RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Chaingang -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/6/2007 6:23:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened Try the Syrian historical records and perhaps Roman records where the kings and emperors asked the gods how to best destroy other peoples. Links? Chronology? quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened i don't get the message of what you would have us do? My message is not "Drink the OJ;" it is merely "Don't drink the Kool-Aid."

eyesopened -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/7/2007 4:34:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened Try the Syrian historical records and perhaps Roman records where the kings and emperors asked the gods how to best destroy other peoples. Links? Chronology? Try this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/04/war_audit_pdf/pdf/war_audit.pdf quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened i don't get the message of what you would have us do? My message is not "Drink the OJ;" it is merely "Don't drink the Kool-Aid." Hemoclysm: the string of interconnected barbarities that have made the Twentieth Century so miserable for people. Here is the body count for the Big Five -- the First and Second World Wars, Russian Revolution, Communist China and the Soviet Union -- which together account for maybe 75 per cent of all deaths by atrocity in the 20th Century. First World War (1914-18) 8.5 million military 6-9 million civilian Russian Civil War (1917-22) 5 million Soviet Union, Stalin’s regime (1924-53) 9-60 million Second World War (1937-45) 50 million Brzezinski: Military: 19M Civilians, "actual byproduct of hostilities": 20M Civilians, Sino-Japanese War: 15M Hitler's murders: 17M TOTAL: 71M Rummel: European War Dead (1939-45): 28,736,000 Sino-Japanese War Dead (1937-45): 7,140,000 War-related Democides Hitler: 20,946,000 Stalin: 13,053,000 Japanese: 5,964,000 Chinese Nationalist: 5,907,000 Allied Bombing: 796,000 Croatian: 655,000 Tito: 600,000 Romanian domestic democide: 484,000 Chinese Communist: 250,000 Hungarian democide in Yugoslavia: 78,000 [TOTAL: 48,733,000] [TOTAL (1937-45): 84,609,000] Chinese Civil War (1945-49) 6 million People's Republic of China, Mao regime (1949-1975) 30-40 million It would seem, if we look at mathematical science that secular wars kill more than "religious" war. Stalin and Mao, who espoused science and denounced religion were responsible for nearly 100 million deaths. And you are afraid of me because i pray and meditate?

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/7/2007 4:43:42 AM)
Hmm You forget that the conditions that led up to these events where caused by er....christians and other religious folk! Hitler used religion as a way of rallying the masses, as did happen in Japan whose generals used Shintoism and belief in the Emperor god to aid their ambitions. Stalin who was an atheist but who had trained in a seminary was also well aware of how religions hi-jack the minds of people. Even Moa used pseudo-religious rhetoric and symbolism for his cause. The common factor is that ordinary people don't question these people early enough because their minds have been so befuddled by irrational belief that they can't tell what is and what is not real. The Germans say gott mit uns God is with us The Americans say In God we trust The British say Good Save Our Queen I could go on but I won't but all irrationally believe god is on their side but all have started wars and have been at each others throats at some point in history.

eyesopened -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/7/2007 5:02:06 AM)
Do you honestly believe that if right now, today, all humans denounced the existance of a deity that war would cease? You assert that Mao used pseudo-religious rhetoric.... so then all secular or political leaders would be the "cult of the individual" and re-establish "religion" even if belief in a deity ceased altogether. It's circular logic. If we say religion is the problem, what then is the final solution?

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/7/2007 5:56:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened Do you honestly believe that if right now, today, all humans denounced the existance of a deity that war would cease? You assert that Mao used pseudo-religious rhetoric.... so then all secular or political leaders would be the "cult of the individual" and re-establish "religion" even if belief in a deity ceased altogether. It's circular logic. If we say religion is the problem, what then is the final solution? Charismatic leaders find religion and pseudo-religious rhetoric and imagery useful because people have allowed their minds to be trained to respond to such methods without question because that is what religion does. A world without religion won't stop bad things happening but not believing in the supernatural leads one to question more. How many times have you heard democratic leaders invoke god? Have you ever asked yourself why they invoke god to their cause? The answer is simple, you are not supposed to question god and since they probably don't have an acceptable reason for what they are doing they claim god to be on their side to inhibit you from asking them pertinent questions and it often works. Well have you ever asked where is god and how these people know what is in god's mind? Maybe if the 9/11 terrorists didn't have absolute faith in god and the afterlife, they might have questioned flying those planes into the WTC. I don't believe for a minute they did what they did because they were terrorists pure and simple but because they had faith in their god and the paradise they were promised existed. Well Christians have gone on the rampage themselves to teach non-Christians a lesson or two in Christian morality with the absolute certainty god is on their side.

eyesopened -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/7/2007 6:05:51 AM)
quote: Do you honestly believe that if right now, today, all humans denounced the existance of a deity that war would cease? You assert that Mao used pseudo-religious rhetoric.... so then all secular or political leaders would be the "cult of the individual" and re-establish "religion" even if belief in a deity ceased altogether. It's circular logic. If we say religion is the problem, what then is the final solution? quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened Do you honestly believe that if right now, today, all humans denounced the existance of a deity that war would cease? You assert that Mao used pseudo-religious rhetoric.... so then all secular or political leaders would be the "cult of the individual" and re-establish "religion" even if belief in a deity ceased altogether. It's circular logic. If we say religion is the problem, what then is the final solution? Charismatic leaders find religion and pseudo-religious rhetoric and imagery useful because people have allowed their minds to be trained to respond to such methods without question because that is what religion does. A world without religion won't stop bad things happening but not believing in the supernatural leads one to question more. How many times have you heard democratic leaders invoke god? Have you ever asked yourself why they invoke god to their cause? The answer is simple, you are not supposed to question god and since they probably don't have an acceptable reason for what they are doing they claim god to be on their side to inhibit you from asking them pertinent questions and it often works. Well have you ever asked where is god and how these people know what is in god's mind? Maybe if the 9/11 terrorists didn't have absolute faith in god and the afterlife, they might have questioned flying those planes into the WTC. I don't believe for a minute they did what they did because they were terrorists pure and simple but because they had faith in their god and the paradise they were promised existed. Well Christians have gone on the rampage themselves to teach non-Christians a lesson or two in Christian morality with the absolute certainty god is on their side. You didn't even come close to answering my question. You pose the problem but not the solution. i hate to repeat myself but: Do you honestly believe that if right now, today, all humans denounced the existance of a deity that war would cease? You assert that Mao used pseudo-religious rhetoric.... so then all secular or political leaders would be the "cult of the individual" and re-establish "religion" even if belief in a deity ceased altogether. It's circular logic. If we say religion is the problem, what then is the final solution?

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/7/2007 7:39:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened Do you honestly believe that if right now, today, all humans denounced the existance of a deity that war would cease? You assert that Mao used pseudo-religious rhetoric.... so then all secular or political leaders would be the "cult of the individual" and re-establish "religion" even if belief in a deity ceased altogether. It's circular logic. If we say religion is the problem, what then is the final solution? I did answer you question. I said good things and bad things will still happen and in that I include war. But this isn't just about war. It's about people fullfilling their potential and not being kowed or their behaviour modified by some vicious godfather in the sky who is going to zap them with fire and brimstone should they think for themselves. Every time I see a woman in a burqa (there are enough of them where I live), I think what a wasted life, her protential has been stunted. Now that is a more extreme manifestation of religion's ability to ruin someone's life and maybe, even without them knowing it. There are plenty of manifestations in our society too. Creationism for example. Isn't it life stunting to indoctrinate children with a pack of lies? One could draw up and endless list. There is no solution to the problems of the world but there is a solution to many blighted lives in future and that is to teach people to think for themselves and not fall back on a concoction of lies and myth.

eyesopened -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/7/2007 8:06:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened Do you honestly believe that if right now, today, all humans denounced the existance of a deity that war would cease? You assert that Mao used pseudo-religious rhetoric.... so then all secular or political leaders would be the "cult of the individual" and re-establish "religion" even if belief in a deity ceased altogether. It's circular logic. If we say religion is the problem, what then is the final solution? I did answer you question. I said good things and bad things will still happen and in that I include war. But this isn't just about war. It's about people fullfilling their potential and not being kowed or their behaviour modified by some vicious godfather in the sky who is going to zap them with fire and brimstone should they think for themselves. Every time I see a woman in a burqa (there are enough of them where I live), I think what a wasted life, her protential has been stunted. Now that is a more extreme manifestation of religion's ability to ruin someone's life and maybe, even without them knowing it. There are plenty of manifestations in our society too. Creationism for example. Isn't it life stunting to indoctrinate children with a pack of lies? One could draw up and endless list. There is no solution to the problems of the world but there is a solution to many blighted lives in future and that is to teach people to think for themselves and not fall back on a concoction of lies and myth. Believe it or not i agree with you completely and that's been my attestation from the beginning... personal choice based on the freedom to make those choices. When my children were young i took them to church, several different churches and to temple and pagan drum ceremonies and was critcized that i wasn't allowing them to make their own choices. What i was doing was exposing them to a variety of thoughts so they CAN make their own choices. Would be no different than not exposing them to a variety of foods and teaching them how to choose. Whether it be the apple or the Pastafarian Believer's fettucini, neither should be shoved down another's throat. That i believe in a power greater than myself doesn't make me equal to everyone who has committed murder in the name of religion. Personally, i believe that being able to recognize a power greater than myself also allows me to submit to that power whether as spirit or Dom. That's me. i don't expect others to think like me. There's a plethora of people who would tell me that my submission is wrong, it sets women's rights back 50 years etc. Who is right and who is wrong in that debate? Mercnbeth quote Augustine, an excellent example of a deeply religious free thinker. i fail to see how they are mutually exclusive. "The words printed here are concepts. You must go through the experiences." - Saint Augustine i agree that anything that surpresses free thought and the ability to make individual choices is to the detriment of all human beings. In his book, No Future Without Forgiveness, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who chaired the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, discusses the cultural concept of ubuntu embraced by South Africans. The Archbishop explains that ubuntu: speaks of the very essence of being human. … It is to say, ‘My humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in yours.’ We belong in a bundle of life. We say, ‘A person is a person through other persons.’ It is not, ‘I think therefore I am.’ It says rather: ‘I am human because I belong. I participate, I share.’ … Anything that subverts, that undermines this sought-after good, is to be avoided like the plague. Anger, resentment, lust for revenge, even success through aggressive competitiveness, are corrosive of this good. … What dehumanizes you inexorably dehumanizes me.

Lorelei115 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/7/2007 8:14:01 AM)
I don't think religion alone is responsible for the things that you have pointed out. If there was no religion, it would be something else that people were blindly believing. Even atheists have their share of blind believers. I agree with you one hundred percent that people should be taught to think for themselves, but the problem is getting them to want to think for themselves. Most would prefer to take an easy route, whether it be a religion, UFO's, or a particularly charismatic leader who tells them how to think and what to believe.

LadyEllen -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/7/2007 8:19:38 AM)
"what do you think Baldrick? Please try - thinking is so important." "yes my Lord" "so? what do you think?" "I think that thinking is so important, my Lord" "yes Baldrick. For you, the renaissance was something that happened to other people, wasnt it?" (ill remembered quote from Blackadder II) The point being, one can teach people to think for themselves all one likes. But its in the nature of human populations for most to be either incapable of or disinterested in thinking for themselves. The majority are followers, and they will follow anyone who seems to have the answers. Whether those answers come from a religious source, political viewpoint or even rational scientific basis, they will find favour with some or all of the followers. The majority are not capable of or interested in working things out for themselves. Put alongside that the human tendency to put people into groups on a them and us basis, and to then promote and defend their group by denigrating and attacking the others outside their group, it matters not whether it is religion, politics or rational science that is the thought system in question; the same result will ensue. Intolerance, rejection, abuse, violence. Given that the followers are sufficient in number and/or the antipathy is sufficiently ferocious, the dominant group will tend to try to enforce its "right view" on others who have the "wrong view". That we are able to accept or at worst tolerate others' opinions which may be at variance with our own to the point where we feel they are demonstrably wrong, is the mark of a democratic, free society, where we accept that it is the right of others to, in our opinion at least, injure themselves with "wrong views". The alternative to this acceptance is not acceptable. We have not reached this miraculous position by way of religion. Nor by way of politics, nor by way of rational scientific thinking. Any of those three, when let loose to dominate would result in the attempted destruction of the others. Rather we have reached our miraculous position because all sides and all groups have realised from bitter experience, that living side by side in tolerance is far superior to the alternative, and that however sure each group might be of its superiority, none of them has all the answers and each of them has its own flaws. Such humility is a lesson bought with the lives of countless millions. E

MasDom -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/7/2007 4:44:06 PM)
My wet noodle is between my legs, And god is in my hands. Look its not cool that faith provides its own logic ,for it being logic in the first place. So most of them wont listen. In the end all I want from them, is to accept my own decisions in religion or beleif. I don't like Christianity because it tells them they have the rite to enforce their will on me, and call me wrong. Hey... I don't piss on your cross. Which I find funny since it was a tool to torture people. So don't piss on my paganism. I mean the story about telling vikings that if their gods are more powerful, they can walk threw a fire pit thats really long and their god will protect them. Look first off all if you really new the Vikings and Visigoths, I,m sure they could have made it and laughed you in the face. Second i,m not sure your god would protect you either. Care to prove me wrong?... And no I don't think seeing some survivor in a situation were any one could have died as proof. I mean walk threw the fire with me, and see were you stand at the end... Sorry..... Just the ignorance of that story. To think a pagan would be stupid enough to believe Christian logic in the first place. I mean knowing the Vikings you could have said. Look if you think your shield is better, how about I shoot a hundred arrows at it. Then we will see if you survive as you stand directly behind it. I could just imagine the Viking looking at his shield, then looking at yours and saying..... No-lets try that with yours first. Rather I not believe you.... I mean every one use to think they were stupid. Shi^ when they finally found real Viking swords, some of them actually had a wire based bundle method. One thats meant to cause a constant strength and forging in steel. Not so primitive were they?

MasDom -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/7/2007 4:47:56 PM)
And yes i,m as ignorant as some of them. at least I don't give myself an excuse.

Zensee -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/7/2007 10:52:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: Original Zensee For me this is a choice between two explanations for the origin of the universe and life as we know it. The naturalistic, rational one is supported by evidence and observation Taking explain to mean more than simply describe then... Science cannot explain the origin of the Universe I can live with “describe” instead of “explain”. Explain does suggest revealing motives and meaning and therefore some being to be motivated and a reason behind it. I wouldn’t want that. ;) Science cannot explain / describe the origin of the universe in that sense (yet). Nothing that we know of can. Science provides the best description of the origin of the universe that we have at the moment. If you have a better one, please share it, instead of just sniping at the dark spots in the big bang theory. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave The fossil record does not support Natural Selection and evolution of species by gradual change. Nonsense. The fossil record does indeed illustrate (support) the gradual evolution of new but related forms (speciation) including transitional forms (dinosaur to bird – aquatic to land and vice versa – ape to human etc.). DNA evidence confirms the taxonomies, showing the continuity and relatedness of those lineages, both amongst living relatives and even some extinct ones (recently extracted Neanderthal DNA matches ours to a predictable degree). Natural selection is merely the mechanism by which suitable forms are retained while unsuitable ones are lost. I don’t get why that is so threatening? It’s like getting upset because chlorophyll harnesses sunlight to build plants. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Where do that leave us then ? It leaves you needing to provide a better description for the descent of species. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Why doesnt the Big bang violate the scientific principle of Conservation of Energy ? Why should it? Conservation of Energy applies to closed systems. Whatever is in our universe today has been there, in one form or another, since the beginning. What it was like before the beginning is one of the great mysteries which may never be fully understood and certainly never observed. Even if our universe is one of many, spawned by some sort of adjacent mother of all universes, that still leaves the question of how momma came into being. It’s sort of like the question of who made god? quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Also remember that the idea of an electron orbiting a nucleus is fiction and known to be so, but developments on that fiction lead to accurate predictions about Radiation and Absorption spectra. Not true. While electrons do not orbit a nucleus as planets orbit the sun (electrons have no mass) they do inhabit orbitals, sort of regions of influence. Bohr ’s primitive atomic diagrams are not fictions they are illustrations of atomic structure and valences, as understood prior to quantum-theory. If they were fictions then Bohr’s work would have led nowhere. Remember, the map is not the territory. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave There's an expression for that, cant think of it but it boils down to, observe the phenomenon, speculate and say that IF x is true then the phenomenon should be occur hey presto science reveals truths. Bingo ! Natural selection says if it is true we should exist, we do exist therefore......fill in the blanks. Sorry man, you have completely lost me here. This bears no resemblance to any science I know of. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave To those who "believe" that science is rational and at the same time hold that those who believe or at least do not reject the idea of the existence of a Deity are being irrational, what do they mean when they use the word rational? Rational - doing your best to describe what is really happening based on evidence. Irrational - Claiming the existence of a thing in the absence of any evidence. Making a category called god and filling it with everything you don’t understand. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave For example, Scientists do not know the source of the magnetic force but but use is made of its existence. Likewise believers do not know the source or location of a Deity but make use of the possiblity of its existence. Magnetic force is palpable while the God force is shrouded in deep mystery but that it exists MAY be inferred from Nature. By inferred do you mean explained? I don’t know of any believers who only consider god a possibility and not a certainty. There is a big difference, although they like to think that baiting their hooks with the word ‘possibility’ will catch fish. Just because there are mysteries to science doesn’t prove there is a god hiding in the shadows. Tell me what in nature infers the presence of a god; a impalpable, sovereign, supernatural being, preexisting the universe as we know it, purposeful maker of the universe as we know it etc. etc.. I don’t reject the possibility of there being a god but in the absence of any evidence I think the probability of there being one is close to nil. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave If anyone bothers to reply do not confuse the issue by introducing moral concepts or expose contradictions between established religions. or itemise the wickedness that has been supported by the major religions. OK ? Sure, if people will stop typifying rationalists as inhuman, empty shells who dance for joy at the devastation their inventions will cause humanity. Z.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/8/2007 1:39:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL extractof_Zensee I don’t reject the possibility of there being a god but in the absence of any evidence I think the probability of there being one is close to nil. Nice post Zensee and I notice that you come close to admitting in the above quote the nub of the matter when viewed from a scientific basis. ie you are an agnostic, as am I. Incidently an electron does have mass, but science posits the existence of "something or other" that has no mass and no charge. and incidently cannot be found in anything like the quantities necessary ie the Neutrino, amongst others. The Universe is the Universe is it not ? Therefore if Conservation of Energy is valid now, why not at time 0 ? Time 0 being one of those concepts that boggles my mind and makes me realise that there are things around us that we are not able to comprehend, if that is so then......its no use calling for evidence in that situation is it ? Incidently are you not impressed by those people who make personal sacrifice based on their religious conviction. say Nuns who work in hospices or with horrendously ill people in the 3rd World. The good that many of religious persuasion have done simply does not get the "publicity" that the ill that those who have used Religion as part of their political agenda.gets. Meatcleaver in particular doesnt grasp that fact.

LadyEllen -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/8/2007 1:57:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave The Universe is the Universe is it not ? Therefore if Conservation of Energy is valid now, why not at time 0 ? Time 0 being one of those concepts that boggles my mind and makes me realise that there are things around us that we are not able to comprehend, if that is so then......its no use calling for evidence in that situation is it ? Must resist...... making spiritual argument for no time......even now..... E

Chaingang -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/8/2007 2:02:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened The Archbishop explains that ubuntu: speaks of the very essence of being human...it is to say, ‘My humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in yours.’ We belong in a bundle of life. We say, ‘A person is a person through other persons.’ It is not, ‘I think therefore I am.’ It says rather: ‘I am human because I belong. I participate, I share.’ … Anything that subverts, that undermines this sought-after good, is to be avoided like the plague. Anger, resentment, lust for revenge, even success through aggressive competitiveness, are corrosive of this good. … What dehumanizes you inexorably dehumanizes me. In a completely non-religious manner, I agree with the above sentiment. Religion is not necessary for me to understand that human beings are social animals and deeply connected at all levels: kinship, sexually, friendships, etc. The idea that we are all genetically connected but by the small distance of six degrees from every other person on earth joins with my sense of social justice very easily. I do feel that when any of us is diminished, we are all of us diminished. I sometimes call the web of social justice "instant karma" - but not in the sense that comes from some source on high or that it occurs when the gods will it or whatever; but that it occurs in precise relation to the degree of connection we all feel about any possible social right or wrong. God didn't free us from the horrors of apartheid, we all did it for ourselves. When we internationally got tired of hearing of the abuses against folks like Biko and Mandela, we applied the necessary pressure to create change in favor of social justice. Mandela was not only freed but he also became president. Imagine that - not a miracle, but the result of human beings empathizing with those less fortunate than themselves. Simple fairness dictated a change in the status quo. That's why silence equals death. For social justice to work information must flow freely and openly. Shame, guilt, and overweening pride have no place in such a scheme.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/8/2007 2:11:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Incidently are you not impressed by those people who make personal sacrifice based on their religious conviction. say Nuns who work in hospices or with horrendously ill people in the 3rd World. The good that many of religious persuasion have done simply does not get the "publicity" that the ill that those who have used Religion as part of their political agenda.gets. Meatcleaver in particular doesnt grasp that fact. Not impressed at all. I just find the delusion of religious people who sacrifice their lives as a little sad. However, having visited a convent with my ex whose aunty was a Carmalite (I think) nun in Brittany, they feast better than you or I do and one gets the feeling that the majority of them are running away from the world. You wouldn't be impressed with an SS officer who believed in the delusion of a master race would you? Why be impressed with a similar delusion, albeit considerable less harmful to the vast majority of people though not harmless to the children that pass through their care.

eyesopened -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/8/2007 2:28:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened The Archbishop explains that ubuntu: speaks of the very essence of being human...it is to say, ‘My humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in yours.’ We belong in a bundle of life. We say, ‘A person is a person through other persons.’ It is not, ‘I think therefore I am.’ It says rather: ‘I am human because I belong. I participate, I share.’ … Anything that subverts, that undermines this sought-after good, is to be avoided like the plague. Anger, resentment, lust for revenge, even success through aggressive competitiveness, are corrosive of this good. … What dehumanizes you inexorably dehumanizes me. In a completely non-religious manner, I agree with the above sentiment. Religion is not necessary for me to understand that human beings are social animals and deeply connected at all levels: kinship, sexually, friendships, etc. The idea that we are all genetically connected but by the small distance of six degrees from every other person on earth joins with my sense of social justice very easily. I do feel that when any of us is diminished, we are all of us diminished. I sometimes call the web of social justice "instant karma" - but not in the sense that comes from some source on high or that it occurs when the gods will it or whatever; but that it occurs in precise relation to the degree of connection we all feel about any possible social right or wrong. God didn't free us from the horrors of apartheid, we all did it for ourselves. When we internationally got tired of hearing of the abuses against folks like Biko and Mandela, we applied the necessary pressure to create change in favor of social justice. Mandela was not only freed but he also became president. Imagine that - not a miracle, but the result of human beings empathizing with those less fortunate than themselves. Simple fairness dictated a change in the status quo. That's why silence equals death. For social justice to work information must flow freely and openly. Shame, guilt, and overweening pride have no place in such a scheme. Not all believers believe in shame, guilt and pride. Good works are good works whether motivated by a belief in a diety or not. Evil is evil whether motivated by religion or not. Your post indicates to me that we are more the same than different and it is our focus on our sameness that will prevent war and atrocity. Focus on differences is bigotry and the cause of strife. It is, in my opinion, pure bigotry to lump all who believe in a Power or Force outside themselves in the same category as particular organized religions. Even members of a BDSM munch group will practice their "scene" differently and individually and we have no problem accepting this even if they come together in a group of "like-minded" individuals.. How then, is it so difficult to see that people will practice their spirituality differently and individually? How can a Catholic Archbishop espouse such truth as Desmond Tutu does? Shouldn't his words be discounted in total just because he is irrational? No, truth is truth. It doesn't bother me in the least that you don't believe in a deity, it has no bearing on the quality of my life. my belief doesn't have bearing on the quality of your life. Finger-pointing and the bigotry does have bearing on the quality of life for all.

aSlavesLife -> RE: Hawkins on "God" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (1/8/2007 2:48:15 AM)
This thread is like a train wreck. I tell myself not to look, but I keep craning my neck and peaking. To be absolutely truthful, religion does not kill people. People kill people. People have their own prejudices, and will use whatever tool at their disposal to justify their prejudices as well as to maneuver others into their way of thinking. Religion is one of many tools that these people use to this end. It is a tool that works well for motivation, so of course there will be those that are willing, even eager, to exploit it. If we remove religion from the list of tools by somehow abolishing all religion, people would resort to using other tools such as culture or politics and go right on killing. Believers cite that religion encourages humanitarian acts, and argue that religion does more good than ill. Non believers point to the crusades and the dark ages to say that it does more harm than good. But is there any way to test either claim? If one side were to be able to demonstrate statistically that religion swayed the scales one way or another, would either side be willing to abandon their stance on the subject? I call myself an agnostic. Don't think that this makes me an undecided fence straddler though, because when it comes down to it, we are all agnostics. Not a single one of us really knows if there is a god. We don't know if there is a plurality of gods. We don't even know if there is a flying spaghetti monster for that matter. Some of us are atheistic agnostics, some are theistic agnostics, and some really do straddle the fence. But ultimately, despite all the lack of evidence for any god or gods, and despite all the moving, life changing personal experiences, not a single one of us really knows for sure.

Chaingang -> RE: Hawkins on "God" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (1/8/2007 2:55:11 AM)
This is a political issue because some religious people want it that way. We non-believers must defend in kind. What you don't see is a bunch of atheists trying to stop gay marriage. That's precisely how and why this stuff comes up - judgmental assholes trying to tell others what to do in the name of religion and god. It pointedly makes religious ethics and the idea of god the necessary focus of attention. If it were truly live and let live on both sides, there'd be nothing to say. Sadly...

Page: << < prev 13 14 15 [16] 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125