I just saw this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts2936).
Apparently an American atheist group made a billboard reading "One Nation Indivisible", which is how the US Pledge of Allegiance originally read. The Knights of Columbus (a Catholic Group) somehow managed to have the words "under God" installed between "nation" and "indivisible" in 1954. Some (http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/CommentaryToo/1002.html) are trying to have that reversed, and personally I'm with them, since I support the separation of church and state.
Well, someone defaced the sign by adding the new line "under God". I'm sorry to say I'll bet they're not doing anything to catch the offenders.
North Carolina is slowly moving forward but it will take a while, therefore it isn't surprising, not the incident nor the attitude from the police.
Logic suggests that cameras should be guarding the billboards so that the next time there is evidence of the defacement and the police will be forced to act.
Hey, it could be worse, it could be South Carolina...
How about "One Nation Under the Invisible"? ;)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ocMQSqVjweA/SGYEckQ91aI/AAAAAAAAAXI/BsrXbttLo4E/s400/FACEPALM.jpg)
One nation indivisible?
So was that written before or after the civil war?
Attempts to divide state and religion never seems to prove very effective. I guess because politicians love to use religious dogma to futher support for their campaigns and priests love to use political policy to futher their religious dogmas
Quote from: Ageis on October 16, 2010, 08:00:13 PM
Attempts to divide state and religion never seems to prove very effective.
We've done it pretty well in the UK. Enough to annoy the Pope on his recent visit.
Our politicians never bring G-d into anything. The most they do is attend religious ceremonies to mourn the famous dead or Royal marriages etc.
The fact that other countries aren't like this bemuses me.
Yes - on atheist forums I've seen Americans condemn the UK for having bishops in the House of Lords and for having an established church. I've always pointed out that this is little more than redundant tradition. The USA has In God We Trust as a motto and on its coins - the vaunted separation of religion and state has been greatly weakened since independence.
To my mind, the acid test is this: in England few politicians mention religion, and those that do take a lot of flak for it, whereas in the USA it is virtually impossible for a declared atheist to be elected to any public office.
You're quite right about this.
We have a lot of atheists in the USA, but the struggle is with the middle states, where most people are farmers, an occupation that relies on the mercy of nature, which makes for more of a religious attitude, I think. We are reluctant to mess with the fierce beliefs of these people because what they do feeds the rest of us. Even though most see it as a little old-fashioned, I think we are trying to respect their way of life. I don't know whether they respect ours, but that's something we all need to work on.
I suspect it has more to do with them outnumbering nonbelievers and the fact that they will scream if religion isn't mentioned in every third paragraph. Or, at least in many cases.
Quote from: Sibling DavidH on October 16, 2010, 09:09:11 PM
To my mind, the acid test is this: in England few politicians mention religion, and those that do take a lot of flak for it, whereas in the USA it is virtually impossible for a declared atheist to be elected to any public office.
Yep. There was an Elizabeth Dole ad a few years ago, castigating her opponent for
consorting with and receiving support (http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/03/elizabeth-dole-campaign-postmortem.html) from atheists.
Well our recently elected Prime Minister is a declared atheist and thatfact did not figure at all that I could see in the election campaign. No doubt some in the looney end of the ultra consevative right worked themselves into a lather about it, but they were never going to vote for her anyway since she is in the Labor party. Also they would not have gotten any traction amongst average Aussies since most of us have a major distrust of those who seek to mix religion and politics.
BTW, I didn't vote for her, but that had nothing to do with her being a fellow atheist. It astonishes me when people who avow a credo of liberty then turn around and deny what may well be the mosy important freedom, that of freedom of personal belief. I am dismayed at the demonisation of atheists, muslims and any one else who does not subscribe to the prevailing orthodoxy.
I do not have a solution for this problem. I wish I did because it seems to be the cause of much of the evil we see in the world. How do we deal with these people without destroying the very freedoms these people abuse?
It seems to me that education is the only solution. Perhaps we need to ensure the all schools are acredited and teach an approved curiculum, with a greater emphasis on science, logic and rational argument. It scares me how poorly so many people understand some of the most basic scientific principles and how pervasive some of the pseudo "science" is becoming - just look at the so-called Intelligent Design movement.
Well, I suppose it's time to get off my soap box...
Kennedy had to permanently apologize for being a Roman Catholic and assure everyone that he was no the pope's serf and lickspittle.
Kerry (unsuccessfully) had to fight off attacks that he was unsufficiently Catholic because of his pro-choice views (there were US bishops that declared voting for him a sin that had to be confessed before communion).
Obama is a target of constant (mutually exclusive*) attacks for his faith (atheist, Muslim, wrong type of Christian, the Anti-Christ, the Anti-Christ's herald/precursor, iirc even Hindu).
*well unless one believes that Islam is no religion. Then atheist Muslim fake Christian could make sense
It's my belief that in a rational society the views of any person known to be religious should be discounted in any political discussion whatever.
Today on the BBC Radio4 'Today' programme (considered the most influential political program on radio here and maybe on all media) we had Christina Odone plugging her new book opposing assisted dying. She never once mentioned religion, relying instead on the weak "thin end of the wedge" argument. But we know she's a fervent Catholic - she was editor of the Catholic Herald - and it's therefore a fair assumption that her prejudices are based on her religion. She kept quiet about that because it would have weakened her credibility on 'Today'. Simply, rank dishonesty.
And this happens all the time here in debates on euthanasia, abortion, stem-cell research and so on. The faith-heads know that in Europe their religious views will be mocked by many - probably by a good majority - so they keep stumm and rely on rational arguments alone in public. We know what really motivates them and their media appearances should be accompanied by a kind of health warning. Warning - this bloke is a god-botherer and anything he says should be considered in the light of his religious prejudice.
[/angry rant]
I think that would/should be highly dependent on the type of 'religious' and on the topic at hand.
What I would consider legitimate is a mandated disclosure of interest.
Quote from: Sibling DavidH on October 18, 2010, 11:14:14 AM
It's my belief that in a rational society the views of any person known to be religious should be discounted in any political discussion whatever.
Today on the BBC Radio4 'Today' programme (considered the most influential political program on radio here and maybe on all media) we had Christina Odone plugging her new book opposing assisted dying. She never once mentioned religion, relying instead on the weak "thin end of the wedge" argument. But we know she's a fervent Catholic - she was editor of the Catholic Herald - and it's therefore a fair assumption that her prejudices are based on her religion. She kept quiet about that because it would have weakened her credibility on 'Today'. Simply, rank dishonesty.
And this happens all the time here in debates on euthanasia, abortion, stem-cell research and so on. The faith-heads know that in Europe their religious views will be mocked by many - probably by a good majority - so they keep stumm and rely on rational arguments alone in public. We know what really motivates them and their media appearances should be accompanied by a kind of health warning. Warning - this bloke is a god-botherer and anything he says should be considered in the light of his religious prejudice.
[/angry rant]
Likewise, militant atheists should be prefaced with:
Warning - this bloke is an antigod-bulldog and anything he says should be considered in the light of his prejudice against religion. I know we've had this discussion before... ::) ...but I'm still hot under the collar when I think of the irrationality of some of the capital-R Rationalists out there.
In addition, the views of any person known to be political should be discounted in any religious discussion whatsoever. ;)
I'd rather have the beliefs-as-a-foundation-of-rational-thought laid out there (Swato's mandated disclosure of interest), and be allowed to weight it accordingly. I'm fine with someone stating clearly that their position and motivation to promote that position is rooted in Belief A, and then providing objective evidence and rational arguments to support that position. What I'm not OK with is someone basing a rational argument on Assumption B which is based on Belief A, without working within objective consensus reality*. The old chestnut of Assuming The Bible is the Literal Truth, The Earth is 4000 Years Old applies here; there is far too much hot air produced trying to find pseudoscientific explanations to why consensus science is 'wrong' amongst that crowd.
*I dabble outside of objective consensus reality at times, but I am well aware that anything in this sphere is miles away from rationality, and try to mix the two as little as possible - rational arguments likewise don't help to explain the irrational.
Quote from: Sibling DavidH on October 18, 2010, 11:14:14 AM
It's my belief that in a rational society the views of any person known to be religious should be discounted in any political discussion whatever.
...
I agree: we ought to extend Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) to include religious references, which would equate to an automatic fail.
In formal televised debate, the fail would equate to a loss of remaining time in that sequence-- the time either reverting to the moderator, or to the opponent, if there is but one.
What?
I can dream, can't I?
:)
Quote from: Sibling DavidH on October 18, 2010, 11:14:14 AM
Today on the BBC Radio4 'Today' programme (considered the most influential political program on radio here and maybe on all media) we had Christina Odone plugging her new book opposing assisted dying. She never once mentioned religion, relying instead on the weak "thin end of the wedge" argument.
Yes, I've had "assisted dying" in the back of my mind throughout this debate. I was remembering the disabled Lady whosit who clobbered the most recent debate on assisted dying in the House of Lords on the basis that she could speak for all disabled people and that they are all scared they will be done away with. I remember beiing really angry, as someone with a disability, that she claimed to be speaking for me.
As for those who believe the Bible to be absolute truth and fact, it never ceases to amaze me that anyone can believe a book of stories written by homo sapiens (even if based on some actual events). Do they also believe in Peter Pan? Alice in Wonderland? I have a real problem understanding how such a cult ever managed to grip the populace. But then, I wouldn't join a cult.
Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland weren't written by a god through man.
Quote from: Aggie on October 18, 2010, 05:03:15 PM
Quote from: Sibling DavidH on October 18, 2010, 11:14:14 AM
It's my belief that in a rational society the views of any person known to be religious should be discounted in any political discussion whatever.
Today on the BBC Radio4 'Today' programme (considered the most influential political program on radio here and maybe on all media) we had Christina Odone plugging her new book opposing assisted dying. She never once mentioned religion, relying instead on the weak "thin end of the wedge" argument. But we know she's a fervent Catholic - she was editor of the Catholic Herald - and it's therefore a fair assumption that her prejudices are based on her religion. She kept quiet about that because it would have weakened her credibility on 'Today'. Simply, rank dishonesty.
And this happens all the time here in debates on euthanasia, abortion, stem-cell research and so on. The faith-heads know that in Europe their religious views will be mocked by many - probably by a good majority - so they keep stumm and rely on rational arguments alone in public. We know what really motivates them and their media appearances should be accompanied by a kind of health warning. Warning - this bloke is a god-botherer and anything he says should be considered in the light of his religious prejudice.
[/angry rant]
Likewise, militant atheists should be prefaced with: Warning - this bloke is an antigod-bulldog and anything he says should be considered in the light of his prejudice against religion. I know we've had this discussion before... ::) ...but I'm still hot under the collar when I think of the irrationality of some of the capital-R Rationalists out there.
In addition, the views of any person known to be political should be discounted in any religious discussion whatsoever. ;)
I'd rather have the beliefs-as-a-foundation-of-rational-thought laid out there (Swato's mandated disclosure of interest), and be allowed to weight it accordingly. I'm fine with someone stating clearly that their position and motivation to promote that position is rooted in Belief A, and then providing objective evidence and rational arguments to support that position. What I'm not OK with is someone basing a rational argument on Assumption B which is based on Belief A, without working within objective consensus reality*. The old chestnut of Assuming The Bible is the Literal Truth, The Earth is 4000 Years Old applies here; there is far too much hot air produced trying to find pseudoscientific explanations to why consensus science is 'wrong' amongst that crowd.
*I dabble outside of objective consensus reality at times, but I am well aware that anything in this sphere is miles away from rationality, and try to mix the two as little as possible - rational arguments likewise don't help to explain the irrational.
^ this.
If I were engaged in one of these debates I would be entirely happy to be announced as a rabid atheist. My disbelief in the supernatural can have no bearing on such issues as abortion or euthanasia, except as the foundation to my objection to being instructed to behave according to the wishes of mythical beings.
But when someone like Odone is campaigning on one of these issues, the public needs to know that her basic motivation is religious. If not, she would seem to be one of a group of unprejudiced opposers putting forward a few rational - if weak - arguments. I'd bet a fair bit that if you discounted all the faith-heads from these campaigns there'd be very few objectors left.
Quote from: AggieI'm fine with someone stating clearly that their position and motivation to promote that position is rooted in Belief A, and then providing objective evidence and rational arguments to support that position. What I'm not OK with is someone basing a rational argument on Assumption B which is based on Belief A, without working within objective consensus reality.
Then you, I and Swato want exactly the same. Yes, I know I began my rant by using the word 'discounted', but I'd happily settle for the 'health warning'.
Quote from: Sibling DavidH on October 18, 2010, 07:23:11 PM
Then you, I and Swato want exactly the same. Yes, I know I began my rant by using the word 'discounted', but I'd happily settle for the 'health warning'.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Scriblerus the Philosophe on October 18, 2010, 07:09:18 PM
Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland weren't written by a god through man.
Yes, my post was begging this answer. But how do you know they weren't? ;D
Quote from: Aggie on October 18, 2010, 09:11:02 PM
Quote from: Sibling DavidH on October 18, 2010, 07:23:11 PM
Then you, I and Swato want exactly the same. Yes, I know I began my rant by using the word 'discounted', but I'd happily settle for the 'health warning'.
:thumbsup:
:thumbsup:
Quote from: meMy disbelief in the supernatural can have no bearing on such issues as abortion or euthanasia, except as the foundation to my objection to being instructed to behave according to the wishes of mythical beings.
Style-wise, this must be the most involuted, turgid sentence I have ever written. I hope it is. :mrgreen:
Quote from: Sibling DavidH on October 19, 2010, 08:43:22 AM
Quote from: meMy disbelief in the supernatural can have no bearing on such issues as abortion or euthanasia, except as the foundation to my objection to being instructed to behave according to the wishes of mythical beings.
Style-wise, this must be the most involuted, turgid sentence I have ever written. I hope it is. :mrgreen:
This cannot have arisen by accident. It must be Intelligent Design.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on October 19, 2010, 03:48:17 PM
Quote from: Sibling DavidH on October 19, 2010, 08:43:22 AM
Quote from: meMy disbelief in the supernatural can have no bearing on such issues as abortion or euthanasia, except as the foundation to my objection to being instructed to behave according to the wishes of mythical beings.
Style-wise, this must be the most involuted, turgid sentence I have ever written. I hope it is. :mrgreen:
This cannot have arisen by accident. It must be Intelligent Design.
You seriously want to characterize
that as
Intelligent Design? ::) :P
Quote from: Sibling DavidH on October 19, 2010, 08:43:22 AM
Quote from: meMy disbelief in the supernatural can have no bearing on such issues as abortion or euthanasia, except as the foundation to my objection to being instructed to behave according to the wishes of mythical beings.
Style-wise, this must be the most involuted, turgid sentence I have ever written. I hope it is. :mrgreen:
Looks par for the course, for me (but you've left out some parentheses*). :P
*and a footnote
Quote from: Aggie on October 18, 2010, 05:03:15 PM
Likewise, militant atheists should be prefaced with: Warning - this bloke is an antigod-bulldog and anything he says should be considered in the light of his prejudice against religion. I know we've had this discussion before... ::) ...but I'm still hot under the collar when I think of the irrationality of some of the capital-R Rationalists out there.
Not surprisingly, rational people can be quite emotional at times.
As a rational person it is my belief that any argument should be based and judged by it's own rationality. Weak arguments should be shown as weak, and counted/discounted possibilities should be measured in a reasonable fashion. Obviously there will always be debate on the way to measure reason ("you can't prove a negative", etc, etc), but reasonable people should be able to discuss the matter in a reasonable way even while disagreeing.
At this point in my life I see the Abrahamic religions in a very negative light, to the point of questioning if the good values that come from them really offset what to me is the incredible damage that they cause, but I as an individual have absolutely no right whatsoever to judge the individual beliefs of someone else even if I find them misguided, naive, or plain wrong. What I
can judge are the actions that those who believe (and those who don't) take, but more importantly, the actions of those who proclaim themselves as spokespersons for said belief.
If an atheist goes around burning churches, or worse, justifying the burning of churches, I feel entitled to denounce said behavior, on the same token, if a so-called
religious individual justifies or worse, causes harm because his/her beliefs then I also feel as entitled to denounce said actions.
So far I've been preaching to the choir here, but what I'm trying to say is something that has been said before also, that is, criticizing radical atheists is quite easy, Dawkings may be seen as an unapologetic radical, but to my knowledge* he hasn't advocated violence against believers. On the other hand believers not only do this quite frequently, but they are quite willing to intervene in the name of their beliefs, from preventing contraception to killing doctors.
If a non believer makes fun of believers it is considered offensive but I frankly don't hear the opposite as much (the classic "you're going to hell" comes to mind).
I guess I'm saying that while it may be misguided, non believers may be entitled to some vitriol.
*please let me know if he has.
Quote from: ZonoAs a rational person it is my belief that any argument should be based and judged by it's own rationality. Weak arguments should be shown as weak, and counted/discounted possibilities should be measured in a reasonable fashion.
Absolutely. If the anti-this-and-that pressure groups can put up some rational arguments, then those arguments are as valid as if anyone else had voiced them. What gets me angry is that these groups play down their religious bias as much as possible because they know it will weaken their cause. Plain sneaky. Of course, this doesn't weaken their rational arguments but I believe their motivations ought to be made plain.
This is why I got so cross with the dreadful Cristina Odone - again! She wants to stop me from having a dignified and painless death when my heart-attack or stroke hits, which statistically could be any time now, probably quite soon. She really wants to do this to pacify some nonexistent sky-fairy, but she tries to keep that part quiet.
I long ago registered my 'living will' to stop the doctors keeping me alive as a vegetable, but they can't actively kill me. It's therefore quite possible that they'll end up withdrawing food and water and my end will be unimaginably awful. God will love that.
Does one have to believe in G-d to believe in the sanctity of life?
I suppose not (if you'd pick another term for sanctity) but the fact is that Odone is a Christian, like so many of her fellow campaigners, and now again they admit that this is what really motivates them. The basic point is that they want to control my behaviour because the great sky-fairy tells them to.
Quote from: Sibling DavidH on October 20, 2010, 05:08:15 PM
I suppose not (if you'd pick another term for sanctity) but the fact is that Odone is a Christian, like so many of her fellow campaigners, and now again they admit that this is what really motivates them. The basic point is that they want to control my behaviour because the great sky-fairy tells them to.
It was a general question, I wasn't thinking of Odone.
I share your frustration? with the Odones of this world. I feel strongly about choosing my own death and the fact that I can't. I'm a member of Dignity in Dying to that end but fear their efforts will not bear fruition in my lifetime. Another fear is that my living will would not be actioned as there'd be no one to bring it to the attention of the medical staff. Given my medical history, I have given all this a good deal of thought.
one day maybe there will be a Dignity in Birth organisation - I didn't have control over my birth either.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on October 21, 2010, 12:55:42 AM
one day maybe there will be a Dignity in Birth organisation - I didn't have control over my birth either.
That would be lovely-- if you could ask a potential human, what sort of parents they would desire?
Since belief in the supernatural is not innate, nor an instinct?
Within a few generations, you'd see a marked decline in religions....
;)
We still don't know whether religion is 'built-in' and atheists are the equivalent of the gay (i.e. deviations* form the standard pattern).
Doesn't mean that religion is 'true' but I am not aware of any culture that did not develop some kind of it.
Even the Neanderthals must have had some ideas in that direction given findings at burial sites and they are not even our ancestors but our relatives.
Well, of course our ancestors could have infected them with the god nonsense ;)
*no moral judgement implied
I've been arguing this out on another forum. My view is that the 'god-shaped hole in man' is just one of a number of inbuilt drives, including aggression and war, music and dance, art and probably some less obvious ones. I argued that, as you said, the fact that this drive is universal does not validate it. We need to recognise the need for religion and the need for war as aberrations and condemn them before we can progress.
recognise yes, condemn not necessarily. That depends.
It seems to me that you cannot root both out at once (or you will get very dead by the warthirsty hands of the religious ;)); best to start with war.
So many of the abuses of religion seem to me to have little to actually do with religion, but use it as a cover and/or excuse for other human drives. I do think the Christian culture (and theology) of failure and forgiveness is a dangerous thing, as it allows some believers to commit terrible acts and then beg for forgiveness, but generally I think that most of the bad stuff that happens in the name of God would happen under some other justification if religion did not exist. Using the authority of God makes it easier to convince people, but there are other ways.
Quote from: Aggie on October 21, 2010, 01:46:16 PM
So many of the abuses of religion seem to me to have little to actually do with religion, but use it as a cover and/or excuse for other human drives. I do think the Christian culture (and theology) of failure and forgiveness is a dangerous thing, as it allows some believers to commit terrible acts and then beg for forgiveness, but generally I think that most of the bad stuff that happens in the name of God would happen under some other justification if religion did not exist. Using the authority of God makes it easier to convince people, but there are other ways.
I generally agree with you on that but I do believe that religion is a perfect vehicle for such endeavors. Every time you get a bearer of absolute truth it's easier to convince others of the righteous of your cause in the name of that absolute. Once removed that absolute can be replaced by the state or a cult of personality (ie: stalinism, maoism, or the cult status of Kim Jong Il to mention a few), but following a mortal 'savior' is a bit more restricted than following an omnipotent, eternal, etc one.
An interesting variant of the failure and forgiveness idea was Rasputin's theology:
God loves the repentant sinner, so a Christian should always have enough to repent for => sin nor not for sin's sake but to provide the opportunity for repentance and forgiveness. But this seems to refer to personal sins only for he was in no way involved in any bloodthirsty politics (he was actually mainly murdered for trying to keep Russia out of WW1 and because he had an affair with the wife of one of his assassins)
Seems to be a Russian thing. Ivan V. Grozny (aka The Terrible) used up all the time he did not use for doing terrible things for repentance, excessive repentance. That included writing painstaking confession lists about what horrible stuff he did and how the people he did them to were innocent victims of his wickedness (even those that probably even deserved what came to them). This was clearly not done for show but genuine.
Quote from: Sibling DavidH on October 21, 2010, 09:23:48 AM
I've been arguing this out on another forum. My view is that the 'god-shaped hole in man' is just one of a number of inbuilt drives, including aggression and war, music and dance, art and probably some less obvious ones. I argued that, as you said, the fact that this drive is universal does not validate it. We need to recognise the need for religion and the need for war as aberrations and condemn them before we can progress.
So, in other words, we have to civilize these poor misguided savages and teach them what's Right and Wrong, whether they like it or not, all in the name of tolerance and progress?
Well, that's the way it usually ends >:(
Quote from: Aggie on October 21, 2010, 01:46:16 PM
I do think the Christian culture (and theology) of failure and forgiveness is a dangerous thing, as it allows some believers to commit terrible acts and then beg for forgiveness,
Or perhaps an important recognition of human fallability, and a means of not only recognizing that, but trying to cope with it and direct it towards something "useful"?
Quote from: LindormSo, in other words, we have to civilize these poor misguided savages and teach them what's Right and Wrong, whether they like it or not, all in the name of tolerance and progress?
I'm not sure who the savages would be, but no. I'm not advocating forcing anything on anyone. I mean that we should encourage a culture of suppressing in ourselves the urge to be religious, as we (mostly) suppress the urge to rape and kill.
Most of us nowadays would be a bit ashamed to admit that we're afraid to walk under a ladder or walk the wrong way round a church. The culture these days is to laugh at such stuff. That's the direction we ought to be moving in.
It seems to me that we also can deal with absolutes with the same perils involved. Religious thoughts aren't necessarily damaging (personally I see Buddhism under a good light) as long as the absolute isn't involved. On the same token an absolute confidence on the worthlessness of religion could border arrogance and be as perilous as any other absolute.
Hey, I am a non-believer but still superstitious.
I also noticed that it is easier to get appointments on Friday 13th ;)
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on October 21, 2010, 02:04:03 PM
I generally agree with you on that but I do believe that religion is a perfect vehicle for such endeavors. Every time you get a bearer of absolute truth it's easier to convince others of the righteous of your cause in the name of that absolute.
*rumble* That's the danger of allowing anyone to speak for God. Anyone claiming to do so is ungodly in my books. I am more ready to allow statements beginning with "According to my interpretation of (insert scripture here)...." because these inherently imply that other interpretations are possible.
--------
Quote from: Lindorm on October 21, 2010, 02:46:52 PM
Quote from: Aggie on October 21, 2010, 01:46:16 PM
I do think the Christian culture (and theology) of failure and forgiveness is a dangerous thing, as it allows some believers to commit terrible acts and then beg for forgiveness,
Or perhaps an important recognition of human fallability, and a means of not only recognizing that, but trying to cope with it and direct it towards something "useful"?
That too. It's a double-edged sword that allows the sincere to bounce back from failure and keep going in the face of adversity, but it also allows many to continue 'business as usual' while appearing to follow the rules (and maybe even fooling themselves that they are doing so). I suspect that the lines are blurred in quite a few cases; only the individual involved knows the sincerity of their repentance. This makes it dangerous to Christianity itself, as 'outed' failures are often held up as horrible hypocrites and examples of what is wrong with religion (Ted Haggard comes to mind). I personally think that hateful Christians are horrible hypocrites to start with; the methamphetamine and homosexuality are lesser issues in my mind. ;)
Where it's applied openly, humbly and honestly - such as in a 12-step program - I'd say it's a good thing.
--------
Quote from: Sibling DavidH on October 21, 2010, 09:23:48 AM
We need to recognise the need for religion and the need for war as aberrations and condemn them before we can progress.
I defend your right to have this opinion, BUT I feel the need to say that IMHO it's intolerant, untaddy and contrary to the whole purpose of the Toadfish Monastery. That being said, this is an interesting discussion and worth continuing, also IMHO.
Quote from: Sibling DavidH on October 21, 2010, 09:23:48 AM
I've been arguing this out on another forum. My view is that the 'god-shaped hole in man' is just one of a number of inbuilt drives, including aggression and war, music and dance, art and probably some less obvious ones. I argued that, as you said, the fact that this drive is universal does not validate it.
I feel the same way about sex*. From what I can see, all the evil in the world comes from the drives for sex, money and power. Money is simply a method of gaining power, and while power for power's sake is the ultimate peak of power-drive, much of the lesser motivations for gaining money and power are actually the sex drive in action (to gain access to a desired type of sex partner or partners). Sex can be a comfort for some, and under ideal conditions can be benign, but on the whole causes more misery, emotional distress, violence, disease and war than is justified by the fleeting and rather insignificant benefits. The ongoing sex scandals within the Catholic Church, for example, have been covered up and exacerbated 'for the good of the religion', but are ultimately rooted in SEX, not religion. The inequality between the sexes in most cultures has been driven primarily by men's need for control over sex itself; without sex there would be greater equality. The global sex trade causes untold harm to women and children EVERYWHERE, and domestic sexual abuse is far more damaging than physical or emotional abuse.
I think we should condemn this harmful drive, despite the fact that it is universal and that some people enjoy it.
*I'm partly playing the Devil's Advocate here, partly facetious and partly serious. Outrageousness is intended.
Quote from: Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith on October 21, 2010, 04:14:14 AM
Quote from: Griffin NoName on October 21, 2010, 12:55:42 AM
one day maybe there will be a Dignity in Birth organisation - I didn't have control over my birth either.
That would be lovely-- if you could ask a potential human, what sort of parents they would desire?
Some people do believe that we choose our parents. Some idea that we are endlessly spirits waiting to incarnate. I think the choice is also meant to have something to do with our past life - that we seek the ideal parents for us to learn the lesson etc.
Quote from: Swatopluk on October 21, 2010, 08:57:41 AM
We still don't know whether religion is 'built-in' and atheists are the equivalent of the gay (i.e. deviations* form the standard pattern).
Doesn't mean that religion is 'true' but I am not aware of any culture that did not develop some kind of it.
Even if it is built in, isn't the more interesting question - why do many religious people need to have everyone else believe what they believe?
Quote from: Aggie on October 22, 2010, 04:21:29 AM
Quote from: Sibling DavidH on October 21, 2010, 09:23:48 AM
We need to recognise the need for religion and the need for war as aberrations and condemn them before we can progress.
I defend your right to have this opinion, BUT I feel the need to say that IMHO it's intolerant, untaddy and contrary to the whole purpose of the Toadfish Monastery. That being said, this is an interesting discussion and worth continuing, also IMHO.
It's a question of expression. Aggie's hit the spot - it's fine to post as your opinion.
Quote from: Griffin NoNameEven if it is built in, isn't the more interesting question - why do many religious people need to have everyone else believe what they believe?
I've often wondered about this myself. In my personal, non-scientific observations, people who present as the most content with -- and the most relaxed about -- their respective religious beliefs tend to be least upset when others do not share those beliefs. Conversely those who present as 'very strong' or 'committed' in their respective beliefs are the most likely to become agitated or belligerent when confronted with differing beliefs in others.
My conclusion is that the first group has the best grasp on the differences between 'belief' and 'fact'; thus, even if 'committed' to their present path, they would have relatively little distress about course corrections when and if met with greater information or differing evidence.
On the other hand, those in the second group may not, in fact, have the courage of their convictions. Encountering strong differing beliefs -- or,
even worse -- differing beliefs with casual disinterest in 'debating' the respective merits of either, strikes an emotional achilles' heel. It is intolerable for them to accept that another person is resisting a system which depends heavily on terrible threats to enforce conformity. The 'committed believer' has much in common, I think, with those in other repressed groups who turn viciously on any in their ranks who do not embrace -- or, when possible, ignore -- artificial limitations.
If one person thinks, speaks, or acts for him/herself, it strains the assumption that others in that group cannot -- let alone should not -- do the same. It presents a new burden to either show the same courage for dissension, or to increase the energy put towards publicly toeing the party line. In human-governed groups, there is a strong, historically proven possibility of punishment being meted out on the entire group to discourage dissension. 'Committed believers' cannot conceive [
<-- ha!] of a deity who does not react like themselves, and in the mix of all their other reactions is anger and fear that god will punish *them* for not converting -- or silencing -- the unbeliever.
It's sad.
Quote from: pieces o nine on October 22, 2010, 05:38:07 AM
Quote from: Griffin NoNameEven if it is built in, isn't the more interesting question - why do many religious people need to have everyone else believe what they believe?
........... Conversely those who present as 'very strong' or 'committed' in their respective beliefs are the most likely to become agitated or belligerent when confronted with differing beliefs in others.
............... those in the second group may not, in fact, have the courage of their convictions. Encountering strong differing beliefs -- or, even worse -- differing beliefs with casual disinterest in 'debating' the respective merits of either, strikes an emotional achilles' heel.
............It's sad.
Yes, I think it is a case of they who protest too much are inseccure in their belief. And yes, it is sad.
Quote from: AggieI defend your right to have this opinion, BUT I feel the need to say that IMHO it's intolerant, untaddy and contrary to the whole purpose of the Toadfish Monastery.
Aggie, I'm really sorry to have upset you to that extent. I know I go into aggressive rant mode when religion comes up, and I should learn to be humbler. I'll make sure I keep it under control in future.
Don't worry Sibling, you haven't upset me. :)
I figured I was obligated to point it out (I'd be slacking on my Toadfish duties otherwise), but I was concerned you might take it as too much of a rebuke. You phrased your opinion honestly and appropriately, and I respect that. Whether I like the opinion is besides the point. ;)
Quote from: pieces o nine on October 22, 2010, 05:38:07 AM
Quote from: Griffin NoNameEven if it is built in, isn't the more interesting question - why do many religious people need to have everyone else believe what they believe?
I've often wondered about this myself. In my personal, non-scientific observations, people who present as the most content with -- and the most relaxed about -- their respective religious beliefs tend to be least upset when others do not share those beliefs. Conversely those who present as 'very strong' or 'committed' in their respective beliefs are the most likely to become agitated or belligerent when confronted with differing beliefs in others.
My conclusion is that the first group has the best grasp on the differences between 'belief' and 'fact'; thus, even if 'committed' to their present path, they would have relatively little distress about course corrections when and if met with greater information or differing evidence.
On the other hand, those in the second group may not, in fact, have the courage of their convictions. Encountering strong differing beliefs -- or, even worse -- differing beliefs with casual disinterest in 'debating' the respective merits of either, strikes an emotional achilles' heel. It is intolerable for them to accept that another person is resisting a system which depends heavily on terrible threats to enforce conformity. The 'committed believer' has much in common, I think, with those in other repressed groups who turn viciously on any in their ranks who do not embrace -- or, when possible, ignore -- artificial limitations.
If one person thinks, speaks, or acts for him/herself, it strains the assumption that others in that group cannot -- let alone should not -- do the same. It presents a new burden to either show the same courage for dissension, or to increase the energy put towards publicly toeing the party line. In human-governed groups, there is a strong, historically proven possibility of punishment being meted out on the entire group to discourage dissension. 'Committed believers' cannot conceive [<-- ha!] of a deity who does not react like themselves, and in the mix of all their other reactions is anger and fear that god will punish *them* for not converting -- or silencing -- the unbeliever.
It's sad.
I think you hit on an important and true point here, but alas as I was reading it, all I could think of was "the only people we hate more than the Romans are the F**king Judean People's Front". Yet again Monty Python strikes when I least expect it...
Quote from: Bluenose on October 22, 2010, 01:45:37 PM...
all I could think of was "the only people we hate more than the Romans are the F**king Judean People's Front". Yet again Monty Python strikes when I least expect it...
(http://images.deals.woot.com/abb7de79-7a16-4379-b921-ded095b7a5de.jpg)