Respect for the religious + religion - where does it start/stop?

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Not a deliberate conspiracy in my mind, but rather, an accidental one (that's the best term I can come up for now). What I think happened is that people heard a story about this great man who did one wondrous thing. They were amazed by it and thought to spread news about this man and so, in order to help their cause, they added a new detail. The next person or people to hear this now have a tale of two wondrous events, they too are enamoured and want to help spread the message. They believe the two wondrous events, add a third of their own, and repeat ad infinitum.
So what would be a core fact? A quick answer might be "The resurrection" but that can't be it, since the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark that we have don't have an account of it.

You're right to a certain extent. The four gospels were almost certainly written by people who had had contact with Jesus, but they weren't written as four independent accounts. Matthew, Mark and Luke were connected, with Mark probably being written first, and the others taking their cue form it but putting their own emphases, depending on how they wanted to portray Jesus. We have to remember that narration and fact at that time weren't seen as totally separate from other kinds of writing, and writers were much looser with what they put down in terms of "fact". It's not that they deliberately set out to mislead, but they saw it in terms of embellishment or confirmation.

Mark doesn't say much about the resurrection but he does mention where Jesus was seen afterwards. Because he doesn't describe the resurrection in the same detail could mean anything. As does the fact that the accounts in the other gospels differ.

I can't tell you, factually, what is right and what is wrong. Nobody can. That's where gut instinct/faith/discernment or whatever you're having yourself comes in.

I can explain it no more than that. It's a different way of thinking.

RikuoAmero

The four gospels were almost certainly written by people who had had contact with Jesus, but they weren't written as four independent accounts.

What evidence do you have of that? John for one has been dated to almost a full century after Jesus.

That's where gut instinct/faith/discernment or whatever you're having yourself comes in.

Which is useless when it comes to trying to build a consensus. You have a gut feeling about this, another person has faith about something else, the other person down the street discerns something different from the first two, and so on.
When all you have is faith, how am I, the skeptic, supposed to use that to try and figure out what actually happened, if anything did happen?

Again, how is it you see stories like demon exorcism as being outlandish or exagerrations, but the claim that he's a God isn't? Nope, that's believable somehow.

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

What evidence do you have of that? John for one has been dated to almost a full century after Jesus.



Which is useless when it comes to trying to build a consensus. You have a gut feeling about this, another person has faith about something else, the other person down the street discerns something different from the first two, and so on.
When all you have is faith, how am I, the skeptic, supposed to use that to try and figure out what actually happened, if anything did happen?

About sixty years, actually. Not inconceivable that it was the same John as in the gospels, but of course it could have been someone who had contact with one of the original apostles. Not inconceivable either...

Nobody's asking you to figure out what actually happened. Nobody can figure it out, so why would you be able to do what no one can.

RikuoAmero

Not inconceivable that it was the same John as in the gospels, but of course it could have been someone who had contact with one of the original apostles.

This of course rests on the assumption that the original apostle is telling the truth, instead of what is more likely happening (either a deliberate exaggeration, a non-deliberate exaggeration, testimony that the apostle himself believes to be true but is actually mistaken about.
How is it that you have somehow determined these people, these accounts, to be telling the truth? Why is it you extend academic skepticism only so far?

Take this guy for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson
He was a famous Jewish leader who died in 1994. If you talk to his followers, and more especially, to people who directly knew him, you will be told he did all sorts of wondrous things, very similar to the claims made about Jesus. In fact, they will tell you that he is still alive, that he survived death, that he occupies a famous chair to this day, but that he is invisible.
So let's say you meet one of these people, and that person tells you these things. Would that be enough for you to say "Yes, Schneerson did do these miracles"?

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

This of course rests on the assumption that the original apostle is telling the truth, instead of what is more likely happening (either a deliberate exaggeration, a non-deliberate exaggeration, testimony that the apostle himself believes to be true but is actually mistaken about.
How is it that you have somehow determined these people, these accounts, to be telling the truth? Why is it you extend academic skepticism only so far?

Take this guy for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson
He was a famous Jewish leader who died in 1994. If you talk to his followers, and more especially, to people who directly knew him, you will be told he did all sorts of wondrous things, very similar to the claims made about Jesus. In fact, they will tell you that he is still alive, that he survived death, that he occupies a famous chair to this day, but that he is invisible.
So let's say you meet one of these people, and that person tells you these things. Would that be enough for you to say "Yes, Schneerson did do these miracles"?

Not at all. Have you read anything I've written? I answered that exact question in my last post.

RikuoAmero

katydid wrote: »

Not at all. Have you read anything I've written? I answered that exact question in my last post.

Which of the questions that I asked there does your "Not at all" answer? If it's the Schneerson question, how is that not a case of double standards? You take the word of a follower (of a follower) of Jesus at, well, their word, but you won't take the word of a follower of Scheerson?

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Which of the questions that I asked there does your "Not at all" answer? If it's the Schneerson question, how is that not a case of double standards? You take the word of a follower (of a follower) of Jesus at, well, their word, but you won't take the word of a follower of Scheerson?

How many times do I have to answer? I DON'T KNOW...NOBODY KNOWS

RikuoAmero

*blink* Nobody knows...what your "not at all" was an answer to?

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

*blink* Nobody knows...what your "not at all" was an answer to?

Blink, blink. ANY OF IT. Nobody can know.

RikuoAmero

*Throws hands up in the air*
The only question of mine that your "not at all" could possibly be referring to given it's wording is my question about you meeting a follower of Schneerson. So no, your meeting with that follower would not be enough for you to say "Yes, Schneerson did do these miracles".
No, you haven't answered that question before. This is the first time I've talked about Schneerson with you, so how could you have answered it before?
So for you, it's enough to read the gospels for you to say "Yes, Jesus was/is God, did die and resurrect". That's enough to satisfy you...but if you talk to a follower of Schneerson who is alive today, that isn't enough for you to agree with him that Schneerson accomplished a similar act.
That to me is a blatant case of double standards. No need to wave your "Nobody knows" sign around, it doesn't make sense to say that phrase here.
For some reason, in your view, 2,000 year old stories from anonymous authors are far stronger and more reliable evidence than people you can meet and talk with today.

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

*Throws hands up in the air*
The only question of mine that your "not at all" could possibly be referring to given it's wording is my question about you meeting a follower of Schneerson. So no, your meeting with that follower would not be enough for you to say "Yes, Schneerson did do these miracles".
No, you haven't answered that question before. This is the first time I've talked about Schneerson with you, so how could you have answered it before?
So for you, it's enough to read the gospels for you to say "Yes, Jesus was/is God, did die and resurrect". That's enough to satisfy you...but if you talk to a follower of Schneerson who is alive today, that isn't enough for you to agree with him that Schneerson accomplished a similar act.
That to me is a blatant case of double standards. No need to wave your "Nobody knows" sign around, it doesn't make sense to say that phrase here.
For some reason, in your view, 2,000 year old stories from anonymous authors are far stronger and more reliable evidence than people you can meet and talk with today.

*Eyes to heaven*. All of it means all of it. Nobody can know one way or the other when something is not capable of being proven or disproven.

Mark Hamill

katydid wrote: »

Nobody can know one way or the other when something is not capable of being proven or disproven.

Which is what makes it a useless claim. If something is completely unprovable (i.e. unfalsifiable) then the claim being true is indistinguishable from the claim being false, which means it has no effect either way. Science rejects such claims out of hand because the only weight behind them is the force of assertion by the person who supports them, nothing more.

katydid

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Which is what makes it a useless claim. If something is completely unprovable (i.e. unfalsifiable) then the claim being true is indistinguishable from the claim being false, which means it has no effect either way. Science rejects such claims out of hand because the only weight behind them is the force of assertion by the person who supports them, nothing more.

[...unhelpful prose deleted...]

I've had enough of this farce - this forum is, in its own way, as close minded and conservative as the worst Christian fundamentalists. Dissent or plain speaking is verboten. So, I'm off. Just thought you were owed an explanation, which you might get to read before it is censored.

challengemaster

katydid wrote: »

About sixty years, actually. Not inconceivable that it was the same John as in the gospels, but of course it could have been someone who had contact with one of the original apostles. Not inconceivable either...

It's almost entirely inconceivable.

The average life expectancy was around 20-30 at the time.

swampgas

katydid wrote: »

... I've had enough of this farce - this forum is, in its own way, as close minded and conservative as the worst Christian fundamentalists. Dissent or plain speaking is verboten. So, I'm off.

Nah, you can't say that - you don't know that, because (if I understand you correctly) nobody really knows anything, and nobody can ever prove if anything is true or false. So that's just like, your opinion, okay?

See? We could all play the everything-is-unprovable cop-out card.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

Blink, blink. ANY OF IT. Nobody can know.

Odd, because earlier....

Well, it's the same for me in terms of my faith. I can't tell you why I know
that God exists, but I do.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94065529&postcount=744

Zubeneschamali

katydid wrote: »

this forum is, in its own way, as close minded and conservative as the worst Christian fundamentalists.

Hmm, sneering at Christian fundamentalists again, you really have a chip on your shoulder about how educated and intelligent and free thinking your religion is.

Odd, since you are in the very same boat: believing stuff you admit science says is impossible:

katydid wrote: »

Of course the Christian story in the Bible is impossible, according to science. At least, parts of it are. But that's not the issue, since no one is trying to say it is possible according to science...

RikuoAmero

I'd love to know exactly how we're the ones that are close-minded and conservative. I mean, we must be, what with our demanding of logic, evidence, data or reasons before we change our minds.
Last I checked, the christian fundamentalists Katy mentions are close-minded and conservative precisely because they believe the claims of their religion and don't allow any sort of evidence or logic to change their minds. Sound familiar?
Hmm...projection, much?

So go on Katy. Explain to us please how you're not the one being close-minded and conservative. Explain to us how your frequent proclamations of believing in something sans logic, reason or evidence is not being close-minded to other possible better explanations. After all, if a completely cogent and sound explanation for all the bible stories and claims comes along that doesn't require a belief in the supernatural, how would you examine it...or better yet, would you examine it at all?

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'd love to know exactly how we're the ones that are close-minded and conservative. I mean, we must be, what with our demanding of logic, evidence, data or reasons before we change our minds.
Last I checked, the christian fundamentalists Katy mentions are close-minded and conservative precisely because they believe the claims of their religion and don't allow any sort of evidence or logic to change their minds. Sound familiar?
Hmm...projection, much?

So go on Katy. Explain to us please how you're not the one being close-minded and conservative. Explain to us how your frequent proclamations of believing in something sans logic, reason or evidence is not being close-minded to other possible better explanations. After all, if a completely cogent and sound explanation for all the bible stories and claims comes along that doesn't require a belief in the supernatural, how would you examine it...or better yet, would you examine it at all?

I would like to be able to respond to you, but if I imply any kind of criticism of any kind, I will be behaving in an anti-social manner and will be red-carded.

RikuoAmero

katydid wrote: »

I would like to be able to respond to you, but if I imply any kind of criticism of any kind, I will be behaving in an anti-social manner and will be red-carded.

Then PM me. Or try to mention it here in as neutral a tone as possible. Perhaps you could write what you think and believe is a definition for close-minded, give an example of something we've written and give your reasons for how that matches your definition.
No, it wouldn't be anti-social. It would only be anti-social if you described us negatively without giving reasons or evidence.
Criticism? We welcome it. I've several times stated that I LOVE being proven wrong, because it's how I improve myself.

swampgas

katydid wrote: »

I would like to be able to respond to you, but if I imply any kind of criticism of any kind, I will be behaving in an anti-social manner and will be red-carded.

As long as you play the ball and not the player, you can criticize away to your heart's content.

I.e:
Not OK: You are an idiot to believe or think X
OK: Idea X is idiotic because ...

At least, that's my take on it. ( Definitely not a mod )

robindch

katydid wrote: »

I would like to be able to respond to you, but if I imply any kind of criticism of any kind, I will be behaving in an anti-social manner and will be red-carded.

Have a read of the forum charter.

As swampgas says, you are free to criticize ideas as much as you like. You are not free to call other posters fools, or imply that they are fools.

Not acceptable: Sometimes I wonder if I'm engaging with adults
Acceptable: I think what you said is quite childish.
Good: I disagree with your point of view. Here's why...

RikuoAmero

swampgas wrote: »

As long as you play the ball and not the player, you can criticize away to your heart's content.

I.e:
Not OK: You are an idiot to believe or think X
OK: Idea X is idiotic because ...

At least, that's my take on it. ( Definitely not a mod )

Exactly. Instead of say for example just saying "Y'all are racists!" you could do this

Racism: Being disparaging towards other people based solely on their race
<Insert quote here>
Conclusion: That was a racist quote, therefore you are racist.

TheLurker

katydid wrote: »

[...unhelpful prose deleted...]

I've had enough of this farce - this forum is, in its own way, as close minded and conservative as the worst Christian fundamentalists. Dissent or plain speaking is verboten. So, I'm off. Just thought you were owed an explanation, which you might get to read before it is censored.

You don't care if you are right about God. You don't care to examine if the reason you believe in God stands up to examination (because you don't care if you are right about God). You don't care to examine the reasons you believe, you don't care to justify the reasons you believe, you don't care to defend the reasons you believe.

Ok. Fine. But the rest of us don't think like that.

We do care if what we believe is true or false. We do care to examine WHY we believe something is true and WHY we believe something is false. We care to state the WHY as well as the WHAT when discussing belief and what we claim to know.

This matters to us because it matters to us if we are following a fictional or factual model of reality.

You can say all you like that we are being unfair to you, that we should respect your way of thinking as much as we respect our way of thinking. But we don't. Because we care if what we believe is true or false, and we care WHY we think it is true or false.

So ... what now

obplayer

Earlier today our kitten got herself into an untenable position on the curtain poles and I provided a route to safety and normality. Anyone got any help for katydid?

katydid

robindch wrote: »

Have a read of the forum charter.

As swampgas says, you are free to criticize ideas as much as you like. You are not free to call other posters fools, or imply that they are fools.

Not acceptable: Sometimes I wonder if I'm engaging with adults
Acceptable: I think what you said is quite childish.
Good: I disagree with your point of view. Here's why...

I did not imply anyone was a fool. Suggesting that someone who was debating about the creation story should know the basics of its Christian theology is not implying someone is a fool, simply that they hadn't informed themselves and that I was surprised at that fact.

The comment about engaging with adults was on the same basis - when someone asks if creationism, global warming etc. are provable, how can one not wonder what is going on?

obplayer

obplayer wrote: »

Earlier today our kitten got herself into an untenable position on the curtain poles and I provided a route to safety and normality. Anyone got any help for katydid?

Ok, then how about this. Don't get into a debate on a forum which respects reason and logic and then declare you don't believe in them? Instead you could create your own White Queen forum in honour of someone who appears to be your hero.

The White Queen, aside from telling Alice things that she finds difficult to believe (one being that she is just over 101 years old) says that in her youth she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast" and counsels Alice to practice the same skill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Queen_(Through_the_Looking-Glass

K4t

Respect people, disrespect religion as much as possible.

And that includes Islam. To hate Islam is not to hate Muslims, contrary to what anyone might try and tell you.

MrPudding

K4t wrote: »

And that includes Islam. To hate Islam is not to hate Muslims, contrary to what anyone might try and tell you.

Yeah, but it is racist.

MrP

silverharp

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah, but it is racist.

MrP

But Islam isn't a race. It would seem consistent to "hate" a set of ideas that you would view as overly dangerous or backward by your own measure.

smacl

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah, but it is racist.

MrP

Is it? Is to hate Catholicism or Scientology similarly racist? I'd suggest it is simply hateful, which is rarely a good thing in my book.

K4t

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah, but it is racist.

MrP

Nah, don't think so, it is possible to separate a religion from those who follow and believe in it. Islam is not a race, and it is in no way racist except maybe inside your head to criticise the tenets of the religion of Islam, many of which are abhorrent by today's ethical standards. And to criticise the very idea of organised religion. You are a major part of the problem with regards the perpetuation of faith and the influence of organised religion upon people when you throw around completely baseless and false accusations at anyone who would simply choose to despise organised religion.

silverharp

smacl wrote: »

Is it? Is to hate Catholicism or Scientology similarly racist? I'd suggest it is simply hateful, which is rarely a good thing in my book.

Disagreeable is a synonym for hate . why would it not be OK to find any number of beliefs as disagreeable? Say the political ideas in north Korea or sharia law for example

K4t

smacl wrote: »

Is it? Is to hate Catholicism or Scientology similarly racist? I'd suggest it is simply hateful, which is rarely a good thing in my book.

To hate, which is defined as an intense dislike for, is too often seen as a bad or negative thing now due in most part I believe to terms such as hate crime and hate speech. I also hate Nazism, Murder, Rape for various different reasons, is that also a bad thing? And likewise I hate religion and the religion of Islam for various reasons. I repeat, I do not hate Muslim people, in fact I am friendly with many Muslims. I do however hate Christianity, but that doesn't mean I do not love or get on with as a human being my aunt who is a nun in a Catholic convent. I have toured her convent and eaten there many times and found the nuns and other workers incredibly friendly and pleasant. Did their kind and humane behaviour towards me influence in any way my feelings about religion? No. Do I still hate Christianity and Catholicism? Yes.

smacl

Hate crime, specifically incitement to hatred in this country, is encouraging one group of people to hate another group of people. Much like bullying, I personally consider it both cowardly and despicable, and am proud to part of a society that deems it unacceptable. While I have no use for Islam, Christianity, or most organised religion, I certainly would not advocate hatred towards them. What I would do is greatly limit the influence they're allowed to exert in society. There are plenty of damaging influences on our society that need to be controlled on the basis that they are potentially damaging. Campaigns of hatred are hardly the answer, and if anything cause the polarisation within society which in turn leads to the type of extremist behaviour we've seen of late in France.

To my mind there is a straight line progression from intolerance to hatred to violence to war. Not a line I want to follow.

smacl

silverharp wrote: »

Disagreeable is a synonym for hate . why would it not be OK to find any number of beliefs as disagreeable? Say the political ideas in north Korea or sharia law for example

Not really. Don't see them coming up with an incitement to be disagreeable law any time soon. I also find much about organised religion highly objectionable, not least sharia law, and the barbaric treatment by the likes of the Saudis of those guilty of blasphemy or apostasy to be unacceptable in the extreme. This still doesn't amount to hatred, which I consider an emotional position rather than a reasoned one. I try to leave that 'eye for an eye' shít to the zealots. YMMV.

silverharp

smacl wrote: »

Not really. Don't see them coming up with an incitement to be disagreeable law any time soon. I also find much about organised religion highly objectionable, not least sharia law, and the barbaric treatment by the likes of the Saudis of those guilty of blasphemy or apostasy to be unacceptable in the extreme. This still doesn't amount to hatred, which I consider an emotional position rather than a reasoned one. I try to leave that 'eye for an eye' shít to the zealots. YMMV.

But then youvare just using a particular legal definition of the word which might be fine in most cases. If the law itself was excessively broad for instance legally stopping the sale of the recent french magazine then it more might be worth breaking the law to protect our freedoms. This wouldn't be hate but a principled stance against bad law.

smacl

silverharp wrote: »

But then youvare just using a particular legal definition of the word which might be fine in most cases. If the law itself was excessively broad for instance legally stopping the sale of the recent french magazine then it more might be worth breaking the law to protect our freedoms. This wouldn't be hate but a principled stance against bad law.

True if it was, but it isn't and it didn't, so we don't have to. That's kind of the point. Most things appear in a spectrum rather than being black and white. Being disagreeable and having hatred may appear on the same spectrum, but they're along way apart. Going all the way to one end of the spectrum amounts to taking an extreme position. I consider advocating hatred to be an objectionable form of extremism.

silverharp

smacl wrote: »

True if it was, but it isn't and it didn't, so we don't have to. That's kind of the point. Most things appear in a spectrum rather than being black and white. Being disagreeable and having hatred may appear on the same spectrum, but they're along way apart. Going all the way to one end of the spectrum amounts to taking an extreme position. I consider advocating hatred to be an objectionable form of extremism.

laws have a habit of getting out of control , there was a case in London where someone was charged because they had a placard that said Scientology was a cult at a demonstration at their head quarters so Id suggest there are laws which are too loose.

Turtwig

Folks Mr P was being intentionally ironic. In many discussions criticisms of Islam is described as racist. Even posters on boards have accused posters who criticise Islam of being racist. It's quite sad but there some seem to be a collective there that for some bizarre reason considers members of Islam to be a race!:eek:

obplayer

Farage accused of driving Jews from Britain after Ukip pledge to ban religious slaughter of animals

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2938362/Farage-accused-wanting-drive-Jews-Britain-Ukip-pledge-ban-religious-slaughter-animals.html

Ukip backs plans to outlaw killing of animals for meat without stunning
The RSPCA has called for the practice to be made illegal in the UK
David Cameron has promised to keep exemptions for religious purposes
Ukip said it was 'time someone stood up for rights of the silent majority'
Jewish Chronicle said it means Jews 'may not keep kosher and remain'
MEP Stuart Agnew said the policy was not meant to 'target' Jews

Should we respect religions' rights in this regard? Personally I am all in favour of banning cruel methods of animal slaughter.

robindch

obplayer wrote: »

Farage accused of driving Jews from Britain after Ukip pledge to ban religious slaughter of animals [...]

He nicked the policy from the Danes, who banned animal slaughter for "religious reasons" last year:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-as-minister-says-animal-rights-come-before-religion-9135580.html

UK Independent wrote:

Denmark’s government has brought in a ban on the religious slaughter of animals for the production of halal and kosher meat, after years of campaigning from welfare activists. The change to the law, announced last week and effective as of yesterday, has been called “anti-Semitism” by Jewish leaders and “a clear interference in religious freedom” by the non-profit group Danish Halal.

European regulations require animals to be stunned before they are slaughtered, but grants exemptions on religious grounds. For meat to be considered kosher under Jewish law or halal under Islamic law, the animal must be conscious when killed. Yet defending his government’s decision to remove this exemption, the minister for agriculture and food Dan Jørgensen told Denmark’s TV2 that “animal rights come before religion”.

Commenting on the change, Israel’s deputy minister of religious services Rabbi Eli Ben Dahan told the Jewish Daily Forward: “European anti-Semitism is showing its true colours across Europe, and is even intensifying in the government institutions.” Al Jazeera quoted the monitoring group Danish Halal, which launched a petition against the ban, as saying it was “a clear interference in religious freedom limiting the rights of Muslims and Jews to practice their religion in Denmark”.

tl;dr = "Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!"

MrPudding

silverharp wrote: »

But Islam isn't a race. It would seem consistent to "hate" a set of ideas that you would view as overly dangerous or backward by your own measure.

smacl wrote: »

Is it? Is to hate Catholicism or Scientology similarly racist? I'd suggest it is simply hateful, which is rarely a good thing in my book.

K4t wrote: »

Nah, don't think so, it is possible to separate a religion from those who follow and believe in it. Islam is not a race, and it is in no way racist except maybe inside your head to criticise the tenets of the religion of Islam, many of which are abhorrent by today's ethical standards. And to criticise the very idea of organised religion. You are a major part of the problem with regards the perpetuation of faith and the influence of organised religion upon people when you throw around completely baseless and false accusations at anyone who would simply choose to despise organised religion.

Ok, then it is islamophobic.

MrP

silverharp

MrPudding wrote: »

Ok, then it is islamophobic.

MrP

that sounds pejorative though as that term would include people who might have a visceral attitude to individual muslims.

MrPudding

silverharp wrote: »

that sounds pejorative though as that term would include people who might have a visceral attitude to individual muslims.

It has to be one or the other as there is, apparently, no way to criticise the 'idea' of Islam, or any of its adherents, irrespective of their actions, which isn't one of those things.

MrP

smacl

MrPudding wrote: »

It has to be one or the other as there is, apparently, no way to criticise the 'idea' of Islam, or any of its adherents, irrespective of their actions, which isn't one of those things.

MrP

Why the need for a label? I've no problem criticising Catholicism without need for words like Catholiphobia. Islamophobia seems very much like a term developed by the apologists for Islam in order to play the victim card on one hand, and polarise mixed communities into Islamic and non-Islamic on the other. Seems to be working quite well for them.

challengemaster

Came across this on an Irish hotels facebook after seeing a bargain alert thread on them. If anything I think it's a perfect example of where respect for the religious starts/stops.

A nice Muslim lady rang the hotel today complaining (politely) about the “image of the Prophet Muhammad" we recently shared on our Facebook page. She appeared to be a well-educated lady and spoke with a soft, gentle voice. She said that visual depictions of the prophet are explicitly prohibited across the globe and only oral and written descriptions of him are permitted. I explained to the lady that the man in the image was not the prophet, it was Sean Penn wearing a baker’s hat. “What do you mean”, she replied, “it IS the prophet”. I then asked her “madam, if pictures of the prophet are forbidden across the world, how do you know what he looks like?” The lady went silent. I continued “and more importantly, if you don’t know what he looks like, how can you say with any degree of accuracy that the man in this hand-drawn cartoon is actually him?”. More silence ensued.

After a conversation in which there was more silence than words spoken, the lady began to see reason in my argument. She ended up believing that the man in the cartoon was indeed Sean Penn, as she was able to make a visual comparison between Sean and the figure in the drawing. This kind of comparison could not be made in her original argument, as she didn't know what the prophet looked like in the first place.

Like most guests leaving our hotel, the lady left the conversation a happy camper.

If anyone else has taken offence to the pic we shared, please be advised that as far as we are concerned, the man depicted in this pic is Sean Penn wearing a baker's hat. Believing that a man in a cartoon is somebody that you have never seen before is nearly as deluded as believing in a god for whom we have no proof or evidence. Not quite as deluded. But certainly nearly.

daUbiq

What I can not understand is why apparently sane people believe in fairytales?

robindch

daUbiq wrote: »

What I can not understand is why apparently sane people believe in fairytales?

Because the people who believe them not only don't believe they're a hodge-podge of poorly-written fairy tales populated by wooden characters, but in fact believe they're some of the most important texts available to humanity.

I'm never quite sure why Ayn Rand supporters don't see the similarity, btw.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

I'm never quite sure why Ayn Rand supporters don't see the similarity, btw.

Dystopian fiction has a place , atlas shrugged is no different to 1984 or animal farm. 1984 is a better read I'll grant it.