, it leads to miserable fucking people, in most situations. Ideally, God wants you to be happy and free to choose, but if he forces you to make those choices, what's the purpose in that? I mean this whole argument rests on pretending I understand God's desires, the existence of a soul allowing free will and a ridiculous oversimplification of these concepts, but the heart of the stance is: God is daddy who says you're old enough to take care of yourself; you've been raised with the right influences around you, but you are the one who has to choose to do them and live by them, ultimately. Claiming that the existence of suffering implies a God that doesn't care, but that's not necessarily the case - it can still explain a God who does care, but also one who respects your right to be yourself and make your own choices and live by them, even if it does cause you and others trouble.
Guys, the old way of donig things, the heart of which is still very much applicable, should totally be scrapped because it's been abused in the past.
I would love to see you point out a set of rules on that level that haven't been abused in the past, and deserve to be scrapped simply because of it.
Ok, you are comparing the history of organized, or at least publically recognized, Atheism, which has existed for... what, half a century, tops? and comparing it to the entire history of organized religion, something that has lasted for millennia, existed in human culture as it developed through some particularly bloody periods and the aftereffects of living in those periods. Of course people have killed for opposing beliefs - the length of time it's been around and the cultures and eras it has existed through mean that it's impossible for it to have been otherwise. With the culture we're in now, with the exception of some particularly brutal backwoods enforcement, religious people don't physically assault or abuse those who don't follow their beliefs. The idea that they do otherwise is absurd, so claiming superiority over them on those grounds is completely mistaken.
Making mindless digs at anything reeks of ignorance, and there is no pride to be taken from ignorance.
If you want to 'have a go' at anything on an intellectual level, you had better be able to back yourself and your viewpoints up. Simply mocking something doesn't imply any sense of superiority, and the viewpoint you've adopted that, because their beliefs are foolish in your eyes, these people somehow become less human (more worthy of denigration and your hate) and are therefore more worthy of contempt begs for escalation.
oh you're a good guy because your own views are "well we shouldn't do that, but i still support it."
my correlation with the other one was that it was a poorly done satire that only appeals to a certain asinine crowd, much like, say, a television show entitled: Ow, my Balls![/quote]
I think you have too little respect for religion and the benefits its given in its relationship with human development on a societal level. You would rather look at the harm it's done and the foolishness of literal interpretations of allegories and claim that's the only value religion has. Nobody pays attention to the quiet, devout religious couple that goes to church twice on sunday, maintains their jobs, pays their taxes and lives their lives quietly. This isn't even to imply that only religious people do that, it's more to say that religion has encouraged this kind of living, of participating in your community and loving the people inside it, for a lot longer than any secular movement, and to greater effect.
Ok, belief in the tooth fairy doesn't contain the same level of commitment, of commandments and rules to follow, of practices and cultures that religion does. The only comparison that it has is the one you've made, where you choose to take what can easily be seen as wishful and unrealistic and saying that's the only aspect of religion, and it's worthy of contempt and mockery. This is , probably in naïvety, completely ignoring the benefits that religion has offered and accomplished. Anything that exists as long as organized religion and wields the power that religion has achieved is going to have black marks in its history. Abuse of a law doesn't imply that it's ineffective.
Religion doesn't always harm people, and it's not a fair representation to make saying that's all it does. You are willfully choosing to watch and acknowledge only the terrible things it's done.
What?
Religion is the only factor on the development of a societal or cultural understanding of sex? This isn't true, with an admittedly weak example being the island of Tikopia who practice Zero Population Growth based on the tiny size of their island and the realization that unchecked growth would lead to massive starvation.
I would further clarify this, but I've lent out my copy of Collapse! to a friend in Ontario, and so I won't have it for a few days, but Jared Diamond mentions this, and also talks about the sexual taboos involved in Tikopian society, all of which was present well before any contact with Europeans, much less any religious influence.
The issue here isn't whether or not they believe in God, it's whether or not it's ok to harass them for adhering to a religions precepts (personal beliefs and level of fundamentalism notwithstanding). The tooth fairy analogy doesn't take that into account.
well i'm friends with black people so it's ok if i call people niggers on the internet although i would never do it to their face (out of respect you know)
No! Ignorance and Bigotry are the source of hatred and problems! While some fundamentalist and extreme sects of varied religions certainly have those two qualities in spades, they don't have a monopoly on those aspects. As much as I hate to bring Godwin's Law into this, Nazi Germany also hated and persecuted (to the point of death) Homosexuals, and for completely non-religious reasons.
Well at least you're smart enough to realize that.
Call me crazy, but removing certain power structures that influence millions of people would alleviate some problems. Of course, they would wildly exacerbate others, but we'll conveniently ignore that.
Being religious isn't about believing in myths, it's about living by the tenets of your faith. These tenets are also created to create a strong community that supports itself. But again, it's not about that, is it?
There are so many non-religious things that are completely fucking insane and do more harm than religion, but again, we'll just ignore that aspect.
Oh, so because the other side believes different things than me (the justification the other side uses to demonize you), it's ok to be a bigot.
I've already explained that you're tooth fairy analogy is flawed and why it's flawed, but if you want more clarification, I can provide it for you.
You are really going to have to back up a massive statement like that.
As a hint, where there is a vacuum of ignorance and bigotry, something will always come in and fill it up. Because religion has done so in the past doesn't mean that nothing else will. I guarantee you that any power structure that has been around as long and exerted that much force will have abused once or twice in it's past, but that is not the structure's fault - it is the blame of those who ran it, and what allowed them to get into power.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks