This was an interesting discussion. For myself, I believe in God and thought it interesting that Dawkins was willing to entertain the idea of aliens creating man, but has a hard time with believing in God.
Aliens are just another planet's equivalent of humans. Given the pace at which technology advances, unless we all kill each other first chances are we will go to another star and put life there if there is none.
Whereas the idea of God is not relateable to or grounded in any sort of reality.
Richard Dawkins is a bitter old curmudgeon and a blowhard while Ben Stein is intellectually dishonest charlatan that peddles re-branded creationism called "intelligent design."
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Richard Dawkins is a bitter old curmudgeon and a blowhard while Ben Stein is intellectually dishonest charlatan that peddles re-branded creationism called "intelligent design."
Nothing new.
Didn't Ben Stein distance himself from the intelligent design movement a few years back? I'd heard that somewhere a while ago.
feeder wrote: Aliens are just another planet's equivalent of humans. Given the pace at which technology advances, unless we all kill each other first chances are we will go to another star and put life there if there is none.
Whereas the idea of God is not relateable to or grounded in any sort of reality.
Alien creators are just God for people who want to pretend they don't believe in one.
feeder wrote: Aliens are just another planet's equivalent of humans. Given the pace at which technology advances, unless we all kill each other first chances are we will go to another star and put life there if there is none.
Whereas the idea of God is not relateable to or grounded in any sort of reality.
Alien creators are just God for people who want to pretend they don't believe in one.
This is pretty much the nut of it. If the claim is to be made that a more advanced civilization exists and has visited Earth to create (deposit) life here, then without any direct proof how is it any different a belief system than that of the religious?
Regarding the existence of alien civilizations, Carl Sagen made a statement about this sort of thing on his old Cosmos show. One of his propositions (out of several) is, someone has to be the first so isn't it possible that we're that first civilization? Why must some other life have come before ours?
Breotan wrote: This is pretty much the nut of it. If the claim is to be made that a more advanced civilization exists and has visited Earth to create (deposit) life here, then without any direct proof how is it any different a belief system than that of the religious?
Because the idea that another advanced civilization visited Earth is not a "belief system" in science. It is purely an hypothesis (a silly one at that) and unless aliens came here and explained it all to us or we dug up a flying saucer that had a detailed history of what they did, we would never prove it. Unlike a creationist claiming they know for a fact that God created the universe in its present form less than 10000 years ago but offer no evidence, a scientist cannot claim that they know aliens recreated the movie Prometheus here years ago without evidence. The same goes with panspermia; it is just an hypothesis.
When people try to use a scientist saying that it is a possibility that something like that happened as a "gotcha," it is intellectually dishonest. As insane as an idea like that sounds, we cannot rule out that it didn't happen but at the same time that doesn't mean it is treated with equal validity as other theories and hypothesis' about abiogenesis
Regarding the existence of alien civilizations, Carl Sagan made a statement about this sort of thing on his old Cosmos show. One of his propositions (out of several) is, someone has to be the first so isn't it possible that we're that first civilization? Why must some other life have come before ours?
The Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old and life arose less than a billion years after the formation of the planet, during the beginning of the Archean Eon (most likely after the Late Heavy Bombardment), following the solidification of the Earth's crust. That means, even though conditions were still extreme, life took hold a pretty much the first opportunity it had, which was 3.7 billion years ago.
Most scientist say that there is probably more advanced life somewhere else in the universe just because of the time involved. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, so there is a gap of 10 billion years since the beginning of the universe to the beginning of life on Earth. It is even more drastic when you factor in the very short amount of time humanity has been around; anatomically modern humans showed up 200000 years ago, behaviorally modern humans only 50000 years ago, and science only 500 years ago. So when you consider all of that, it's easy to see why some other species on some other planet is older and more advanced than us.
Alien creators are just God for people who want to pretend they don't believe in one.
People who don't believe in god are only pretending? I have seen this argument in various guises over the years and I still find it interesting that some people seem to find it so hard to belive that other people have no interest in, nor a desire for, god(s).
Alien creators are far more likely than the existence of a god. Thats not to say that alien creators are anything but science fiction with a tiny, tiny shard of possibility but at least its better than the man in the sky theory.
People who don't believe in god are only pretending? I have seen this argument in various guises over the years and I still find it interesting that some people seem to find it so hard to belive that other people have no interest in, nor a desire for, god(s).
Alien creators are far more likely than the existence of a god. Thats not to say that alien creators are anything but science fiction with a tiny, tiny shard of possibility but at least its better than the man in the sky theory.
He's clearly not saying he dose not believe that people have no interest in god, but that people who say aliens created life are just replacing one hire power for another.
The aliens creation theory is still a man in the sky theory. There is zero evidence for it, and is a "turtles all the way down" theory. As in, if aliens created life on earth, who created the aliens?
If you are talking about the direct starting of life by an advanced civilisation this requires things like FTL travel, which flys in direct contradiction of all current understood limits of physics, so no different to any other religious belief. If it is the alien microbes on a comet theory, this is only a counter to the most literalist Christians.
Both are beliefs with zero evidence. Neither have and proof.
Regarding the existence of alien civilizations, Carl Sagan made a statement about this sort of thing on his old Cosmos show. One of his propositions (out of several) is, someone has to be the first so isn't it possible that we're that first civilization? Why must some other life have come before ours?
The Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old and life arose less than a billion years after the formation of the planet, during the beginning of the Archean Eon (most likely after the Late Heavy Bombardment), following the solidification of the Earth's crust. That means, even though conditions were still extreme, life took hold a pretty much the first opportunity it had, which was 3.7 billion years ago.
Most scientist say that there is probably more advanced life somewhere else in the universe just because of the time involved. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, so there is a gap of 10 billion years since the beginning of the universe to the beginning of life on Earth. It is even more drastic when you factor in the very short amount of time humanity has been around; anatomically modern humans showed up 200000 years ago, behaviorally modern humans only 50000 years ago, and science only 500 years ago. So when you consider all of that, it's easy to see why some other species on some other planet is older and more advanced than us.
More telling is that Sol is a young star in an old galaxy, so even in regional space there are systems which have a several billion year head start over our own.
This doesn't mean we are not the first, or are not alone.
Breotan wrote: This is pretty much the nut of it. If the claim is to be made that a more advanced civilization exists and has visited Earth to create (deposit) life here, then without any direct proof how is it any different a belief system than that of the religious?
Because the idea that another advanced civilization visited Earth is not a "belief system" in science. It is purely an hypothesis (a silly one at that) and...
It stops being a hypothesis once you accept it as a fact. At that point It becomes a belief system like any other, even if absent the ceremony and rituals.
Breotan wrote: This is pretty much the nut of it. If the claim is to be made that a more advanced civilization exists and has visited Earth to create (deposit) life here, then without any direct proof how is it any different a belief system than that of the religious?
Because the idea that another advanced civilization visited Earth is not a "belief system" in science. It is purely an hypothesis (a silly one at that) and...
It stops being a hypothesis once you accept it as a fact. At that point It becomes a belief system like any other, even if absent the ceremony and rituals.
Which is why no credible scientist says that it is fact. There is a huge difference between someone like Carl Sagan writing about the possibility of paleocontact and someone like Erich von Däniken writing books claiming that it actually happened.
Those silly douchebags on Ancient Aliens? Not scientists.
Nice of you to cut off the rest of the sentence. I'm not saying that aliens created life on earth, not least because it is extremly unlikely, but it is more likely than the usual man in the sky theory as there is more logic to it.
Still, you have to admit that aliens inseminating life on Earth, even if requiring another regress, is still within the realm of physical events. If evidence were to be found, it would be in the natural world. By definition, the supernatural cannot be quantified and automatically becomes an infinite regress.
The fact that life occurred once, means it's at least plausible that it's happened again elsewhere. Life may have been seeded here, but there's no reason to think that it just hasn't arisen independently elsewhere. God on the other hand is part of the supernatural, you can't put a probability on something not rooted in scientific evidence, it's like asking the probability of a ghost in your house when there isn't any proof ghosts exist in the first place. You have to have some factual basis on which to build a hypothesis or it's just an ass-pull.
An advanced alien race seeding earth is "possible" and is possible to "prove" given "evidence", however a "God" is a non natural "entity" given our limited understandin and as such cannot be "proven", the big difference here is that those of us that entertain the possibility of aliens seeding the earth are not trying to "force" others into this, you take it or leave it.
Religion however attempts to force others into there limited belief systems, be this through threats (hell, violence or being a pariah), coercion or simple good old fashioned suppression, though it may not be a popular statement I hope that all religion eventually dies out or at the very least stops impeding scientific study with things like creationism and forcing schools to teach it over evolution.
Formosa wrote: An advanced alien race seeding earth is "possible" and is possible to "prove" given "evidence", however a "God" is a non natural "entity" given our limited understandin and as such cannot be "proven", the big difference here is that those of us that entertain the possibility of aliens seeding the earth are not trying to "force" others into this, you take it or leave it.
Religion however attempts to force others into there limited belief systems, be this through threats (hell, violence or being a pariah), coercion or simple good old fashioned suppression, though it may not be a popular statement I hope that all religion eventually dies out or at the very least stops impeding scientific study with things like creationism and forcing schools to teach it over evolution.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: Alien creators are just God for people who want to pretend they don't believe in one.
This is pretty much the nut of it. If the claim is to be made that a more advanced civilization exists and has visited Earth to create (deposit) life here, then without any direct proof how is it any different a belief system than that of the religious?
He never claimed that he believed it. He just offered it as a non-supernatural explanation, which would explain Ben Stein's hypothetical evidence (which doesn't exist). That is very different to religious belief in things like prayer, Noah's flood and young Earth creationism, which are all demonstrably untrue.
Formosa wrote: An advanced alien race seeding earth is "possible" and is possible to "prove" given "evidence", however a "God" is a non natural "entity" given our limited understandin and as such cannot be "proven", the big difference here is that those of us that entertain the possibility of aliens seeding the earth are not trying to "force" others into this, you take it or leave it.
Religion however attempts to force others into there limited belief systems, be this through threats (hell, violence or being a pariah), coercion or simple good old fashioned suppression, though it may not be a popular statement I hope that all religion eventually dies out or at the very least stops impeding scientific study with things like creationism and forcing schools to teach it over evolution.
I can honestly say that I hope the same for viewpoints like yours. You criticise religion for not being tolerant, yet you display a lot of intolerance towards religion yourself. Isn't there some proverb about pots and kettles that would come in handy here?
Howard A Treesong wrote: The fact that life occurred once, means it's at least plausible that it's happened again elsewhere. Life may have been seeded here, but there's no reason to think that it just hasn't arisen independently elsewhere. God on the other hand is part of the supernatural, you can't put a probability on something not rooted in scientific evidence, it's like asking the probability of a ghost in your house when there isn't any proof ghosts exist in the first place. You have to have some factual basis on which to build a hypothesis or it's just an ass-pull.
The biggest difference between God(s) and Alien(s) at this point is that God(s) is/are (a) historical figure(s) obscured by several thousand years of myth, while the "Ancient Aliens" are a newer idea based off of our better understanding of science- fulfilling an intelligent creator role. Aliens are no more logical than God(s) when one considers simply that every datum that could support God(s) scientifically would be obscured or lost in the past few thousand years at least, assuming that they could have been understood in the first place.
Basically, there is no evidence for either position. All we can really do is discuss the probability of the creators occurring. Here Aliens certainly do have an advantage, however, I shall argue that this is simply because they are an ad hoc creation for a secular intelligent creator hypothesis. So if God(s) is/are and ass-pull, Aliens are a memory-foam cushion on the seat of the chair of secular hypothesis.
Formosa wrote: An advanced alien race seeding earth is "possible" and is possible to "prove" given "evidence", however a "God" is a non natural "entity" given our limited understandin and as such cannot be "proven", the big difference here is that those of us that entertain the possibility of aliens seeding the earth are not trying to "force" others into this, you take it or leave it.
Religion however attempts to force others into there limited belief systems, be this through threats (hell, violence or being a pariah), coercion or simple good old fashioned suppression, though it may not be a popular statement I hope that all religion eventually dies out or at the very least stops impeding scientific study with things like creationism and forcing schools to teach it over evolution.
I can honestly say that I hope the same for viewpoints like yours.
You criticise religion for not being tolerant, yet you display a lot of intolerance towards religion yourself. Isn't there some proverb about pots and kettles that would come in handy here?
My apologies but I do indeed find any institutions that commit or condone acts such as these intolerable, however I'm not going around trying to force my view on others, an important distinction I feel.
In the freedom of peoples homes or institutions they are able and should be allowed to practice any religion they wish, that's a basic human right and a applaud and support it, if they start to affect others negatively then I have a very dim view of it.
I am an optimist at the crux of it and I wish for a future without conflict, famine etc. Sadly I see religion as a detriment to this happening.
As I said it's not a popular view, but your all free to do as you please
Iron_Captain wrote: I can honestly say that I hope the same for viewpoints like yours.
You criticise religion for not being tolerant, yet you display a lot of intolerance towards religion yourself. Isn't there some proverb about pots and kettles that would come in handy here?
Disrespecting religion- an idea- harms no one. Enforcing religion however often harms individuals.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The fact that life occurred once, means it's at least plausible that it's happened again elsewhere. Life may have been seeded here, but there's no reason to think that it just hasn't arisen independently elsewhere. God on the other hand is part of the supernatural, you can't put a probability on something not rooted in scientific evidence, it's like asking the probability of a ghost in your house when there isn't any proof ghosts exist in the first place. You have to have some factual basis on which to build a hypothesis or it's just an ass-pull.
The biggest difference between God(s) and Alien(s) at this point is that God(s) is/are (a) historical figure(s) obscured by several thousand years of myth, while the "Ancient Aliens" are a newer idea based off of our better understanding of science- fulfilling an intelligent creator role. Aliens are no more logical than God(s) when one considers simply that every datum that could support God(s) scientifically would be obscured or lost in the past few thousand years at least, assuming that they could have been understood in the first place.
Basically, there is no evidence for either position. All we can really do is discuss the probability of the creators occurring. Here Aliens certainly do have an advantage, however, I shall argue that this is simply because they are an ad hoc creation for a secular intelligent creator hypothesis. So if God(s) is/are and ass-pull, Aliens are a memory-foam cushion on the seat of the chair of secular hypothesis.
True. From God to Angels to Aliens, once you look at the defining generalities, they all serve the same purpose, are expressed roughly the same way. They all serve a purpose to the human psyche, only filtered through a societal lens. There were no allusions to aliens before because it was not part of our collective consciousness.
-Shrike- wrote:
Formosa wrote: An advanced alien race seeding earth is "possible" and is possible to "prove" given "evidence", however a "God" is a non natural "entity" given our limited understandin and as such cannot be "proven", the big difference here is that those of us that entertain the possibility of aliens seeding the earth are not trying to "force" others into this, you take it or leave it.
Religion however attempts to force others into there limited belief systems, be this through threats (hell, violence or being a pariah), coercion or simple good old fashioned suppression, though it may not be a popular statement I hope that all religion eventually dies out or at the very least stops impeding scientific study with things like creationism and forcing schools to teach it over evolution.
Such a nice tolerant viewpoint...
Be that as it may, at least he's not proposing laws to get rid of the offending behaviour. Religious institutions have tried or done so countless times.
Iron_Captain wrote:
Formosa wrote: An advanced alien race seeding earth is "possible" and is possible to "prove" given "evidence", however a "God" is a non natural "entity" given our limited understandin and as such cannot be "proven", the big difference here is that those of us that entertain the possibility of aliens seeding the earth are not trying to "force" others into this, you take it or leave it.
Religion however attempts to force others into there limited belief systems, be this through threats (hell, violence or being a pariah), coercion or simple good old fashioned suppression, though it may not be a popular statement I hope that all religion eventually dies out or at the very least stops impeding scientific study with things like creationism and forcing schools to teach it over evolution.
I can honestly say that I hope the same for viewpoints like yours.
You criticise religion for not being tolerant, yet you display a lot of intolerance towards religion yourself. Isn't there some proverb about pots and kettles that would come in handy here?
No, it hardly applies. He is simply stating his opinion. In no way is he forcing anyone to agree with him. It is a historical fact that a lot of religious institutions have tortured, killed, ostracized and silenced detractors. In fact, by most objective and measurable standard, life is made much, much better by removing religions and dogmatic groups from a position of power and letting secular institutions guide society.
Relapse wrote: For myself, I believe in God and thought it interesting that Dawkins was willing to entertain the idea of aliens creating man, but has a hard time with believing in God.
He certainly is not the only one. For instance, our very dear Howard Phillip Lovecraft himself would likely have shared this viewpoint, if we are to base our judgment from this quote from him :
“All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world, or an eternal survival of personality exist. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hair-splitter to pretend that I don't regard them as arrant and negligible moonshine. In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of radical evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist.”
I share his views. In theory I should be an agnostic too, but seriously, that stuff you believe in ? The all-powerful brat in the sky playing at breaking his own toy ? The whole magic mumbo-jumbo ? A super-hero who gets his power from his hairs ? Women suffering when giving birth as a punishment for the fact their great-great-great… ancestor decided she wanted to be able to tell good from bad, right from wrong by herself rather than deferring such judgment on someone else ?
Nope, not a chance .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Burning wrote: Alien abductions and probing are punishment for killing their recce automata - Jesus.
Is that supposed to be a punishment ? I mean, really ?
I guess that is an interesting inversion then. Religious people usually tells you that God will punish the gays and reward the straight men, but obviously those aliens are punishing the straight men, and are… rewarding the gays.
Iron_Captain wrote: I can honestly say that I hope the same for viewpoints like yours.
You criticise religion for not being tolerant, yet you display a lot of intolerance towards religion yourself. Isn't there some proverb about pots and kettles that would come in handy here?
Disrespecting religion- an idea- harms no one. Enforcing religion however often harms individuals.
Tibetan monks being actively persecuted by the Chinese beg to differ.
Iron_Captain wrote: I can honestly say that I hope the same for viewpoints like yours.
You criticise religion for not being tolerant, yet you display a lot of intolerance towards religion yourself. Isn't there some proverb about pots and kettles that would come in handy here?
Disrespecting religion- an idea- harms no one. Enforcing religion however often harms individuals.
Tibetan monks being actively persecuted by the Chinese beg to differ.
The Tibetan monks are actively persecuted. Human beings. Not their idea. You can attack their idea in your mind and at posh parties all you want. The idea isn't about to feel bad about it, because it's just an idea. When people attack religion or say superstitious thoughts are silly, or even worse even though past silly it just gets uselessly mean, they are not actually driving a railroad spike through anyone's eye socket.
Dawkins explains the context that Stein removed from that interview;
"Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be."
"I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved ..."
Stein removed the context, and made it appear that Dawkins was suggesting that he believed the alien hypothesis, when he was merely inventing a scenario that might cause intelligent design to exist. Ben Stein is a lying hack, and anyone who believed his nonsense in that interview should feel bad for being suckered.
Breotan wrote: This is pretty much the nut of it. If the claim is to be made that a more advanced civilization exists and has visited Earth to create (deposit) life here, then without any direct proof how is it any different a belief system than that of the religious?
Nah. You're ignoring the difference between 'it's possible that some alien race played a part' and 'an alien race played a part'.
The latter would be a belief system no different to any religion, the former is just an acceptance of a possibility.
Regarding the existence of alien civilizations, Carl Sagen made a statement about this sort of thing on his old Cosmos show. One of his propositions (out of several) is, someone has to be the first so isn't it possible that we're that first civilization? Why must some other life have come before ours?
The odds of ours being the first would be one over the number of likely civilisations that there are likely to be. Given that the number of likely civilisations across the universe is very, very high, it becomes quite unlikely that ours is first. Not impossible, of course, and so we cannot say 'we are not the first'... but it would be even less acceptable to say 'we are the first'.
Steve steveson wrote: The aliens creation theory is still a man in the sky theory. There is zero evidence for it, and is a "turtles all the way down" theory. As in, if aliens created life on earth, who created the aliens?
Which, funnily enough, was Dawkins' point. That if you accept that humanity must have been designed, then the alien designer themselves must have evolved, or in turn been created by some other alien species who themselves must have been designed, or well, as you say turtles all the way down. The point being that intelligent design must either accept that something, somewhere evolved, or that there is a divine creator - that they should stop dicking around and just admit its a religious belief.
But of course, when that point is made in a gak documentary that's lying, the context and meaning is stripped out of Dawkins' point, and instead it becomes 'tee hee Dawkins believes in aliens, score one for the creationists hurr'.
Frazzled wrote: Tibetan monks being actively persecuted by the Chinese beg to differ.
While they most certainly are oppressed, it is not merely their belief that causes that oppression but their resistance to Chinese rule. Monks who submit to the regime can keep their religion and are in fact given favourable treatment. Chinese rule these days only really cares about submission - once you bow down to them they'll largely leave you alone. The best way to demonstrate this is that China accepts there will be a new Dalai Lama, its just that he will be chosen by Chinese authorities - they have no problem with such a religious figure existing, they simply want him to be under their control.
Nor was religious rule in Tibet a happy utopia before the Chinese came. It was a straight up religious theocracy, with all the oppression and abuse you'd expect when a religious order with all sorts of strong moral and sexual rules was given control over a local population.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your greater point. Religions have been oppressed through history. Just should have picked a better example, such as mid-20th century China, or Russia of the same time.
Regarding the existence of alien civilizations, Carl Sagen made a statement about this sort of thing on his old Cosmos show. One of his propositions (out of several) is, someone has to be the first so isn't it possible that we're that first civilization? Why must some other life have come before ours?
The odds of ours being the first would be one over the number of likely civilisations that there are likely to be. Given that the number of likely civilisations across the universe is very, very high, it becomes quite unlikely that ours is first. Not impossible, of course, and so we cannot say 'we are not the first'... but it would be even less acceptable to say 'we are the first'.
It's an interesting question. I think the most interesting part is that life has already been around on earth for billions of years before us, and yet nothing ever seems to have tried our ecological niche before. in the last 50,000 years our brains have also shrunk about 10%. It's possible that evolution just doesn't tend to favor intelligence very much, and we are decidedly rare. First in our Galaxy might not be unreasonable.
Iron_Captain wrote: I can honestly say that I hope the same for viewpoints like yours.
You criticise religion for not being tolerant, yet you display a lot of intolerance towards religion yourself. Isn't there some proverb about pots and kettles that would come in handy here?
Disrespecting religion- an idea- harms no one. Enforcing religion however often harms individuals.
Tibetan monks being actively persecuted by the Chinese beg to differ.
As well as many Russians living through most of the 20th century.
Frazzled wrote: Tibetan monks being actively persecuted by the Chinese beg to differ.
While they most certainly are oppressed, it is not merely their belief that causes that oppression but their resistance to Chinese rule. Monks who submit to the regime can keep their religion and are in fact given favourable treatment. Chinese rule these days only really cares about submission - once you bow down to them they'll largely leave you alone. The best way to demonstrate this is that China accepts there will be a new Dalai Lama, its just that he will be chosen by Chinese authorities - they have no problem with such a religious figure existing, they simply want him to be under their control.
Nor was religious rule in Tibet a happy utopia before the Chinese came. It was a straight up religious theocracy, with all the oppression and abuse you'd expect when a religious order with all sorts of strong moral and sexual rules was given control over a local population.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your greater point. Religions have been oppressed through history. Just should have picked a better example, such as mid-20th century China, or Russia of the same time.
And you are alright with a people's religion being taken over and controlled by a conquering nation? How would you face a circumstance like that, not with religion, since you don't care about that, but with your entire government being replaced with one under the control of someone who had come in, murdered your people and taken your children away for re education?
You get that people aren't their religion right? You get that there is a difference between criticising an idea- be it religion, economics, politics hell even what constitutes a good movie- and persecuting those who hold the idea?
Furthermore I said disrepecting- that is a terribly far cry from murder. As to the pot calling the kettle black... this seem appropriate. Plus I like watching it.
Smacks wrote: It's an interesting question. I think the most interesting part is that life has already been around on earth for billions of years before us, and yet nothing ever seems to have tried our ecological niche before. in the last 50,000 years our brains have also shrunk about 10%. It's possible that evolution just doesn't tend to favor intelligence very much, and we are decidedly rare. First in our Galaxy might not be unreasonable.
Interesting question. It is possible, though it’d take people a hell of a lot more qualified in evolutionary biology than me to make a sensible guess at the probability. I guess, though, it comes back to the scale of the galaxy – human level intelligence would have to be incredibly unlikely before it would impact the number of probable civilisations enough before it was probable we were the only civilisation, or the first.
Relapse wrote: And you are alright with a people's religion being taken over and controlled by a conquering nation? How would you face a circumstance like that, not with religion, since you don't care about that, but with your entire government being replaced with one under the control of someone who had come in, murdered your people and taken your children away for re education?
What? I explained to Fraz that the situation in Tibet is not one of religious oppression purely for out of distaste for that religion, but one of political oppression… and you conclude from that that I must therefore be okay with political oppression. If that was the first post of mine you’d ever read it would be ridiculous enough, but we’ve both been on here for years, and for you to think I’m okay with Chinese oppression in Tibet is absurd.
Come on.
Kojiro wrote: You get that people aren't their religion right?
Other than some bricks and mortar and the odd spectacular headpiece, a religion is the people that follow it. Trying to draw some distinction between persecuting a religion, and persecuting people who follow that religion is pretty silly.
Smacks wrote: It's an interesting question. I think the most interesting part is that life has already been around on earth for billions of years before us, and yet nothing ever seems to have tried our ecological niche before. in the last 50,000 years our brains have also shrunk about 10%. It's possible that evolution just doesn't tend to favor intelligence very much, and we are decidedly rare. First in our Galaxy might not be unreasonable.
Interesting question. It is possible, though it’d take people a hell of a lot more qualified in evolutionary biology than me to make a sensible guess at the probability. I guess, though, it comes back to the scale of the galaxy – human level intelligence would have to be incredibly unlikely before it would impact the number of probable civilisations enough before it was probable we were the only civilisation, or the first.
Relapse wrote: And you are alright with a people's religion being taken over and controlled by a conquering nation? How would you face a circumstance like that, not with religion, since you don't care about that, but with your entire government being replaced with one under the control of someone who had come in, murdered your people and taken your children away for re education?
What? I explained to Fraz that the situation in Tibet is not one of religious oppression purely for out of distaste for that religion, but one of political oppression… and you conclude from that that I must therefore be okay with political oppression. If that was the first post of mine you’d ever read it would be ridiculous enough, but we’ve both been on here for years, and for you to think I’m okay with Chinese oppression in Tibet is absurd.
Come on.
Kojiro wrote: You get that people aren't their religion right?
Other than some bricks and mortar and the odd spectacular headpiece, a religion is the people that follow it. Trying to draw some distinction between persecuting a religion, and persecuting people who follow that religion is pretty silly.
You are saying it would be ok for the Chinese to install someone in place of the Deli Lama under their control, and if only those stubborn monks would think that is ok also, then everything would be alright..
You get that people aren't their religion right? You get that there is a difference between criticising an idea- be it religion, economics, politics hell even what constitutes a good movie- and persecuting those who hold the idea?
Furthermore I said disrepecting- that is a terribly far cry from murder. As to the pot calling the kettle black... this seem appropriate. Plus I like watching it.
You really don't seem to understand much about people's beliefs in God and what they are willing to go through to honor that belief.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: Just because he explains how things are doesn't mean he thinks it's "ok".
Perhaps I did misenterpret what he wrote. It's just that I have heard that sentiment many times in the context that religious people should change or sacrifice their beliefs in order to be accepted.
sebster wrote: Other than some bricks and mortar and the odd spectacular headpiece, a religion is the people that follow it. Trying to draw some distinction between persecuting a religion, and persecuting people who follow that religion is pretty silly.
Again, aside from the fact I said disrespecting and not persecuting, people are not the ideas they hold. A religion may be the people that follow it but the reverse is not true. Also you can't persecute an idea, only criticise it for it's shortcomings.
Other than some rules and terrain and the odd spectacular miniature, a game system is the people that follow it. Trying to draw some distinction between persecuting a game system, and persecuting people who follow that system is pretty silly. Look at all the persecution of 40K players!
Relapse wrote: You really don't seem to understand much about people's beliefs in God and what they are willing to go through to honor that belief.
I understand it well enough. Beliefs- religious or otherwise- shape our view of reality and we act according the what we believe reality corresponds to in order to satisfy our goals (whatever those may be). The only way religious beliefs differ from other beliefs is the standard of evidence required by some people to accept them.
In what way do religious beliefs otherwise differ from normal beliefs?
Relapse wrote: You are saying it would be ok for the Chinese to install someone in place of the Deli Lama under their control, and if only those stubborn monks would think that is ok also, then everything would be alright..
No, I'm not. You have somehow read 'this is what is happening' with 'this is what is happening and its totally fine'.
Demanding loyalty to the state is no less of a crime than demanding people give up their religion. Both are terrible breaches of human rights. But understanding the situation in Tibet and which issue is at play is critical to understanding what the real problem is, how it might be resolved, and (in the context of this thread) whether it can be used an example of religious oppression in the world today.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kojiro wrote: Again, aside from the fact I said disrespecting and not persecuting, people are not the ideas they hold. A religion may be the people that follow it but the reverse is not true. Also you can't persecute an idea, only criticise it for it's shortcomings.
Other than some rules and terrain and the odd spectacular miniature, a game system is the people that follow it. Trying to draw some distinction between persecuting a game system, and persecuting people who follow that system is pretty silly. Look at all the persecution of 40K players!
But religions haven't merely been disrespected. Their followers really have been persecuted. Read about what happened to people who tried to maintain their Orthodox faith in Soviet Russia.
To extend your 40K analogy, consider that people were discussing an incident where a bunch of, say, Bolt Action fans got together and beat the crap out of a 40K player, and you stop by to post 'oh sure, but as long as the Bolt Action players are just talking about how bad the game system is there's no oppression'. It's technically true but really irrelevant.
Smacks wrote: It's an interesting question. I think the most interesting part is that life has already been around on earth for billions of years before us, and yet nothing ever seems to have tried our ecological niche before. in the last 50,000 years our brains have also shrunk about 10%. It's possible that evolution just doesn't tend to favor intelligence very much, and we are decidedly rare. First in our Galaxy might not be unreasonable.
Interesting question. It is possible, though it’d take people a hell of a lot more qualified in evolutionary biology than me to make a sensible guess at the probability. I guess, though, it comes back to the scale of the galaxy – human level intelligence would have to be incredibly unlikely before it would impact the number of probable civilisations enough before it was probable we were the only civilisation, or the first.
Relapse wrote: And you are alright with a people's religion being taken over and controlled by a conquering nation? How would you face a circumstance like that, not with religion, since you don't care about that, but with your entire government being replaced with one under the control of someone who had come in, murdered your people and taken your children away for re education?
What? I explained to Fraz that the situation in Tibet is not one of religious oppression purely for out of distaste for that religion, but one of political oppression… and you conclude from that that I must therefore be okay with political oppression. If that was the first post of mine you’d ever read it would be ridiculous enough, but we’ve both been on here for years, and for you to think I’m okay with Chinese oppression in Tibet is absurd.
Come on.
Kojiro wrote: You get that people aren't their religion right?
Other than some bricks and mortar and the odd spectacular headpiece, a religion is the people that follow it. Trying to draw some distinction between persecuting a religion, and persecuting people who follow that religion is pretty silly.
You are saying it would be ok for the Chinese to install someone in place of the Deli Lama under their control, and if only those stubborn monks would think that is ok also, then everything would be alright..
Explaining something is not the same as condoning it. You seem to be slugging with that,
.... In fact, by most objective and measurable standard, life is made much, much better by removing religions and dogmatic groups from a position of power and letting secular institutions guide society.
Yeah that worked out real well in the Soviet Union.
.... In fact, by most objective and measurable standard, life is made much, much better by removing religions and dogmatic groups from a position of power and letting secular institutions guide society.
Yeah that worked out real well in the Soviet Union.
GG
You do realize that nearly every modern democracy, including the United States, is run by a secular government.
.... In fact, by most objective and measurable standard, life is made much, much better by removing religions and dogmatic groups from a position of power and letting secular institutions guide society.
Yeah that worked out real well in the Soviet Union.
GG
You do realize that nearly every modern democracy, including the United States, is run by a secular government.
Secular governments with positions that are filled by people that belong to religious and dogmatic groups...
.... In fact, by most objective and measurable standard, life is made much, much better by removing religions and dogmatic groups from a position of power and letting secular institutions guide society.
Yeah that worked out real well in the Soviet Union.
GG
You do realize that nearly every modern democracy, including the United States, is run by a secular government.
Secular governments with positions that are filled by people that belong to religious and dogmatic groups...
Yes... GG, I think you need to reread my last sentence and explain to me why you seem to gloss over "dogmatic group" to make a bad point. That canard is getting really, really exhausted. Let it die. Soviet Russia was never "for atheism" or " for secularism", but blindly followed another ideology, it just happened to be that this one was devoid of overt religious symbols and rituals. China is the exact same thing. A dogmatic entity, so in essence I just see this as different kinds of apple duking it out, one just happens to be a lot bigger than the other.
d-usa, you make a great point. And coming from a country that enshrines religious divisions in its own constitution, I keep thinking that the Wall of Separation between church and state ought to be instituted on our side of the border. For all the hoopla that we see in the news, the USA being the most documented people after all, most of the attempts are usually unsuccessful. In Canada, however, religious agendas have been slowly but surely influencing national policies for about a decade. I'm an atheist, but I will march in the street for anyone's right to believe what they want *so long as that belief remains personal and is not imposed on others.* The problem seems to be that some groups aren't happy with dissenting opinions, and want to *save* others. Even if saving them means making sure we don't *save the environment* so the second coming is hastened, for example.
Relapse wrote: You are saying it would be ok for the Chinese to install someone in place of the Deli Lama under their control, and if only those stubborn monks would think that is ok also, then everything would be alright..
No, I'm not. You have somehow read 'this is what is happening' with 'this is what is happening and its totally fine'.
If there was a blatant gap between the development of apes to modern man then you could possibly contemplate the involvement of a 3rd party, but there isn't. The only other option is that billions of years ago an alien race dropped off some microbes and just left them to "get on with it", with no idea of how it would turn out. Given the left, right, backwards, forwards development of life on Earth that is totally impractical as well.
.... In fact, by most objective and measurable standard, life is made much, much better by removing religions and dogmatic groups from a position of power and letting secular institutions guide society.
Yeah that worked out real well in the Soviet Union.
GG
You do realize that nearly every modern democracy, including the United States, is run by a secular government.
Secular governments with positions that are filled by people that belong to religious and dogmatic groups...
Yes... GG, I think you need to reread my last sentence and explain to me why you seem to gloss over "dogmatic group" to make a bad point. That canard is getting really, really exhausted. Let it die. Soviet Russia was never "for atheism" or " for secularism", but blindly followed another ideology, it just happened to be that this one was devoid of overt religious symbols and rituals. China is the exact same thing. A dogmatic entity, so in essence I just see this as different kinds of apple duking it out, one just happens to be a lot bigger than the other.
d-usa, you make a great point. And coming from a country that enshrines religious divisions in its own constitution, I keep thinking that the Wall of Separation between church and state ought to be instituted on our side of the border. For all the hoopla that we see in the news, the USA being the most documented people after all, most of the attempts are usually unsuccessful. In Canada, however, religious agendas have been slowly but surely influencing national policies for about a decade. I'm an atheist, but I will march in the street for anyone's right to believe what they want *so long as that belief remains personal and is not imposed on others.* The problem seems to be that some groups aren't happy with dissenting opinions, and want to *save* others. Even if saving them means making sure we don't *save the environment* so the second coming is hastened, for example.
And just to clarify the point I was trying to make:
I am perfectly fine with a secular government making secular rules, which is what we should strive for. We don't exclude members of religious groups from our government, which is what the whole soviet approach. We do expect them to rule in a secular manner regardless of their religious convictions.
Frazzled wrote: Tibetan monks being actively persecuted by the Chinese beg to differ.
Did you know that muslim Uyghur in China are forbidden to fast during Ramadan. Strangely enough, muslim Han in China are not. I guess there is something totally unrelated to religion actually at work here, which is about suppressing ethnic minorities .
sebster wrote: Other than some bricks and mortar and the odd spectacular headpiece, a religion is the people that follow it.
Oh. Then I guess apart from a few pieces of dead trees, quantum mechanics are just people who believe in quantum mechanics. And I thought it was an elaborate set of ideas ! Silly me.
If it is not material, let us pretend it is not relevant.
Well, I am quite sure Albania is quite happy not to have half of its population trying to kill the other half, no homegrown terrorism, and all that. Of course, they do have quite a lot of economic problems, and some political problems too, but blaming that on the lack of religion would be… laughable, I guess.
Of course, Albania's secularism somehow predate communism, and communism failed big time to make the Polish less religious. Maybe because even the communist did not go as far into persecuting religions than religions do among themselves sometimes (cf Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, …) .
.... In fact, by most objective and measurable standard, life is made much, much better by removing religions and dogmatic groups from a position of power and letting secular institutions guide society.
Yeah that worked out real well in the Soviet Union.
GG
You do realize that nearly every modern democracy, including the United States, is run by a secular government.
Secular governments with positions that are filled by people that belong to religious and dogmatic groups...
Yes... GG, I think you need to reread my last sentence and explain to me why you seem to gloss over "dogmatic group" to make a bad point. That canard is getting really, really exhausted. Let it die. Soviet Russia was never "for atheism" or " for secularism", but blindly followed another ideology, it just happened to be that this one was devoid of overt religious symbols and rituals. China is the exact same thing. A dogmatic entity, so in essence I just see this as different kinds of apple duking it out, one just happens to be a lot bigger than the other.
d-usa, you make a great point. And coming from a country that enshrines religious divisions in its own constitution, I keep thinking that the Wall of Separation between church and state ought to be instituted on our side of the border. For all the hoopla that we see in the news, the USA being the most documented people after all, most of the attempts are usually unsuccessful. In Canada, however, religious agendas have been slowly but surely influencing national policies for about a decade. I'm an atheist, but I will march in the street for anyone's right to believe what they want *so long as that belief remains personal and is not imposed on others.* The problem seems to be that some groups aren't happy with dissenting opinions, and want to *save* others. Even if saving them means making sure we don't *save the environment* so the second coming is hastened, for example.
And just to clarify the point I was trying to make:
I am perfectly fine with a secular government making secular rules, which is what we should strive for. We don't exclude members of religious groups from our government, which is what the whole soviet approach. We do expect them to rule in a secular manner regardless of their religious convictions.
It's not always successful of course...
Agreed. That's what I had interpreted, so reading comprehension win for me this morning. In related news, the creationist chiropractor which stood as our science and technology minister (federally) has been replaced by someone else. This may also be a win.
Relapse wrote: For myself, I believe in God and thought it interesting that Dawkins was willing to entertain the idea of aliens creating man, but has a hard time with believing in God.
He certainly is not the only one. For instance, our very dear Howard Phillip Lovecraft himself would likely have shared this viewpoint, if we are to base our judgment from this quote from him :
“All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world, or an eternal survival of personality exist. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hair-splitter to pretend that I don't regard them as arrant and negligible moonshine. In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of radical evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist.”
I share his views. In theory I should be an agnostic too, but seriously, that stuff you believe in ? The all-powerful brat in the sky playing at breaking his own toy ? The whole magic mumbo-jumbo ? A super-hero who gets his power from his hairs ? Women suffering when giving birth as a punishment for the fact their great-great-great… ancestor decided she wanted to be able to tell good from bad, right from wrong by herself rather than deferring such judgment on someone else ?
Nope, not a chance .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Burning wrote: Alien abductions and probing are punishment for killing their recce automata - Jesus.
Is that supposed to be a punishment ? I mean, really ?
I guess that is an interesting inversion then. Religious people usually tells you that God will punish the gays and reward the straight men, but obviously those aliens are punishing the straight men, and are… rewarding the gays.
Haha brilliant.
I often wonder how the world would actually be if religion had no influence, certainly alot of the wests moral views would be different since alot of it is based however loosely on Christianity.. Interesting to ponder
No, it has a veneer of Christianity, but it's not based on it. It is taught as such, but our morality has a much stronger evolutionnary part than religious.
.... In fact, by most objective and measurable standard, life is made much, much better by removing religions and dogmatic groups from a position of power and letting secular institutions guide society.
Yeah that worked out real well in the Soviet Union.
GG
You do realize that nearly every modern democracy, including the United States, is run by a secular government.
Secular governments with positions that are filled by people that belong to religious and dogmatic groups...
Yes... GG, I think you need to reread my last sentence and explain to me why you seem to gloss over "dogmatic group" to make a bad point. That canard is getting really, really exhausted. Let it die. Soviet Russia was never "for atheism" or " for secularism", but blindly followed another ideology, it just happened to be that this one was devoid of overt religious symbols and rituals. China is the exact same thing. A dogmatic entity, so in essence I just see this as different kinds of apple duking it out, one just happens to be a lot bigger than the other.
d-usa, you make a great point. And coming from a country that enshrines religious divisions in its own constitution, I keep thinking that the Wall of Separation between church and state ought to be instituted on our side of the border. For all the hoopla that we see in the news, the USA being the most documented people after all, most of the attempts are usually unsuccessful. In Canada, however, religious agendas have been slowly but surely influencing national policies for about a decade. I'm an atheist, but I will march in the street for anyone's right to believe what they want *so long as that belief remains personal and is not imposed on others.* The problem seems to be that some groups aren't happy with dissenting opinions, and want to *save* others. Even if saving them means making sure we don't *save the environment* so the second coming is hastened, for example.
And just to clarify the point I was trying to make:
I am perfectly fine with a secular government making secular rules, which is what we should strive for. We don't exclude members of religious groups from our government, which is what the whole soviet approach. We do expect them to rule in a secular manner regardless of their religious convictions.
It's not always successful of course...
Agreed. That's what I had interpreted, so reading comprehension win for me this morning. In related news, the creationist chiropractor which stood as our science and technology minister (federally) has been replaced by someone else. This may also be a win.
Why are politicians who are involved in science positions in government rarely scientists or people who understand science. The guys a chiropractor FFS people who only rely on science if it happens to agree with them.
Mathieu Raymond wrote: No, it has a veneer of Christianity, but it's not based on it. It is taught as such, but our morality has a much stronger evolutionnary part than religious.
I'd argue that possibly religion is part of our evolution, we have always tried to explain the unexplainable with supernatural undertones or outright superstition, as we have evolved our understanding has too and sadly it seems old ideas have a habit of sticking around long after they are no longer applicable, it's a very difficult thing to look at I feel as we have no other species like ourselves to study and compare to.
Of course, following that train of thought, we're at a point where religion is of no further value to us as a species (and in many ways, can be harmful), now that we have better systems by which to understand the world.
It is still very useful. It helps fight overpopulation. Well, except for that whole “Do not use birth-control” thing. But it sures motivate people to regulate our numbers by killing a few extra people here and there.
Fafnir wrote: Of course, following that train of thought, we're at a point where religion is of no further value to us as a species (and in many ways, can be harmful), now that we have better systems by which to understand the world.
sebster wrote: But religions haven't merely been disrespected. Their followers really have been persecuted. Read about what happened to people who tried to maintain their Orthodox faith in Soviet Russia.
I do not disagree that religious people have been persecuted- mostly at the hands of other unquestionable dogmas- but that was never at any point what I suggested. I said disrespecting an idea hurt no one and you're trying to forge some link between criticising the doctrines and the adherents, as if there were no way to attack one without injuring the other.
sebster wrote: To extend your 40K analogy, consider that people were discussing an incident where a bunch of, say, Bolt Action fans got together and beat the crap out of a 40K player, and you stop by to post 'oh sure, but as long as the Bolt Action players are just talking about how bad the game system is there's no oppression'. It's technically true but really irrelevant.
Well for a start- again- I'd say violence crosses the line from disrespect to something worse. Such actions would be intolerable. But yeah so long as they are just talking- even if they're ripping on 40k with the most caustic and biting criticism, no harm is done to any person.
Can you really not see a difference between criticising an idea and violence upon a holder of the idea?
Fafnir wrote: Of course, following that train of thought, we're at a point where religion is of no further value to us as a species (and in many ways, can be harmful), now that we have better systems by which to understand the world.
I'd consider religion to be more important now due to higher levels of alienation within our societies. I'd consider the thought that religion is now irrelevant to be misleading , humans will always need a religion or something to believe in , it seems that now instead of turning to a priest when things get difficult people seem to be turning to psychologists. I'm not sure that is a better choice.
Funny thing is I used to be a militant atheist and say a lot of similar things but, the one thing I have figured out is religion is here to stay and although we focus on the bad points of religion in a kind of hyperbolic fashion it does actually support the human psyche well. I think one of the key components to religion is the belief in a something stronger and more important than oneself which helps combat the growth of hubris and being self-centered.If you focus on the bad points of secularism in the same way, secularism probably comes out worse.
Mathieu Raymond wrote: No, it has a veneer of Christianity, but it's not based on it. It is taught as such, but our morality has a much stronger evolutionnary part than religious.
I'd argue that possibly religion is part of our evolution, we have always tried to explain the unexplainable with supernatural undertones or outright superstition, as we have evolved our understanding has too and sadly it seems old ideas have a habit of sticking around long after they are no longer applicable, it's a very difficult thing to look at I feel as we have no other species like ourselves to study and compare to.
I can agree with that. Much better put than my simplistic statement.
Bullockist wrote:
Fafnir wrote: Of course, following that train of thought, we're at a point where religion is of no further value to us as a species (and in many ways, can be harmful), now that we have better systems by which to understand the world.
I'd consider religion to be more important now due to higher levels of alienation within our societies. I'd consider the thought that religion is now irrelevant to be misleading , humans will always need a religion or something to believe in , it seems that now instead of turning to a priest when things get difficult people seem to be turning to psychologists. I'm not sure that is a better choice.
Funny thing is I used to be a militant atheist and say a lot of similar things but, the one thing I have figured out is religion is here to stay and although we focus on the bad points of religion in a kind of hyperbolic fashion it does actually support the human psyche well. I think one of the key components to religion is the belief in a something stronger and more important than oneself which helps combat the growth of hubris and being self-centered.If you focus on the bad points of secularism in the same way, secularism probably comes out worse.
The only thing I would ask is this: why does it have to be religion? I'm convinced we can find a Big Idea that doesn't require dogmatism that can help us move forward. There can a be a sense of community on a humanist scale. Nope, I have no basis for that statement, except that it feels right. Which is why I won't impose it on anyone. Of course, if secularism becomes dogmatic, and it can, as it is becoming here in Quebec at the moment, then it can be just as bad.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Did you know that muslim Uyghur in China are forbidden to fast during Ramadan. Strangely enough, muslim Han in China are not. I guess there is something totally unrelated to religion actually at work here, which is about suppressing ethnic minorities .
And did you know that Han chinese in Tibet still have the number of children they are allowed restricted, while ethnic Tibetans are allowed to have as many as they please. Welcome to the complexity of modern day China, where simplistic narratives just don't fething help.
Oh. Then I guess apart from a few pieces of dead trees, quantum mechanics are just people who believe in quantum mechanics. And I thought it was an elaborate set of ideas ! Silly me.
If it is not material, let us pretend it is not relevant.
Of course there are ideas... which are, of course, believed by people. The former requires the latter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kojiro wrote: I do not disagree that religious people have been persecuted- mostly at the hands of other unquestionable dogmas- but that was never at any point what I suggested. I said disrespecting an idea hurt no one and you're trying to forge some link between criticising the doctrines and the adherents, as if there were no way to attack one without injuring the other.
Which is, as I already explained, technically correct and completely pointless given the context of the conversation.
Can you really not see a difference between criticising an idea and violence upon a holder of the idea?
Of course I can. Can you not the irrelevance of pointing out that criticism is okay, when people are talking about actual persecution.
It is no longer needed as a way of explaining the origins of the universe and life. But as a way to help people understand and cope with their lives... well a lot of people still seem to find a need for it.
It's an interesting thing that has been noted, that in spite of horrendous persecutions in various countries through the ages up to and including death, religion survives.
This, in my mind anyway, shows that religion is still needed if people are willing to cling to it though all of the attempts to destroy their belief system.
Relapse wrote: It's an interesting thing that has been noted, that in spite of horrendous persecutions in various countries through the ages up to and including death, religion survives.
This, in my mind anyway, shows that religion is still needed if people are willing to cling to it though all of the attempts to destroy their belief system.
How do you feel about the persecution of scientists?
Relapse wrote: It's an interesting thing that has been noted, that in spite of horrendous persecutions in various countries through the ages up to and including death, religion survives.
This, in my mind anyway, shows that religion is still needed if people are willing to cling to it though all of the attempts to destroy their belief system.
How do you feel about the persecution of scientists?
Same thing. I don't believe anyone with an honest idea they want to share in a respectful way should be suppressed. I know it happens in all forms and manner, though.
sebster wrote: Which is, as I already explained, technically correct and completely pointless given the context of the conversation.
Concession accepted. Thanks!
sebster wrote: Of course I can. Can you not the irrelevance of pointing out that criticism is okay, when people are talking about actual persecution.
That's good! Because a little ways back you said:
sebster wrote: Other than some bricks and mortar and the odd spectacular headpiece, a religion is the people that follow it. Trying to draw some distinction between persecuting a religion, and persecuting people who follow that religion is pretty silly.
Which kinda makes it seem like you think there is no difference. I mean if you know the difference almost makes me wonder what you issue was with my post initially that caused you to reply? That is a nice bike you got there!
But I'm glad we agree that:
Kojiro wrote: Disrespecting religion- an idea- harms no one. Enforcing religion however often harms individuals.
Otherwise we might have to have a lengthy exchange that ends us up right where it started.
Fafnir wrote: Of course, following that train of thought, we're at a point where religion is of no further value to us as a species (and in many ways, can be harmful), now that we have better systems by which to understand the world.
I'd consider religion to be more important now due to higher levels of alienation within our societies. I'd consider the thought that religion is now irrelevant to be misleading , humans will always need a religion or something to believe in , it seems that now instead of turning to a priest when things get difficult people seem to be turning to psychologists. I'm not sure that is a better choice.
Funny thing is I used to be a militant atheist and say a lot of similar things but, the one thing I have figured out is religion is here to stay and although we focus on the bad points of religion in a kind of hyperbolic fashion it does actually support the human psyche well. I think one of the key components to religion is the belief in a something stronger and more important than oneself which helps combat the growth of hubris and being self-centered.If you focus on the bad points of secularism in the same way, secularism probably comes out worse.
Well, first off, how much of said alienation is caused by different religious beliefs? Secondly, I don't need anything to believe in, I have reality for that, the idea of belief, faith, is inherently illogical and opens the door to bad things IMO. Also, I can assure you that turning to a trained professional for your mental care is infinitely preferable to turning to a guy who knows lots about a book.
Fafnir wrote: Of course, following that train of thought, we're at a point where religion is of no further value to us as a species (and in many ways, can be harmful), now that we have better systems by which to understand the world.
I'd consider religion to be more important now due to higher levels of alienation within our societies. I'd consider the thought that religion is now irrelevant to be misleading , humans will always need a religion or something to believe in , it seems that now instead of turning to a priest when things get difficult people seem to be turning to psychologists. I'm not sure that is a better choice.
Funny thing is I used to be a militant atheist and say a lot of similar things but, the one thing I have figured out is religion is here to stay and although we focus on the bad points of religion in a kind of hyperbolic fashion it does actually support the human psyche well. I think one of the key components to religion is the belief in a something stronger and more important than oneself which helps combat the growth of hubris and being self-centered.If you focus on the bad points of secularism in the same way, secularism probably comes out worse.
Well, first off, how much of said alienation is caused by different religious beliefs? Secondly, I don't need anything to believe in, I have reality for that, the idea of belief, faith, is inherently illogical and opens the door to bad things IMO. Also, I can assure you that turning to a trained professional for your mental care is infinitely preferable to turning to a guy who knows lots about a book.
If the people alienating each other truly practiced their belief, and I am talking Christianity here, then they would not be alienating each other, but be acting in quite the opposite fashion. The basic Christian tenant is love and charity. The message is real, but people are flawed in it's execution.
" The basic Christian tenant is love and charity. The message is real, but people are flawed in it's execution. "
What a load of old tosh, Christians, Muslims, Jews etc in my experience only care about there religion when it suits them, I have seen first hand in Afghanistan what happens when religion takes the place of reason, and don't think for a second I'm talking about just the Muslims in Afghan, I saw plenty of "christian's" doing awful things too.
My brother in law is a Muslim and is always sprouting some old nonsense on how people should behave etc. So I read the Koran and came back at him like he preached at others and showed him he is a bad Muslim with his own book that he claimed he followed to the dot, it's the same with all religions, they happily tell you that you are a bad person and will go to hell but fail to follow even the basic tenets set down by there own doctrine.
I'm a good person not because of some code of ethics created to entertain or control people 2000 years ago, but because I will help my fellows when. They need it, religion is not needed in this day and age, humanism is.
Formosa wrote: " The basic Christian tenant is love and charity. The message is real, but people are flawed in it's execution. "
What a load of old tosh, Christians, Muslims, Jews etc in my experience only care about there religion when it suits them, I have seen first hand in Afghanistan what happens when religion takes the place of reason, and don't think for a second I'm talking about just the Muslims in Afghan, I saw plenty of "christian's" doing awful things too.
My brother in law is a Muslim and is always sprouting some old nonsense on how people should behave etc. So I read the Koran and came back at him like he preached at others and showed him he is a bad Muslim with his own book that he claimed he followed to the dot, it's the same with all religions, they happily tell you that you are a bad person and will go to hell but fail to follow even the basic tenets set down by there own doctrine.
I'm a good person not because of some code of ethics created to entertain or control people 2000 years ago, but because I will help my fellows when. They need it, religion is not needed in this day and age, humanism is.
Not old tosh at all. You have had bad experiences with people using religion as an excuse to mistreat others. If religion wasn't a factor it would be some other reason they would find.
Formosa wrote: " The basic Christian tenant is love and charity. The message is real, but people are flawed in it's execution. "
What a load of old tosh, Christians, Muslims, Jews etc in my experience only care about there religion when it suits them, I have seen first hand in Afghanistan what happens when religion takes the place of reason, and don't think for a second I'm talking about just the Muslims in Afghan, I saw plenty of "christian's" doing awful things too.
My brother in law is a Muslim and is always sprouting some old nonsense on how people should behave etc. So I read the Koran and came back at him like he preached at others and showed him he is a bad Muslim with his own book that he claimed he followed to the dot, it's the same with all religions, they happily tell you that you are a bad person and will go to hell but fail to follow even the basic tenets set down by there own doctrine.
I'm a good person not because of some code of ethics created to entertain or control people 2000 years ago, but because I will help my fellows when. They need it, religion is not needed in this day and age, humanism is.
What an amazing bigot you are. Its like your whole worldview violates Dakka Rule #1.
Fafnir wrote: Of course, following that train of thought, we're at a point where religion is of no further value to us as a species (and in many ways, can be harmful), now that we have better systems by which to understand the world.
I'd consider religion to be more important now due to higher levels of alienation within our societies. I'd consider the thought that religion is now irrelevant to be misleading , humans will always need a religion or something to believe in , it seems that now instead of turning to a priest when things get difficult people seem to be turning to psychologists. I'm not sure that is a better choice.
Funny thing is I used to be a militant atheist and say a lot of similar things but, the one thing I have figured out is religion is here to stay and although we focus on the bad points of religion in a kind of hyperbolic fashion it does actually support the human psyche well. I think one of the key components to religion is the belief in a something stronger and more important than oneself which helps combat the growth of hubris and being self-centered.If you focus on the bad points of secularism in the same way, secularism probably comes out worse.
Well, first off, how much of said alienation is caused by different religious beliefs? Secondly, I don't need anything to believe in, I have reality for that, the idea of belief, faith, is inherently illogical and opens the door to bad things IMO. Also, I can assure you that turning to a trained professional for your mental care is infinitely preferable to turning to a guy who knows lots about a book.
If the people alienating each other truly practiced their belief, and I am talking Christianity here, then they would not be alienating each other, but be acting in quite the opposite fashion. The basic Christian tenant is love and charity. The message is real, but people are flawed in it's execution.
Frazzled wrote: What an amazing bigot you are. Its like your whole worldview violates Dakka Rule #1.
Be that as it may, Christians do cherry-pick from the bible only the parts that suit them. They kind of need to... Half the stuff in the Old Testament is either illegal, borderline sociopathic, and/or just ridiculous. Things like "If you cut off your wife's sister's hand for sowing two types of grain in the same field, then you're not allowed to rape her for two years, unless it happened on a Wednesday".
If you are cherry-picking, and creatively "interpreting" only the parts that you agree with from the scriptures (which is everyone). Then essentially: all you are doing is following your own agenda and ideas, and using the Bible when it suits to add weight to them.
I personally think ideas should be backed up by something a bit more substantial... At very least: a Wikipedia article.
I'm a good person not because of some code of ethics created to entertain or control people 2000 years ago, but because I will help my fellows when. They need it, religion is not needed in this day and age, humanism is.
You are a good person, in as much as you have constructed your own set of rules you feel comfortable with. So you have a completely independently "home grown" belief system that makes you feel good about yourself.
Also FYI...humanism is a religion, even the supreme court of the USA(and the original humanist manifesto no less) say so.
"The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488). Roy Torcaso, the appellant, a practicing Humanist in Maryland, had refused to declare his belief in Almighty God, as then required by State law in order for him to be commissioned as a notary public. The Court held that the requirement for such an oath "invades appellant's freedom of belief and religion."
Frazzled wrote: What an amazing bigot you are. Its like your whole worldview violates Dakka Rule #1.
Be that as it may, Christians do cherry-pick from the bible only the parts that suit them. They kind of need to... Half the stuff in the Old Testament is either illegal, borderline sociopathic, and/or just ridiculous. Things like "If you cut off your wife's sister's hand for sowing two types of grain in the same field, then you're not allowed to rape her for two years, unless it happened on a Wednesday".
If you are cherry-picking, and creatively "interpreting" only the parts that you agree with from the scriptures (which is everyone). Then essentially: all you are doing is following your own agenda and ideas, and using the Bible when it suits to add weight to them.
I personally think ideas should be backed up by something a bit more substantial... At very least: a Wikipedia article.
I do agree that there are Christians that do exactly as you say(cherry pick). But I do challenge you to read up on why not all aspects of the levitical code of Moses no longer applies to Christians. Please don't just assume that because there were laws required of the Hebrews, that those same laws are required of Christians. This is the same error that Martin sheen made on "the west wing".
Frazzled wrote: What an amazing bigot you are. Its like your whole worldview violates Dakka Rule #1.
Be that as it may, Christians do cherry-pick from the bible only the parts that suit them. They kind of need to... Half the stuff in the Old Testament is either illegal, borderline sociopathic, and/or just ridiculous. Things like "If you cut off your wife's sister's hand for sowing two types of grain in the same field, then you're not allowed to rape her for two years, unless it happened on a Wednesday".
If you are cherry-picking, and creatively "interpreting" only the parts that you agree with from the scriptures (which is everyone). Then essentially: all you are doing is following your own agenda and ideas, and using the Bible when it suits to add weight to them.
I personally think ideas should be backed up by something a bit more substantial... At very least: a Wikipedia article.
NO. Its because Christians follow the New Testament.
Now please address his bigotry towards all other faiths as well.
generalgrog wrote: But I do challenge you to read up on why not all aspects of the levitical code of Moses no longer applies to Christians.
I'm way ahead of you. Leviticus does indeed have some doozies! and contains the often quoted "man and another man". Deuteronomy is also fun. But I'm sure it wouldn't take me long to find a Jesus one if I wanted, however this stuff has already been discussed ad-nauseam.
On the other hand... People arguing that Levitical code doesn't apply to them for [insert clever reasons], kind of falls under creative "interpretation".
generalgrog wrote: But I do challenge you to read up on why not all aspects of the levitical code of Moses no longer applies to Christians.
I'm way ahead of you. Leviticus does indeed have some doozies! and contains the often quoted "man and another man". Deuteronomy is also fun. But I'm sure it wouldn't take me long to find a Jesus one if I wanted, however this stuff has already been discussed ad-nauseam.
On the other hand... People arguing that Levitical code doesn't apply to them for [insert clever reasons], kind of falls under creative "interpretation".
Are you saying the Levitical code applies to you or are you also being creative with your own interpretation?
On the other hand... People arguing that Levitical code doesn't apply to them for [insert clever reasons], kind of falls under creative "interpretation".
You mean clever reasons like that whole Jesus thing right? Again, please use your clever words against Islam etc. or is this just the semi weekly "Lets bash Christians because we suck" thread
On the other hand... People arguing that Levitical code doesn't apply to them for [insert clever reasons], kind of falls under creative "interpretation".
You mean clever reasons like that whole Jesus thing right? Again, please use your clever words against Islam etc. or is this just the semi weekly "Lets bash Christians because we suck" thread
Oh wait, of course it is.
Have you ever tires to bash Buddhists? It's no fun, they don't fight back .
Same thing. I don't believe anyone with an honest idea they want to share in a respectful way should be suppressed. I know it happens in all forms and manner, though.
See, it that "respectful" bit which bothers me; as it prevents people from being honest.
Frazzled wrote: NO. Its because Christians follow the New Testament.
Three things:
1. That's a complete lie. Both are sacred books according to the Catholic Church, and Christians quote the Old Testament all the time when it suits them.
2. Jesus references it frequently himself in the New Testament, including the weird gruesome parts. So if you follow Jesus teachings, you can't ignore the Old Testament.
3. While the Old Testament is easier to pick on, and I did use it as a specific example, I was not limiting myself to just that one text. People cherry-pick the New Testament just as much.
Again, please use your clever words against Islam etc.
No.
Christianity is the religion I am most familiar with, and the most relevant to my life. I see no reason to beat around the bush by discussing it in the wider context of "Judeo-Christian" religions. Also it is not my intent to "bash" anyone (at least not too hard), and Formosa being a bigot is none of my concern. The length and breadth of my argument is that the Bible is practically impossible to follow to the letter (even if you wanted to). Christians are thus forced to cherry-pick, ignore, and "reinterpret" the parts that don't fit. Or if you happen to be on the Vatican Council you can just 'make gak up!' (like that whole Limbo thing). This really undermines the whole concept.
d-usa wrote: Are you saying the Levitical code applies to you or are you also being creative with your own interpretation?
Since I do not claim to follow the Bible: I'm happy to outright ignore Leviticus along with the rest of the book, whether it applies to me or not.
Frazzled wrote: Thats ok. Don't pay attentions to the van parked across the street from you, or the barking sounds inside.
Haha I'd be mightily impressed if you did come all the way here to see me, though I'd probably just end up inviting you to stay for beers and boardgames
d-usa wrote: Are you saying the Levitical code applies to you or are you also being creative with your own interpretation?
Since I do not claim to follow the Bible: I'm happy to outright ignore Leviticus along with the rest of the book, whether it applies to me or not.
So you feel like you get to decide what religious texts and religious laws apply to members of whatever religion you choose and then judge those people for your decision when they don't follow the random rules you applied to them?
I know vegans that are less smug about their perceived self-righteousness than that...
Same thing. I don't believe anyone with an honest idea they want to share in a respectful way should be suppressed. I know it happens in all forms and manner, though.
See, it that "respectful" bit which bothers me; as it prevents people from being honest.
You can be totaly respectful with someone and be truthful at the same time.
d-usa wrote: Are you saying the Levitical code applies to you or are you also being creative with your own interpretation?
Since I do not claim to follow the Bible: I'm happy to outright ignore Leviticus along with the rest of the book, whether it applies to me or not.
So you feel like you get to decide what religious texts and religious laws apply to members of whatever religion you choose and then judge those people for your decision when they don't follow the random rules you applied to them?
I know vegans that are less smug about their perceived self-righteousness than that...
Right you're not making any sense.
I didn't decide what the Bible says, if I did it would probably be a lot clearer on subjects like murder and slavery. And they are not 'random rules' it is 'allegedly' the sacred word of god etc...
I don't care who thinks what applies to them, or how people want to live their lives. All that I'm concerned with is the fact that 'making up rules' and 'choosing the rules you like from a book that can justify anything' is essentially the same thing, for arguments sake.
d-usa wrote: So you're no different than any religious person out there then, since you are making up rules yourself.
Clearly I am because I freely admit that I made up the rules I live by.
People who claim to follow the bible, but really only pick and choose the bits that suit them, not only lack that integrity, but are also painting their made up rules as 'divine'.
Relapse wrote: You can be totaly respectful with someone and be truthful at the same time.
One man's respectful comment is another man's heresy. I mean no offence when I say that I believe that all religion is utterly wrong - there is nothing supernatural in the universe; no gods, spirits, etc. However, to someone who holds religious beliefs close to their heart, that simple statement can be incredibly offensive.
"Respectful" is an utterly subjective term and is useless when used in relation to subjects which can be highly charged with emotion.
d-usa wrote: So you're no different than any religious person out there then, since you are making up rules yourself.
Clearly I am because I freely admit that I made up the rules I live by.
People who claim to follow the bible, but really only pick and choose the bits that suit them, not only lack that integrity, but are also painting their made up rules as 'divine'.
They are only lacking integrity because you judge them for not following the rules that you made up for them.
d-usa wrote: They are only lacking integrity because you judge them for not following the rules that you made up for them.
No one is making up rules for them; if their book says "do X, Y and Z, and don't do A, B and C", yet they rationalise away the part where it says "do Y", and just ignore the bit where it says "Don't do C" then it is entirely their problem if people then take issue with them then trying to use the part where it says "And oh, by the way, M" to then try and force everyone else to do what they want because they really like M...
d-usa wrote: hey are only lacking integrity because you judge them for not following the rules that you made up for them.
No it's because they are not following the rules that they claim to be following.
For example look at the 'God hates fags ' people. The truth is: they hate fags. But they have found a passage in the Bible that agrees with their made up rule (the rule that being gay is wrong). But their posters don't say "I hate fags" they say that God does. And of course they will also claim that God being God can't be wrong, therefore they can't be wrong...
Except they all ignore passages from the same book that say things about mixing wool and linen, because that wasn't something they cared about. Invoking God when it suites your purpose and ignoring him when it doesn't is why they lack integrity, it's practically the definition of the word.
d-usa wrote: They are only lacking integrity because you judge them for not following the rules that you made up for them.
No one is making up rules for them; if their book says "do X, Y and Z, and don't do A, B and C", yet they rationalise away the part where it says "do Y", and just ignore the bit where it says "Don't do C" then it is entirely their problem if people then take issue with them then trying to use the part where it says "And oh, by the way, M" to then try and force everyone else to do what they want because they really like M...
Well, nobody should be forced to follow any religious rule that they don't want to follow. Legislating religious rules is always a bad idea.
d-usa wrote: So you don't judge all Christians for not following every written rule in the book that you think they should follow?
Is your whole argument going to consist of repeatedly asking me questions framed as "So you blah blah blah, because you think blah blah?", it seems like kind of a weak strategy, am I supposed to fall into some kind of trap here? or are you just trying stupid me to death? I've explained this quite a lot now. Enough I think.
d-usa wrote: So you don't judge all Christians for not following every written rule in the book that you think they should follow?
Is your whole argument going to consist of repeatedly asking me questions framed as "So you blah blah blah, because you think blah blah?", it seems like kind of a weak strategy, am I supposed to full into some kind of trap here? or are you just trying stupid me to death? I've explained this quite a lot now. Enough I think.
All you have explained is that you think people who claim that they follow a religion based on the bible should follow every single rule in the bible and that you think they are lacking integrity if they don't follow your interpretation of their religion.
Frazzled wrote: Whats funny is the reaction you'd get if you called me a liar to my face.
Oh! Thuggery! I know that game.
I would happily call you a liar, to your face.
I think, if I know Frazzled, is that he would bust out laughing. He never strikes me as an internet tough guy. Only guys with small weiners act tough on the internet, and I have been told he's got a big one.
Please quote the part of my post that was bigoted, as all you will see there is a series of examples that some may find uncomfortable, pointing out that the religious people I have known have been hypocrites is not bigotry, nor is showing my brother in law that abusing his religion in an attempt to control a member of my family is against said religion, again not bigotry, infact I'm unsure said persons even know what a bigot is to attempt to label Me such, useing a person's own set of morals and beliefs to show them that they have made an error and are behaving badly isn't bigotry..it's diplomacy, a bigot wouldn't even have attempted to even understand.
I pointed out the horrific things I have seen done in the name of God and religion, I have seen personally what happens when someone abuses that power, yes I distrust it and as I said before I distrust ANY institutions that condone that behavior, leave people to do as they please, if people want to worship a God..whatever leave them to it, only so long as they leave me and others alone if we do not share it.
sebster wrote: Of course there are ideas... which are, of course, believed by people. The former requires the latter.
Well, then I guess “Other than some bricks and mortar and the odd spectacular headpiece, a religion is the people that follow it.” was a totally wrong statement. Because, you know, it is totally denying the ideas.
Relapse wrote: The basic Christian tenant is love and charity.
Is it ? I thought it was about how wanting to be able to tell good from evil without relying on an omnipotent father figure was wrong, deserving massive collective punishment and all that.
d-usa wrote: All you have explained is that you think people who claim that they follow a religion based on the bible should follow every single rule in the bible and that you think they are lacking integrity if they don't follow your interpretation of their religion.
“I am a vegan. I do not eat meat, because killing animals is unethical. Hey, let us go get some bacon. Bacon is okay, because it starts with the letter b, so it is not unethical to eat it.”
The correct analogy would be "I read a book about nutrition. They talked about bacon being okay in moderation, so I think that's what I am going to do." And the somebody else comes around and says "the same book also talks about being vegan. So therefore you are wrong for moderating bacon because of the book but not being vegan even though that is also in the book".
1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
As far as collective punishment goes, we are responsible for our own wrong doings, not Adam's.
Let me get this straight, people who don't like religion constantly reference dogma (not poster dogma I don't know why anyone references him ) as a reason for not liking it. Apparently people who follow a religion aren't allowed to personalise and think about their religion but have to follow every part. I know which I think is dogmatic.
Also FRazzled , the only people threatened by someone in a van are people who have kids... It bares(bears- dammit a day of no spelling for me) thinking about , your statement had me laughing especially when you threw dogs into the mix.
d-usa wrote: The correct analogy would be "I read a book about nutrition. They talked about bacon being okay in moderation, so I think that's what I am going to do." And the somebody else comes around and says "the same book also talks about being vegan. So therefore you are wrong for moderating bacon because of the book but not being vegan even though that is also in the book".
Bullockist wrote: Apparently people who follow a religion aren't allowed to personalise and think about their religion but have to follow every part.
Yeah, and why do we not personalize science too ? I mean, we do not need to follow every part of the gravitation theory, why can we not sometime just design some airplanes that have a negative weight ?
Oh, I know. It is okay to personalize one's fantasy word, but one rather not go around personalizing reality, because else we get some not working airplane. If religion had any hint of truth, nobody would want to personalize it.
Frazzled wrote: Thats ok. Don't pay attentions to the van parked across the street from you, or the barking sounds inside.
Haha I'd be mightily impressed if you did come all the way here to see me, though I'd probably just end up inviting you to stay for beers and boardgames
I apologize. That was rude. Here being called a liar is a fighting offense and I'm too old a bird to fight.
d-usa wrote: Are you saying the Levitical code applies to you or are you also being creative with your own interpretation?
Since I do not claim to follow the Bible: I'm happy to outright ignore Leviticus along with the rest of the book, whether it applies to me or not.
So you feel like you get to decide what religious texts and religious laws apply to members of whatever religion you choose and then judge those people for your decision when they don't follow the random rules you applied to them?
I know vegans that are less smug about their perceived self-righteousness than that...
The Boy is going steady with a vegan (I guess you expect that in Austin). It puts a cramp in the old barbeque. We're hoping he drops this one and dates a fine easy on the eyes Aggie, but don't tell anyone.
Frazzled wrote: Whats funny is the reaction you'd get if you called me a liar to my face.
Oh! Thuggery! I know that game.
I would happily call you a liar, to your face.
I think, if I know Frazzled, is that he would bust out laughing. He never strikes me as an internet tough guy. Only guys with small weiners act tough on the internet, and I have been told he's got a big one.
This thing where people try to criticize other people's moral codes by calling it 'making up rules' or 'picking what parts of your religion you like' is basically a waste of time. Because here's the thing - either you assume other people are honestly engaged in trying to find a set of ethics, or you assume they're engaged in a deceitful attempt to create a personal moral code that lets them do whatever they want.
If it's the former, then dismissing their efforts or trying to trap them by how you personally interpret their morals is a dickish thing to do. If it's the latter then they'll just weasel their way out with some more invented bs. So either way it's a waste of time.
Don't take this as me thinking that there's no point talking about ethics and morality - because I don't believe that at all. But that conversation is interesting and constructive when it's an honest attempt to learn about others, that starts with an assumption that other people are just as earnest in trying to be a good person as you are.
Don't be a twit. There is no concession in me simply repeating my point.
I mean if you know the difference almost makes me wonder what you issue was with my post initially that caused you to reply?
Because when the conversation is about persecution, then people popping in to talk about how some kinds of attacks are okay are, or at least are likely to be seen as, attempts to minimise that persecution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: Be that as it may, Christians do cherry-pick from the bible only the parts that suit them. They kind of need to...
To be fair, we all cherry-pick from our own personal standards... because we're just people. We're not perfect, and while we aspire to great moral standards, we regularly fall short, and one of the biggest ways we fall short is in our willingness to honestly assess ourselves by our own moral codes.
Don't be a twit. There is no concession in me simply repeating my point.
I mean if you know the difference almost makes me wonder what you issue was with my post initially that caused you to reply?
Because when the conversation is about persecution, then people popping in to talk about how some kinds of attacks are okay are, or at least are likely to be seen as, attempts to minimise that persecution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: Be that as it may, Christians do cherry-pick from the bible only the parts that suit them. They kind of need to...
To be fair, we all cherry-pick from our own personal standards... because we're just people. We're not perfect, and while we aspire to great moral standards, we regularly fall short, and one of the biggest ways we fall short is in our willingness to honestly assess ourselves by our own moral codes.
sebster wrote: Because when the conversation is about persecution, then people popping in to talk about how some kinds of attacks are okay are, or at least are likely to be seen as, attempts to minimise that persecution.
LOL! Now I'm a religious persecution apologist because I think ideas should be criticised? Riiiiight. You realise that my comment that spawned this exchange came before any mention of persecution right? I'll try harder to fit my replies to the context- even when it hasn't yet arisen.
Sigh. Of course there is a difference. A person and an abstract concept are not in fact the same thing. That's why one is called 'a religion' and the other is called 'a person'. And they have all sorts of differences - I've just looked it up and while a person can legally drive a car whereas a religion, being an intangible collection of philosophical, moral and spiritual beliefs, is at present prevented from attempting the driver's test.
But in terms of the point made about persecution... the two things are one in the same because, due to our now established point about a religion being an intangible collection of philosophical, moral and spiritual beliefs... you can't actually put it in prison, or shoot it with Mosin-Nagant. If you want to attack that religion, you must target the believers of that religion.
Do you understand the distinction now?
LOL! Now I'm a religious persecution apologist because I think ideas should be criticised? Riiiiight.
Oh come on. My response to you was a single sentence and you still managed to miss this part "or at least are likely to be seen as". Are you actively looking for opportunities to be silly?
You realise that my comment that spawned this exchange came before any mention of persecution right? I'll try harder to fit my replies to the context- even when it hasn't yet arisen.
Yeah, and when you started talking about that I was actually on your side. Then people mentioned persecution, and you went off on that weird tangent, and I thought I'd make a comment that clarified your point. That was a mistake, because you decided to be ridiculous.
I think the problem people have is that some people will point to the bible as their reason for why something is wrong but then ignore other things that the bible says are wrong because they want to belive that's ok.
When you persecute or judge another person based on what a book says is wrong at least have the integrity to either say it's your own perceived bias that you are using the bible to back up or go the whole hog and condem everything the bible condemns.
Saying this part that you do is wrong but this part that I do is just a methapor is either deliberately deceptive or accidentally deceptive.
Sigh. Of course there is a difference. A person and an abstract concept are not in fact the same thing....If you want to attack that religion, you must target the believers of that religion.
In so much as education, discourse and debate are 'targeting the believers' I agree. No sense preaching to the choir. Where I disagree with you is that in order to combat religious dogma and ideas you must hurt or persecute people (which seems to be what you're implying). In the spirit of the topic and not getting any further off track, or personal, I'll leave this here.
Kojiro wrote: In so much as education, discourse and debate are 'targeting the believers' I agree. No sense preaching to the choir. Where I disagree with you is that in order to combat religious dogma and ideas you must hurt or persecute people (which seems to be what you're implying).
No, I'm absolutely not implying that, and someone can criticise the religion without it being an attack on its members, and certainly not an attack on its members. My point is simply that that distinction, while true, is empty as a rebuttal to instances of actual persecution.
Smacks wrote: Be that as it may, Christians do cherry-pick from the bible only the parts that suit them. They kind of need to...
To be fair, we all cherry-pick from our own personal standards... because we're just people. We're not perfect, and while we aspire to great moral standards, we regularly fall short, and one of the biggest ways we fall short is in our willingness to honestly assess ourselves by our own moral codes.
Thanks Sebster, I actually exalted this because it's such a good point. I'm sure there are lots of times when I don't personally live up to my own standards, or when I realise that I need to change something. But that's half of the point... Admitting that your standards are flawed and human makes it possible to challenge them honestly, and make them better. If you convince yourself that your own personal standards come from God, then you have painted yourself into a corner when they require changing. You are left in the awkward situation where you either have to admit that they are human and flawed (in which case adhering to them at all becomes incidental), or you go on dogmatically believing the wrong thing. Occasionally you get the "reinterpretation" BS, like when creationists suddenly find dinosaurs in the Bible.
The other half of the point is that it isn't just about personal belief for your own life. The "God hates fags" people were definitely trying to impose their views on others. Oops sorry! I meant God's views. We see this happening on a whole range of issues, like gay marriage, evolution, and abortion. These people are incredibly self righteous doing 'the lords work'. So yes, I think we are allowed to call BS when we see them just ignoring and disregarding other parts,not only from the same Bible, but from the same passages that they use to attack others. If it's okay for them to trim their beard, braid their hair, have a round haircut and wear polyester, then why is it definitely not okay to be gay? And most importantly who is deciding this stuff? Because it isn't God. According to the passage: none of these things are okay. If it is just the individual picking and choosing what they personally think is okay, then they should stop saying that it's god, and just admit that they personally hate gays because they're bigots.
Frazzled wrote: I apologize. That was rude. Here being called a liar is a fighting offense and I'm too old a bird to fight.
That's okay, I'm sorry if I came across unnecessarily confrontational. I wasn't trying to say it as "You are a liar and a scoundrel sir!" *throws down gauntlet*. I think I more misinterpreted what you said. You were talking about Christians not being bound by Mosaic law, and I thought you were saying that the Old Testament wasn't a part of the Christian belief system at all. Having attended a Church school, I recall that there was a lot of Old Testament.
We were probably at cross points anyway, because my main gripe would be with militant people who spout those laws at others, but don't follow or even believe in them themselves. Which is somewhat hypocritical. It might surprise you that I'm actually quite open to people believing in a higher power, or whatever they find helpful. But I take issue with the Bible often being used as a weapon, especially when it is such a tangled web of "interpretations".
sebster wrote: This thing where people try to criticize other people's moral codes by calling it 'making up rules' or 'picking what parts of your religion you like' is basically a waste of time. Because here's the thing - either you assume other people are honestly engaged in trying to find a set of ethics, or you assume they're engaged in a deceitful attempt to create a personal moral code that lets them do whatever they want.
If it's the former, then dismissing their efforts or trying to trap them by how you personally interpret their morals is a dickish thing to do. If it's the latter then they'll just weasel their way out with some more invented bs. So either way it's a waste of time.
Don't take this as me thinking that there's no point talking about ethics and morality - because I don't believe that at all. But that conversation is interesting and constructive when it's an honest attempt to learn about others, that starts with an assumption that other people are just as earnest in trying to be a good person as you are.
And most people I know would happily let everyone live happily according to their own "cherry-picked", personalized code of ethics. As long as it was theirs, and applied only to their own conducts. If you feel like justifying harming yourself or restricting yourself or rewarding yourself any way you see fit, as long as it doesn't negatively impact anyone else, then go nuts. I think it becomes objectionable once those ideas are forcefully imposed on others. Hence my bit about marching for others' religious freedoms. And some form their moral code with a component that is outward driven, either as a judgement of others or as proselytization. Is that acceptable, or objectionable?
I'll step away from hypotheticals and focus on a concrete, if tepid, example that is going on right now, in my province. The government wants to enforce a charter of values that states that all employees of the state must dress neutrally, in order to promote a secular state. Never you mind the giant crucifix in the assembly chamber. Couldn't a statement establishing the secularity of the state (engrave it in stone if you must) have been enough? This comes with a unique set of circumstances because an increasing number of healthcare and pre-school workers are muslim women, a majority of which wear one form or another of the veil.
The day the sight of a veil is enough to convert someone to islam... oï vey. And as a result, there has been a wave of islamophobia in the province. Not even directed at healthcare workers, just random muslim women.
It sounds like the Swiss law banning minarets on mosques because they would be taller than other buildings and look bad. (Ignoring the number of tall buildings such as church towers already seen in Swiss towns.)
The state can be secular without its employees having to be secular. In fact, to enforce any particular dress code that bans religious dress, is a non-secular act.
Relapse wrote: As far as collective punishment goes, we are responsible for our own wrong doings, not Adam's.
Is that why women suffer when giving birth ?
You try passing a watermelon sized object. You'll learn real quick why women suffer!
That is not the reason given by Christianity . It is supposed to be about a talking snake and a magical fruit and all that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: It sounds like the Swiss law banning minarets on mosques because they would be taller than other buildings and look bad. (Ignoring the number of tall buildings such as church towers already seen in Swiss towns.)
At least the part about no call to prayer was an awesome decision, I just wish they would extend it to christian bell-ringing. In la Chaux de Fond, it is a real pain in the ass ! It is both extremely loud (and I mean “You need to increase the volume of your TV even if all you windows are completely closed, else you will not be able to hear anything that is being said” level), and very long (more than 20 minutes !).
Kilkrazy wrote: In fact, to enforce any particular dress code that bans religious dress, is a non-secular act.
It is. If you enforce any dress code, you are in practice banning one kind of religious dress or another. So, not caring about banning religious dress is just a necessity.
sebster wrote: This thing where people try to criticize other people's moral codes by calling it 'making up rules' or 'picking what parts of your religion you like' is basically a waste of time. Because here's the thing - either you assume other people are honestly engaged in trying to find a set of ethics, or you assume they're engaged in a deceitful attempt to create a personal moral code that lets them do whatever they want.
If it's the former, then dismissing their efforts or trying to trap them by how you personally interpret their morals is a dickish thing to do. If it's the latter then they'll just weasel their way out with some more invented bs. So either way it's a waste of time.
Don't take this as me thinking that there's no point talking about ethics and morality - because I don't believe that at all. But that conversation is interesting and constructive when it's an honest attempt to learn about others, that starts with an assumption that other people are just as earnest in trying to be a good person as you are.
And most people I know would happily let everyone live happily according to their own "cherry-picked", personalized code of ethics. As long as it was theirs, and applied only to their own conducts. If you feel like justifying harming yourself or restricting yourself or rewarding yourself any way you see fit, as long as it doesn't negatively impact anyone else, then go nuts. I think it becomes objectionable once those ideas are forcefully imposed on others. Hence my bit about marching for others' religious freedoms. And some form their moral code with a component that is outward driven, either as a judgement of others or as proselytization. Is that acceptable, or objectionable?
I'll step away from hypotheticals and focus on a concrete, if tepid, example that is going on right now, in my province. The government wants to enforce a charter of values that states that all employees of the state must dress neutrally, in order to promote a secular state. Never you mind the giant crucifix in the assembly chamber. Couldn't a statement establishing the secularity of the state (engrave it in stone if you must) have been enough? This comes with a unique set of circumstances because an increasing number of healthcare and pre-school workers are muslim women, a majority of which wear one form or another of the veil.
The day the sight of a veil is enough to convert someone to islam... oï vey. And as a result, there has been a wave of islamophobia in the province. Not even directed at healthcare workers, just random muslim women.
The general consensus out west is this is an attack on hijabs etc, disguised as secularism. It's institutionalised racism.
Back OT, surely the idea of highly advanced extra-terrestrials is more plausible then a supernatural omnipotent god. Surely?
Relapse wrote: As far as collective punishment goes, we are responsible for our own wrong doings, not Adam's.
Is that why women suffer when giving birth ?
You try passing a watermelon sized object. You'll learn real quick why women suffer!
That is not the reason given by Christianity . It is supposed to be about a talking snake and a magical fruit and all that.
.
It was neccesary for Adam and Eve to take the forbidden fruit. If they hadn't, they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no children. God was not cursing Eve, but letting her know what was to come.
sebster wrote: This thing where people try to criticize other people's moral codes by calling it 'making up rules' or 'picking what parts of your religion you like' is basically a waste of time. Because here's the thing - either you assume other people are honestly engaged in trying to find a set of ethics, or you assume they're engaged in a deceitful attempt to create a personal moral code that lets them do whatever they want.
If it's the former, then dismissing their efforts or trying to trap them by how you personally interpret their morals is a dickish thing to do. If it's the latter then they'll just weasel their way out with some more invented bs. So either way it's a waste of time.
Don't take this as me thinking that there's no point talking about ethics and morality - because I don't believe that at all. But that conversation is interesting and constructive when it's an honest attempt to learn about others, that starts with an assumption that other people are just as earnest in trying to be a good person as you are.
And most people I know would happily let everyone live happily according to their own "cherry-picked", personalized code of ethics. As long as it was theirs, and applied only to their own conducts. If you feel like justifying harming yourself or restricting yourself or rewarding yourself any way you see fit, as long as it doesn't negatively impact anyone else, then go nuts. I think it becomes objectionable once those ideas are forcefully imposed on others. Hence my bit about marching for others' religious freedoms. And some form their moral code with a component that is outward driven, either as a judgement of others or as proselytization. Is that acceptable, or objectionable?
I'll step away from hypotheticals and focus on a concrete, if tepid, example that is going on right now, in my province. The government wants to enforce a charter of values that states that all employees of the state must dress neutrally, in order to promote a secular state. Never you mind the giant crucifix in the assembly chamber. Couldn't a statement establishing the secularity of the state (engrave it in stone if you must) have been enough? This comes with a unique set of circumstances because an increasing number of healthcare and pre-school workers are muslim women, a majority of which wear one form or another of the veil.
The day the sight of a veil is enough to convert someone to islam... oï vey. And as a result, there has been a wave of islamophobia in the province. Not even directed at healthcare workers, just random muslim women.
The general consensus out west is this is an attack on hijabs etc, disguised as secularism. It's institutionalised racism.
Back OT, surely the idea of highly advanced extra-terrestrials is more plausible then a supernatural omnipotent god. Surely?
Good on you for realizing this. Now please explain this to the great majority of us.
Back OT as well. I dunno, I would think so, because you can somehow throw numbers about and work out vague probabilities.
Smacks wrote: Thanks Sebster, I actually exalted this because it's such a good point. I'm sure there are lots of times when I don't personally live up to my own standards, or when I realise that I need to change something. But that's half of the point... Admitting that your standards are flawed and human makes it possible to challenge them honestly, and make them better. If you convince yourself that your own personal standards come from God, then you have painted yourself into a corner when they require changing. You are left in the awkward situation where you either have to admit that they are human and flawed (in which case adhering to them at all becomes incidental), or you go on dogmatically believing the wrong thing. Occasionally you get the "reinterpretation" BS, like when creationists suddenly find dinosaurs in the Bible.
True, but I don't think that kind of self-satisfaction is common among all Christians or religious people, and nor is it exclusive to them - spend some time among the atheist left wing and you'll meet all kinds of people who are horribly self-satisfied about their own personal morals.
The other half of the point is that it isn't just about personal belief for your own life. The "God hates fags" people were definitely trying to impose their views on others. Oops sorry! I meant God's views. We see this happening on a whole range of issues, like gay marriage, evolution, and abortion. These people are incredibly self righteous doing 'the lords work'. So yes, I think we are allowed to call BS when we see them just ignoring and disregarding other parts,not only from the same Bible, but from the same passages that they use to attack others. If it's okay for them to trim their beard, braid their hair, have a round haircut and wear polyester, then why is it definitely not okay to be gay?
In my opinion even if they personally lived a 100% biblically pure life, they still wouldn't get to tell other people how they get to live. That's really the issue.
Not that opposition to homosexuality has any real, meaningful basis in the bible. Like hell, Christmas and lots of other stuff, its real place has been kind of added as part of the overall Christian zeitgeist over centuries, raised up in importance by the work of Christian leaders. At the same time, lots of other rules were dropped or forgotten about as culture changed. There was a time when slavery was believed by many Christians to have a strong biblical foundation - other Christians took up that fight and won, and in time the biblical basis for slavery has been quietly dropped to the point where few Christians will remember it anymore.
It's why trying to debate Christianity with specific verses from the Bible just doesn't work. The religion doesn't work that way. No religion does, really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I apologize. That was rude. Here being called a liar is a fighting offense and I'm too old a bird to fight.
Much, much kudos to Frazzled for posting this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mathieu Raymond wrote: And most people I know would happily let everyone live happily according to their own "cherry-picked", personalized code of ethics. As long as it was theirs, and applied only to their own conducts. If you feel like justifying harming yourself or restricting yourself or rewarding yourself any way you see fit, as long as it doesn't negatively impact anyone else, then go nuts. I think it becomes objectionable once those ideas are forcefully imposed on others. Hence my bit about marching for others' religious freedoms. And some form their moral code with a component that is outward driven, either as a judgement of others or as proselytization. Is that acceptable, or objectionable?
Acceptable... but not just acceptable - desirable. I have a fair bit of contempt for people who take their religion as a requirement to remain pure, that they have to avoid the dirty, ugly real world. Even if they are mistaken on a moral position, I have a lot more time for someone who's beliefs get them to engage in the world, try to make it a better place.
I'll step away from hypotheticals and focus on a concrete, if tepid, example that is going on right now, in my province. The government wants to enforce a charter of values that states that all employees of the state must dress neutrally, in order to promote a secular state. Never you mind the giant crucifix in the assembly chamber. Couldn't a statement establishing the secularity of the state (engrave it in stone if you must) have been enough? This comes with a unique set of circumstances because an increasing number of healthcare and pre-school workers are muslim women, a majority of which wear one form or another of the veil.
It's a good example and a good example of the way people try and dress up Islamaphobia as something else, in this case secularism. Probably worth it's own thread.
But it isn't really what I was talking about. To clarify - in fighting on that issue, do you think there is anything to be gained in telling people that your reading of their religion means they shouldn't be supporting the bill?
Mathieu Raymond wrote: Back OT as well. I dunno, I would think so, because you can somehow throw numbers about and work out vague probabilities.
Actually, you cannot work out any probabilities there. At least none with a sensible definition. Because the whole definition of probability relies on an event being reproducible, and we only have one earth.
So all we can get is actually how much we think one hypothesis is likely.
I am totally nitpicking here, but realizing this fact probability only work for reproducible event gave me a new outlook on some stuff, and it is something worth remembering when discussing religion because all this “What were the probabilities of precisely that happening ?” argument we sometime get from religious people.
Mathieu Raymond wrote: I'll step away from hypotheticals and focus on a concrete, if tepid, example that is going on right now, in my province. The government wants to enforce a charter of values that states that all employees of the state must dress neutrally, in order to promote a secular state. Never you mind the giant crucifix in the assembly chamber.
They are doing this wrong. We are doing it right. Here all employees of the state must dress neutrally, and we forbid giant crucifix in assembly chambers a long time ago !
It's why trying to debate Christianity with specific verses from the Bible just doesn't work. The religion doesn't work that way. No religion does, really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I apologize. That was rude. Here being called a liar is a fighting offense and I'm too old a bird to fight.
Much, much kudos to Frazzled for posting this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mathieu Raymond wrote: And most people I know would happily let everyone live happily according to their own "cherry-picked", personalized code of ethics. As long as it was theirs, and applied only to their own conducts. If you feel like justifying harming yourself or restricting yourself or rewarding yourself any way you see fit, as long as it doesn't negatively impact anyone else, then go nuts. I think it becomes objectionable once those ideas are forcefully imposed on others. Hence my bit about marching for others' religious freedoms. And some form their moral code with a component that is outward driven, either as a judgement of others or as proselytization. Is that acceptable, or objectionable?
Acceptable... but not just acceptable - desirable. I have a fair bit of contempt for people who take their religion as a requirement to remain pure, that they have to avoid the dirty, ugly real world. Even if they are mistaken on a moral position, I have a lot more time for someone who's beliefs get them to engage in the world, try to make it a better place.
I'll step away from hypotheticals and focus on a concrete, if tepid, example that is going on right now, in my province. The government wants to enforce a charter of values that states that all employees of the state must dress neutrally, in order to promote a secular state. Never you mind the giant crucifix in the assembly chamber. Couldn't a statement establishing the secularity of the state (engrave it in stone if you must) have been enough? This comes with a unique set of circumstances because an increasing number of healthcare and pre-school workers are muslim women, a majority of which wear one form or another of the veil.
It's a good example and a good example of the way people try and dress up Islamaphobia as something else, in this case secularism. Probably worth it's own thread.
But it isn't really what I was talking about. To clarify - in fighting on that issue, do you think there is anything to be gained in telling people that your reading of their religion means they shouldn't be supporting the bill?
Regarding the specific verses argumentation, it is often what I see used to justify intervening in other people's lives, unfortunately. This is what I meant by proselytization, sorry if I used the wrong word. In French we'd say ingérence. Their standard of purity gets applied not only to their selves (and we don't usually fault germophobes for their actions, as long as they control only their own behaviour) but they want to make sure everyone else lives by them. This, in turn, fuels a lot of the islamaphobia in my example, by the way.
To answer you (and this very reply took me all day to write at work...) directly, no, I don't think adding another interpretation does anything to further the debate. Even for people who clearly interpret but insist they don't. As an aside, though, whenever this comes up, interpretation, the stock answer I often get is that "well those people are fundies, I'm clearly not like that." As if, and again this is purely a local anecdotal experience, only the bloody 'muricans did crazy things.
Mathieu Raymond wrote: Regarding the specific verses argumentation, it is often what I see used to justify intervening in other people's lives, unfortunately. This is what I meant by proselytization, sorry if I used the wrong word. In French we'd say ingérence. Their standard of purity gets applied not only to their selves (and we don't usually fault germophobes for their actions, as long as they control only their own behaviour) but they want to make sure everyone else lives by them. This, in turn, fuels a lot of the islamaphobia in my example, by the way.
Yeah, that's a good distinction and one I tried to get at with my comment about purity. But yeah, people who set up a rigid set of rules and not only live by themselves but try and put them on others are a problem. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, in my opinion, it isn't even the part about trying to get others to live by them that is the issue, but the part where they think that living by a series of 'thou shall not' rules that is the real issue.
As if, to use your example of the germophobe, a person thinks that if they wash their hands ten times a day and never use public toilets then they are a good person who should go to bed happy each night... despite the fact they've not helped anyone else get through their own days.
The portion of the religious community that thinks that just following the list of stupid, random rules like 'no sex before marriage' and 'don't take the Lord's name in vain' are what matters are the problem, they might be more of a problem when they try to enforce those rules on the rest of us, but that doesn't mean the ones who just keep those laws to their own family aren't a problem.
Religious people who go out, work in a soup kitchen or anything like that... well I give those people a fair bit of leeway when it comes to spreading their faith.
They can talk about it at the soup kitchen all the want, I agree. Actually, by talking less and acting more, they'd be in a better position to spread the faith, imho.
I agree with your comment about "the list of dos and don'ts," but I'm not into thinking I should be the one forcing them to abandon the list or looking only at their own selves.
I've always been more of a pluralist, and I refuse to rank my moral principles in advance. Sure, it makes snap judgements harder, but I find that engaging with the situation tends to make for less optimal decisions for me, but much better for all involved.
Except that gakker who stole 100$ from my store last week. Religion or not, he's a gakker.*
*Not related to religion at all, just needed to vent.
Mathieu Raymond wrote: They can talk about it at the soup kitchen all the want, I agree. Actually, by talking less and acting more, they'd be in a better position to spread the faith, imho.
I've always like that line that the best way to spread the faith is not to talk about being Christian, but to be Christian. Do good works and embrace people on the margins, for its own sake. When some people see the example and convert to the faith, then that's a good thing, but it shouldn't be the reason to do that good work.
I've always been more of a pluralist, and I refuse to rank my moral principles in advance. Sure, it makes snap judgements harder, but I find that engaging with the situation tends to make for less optimal decisions for me, but much better for all involved.
I think that's probably the only practical way of doing things.
.
.
Of course, if secularism becomes dogmatic, and it can, as it is becoming here in Quebec at the moment, then it can be just as bad.
?
