Respect for Religion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-12-2012, 01:20 PM
RE: Respect for Religion
Sometimes it's very difficult for me to be around people who are hard-core religious. I don't mind people who keep it to themselves, but when those crazy Christian "what-the-fuck-ever-denomination" come banging at my door I go off like a bomb.

The first thing I tell them is to prove that their God even exists, and then next thing they do is bring up the question of, "Well, how do you think everything got here?" As IF that answer's the question. Then when I ask them, "Why does it have to be some kind of God who is responsible for existence, and not some other explanation?" they then go all cross-eyed and start in with their preaching.

That's when the door gets slammed in their faces.

I have no tolerance for stupidity at all. I actually get angry at people who insist on spreading their rubbish around like a disease, infecting the young minds of people who represent our future.

If they keep it to themselves, I'm fine with that. But if they start harping on me about it, I'll drag them through a worse hell than their Christian book could ever describe.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were ...
BORN THIS WAY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
17-12-2012, 03:12 PM
RE: Respect for Religion
Hey, Chas.

Now at least we're speaking the same language.

Innacurate isn't the right word. Useful is. If you have a useful model, you're good. If you do not, you are not.

We cannot know the real, the actual, the objective; whatever you want to call it, that which is there (and there are arguments against it, but there's no need to go down that road here). All we can know are our constructions. So when one says, "My construction is right!" They're actually wrong. When one says, "My construction is better!" They're basing that on nothing. When one says, "Your construction is wrong!" It's baseless. When one says, "You must see things the way I/we see them!" They are acting as the conqueror.

If another society comes up with a construction, however alien to us, however counter-intuitive to us, if that construction is useful to them, then it is valid. It does not matter if it's spiritual, unscientific, or arbitrary, it doesn't matter it it makes sense to us. It doesn't matter if there is no analogue in our culture, or if they reject the truths of our culture. it's a valid human understanding of the world.

It's the denial of that validity that I speak out against and it is the denial of that validity that caused an absolute holocaust during the colonial era (and right through the residential schools of the 50s, the Killing Fields of the 70s and straight through to today.

It's the denial of that validity that makes people look down their noses at the religious. That makes them want to pat them on the head and think of them as simpletons. It's the denial of that validity that makes people unable to respect them.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2012, 03:28 PM
RE: Respect for Religion
(17-12-2012 03:12 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Chas.

Now at least we're speaking the same language.

Innacurate isn't the right word. Useful is. If you have a useful model, you're good. If you do not, you are not.

We cannot know the real, the actual, the objective; whatever you want to call it, that which is there (and there are arguments against it, but there's no need to go down that road here). All we can know are our constructions. So when one says, "My construction is right!" They're actually wrong. When one says, "My construction is better!" They're basing that on nothing. When one says, "Your construction is wrong!" It's baseless. When one says, "You must see things the way I/we see them!" They are acting as the conqueror.

If another society comes up with a construction, however alien to us, however counter-intuitive to us, if that construction is useful to them, then it is valid. It does not matter if it's spiritual, unscientific, or arbitrary, it doesn't matter it it makes sense to us. It doesn't matter if there is no analogue in our culture, or if they reject the truths of our culture. it's a valid human understanding of the world.

It's the denial of that validity that I speak out against and it is the denial of that validity that caused an absolute holocaust during the colonial era (and right through the residential schools of the 50s, the Killing Fields of the 70s and straight through to today.

It's the denial of that validity that makes people look down their noses at the religious. That makes them want to pat them on the head and think of them as simpletons. It's the denial of that validity that makes people unable to respect them.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Yes, once again I mostly agree. I do disagree with your use of the word 'valid'. It will take me a little thought to compose a constructive explanation.

I shall return.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2012, 03:45 PM
RE: Respect for Religion
Hey Matt,

I'm curious as to your view here.

You stated...

(16-12-2012 07:51 AM)Ghost Wrote:  ...
As in all things in politics, we cannot ever allow one special interest group to have power over the others, so absolutely, we must strive for balance, diversity and freedom of thought, but none of that changes the fact that telling people how to think is an act of domination; one with a long history of associated atrocity.
...

I'm OK with the cultural relativism thang i.e. (to steal from the vid posted by fstrat0):
1. We can't say that the customs of societies are morally inferior to our own
[not without clarity as to what is meant by 'inferior'. Sam Harris's 'well-being' is an attempt at this but it assumes that human well-being is desirable. Rats and cockroaches may disagree. Perhaps we can agree that societies that value the survival of some form of life are superior to those that don't (see point 3)?]

2. We can decide if actions are right or wrong simply by consulting the standards of our society
[Implying that 'right' and 'wrong' (and by extension 'good' and 'bad') are also relative. I'd agree.
Incidentally, this is also the reason why I prefer 'frameworks' to 'standards'. Standards lead to dogma.]

3. There is no such thing as objective moral progress (change of customs for the better)
[true because we have no idea what 'better' is. If we knew the purpose/goal of the universe we could choose the best/better steps to get there. If no 'purpose' then no 'better'. So what if the universe would be better off without lifeforms... go back to point 1. hehehe]


So...

I think you are saying that diversity is preferred to assimilation. By implication therefore, totalitarianism must be resisted in order to maintain that diversity.

Does this mean that religions/cultures that advocate totalitarianism / dominance can be classified as 'inferior'? Or what term can be used here instead?

Why is diversity 'better'?
Losing e.g. languages or species certainly seems sad but does it matter? Surely it only matters if there is a goal / purpose to the universe.

This is fucking with my head now.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
17-12-2012, 04:55 PM
RE: Respect for Religion
Hey, DLJ.

Please don't take anything from that video lol.

Quote:I think you are saying that diversity is preferred to assimilation.

Sure enough.

Quote: By implication therefore, totalitarianism must be resisted in order to maintain that diversity.

For that reason and about a billion others.

Not just totalitarianism, but simply the domination of any single special interest group.

Quote:Does this mean that religions/cultures that advocate totalitarianism /
dominance can be classified as 'inferior'? Or what term can be used
here instead?

Shit frame. I reject it wholesale.

Inferior doesn't exist. Period. So everyone needs to stop looking for back doors and loop holes and slips of the tongue to try and prove that there is such a thing. The evidence is clear. There is not. So it needs to be abandoned and given zero further credence.

I have no alternative for you.

Quote:Why is diversity 'better'?

Losing e.g. languages or species certainly seems sad but does it matter?
Surely it only matters if there is a goal / purpose to the universe.

Why is the global loss of genetic diversity bad? Because we understand how the system functions and diversity is a sign of robustness and health while homogeneity is a sign of fragility and anemia. It's not a value judgement.

We are NOT above our environments. We are not above the biosphere and we are not above the ethnosphere. We are interdependent members of both. We cannot survive the collapse of the system because we are a part of it.

Ask yourself this. Is it not better that your species (and I mean you personally, DLJ) and your language survives and you with it? If the answer is yes, then you know why it's important to others.

These other cultures aren't cute. They aren't dispensable. They are as important as our own. As important. That's the thing you have to wrap your head around.

Here's a good question. What is gained by homogeneity? What is gained by eliminating the chorus of answers to life's mysteries and reducing everything down to a single view? Is that somehow freedom, or is it the worst form of Orwellian totalitarian tyranny we could ever possibly face? And furthermore, when that one view no longer helps us, because the one guarantee in life is that the conditions change, then what do we do? I'll tell you what we do.






Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2012, 08:35 PM
RE: Respect for Religion
(17-12-2012 04:55 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, DLJ.

Please don't take anything from that video lol.

Quote:I think you are saying that diversity is preferred to assimilation.

Sure enough.

Quote: By implication therefore, totalitarianism must be resisted in order to maintain that diversity.

For that reason and about a billion others.

Not just totalitarianism, but simply the domination of any single special interest group.

Quote:Does this mean that religions/cultures that advocate totalitarianism /
dominance can be classified as 'inferior'? Or what term can be used
here instead?

Shit frame. I reject it wholesale.

Inferior doesn't exist. Period. So everyone needs to stop looking for back doors and loop holes and slips of the tongue to try and prove that there is such a thing. The evidence is clear. There is not. So it needs to be abandoned and given zero further credence.

I have no alternative for you.

Quote:Why is diversity 'better'?

Losing e.g. languages or species certainly seems sad but does it matter?
Surely it only matters if there is a goal / purpose to the universe.

Why is the global loss of genetic diversity bad? Because we understand how the system functions and diversity is a sign of robustness and health while homogeneity is a sign of fragility and anemia. It's not a value judgement.

We are NOT above our environments. We are not above the biosphere and we are not above the ethnosphere. We are interdependent members of both. We cannot survive the collapse of the system because we are a part of it.

Ask yourself this. Is it not better that your species (and I mean you personally, DLJ) and your language survives and you with it? If the answer is yes, then you know why it's important to others.

These other cultures aren't cute. They aren't dispensable. They are as important as our own. As important. That's the thing you have to wrap your head around.

Here's a good question. What is gained by homogeneity? What is gained by eliminating the chorus of answers to life's mysteries and reducing everything down to a single view? Is that somehow freedom, or is it the worst form of Orwellian totalitarian tyranny we could ever possibly face? And furthermore, when that one view no longer helps us, because the one guarantee in life is that the conditions change, then what do we do? I'll tell you what we do.






Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Drooling

According to cultural relativism...

If my societal culture says beating my wife, cutting off her clitoris, having slaves, refusing to immunize children, having 4 other male witnesses to testify for a woman's rape, killing albino black people for their bones in which craft etc, YOU CAN NEVER SAY THESE THINGS ARE MORALLY WRONG.

After all who are we to say anything about whats right or wrong in their societal cultural context?

Anything goes as long as your societal culture says it's fine.




Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
17-12-2012, 08:40 PM (This post was last modified: 17-12-2012 08:45 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Respect for Religion
I may be overly American, or French, but freedom, which is the right to do for one's own happiness, or one's own interest, all that is not contrary to the happiness or the interests of others, should be the measure against which we can determine morality.

I'm a staunch believer in reason, truth, and liberty. Tolerance has it's limits.




Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 03:58 AM
RE: Respect for Religion
(17-12-2012 04:55 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, DLJ.
...
These other cultures aren't cute. They aren't dispensable. They are as important as our own. As important. That's the thing you have to wrap your head around.
...

My head is happily wrapped around that. No problem, there.

But...

(17-12-2012 04:55 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Ask yourself this. Is it not better that your species (and I mean you personally, DLJ) and your language survives and you with it? If the answer is yes, then you know why it's important to others.

... my answer is "no".

'Cos I have a problem with the word "better". This implies a goal / objective.

Evolution has taught us that there is none.

The universe does not care.

We are of the universe.

Therefore... we shouldn't care.

War and Hate and Apathy
DLJ
[/quote]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
18-12-2012, 06:26 AM
RE: Respect for Religion
Hey, DLJ.

So the fact that we're destroying ecosystem after ecosystem doesn't bother you? The destruction of the amazon is fine? Global warming aint no thang? Sharkwater and the Cove were pointless films?

Cultural genocide and cultural imperialism are fine? The death of 19 million First Peoples is meaningless? The Christianisation of Europe doesn't bother you? You don't mind if English is wiped from the planet and we all speak Mandarin?

I get what you mean about evolution having no end point. I truly honestly do and I agree as well. I just think you're taking it too far; even to a point that I don't think you actually beleive.

It's like, "Is it better to be alive?" In the ultimate scheme of things "it doesn't matter." So why should any of us care whether or not we're alive? But we do. All of us do. We fight tooth and nail to stay alive. So whatever you want to call that urge, the urge to live, that's what we're talking about here. I mean, if survival isn't important, then what the hell is?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 06:52 AM
RE: Respect for Religion
(18-12-2012 06:26 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, DLJ.

So the fact that we're destroying ecosystem after ecosystem doesn't bother you? The destruction of the amazon is fine? Global warming aint no thang? Sharkwater and the Cove were pointless films?

Cultural genocide and cultural imperialism are fine? The death of 19 million First Peoples is meaningless? The Christianisation of Europe doesn't bother you? You don't mind if English is wiped from the planet and we all speak Mandarin?

I get what you mean about evolution having no end point. I truly honestly do and I agree as well. I just think you're taking it too far; even to a point that I don't think you actually beleive.

It's like, "Is it better to be alive?" In the ultimate scheme of things "it doesn't matter." So why should any of us care whether or not we're alive? But we do. All of us do. We fight tooth and nail to stay alive. So whatever you want to call that urge, the urge to live, that's what we're talking about here. I mean, if survival isn't important, then what the hell is?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Genetic diversity in the biosphere and cultural diversity really aren't the same thing. You carry this parallel too far.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: