It's really not. Fascist and theocratic states have are the least tolerant of others.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
It's really not. Fascist and theocratic states have are the least tolerant of others.
First mention of Stalin in 3, 2...
So are secular Fascist and Communist states. Not to mention a few democracies.
There you go.
Religion does not purely serve men. It is used to suppress women, in many places, but you're hugely over-simplifying there. I agree that religion is being used to ill effect all the ways you mention. I don't think these examples outweigh the positives though.
Absolutely. As I said, it is dangerous. I can't hate someone for thinking that though. I can only hate that they think it.
Which leads to the conclusion the sane among are promoting: dogmatic views are bad.
You're preaching to the (un)converted. Still doesn't prove Saliph's wild assertion.
All you've given us so far to support this is a vague 'brings together communities' line, care to elaborate on that because you've not actually countered the points we're making against it. And what are the other positives? Because just saying what you think doesn't make it right unless you've got a justification for it.
Why do they think it though? Because they've been convinced to believe that a book is the final word of god, and if that book says a group of people is abhorrent, they will believe it and act accordingly. It's this lack of critical thinking that's dangerous.
It's not that wild an assertion, he doesn't like dogmatic views and as such, when he said 'secular states are more tolerant of others' it was implied that he meant pragmatic secular states not dogmatic ones. In that context, I don't know what there is to argue against - minorities fair much better in pragmatic secular states than they do in any other state.
Actually, I think I have explained. As I explained how I feel it brings comfort and purpose to people's lives.
Also, the word "generally" is a key modifier, as is the use of the present tense.
You use the word 'abhorrent'. That's what is interesting to me. She didn't think those of us who are not heterosexual are abhorrent. She just believed we couldn't be truly happy living the way we are.
That again is vague, and makes the assumption that people need religion for those things.
I'm going by what the book says. It also of course leads people to thinking bi- and homosexual people can be "corrected", which isn't a far cry from what the lady seems to be suggesting (as well intentioned as she may have been).
It's not vague. It isn't numerically measurable, of course, and I can see that is frustrating but many important things aren't. I'm not saying one cannot find such without religion. I am saying that religion, for many people, helps a lot.
I've seen plenty of tolerance in religious states and the opposite in secular states. It sounds nice to claim that there is a link between the two but I'm not going to believe it on blind faith.
Yeah, it's something along the lines of "a man shall not lie with another man as he does his wife" I think. Which is strictly about the act of homosexuality rather than any concept of it as an orientation. I agree, it does lend itself to the sort of views we're speaking of.
From a Pew Poll about tolerance towards homosexuality:
]The survey also finds that acceptance of homosexuality is particularly widespread in countries where religion is less central in people’s lives. These are also among the richest countries in the world. In contrast, in poorer countries with high levels of religiosity, few believe homosexuality should be accepted by society.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/
To complete the verse - "...It is an abomination". And a few later on, presumably because they thought they hadn't gone far enough previously - "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Yeah, it's not the most joyous part of the book. It doesn't bother me much, to be honest. The majority of people citing scripture like that to support their views are not people who adhere strictly to other parts of the bible. It's just an attempt to legitimise their inherent unease/hatred of homosexuality.
The Pope doesn't believe in adhering to such passages. Given he's God's representative on Earth, and infallible on matters of theology, one would hope his words will have an impact on Catholics, at least. I think possibly even a considerable ecumenical impact.
And when it comes to race, the spread of countries is fairly mixed (though as the article suggests, the results from the USA are probably skewed by social conditioning). There are plenty of staunchly religious nations in the top two categories for tolerance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ds-racist-countries-answers-surprise-you.html
That study has nothing to do with religion. It's asking people if they'd live next to someone ethnically different - there's no religion angle anywhere in the question or in the study.
I remember that, I was just pointing out that there's nothing to do with religion in the link you used, but nonetheless if you really want to use as a basis to build an argument with let's do it. The 'couple of religious countries' with low levels of racism are surely countered by the fact that most of the more racist countries are either highly dogmatic, or have a recent history of racial and religious tension.
Is this for real?
Ermm... ancient literature coming in a variety of literary forms and genres vs. having the perception of the Bible being some sort of a Peppa Pig fairy tale?
No, it's not.
You've yet to mention one thing religion actually contributes, seeing as secular countries/people are no less tolerant, racist or socially developed than others, and in fact it's often the opposite. You mentioned false consolation which you think others need (I don't, and I don't think it's a good thing), anything else?
The literary form isn't particularly relevant, it's still stories. All those you mentioned as not being stories: poems, genealogy, oracles (seriously?), letters - they can, and often do, all tell stories. You're right to highlight the perception of the Bible as being some kind of fairytale, because that's exactly what it is really and if you've not done so already then one day you're gonna have to come to terms with that or else forever live in the ignorance of delusion. The texts being ancient doesn't mean they're instilled with any kind of special power, you know, real life isn't an Indiana Jones movie; they're just stories like any other.
If form and not substance is the straw you wanna clutch to, you may as well get it right. Having just googled Peppa Pig, it would appear this fine program is actually a fable.
Well, I suppose I shouldn't say fine since I haven't watched it.
Yea I never said that an ancient text has some kind of special power. I've just pointed out to ignorant thickos like yourself that the Bible is not a 'book with stories'. If you cannot comprehend this basic fact then there's nothing I can do. Even if I were an atheist I'd argue the same technical point but this shit is obviously completely lost on you lot. I argue similar sort of stuff with clueless Christians who get on my nerves with some of the crap they stand for. As for your valuable contribution, same old tired crap I've heard before, to quote my friend Silva "it's boring as ball man".
As for "forever live in the ignorance of delusion"? Seriously, who give's a shit?
Oh btw, Stalin was an atheist and he killed millions of people because of that. And he learned all that stuff from Darwin and Nietzsche. See, I can talk shit too. So easy.
Question for you Ciderman. Suppose I suddenly do come to the realisation that everything I believed in is wrong. What happens then? What exactly is the benefit of losing your 'ignorance of delusion'? Do I become a better father? Do I start making more money? Do I get to screw around more? How does my life change practically once I've become an atheist?
Calm down kid, I don't remember ever having debated this with you before so kindly drop the attitude.
And you can label it what you want, but it IS a collection of stories. I did not say fairy tales, so why you went down that route I don't know. Oh and Peppa Pig is far more educationally and relevant to today's world. At least to my children it is and I know what I'd rather have them do on a Sunday morning.
Look at what you said first and that I responded to. I didn't mention it in regards to religion either, in fact I said religion or not.
None the wiser. You believe you can can 'con' someone into believing something you believe yourself? If so, I don't. I think the word 'con' implies intentional deception.
So it's the use of the word 'con' you are objecting to? Fine, how about we use convince? Do you not think it's possible to convince someone else to believe what you do?
Indeed. That's why I said "Con is a strange word to choose. I'm not sure you can con someone into believing something you believe yourself.".
You can certainly convince someone of it, yeah.
Well I didn't bring the word con into it I believe, but this has just been about the use of that specific word to you it seems, whereas to me I was looking at it in a different way. All good mate, it happens
