Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
I don't think I ever argued for respecting a belief when it is used for those purposes. It's been a few days, but I think the last post I made specifically argued against that.Ugh, I am so going to **** up here. My thoughts are so many different places, haha. Forgive me in advance for giving a convincing performance of a ****tard.
You called out Shaky for lacking respect, from what I recall, when he is asking penetrating questions and showing a lack of reverence for someone else's religion. I countered that it is perfectly valid to act this way with any other belief system that has a faulty premise, and religion should not get a "pass". That's really what began all this.
Well, I'm not sure what you intended to prove here, but I would argue that the definite thing to do would be blame the people who actually performed the murders. As far as I know, nobody would justify murder simply because somebody spreads a disease. In fact, most rational people would probably just take the easier approach and avoid the gingers altogether.I understand your point and all that, but I see no avenue here where it would undermine mine.
I'm not saying equal blame is required here, or only blame one person. Again, don't limit yourself to just two options here. The murderers have blame for their actions which they control, and require severe punishment. Those that spread the harmful lies have blame for their actions which they control and require moderate punishment. It's the same reason why you wouldn't legally allow someone to shout "FIRE" in a crowded movie theatre because of the chaos and harm that can come which they knowingly initiated.
Oh. The flying spaghetti monster thing. That I know about. I would say yes, give it the respect it deserves.
Which is none. It's a parody, not a valid belief system. It's ridiculousness is used to mirror real life religions. If you think "all belief systems require respect, whether or not they are logical", this is not a defendable position.
Correct. Atheists and Agnostics systematically do bad things to people in the name of false scientific assertions or money. Perhaps even new books.
Erm, no. Professed scientists who are fraudulent and big business CEOs and boards who are profit-motivated may be agnostic, atheist, or religious; the end-result is not at all dependent on their belief system. This assertion is wild.
You are simply attempting to argue that religion is only an excuse people use to commit atrocities. It may be true, but the blame for such acts fall on the people who perform these acts.
1. You have someone in a position of authority, whether it is a political leader, a religious leader, or a head of household.
2. That person makes a baseless assertion, and requires that no one examine it but simply obey and submit.
3. This assertion becomes the foundation upon which an ethics system is created, which involves all sorts of ridiculous arguments like gay people are evil, pigs and shellfish are abominations, or no one should be near menstrating women. The former numbered points indicate the submissive followers must adhere and not question.
4. The leader who is making these assertions shares some of the blame for any atrocities committed in accordance with these beliefs. This is all the more the issue in say, Christian or Muslim atrocities (which are more widely known to us in this part of the world) and include Pope-sanctioned Crusades, Inquisition, the torture and execution of the Knight's Templar, the genocide of the Cathar, the killings following Reformation, fundamentalist jihad, suicide bombings, etc.
In each of these cases, religious leaders use the immutable words (or translated by them but not open to interpretation by anyone else) to influence a group of people who may become responsible for atrocities and crimes. This is not something I made up; it's evident in history.
Religion is no less deserving of respect because one person or many people chose to believe in one such interpretation, or manipulated certain statements and ideas to justify their own means. I could very easily apply the same argument against Atheism, Agnosticism, Pastafarianism, or anything. Even simple economic systems.
And my point is any time a belief system, regardless of intent, creates a systematic way to live your life that is bounded on something supernatural, which cannot be measured or proven, it bears the burden of proof and responsibility at the same time.
You seem to be thinking I am arguing from this "superior" viewpoint of a non-religious individual and I take the side of "faceless and godless scientists, smug atheist, and profiteers" when that's far from the truth. This isn't an "us versus them" discussion. It's a discussion about what's reasonable to believe in and what's reasonable to respect.
Ancient mythologies are not any more measurable or provable than Christ, Muhammad, or the Easter Bunny, and none of them should be treated with kid's gloves except if someone fears reprisal.
I am unclear on your attempted point here. Your argument is logical and likely true, but it should not apply, I suppose is what I mean to say.
You must answer this for me:
When is it okay to not apply something logical and likely true in the absence of any other logical and likely true argument?
Admitting the validity of an argument and then immediately chucking it aside because it doesn't fit your worldview isn't any way to debate.
It seems to me that you are saying what is akin to the statement that the definition of a word is ironclad. This is a pretty bad example, but the definition of a Christian is a person who believes that Jesus Christ is God. Of course it is true that Christian discussion does not lend itself to ideas that Christ was not God. However, you are using this to claim that religion is unadaptable, and that religious people are not willing to think beyond that idea.But that is untrue, because of the study of Theology, and even conversions and different movements within religions. For example, there was a theologian in the Roman/Byzantine empire who gained a following when he preached that God the Father was older than God the Son, making the Father superior to the Son. But the idea was considered heretical because of the concept of the Trinity, making each aspect of God equal to the others. The movement there was squashed, but that is unimportant.
For a newer example, if I recall, one Pope in recent years announced his support of the Big Bang theory.
This might be where I made myself look like the ****tard.
More like you make your arguments unexamined in appearance. More emotional than otherwise. Arguments may include emotion for emphasis or pathos, but never to ultimately shape truth. I can be angry or excited about my argument to prove X, but that emotion should not in itself be the reason why I support X; I must have a logical argument behind it.
If you feel overwhelmed or otherwise not equal to the task, you can educate yourself by taking a Logics and Reasoning course at your local college. Ethics and History of Philosophy are good courses as well to supplement your reading, and the list of traditional fallcies or flaws in reasoning are a Google search away.
To draw on what inspired Pastafarianism, nobody can disprove it either. Which is why it cannot be irrational and unreasonable. I don't think that Science has ever claimed that God does not exist, and any scientist that tells you otherwise should be ignored.
I do not think that I did. I think both you and your friend overstepped your bounds. He probably shouldn't have insinuated that you're an evil and bad human being because you don't believe in his rabbit's foot, and you probably shouldn't have insinuated that he's a moron because he believes in his rabbit's foot.
If my friend suddenly judges my moral character from a lack of belief in his superstition, I have every right to fire back at him with "dude, that's ridiculous". If you think I have overstepped my bounds by defending my moral character and my reasoning, then I have to question what you stand for. Social passiveness? Appeasement of any and all ideas? I can't believe that you would willingly advocate a social situation in which people turn a blind eye to something when they themselves are being personally judged.
If you didn't vote Democrat and your friend, relative or co-worker said you were a fundamentalist gun-slinging civil rights hater, I would hope you would defend yourself. You wouldn't go "Oh, we should respect this belief system" when you yourself are being actively disrespected.
Then first I have to ask you to define what you are considering as a rational foundation.What you cited at the end of this paragraph is simply an attempt to curb social deterioration. Something you've actually appeared, at least to me, to argue that religion causes.
I need two posts, because we've begun to exceed the character limit.
Here, use this as an example.