Ah, good ol' religious tolerance...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-12-2010, 02:53 PM
RE: Ah, good ol' religious tolerance...
Well that's a long question to answer but let's see what I can do in short order.

The first and key thing that you have to understand about my statement is that it works off of a hypothesis of the following:

1. People who believe in god believe man is in service to or below gods.

2. Which means people's lives are less valuable to some in service of gods.

3. When human life means less it is far easier to throw away or manipulate to serve one's god's desires.

Basically people who beleive in god tend to follow Aristotle's great chain of being. Of course this will not be true of all believers but it is often true of the most devout who lead the organization of faith.

Before we go any further we need to hash out any problems you have with this basis of belief and value of gods over humans. Like I said before this is not true of all but it's true of a significant portion of groups. This is the problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2010, 03:38 PM
RE: Ah, good ol' religious tolerance...
Quote:Like I said before this is not true of all but it's true of a significant portion of groups.

I'm not sure it's true of a significant portion but it really doesn't have to be. All you really need is a minority of fanatics and enough apologists for their actions and you can have total mayhem. The fanatics don't have to be religious fanatics but very often they are. And, the apologists are pretty much ALWAYS religion driven.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2010, 04:05 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2010 04:12 PM by Ghost.)
RE: Ah, good ol' religious tolerance...
Hey, Godless.

Quote:Disagreements outside of religious boundaries are far more likely to have a safe resolution.
Quote:1. People who believe in god believe man is in service to or below gods.

OK. I can dig on that. Being in God's service seems the case with the Judaic faiths but I'm not confident saying the same for the others. But I'm hip to what you're saying.

Quote:2. Which means people's lives are less valuable to some in service of gods.

That's a pretty big jump.

I'll take the journey with you for now though.

Quote:3. When human life means less it is far easier to throw away or manipulate to serve one's god's desires.

I agree whole heartedly that the devaluation of human life and the stripping of humanity not only makes it easy to throw it away and or exploit, but it's pretty much a pre-requisit.

So, based on the assumption that someone is working "in service of God" and that that service demands the destruction of or manipulation of some group of people, I'll follow along.

I will say though that I am interested in where you're going but I want to be honest about the fact that I'm leery.

I'm making the assumption that your reference to the Great Chain of Being is a support for the idea of at least some people placing God above man.

Anyhoo, when all is said and done, I think I'm comfortable with the idea that if a person or people place God above man and feel that in order to do God's will they must destroy some population, then they will.

I am still waiting for this to come back around to the safe resolution of disagreements.

ON EDIT: Hey, BnW.

I just wanted to re-state for the record my objection to the idea of apologists and moderates aiding extreemists and to state a new objection to the idea that apologists are almost always religious.

I'm not looking for a rehash of an old argument, I just wanted to go on record.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2010, 04:42 PM
RE: Ah, good ol' religious tolerance...
I'd just like to say under normal circumstances I would honestly have pages upon pages for the 3 points listed above and I'm glad we can agree to that extent without the hundreds of pages of dialogue around that fact.

The core idea that I'm trying to touch on here is not the idea that religious people are more prone to violence (which is I'm guessing what you were leery about) which has nothing to do with resolution but rather that the value of life one places on other human beings is of direct relation to what happens during resolution.

To be blunt those with a naturalistic view of the world have little to no choice but to place the value of other human beings as equally important to a larger extent. People without a naturalistic worldview can and do tend to place human beings as a whole below the whims of another deity.

Can we agree to go this far? I'm more then open to discuss this point again if need be and it is a long discussion but I think it's needed that this be established for the conclusion to follow.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2010, 06:09 PM
RE: Ah, good ol' religious tolerance...
De-valueing other people is psychologically nessessary to persecute them. Before one can treat others as sub-human, one has to feel that they are sub-human. Religion is not the only tool that will accomplish that, but it is as good as any other and better than most.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: