|
Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life (pg. 23)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dj Nacht |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Stopped reading there. Just because it's a quote doesn't make it any less a complete lie. You sound like Mitt Romney laying out the "facts."
Do you not see that forcing somebody to back up their beliefs is attacking them? If you didn't attack peoples' beliefs, you would just let them have them.
"I will not attack your beliefs. However, you must prove to me why your beliefs are true, or else I will call you an idiot and laugh at you." |
I don't go around attacking beliefs in real life, unless I'm challenged. Same goes for the internet. If someone challenges me then I have a right to defend myself. People decided to challenge eachother in this topic and now we are defending ourselves. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
"I will not attack your beliefs. However, you must prove to me why your beliefs are true, or else I will call you an idiot and laugh at you." |
Unless the questions are pointedly stupid, like "How many people did you kill in the Crusades today, CHRISTIAN?" (hurrrrrr), merely asking someone why they believe what they do is not an attack.
People who are offended by basic inquiry reek of insecurity, and they feel further offended because they KNOW it. |
|
|
| Dj Nacht |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
And indeed they always have, and likely always will. We're a flawed species, and we know it. What we also know is that on an individual basis, we are capable of overcoming and minimizing our suffering, and truncating the spread of misery through acts of reason and rationality and charity. Wallowing in spiritual flagellation does nothing for this, and merely darkens with viral resolve the ineffable tribalism and quitter suppression that authoritarianism can herald.
What could be more authoritarian than the panopticon of most organized religions' deity? Most every galvanized effort at peace is out of fear mistaken for love or reverence for the retributive aspect of God's exclusivity vestibule rather than good from the essence of passivity.
It is religious thought that is the enemy, not religions, themselves; they are all too often but symptoms of a far more widespread and poisonous ideology that shapes humans into the gears of avarice at the Soothsayer's lever, rather than the ideal citizens of personal liberty and indoctrinated regard for sustainable utilitarianism that all nationhood ought aspire to codify.
We know what's right without being told, we just choose to be ignorant because people compact foresight into nearly Pavlovian subroutines. Religion is merely one way to catalyze such gross simplifications into benefit, but it merely pays lip service to the machinations of essential liberties that all humans ought be entitled to, strictly including the right to not be slaughtered because of your race or origin because some demagogue or another ordered it so.
Sudan can claim that it found Allah all it wants, but can it claim that its people are safe or free? Are its women's clitorises going to fertilize their scarce crops for all time? Religion brings only brief respite to such regions, and all evidence points toward it being a temporary lull while the proselytization rituals roll in to recruit vapor for the next storm. |
I'm not even sure how to reply to this.. I've been staring at it for a few minutes in awe. I wish I could write like that.. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Nacht
I don't go around attacking beliefs in real life, unless I'm challenged. Same goes for the internet. If someone challenges me then I have a right to defend myself. People decided to challenge eachother in this topic and now we are defending ourselves. |
They're not challenging your beliefs, they're challenging anti-theists' common practice of constantly going on the offensive to attack religious thought. Don't dare say that they don't do this either, because it's a painfully obvious fact. Atheists love insulting religion. I'd surmise that almost every single thread that ends up a pro vs. anti religion squabble is began by anti-theists going on the attack against religion.
Honestly, show me one post in this thread that says that religion is right and atheism is wrong. Because you can find about 100 to the contrary. |
|
|
| Dj Nacht |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Haven't we?
Throughout recorded history we've come up with plenty of alternative solutions to the problems religion tackles (mainly politics and some metaphysics), such as philosophy, art, the nation state, a plethora of political systems, science, and so on. Despite the overlapping interests of some of these human enterprises, there's no perfect match among them that render the previous attempt completely obsolete. To this day, there are well read scientifically literate citizens in democratic societies that are religious for one reason or another - mainly because science and religion (to give one incredibly misguided opposition) are as opposed as politics and art. |
Religion is still deeply rooted in all of these things though. We need to get away from anything that we have now and come up with new ideas. The documentary that the OP posted is a good start. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Unless the questions are pointedly stupid, like "How many people did you kill in the Crusades today, CHRISTIAN?" (hurrrrrr), merely asking someone why they believe what they do is not an attack.
People who are offended by basic inquiry reek of insecurity, and they feel further offended because they KNOW it. |
Sure, asking them is fine. That's not the issue here though. The whole anti-theist movement is attack oriented. They're not just asking theists why they believe what they do; they're going on the offensive trying to disprove religious thought and calling any religious people morons in the process. It's so ridiculous that it even alienates more passive or moderate atheists. I think it's pretty evident that there's something wrong with it when both theists and atheists are put off by the constant attacks and vitriolic remarks spouted regularly by some of the members of this board. It's just flat out annoying when these people are almost searching out excuses to bring it up in completely non-related threads. |
|
|
| Lira |
Oh, let's come up with more ideas, Nacht, I'd love that! However, fighting religion and developing new insights are not the same thing. That's what I'm saying.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
It is religious thought that is the enemy, not religions, themselves |
And that's exactly what I'm trying to fight in contemporary atheism (being mindful that I'm saying there are strains of religious thought in the atheism I'm fighting here, not that it is itself a religion.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Sudan can claim that it found Allah all it wants, but can it claim that its people are safe or free? |
No (for reasons other than religion, due to the ethnic clashes), and it depends to what extent. To go out on the streets at night? According to hearsay, yes. To voice their opinions? It depends, but for the sake of the argument let's say they aren't.
Would you say this person is more free than someone who can't go out at night due to high crime rates, yet can voice his or her opinion? Mind you, you can only say "yes" if you weight freedom differently with hardly any objective standard. |
|
|
| Dj Nacht |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Oh, let's come up with more ideas, Nacht, I'd love that! However, fighting religion and developing new insights are not the same thing. That's what I'm saying.
|
They are not the same thing, but do you think religion will allow a bunch of athiests to come in and take control of what they've had for thousands of years. Right and wrong is still in the hands of religion and it doesn't need to be.They are definitely not going to share, and why would they? |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| What is your concept of right and wrong based on then? You're broaching the topic of moral relativism at this point, so I'm curious as to what you believe morality is derived from. If a theist's sense of morality is different than yours, how do you suppose that difference be resolved? |
|
|
| Dj Nacht |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
What is your concept of right and wrong based on then? You're broaching the topic of moral relativism at this point, so I'm curious as to what you believe morality is derived from. If a theist's sense of morality is different than yours, how do you suppose that difference be resolved? |
We evolved to know what is right or wrong. What is right has helped us continue to pass on the genes and what is wrong ultimately leads us to isolation and early death. Humans are dependant on eachother and it's in our best interest to be kind to eachother. We feel empathy when others are in pain, so we understand the need to avoid it. Using that as a basic building block, the rest comes naturally. |
|
|
| Dj Nacht |
There are obviously plenty of exceptions to this. Mental disorders , etc...
Evolution is not perfect, but we're smart enough to utilise this fact for our own benefit! |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
No (for reasons other than religion, due to the ethnic clashes), and it depends to what extent. To go out on the streets at night? According to hearsay, yes. To voice their opinions? It depends, but for the sake of the argument let's say they aren't.
Would you say this person is more free than someone who can't go out at night due to high crime rates, yet can voice his or her opinion? Mind you, you can only say "yes" if you weight freedom differently with hardly any objective standard. |
Freedom is obviously a slippery concept, and there aren't any essential examples of it to draw upon, really, given its relative impossibility.
But I would gladly contend that one essential facet of the Free Man is his or her capability to live and pursue physical and ideological attributes at the breadth and pace of their personal reasoning, exempt from the force of the state or other local entity, defensible by authentic consent from the citizen represented by said freedom. The state should not be 'free' to enforce by law or penalty any brand of religion or political agenda, though it is of course free to use methods of persuasion or otherwise consenting rhetoric to further its means to propagate taxation.
I know this is rife with civic jargon, but people ought not be 'free' to kill and murder (duh), just as efforts of justice ought be likewise free to hold in contempt and force those individuals or organizations who might seek to violate the defined freedoms of equal citizenry, of which status ought be unanimously entitled to, barring said violators and their special provisions of reformed pursuit.
Is Sudan's government actively seeking to protect its citizenry from marauding criminals as well as protecting the rights to open speech of said citizens? I'm thinking no on the latter, but I can't comment with any authority, as my knowledge of what actually goes on there is quite lacking.
My verdict is that no, they are not 'more free' because Islam has brought political stability to the region. I'm sure that was not its intent - to grant freedom to people, so much as become a force to stave off widespread violence - but one could just as well argue that it has never been religion's charge or responsibility to promote ideals of civic justice and the responsibility of peace, but temporarily shelter people from the base resolve of our ancestry and behavioral artifacts.
Are we better for it? We're still here, that is true.
But can we do even better? I have faith! |
|
|
|
|
