|
Insulting Religion (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| tubularbills |
| quote: | Originally posted by Desiderata
You know Tbils, I frequently have this earge to buy Chicago Bear merchandise when discussing Religion. I guess since I born in Springfield, Ill. |
the Bears do play on Sunday, after all. |
|
|
| _Ocean_Drive_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
Pat is a funny guy, and I agree with a lot of what he says.
I just don't think religion is rammed down the west's throat like it used to be.
I also don't believe in aggressive evangelism. Telling people they are going to hell if they don't convert and other bull like that is wrong. |
This.
He also picks stupid arguments. Some of his arguments are like trying to argue that he has better sight than a blind person. (Free thinking vs. religious zealots) There are religious people who accept the free world, evolution, science and all that goes with it, and it is perfectly possible to combine the two. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tasty Onions
Well, yeah, nobody is going to make great architecture without a good amount of cash.
I'm saying that given the large amounts of wealth and power on both sides (religious and non), I still (usually) find religiously inspired architecture more beautiful. |
Well it's definitely usually poetic, if that's what you mean, and typically grander.
Beauty is subjective, though. The beauty in religious architecture generally very didactic.
But even if you are someone who prefers classical and traditional architecture, which was dominated politically by religion and the enormous amounts of money they had to throw at architectural progress to create these heavenly monuments to earthly power (too bad they meant it to be reversed), you can't deny that there are a ton of beautiful secular works of architecture from the same times and cultures. Typically palaces, but even every day structures.
Villa Adriana - this was a dining room at the end of a huge reflecting pool, where you would eat on cushions surrounded by waterfalls under a hemispherical indoor/outdoor dome
Jantar Mantar
This well (Chand Baori) in India
Versailles
Alhambra
Villa d'Este
Neuschwanstein Castle
and so many more
My argument is that architecture is a tool of the power (and financial) establishment to express dominion in a physical form and use arresting poetics of space to express what amounts to an architectural variation of divine right to power. Since in most of history religions were the power and financial establishment, you see this reflected in the fact that the most beautiful and inspiring architecture was religious in use.
We're still building cathedrals today. But they are cathedrals of commerce. Cathedrals of communism. Cathedrals of industry. Cathedrals of concept. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
you're such a ing hippy. |
You don't say :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
So you have no right to be immature? |
It depends by what you mean by this.
Politically, it may not really be a right. I believe I don't have the right to insult any religion here in Brazil, and I may be persecuted for that. Even if it was constitutionally acceptable, however, we need to think for a while about the other rights. Social rights, for example: If you're a waiter in a restaurant and a fat patron orders bacon and cheese, you don't have the right to bring corn soup instead because you think it's healthier - it just isn't your business. Even if the constitution said nothing about it, it just wouldn't be right. Likewise, just because you see someone on the street whose face you don't like, you don't have the social right to tell them you don't like them, though it's definitely legal in the constitutional sense.
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
He's surely has the right, dosen't he? |
The political right, maybe, but socially it's just a recipe for disaster because it goes against a social right: if you insult the ideas people hold dearly, no matter how irrational it is to cherish something immaterial like a system of ideas, you're giving the finger to millions who otherwise wouldn't have a problem with your existence.
And this is coming from an atheist who's had problems with a few members of the Christian fanclub - just because of some dimwits, it doesn't mean I should insult everyone else. |
|
|
| VAR |
| quote: | Originally posted by Desiderata
earge |
:conf: |
|
|
| djshan |
I just remembered. I am against religious freedom. Religion should be illegal. Some of these "moderate" religious dudes make me laugh sometime. They behave like athiests/agnostics but still label themselves as "moderate" religious. There is no such thing as a "moderate"... you are either religious that follows 100% textbook as written (without any editing), or your an agnostic/athiest. :whip: :whip:
In a world of religious freedom, you can expect to see "sharia courts", child circumcision, stoning people for being gay/lesbian or having sex without "doing a jog around the preist", pedophiles converting to islam so they can marry a 6 yr old... and many more bad bad things!!
Im not saying athiest dont do bad things, but the good religious people can be driven by religion to do bad things!!! the athiests do bad things becuase its just who they are.... |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by djshan
I just remembered. I am against religious freedom. Religion should be illegal. |
Good for you. Please move to China.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
Good for you. Please move to China.:rolleyes: |
Don't worry, when China takes over the US, Canada wont be too far behind. :p |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Don't worry, when China takes over the US, Canada wont be too far behind. :p |
True :stongue: |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by djshan
I just remembered. I am against religious freedom. Religion should be illegal. Some of these "moderate" religious dudes make me laugh sometime. They behave like athiests/agnostics but still label themselves as "moderate" religious. There is no such thing as a "moderate"... you are either religious that follows 100% textbook as written (without any editing), or your an agnostic/athiest. :whip: :whip:
In a world of religious freedom, you can expect to see "sharia courts", child circumcision, stoning people for being gay/lesbian or having sex without "doing a jog around the preist", pedophiles converting to islam so they can marry a 6 yr old... and many more bad bad things!!
Im not saying athiest dont do bad things, but the good religious people can be driven by religion to do bad things!!! the athiests do bad things becuase its just who they are.... |
I only read the first paragraph and I have to disagree with you.
Many, many people believe in God and don't take it literal. People(as I said before are modifying their take on the Bible in these modern times).
What you are basicly saying is that if you believe Bananas are the correct fruit because of what ever reason and another person feels the same about apples as you feel about Bananas that the person that says Apples are the correct fruit to eat will never be able to try a Banana because you feel he is a hypocrite.
I think you need to think and create your own thesis and anti-thesis on Religion.
I'm not trying to say put yourself in a state of limbo over this subject at all, I am an Atheist also but as people evolve in the mind, things are no longer black and white anymore. This said group you are reffering to doesn't have to take the Bible word for word just because some groups say so.
Do they have doubts on their Religion... possible so. But some still believe in God just in their own way. I find these people far more tolerant towards us than someone you believes every single world of it.
Religion(a small group) are readimg what they see fit and disregarding the rest. I feel this is a positive thing. |
|
|
| Znack |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
It depends by what you mean by this. |
Why? I can not see a situation where it wouldn't be a right - regardless of whether you're talking politically or socially. Acting immature is of course your own responsibly, and people have a right not bothering to deal with you, but if it wasn't a right, should we then ban kids?
| quote: | | I believe I don't have the right to insult any religion here in Brazil |
In that case, Brazil has a theocratic law, which is nothing more than one of the most frightening tings i can think of.
Absolutely nothing to present as a positive example.
| quote: | | IEven if it was constitutionally acceptable, however, we need to think for a while about the other rights |
There shouldn't exist a right not to be offended, because it in itself will always be hypocritical and deliver to certain closed groups, simply because there is no correct answer to when you can allow yourself to be offended.
For example. I could be offended by pants, and from now on you would forever have to go without pants as to not risking offending me. - Drop your pants! No? Is it because you don't believe that i am insulted? How can you evaluate that?
Nobody has the right to not be offended. Maybe watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=cycXuYzmzNg
| quote: | | If you're a waiter in a restaurant and a fat patron orders bacon and cheese, you don't have the right to bring corn soup instead because you think it's healthier |
That is in no way comparable to insult, and I can not imagine that you think so.
| quote: | | just because you see someone on the street whose face you don't like, you don't have the social right to tell them you don't like them |
Of course you have. |
|
|
|
|
