or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Brilliant Article on Secularism vs Religion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Brilliant Article on Secularism vs Religion - Page 7

post #241 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

But it shouldn't be about clarifying it...

There are many degrees and types of atheism - just as there are many degrees and types of religious belief and we will never, ever arrive at a concensus of what is 'correct'. That is the whole point.

The point is everyone can believe what they like - but unfortunately there are some who don't leave it at that and go to the next stage: to try to persuade others to believe the same thing. This may be to bolster their own belief or they may just be Nazis, I don't know but I'd draw the line at it.

Traditionally this has been the area of specialization of Xian fundies but recently Islamists are getting in on the action and now we have Dawkins and his posse joining the fray.

My question is: why can't they all shut the fuck up, believe what they like and try to deepen the understanding of their own positions and leave everyone else the fuck alone?

I suppose one answer is that as long as there are sheep that need to prostrate before the guru then books like "A Course In Miracles", "The God Delusion" and anything by the Dalai Lama will sell by the bucketload and inspire another load of disciples to prostrate themselves at the throne - fair enough....but why not just confine the marketing to that target audience and leave the rest of us alone?

I think the time has come not for a "Dawkins Watch: Über-Critical" nomenclature....(I'd start with his ludicrous savaging of the comedian Peter Kay - a very bad PR mistake as well as being moronic) the baton has been truly passed from the fundies and they are no longer serious players. There's a new brat in town.....

But dammit, segovius, Dick Dawkins is neutral, I tell you, neutral! He must save us from coloring our world with 'belief!'

Of course, leading by example is completely out of the question.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #242 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

But it shouldn't be about clarifying it...

There are many degrees and types of atheism - just as there are many degrees and types of religious belief and we will never, ever arrive at a concensus of what is 'correct'. That is the whole point.

As far as I can tell, dmz thinks that lack of belief in God (and probably lack of belief in his favorite trinitarian God), be it strong, positive denial of God's existence, simple non-belief, varying shades of agnostic uncertainty, etc., all lead to chaos, death and destruction, cats and dogs living together in sin, and so forth.

I don't think "degrees and types" matter to dmz much. In a sense, I can even partly agree with some of where he's going. I certainly have no objection to the basic argumentative approach -- when properly applied -- of eschewing extraneous detail when that detail can be safely deemed irrelevant. If dmz were correct that lack of belief in God, in and of itself, leads to some inevitable conclusion, he can then safely dismiss "degrees and types of atheism".

I think tea leaf reading is bunk. The fact that one could inevitably ask if I've considered each and every variety of tea, tea preparation method, school of tea leaf interpretation, and all combinations and permutations thereof, is all pointless obfuscation and distraction from the basic fact that there is no evidence that any form of tea leaf reading has every produced reliable results, and there's no conceivable functional mechanism there to give hope for producing positive results to make exploring all of the countless imaginable variations worthwhile.

Quote:
The point is everyone can believe what they like...

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Why is it that this particular statement of obvious fact is so often employed to hand-wave away all consideration of the value, clarity, and consistency of the various things people might choose to believe?

Quote:
...but unfortunately there are some who don't leave it at that and go to the next stage: to try to persuade others to believe the same thing. This may be to bolster their own belief or they may just be Nazis, I don't know but I'd draw the line at it.

As long as it's not done at the point of a gun, what's wrong with trying to persuade others? I certainly don't mind others trying to persuade me, as long as they do it in a peaceable manner. I don't even require others to approach disagreement with me with mincing delicacy -- I'm up for a bit of rhetorical rough and tumble. I simply give as good as I'm willing to take.

Quote:
My question is: why can't they all shut the fuck up, believe what they like and try to deepen the understanding of their own positions and leave everyone else the fuck alone?

It's called "lively conversation". It's called "the marketplace of ideas". Why should spiritual and religious beliefs be especially protected from intellectual challenges and attempts at persuasion to different points of view? What kind of "deepening" of understanding can one expect from isolated navel contemplating? With no external challenges, that's nothing more than a formula for constructing private fantasy lands.

Quote:
I suppose one answer is that as long as there are sheep that need to prostrate before the guru then books like "A Course In Miracles", "The God Delusion" and anything by the Dalai Lama will sell by the bucketload and inspire another load of disciples to prostrate themselves at the throne - fair enough....but why not just confine the marketing to that target audience and leave the rest of us alone?

Hey, grow a pair. Here you are making not only an insulting but incredibly inaccurate characterization of people who read Dawkins, but then you're pleading that poor ickle segovius be weft awone?

Quote:
I think the time has come not for a "Dawkins Watch: Über-Critical" nomenclature....(I'd start with his ludicrous savaging of the comedian Peter Kay - a very bad PR mistake as well as being moronic) the baton has been truly passed from the fundies and they are no longer serious players. There's a new brat in town.....

Here's the "savage" thing Dawkins said:
Quote:
How can you take seriously someone who likes to believe something because he finds it 'comforting'? If evidence were found for a supreme being I would change my mind instantly - with pride and with great surprise. Would I find it comforting? What matters is what is true, and we discover truth by evidence, not what we would 'like'.

What a big, bad meanie!

And here's the context in which he said it:
Quote:
I am distressed to find myself reported as participating in a "literary spat", and as "pouring scorn" on an individual, comedian Peter Kay, for whom I actually feel nothing but goodwill. The explanation is as follows. I am one of those whom reporters regularly telephone for a soundbite. Last week, I was fed a quotation from somebody, previously unknown to me, who said he believed in God because he found it comforting. Assuming I was one of a panel of usual suspects being asked to comment on this rather common sentiment, I gave my usual response.
Now it seems that I was being set up by a hired publicity machine, so that I would appear to be mounting a personal attack upon a particular individual who is my rival for a literary prize. And I also learn that the quotation they selected is an unrepresentative one from a book I haven't read (I look forward to doing so), which is competing with my own for the same prize. I hope you will allow me publicly to apologise to Peter Kay and wish him well in the competition.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #243 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

As far as I can tell, dmz thinks that lack of belief in God (and probably lack of belief in his favorite trinitarian God), be it strong, positive denial of God's existence, simple non-belief, varying shades of agnostic uncertainty, etc., all lead to chaos, death and destruction, cats and dogs living together in sin, and so forth.

Actually, dmz's point was that we should all be consistent when we argue. We're just never going to agree on many things, but the least we can do is not cloud the matter with inconsistency.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #244 of 258
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

As far as I can tell, dmz thinks that lack of belief in God (and probably lack of belief in his favorite trinitarian God), be it strong, positive denial of God's existence, simple non-belief, varying shades of agnostic uncertainty, etc., all lead to chaos, death and destruction, cats and dogs living together in sin, and so forth.

As far as you can tell......

Quote:
I don't think "degrees and types" matter to dmz much.

Really I had quite the contrary impression?

Quote:
In a sense, I can even partly agree with some of where he's going. I certainly have no objection to the basic argumentative approach -- when properly applied -- of eschewing extraneous detail when that detail can be safely deemed irrelevant. If dmz were correct that lack of belief in God, in and of itself, leads to some inevitable conclusion, he can then safely dismiss "degrees and types of atheism".

Well, as I said - people can do what they like - up to and including dismissing anything they choose.

It's when a fundie comes knocking on my door telling me he has the 'one true truth' that I am going to have to dismiss him - whether he is religious or atheist. Preferably with a sawn off shotgun.

Quote:
I think tea leaf reading is bunk.

Good for you. As long as you don't start to preach it as Gospel and try to make converts we'll be cool.

Quote:
The fact that one could inevitably ask if I've considered each and every variety of tea, tea preparation method, school of tea leaf interpretation, and all combinations and permutations thereof, is all pointless obfuscation and distraction from the basic fact that there is no evidence that any form of tea leaf reading has every produced reliable results, and there's no conceivable functional mechanism there to give hope for producing positive results to make exploring all of the countless imaginable variations worthwhile.

But you see, people who believe in tea-leaf reading really don't care what you think - why do you care what they think?

Quote:
Thank you, Captain Obvious.

It's a pleasure. View it as a public service - hopefully through my efforts one day I will not need to resort to the simplistic when outlining ideas of very little complexity.

Quote:
Why is it that this particular statement of obvious fact is so often employed to hand-wave away all consideration of the value, clarity, and consistency of the various things people might choose to believe?

Err...because it isn't?

Quote:
As long as it's not done at the point of a gun, what's wrong with trying to persuade others?

Maybe others don't want to be persuaded?

Personally speaking for myself I don't need any saviour riding into town on a divine mission to 'save me' because he thinks I am too fucking stupid to know what he is going to say before he has said it.

In addition to insulting my intelligence - which I could pass over if it was entertaining which, alas, it never is - the fact is that such people are more often than not closed-minded myopic bores who are convinced they have the truth and a duty to spread it.

Maybe nothing morally wrong but then it still makes me want to kick them in the crotch and mash their heads in with jack-hammer.

Quote:
I certainly don't mind others trying to persuade me, as long as they do it in a peaceable manner. I don't even require others to approach disagreement with me with mincing delicacy -- I'm up for a bit of rhetorical rough and tumble.

Odd...I don't mind going ten rounds with a fundie - as long as it IS in a violent manner....

Quote:
I simply give as good as I'm willing to take.

Yes, but some of us don't want to giver or take we just want the fucking loons to leave us the fuck alone!!!!!!!

Quote:
It's called "lively conversation". It's called "the marketplace of ideas".

Yeah right

Come back when you've EARNED THE RIGHT to use a phrase like that - ie when the markeplace you have in mind is a bit more of a free one than a monopoly.

Quote:
Why should spiritual and religious beliefs be especially protected from intellectual challenges and attempts at persuasion to different points of view? What kind of "deepening" of understanding can one expect from isolated navel contemplating? With no external challenges, that's nothing more than a formula for constructing private fantasy lands.

They shouldn't.

When does the 'intellectual examination' start though. Certainly not with an obsessed self-appointed fundie Messiah like Dawkins.

Quote:
Hey, grow a pair. Here you are making not only an insulting but incredibly inaccurate characterization of people who read Dawkins, but then you're pleading that poor ickle segovius be weft awone?

Yep That's right I want fundies, weirdos and loons to leave me alone and fuck off. Got a problem with that? Can't think why!

Quote:
Here's the "savage" thing Dawkins said:

We know what he said - I'm just calling him a tosser for saying it.

Quote:
What a big, bad meanie!

Heheh! This says more about you than him.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #245 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Heheh! This says more about you than him.

You know, you're basically just an asshole. And in case that seem like a blunt ad hom attack, I think I can safely say it because you strike me as the sort who deliberately acts like an asshole and is smirkingly proud of it.

You're guilty of many of the attitudes you accuse other of, and worse. You call Dawkins a fundie, speak about him as if he's a jackbooted thug, and then you say shit like "Odd...I don't mind going ten rounds with a fundie - as long as it IS in a violent manner....".

Of course, you won't let anyone pin you down on your inconsistencies. I doubt you give a damn about inconsistency. If you think an attack works, and expresses your anger, you'll use it -- hypocrisy be damned. You're intellectually dishonest, and you don't give a crap that you are. You''ll play it serious about discussions like this when it suits you to do so, then blow off all you say and do as a mere game to amuse yourself that doesn't really matter when that's what suits you.

In short, you're a fraud.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #246 of 258
Shetline, this is no time for ambivalence.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #247 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Shetline, this is no time for ambivalence.

You're right. But I do have a couple of hours of ambivalence scheduled for tomorrow afternoon, which I might have to reschedule if a meeting runs late.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #248 of 258
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

You know, you're basically just an asshole. And in case that seem like a blunt ad hom attack, I think I can safely say it because you strike me as the sort who deliberately acts like an asshole and is smirkingly proud of it.

You're guilty of many of the attitudes you accuse other of, and worse. You call Dawkins a fundie, speak about him as if he's a jackbooted thug, and then you say shit like "Odd...I don't mind going ten rounds with a fundie - as long as it IS in a violent manner....".

Of course, you won't let anyone pin you down on your inconsistencies. I doubt you give a damn about inconsistency. If you think an attack works, and expresses your anger, you'll use it -- hypocrisy be damned. You're intellectually dishonest, and you don't give a crap that you are. You''ll play it serious about discussions like this when it suits you to do so, then blow off all you say and do as a mere game to amuse yourself that doesn't really matter when that's what suits you.

In short, you're a fraud.



Won't let anyone pin me down? Well, have at it!

You have failed to get anywhere near in 6 pages....and you are the one who claims 'reason' and 'logic' against the dark miasmic spectre of ignorant 'faith'.

I just want to see you do better that's all...so far it's poor...very poor.....

You nneed to raise your game if you are going to fly with the 'big concepts' - go for it!

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #249 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

You nneed to raise your game if you are going to fly with the 'big concepts' - go for it!


No, I'm not going to bother with the game you're playing. You have no big concepts. Just a big ego, and preening self-styled intellectualism with nothing but vague fluff and a vision of yourself as some sort of Wise Spiritual Seeker at the core, a self image totally at odds with the asshole attitude your "spiritual self" is saddled with.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #250 of 258
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

No, I'm not going to bother with the game you're playing. You have no big concepts. Just a big ego, and preening self-styled intellectualism with nothing but vague fluff and a vision of yourself as some sort of Wise Spiritual Seeker at the core, a self image totally at odds with the asshole attitude your "spiritual self" is saddled with.

Bravo! Spoken like a true fundie....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #251 of 258
dmz:

Quote:
The concept of Love, for instance, is a placeholder for a psychological phenomena that is completely the product of chemicals. 'Love' isn't real, or has any intrinsic value -- it's just something we observe a lot of people doing, and is useful for survival of the species.

Love is real and has intrinsic value.
What do the words "real" and "intrinsic" mean? You are defining them as necessarily connected to god. Here I was waiting for some brilliance and I get the same crap my mother argues. You might as well ask why I don't drown babies.

The argument from morality is the most played out bullshit around.

Quote:
That feeling you get when you look at your wife, the love you have for your child[ren?], is meaningless "spiritually" speaking -- it's only synapses firing, it has no eternal significance, except that endorphins are binding in a certain place in your body, and that makes humans more stable by developing 'relationships.'

How does the reality of our biology make love any less significant?
Again, you are start from the idea that anything important or significant must be connected to god (and an illusion of immortality), so removing god automatically makes things insignificant.

And what is most revealing about all of this is how shallow the promise of salvation actually is, especially in the Christian understanding; mansions in heaven and tortured sinners; so pathetically bound to earthly ideas, even in the holiest and most sacred of concepts.

Quote:
Yes, but there is not 'goodness' or 'badness' in the universe, or in us, it's just atoms.

Those two things are not contradictory. You want them to be to seek a conclusion.

Quote:
The Soviet Union put the "good" of the State above the "good" of the individual. Unless we make monsters out the the soviet bureaucrats, I'm sure they thought they were doing what was 'best' for mankind. Millions of people went to their jobs everyday and did 'bad' things by our voted-on system. For them at the time, there was nothing 'bad' about what they did. Potentially, if their actions helped further the species by weeding out the criminal element. Their actions could have been very, very 'good.'

Even the calling of something 'bad' is only a form of political coercion in terms of a social ideal held by enough people. Calling Saudi Arabia or Hamas 'bad' is simply a game of semantics. Wahabbism, for instance, has every 'right' to do what it will, because it is a political entity, and can exert control. Calling social customs 'bad,' only means it would be pleasing to you, to force them against their will.

How did the Christian practice of burning heretics alive go from "good" to "bad"?
What moral determinations were made there, and how were they made?

Quote:
'Bad' is a statistic of opinions.

No, it is not.

Quote:
To say that 'we have a responsibility' is a misstatement as well. You, I, or the state might say we 'have a responsibility' to do this or that, but it's not a moral thing at all, it's a political directive established by force.

Bullshit. Pure bullshit. No one forces me to behave in altruistic ways. No one forces animals to behave in altruistic ways. The forces are essentially intangible, but that does not make them supernatural.

Quote:
And "morality" is simply political as well, there is nothing behind it unless we imagine it, maybe for convenience -- another placeholder. To say we have a 'collective' anything can only be used as a statistic. We are not connected to each other in any way, except to the degree we are fooled into that belief by a phenomena, 'herd instinct' or something.

Our connection is not illusory at all, societies and ecosystems are real. The way we define actions within those societies and ecosystems certainly change, but that in no way cheapens, degrades, or delegitimizes human emotions and human morality.

Even religious understanding changes. Your argument would mean something if religion was now what it was from the beginning of human history, but it is no more stable (and it could be argued that it is actually less stable, since it is based in pure fantasy while secular, scientific views are based on reality).

Quote:
All of these things have been invented to keep the species moving along. With the right chemical adjustments, none of them exist.

Invented by whom?

Quote:
"Evil" for a "religious" person basically means sin, which is separation from God. "Evil" for an atheist means 'we decided this is not optimal in the grand scheme of things.'

What is the difference?

Quote:
Marriage is a cultural garnish that helps evolution. So as long as no one's feelings are hurt the marriage can take any form the participants would like it to -- to the point of casually dissolving it. The rules morph and bend as societies change and grow -- but only in scientific terms, mind you. Fidelity, for it's own sake, loses it's meaning.

All things change and grow. And shrink and die. Even religion and understandings of religion and these supposedly absolute "morals" and "good" and "evil".

Quote:
Yes, love is real for a materialist, but it's more of a useful thing. It makes us more stable, is pleasant, that sort of thing -- but it has no intrinsic purpose, and doesn't point to a greater metaphysical fact. It's more of a resource to be used.

Of course it has an intrinsic purpose. That purpose is happiness.
How is that any different from religion except that it actually makes sense and is connected to the real situation of human existence?

You are simply equating atheism with nihilism, and it is absolutely pathetic and idiotic.

Perhaps it was better for you to hide as you did for so many pages. Twain comes to mind.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #252 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

...Here I was waiting for some brilliance and I get the same crap my mother argues. You might as well ask why I don't drown babies.

The argument from morality is the most played out bullshit around...

**Bzzzzt**

That's as far as I read. You're shooting yourself in the foot with the rudeness, groverat.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #253 of 258
Aww, the genius busy mischaracterizing everyone else's opinions has his little feelings hurt.

While you dry the tears, let me see if I can get an answer to at least one part of this...
How did the Christian practice of burning heretics alive go from "good" to "bad"?
What moral determinations were made there, and how were they made?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #254 of 258
Even if you think the only genuine and true understanding of morality can come from religion, the problem is that people do not actually get their morality from religion. They can claim it, but it is not true.

Just to bring this thing full circle...
From The God Delusion, Chapter 7 titled "The Good Book and the Changing Moral Zeitgeist":
Quote:
Of course, irritated theologians will protest that we don't take the book of Genesis literally any more. But that is my whole point! We pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories. Such picking and choosing is a matter of personal decision, just as much, or as little, as the atheist's decision to follow this moral precept or that was a personal decision, without an absolute foundation. If one of these is 'morality flying by the seat of its pants', so is the other.

...

Such unpleasant episodes in Abraham's story are mere peccadilloes compared with the infamous tale of the sacrificing of his son Isaac (Muslim scripture tells the same story about
Abraham's other son, Ishmael). God ordered Abraham to make a burnt offering of his longed-for son. Abraham built an altar, put firewood upon it, and trussed Isaac up on top of the wood. His murdering knife was already in his hand when an angel dramatically intervened with the news of a last-minute change of plan: God was only joking after all, 'tempting' Abraham, and testing his faith. A modern moralist cannot help but wonder how a child could ever recover from such psychological trauma. By the standards of modern morality, this disgraceful story is an example simultaneously of child abuse, bullying in two asymmetrical power relationships, and the first recorded use of the Nuremberg defence: 'I was only obeying orders.' Yet the legend is one of the great foundational myths of all three monotheistic religions.

Once again, modern theologians will protest that the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac should not be taken as literal fact. And, once again, the appropriate response is twofold. First, many many people, even to this day, do take the whole of their scripture to be literal fact, and they have a great deal of political power over the rest of us, especially in the United States and in the Islamic world. Second, if not as literal fact, how should we take the story? As an allegory? Then an allegory for what? Surely nothing praiseworthy. As a moral lesson? But what kind of morals could one derive from this appalling story? Remember, all I am trying to establish for the moment is that we do not, as a matter of fact, derive our morals from scripture. Or, if we do, we pick and choose among the scriptures for the nice bits and reject the nasty. But then we must have some independent criterion for deciding which are the moral bits: a criterion which, wherever it comes from, cannot come from scripture itself and is presumably available to all of us whether we are religious or not.

...

I know, yes, of course, of course, times have changed, and no religious leader today (apart from the likes of the Taliban or the American Christian equivalent) thinks like Moses. But that is my whole point. All I am establishing is that modern morality, wherever else it comes from, does not come from the Bible. Apologists cannot get away with claiming that religion provides them with some sort of inside track to defining what is good and what is bad - a privileged source unavailable to atheists. They cannot get away with it, not even if they employ that favourite trick of interpreting selected scriptures as 'symbolic' rather than literal. By what criterion do you decide which passages are symbolic, which literal?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #255 of 258
Thread Starter 
I'm listening to Hitchens live on BBC Five Live.

He makes a lot of good points actually - I agree with much he has to say. Not everything obviously but he is refreshingly free of Dawkins' superiority....seems a great guy to have a drink with.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #256 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I'm listening to Hitchens live on BBC Five Live.

He makes a lot of good points actually - I agree with much he has to say. Not everything obviously but he is refreshingly free of Dawkins' superiority....seems a great guy to have a drink with.

Egads.
post #257 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I'm listening to Hitchens live on BBC Five Live.

He makes a lot of good points actually - I agree with much he has to say. Not everything obviously but he is refreshingly free of Dawkins' superiority....seems a great guy to have a drink with.

a drink?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #258 of 258
dmz:

How did the Christian practice of burning heretics alive go from "good" to "bad"?
What moral determinations were made there, and how were they made?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Brilliant Article on Secularism vs Religion