Holy texts should be respected by scholars

[S.A.M.]

explain how it isn't tolerance. in fact, why don't you try refuting the things i say instead of just weaseling out of them by asking more questions.

You might have noticed, I'm not exactly agreeing with you here.

...allowing it to be seen as valid go beyond toleration and extend into a tacit approval of the practice or belief....

How exactly does this equal tolerance to you? I am curious to know...also you seem conflicted between tolerance and accepting two completely separate concepts

oh really, its accepted history now that the german people stopped hitler before he came to power and averted the holocaust? interesting.

I would think you would recognize the power of self delusion...

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/osssection2.htm

i've been to 10 countries and every state in the US except for 3. so i think i have been around a little, however, that seems irrelevant considering i answered the question you posed and now you don't think that those were valid examples because i didn't explain how it has happened historically everywhere else in the world. you're wasting both of our time. try arguing it instead.

And you think all the countries were fighting about religion? not about power?

who cares where you lived? you made a stupid statment. you said non-belief is a belief. where do you get an idea like that?

How about "you believe in the absence of theism?"

Are you familiar with semantics?

on top of it, i'm going to bet that you view any protest against religion in the public square here as an atheist intolerance of religion, which it's not. there are some people here that are religious but value the ideals on which our country was founded highly enough to be angered when someone tries to circumvent constitutional law and shove a religious belief into our midst as a public institution.

No but I do view violent opposition of theists ( on the sole ground that they are theists) as anti-theism, which is completely separate from atheism.

Atheists disbelieve in the presence of a deity; anti-theists are convinced all theists are irrational.

those issues are purely legal and have nothing to do with intolerance of one idea because another is favored; they instead are based on the premise that if no one belief is accorded preferential treatment, then all beliefs will have equal opportunity to flourish

all beliefs? like this you mean?

"look, lets see the bible for what it is - a ficticious story"

How naive.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Nothing. That's what learning is.

Then it would appear that reality can be used to interpret reality.

 

[baumgarten]

No, re-read it. I've been very specific in my wording.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

As have I. We're not exactly seperate from reality hence by default we are points of reality interpreting reality. Reality can provide these points with knowledge that might let them learn how to interpret reality better.

 

[baumgarten]

I see. I misunderstood you at the outset, then.

 

[(Q)]

Some Muslims and some Christians; you might be surprised to know that a lot of it has to do with politics and not much else.

Horsepucky, it has everything to do with religion.

Who's we? ( tolerism??)

Everyone.

And this is important because...?

Because they see things that aren't there, you don't find that disturbing? Is that normal for you?

Because compassion and understanding is better than intolerance and invective?

But, your religion is intolerant, that makes Muslims hypocrites.

Because we (?) live in a secular society?

Unfortunately, we do not.

Because everyone has a right to his beliefs?

A right yes, but when people believe in myths and fairy tales, that is a different story because it is offensive.

 

[charles cure]

You might have noticed, I'm not exactly agreeing with you here.

who cares if you disagree, you have put forth no reason as to why my assertion is incorrect. if you came here just to disagree without any real reasoning, then i'll see you later.

How exactly does this equal tolerance to you? I am curious to know...also you seem conflicted between tolerance and accepting two completely separate concepts

i knew i would have to do this - from www.merriamwebster.com

Main Entry: tol·er·ance
Pronunciation: 'tä-l&-r&n(t)s, 'täl-r&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : ENDURANCE, FORTITUDE, STAMINA
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION

notice that the definition does not contain any necessary respect for anyone elses belief, only an allowance of it. if something is allowed legally, then i don't take that right away by speaking out against it. but if i think it is wrong it is my right to attempt to persuade people as to why its wrong. i would argue that i can do that and still tolerate the belief although i don't agree with it. intolerance would be attempting to eradicate it through violence or through a change in the law that would criminalize the practice of religion. i was never advocating something like that. i don't know how you have gotten so confused.

I would think you would recognize the power of self delusion...

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/osssection2.htm

how exactly is that relevant? hitler espoused his beliefs about the jews in literature and in speeches before taking absolute control of the country. you can only blame so much on charisma and propaganda. the german people agreed with hitler to an extent, and those that didn't may still have seen him as the antidote to their troubles and so they accepted his bad qualities as a necessary evil. so what? let's not belabor the point, the germans knew that he had an intolerant agenda and they went along with it. they failed to speak out and stop hitler from coming to power. self-delusion or not is irrelevant. in fact the hitler aspect of this conversation is irrelevant. the original point is that people believe in dangerous and irrational ideas sometimes and have reaped the negative consequences repeatedly. religious belief is no less irrational than the beliefs that form the basis of ideas about racial supremacy and the fact that holy books claim to be authoritative, but are left open to interpretation and distortion by a slew of hacks, ambitious politicians, demagogues, and the like makes them potentially extremely dangerous when taken seriously by the majority of society.

And you think all the countries were fighting about religion? not about power?

when did a fight even enter the discussion? i was talking about how religious belief forms a basis for law in society, and specifically how christian belief has influenced lawmaking in the united states and how muslim religious law plays a huge role in the formation of legality in the middle east. are you even paying attention to the conversation or are you just trying to misdirect it because you can't come up with a proper counterargument?

How about "you believe in the absence of theism?"

Are you familiar with semantics?

yeah i am, but apparently you aren't. this isn't a semantic distinction at all. i don't believe in an absence of anything, i simply refuse to believe that something is there without evidence. there are a ton of things i don't believe in because they seem totally unlikely, even impossible, and there is no reason to believe that they exist. superman for example, or smurfs. there are books written about them, yes, even tv shows, but there is still no evidence for their existence, so i consider them made up. now, do i believe that they don't exist - no, i have precluded myself from even wondering if they do because there is absolutely no reason to think that they ever would.

by the way, i don't believe in an absence of theism either, i'm well aware that theism exists.

No but I do view violent opposition of theists ( on the sole ground that they are theists) as anti-theism, which is completely separate from atheism.

Atheists disbelieve in the presence of a deity; anti-theists are convinced all theists are irrational.

good for you, when did we start talking about violent opposition to theists?

How naive.

yeah, i bet. enlighten me then, and while youre at it bring all the proof that you can find that corroborates the core story of christianity.

please try harder next time.

 

[S.A.M.]

who cares if you disagree, you have put forth no reason as to why my assertion is incorrect. if you came here just to disagree without any real reasoning, then i'll see you later.

Hmm

i knew i would have to do this - from www.merriamwebster.com

Main Entry: tol·er·ance
Pronunciation: 'tä-l&-r&n(t)s, 'täl-r&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : ENDURANCE, FORTITUDE, STAMINA
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION


notice that the definition does not contain any necessary respect for anyone elses belief, only an allowance of it. if something is allowed legally, then i don't take that right away by speaking out against it. but if i think it is wrong it is my right to attempt to persuade people as to why its wrong. i would argue that i can do that and still tolerate the belief although i don't agree with it. intolerance would be attempting to eradicate it through violence or through a change in the law that would criminalize the practice of religion. i was never advocating something like that. i don't know how you have gotten so confused.

Try using a better dictionary: ( Websters)

Tolerance

Noun

1. The power or capacity of an organism to tolerate unfavorable environmental conditions.
2. A disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior.
3. The act of tolerating something.
4. Willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others.
5. A permissible difference; allowing freedom to move within limits.

how exactly is that relevant? hitler espoused his beliefs about the jews in literature and in speeches before taking absolute control of the country. you can only blame so much on charisma and propaganda. the german people agreed with hitler to an extent, and those that didn't may still have seen him as the antidote to their troubles and so they accepted his bad qualities as a necessary evil. so what? let's not belabor the point, the germans knew that he had an intolerant agenda and they went along with it. they failed to speak out and stop hitler from coming to power. self-delusion or not is irrelevant. in fact the hitler aspect of this conversation is irrelevant. the original point is that people believe in dangerous and irrational ideas sometimes and have reaped the negative consequences repeatedly. religious belief is no less irrational than the beliefs that form the basis of ideas about racial supremacy and the fact that holy books claim to be authoritative, but are left open to interpretation and distortion by a slew of hacks, ambitious politicians, demagogues, and the like makes them potentially extremely dangerous when taken seriously by the majority of society.

I really do not have time for a comprehensive history lesson here; so I'll give you some pointers to start with:

1. World War I effects on Germany, Britain and France
2. Economic conditions in Germany during World War II
3. Oh what the heck! here's some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II

http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_were_the_causes_of_World_War_2

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/germany_and_rearmament.htm

http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/newspapers/intro_e.html

http://www.teacheroz.com/WWIIcauses.htm

http://www.rpfuller.com/gcse/history/6.html


I'll address the rest of your post a little later.

 

[S.A.M.]

when did a fight even enter the discussion? i was talking about how religious belief forms a basis for law in society, and specifically how christian belief has influenced lawmaking in the united states and how muslim religious law plays a huge role in the formation of legality in the middle east. are you even paying attention to the conversation or are you just trying to misdirect it because you can't come up with a proper counterargument?

If christian law forms a basis for law in the US, and Islamic law a basis for law in the ME, it is a reflection of the political mindset of the people and is based on majority opinion.

yeah i am, but apparently you aren't. this isn't a semantic distinction at all. i don't believe in an absence of anything, i simply refuse to believe that something is there without evidence. there are a ton of things i don't believe in because they seem totally unlikely, even impossible, and there is no reason to believe that they exist. superman for example, or smurfs. there are books written about them, yes, even tv shows, but there is still no evidence for their existence, so i consider them made up. now, do i believe that they don't exist - no, i have precluded myself from even wondering if they do because there is absolutely no reason to think that they ever would.

This is not about you or your beliefs; it is about generalising your personal assumptions and analysis of experience for others with different beliefs.

by the way, i don't believe in an absence of theism either, i'm well aware that theism exists.

OK

good for you, when did we start talking about violent opposition to theists?

Hmm, was I mistaken about the sentiment here?

if a belief is untenable in terms of logic or reason or seems to have a basis in fantasy, i don't accept its validity. so in that regard i do lump religious belief in with naziism...et al. although, i am wondering what exact distinction you would make - is it that religious belief is ok because it doesn't harm anyone, irrational as it may be? well a case could be made that roman catholicism has resulted in far more death and despair than naziism ever did. i'm just curious about why you think that something like the christianity or islam would deserve respect when these other things wouldn't.

If so, I stand corrected.

yeah, i bet. enlighten me then, and while youre at it bring all the proof that you can find that corroborates the core story of christianity.

It is not my desire to enlighten you about religion, merely to point out that all people have a right to their beliefs, including you. I reread your posts; it seems your focus is on fundamentalists rather than theists; since I share these concerns about extremism, I believe we are on the same page here. I too do not agree with religion as a tool to promote divisiveness and terrorism.

please try harder next time.

Hope I was able to clarify my position.

 

[S.A.M.]

Horsepucky, it has everything to do with religion.

I respectfully disagree; and you may call me Sam, I like it better than Horsepucky.

Everyone.

Hmm, self delusion.

Because they see things that aren't there, you don't find that disturbing? Is that normal for you?

Are you disturbed by all individuals who disagree with you? Is this normal for you?

But, your religion is intolerant, that makes Muslims hypocrites.

Says the person who is intolerant of all who do not agree with him/her?

Unfortunately, we do not.

Hmm, explains your attitude.

A right yes, but when people believe in myths and fairy tales, that is a different story because it is offensive.

Sounds like you have a REAL problem

 

[charles cure]

If christian law forms a basis for law in the US, and Islamic law a basis for law in the ME, it is a reflection of the political mindset of the people and is based on majority opinion.

so? majority opinion isn't always right. in fact, there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. as a coroallry to that, in the middle east it is sometimes not the majority opinion, rather it is forced upon the people by those who weild the biggest guns. in the US, the constitution is still more important than any one majority's opinion at any given time, so unless they amend it, there is still a law against giving preferential treatment to a religion in the public square, and there is still separation of church and state regardless of how certain groups would try to erode it.

This is not about you or your beliefs; it is about generalising your personal assumptions and analysis of experience for others with different beliefs.

on the contrary it was about you saying that my non-allegiance to religion and non-belief in god were actually a fanatical belief system, an interesting theory which has clearly been debunked and that you are now trying to weasel out of because you were wrong.
and as per your above statement, all i have said is that i don't think that religion deserves my respect, nothing about attempting to forcibly alter anyone else's way of thinking.

OK

well, you said i believed in an absence of theism. maybe you should pay closer attention to the words you type and what they actually mean.

Hmm, was I mistaken about the sentiment here?

If so, I stand corrected.

clearly you are as it says nothing whatsoever about violence or fighting or forcing anyone to do anything.

here's what i said, maybe try reading it again, and this time try to understand it:

if a belief is untenable in terms of logic or reason or seems to have a basis in fantasy, i don't accept its validity. so in that regard i do lump religious belief in with naziism...et al. although, i am wondering what exact distinction you would make - is it that religious belief is ok because it doesn't harm anyone, irrational as it may be? well a case could be made that roman catholicism has resulted in far more death and despair than naziism ever did. i'm just curious about why you think that something like the christianity or islam would deserve respect when these other things wouldn't.

i guess you stand corrected.

It is not my desire to enlighten you about religion, merely to point out that all people have a right to their beliefs, including you. I reread your posts; it seems your focus is on fundamentalists rather than theists; since I share these concerns about extremism, I believe we are on the same page here. I too do not agree with religion as a tool to promote divisiveness and terrorism.

well, i'm not really talking about extremism exclusively. every extremist is at one time a run-of-the-mill believer. every extremist is allowed to exist by virtue of the fact that there is a ready made framework for which to implement their vulgar ideas that is supported by thousands or millions of people who share at least some of that core belief. if no one took the koran seriously, then no one could ever use its verses to convince people to blow themselves up on a bus. if no one took the bible seriously, there would have been no basis upon which to twist its doctrines to justify witch burnings, closeted homosexuals, crusades, the torture of the inquisition, women being harrassed and threatened at abortion clinics, hitler's germany, black slavery, and countless other wars, skirmishes and genocides commited throughout the course of history by what you would now call extremists.
the problem is though that people respect the bible even sometimes when they only moderately believe in it, or they respect it thinking that their interpretation is the only correct one and that other harmful interpretations will either never exist, or will just work themselves out over time. that is truly naive. the backbone of any religious extremist organization is the church or the mosque or the temple that lends the possibility of authority to their interpretation of a holy text to begin with.

 

[S.A.M.]

so? majority opinion isn't always right. in fact, there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. as a coroallry to that, in the middle east it is sometimes not the majority opinion, rather it is forced upon the people by those who weild the biggest guns. in the US, the constitution is still more important than any one majority's opinion at any given time, so unless they amend it, there is still a law against giving preferential treatment to a religion in the public square, and there is still separation of church and state regardless of how certain groups would try to erode it.




on the contrary it was about you saying that my non-allegiance to religion and non-belief in god were actually a fanatical belief system, an interesting theory which has clearly been debunked and that you are now trying to weasel out of because you were wrong.
and as per your above statement, all i have said is that i don't think that religion deserves my respect, nothing about attempting to forcibly alter anyone else's way of thinking.





well, you said i believed in an absence of theism. maybe you should pay closer attention to the words you type and what they actually mean.





clearly you are as it says nothing whatsoever about violence or fighting or forcing anyone to do anything.

here's what i said, maybe try reading it again, and this time try to understand it:

if a belief is untenable in terms of logic or reason or seems to have a basis in fantasy, i don't accept its validity. so in that regard i do lump religious belief in with naziism...et al. although, i am wondering what exact distinction you would make - is it that religious belief is ok because it doesn't harm anyone, irrational as it may be? well a case could be made that roman catholicism has resulted in far more death and despair than naziism ever did. i'm just curious about why you think that something like the christianity or islam would deserve respect when these other things wouldn't.

i guess you stand corrected.



well, i'm not really talking about extremism exclusively. every extremist is at one time a run-of-the-mill believer. every extremist is allowed to exist by virtue of the fact that there is a ready made framework for which to implement their vulgar ideas that is supported by thousands or millions of people who share at least some of that core belief. if no one took the koran seriously, then no one could ever use its verses to convince people to blow themselves up on a bus. if no one took the bible seriously, there would have been no basis upon which to twist its doctrines to justify witch burnings, closeted homosexuals, crusades, the torture of the inquisition, women being harrassed and threatened at abortion clinics, hitler's germany, black slavery, and countless other wars, skirmishes and genocides commited throughout the course of history by what you would now call extremists.
the problem is though that people respect the bible even sometimes when they only moderately believe in it, or they respect it thinking that their interpretation is the only correct one and that other harmful interpretations will either never exist, or will just work themselves out over time. that is truly naive. the backbone of any religious extremist organization is the church or the mosque or the temple that lends the possibility of authority to their interpretation of a holy text to begin with.

You seem to imply that religion is a major force in inciting violence; I believe its just another excuse used by those who want to justify their propensity for violence. People use many excuses to justify their behavior, discrimination is an unavoidable part of the human psyche. We notice differences among people before we notice any similarities; ultimately its all about power or perceived power whether it is over women, over slaves or over "minorities". There are a whole lot of people in the world who follow their religion peacefully; they do not make headlines however and are usually forgotten when religion is criticized. If you consider that around 80% of the world is theist , how many of them can you really accuse of being fundamentalist? Economics plays a very important role in perceived miscarriages of justice, second only to power hungry governments ( some of whom become very rich in the bargain). They need to justify their anger and greed and mislead people by using religion. People cannot be fooled forever, however, and dissent is good, it leads to a reexamination of core values. But its important to be objective as well, reform works better with kindness than force. It is sometimes easier to get something by asking for it than by trying to forcibly take it away.

Most people want nothing more than to lead peaceful lives with their families and have too much to worry about on a daily basis to think of the impact of world events. They only take things pesonally whey perceive themselves as misunderstood or criticized. Fundamentalists bank on the emotions of such people and use them to their perverted ends. I believe it is important to focus on education as a means of offering people a wider perspective to make decisions which are not rooted in emotion. For this to succeed, it is imperative to recognize the sensitivities and weaknesses of people in order to help them effectively.

I understand what you are trying to say, but IMHO, people respond much better to understanding than they do to opinion.

That's all.

 

[lightgigantic]

A friend (western bodied) had personal experience backpacking through pakistan and afghanistan - he said how he had numerous occassions when he was asking for directions and strangers (muslims bythe way) would personally escort him to the location or hail down a cab or rickshaw, tell the driver where to go and pay the fare for him. Apparently there is some injunction about receiving a guest or stranger in islam that encourages people to be helpful - now who do you think that is going to make headlines?

You could take this a step further and compare this to western civilisation -

When asked what he thought of western civilisation gandhi replied "Yes, wouldn't it be nice if it was?"

 

[S.A.M.]

When asked what he thought of western civilisation gandhi replied "Yes, wouldn't it be nice if it was?"

Sorry to be picky, lightgigantic, what Mahatma Gandhi actually said was:


"What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea."
- Mohandas Gandhi

 

[lightgigantic]

Sorry to be picky, lightgigantic, what Mahatma Gandhi actually said was:


"What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea."
- Mohandas Gandhi

lol - sorry - I had the drift though

 

[(Q)]

I respectfully disagree; and you may call me Sam, I like it better than Horsepucky.

You may disagree.

Hmm, self delusion.

And who is the one that believes in invisible sky daddies? You're one to talk of delusion.

Are you disturbed by all individuals who disagree with you? Is this normal for you?

When they see and talk to things that aren't there, that is disturbing.

Says the person who is intolerant of all who do not agree with him/her?

Intolerant of religion, get it right.

Hmm, explains your attitude.

What attitude?

Sounds like you have a REAL problem

Religion is a serious problem. It has infected the minds of millions of people like a virus. It needs to be stopped before it becomes the end of us all.

 

[S.A.M.]

You may disagree.



And who is the one that believes in invisible sky daddies? You're one to talk of delusion.



When they see and talk to things that aren't there, that is disturbing.



Intolerant of religion, get it right.



What attitude?



Religion is a serious problem. It has infected the minds of millions of people like a virus. It needs to be stopped before it becomes the end of us all.

I'm done here.

 

[(Q)]

I'm done here.

The "fear" of asking the hard questions about your religion has defeated you, not I.

 

[S.A.M.]

The "fear" of asking the hard questions about your religion has defeated you, not I.

Whatever.

 

[superluminal]

Whatever.

Hey sam. How's it going? Frustrating, isn't it?