|
Post by Bluefinger on May 15, 2009 20:55:07 GMT -5
This sounds more like anti-organized religion than anti-theism to me. I'd be very uncomfortable referring to myself as an "anti-theist," in that I don't have any specific problem with the fact that people believe in a higher power. Many religions have done many bad things, but it's not simply the belief in a God that causes them. More the thirst for power, i.e., your religion has to have more power than the other guy's religion. But disorganized religion, such as simply a belief that there is some kind of undefined god-thing out there (deism) isn't really known for starting wars or waging inquisitions. Although it would be kind of amusing to watch a guy crank a rack shouting "SAY THERE'S SOME VAGUE HIGHER POWER OF SOME SORT THAT'S PROBABLY OUT THERE! SAY IT!!!" Funny in my own twisted little mind, at least. The problem is with dogma, not so much the 'belief'. For organised religion to survive in any meaningful form, it requires dogma with its doctrine and message, otherwise it just doesn't proliferate and resemble anything like what we'd call a 'religion'. Take the dogma away and what are we left with? If your beef is with organized religion, you'd be on stronger footing, but I'm not ready to follow you there either. Being a New Yorker, I don't see too many pastors who spend their Sunday mornings bashing gays, abortion, Muslims, and Mexicans. The church services I've been to recently (and there have been a lot, actually), were mostly discussion about loving your children, learning to be happy, respecting your elders, and other such things that really aren't all that controversial (although maybe a bit corny). That's fine, but there are places which do the more unpleasant aspects as well, and I'm more against THAT aspect than the more friendly and open aspects of religion. But I wonder if the more friendlier parts really are a consequence of an increasingly secular and open society rather than any deliberate effort on the part of the religion involved, which then brings me to the point of whether the pleasant aspects will simply devolve into community groups, as that is what they seem to function as primarily. Nothing wrong with it either way, but on the whole, it isn't something I'm against. I'm only against what i deem to hold to dangerous dogma. You're right, of course. Church groups that do good deeds aren't necessary, and secular people can do them too. I actually spent most of my high school and college days volunteering at soup kitchens, retirement homes, picking up trash, and tutoring kids. But the churches do these things too, so you can't really say that they're not doing any good. Oh, I never said that they don't do any good, I don't deny that. I do say they don't do any MORE good than secular groups and people. That's the basis of me questioning their necessity. They are not necessary for society, but the groups that DO help out are good enough. I do have a problem with groups helping out with strings attached though.
|
|
|
Post by The Watcher on May 15, 2009 21:13:40 GMT -5
That's fine, but there are places which do the more unpleasant aspects as well, and I'm more against THAT aspect than the more friendly and open aspects of religion. But I wonder if the more friendlier parts really are a consequence of an increasingly secular and open society rather than any deliberate effort on the part of the religion involved, which then brings me to the point of whether the pleasant aspects will simply devolve into community groups, as that is what they seem to function as primarily. Probably, yes. I hate to say it, but religious groups aren't often found on the forefront of cultural paradigm shifts. Sounds like you're less anti-theist and more open-minded than you give yourself credit for. It's pretty hard to quantify the amount of "good" being done per capita. Yeah that's a pretty awful, fundie thing to do. "Here's your food, water, and medicine. Now there's just one teensy little prayer I need you to say first. Oh, I'm sorry, you're about to die? Don't worry, this won't take long..." Honestly, how anybody can pull that and sleep at night boggles my mind. That isn't helping the needy, it's extortion.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on May 15, 2009 22:43:58 GMT -5
Alright, I wound up reading some of the comments and I need to vent.
Do you know why I'm leaving that there? Because it's aggressively ignorant ranting from someone's high fucking horse that they feel entitles them to run the lives of others. Or, in short, the exact same bullshit as everything else on the site.
Just because it's not religious doesn't mean it isn't complete bullshit. If you want to see why ending religion won't fix the world, go read the post quoted in the link in the OP, do you really think stupidity like that's going to end just because we don't have our magical finger puppets to argue over anymore because we outlawed them? Hell no, it'd just make the entire situation worse.
And for the love of fuck can someone explain to me how in the blazes of hell holding our own to the same expections as those we argue against isn't intellectually sound?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on May 15, 2009 23:10:44 GMT -5
Alright, I wound up reading some of the comments and I need to vent. Do you know why I'm leaving that there? Because it's aggressively ignorant ranting from someone's high fucking horse that they feel entitles them to run the lives of others. Or, in short, the exact same bullshit as everything else on the site. Just because it's not religious doesn't mean it isn't complete bullshit. If you want to see why ending religion won't fix the world, go read the post quoted in the link in the OP, do you really think stupidity like that's going to end just because we don't have our magical finger puppets to argue over anymore because we outlawed them? Hell no, it'd just make the entire situation worse. And for the love of fuck can someone explain to me how in the blazes of hell holding our own to the same expections as those we argue against isn't intellectually sound? Because when it's someone else, it's funny. But when it's you or someone who holds similar beliefs to you, then it's BAWWWW DRAMA.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on May 15, 2009 23:17:02 GMT -5
Same reason everyone loves George Carlin until he talks about something close to home.
I believe that man insulted everyone on earth at one point or another.
|
|
|
Post by Yahweh on May 16, 2009 11:42:12 GMT -5
Both quotes are a reminder that atheism isn't immune to zealotry and bigoted arrogance. It honestly surprises me that we don't get submissions from the FSTDT comments more often.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 20, 2009 5:12:50 GMT -5
Yes, the word doesn't mean what it originally did. The definition we generally use is, however, rather conveniently located. Note that that's not really an inclusive, set in stone definition either. Even admitting that, the first quoted individual pretty clearly is not in favor of the first amendment. Words change meaning all the time. I'm sure you'll appreciate that if I tell you that I think most of the people I talk directly to on this site are awful? I mean, they've led such interesting, and sometimes challenging, lives! Some of them are, to me at least, truly awful. I'd also like to point out that Osama bin Laden is a pretty terrific guy. Look at what he inspired! Hitler and Stalin were even MORE terrific, I'd say. And Vlad the Impaler? He made it his life goal to be terrific. I LOL'd. Hard. That was brilliant!
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 20, 2009 5:15:51 GMT -5
Same reason everyone loves George Carlin until he talks about something close to home. I believe that man insulted everyone on earth at one point or another. Intentionally, too. Hell, if you're *not* offended by something he says, you're not *listening*! Most of his fans, though, would happily take an insult from him, and call it an honor.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 23, 2009 4:23:08 GMT -5
I'd say that both quotes are fundie, but not darndest. As in, I don't think the quotes are very interesting, & therefore probably wouldn't have submitted them.
Initially, I had a hard time deciding. I mean, some of us have said some pretty dick stuff over the years. I think the deciding factor, for me, was the whole "banning religion" thing.
|
|