The anger to the Paris attacks is understandable, but this is NOT the way to handle it.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The anger to the Paris attacks is understandable, but this is NOT the way to handle it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 It's a given that stuff

 It's a given that stuff like this would happen. Look at 9/11 and how any person wearing a piece of cloth on their noggin was instantly called a Muslim


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4109
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

 

                                                                        It's Bush's fault.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

                                                                        It's Bush's fault.

Funny. The person who was arguing with me about Canada's laws blamed Obama.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Watching news 8AM Friday

 Watching news 8AM Friday 1/9...........Two stories going on in France at the same time. Authorities think they have the two assholes who murdered the employees of Charlie surrounded. But there is also another asshole who has taken hostages at a Jewish supermarket.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote: It's

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 It's a given that stuff like this would happen. Look at 9/11 and how any person wearing a piece of cloth on their noggin was instantly called a Muslim

Back then right after

that happened, some right wing Christian assholes murdered a Sikh mistaking him for a Muslim.

And shortly after 9/11 I ran into a Muslim woman in full dress. Holy fuck was she scared when I walked up to her. I merely told here that sane people do not blame all Muslims. 

 

NOW again, the cries of hypocracy by my "DETRACTORS" is going to pop up. 

There is a huge difference between hating all religious people, and hating the fact that humans of all religions fail to see it as divisive and also fail to see it as the mere gap filling placebo it is in reality.

 

Penn put it best "Don't hate the faithful, hate faith itself"..........Meaning the blind acceptance it is without questiong/.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13070
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
^ Brian continues to make up

^ Brian continues to make up strawman arguments....

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:^ Brian

Vastet wrote:
^ Brian continues to make up strawman arguments....

Translation, "I will use buzz words and fake philosophy to sound correct"

 

Just admit you don't like my tactics. 

 

"Religion is poison" is not an indcictment of human rights. It is a statement of fact. It allows humans to set up divisions and hide behind them in order to avoid chritisism. It is no diffrent than saying "Yes that volcano is dormant now, but it is still a volcano".

And the fact you focus on my arguments instead of the violent fucks who murdered in the name of a god over a cartoon is proving my point. Thank you for giving them cover.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
you don't HAVE tactics,

you don't HAVE tactics, brian. venting your spleen on the internet is not a "tactic." and no, i would never accuse you of being hypocritical for condemning violence on either side of this conflict, because i've NEVER accused you of endorsing violence or force of any kind. EVER. that is self-evident in every comment i've ever made here.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
and why shouldn't vastet

and why shouldn't vastet "focus on your arguments"? you made a shitty argument, the latest of many. should we all forget about that because something terrible has happened?


oh, and just what is "fake philosophy"? i find it laughable you would challenge the authenticity of anyone's "philosophy." obviously you know nothing about philosophy or you would realize what an asinine term "fake philosophy" is.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It is a

Brian37 wrote:
It is a statement of fact.



no, it isn't.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
It is a statement of fact.

no, it isn't.

So Sunnis don't kill Shiites, Muslims don't kill Christians, Christians don't shoot abortion doctors? Protestents never killed Catholics. White Christians never killed blacks or gays? All that is in my head. 

You are an idiot. You have no clue how much of a part of the problem you are.

 

Religion will ALWAYS divide humans, and unless you face that you will not manage that reality to a better degree. Political correctness is bullshit and does nothing but lend cover to the worst in ALL religions. 

Religion will happen, but religion itself must always be treated as dangerous, not to get rid of peaceful people, it must be treated as dangerous to protect everyone, including peaceful people. The peaceful people of all religions still use the same books as those who are violent and use those same books. That is the failure of moderates and liberals and that is what allows violence to arise. 

Your schoolyard "don't be a bully" crap does not wash. You enable the violent bullies of all religions with your stupid argument. I can smell Ben Aflack's ass on your lips.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
This is the type of

This is the type of individual you hurt with your well intended bullshit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl641IFO10g

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:iwbiek

Brian37 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
It is a statement of fact.

no, it isn't.

So Sunnis don't kill Shiites, Muslims don't kill Christians, Christians don't shoot abortion doctors? Protestents never killed Catholics. White Christians never killed blacks or gays? All that is in my head.




yes, they do. but that doesn't change what constitutes a "fact," and "religion is poison" is not a "statement of fact." never will be. never can be.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
and my argument is not


and my argument is not "don't be a bully." it's "don't be fucking stupid." you're failing at that.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Brian is dead on though,

 Brian is dead on though, throwing little homemade grenades at empty buildings is NOT the way to handle it. They didn't even manage to kill a single rag head. 

Some things, America is just better at. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4109
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Funny.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Funny. The person who was arguing with me about Canada's laws blamed Obama.

 

                                                       It's Obama's fault.    ( I saw it on Faux News® )

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3768
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Just flood your country with

Just flood your country with a many immigrants as you can. Got to keep those population pressures as high as possible then be shocked when conflicts and violence breaks out. As the USA goes the way of France:

 

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/010815-733901-america-ushers-in-islamic-immigrants-while-france-pulls-up-welcome-mat.htm

 

Religion is just diversion from the real problem.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 It's a given that stuff like this would happen. Look at 9/11 and how any person wearing a piece of cloth on their noggin was instantly called a Muslim

Back then right after

that happened, some right wing Christian assholes murdered a Sikh mistaking him for a Muslim.

And shortly after 9/11 I ran into a Muslim woman in full dress. Holy fuck was she scared when I walked up to her. I merely told here that sane people do not blame all Muslims. 

 

NOW again, the cries of hypocracy by my "DETRACTORS" is going to pop up. 

There is a huge difference between hating all religious people, and hating the fact that humans of all religions fail to see it as divisive and also fail to see it as the mere gap filling placebo it is in reality.

 

Penn put it best "Don't hate the faithful, hate faith itself"..........Meaning the blind acceptance it is without questiong/.

I'm confused. What is your point? Can you keep it under four sentences?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Reigion IS poison

Here is how I see it: 

God is a creation of the mind of Man.

The belief in a God allows the believer to justify any act which can be interpreted as endorsed by their personal interpretation of whatever text they believe is the 'word' of that god, regardless of errors of logic or fact that that interpretation may contain. So it is a very flimsy basis for such beliefs and any implied morality. We see one consequence of this in the many conflicts between different groups of religious believers around the world. The nastiest aspect of this is how it allows the believers to wrap any accepted traditions and customs within their particular culture in the authority of religion, with little or no serious justification.

Since religions do not rely on rigorous demonstration of the truth of their claims, but typically use what in a general scientific or philosophical context would be called 'special pleading', their 'arguments' start from the naked assumption of the truth of their central doctrines, such as the existence of their particular deity, so literally 'anything goes', whether people outside the tradition would regard it as good or evil. This is why Christopher Hitchens called Religion 'poison' - anything from the extremes of good or evil can be incorporated into a religion, logic and reason and evidence can be utterly ignored if it suits the believer.

Once the doctrines have been passed on a few times, the actual thinking which led to the doctrines is soon forgotten, and they are seen as ultimately originating in the religion itself, endorsed by whatever spritual or divine authority is regarded as the ultimate grounds of the belief system.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
precisely, bob. "how you

precisely, bob. "how you see it." just don't call "how you see it" a "statement of fact."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Here is how

BobSpence wrote:

Here is how I see it: 

God is a creation of the mind of Man.

The belief in a God allows the believer to justify any act which can be interpreted as endorsed by their personal interpretation of whatever text they believe is the 'word' of that god, regardless of errors of logic or fact that that interpretation may contain. So it is a very flimsy basis for such beliefs and any implied morality. We see one consequence of this in the many conflicts between different groups of religious believers around the world. The nastiest aspect of this is how it allows the believers to wrap any accepted traditions and customs within their particular culture in the authority of religion, with little or no serious justification.

Since religions do not rely on rigorous demonstration of the truth of their claims, but typically use what in a general scientific or philosophical context would be called 'special pleading', their 'arguments' start from the naked assumption of the truth of their central doctrines, such as the existence of their particular deity, so literally 'anything goes', whether people outside the tradition would regard it as good or evil. This is why Christopher Hitchens called Religion 'poison' - anything from the extremes of good or evil can be incorporated into a religion, logic and reason and evidence can be utterly ignored if it suits the believer.

Once the doctrines have been passed on a few times, the actual thinking which led to the doctrines is soon forgotten, and they are seen as ultimately originating in the religion itself, endorsed by whatever spritual or divine authority is regarded as the ultimate grounds of the belief system.




while a lot of this is useful in a general sense, i certainly hope you of all people realize how oversimplified it is. for example, a lot of what you've said does not apply to a great many south asian religious traditions. also i suspect this is the case for many east asian religions, confucianism in particular, but i haven't studied east asian religions as rigorously as i have south asian, so i'll refrain from speaking about them. i've pointed this out with examples countless times on this site over the last couple of years, but if you're genuinely interested in the details i will outline them yet again.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13070
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Vastet wrote:^

Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
^ Brian continues to make up strawman arguments....

Translation, "I will use buzz words and fake philosophy to sound correct"

 

Just admit you don't like my tactics. 

 

"Religion is poison" is not an indcictment of human rights. It is a statement of fact. It allows humans to set up divisions and hide behind them in order to avoid chritisism. It is no diffrent than saying "Yes that volcano is dormant now, but it is still a volcano".

And the fact you focus on my arguments instead of the violent fucks who murdered in the name of a god over a cartoon is proving my point. Thank you for giving them cover.

 Translation fail. Don't quit your day job. If you have one.

 

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
last i heard, he doesn't,

last i heard, he doesn't, and of course that's everyone's fault but his.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:last i heard,

iwbiek wrote:
last i heard, he doesn't, and of course that's everyone's fault but his.

It's the system, run by corrupt evil people like Beyond Saving. 

Just imagine a stack of dollar bills smacking a human face.........forever.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:BobSpence

iwbiek wrote:
BobSpence wrote:

Here is how I see it: 

God is a creation of the mind of Man.

The belief in a God allows the believer to justify any act which can be interpreted as endorsed by their personal interpretation of whatever text they believe is the 'word' of that god, regardless of errors of logic or fact that that interpretation may contain. So it is a very flimsy basis for such beliefs and any implied morality. We see one consequence of this in the many conflicts between different groups of religious believers around the world. The nastiest aspect of this is how it allows the believers to wrap any accepted traditions and customs within their particular culture in the authority of religion, with little or no serious justification.

Since religions do not rely on rigorous demonstration of the truth of their claims, but typically use what in a general scientific or philosophical context would be called 'special pleading', their 'arguments' start from the naked assumption of the truth of their central doctrines, such as the existence of their particular deity, so literally 'anything goes', whether people outside the tradition would regard it as good or evil. This is why Christopher Hitchens called Religion 'poison' - anything from the extremes of good or evil can be incorporated into a religion, logic and reason and evidence can be utterly ignored if it suits the believer.

Once the doctrines have been passed on a few times, the actual thinking which led to the doctrines is soon forgotten, and they are seen as ultimately originating in the religion itself, endorsed by whatever spritual or divine authority is regarded as the ultimate grounds of the belief system.


while a lot of this is useful in a general sense, i certainly hope you of all people realize how oversimplified it is. for example, a lot of what you've said does not apply to a great many south asian religious traditions. also i suspect this is the case for many east asian religions, confucianism in particular, but i haven't studied east asian religions as rigorously as i have south asian, so i'll refrain from speaking about them. i've pointed this out with examples countless times on this site over the last couple of years, but if you're genuinely interested in the details i will outline them yet again.

Are you saying it does not apply because they they do not specifically have a belief in a god figure? 

Because as long as they have some text they regard as 'holy' (or equivalent), or some figure whose words are venerated, what I said still pretty much applies, AFAICS. 

I would be genuinely interested in a discussion on this.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Because as

BobSpence wrote:
Because as long as they have some text they regard as 'holy' (or equivalent), or some figure whose words are venerated, what I said still pretty much applies, AFAICS.



many indian traditions that are typically grouped under the umbrella of "hinduism" have neither. hindu religions are neither prophetic, nor do they claim a founder, nor do they have a "sacred text." the only text that counts in most hindu traditions is mantra, which is not a cognitive discourse but a series of sacred sounds to be chanted that are often literally meaningless. meaningless or not, they are certainly not to be "expounded upon" as is the bible or quran. mantra is usually different for different people. hindu religions are overwhelmingly orthopractic.


the majority of hindus do not ascribe any sort of objective reality to the ishvara or personal god they choose to venerate, in the sense the abrahamic religions do to their god. not all hindus by any means venerate any god. there are schools of thought within hinduism, the most prominent being sankhya and purva mimamsa, that are explicitly strong atheistic. not all hindu religions teach the "caste system." not all hindu religions teach reincarnation. not all hindu religions recognize the authority of the vedas.


hindus are, of course, as capable of violence and irrationality as you or i, but very rarely, in a group of religions with 1 billion+ followers, will you hear any of them screaming "glory to krishna" as they kill someone, or justifying it with "proof texts" from the vedas or puranas. for one thing, hinduism has never made any attempt to export itself. now, if people taking part in rituals you see no utility in, or listening with reverence to stories that don't jive with modern science (and were never meant to be taken as historical fact anyway), rubs you the wrong way, just say so. my whole point is, if you cannot apply what you consider the fundamental elements of a religion (gods, holy books, infallible founders, prophets, etc.) to every religion, if things are more diverse than you realized, don't you ever stop to think (i know brian doesn't, but i'm asking you) that maybe you might need to reappraise a few things? don't you ever suspect that perhaps a phenomenon as massive as religion can't be summed up in a few dismissive sentences so cavalierly?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3768
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Here is how

BobSpence wrote:

Here is how I see it: 

God is a creation of the mind of Man.

The belief in a God allows the believer to justify any act which can be interpreted as endorsed by their personal interpretation of whatever text they believe is the 'word' of that god, regardless of errors of logic or fact that that interpretation may contain. So it is a very flimsy basis for such beliefs and any implied morality. We see one consequence of this in the many conflicts between different groups of religious believers around the world. The nastiest aspect of this is how it allows the believers to wrap any accepted traditions and customs within their particular culture in the authority of religion, with little or no serious justification.

Since religions do not rely on rigorous demonstration of the truth of their claims, but typically use what in a general scientific or philosophical context would be called 'special pleading', their 'arguments' start from the naked assumption of the truth of their central doctrines, such as the existence of their particular deity, so literally 'anything goes', whether people outside the tradition would regard it as good or evil. This is why Christopher Hitchens called Religion 'poison' - anything from the extremes of good or evil can be incorporated into a religion, logic and reason and evidence can be utterly ignored if it suits the believer.

Once the doctrines have been passed on a few times, the actual thinking which led to the doctrines is soon forgotten, and they are seen as ultimately originating in the religion itself, endorsed by whatever spritual or divine authority is regarded as the ultimate grounds of the belief system.

The 'Prophet Muhammed' is really just a cultural and ethic symbol. I doubt these "believers" really new much about the Koran or what they believed and why the "believed" it. They felt they were part of a persecuted minority group with little economic prospects or political power.

The same thing could happen in the USA to someone that went around burning the flag(assination by ultra-patriots). Would you then say patriotism is poison?

Religion(and ultra-patriotism) is just a response to the real problem(population pressures), but not a root cause.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:BobSpence

iwbiek wrote:
BobSpence wrote:
Because as long as they have some text they regard as 'holy' (or equivalent), or some figure whose words are venerated, what I said still pretty much applies, AFAICS.

many indian traditions that are typically grouped under the umbrella of "hinduism" have neither. hindu religions are neither prophetic, nor do they claim a founder, nor do they have a "sacred text." the only text that counts in most hindu traditions is mantra, which is not a cognitive discourse but a series of sacred sounds to be chanted that are often literally meaningless. meaningless or not, they are certainly not to be "expounded upon" as is the bible or quran. mantra is usually different for different people. hindu religions are overwhelmingly orthopractic.
the majority of hindus do not ascribe any sort of objective reality to the ishvara or personal god they choose to venerate, in the sense the abrahamic religions do to their god. not all hindus by any means venerate any god. there are schools of thought within hinduism, the most prominent being sankhya and purva mimamsa, that are explicitly strong atheistic. not all hindu religions teach the "caste system." not all hindu religions teach reincarnation. not all hindu religions recognize the authority of the vedas.
hindus are, of course, as capable of violence and irrationality as you or i, but very rarely, in a group of religions with 1 billion+ followers, will you hear any of them screaming "glory to krishna" as they kill someone, or justifying it with "proof texts" from the vedas or puranas. for one thing, hinduism has never made any attempt to export itself. now, if people taking part in rituals you see no utility in, or listening with reverence to stories that don't jive with modern science (and were never meant to be taken as historical fact anyway), rubs you the wrong way, just say so. my whole point is, if you cannot apply what you consider the fundamental elements of a religion (gods, holy books, infallible founders, prophets, etc.) to every religion, if things are more diverse than you realized, don't you ever stop to think (i know brian doesn't, but i'm asking you) that maybe you might need to reappraise a few things? don't you ever suspect that perhaps a phenomenon as massive as religion can't be summed up in a few dismissive sentences so cavalierly?

Thanks for the response.

A few quick comments:

I do not necessarily consider "gods, holy books, infallible founders, prophets, etc" as THE fundamental aspects of every religion, at least as they are manifested in the Abrahamic traditions. I will certainly acknowledge that when looking at a wider spectrum of what we might consider referring to as 'religions', the details may obviously have to be more flexibly defined. Which brings up the fundamental question, just what counts as a 'religious' tradition, or belief, or group of practices, rituals, whatever.

As well as the question of what maintains a consistent thread holding a particular tradition together through history, insofar as there is such a thing.

My initial thoughts are that what you describe still embraces much of what I see in the Abrahamic faiths, but organized and structured somewhat differently.

I will do some more research into this, so I may not get back to this for a day or two...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
fair enough, but when we

fair enough, but when we play the blame religion game here it often ends up something like "6 degrees of kevin bacon," e.g. (hypothetically) a group of marathi-speaking hindus in a certain area of mumbai kill several urdu-speaking muslims because they heard that the muslims are trying to enforce the speaking of urdu at primary schools in that area, which hindu students also attend. this is exacerbated by the known fact that urdu-speaking merchants dominate at the local market, and will invariably charge someone more if they hear him speaking marathi. the guns used to kill these muslims were provided by the rashtriya swayamsevak sangh, a well known indian nationalist organization which also takes a certain synthetic form of "hinduism" (what india scholar romila thapar would call "syndicatd hinduism") as part of its criteria for what constitutes a true indian. where does the fault for the violence lie? linguistic differences, economic underhandedness, the idea of cultural purity, the ideology of nationalism, or religion? my point is, religion is such a pervasive phenomenon, of course it's going to be incidentally connected to almost everything.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
New Charlie Hebdo cover. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare