Offending religion

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

That post reveals much more about you and your prejudices than it does about the JWs.

Thats rich PDN. Lets not make this a personal issue this time eh?

An opinion of fundamentalists and extremists that is based on the evidence plainly available to anyone is just that: an informated opinion. Just because you dislike it or disagree with it does not make it any less valid.

Al Qaeda were considered an allied guerilla group by the west wehn they were killing Russians wholesale - no one seemed to mind the fact that they were religious nutters then. Now its ok to use them as an example of the "bad guy"? Frankly, put in the position that many Afghans were put in I doubt very much that a majority of JW's would go willingly into the gas chambers again (mixed metaphor and historical references permitted).

Hivemind187

cavedave wrote: »

Well they already seem to control the airports...;)

Thats the Harry Krishnas isnt it?

Dades

PDN wrote: »

What evidence do we have that the Romans considered Jesus a real danger to their authority?

I'm by no means as well read as yourself and some of our regulars here, but I would have thought a man claiming to be the son of God, and King of the Jews might represent a threat to the authority of the state. Wasn't the Jewish messiah according to the OT specifically supposed to rise up and purge the enemies of Israel? Seems to me like someone you don't want around if you're the Romans.

PDN wrote: »

So, are we back to the "Jesus of my imagination" where we can make all kinds of claims about who Jesus was with no historical sources whatsoever?

Don't get me started on that one.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Thats rich PDN. Lets not make this a personal issue this time eh?

An opinion of fundamentalists and extremists that is based on the evidence plainly available to anyone is just that: an informated opinion. Just because you dislike it or disagree with it does not make it any less valid.

Al Qaeda were considered an allied guerilla group by the west wehn they were killing Russians wholesale - no one seemed to mind the fact that they were religious nutters then. Now its ok to use them as an example of the "bad guy"? Frankly, put in the position that many Afghans were put in I doubt very much that a majority of JW's would go willingly into the gas chambers again (mixed metaphor and historical references permitted).

The JWs went to the gas chambers without resisting. Later they also submitted to persecution under the Communists without resisting. Much as I disagree with the JWs theologically I am forced to admire them for their consistency and adherence to their pacifistic and non-political stance.

Some religious fundamentalists are violent. Therefore you conclude that all religious fundamentalists have the potential to become violence and are therefore dangerous.

By the same logic: Some atheists practice religious oppression. In fact most, if not all, officially atheistic governments have been characterised by extreme repression. Therefore all atheists have the potential to become repressive dictators. Therefore all atheists are dangerous.

Again, most governments run by black Africans have been corrupt and violent. Therefore all black Africans have the potential to be corrupt and violent. Therefore all black Africans are dangerous.

All three arguments are nonsense because they are based on bad logic and prejudice, not on 'informated' opinion or evidence.

Plenty of people minded the fact that Al Quaeda were religious nutters when they were fighting the Russians. Intelligent observers such as Bob Fisk were well aware of their true nature. Unfortunately foreign policy has never listened much to intelligent observers.

cavedave

Thats the Harry Krishnas isnt it?

Oh yeah my mistake. What really annoys me about Hari Krishnas, Jehovus witnesses and Mormons is that they are all so nice. I much prefer when religious types are screaming nutjobs as it makes it much easier to hate them.:rolleyes:

Hivemind187

cavedave wrote: »

Oh yeah my mistake. What really annoys me about Hari Krishnas, Jehovus witnesses and Mormons is that they are all so nice. I much prefer when religious types are screaming nutjobs as it makes it much easier to hate them.:rolleyes:

They only appear nice. Christianity at a glance appears nice with all its "Do unto others" and references to not chucking rocks unless you are pretty sure yount being a hypocrite. Scratch the surface and you find folk like Reverend Phelps and incidents like the Inquisition or the Crusades.

Truth is that had these groups any significant power they would be seeking to impose their peculiar ideas on everyone with the quietly implied penalty of something unpleasant (usually death but sometimes torture). People who pretend otherwise are usually apologists or pseudo-liberal cowards.

The Baghvad Gita is about a huge battle. The Mormons believe that the native American Indians were sinners who were turned red by Gods will to punish them. JW's are like walking spam, they turn up unnanounced, make claims and offers they cant back up and everytime you get rid of them a half dozen more turn up to try the same thing.

And yes, I am being a little more aggressive than usual today.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

The JWs went to the gas chambers without resisting. Later they also submitted to persecution under the Communists without resisting. Much as I disagree with the JWs theologically I am forced to admire them for their consistency and adherence to their pacifistic and non-political stance.

Some religious fundamentalists are violent. Therefore you conclude that all religious fundamentalists have the potential to become violence and are therefore dangerous.

By the same logic: Some atheists practice religious oppression. In fact most, if not all, officially atheistic governments have been characterised by extreme repression. Therefore all atheists have the potential to become repressive dictators. Therefore all atheists are dangerous.

Again, most governments run by black Africans have been corrupt and violent. Therefore all black Africans have the potential to be corrupt and violent. Therefore all black Africans are dangerous.

All three arguments are nonsense because they are based on bad logic and prejudice, not on 'informated' opinion or evidence.

Plenty of people minded the fact that Al Quaeda were religious nutters when they were fighting the Russians. Intelligent observers such as Bob Fisk were well aware of their true nature. Unfortunately foreign policy has never listened much to intelligent observers.

You missed my point. An atheist has no pseudo-spiritual imperative to dominate, indoctrinate or eliminate any competing religious worship lest his chosen deity be offended and thats the major difference. A theists position is that everyone else is wrong because their imaginary friend said so, whereas an athiest is saying your beliefs are daft because they fly in the face of rationality, logic and evidence.

As for JW's going to the gas chambers, deplorable though that is, I wonder if they had the knowledge of their fate (as they do now) and the number to resist would they have been so passive. I find it difficult to extend myself to the idea that theology is more powerful than instinct and if it is it is even worse than if its not since that mean these people happily gave up their lives for no good reason.

Some religious fundamentalists are violent. Not all. This is true. However, it is precisely the constant egging on of the theology thaat drives these people to blow themselves up in vauxhauls at check points. I sincerely doubt you would find a single, mentally stable atheist who would be willing to sacrifice himself in the name of Darwin.

At the end of the day, fundamentalism is a dangerous and corrupting influence on people who are mostly uneducated, disturbed or otherwise imparied in the decision making department.

Hivemind187

Hivemind187 wrote:

The Baghvad Gita is about a huge battle.

o.O

It's about a conversation two people/gods have in the middle of a battle about action and consequences.
iirc, Arjuna didn't even want to be fighting in the battle.
Just because it takes place in that setting, does not mean by a long stretch that it's promoting it.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I sincerely doubt you would find a single, mentally stable atheist who would be willing to sacrifice himself in the name of Darwin.

At the end of the day, fundamentalism is a dangerous and corrupting influence on people who are mostly uneducated, disturbed or otherwise imparied in the decision making department.

Yes, I can see that we fundamentalists are uneducated and 'imparied' in the decision making department. As opposed to educated intellectuals who make 'informated' opinions, I presume.

There have of course been plenty of mentally stable atheists who have been willing to sacrifice others in the name of their 'faith'. (The Soviet Union and China spring to mind). I think it is rather unfair to suggest that they would not be willing to lay down their own lives with the same enthusiasm with which they persecuted those who were uneducated and imparied enough to persist in the folly of religious belief.

Happily such examples do not, in my opinion, mean that all atheists are dangerous. I guess that makes me either an apologist or a pseudo-liberal coward. Coming from yourself I shall wear either term as a badge of honour.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I can see that we fundamentalists are uneducated and 'imparied' in the decision making department. As opposed to educated intellectuals who make 'informated' opinions, I presume.

There have of course been plenty of mentally stable atheists who have been willing to sacrifice others in the name of their 'faith'. (The Soviet Union and China spring to mind). I think it is rather unfair to suggest that they would not be willing to lay down their own lives with the same enthusiasm with which they persecuted those who were uneducated and imparied enough to persist in the folly of religious belief.

Happily such examples do not, in my opinion, mean that all atheists are dangerous. I guess that makes me either an apologist or a pseudo-liberal coward. Coming from yourself I shall wear either term as a badge of honour.

I think the debate comes down to cause and effect.
Atheists think it is co-incidental Stalin was an atheist, there is no cause and effect of him being an atheist and doing what he did.
Whereas Religous fundamentalists, use the Religion to decide who their enemy is and why they want to kill them. Of course not all Religious people are like that.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I can see that we fundamentalists are uneducated and 'imparied' in the decision making department. As opposed to educated intellectuals who make 'informated' opinions, I presume.

I think you are slightly missing the point.

Fundamentalists by definition fundamentally believe in the dogma of something, to the point where this belief moves beyond rationality.

That is of concern.

I have seen fundamental dogmatic belief shift from good to bad very easily, because ultimately the core belief is simply that the dogma is correct no matter what.

If someone manages to change the dogma to something else, that fundamental belief that the dogma is always correct, can be used to manipulate people into doing terrible things.

You look at it from a different angle. You would say that the dogma of your religion tells you to be nice and kind and helpful to all people. What could be possibly wrong with that? And the answer is of course nothing. But the issue isn't what the dogma itself says. The issue is the fact that you fundamentally believe in its correctness and infallibility. History teaches that the dogma itself can be changed and manipulated so easily.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I can see that we fundamentalists are uneducated and 'imparied' in the decision making department. As opposed to educated intellectuals who make 'informated' opinions, I presume.

There have of course been plenty of mentally stable atheists who have been willing to sacrifice others in the name of their 'faith'. (The Soviet Union and China spring to mind). I think it is rather unfair to suggest that they would not be willing to lay down their own lives with the same enthusiasm with which they persecuted those who were uneducated and imparied enough to persist in the folly of religious belief.

Happily such examples do not, in my opinion, mean that all atheists are dangerous. I guess that makes me either an apologist or a pseudo-liberal coward. Coming from yourself I shall wear either term as a badge of honour.

*golf clap*

PDN, you seem to have difficulty separating political and social ideology and religion - funnily enough a common trait amongst fundamentalists.

The Soviets (I assume you are referring to Stalin and his pogroms) comitted their atrocities not in the name of Atheism but in the name of Communism (Marxism). Because they happened to be atheists does not mean it was the driving principal behind their crimes - the usual fallousy proposed by theists in defense of the indefencible (sp?).

Further, "faith" is the purvue of the theist and the religions, not of the atheist or the rational. The Nazi's, for example, murdered in the name of a pseudo-scientific racial purity doctrine. The Soviets out of a need to control the masses and to eliinate any resistence to their aims. The Khmer Rouge out of a belief that reeducating the populace to know only the party was the road to peace. All three were arguably controlled by atheists (ignoring the argument that Hitler was a theist - which he was) but it was their political and social ideologies that drove their murderous inclinations not atheism.

Religion, on the other hand, commands the desctruction of the enemy (any other religion) and even rejoices in the deaths of thousands (see Old Testament and the Quran). In both cases it is fundamentalist "direct word of god" madmen who instigate the kinds of atrocities we see to day and more often than not will lay down other peoples lives rather than their own in the name of their gods by manipulating the uneducated, the deprived and the desperate - or do you deny that the teaching of fundamentalist rhetoric and anti-Islamic/Christian ideals are being used as the teaching medium for millions in many third world countries?

For that matter, how do you explain Doctors and engingeers and other educated people hijacking planes and strapping bombs to themselves in the name of their religion? If its not the sinister influence of fundamentalism affecting vulnerable and unstable minds then what, exactly, is it?

JimiTime

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Rubbish! The only reason Christ wasnt labeled a terrorist is because they didnt have the word back then. By their accounts he would have been an agitator and by todays standards (certainly those of hte British and American governments) his teachings could have been viewed as extremist, therefore inciting religious and racial intolerance, therefore glorifying terrorisim.

I hereby call for the confiscation of all Christ related religious iconography and that they be held in custody as the proxy of the actual Christ in his absense. If he turns up to collect them all well and good, he can then be arrested and tried for hate-speech etc and we can release the icons.

I think anything that offends a religion should be recorded on gold plates for posterity simply because if it offends them, it is likely challenging their idiotic claims and opening minds to the possibility that their venerated beliefs are bunkum. Recorded so that future gernerations can see the seeds that freed them from the oppression of religious tyrany.

... sorry about the rant. Havent had my coffee.

The bitterness is strong in this one! Question. Would you rejoice in the fall of religion?

Hivemind187

JimiTime wrote: »

The bitterness is strong in this one! Question. Would you rejoice in the fall of religion?

I would be extatic with the global realisation that we, as a species, have progressed beyond the point of needing the grotesque cabaret of religion.

In a sense, I suppose yes, I would. But you'll obviously take this out of context and claim that I am looking to begin an atheistic pogrom agaisnt theists.

The fact is that if religion were to dissapear tomorow Atheists wouldnt really be affected since we have already divested ourselves of that particular accoutrement ... it would only mean that we have come full circle to the default position of no theological beliefs.

Clear enough?

Edit: oh ... and I was clearly making fun in the quoted post ... for the most part.

Edit 2: Ah, that "wouldnt" at the begining should have read "would"

JimiTime

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I wouldnt be extatic with the global realisation that we, as a species, have progressed beyond the point of needing the grotesque cabaret of religion.

Edit: oh ... and I was clearly making fun in the quoted post ... for the most part.

Hmmmm:)

In a sense, I suppose yes, I would. But you'll obviously take this out of context and claim that I am looking to begin an atheistic pogrom agaisnt theists.

Oh obviously Dem evil christians ey! Calm down man, I'm not looking to entrap you. I believe its going to happen, not through some atheist alliance, just people not caring about it.

The fact is that if religion were to dissapear tomorow Atheists wouldnt really be affected since we have already divested ourselves of that particular accoutrement ... it would only mean that we have come full circle to the default position of no theological beliefs.

Clear enough?

Crystal.

Hivemind187

JimiTime wrote: »

Hmmmm:)


Oh obviously Dem evil christians ey! Calm down man, I'm not looking to entrap you. I believe its going to happen, not through some atheist alliance, just people not caring about it.

Crystal.

Sorry, I can see I probably came across a little ... strong.

JimiTime

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Sorry, I can see I probably came across a little ... strong.

You're certainly passionate:)

cavedave

Maybe I have this backwards. Maybe when religious people get annoyed by cartoons (Gerry Ryan, south park etc) they are just showing us the right way to point out their failings?

As this post discusses maybe rationality has a marketing problem. We all love a simple story. And those stories that get under the skin of intolerant religions are the simple marketable ones.

Zombrex

cavedave wrote: »

maybe rationality has a marketing problem.

Rationality has a serious marketing problem - it doesn't care about telling people what they want to hear.

Most religion, by definition, tells people what they want to hear, which is normally that there is a supernatural way for you to control and protect yourself against the bad things in this life, such as loneliness, pain, suffering and death.

It does this independently of whether or not any of it is true.

Rationality on the other hand has a duty to what is true, not what makes people feel better. As such it often leads to conclusions that people wish were different.

karen3212

cavedave wrote: »

Mary McAleese addressed a forum in Saudi Arabia
I cannot get her entire speech. The apology is reported here

http://www.emigrant.ie/article.asp?iCategoryID=177&iArticleID=52683
http://markhumphrys.com/irish.left.politics.html
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=22397

But, what do you think of her being a representative of Ireland and supporting a religion and a people that are being demonised by the West at the moment? Do you think there are times when 'being nice' is the right thing to be? But, we didn't print anything so I don't know why she would apologise for Ireland.

PDN

karen3212 wrote: »

But, what do you think of her being a representative of Ireland and supporting a religion and a people that are being demonised by the West at the moment? Do you think there are times when 'being nice' is the right thing to be? But, we didn't print anything so I don't know why she would apologise for Ireland.

More realpolitik. Annual beef exports to Saudi Arabia are worth 33 million euro per year. McAleese was trying to get the Saudis to lift a ban on such exports, hence the grovelling. The ban was lifted last week, so our 'abhorrence' at the cartoons eventually paid off. I bet we're doing OK at filling the gap left by the Saudi's boycott of Danish butter too.

karen3212

PDN wrote: »

More realpolitik. Annual beef exports to Saudi Arabia are worth 33 million euro per year. McAleese was trying to get the Saudis to lift a ban on such exports, hence the grovelling. The ban was lifted last week, so our 'abhorrence' at the cartoons eventually paid off. I bet we're doing OK at filling the gap left by the Saudi's boycott of Danish butter too.

Oh well that's good news, and obviously the right way to go, beats bombing them into a trade deal with us, eh? Obviously you don't see any decency in her action then?

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

More realpolitik. Annual beef exports to Saudi Arabia are worth 33 million euro per year. McAleese was trying to get the Saudis to lift a ban on such exports, hence the grovelling. The ban was lifted last week, so our 'abhorrence' at the cartoons eventually paid off. I bet we're doing OK at filling the gap left by the Saudi's boycott of Danish butter too.

Economically and politically a good decision maybe ... but it just goes to show the level of slime you have to be capable of to be a politician atthat level.

PDN

karen3212 wrote: »

Oh well that's good news, and obviously the right way to go, beats bombing them into a trade deal with us, eh? Obviously you don't see any decency in her action then?

I don't see any decency in lying. I don't believe that most Irish people saw the whole cartoon thing as anything other than a few nutjobs creating a mountain out of a molehill. But we have a long tradition of this as a nation. When De Valera visited the German Embassy to sign the Book of Condolences on the death of Hitler he was hardly representing the views of most Irish people.

Other nations are just as bad. Bush tried to stop Congress passing a resolution on the Armenian genocide just so he could keep the Turks on board in Iraq. That makes him a holocaust denier.

Similarly no Western government, including Ireland, has the backbone to speak out properly on Chinese human right violations because we won't risk our precious trade agreements.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote: »

I don't see any decency in lying. I don't believe that most Irish people saw the whole cartoon thing as anything other than a few nutjobs creating a mountain out of a molehill. But we have a long tradition of this as a nation. When De Valera visited the German Embassy to sign the Book of Condolences on the death of Hitler he was hardly representing the views of most Irish people.

Other nations are just as bad. Bush tried to stop Congress passing a resolution on the Armenian genocide just so he could keep the Turks on board in Iraq. That makes him a holocaust denier.

Similarly no Western government, including Ireland, has the backbone to speak out properly on Chinese human right violations because we won't risk our precious trade agreements.

Grat googly moogly PDN and I actually agree on something.

Maybe not for the same reasons but the end result is the same. :eek:

karen3212

PDN wrote: »

I don't see any decency in lying. I don't believe that most Irish people saw the whole cartoon thing as anything other than a few nutjobs creating a mountain out of a molehill. But we have a long tradition of this as a nation. When De Valera visited the German Embassy to sign the Book of Condolences on the death of Hitler he was hardly representing the views of most Irish people.

Other nations are just as bad. Bush tried to stop Congress passing a resolution on the Armenian genocide just so he could keep the Turks on board in Iraq. That makes him a holocaust denier.

Similarly no Western government, including Ireland, has the backbone to speak out properly on Chinese human right violations because we won't risk our precious trade agreements.

Aaah, I see the use of the word nutjobs, are those human beings just nut jobs, or is there more to them? This is what I mean, comdeming the people not their actions or human rights violations/beliefs. Also they are not all one. Do you not think that by at least dealing with the people involved we in the world are more likely to cooperate better so said violations can be gotten rid of. By the way by living a Western lifestyle surely I am responsible for killing people myself all around the world?

PDN

karen3212 wrote: »

Aaah, I see the use of the word nutjobs, are those human beings just nut jobs, or is there more to them? This is what I mean, comdeming the people not their actions or human rights violations/beliefs. Also they are not all one. Do you not think that by at least dealing with the people involved we in the world are more likely to cooperate better so said violations can be gotten rid of. By the way by living a Western lifestyle surely I am responsible for killing people myself all around the world?

If anyone threatens or commits violence over a cartoon then they are a nutjob, it doesn't matter if they are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist.

I am happy to deal with the people involved so as to get rid of such violations. That need not mean appeasement or mealy-mouthed apologies on behalf of the Irish people expressing sorrow we don't feel for things we haven't done.

cavedave

f anyone threatens or commits violence over a cartoon then they are a nutjob, it doesn't matter if they are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist.

I am happy to deal with the people involved so as to get rid of such violations. That need not mean appeasement or mealy-mouthed apologies on behalf of the Irish people expressing sorrow we don't feel for things we haven't done.

I would also include people who support the stabbing in the street of Theo Van Gogh.

I still think we should go the "life of brian" mockery way. Muslim fundamentalists never looked like bigger clowns then when they took Bert from Seseame street as their idol.