|
A tough topic. Islam is pretty bad and horrible and bad for humanity. But so is Christianity and any of the Abrahamic religions (and religion in general). Its really tough to be nuanced on this since its so sensitive. That said, saying all Middle Eastern people are bad is pretty silly and obviously racist. There isn't anything noble about adhering to ancient superstitions and I wish people would stop acting like it was. Its silly for Christians, its silly for Muslims. It feels like people are saying "Its Ok to believe in silly things, just not TOO much, otherwise you're one of the Bad Ones and we have to decry you" even though they both believe in the silly thing.
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:It's weird that people here are basically conceding that Islam is bad but then go on to say Christianity is bad so it's all OK. If that is what you got from my post then I wasn't clear. Christianity is just as stupid and harmful and everything I said about Islam applies to Christianity as well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:I take issue with that. Christianity has made a huge difference in my life and I imagine Islam makes a difference in other people's lives It made a difference because the texts of Christianity were changed and Westernized to be more palatable. Every time I hear of some great positive or progressive thing being done by Christians (or Muslims) its in SPITE of scripture not because of it. The words are changed and sanitized to appeal to our Western sensibilities rather than us finding them sensible on their own. The further we move AWAY from religion the better we find ourselves. So I can appreciate you had a good time with it, but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous. As to the rest of your post, you're right, bad people can be bad absolutely with any motivation. But if you get rid of the normalization of faith based laws and norms it becomes WAY harder to act out on it. Look at how quick Christians are to ostracize the Westboro Baptists for example. WBB aren't wrong. They aren't according to the Bible. Everyone else has moved on and marginalizes them for the most part. Yet they can still exist tax free and not be held to a higher standard because they have cover for their faith from the more moderate people. As I said its cool to believe in the Bible just not TOO much, otherwise you're a Bad Dude. Its better to be rid of it all together and turn to other more robust moral and legal frameworks. You likely agree with me in practice but not in rhetoric as is the case with most progressive religious people.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:If you want to get down to the theology of it, Christians, to be Christians, must fundamentally believe that Jesus Christ created a new covenant. This supersedes the covenant previously attested to in the Old Testament, which includes the levitical law.. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17. uh oh.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
So you have no grounds to condemn Westboro Baptist as not Christian and it all remains garbage. Thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:Oh they're totally Christian, just not representative. I define a Christian by self-identification and some belief in an interpretation of the teachings of Christ Jesus. We can't say that they aren't but I can say that piety is no excuse for abhorrent behavior. Right, and I'm just saying that the faith part of it is what's harmful. It indoctrinate people into groups based on false unfalsifiable premises. You say it's cool and good, but that doesn't make it somehow a good thing overall. Some people need to take methamphetamine and steroids to function. That doesn't change the fact that it's a drug that, if we could survive without we would. ....and we'd be better off for it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
INH5 posted:Daesh considers all Muslims who don't follow their particular interpretation of Islam to be apostates, and they also believe that all apostates from Islam should be killed. So them being enemies with the Taliban would not surprise me at all. For one thing, the Taliban recognized international borders, which Daesh considers un-Islamic. They believe that because the religious texts tell them so. Uh oh! Just because one group does a good thing doesn't justify the other stupid poo poo they do. I'm glad the church helped you, Mandy, but that doesn't mean the entire organization is somehow good. How many lovely groups out there give people hope and use the goodwill to push a separate agenda? And as someone else mentioned religion was stories for the ignorant. We've moved past that now and it's literally the worst aspect of humanity right now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I'm curious, what do you consider the best aspect of humanity right now? Me. Serious answer: I'd say our ability to reason and learn from our technology.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Why is he a terrible person for criticizing Islam?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Because it has nothing to do with islam and everything to do with him looking for an easy target. Then don't respond to him, respond to me and other posters who have posted more in depth posts.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Read the last 3 pages.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Is a strange response in a thread that's about the rise of anti islamic hate crimes in the western world. Hate crimes against Muslim people is retarded and racist. But saying Islam ought to be respected I'd retarded and dishonest. So while I don't think hate crimes are justified, pointing out how backwards Islam is is fair game. It's also hypocritical for Christians to do this since the same charges are at their feet as well . Thus, dropping faith all together leads to a better society where hate crimes aren't as likely to occur because no one is fighting over sky wizards.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
INH5 posted:Do you have any real examples of highly irreligious societies that are/were marked by a shortage of hate crimes? Because the first societies that come to mind are various 20th century Communist states, and they weren't exactly known for tolerance. Maybe Norway, but that was the country that produced Breivik. VitalSigns posted:Historically stamping out a religion all together has never been accomplished without doing hate crimes, ever, so if you're looking for a solution to the religion problem so effective that we'll never need another solution after that one I'm not saying if you get rid of religion everything will be sunshine and rainbows. I'm saying that it will go a long way towards mitigating hate crimes. Sociopaths are going to exist no matter what, its part of the human condition, but getting rid of the easiest way to justify being a shitheel does help lower the instances of being a shitheel. PT6A posted:This is very true, and why even as a person who is steadfastly anti-religious I could never support an outright ban on religion. I think we need to work toward a society where it's not acceptable to express religious beliefs in the public sphere. By my reckoning, any sort of religious belief or spirituality is a deeply personal thing -- a relationship between you and your deity, if you will -- so I don't understand why it's something which needs to be publicized or made into law. We need strongly secular states which permit the free exercise of one's religious belief, but do not allow its influence into law or policy. It turns out, by no small coincidence, that this is not only best for non-believers like myself, but also for the faithful who don't toe the line of whoever happens to wield the most power at any given time. No, they aren't contorting it. They are just taking the "beautiful religion" extremely seriously. They are completely justified in their actions per their holy books just like any other religious person is justified in helping the hungry in the name of Islam. There isn't anything noble about the religion, only the actions.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Like making the word "friend of the family" unacceptable to say in society. That has certainly reduced racism, especially in the traditional pockets where it existed. Well it HAS made it harder to be overtly racist though, hasn't it? Not that I'm saying its Mission Accomplished and you're not going to wipe out racism by banning "friend of the family". But you ARE going to make it harder to overtly discriminate if you take the overt methods off the table. Same with religion. Its harder to get suicide bombers and the like if you take away religion. I note VitalSigns is posting a few examples; isn't it evidence of religions problem that you're so able to find the few non religious examples there are? You can find maybe a dozen by scouring the internet, all the rest are religious in nature. Obdicut posted:Stop treating religion like it's magic. It's just another part of culture. You can find every lovely thing done in the name of religion done in the name of just plain culture too. Religion is a part of culture, a TOXIC part of culture. Saying so doesn't make you a Islam/Christian/Jew-o-phobe. Also I haven't found any non religious reason to oppose same sex marriage, abortion, marijuana, right to death, etc. Every argument opposing these things (whos opposition makes the culture worse) comes from religious nonsense arguments.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Your definition of "overt" seems to be "uses the word friend of the family". So yes, tautologically that is true. Right and you get people who are racists forced to condemn those arsonists because its not socially acceptable to do it anymore. So even if you agree with the arsons its no long acceptable to be silent, you have to condemn it. Its like the racist tree parable, its how progress is made. Religious cover stymies that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I have not seen that anywhere. Right and racist people were/are forced to condemn them, even if they find black churches distasteful to them because there isn't as much cover now due to social media and changing cultural norms. If everyone in the area is cool with it, nothing happens to the perpetrators, right? It gets brushed over, right? Religion is the same way, it allows bad ideas to fester because if you call out subset A of bad ideas, then YOUR subset B ideas could be up next-so they grant blanket immunity to faith based claims in order to avoid scrutiny.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Again, you haven't shown that this has actually happened. In real life. Because the arsons did happen. Why do you ignore the religion part and focus on the arson thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Ooh look at your edgy caps! What does 'toxic' mean, and how religion more toxic than other elements of culture? I think its been touched on more than a few times. It gives rise to bad ideas that are inherently harmful and untrue in the guise of morality. It also makes honest discussion of issues, particularly of science and behavior, extremely difficult because of the taboo's and prohibitions monotheistic religious beliefs inherently have. drilldo squirt posted:So does religion being rear end backwards and evil justify the things happening to muslims in the west thanks to islamophobia? If not why do people keep bringing it up? No, but it justifies being critical and not-nice to Islam as a religion which is often equated to Islamophobia.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Your thesis thus far has been "If we remove [thing], it will be harder to do [Bad thing], because people who do [Bad thing] also do [thing]". You mainly applied it to religion, but you also stated that condemning explicit language has reduced racial attacks, or at least has required racists to condemn those attacks. But it has been true? I don't see people publicly cheering that black people were killed that aren't being called assholes or Trump supporters. Our culture doesn't really think thats cool anymore, and the parts of our culture that do are in the South where they are backwards as gently caress on that anyways because they DO provide cover for that bad behavior. If we remove [Religious interpretation of biology] it will be harder to [justify cutting off womens health care], because people who do [try to cut off womens health care] also are [using religious interpretation of biology]. drilldo squirt posted:If it doesn't justify it why do you keep bringing it up in a thread about islamophobia? Because my point is that pointing out the problems with a religion doesn't make one an Islamophobe which the OP and others has repeatedly said it very well does. Obdicut posted:So do other parts of culture. I didn't say that. I'm saying that religious taboos make discussions even harder and are responsible for most of the silly cultural aspects we have today i.e unfair treatment of nudity in men vs women, abortion rights, sexual relations among the same sex, something as basic as teaching science in school.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Note again, I didn't say "publicly cheering that black people were killed", I said "burned down historic black churches". Maybe I don't understand what you're saying, can you clarify? VitalSigns posted:Stalin somehow managed to ban male homosexuality on penalty of hard labor and banned evolution in favor of Lysenko's bullshit all on his own without the TOXIC and EVIL and VILE corrupting religion rotting his brain. You're right, but that doesn't mean in contemporary society that its still true. Banning homosexuality was a relic of Orthodox teachings and Lysenko was a cult of personality that was ultimately a failure because of the scientific ramifications of his junk science and pipe dream promises. It was self correcting. Religious ideology is not. drilldo squirt posted:People are saying you are an islamophobe because you seem to be an islamophobe. No one has called ME an Islamophobe, I was speaking in general terms. Any criticism of religion is often met with "Gasp you just hate brown people" or some nonsense. That isn't the case at all. Religious thought based on faith is bad regardless of the flavor. Islam is just the nastiest one right now, but its no more nasty than the other flavors. Religions become more acceptable the less seriously we take them and the further from the texts and teachings we move. Nevvy Z posted:This is atheist just-worlding. 'It has to be religion's fault because as an atheist I refuse to believe I could be capable of such things.' I'm not saying atheists are incapable of it, I'm simply saying that its a lot harder to get people on the suicide train if they are forced to use rational means to justify it. I believe there ARE rational reasons to use suicide attacks to accomplish your goals. None of them really involve doing it against a civilian population though. Its a lot easier to justify it in religious terms, especially if faith is an acceptable metric by which to reach conclusions. Toxic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Why are you convinced they're not secondary for ISIS? Hasn't ISIS overtly stated that they want to start a new state based on religious terms and texts vs the IRA that wants their culture to unify the entirety of Ireland? I think there are a lot of similarities here, but if you're going to measure how much religion plays a role, ISIS absolutely has the greater religiosity going on. I would posit, as I had before, that if not for religious zealotry there would be far less grounds for either group to rise. Especially since in both cases its been religious sectarian divides that were the basis for their political formation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Sure,. Actually figuring out which was more religious would require actual effort and work and not simply taking statements at face value, but obviously one will have more stuff going on in the area of culture we semi-arbitrarily call 'religion'. You keep arguing against something I've never said. I never said they were two separate things, I'm saying that the fact that they are intertwined is bad. I'm arguing that we ought not intertwine them and that the intertwining is what has led to these bad political, social, and yes even economic situations.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No you unbelievably thick person who thinks he's smart, I mean they're inseparable. There is no dividing line. All sorts of things you call 'cultural' are if you take a look at them based on the same poo poo as religion. There is no difference between them. I'm pretty sure I went to great lengths to say that faith based thinking is bad and is a part of religion and religious thinking and we should do away with respecting said religious thinking, faith, and yes, "religion". You're getting so mad because I'm not writing a huge disclaimer about the intertwining of religion into policy and into culture when I think everyone pretty much understands that it is a part of culture. I'm merely saying its a lovely part of culture we're better off with and would have been better off with a long time ago.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, again, read this very slowly: It is not separable. It is not intertwined in that way. It is blended. It is not seperable. you yourself probably believe all kinds of poo poo that, if you actually looked it, would qualify as religious. I'm saying its totally separable. If American Atheists became the ruling political party of the US, they wouldn't be "blending" in religious overtures. Its entirely possible to separate faith based rationalization from actual secular policy. Historically its been intertwined, but it doesn't have to be. Especially in the US, there were huge arguments about even including references to faith because of the issues it can and has brought up. It doesn't matter if they know a lot about Islam or not, they're on the team calling themselves the Islamic State. They'd fighting for some modicum of faith, which is bad.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Banning homosexuality was done because it was considered to be some combination of (depending on the country): a choice, a mental disease, or associated with pedophilia. In the Soviet Union it had precisely nothing to do with the Russian Orthodox Church. There were worries about its impact on population growth, especially if social tolerance of homosexuality caused it to somehow spread. As for Lysenkoism, it was not a "cult of personality" that was destroyed by its own bad science - it rose because the prime political leader liked it (partially for ideological reasons) and fell because its political patron was dead and no longer able to force everyone to abide by it or else. I've made no such claim, you're confusing Tei's posts for mine. I've merely said that faith based ideas are bad and that treating faith as noble results in a higher likelihood of poor faith ideas being spread. That doesn't mean that it can't come about other ways, just that I'm identifying one way that I KNOW doesn't work, so we should stop going down that path. Atheists can be dumbasses too and be taken in by bad arguments, absolutely. No denying that. I'm merely saying that treating religion and faith as a noble and honorable thing simply gives cover to those that are using it to do even worse things or justify even worse policy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I know you are. you're wrong, easily and demonstrably wrong. Are you saying that its impossible to have a culture that doesn't have religion intertwined into its laws, mores, and norms? And I don't mean just cultural references, but having a position of authority? Mandy Thompson posted:
It has nothing to do with Christianity harming me personally, really. I was really neutral to religion most of my life. But we look at things in our species and think "What would make this better". We find examples like learning about our solar system, giving women more power in societies, allowing free expression of ideas and sexual liberation and everywhere in the religious texts are prohibitions on them. Its bad epistemology. It leads to dead ends and regression of the Human Condition. Just because it makes you feel good or provides some semblance of meaning doesn't mean it has any place in a position of authority or respect in any progressive society. Ddraig posted:I don't consider myself an atheist, not by the definition of most self-declared atheists, at least. I don't care about God and don't really give a passing thought to his existence in either direction at all in my day to day life. Let me ask a quick question on this, Ddraig. Do you think that the same criticisms applied to Christianity could apply to Islam? In a broad or analogous sense? khwarezm posted:The interesting thing to me was that I saw a lot of criticism directed at her from my other leftist (mostly christian) friends, because she was perceived to be concentrating too much on Islam and being excessively harsh and uncompromising in her rhetoric. The thing is the language she seemed to use didn't seem like it would get any eyes batted at her if she was talking about Christianity or Judaism, and I would have thought that since she was speaking from a background of experience it made sense that she would talk mostly about Islamism. This is a good example of what I mean. Most of the wishy washy stuff comes from the Left because as Maddy has demonstrated, its easier to give all faith a pass than to be critical because it often makes liberal theologians feel uncomfortable. Thus we see labels like Islamophobia thrown around for simple analysis or disagreement when I don't think it ought to be.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:It's not as if there's been a concerted effort, in the Western world, to ostracise and turn away their single greatest allies in the fight against extremist Islam - people who are actively running away from it because they fundamentally disagree with it and would otherwise be killed. So you went absurd...ok... I'm saying that if X story in the Bible is silly and a reason to be suspicious of that story as a good guide, why is doing the same to the Koran considered less acceptable? I'm saying the same problems that apply to Christianity apply to Islam, and that pointing them out doesn't mean its necessarily ignorant or useless. Effectronica posted:Are you familiar with the notion of a "civil religion"? Yes! Its also something that can and has been very damaging to the American political fabric. A bit off topic but I would guess that a lot of the arguments liberal atheists have against Christianity and Islam also apply to civil religion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:How do you propose to eliminate mythmaking, ceremony, heroification, and monumentalism from the world? Well the best inoculation is a good education with a strong liberal arts focus for context. I'm not saying we can abolish all of this, I'm only saying that if we make decisions based on these myths, or use them to influence our reality, its bad epistemology. We make bad policy when we do that. Just like in Christianity and Islam, and to be critical of that isn't to be a X-ophobe. You don't hate America if you point out it was built on slavery, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:On the other hand, when Abraham Lincoln used the mythological understanding of the United States of America, when the abolitionists used the mythological understanding of America, when the suffragists used the mythological understanding of America, when the Tian An Men Square protesters used the mythological understanding of America, they may have been using "bad epistemology", but we can surely not condemn them as inherently faulty or wrongheaded. They were using bad epistemology, sure. But people aren't robots and there is a place for that which is why I said you can't get rid of it. But if you rely on myth you get bad answers a lot of the time. There is no way to "self-check". Our best policies are those that rely on empirical analysis and view the effect of those policies rather than mythological special pleading.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Nobody relies purely on myth, on the other hand, so it's not something we have to worry about. I'd say the existence of the modern Republican party disagrees with that notion, but thats not the focus of this thread 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:If this were actually the case they would not be able to put their shoes on, let alone be able to hold any form of office. I disagree. Being a gay bashing Christian is not a neutral state. You're taught that poo poo. Its why the younger generations aren't as gay bashing or Christian-its becoming less and less OK to use faith to justify lovely behaviors.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Of course being a gay-bashing Christian isn't the default state. I never said it was. What I said was that people with homophobic views can easily justify those views using the material they have available. A homophobic person can find justification in the Christian doctrines, as he could in virtually anything. I'm saying homophobic views are taught, not intuitive. The only reason they can so easily pick it up in Christianity or Islam is because its built into (rightly or wrongly depending on your interpretations) those belief systems and is reinforced weekly. But Eugenics IS cool and good?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:Nope, it was committed in the name of racial purity. Any scientific excuse was just that, an excuse. Fortunately, scientific understanding changes with new information and the scientific method allows us to make new discoveries about the reality in which we live. Pretty much. Main Paineframe posted:For much of history, religious organizations were a major driver of science and education; it's only in the last couple hundred years that it's taken a backseat as the growth of capitalism and the centralization of power in governments have led to society taking an active interest in the general progression of science. The Catholic Church, for instance, was a major sponsor of astronomical research in Europe, since they were just about the only entity with any reason to actually care. The well-known rulings against heliocentrism had less to do with Bible verses and more to do with the immature state of science and philosophy at the time, flaws in heliocentric theories, failure to provide evidence against key counterpoints, and (in the case of Galileo) gratuitously insulting large numbers of people who had been supporting his research up to and including the loving Pope. Right, but now that we've emerged from our reliance on the church (since the church appropriated all of the wealth and social capital since it represented God) it seems like a great time to get rid of all of its bullshit, no? Just because it did a good thing 300 years ago doesn't mean we should respect the underlying faith. Same for Islam.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Mulva posted:This is such a great point, I don't care what worked then, I only care about what will work now. Now sometimes that will be what worked in the past, but at no point should we ever accept that absent of evidence and we should never give legitimacy to bad ideas solely because of their age or the number of people who believe in them. Not what I was saying, bro/sis.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
I'm not really sure its overstated, man. The only opposition to science was from the church historically-and really all science NOT being done by them. They intentionally wanted people illiterate and under close scrutiny to ensure that it was done the "right" way so as not to upset the theological status quo. Its true that a lot of the advances were done by the church and religious groups, but it wasn't found in the holy texts or moral teachings. It was by people doing extra-curricular activities looking outward instead of inward. It was done in SPITE of the texts, not derived from them. I mean if someone was inspired to look because of the texts, great! That doesn't mean the texts are somehow more "accurate" or "true". You're right its mostly an American thing now. Well American and Catholic thing. Why is that? Because America and the Church (and many developing countries) are the most likely populations to adhere to religious teachings. Its absolutely because of the religious intertwining that go on, not because they are simply American. As I said before, moderate faith allows other bone headed faith ideas to take root by providing social "cover" for faith. The less religious a population, the less cover, the less legitimate it is in civic, academic, and social avenues. I mean poo poo, Mormons are a perfect explanation of this. And Scientology being recognized in the US and not so in other developed countries.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:NO, you person who amazes me with his inability to grasp a simple concept: you cannot distinguish between an element that is 'cultural' and one that is 'religious'. There is no meaningful distinction. At all. Religion is an aspect of culture. I'm not saying that. I'm saying we shouldnt derive values, law, or norms from it. We should separate it out as a bad part of culture with little relevence. A nice myth to use as allegory and nothing more.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You think religion is the cause of this, but it's not. Mythmaking is endemic to human thinking and it creates religion not the other way around, which is why when confronted with atheist regimes that have their own national myths and irrational taboos you No True Scotsman them into not being atheist after all, because your definition of "secular" is "things I like" and religion is "things I don't like" I haven't defended or even really mentioned any atheist regimes or some such. You must be confusing me with some other poster. I simply said that faith based thinking is inherently bad, religion relies on that kind of thinking, and is bad. Obdicut posted:Again, no, you can't separate it out. It is not worse than other parts of culture to derive values, laws, and norms from. There are plenty of parts of culture that act exactly like religion and yet have gently caress-all to do with the supernatural. Why can't you grasp this? This doesn't challenge an average freshman. I was gonna ask for examples but I see you cited Eugenics above. Eugenics in and of itself isn't bad. Eugenics as applied by racists and folks with a political agenda IS. I find that different than faith based ideologies because eugenics can be measured. It can be falsified. You can hold it up to what you want in a society and what it does and say "This is bad" and put that tool back in the tool shed. With faith based ideologies you can't do that. Its still right, its still supreme because its untestable without changing what it means when you want it to mean something different. You're forced to rationalize faith to fit what is acceptable vs picking an acceptable faith. This is why religious beliefs are harmful; they are based on unfalsfiable epistemology that says whatever you want it to say when you want it to.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Would it be different if those same people that made up the church donated to that organization instead? Which gets to what my criticism was. Religious faith makes it so people that would otherwise not agree with shity behavior to be complicit in said lovely behavior. I know more than a few Catholics that think the churches stance on social issues is deplorable, disagree with prohibitions on premarital sex, think divorce is ok and so on, yet they still give them a ton of money because its "the moral thing to do".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Again, this is a criticism of organizations in general. Leftists here deplore Democrats for selling out to Wall Street yet still donate and vote for them pretty regularly. To a point I agree. My criticism here is that religion is unique in that it claims moral superiority from god. If I'm a mad Democrat I can ostensibly change the rules to benefit my agenda through voting and donating. The church ideas come from god, I ain't changing that without fundamentally rewriting religious texts. Also no one claims the Democrats (or political parties) are "moral" by their very nature like they do for the church, thus depriving them of the social "cover" to do lovely things that churches get. If a Republican says "All gays deserve death" then they are being assholes. When WestBoro says its, "oh oh, its their misguided religion" (as a non specific example)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
I didn't say they can't change, I'm saying they can't change what the text said. They can only change how they interpret it. Splitting off and quitting is entirely different than fundamentally changing the organization. Whenever a church change it isn't rewriting the texts (though they have MYSTERIOUSLY had a revelation or discovery of some new text as politically expedient times), they are simply changing how they REACT to the texts. Its a bad way to do things to rely on ancient mythology to find morality, law, and science.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 04:52
|
|