You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Religion’ category.
I’m not really sure what Thunderf00t was trying to do, but the video illustrates how difficult it can be to talk with those who beliefs are firmly mired in the fantastic. Apparently, by talking louder and repeating the same phrase over and over it becomes “more right” than if only said once.
The familiar religious dodge, not to mention blasphemy, was at front and centre as the older woman not only told Thunderf00t he was wrong, but told him that her interpretation was *right*. We should talk to her more as it appears she does know the mind of god…
Or perhaps she clings to her interpretations of biblical fact because they happen to support her demonstrably banal and offensive take on the magic story known as christianity.
When you break down what it would actually mean to be a deity, or to have absolute power and control over another one can start to appreciate the ghastly way in which events and decisions can go wrong. Unchecked power can only lead to psychopathy, and that is precisely the power so many of the faithful want to ascribe to their particular godhead.
I do not, and will not submit to any celestial dictatorship that is so potentially cruel remorseless. Is the video far fetched? Or is the video a chilling commentary on the system the religious so desperately seem to need?
Responding to criticism and arguing coherently are the hallmarks of reasonable, mature debate. Browsing the articles on Alternet my attention was drawn to the article that shares the same moniker as this post, minus the question mark. I was hoping for some meaty, thought-provoking arguments by Scofield. I was disappointed. The 5 points seem to be weak caricatures of common atheist arguments, and if they can rebutted by the relative small fry of the atheist community like me, they most certainly do not hold much weight.
5. Liberal and Moderate Religion Justifies Religious Extremism
“Sam Harris states that moderates are “in large part responsible for the religious conflict in our world” and “religious tolerance–born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God–is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.” And Richard Dawkins states, “The teachings of ‘moderate’ religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.” Christopher Hitchens has called liberation theology “sinister nonsense” and compared the liberal Unitarian tradition to rats and vermin.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it leads to some unwanted logical conclusions when applied equally to other ideas. It is hypocritical to selectively apply the principle where it suits one’s needs but not elsewhere.”
“We can ask whether or not all liberal and moderate expressions of something are responsible for their most extreme forms. Are the people who casually smoke marijuana in any way responsible for the death of someone involved in a violent heroin drug trade? Is a social drinker of alcohol creating the environment that leads to alcoholism?” Is a pediatrician responsible for Nazi medical experiments simply because he or she participates in the field of medicine? How about politics? Is a liberal democracy responsible for forms of government such as totalitarianism or fascism? […]
“[…] the more rational and tolerant uses of science, religion, medicine or government cannot be blamed for the destructive and harmful uses of them.”
Sam Harris speaks about this idea of the moderately religious supporting the radical religious in a very case. It is not a generalization that makes sense to apply to other situations. The idea that religious moderates facilitate the radical wings of their religion is different than the examples Scofield uses. The difference begins with the idea that there is an equivalency based in religion that does not exist in the other examples listed. The equivalency is this: Religious moderates and radicals use the same play-book to express their beliefs.
This leads to Islam claiming to be the religion of “peace” while claiming to do God’s work in suicide bombings, or the christian faith in both justifying and arguing against slavery using passages from the bible. It is this salient point that makes Harris’s argument work while exposing the false equivalence of what Scofield is attempting to do.
Does social drinking set the environment for the abuse of alcohol, it certainly can, but it does not claim to justify destructive actions caused by people who take drinking to the extreme. Social drinkers do not tacitly condone the irresponsible actions of others; it is rather the opposite, if responsible people are around, overindulgence is generally frowned upon. I have never once seen a “please consume responsibly” warning on a religious text or commercial.
I’d go further with examples, but there really is no point because the analogies Scofield draws are incongruous with reality. Science, when still performed as science adheres closely with rationality whether you are a moderate believer in science or a radical one, that aim remains the same, the search for testable, falsifiable, truths about the physical universe we inhabit.
4. Religion Requires a Belief in a Supernatural God
“I understand why anti-religious atheists are so reluctant to accept the fact that being religious doesn’t mean belief in the supernatural. The simplistic and convenient myth they’ve constructed would be shattered.”
Well, there are exceptions to the rule. That is unsurprising. The problem is that the religious that are currently infecting North American currently *do* require a belief in the supernatural, or at the very least magic. Scofield’s fourth point is a a red herring of sorts.
3. Religion Causes Bad Behavior
We can be good without consulting the godhead of your choice. Qualia Soup makes an engaging look at morality and religion.
Welcome to the 21st century. A time where demonic possessions, cursed spirits, and other such notions of the supernatural manifestations have been gratefully laughed into the tabloids where no sane person, and certainly no judiciary body, would give them anything other than scorn and ridicule. Oh wait….it seems some courts haven’t learned much since the Dark Ages. Fuck… Today’s disservice comes from an article from yesterday’s Journal.
Two decades ago, in a Jewish court in Jerusalem, a secular lawyer was sentenced for insulting the court. I’m not sure, but I think the penalty for contempt of court around these parts is a fine, maybe a short jail term. I welcome any clarification on this point, as law is no speciality of mine. Whatever it is, it’s nothing like what the courts hand out in the “holy land”. The offending lawyer was cursed by the courts, that his soul would be reincarnated into the body of an impure dog.
That’s right. They cursed him.
If that was all there was to this story, we could just laugh at the silly religious nutbags who think they can curse/condemn/bless people because of their elite status with whatever deity, but alas no. As it has happened countless times before, the ludicrous notions of believers resulted in events much too horrible to be laughed off. Fast forward two decades and the court is interrupted by a dog who will not leave.
Well, says one of the judges, this must be that lawyer we cursed all those years ago. Seems he still hasn’t learned his lesson. Therefore, the good, just, and sane thing to do is sentence this dog to death. But a quick death is too good for him, thus we order the method of execution to be stoning! Praise be to our invisible sky-daddy!
A court, a judicial body, societal elites who are law experts, cursed one man and sentenced a dog to die by stoning. I am rebounding between incredulity at how ludicrous this is and disgust at how appalling this is. Mistreatment of animals is a grievous evil and being stoned to death is a horrifying fate, undeserved by even histories worst criminals. But it gets worse. The court decided that the stoning was to be carried out by local children. Children! I can only imagine what the psychological ramifications of having to not only witness, but take part in such a brutal and savage atrocity would do to an impressionable youth. I can’t even imagine what it would do to me. In one fell swoop, this court orders a barbaric act of animal cruelty and an unforgivable act of child abuse. Why? Because of their faith in the supernatural, and the arrogance that people can affect said supernatural through curses and blessings.
Fortunately, this double dose of monstrous infamy was ultimately thwarted. Not by reason, of course. The religious are impervious to logic when it comes to their faith. No, the dog somehow managed to escape on its own. I would like to think that someone there, anyone, saw the horror of the intended sentence and made it so the dog could get away. I would like to think that a seed of doubt took just enough root to drive someone into action against the ‘holy court’, even if only to anonymously save a dog. A wild hope, I know, but at present, wild hopes are all I that I can muster for the religiously controlled areas of the world.
Teaching fairy tales and assorted religious mumbo-jumbo since 1996 with public funds!
Teaching religion in public schools as a serious “subject” is just wrong. Religious studies are acceptable, but this is not what this is. Would you want to subject your child to graded learning on how the tooth fairy or easter bunny makes their rounds? Some people do, and want to continue to do so on the public schools educational funds. Christianity teaches hate, it teaches ostracism it teaches xenophobia. My point is affirmed with this breaking news story about how the dear christians are being put upon because:
“However, if the policy developed . (it) means that our Logos teachers and principals would no longer be able to express freely in their classrooms that the homosexual lifestyle is not in accord with their Christian beliefs, and that they would be required to ‘affirm’ homosexual lifestyle as acceptable to traditional Christian family values, then we cannot accept this,” the two-page notice says in bold lettering.
Then my dear deluded friends, you can simply frack the hell off and take your despicable fairy tales with you. Like some of the religiously-challenged the facts of the matter have little sway when it comes to their magic book, this is from their website:
“Certainly, as followers of Jesus, we believe that every child should be free from bullying, whether it is because of his or her physical appearance or their sexual orientation, or for any other reason, and that all persons and families should be treated with respect and dignity. To that extent we support the School Trustees’ concern about bullying. (Yet, if the Trustees would insist that their already-existing policies on bullying were strictly enforced by the Superintendent and school principals, there would be no need for an additional policy at all).”
But wait, let’s see why this program is being enacted…
“There is considerable evidence that sexual-minority youth are at greater risk for harassment, persecution, bullying, suicide attempts and feeling unsafe, Colburn said. Research has also shown generic anti-bullying policies do nothing on their own to protect those kids, he said.
“It’s only when stand-alone policies specifically addressing (sexual minority) populations are in place that the school environment changes dramatically.”
Well I’m completely surprised that the LOGOS program would ignore research and fact when it comes to facing the realization that yes, your hate filled fairy tale hurts children and does not deserve the blind reverence you seemingly give it. I encourage the concerned christians to make more persecution (of the majority) noises about this grievous policy of having to affirm that the homosexual lifestyles are okay. It further highlights the bigotry, ignorance and irrelevance of christian religion in the 21st century and makes the strong case that the taint of religion has no place within the public school system.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…