Ye Religion Thread

[DaHanG]

This is part 5/6 and 6/6 on a youtube video, I wouldn't recommend watching the first 4, but this is just a must see.  It's about whether the devil exists or not.  I spent most of my time watching these clips laughing.   To be quite honest it's pretty pathetic that not only are these views present in the 21st century, but are accepted by so many and make up the majority of America. 

The debate starts around 6 minutes in, but the first bit is worth a watch also..

5/6:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cPvTSwtJRRQ&watch_response

6/6:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nHeqg0btluo

I loved the part where someone was like "Yes he exists, how else do you explain the Holocaust!?"

...

"Yes the Evil Honey Roasted Peanut exists, how else do you explain the Holocaust!?"

 

[Whirlingdervish]

I would assume that thinking such as that ("how else do you explain the holocaust?") stems from a general inability of the person asking the question to accept that humans are fallible, opportunistic, and not intrinsically "good".

Personal bias can be a major obstacle to understanding.

[FYATroll]

I would assume that thinking such as that ("how else do you explain the holocaust?") stems from a general inability of the person asking the question to accept that humans are fallible, opportunistic, and not intrinsically "good".

Well there goes the thinking of liberals

[FYATroll]

This is part 5/6 and 6/6 on a youtube video, I wouldn't recommend watching the first 4, but this is just a must see.  It's about whether the devil exists or not.  I spent most of my time watching these clips laughing.   To be quite honest it's pretty pathetic that not only are these views present in the 21st century, but are accepted by so many and make up the majority of America. 

The debate starts around 6 minutes in, but the first bit is worth a watch also..

5/6:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cPvTSwtJRRQ&watch_response

6/6:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nHeqg0btluo

Pathetic is that you find someone with these beliefs pathetic.....I understand an atheists beliefs and do not find them pathetic because everyone has a right to their own opinion..especially if that opinion isn't some harmful or destructive way of thinking. So why then must we use words such as pathetic to describe someone who believes in a god or in the devil. I dont get the insulting when trying to have a civilized discussion.... Can you imagine Obama or Hillary saying in a televised debate that because the other believes in, lets say, gay marriage that they are pathetic/incompetent/unintelligent or anything of that nature????yes they say things like inexperienced or "old politics of washington" but nothing like pathetic....so why do you do it here?

[DaHanG]

Can you imagine Obama or Hillary saying in a televised debate that because the other believes in, lets say, gay marriage that they are pathetic/incompetent/unintelligent or anything of that nature????

No, because they are trying to get elected.

Pathetic is that you find someone with these beliefs pathetic.

It's just an opinion, people use this language all the time when discussing music, someone's favorite athlete, etc. Why should invisible entities get a free pass?

[DWxchzrles]

I don't think zndkw1n likes Bush...

 

i agree with that

[FYATroll]

Can you imagine Obama or Hillary saying in a televised debate that because the other believes in, lets say, gay marriage that they are pathetic/incompetent/unintelligent or anything of that nature????

No, because they are trying to get elected.

Pathetic is that you find someone with these beliefs pathetic.

It's just an opinion, people use this language all the time when discussing music, someone's favorite athlete, etc. Why should invisible entities get a free pass?

Because these invisible entities in which someone bases their entire life(or most of it) on is slightly more important than music or a favorite athlete....

[quadz]

Pathetic is that you find someone with these beliefs pathetic.

It's just an opinion, people use this language all the time when discussing music, someone's favorite athlete, etc. Why should invisible entities get a free pass?

Because these invisible entities in which someone bases their entire life(or most of it) on is slightly more important than music or a favorite athlete....

Chapter one of The God Delusion begins by contrasting the notion of deserved vs. undeserved respect for a person's religious beliefs.

A widespread assumption, which nearly everybody in our society accepts - the non-religious included - is that religious faith is especially vulnerable to offence and should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect, in a different class from the respect that any human being should pay to any other.
[...]
Here's a particular example of our society's overweening respect for religion, one that really matters.  By far the easiest grounds for gaining conscientious objector status in wartime are religious.  You can be a brilliant moral philosopher with a prize-winning doctoral thesis expounding the evils of war, and still be given a hard time by a draft board evaluating your claim to be a conscientious objector. Yet if you can say that one or both of your parents is a Quaker you sail through like a breeze, no matter how inarticulate and illiterate you may be on the theory of pacifism, or, indeed, Quakerism itself.
[...]
I have previously drawn attention to the privileging of religion in public discussions of ethics in the media and in government.  Whenever a controversy arises over sexual or reproductive morals, you can bet that religious leaders from several different faith groups will be promiently represented on influential committees, or on panel discussions on radio or television.  I'm not suggesting that we should go out of our way to censor the views of these people.  But why does our society beat a path to their door, as though they had some expertise comparable to that of, say, a moral philosopher, a family lawyer or a doctor?

Here's another weird example of the privileging of religion.  On 21 February 2006 the United States Supreme Court ruled, in accordance with the Constitution, that a church in New Mexico should be exempt from the law, which everybody else has to obey, against the taking of hallucinogenic drugs.  Faithful members of the Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal believe that they can understand God only by drinking hoasca tea, which contains the illegal hallucinogenic drug dimethyltryptamine.  Note that it sufficient that they believe that the drug enhances their understanding.  They do not have to produce evidence.  Conversely, there is plenty of evidence that cannabis eases the nausea and discomfort of cancer sufferers undergoing chemotherapy.  Yet, again in accordance with the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that all patients who use cannabis for medicinal purposes are vulnerable to federal prosecution (even in the minority of states where such specialist use is legalized).  Religion, as ever, is the trump card.  Imagine members of an art appreciation society pleading in court that they 'believe' they need a hallucinogenic drug in order to enhance their understanding of Impressionist or Surrealist paintings.  Yet, when a church claims an equivalent need, it is backed by the highest court in the land.  Such is the power of religion as a talisman.
[...]
... the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. [...] A bounty of $1 million was placed on the head of 'the Danish cartoonist' by a Pakistani imam -- who was apparently unaware that there were twelve different Danish cartoonists [...]  In Nigeria, Muslim protesters against the Danish cartoons burned down several Christian churches, and used machetes to attack and kill (black Nigerian) Christians in the streets.  One Christian was put inside a rubber tyre, doused with petrol and set alight. Demonstrators were photographed in Britain bearing banners saying 'Slay those who insuld Islam', 'Butcher those who mock Islam', 'Eurpoe you will pay: Demolition is on its way' and 'Behead those who insult Islam.'  Fortunately, our political leaders were on hand to remind us that Islam is a religion of peace and mercy.
[...]
Many people have noted the contrast between the hysterical 'hurt' professed by Muslims and the readiness with which Arab media publish stereotypical anti-Jewish cartoons.  At a demonstration in Pakistan against the Danish cartoons, a woman in a black burka was photographed carrying a banner reading 'God Bless Hitler'.

In response to all this frenzied pandemonium, decent liberal newspapers deplored the violence and made token noises about free speech.  But at the same time they expressed 'respect' and 'sympathy' for the deep 'offence' and 'hurt' that Muslims had 'suffered'.  The 'hurt' and 'suffering' consisted, remember, not in any person enduring violence or real pain of any kind: nothing more than a few daubs of printing ink in a newspaper that nobody outside Denmark would ever have heard of but for a deliberate campaign of incitement to mayhem.

I am not in favor of offending or hurting anyone just for the sake of it.  But I am intrigued and mystified by the disproportionate privileging of religion in our otherwise secular societies.  All politicans must get used to disrespectful cartoons of their faces, and nobody riots in their defense.  What is so special about religion that we grant it such uniquely privileged respect?  As H. L. Mencken said: 'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.'

It is in the light of the unparalleled presumption of respect for religion that I make my own disclaimer for this book.  I shall not go out of my way to offend, but nor shall I don kid gloves to handle religion any more gently that I would handle anything else.

With that in mind, here's a letter published in this morning's San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper, on the subject of the recent same-sex marriage rulling by the California Supreme Court:

Sad to say, this new gay day will turn to ashes in the not-to-distant future. The four Supremes have forgotten God's edict against Sodom and Gomorrah. The Holy One of Israel will not be mocked and ignored any longer. It is a very sad day, indeed.
KEN SMITH
Chula Vista

Now... should I afford Ken Smith's viewpoint any special respect because it's a religious viewpoint?  I think deft's term would fit pretty well here.  Pathetic.

No?


Regards,

quadz

[DaHanG]

Can you imagine Obama or Hillary saying in a televised debate that because the other believes in, lets say, gay marriage that they are pathetic/incompetent/unintelligent or anything of that nature????

No, because they are trying to get elected.

Pathetic is that you find someone with these beliefs pathetic.

It's just an opinion, people use this language all the time when discussing music, someone's favorite athlete, etc. Why should invisible entities get a free pass?

Because these invisible entities in which someone bases their entire life(or most of it) on is slightly more important than music or a favorite athlete....

I think it's very disputable about even religious people basing most of their life about what they profess to believe, but moving on to the relevant point...

Many people base their entire life around music and sports. People argue all the time over these things that are deeply treasured. A particular criticism can be a person's taste in music, the fact that they're Amish, their political beliefs, or how they dress. If someone told Tom Petty (no particular reason I'm using him) he was a 'pathetic' musician, do you think he would be fazed? Probably not, because he would likely feel he has good reason to believe otherwise. I don't think calling anyone's way of life or personal preference of something 'pathetic' to that person's face is an act of goodness.  I just don't see a good reason to discriminate the levels of toleration from an invisible entity (someone derives meaning from) to a person's music they wrote (from which they derive meaning).

Ideally, when someone makes fun of an opinion of someone, the person being insulted would say "Okay, now please explain your reasoning for why my preference of X is wrong". In the particular case from earlier, if someone just whines about being offended because they believe in invisible entity Y, then their case isn't looking very good. One shouldn't hide in a corner after being insulted in this manner. All that's being attacked is an idea, there isn't someone calling another ugly/fat/etc which is plain wrong. If their case can't take the heat of an insult, then they need to articulate their reasoning better or reconsider their position. Taking offense and running away is the cowardly way out.

[FYATroll]

Well, im not sure that there are many people who define their way of life by their favorite musician or athlete....Im a big LeBron fan, but that doesn't mean that I try to live my life in a LeBron James style or try to do as LeBron James does....there is a difference....

[DaHanG]

Well, im not sure that there are many people who define their way of life by their favorite musician or athlete....Im a big LeBron fan, but that doesn't mean that I try to live my life in a LeBron James style or try to do as LeBron James does....there is a difference....

I meant to imply people may define their way of life AS a musician, athlete, (or teacher, mother, scientist, programmer, student, christian, muslim, etc. for that matter).
...Why discriminate among these things? All of these things 'give meaning' to a person's life. If someone has an opinion on something, it can be spoken. If someone's feelings are hurt, then that's tough...while it's wrong to intend to hurt someone's feelings, invoking a taboo on a person's favorite invisible friend seems unreasonable.

 

[reaper]

I meant to imply people may define their way of life AS a musician, athlete, (or teacher, mother, scientist, programmer, student, christian, muslim, etc. for that matter).
...Why discriminate among these things? All of these things 'give meaning' to a person's life. If someone has an opinion on something, it can be spoken. If someone's feelings are hurt, then that's tough...while it's wrong to intend to hurt someone's feelings, invoking a taboo on a person's favorite invisible friend seems unreasonable.

if god exists, and is not invisible then religion is a touchy subject for obvious reasons. a preacher devotes his whole life to renforcing purpose and hope in people life's.  if there is no god, that's kind of a big deal, to the preacher anyways.

you take the fear of god away from people who live in the hood, see what type of world you'll end up with.  preachers certainly have an impact, but not as much impact as the fear of god has, in situations where people must choose to do the right thing.

[DaHanG]

I meant to imply people may define their way of life AS a musician, athlete, (or teacher, mother, scientist, programmer, student, christian, muslim, etc. for that matter).
...Why discriminate among these things? All of these things 'give meaning' to a person's life. If someone has an opinion on something, it can be spoken. If someone's feelings are hurt, then that's tough...while it's wrong to intend to hurt someone's feelings, invoking a taboo on a person's favorite invisible friend seems unreasonable.

if god exists, and is not invisible then religion is a touchy subject for obvious reasons. a preacher devotes his whole life to renforcing purpose and hope in people life's.  if there is no god, that's kind of a big deal, to the preacher anyways.

God's existence seems to be irrelevant to religion being a 'touchy subject'. Nevertheless, what about people who feel it's a tragedy that people go through life deluding themselves over a particular God. Are these people's 'feelings' not to be considered? Why shouldn't these people be able to freely express their opinion about such a delusion, the same way people are able to openly say someone who claims to be psychic is a fraud. When one person thinks they're Napoleon, nobody hesitates to call the person crazy. Yet if someone thinks they're having a conversation with a particular person who died close to 2,000 years ago after he walked on water, rose from the dead, and ascended bodily to 'heaven' (in the absence of any shred of evidence), this person is supposed to get the "Oh, this is what he believes, it must be respected."

Try to keep in mind, all that I'm advocating for is the ability to attack bad ideas, no matter what it may happen to be. If there is disagreement, then just explain why, no need to play the hurt feelings card.

[|iR|Focalor]

you take the fear of god away from people who live in the hood, see what type of world you'll end up with.  preachers certainly have an impact, but not as much impact as the fear of god has, in situations where people must choose to do the right thing.

Last time I took a stroll through the "hood", there was no "fear of god". Only fear of the police. Around Atlanta, every crime and "sin" you can conjure up is being committed like it's going out of style. Maybe the ghetto is nicer where you live.

The central purpose of the holy bible is to teach it's followers SUBMISSION. "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's", "Wive's, submit to your husbands", "Children, obey your parents". It's quite comical how preachers will often refer to the founding fathers of America as being deeply devoted faithful Christians. If they had listened to the teachings of Christ, they would have continued paying lip-service to England and left the tea alone.

Satan is the muthafuckin' mack daddy O.G. of rebellion, revolution, and independence. But then again, plenty of haters and ho's refer to us as "The Great Satan".
 

[deft]

This is part 5/6 and 6/6 on a youtube video, I wouldn't recommend watching the first 4, but this is just a must see.  It's about whether the devil exists or not.  I spent most of my time watching these clips laughing.   To be quite honest it's pretty pathetic that not only are these views present in the 21st century, but are accepted by so many and make up the majority of America. 

The debate starts around 6 minutes in, but the first bit is worth a watch also..

5/6:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cPvTSwtJRRQ&watch_response

6/6:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nHeqg0btluo

Pathetic is that you find someone with these beliefs pathetic.....I understand an atheists beliefs and do not find them pathetic because everyone has a right to their own opinion..especially if that opinion isn't some harmful or destructive way of thinking. So why then must we use words such as pathetic to describe someone who believes in a god or in the devil. I dont get the insulting when trying to have a civilized discussion.... Can you imagine Obama or Hillary saying in a televised debate that because the other believes in, lets say, gay marriage that they are pathetic/incompetent/unintelligent or anything of that nature????yes they say things like inexperienced or "old politics of washington" but nothing like pathetic....so why do you do it here?

The irony of that opening sentence is quite...pathetic.  The next sentence, where you assume I'm atheist is quite...ignorant.  Then you go on to say that everyone has their right to their own opinion, but opinions that aren't harmful somehow deserve a pedestal, which is quite...arrogant.  Then you use a terrible analogy, comparing a presidential campaign to a forum post.

"you take the fear of god away from people who live in the hood, see what type of world you'll end up with."

There are so many things wrong with that sentence I honestly don't know where to begin.