 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraz net> wrote:
>> That is why, in public, I let the
>> people that are good at this stuff make the statements. They are *far*
>> better at it. And some, like Greta Christina:
>>
>> http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/
>>
>> do so with a profound grace and choice of words that often leaves me
>> absolutely astounded.
>
> looks like a slut and sounds like a slut. oh wait, she's actually a pro... :P
>
> That was a loong rant, sir.
Indeed it was. I don't think that helps to get the message across.
Perhaps Patrick would also benefit from watching some Marx Brothers
movies ;)
> The thing atheists don't seem to grasp is that they
> sound just about as annoying and boring in their anti-religion rants as
> religious fanatics in their convert stories...
>
As just another atheist I'd like to point out that atheism is a religion
too. Many deists think that an atheist is someone who is not convinced
that God does exist (or worse: not yet). They are wrong. I *believe*
that God does not exist and I mean that in the same way as a Christian
or Muslim or whatever believes the opposite. I.e. I *know* that God does
not exit moreover my ethical values are fundamentally based on the non
existence of God. If it turned out she did exist after all, I would need
a couple of weeks to rethink my ethics.
We atheist have no reason to form churches and that means that we have
no religious leaders. Sadly that means that our believe is less
protected than the church forming religions. That is already subtly
noticeable even in the Netherlands. In the US it seems to be much worse,
and under the inspired leadership of the current president it has
apparently even reached the level of discrimination. I think that was
one of the more important points of Patrick.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> If your God or Gods tells you to slay people, that's what you do. Go
>> read the Old Testament, where the Jews torched entire cities and
>> committed genocide at the bequest of JHVH.
>
> It also says in another part that God said to someone to chop some wood
> to make a fire. Does this mean that everyone who believes the Bible must
> go and chop wood to make a fire? No, it just means that God said to someone
> to chop some wood for a fire, nothing more, nothing less. Creating a doctrine
> from this would be adding something to the Bible that isn't there, which is
> explicitly prohibited.
>
> Of course there are some people who go ahead and create doctrines and
> ideologies from whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they are right.
> It's just a convenient excuse to fulfill whatever their messed up heads
> wants them to do.
>
Although you are theoretically right, history teaches that things often
go differently. Take for instance the 6th commandment: "Thou shalt not
murder/kill". That does not leave open anything you would say. Well,
(religious) leaders tend to read that as "Thou shalt not murder another
human being" and then start defining what they think is and isn't a
human being. Popular exceptions to this simple rule are: homosexuals,
prostitutes, unborn children, incurable diseased with lots of pain,
convicted criminals, Jews, Christians, Muslim, atheists ...
Most people see the problem with that, but if your religious leader of
choice keeps repeating that homosexuals are below dogs and that you
should treat them as such, you may eventually believe him.
Other examples: Last year or so, an imam met one of our ministers for a
discussion on integration. He refused to shake her outstretched hand
claiming that his religion does not allow him to touch a woman other
than a relative. What about these city councils that do not allow a
performance if it is scheduled on sunday, if it is not a type of music
that they consider Christian, or if the poster to announce it is not
deemed decent enough.
I am afraid that a lot of people in responsible religious positions
think about ethics and reach conclusions that make it fully justified to
use your 'messed up heads' phrase. But in stead of sending them to an
asylum, we back off because it is 'religion' and 'thus' protected by
law. (This would be where I start a rant on 'freedom of religion' vs
'freedom of culture' but I won't, this post is already too long).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> (This would be where I start a rant on 'freedom of religion' vs
> 'freedom of culture' but I won't, this post is already too long).
Thanks for knowing when to stop. I think "tl;dr" about most of Patrick's
posts; no offense intended...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> If your God or Gods tells you to slay people, that's what you do. Go
>> read the Old Testament, where the Jews torched entire cities and
>> committed genocide at the bequest of JHVH.
>
> It also says in another part that God said to someone to chop some wood
> to make a fire. Does this mean that everyone who believes the Bible must
> go and chop wood to make a fire? No, it just means that God said to someone
> to chop some wood for a fire, nothing more, nothing less. Creating a doctrine
> from this would be adding something to the Bible that isn't there, which is
> explicitly prohibited.
I'm not sure whether you're trying to disagree with me or not. My
statement was that "religion doesn't lead to good, it leads to
obedience". Your statement seems to be "what you're supposed to obey
isn't always clear."
If your religion is a justification for your actions, then picking out
only the parts of your religion that say to do good things is kind of
silly. If you do that, you've already made up your mind about what's
good, and you're using religion to justify it, which isn't any better or
worse than those doing bad and using religion to justify it.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> (This would be where I start a rant on 'freedom of religion' vs
>> 'freedom of culture' but I won't, this post is already too long).
>
> Thanks for knowing when to stop.
no no, this is where you should ask to fill in the gap ;)
> I think "tl;dr"
Had to look that one up. Not a common expression here.
> about most of Patrick's posts; no offense intended...
none taken
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Take for instance the 6th commandment: "Thou shalt not
> murder/kill". That does not leave open anything you would say.
Putting aside the morality of death penalty for a moment, in the
states of the US where there is death penalty killing people is still
against the law. Is this a contradiction? No. In the penal system of
these states it's not a contradiction. It's perfectly valid to write
a law saying that killing is illegal, yet still have death penalty.
Let's approach it from yet another angle: Another commandment says
that you must respect your parents. Yet if your father commits a horrible
crime should you respect him or should you report it to the authorities?
Even though the answer is the latter, that doesn't make the commandment
any less relevant.
You can have your opinion on whether death penalty is acceptable,
but that doesn't mean that the penal system described in the old testament
would not be understandable. Killing can be unlawful even if there exists
death penalty.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I think "tl;dr" about most of Patrick's posts; no offense intended...
> none taken
I meant no offense to Patrick...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Take for instance the 6th commandment: "Thou shalt not
>> murder/kill". That does not leave open anything you would say.
>
> Putting aside the morality of death penalty for a moment, in the
> states of the US where there is death penalty killing people is still
> against the law. Is this a contradiction? No. In the penal system of
> these states it's not a contradiction. It's perfectly valid to write
> a law saying that killing is illegal, yet still have death penalty.
>
> Let's approach it from yet another angle: Another commandment says
> that you must respect your parents. Yet if your father commits a horrible
> crime should you respect him or should you report it to the authorities?
> Even though the answer is the latter, that doesn't make the commandment
> any less relevant.
>
> You can have your opinion on whether death penalty is acceptable,
> but that doesn't mean that the penal system described in the old testament
> would not be understandable. Killing can be unlawful even if there exists
> death penalty.
>
Is there anything in my post that suggests that I disagree with that?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Let's approach it from yet another angle: Another commandment says
> that you must respect your parents. Yet if your father commits a horrible
> crime should you respect him or should you report it to the authorities?
> Even though the answer is the latter, that doesn't make the commandment
> any less relevant.
You're presuming that the answer is the latter, tho. How does one know?
Is it because one's religion told you so? Or is it because one has been
taught it's really the right thing, and then one adds non-existent
exceptions to the rule to adjust the religion to match the existent
morality?
If the latter, it's nonsensical to say that religious people are more
moral or kinder or whatever than areligious people.
If you're going to take something as clear as most of the comandments
are, and add interpretations and exceptions, then the religion stops
having anything to do with it.
Just like if you're going to make excuses for God punishing the serpent
and start up with things like "the serpent was really Satan"[*] then
again the actual Bible has stopped having anything to do with the religion.
[*] That whole tree-of-knowledge bit was really one giant cock-up,
showing just how evil JHVH really is, when you get down to it.
Obedience, even if it means agreeing with the boss' lies, and eternal
punishment on you and every one of your species for disobedience even
when you didn't know better and the boss knows you didn't know better
because he kept that from you. North Korea would be proud.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> Just like if you're going to make excuses for God punishing the serpent
> and start up with things like "the serpent was really Satan"[*] then
> again the actual Bible has stopped having anything to do with the religion.
>
>
> [*] That whole tree-of-knowledge bit was really one giant cock-up,
> showing just how evil JHVH really is, when you get down to it.
> Obedience, even if it means agreeing with the boss' lies, and eternal
> punishment on you and every one of your species for disobedience even
> when you didn't know better and the boss knows you didn't know better
> because he kept that from you. North Korea would be proud.
>
I think the key passage is 3.14 It is just a fable why the snake lost
its legs.
;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
