|
U-Know! Forum » Blasphemy law abolished |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
handofdave 3515 posts |
Edited Mar 10, 2008, 14:02
Mar 10, 2008, 14:00
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "And WHY do some lump all religions together into one undifferentiated target of derision? That's intellectually lazy. The world isn't black and white. " I don't agree. It's ever so black and white and not even slightly gray. Either you believe there's an intelligent directing force with whom we can or need to interact, or you don't. Ergo, as someone who doesn't believe I have to think that all those who DO believe, be they cleverer and nicer than me or not are deluded and/or mistaken. And if their convoluted belief systems lead them to act beyond the simple religious precept Love Thy Neighbour I'm liable to say rather more than they're deluded and mistaken - as Mr Cope has. He seems a fine chap to me. A lot less harmful than anyone that gets their sense of what's right out of the small print of a holy book. I think you are trying to oversimplify a very complex issue. The world is "ever so black and white and not even slightly gray"? Wow... that's exactly how the fundies think. As for Cope, I don't fault him for decrying the damage done by monotheism. But what do you say about his affirmative opinions of shamanism, for example? That is an example of 'interacting with a intelligent force', is it not? How do you KNOW that there is no God? You have no empirical evidence of that. It's just as ridiculous to dismiss the possibility altogether as it is to embrace it with detailed certainty. Robert Anton Wilson's 'Maybe' logic is a completely appropriate response to that question. What is the problem with admitting you don't know for sure? Are you afraid you are conceding to some 'enemy'? Perhaps this brash certainty is armor you wear in fear of the brash certainty of certain religious believers? I find absolutist hostility towards religious people just as distasteful as the absolutist hostility of religious people towards us. If you do believe in 'Love thy Neighbor', as you claim, then you must extend that to people who may disagree with you.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 10, 2008, 14:03
|
||
|
"As for the original message of this thread, about time I say." Absolutely! With that on the statute book how can we condemn the reaction to the cartoon of the prophet? I think the last time it was invoked was here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/11/newsid_2499000/2499721.stm She was a neighbour of mine and I knew her very well. Scarily, if you kept off sensitive subjects she was normal and charming. If you didn't she was as mad as a box of frogs. I guess it's the same with mad mullahs. Which kinda proves religious conviction is shite and harmful! ;)
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Mar 10, 2008, 14:22
|
||
|
Yes, in reference to the original post, yes, yes, yes. I wasn't raised religious and my wife and I didn't raise our daughter to be either. She does have a sound moral sensibility (better than mine). I wonder how much hostility towards religion is a reaction to bad experiences with it? I can see how being abused under the auspices of religion could provoke a strongly negative reaction to it. But even under those circumstances, to put a blanket condemnation on the entire subject of religion is prejudicial. We do shape our kids for better or worse. The ORIGINAL intent of religion (not spirituality) was to codify moral and social law. I doubt anyone here disagrees that 'thou shalt not steal or kill' is essential to a community's well being, or to an individual's, for that matter. That it has been twisted and corrupted to serve exploitive powers is not central to the 'why' of religion. Should we be fighting religious extremism? Absolutely. Should we be keeping religion and state separate? Absolutely. Should we be 'at war' with religion AS A WHOLE? No. That's a dismally extremist position and one I can not respect, as it only replaces absolutist belief in God with absolutist disbelief in God. Both camps are merely reacting TO EACH OTHER- neither is correct.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 10, 2008, 14:23
|
||
|
"What is the problem with admitting you don't know for sure?" I don't think I expressed certainty, only a belief, which is all any of us has about anything. "Perhaps this brash certainty is armor you wear in fear of the brash certainty of certain religious believers?" Nah lad. I'm too old to be afeared of anyone. I'll know who's right soon enough. Or not, as I strongly suspect. ;)
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Mar 10, 2008, 14:30
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: She was a neighbour of mine and I knew her very well. Scarily, if you kept off sensitive subjects she was normal and charming. If you didn't she was as mad as a box of frogs. I guess it's the same with mad mullahs. Which kinda proves religious conviction is shite and harmful! ;) No, it proves that she, and the Mad Mullahs, have harmful convictions. SOME religious convictions are shite and harmful (absolutism, exclusivity, thinking all scripture is literal truth, etc) SOME religious convictions are beautiful (Brotherly love, compassion, taking a stand against evil in the form of human bondage, etc)
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 10, 2008, 14:41
|
||
|
"SOME religious convictions are beautiful (Brotherly love, compassion, taking a stand against evil in the form of human bondage, etc)" Not sure those are purely religious in origin. They've been well known in my irreligious family for generations and we've stuck to them about as closely as the average believer does. In addition we've taken to other standards of behaviour - the Highway Code and Netiquette for instance, things about which the Almighty seems rather ill-equipped to guide us. Could this be evidence that Man ought to think for himself not rely on the unproven Supernatural?
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Mar 10, 2008, 14:51
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "What is the problem with admitting you don't know for sure?" I don't think I expressed certainty, only a belief, which is all any of us has about anything. Well, then! If you really do believe that 'all we have is belief', then what makes you right and religious believers wrong? All you are doing is admitting that you are arriving at conclusions based on opinion! Your argument that anyone who believes in God is wrongheaded is therefore no better than a religious person calling you wrongheaded for NOT believing! All it achieves is rancor and bickering and takes nobody closer to a better world. Judging religion based on its belief in a God (or gods) is pointless. It contributes nothing to the debate in a wider context. Judging religions based on their actions and how they affect the world is totally legitimate. By that criteria, you can't split the world neatly into black and white. It just doesn't work by the rules of logical analysis, or even fairness.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Edited Mar 10, 2008, 15:04
Mar 10, 2008, 15:00
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "SOME religious convictions are beautiful (Brotherly love, compassion, taking a stand against evil in the form of human bondage, etc)" Not sure those are purely religious in origin. They've been well known in my irreligious family for generations and we've stuck to them about as closely as the average believer does. Those convictions may or may not have their origin in religion... but they were codified within religion. Our culture today is the product of yesterday's world, and yesterday's world had religion at it's core. So perhaps it's become so ingrained into our thinking that we think it's always been this way- but it hasn't. Humanity springs from the natural world, and the law of the jungle was once the benchmark. So somewhere along the line we developed codes of behavior that supersede our animal instincts. nigelswift wrote: In addition we've taken to other standards of behaviour - the Highway Code and Netiquette for instance, things about which the Almighty seems rather ill-equipped to guide us. Could this be evidence that Man ought to think for himself not rely on the unproven Supernatural? I never said that human beings cannot govern themselves without a belief in God. I'm just questioning the position that belief in God is tantamount to being an idiot. There are much, much smarter people than you or I who are believers.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Mar 10, 2008, 15:02
|
||
|
The vast majority of the planet claims religious affiliation to one faith or another. Are we saying that most people on the planet are wrongheaded? (I grant you it's possible). I wouldn't go as far as saying most people on the planet are wrongheaded (religions have served a purpose) but what I would say is that when you look at the countless religions that have fallen away over the last few thousand years you're forced to ask yourself why that should be. Didn't the gods and goddesses of those religions live up to expectations or was it just society creating them in their own image and, as society changed, so did its deities. Were people wrongheaded to follow those lost religions or was it that they simply had no choice - they could not disbelieve. Less than a hundred years ago for example two Far Eastern countries, with populations of millions, believed in the divine origin of their emperors. In less than a 100 years that belief system has been swept away! Four or five hundred years ago the peoples of South America had pantheons on which great civilizations and wonderful cultures were built - where are they now? And further back in time, and in other parts of the world, the same was equally true. The religions of the Near and Middle East, those of ancient Greece and Rome, the Celtic and Germanic worlds, the varied indigenous religions of Africa, India, Tibet and South-East Asia - where are those religions now? All gone. What we are left with are four religions (actually only two major religions as the three monotheistic religions worship the same deity). Only Hinduism is fundamentally different and Buddhism is not a religion (but if we're going to get going on that one we better start a new thread :-) You're quite right to say that the vast majority of the planet claims (and has claimed) religious affiliation to one faith or another but where are those multitude of faiths now? Should that not be a lesson to us, that religious belief really is rather transient - something that has helped get us to where we are but which has, to all intents, now served its purpose.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 10, 2008, 15:05
|
||
|
"Well, then! If you really do believe that 'all we have is belief', then what makes you right and religious believers wrong? All you are doing is admitting that you are arriving at conclusions based on opinion!" Well, as I said nothing is for sure. But it's my personal "belief" that God and fairies occupy the same box, marked "Come off it!" (Do YOU believe in fairies? Bet you don't. So why are you giving me a hard time for saying God is just a fairy story?)
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
