Originally posted by Dr McBeefingtonIt's interesting how you're noting this distinction in my argument, but not in Veneficus' who is guilty of the same thing.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefingtonSo by your logic if I were to say "secularists are ruining the world", you couldn't respond with "....in the hands of stupid people"? Because that's essentially the logic you're subscribing to when you call out me in particular. Basically, your argument works 100% with secularism and atheism, etc. So in essence, we're left at the exact same spot we were before your post.
And if you were to say that "secularists are ruining the world" then I'd respond with some sort of rant about how scientists are awesome and then complain about theistic groups doing actual harm to the world (like Catholic anti-contraceptive rhetoric in Africa).
But I don't want to have that conversation again, and neither should you. We've already explained and explored our (respective) opinions exhaustively. Is there really anything to gain by reiterating our positions?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You'll have to show me these misunderstandings.. Again, your argument works equally for secularism.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Simply because it seems that you're playing a game of double standards. You're calling out my (apparent) views on religion and using one type of standard for them, but not doing the same thing to the other side of the coin.
I'll sum this up with a thought that might refute your entire premise, and it might not. You're saying that I believe characteristic X in the hands of stupid people means that characteristic X is ruining the world. Let characteristic X be religion here. Why do most religious people of any religious denomination NOT commit atrocities? I would venture a guess of 99% as the number that refrain from any type of "religious incompetence". How exactly does your argument work in this regard?
My actual (summarized) take on the issue:
Religion does not create psychopaths. The actual moral commandments of most modern religions are fairly acceptable in the light of modern morality (bigotry and regressionist fundamentalism excepted). Religion certainly has a place in the world as a whole, one that has the potential to be powerfully positive in the personal lives of billions.
However, there are valid grounds to criticize religion. It provides a narrative of cosmic significance. The people who protest at abortion clinics honestly believe they are fighting a cosmic battle. Those who bomb such facilities do so in the name of objective good. Suicide bombers in the Middle East soak a tiny stretch of land in blood based on thousand year old texts.
So religious thought has both personal benefits and polarizing tendencies. To lay the world's troubles at its feet is a bit of an exaggeration, but to say that it is completely free of complicity in major world conflicts is equally unrealistic.
Zampanó
The actual moral commandments of most modern religions are fairly acceptable in the light of modern morality (bigotry and regressionist fundamentalism excepted).
I would also add that, particularly in the United States where Christianreligious precepts are so thoroughly disseminated and entrenched, that their positive teachings are unlikely to have not directly influenced the majority of its citizens, including atheists.
Originally posted by Zampanó
You've written more. I've read your posts and am quite familiar with your opinions based on our own conversations. The two themes I mentioned (stupidity vs. validity of canon and the general failing of society as a whole) are ones that this thread has explored extensively. And I do not believe that you are guilty of anything; they were interesting conversation topics, when we discussed them the first 5 times. Insofar as I am hoping to forestall having the same conversation again, your posts are simply circling around back to where we began.
If you were to say that "secularism is ruining the world" then I would respond by arguing that there is no central basis for secular philosophies (in the public consciousness) and so it is in no position to cause anything. I'd contend that the outgrowths of secularism, e.g. progressivism and humanism, are on the whole more positive than those of religion, such as ingroup/outgroup thinking and absolutism.
And if you were to say that "secularists are ruining the world" then I'd respond with some sort of rant about how scientists are awesome and then complain about theistic groups doing actual harm to the world (like Catholic anti-contraceptive rhetoric in Africa).
As I tried to make quite clear, I am not endorsing the idea that religion itself is ruining the world. I am attacking the defense of religion in practice that disclaims all misdeeds by adherents as misunderstandings or perversions of that religious code. The "dirty water in a clean container" argument is fine when arguing the merits of religion itself. But when talking about the real world consequences of religious activity we cannot so easily dismiss the radical branches.If we can't dismiss the radical branches, what do we chalk it up to, seeing as how they're the extreme minority of the world's religious populations?
However, there are valid grounds to criticize religion. It provides a narrative of cosmic significance. The people who protest at abortion clinics honestly believe they are fighting a cosmic battle. Those who bomb such facilities do so in the name of objective good. Suicide bombers in the Middle East soak a tiny stretch of land in blood based on thousand year old texts.
So religious thought has both personal benefits and polarizing tendencies. To lay the world's troubles at its feet is a bit of an exaggeration, but to say that it is completely free of complicity in major world conflicts is equally unrealistic. [/B]I never said it was completely free of complicity, just that it deserves equal consideration when argued against secularism.
Dr McBeefington
You DO realize that some of the greatest scientific minds of man's history were also religious, right? Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.
Darwin was a hair's breadth away from pursuing seminary, which provides mild amusement every time I watch a debate featuring the great Richard Dawkins.
Lord Lucien
Great? Pope Julius II was 'great'. Dawkins is just British.
Which makes him a confederate of yours, does it not? You have both sworn allegiance to the same monarch: she commands unity among her legions.
But yes, I like Dawkins, even as a practicing Christian. I really wish he'd grow a pair and tangle with William Lane Craig, though.
So I've figured out that I'm going to have the same class and work schedule as I did this last semester. I am disappoint, I wanted some variety there. Might try to weasle an extra day of study in there, keep my hours at 32hrs/week. Otherwise, we're going full 40hrs/week again. Tired, tired Jordan...
Additionally, a guest at my hotel inspired me to post some of my creative writing on here and one of my blogs again. It's been awhile, and all of it was Star Wars fan fic instead of any original composition.
Anyone here use Wordpress or Tumblr? I'm thinking I'll be posting my stuff on my Tumblr since it's kind of my crapshoot blog. I just share random things on it, like most Tumblr users.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
http://constitutionaldaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1403😮bligatory-bcs-post-hey-homeauxs&catid=42:news&Itemid=71Pretty damn funny.
Idiots. There's something telling about the respect our troops get stateside..