|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jajdude
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:39 pm Post subject: Re: The curse of faith |
 |
|
Yawn. Another angry "free-thinker" spouting the same old same old. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As opposed to the religious types that are preemptively editing their religious books every few years to catch up with the times?
There may be arguments against free thinkers, but that we are repetitive isn't one. Glass homes, stones. We adjust our arguments with the times. Religious people in the west now know about the germ theory of disease and as a result we don't have to argue with you about if your cold is a punishment from some pissed off god. Now we argue about 1) evolution and 2) origins of the material world. The little battles have been won, so we don't fight them.
It is the religious people that have to keep up with the dynamism and constant change of the materialists. The only yawning comes when somebody asserts the bible/koran/whatever is inerrant truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| There may be arguments against free thinkers, but that we are repetitive isn't one. |
Both are repetitive. The video was no different from what you could find on alt.atheism since the beginning of the internet. C.S. Lewis' explanation of why he used to be an atheist in his 1940 book The Problem of Pain is also almost no different. There's nothing new under the sun in the theist/atheist debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
As opposed to the religious types that are preemptively editing their religious books every few years to catch up with the times?
There may be arguments against free thinkers, but that we are repetitive isn't one. Glass homes, stones. We adjust our arguments with the times. Religious people in the west now know about the germ theory of disease and as a result we don't have to argue with you about if your cold is a punishment from some pissed off god. Now we argue about 1) evolution and 2) origins of the material world. The little battles have been won, so we don't fight them.
It is the religious people that have to keep up with the dynamism and constant change of the materialists. The only yawning comes when somebody asserts the bible/koran/whatever is inerrant truth. |
Certainly, reactions to proselytism are warranted. Religion and the state are separate entities. The religious explanations do not need to be updated so long as they are not used to refute and argue against the findings of science outside of religious venues. They can coexist in separate spheres of learning and belief, and enhance and complement each other within the minds and congregations of people who choose to do so. The problem is that too many religious denominations want to force their ideology into secular institutions and contradict scientific findings without recognizing their benefits to, well, everything. If people don't want their kids to believe in evolution, they can take their kids to church to get another opinion. Why not let the kid hear both sides and make up his/her own mind or try to reconcile the ideas his/herself? Why does the school have to change its teachings? Is this a caliphate?
On the same token, the state should not interfere with what religions teach in their private venues. Without proselytism there should be no persecution, but it makes perfect sense as to why people react negatively to the religous when they try to interfere with rationality. Belief and traditions are indispensible, as is scientific inquiry. I still can't understand the confusion about where the lines are drawn. People need to leave each other alone!!
Also, the guy was amusing, but telling people they can't believe what they want or follow traditions they want is a bit gripey. The religious don't need to be telling other people they have to believe either (Jehova's Witnesses, Baptists, Muslims, etc.)
Respect for privacy, respect for personal belief, and respect for inquiry. They should be golden rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| djsmnc wrote: |
| Respect for privacy, respect for personal belief, and respect for inquiry. They should be golden rules. |
You clearly come from a Christian tradition and it seems that the vast majority of Christians would broadly agree with you.
But what happens when a violence prone religion doesn't share the same bed of assumptions. What then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| There may be arguments against free thinkers, but that we are repetitive isn't one. |
Both are repetitive. The video was no different from what you could find on alt.atheism since the beginning of the internet. C.S. Lewis' explanation of why he used to be an atheist in his 1940 book The Problem of Pain is also almost no different. There's nothing new under the sun in the theist/atheist debate. |
Except that every day science and what rteacher calls materialists come one tiny step closer to unraveling another secret of the universe. The religious can only defend their position and then adapt when the generally accepted pool of facts (such as the germ theory of disease) change. It is likely the case that people have been pointing out how absurd an imaginary friend is for a long while and theists rehashed the reasons they think it isn't. But the details, the small victory's are in one corner and one corner alone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Excellent! He's awesome. His site: http://www.patcondell.net/ (see FAQ and feedback)
Faith is:
(a) staunch belief in X
(b) staunch refusal to give up belief in X
despite (c) overwhelming evidence that X is totally false
'Faith' is an entirely negative term. People who have no faith do so because of (c) and we hope those who have faith might one day find a remedy for their sickness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| djsmnc wrote: |
| Respect for privacy, respect for personal belief, and respect for inquiry. They should be golden rules. |
You clearly come from a Christian tradition and it seems that the vast majority of Christians would broadly agree with you.
But what happens when a violence prone religion doesn't share the same bed of assumptions. What then? |
Then we have a problem. Those prone to violence should expect violent retaliation. Another problem is that while ideally people will allow each other to think freely, there are those out there who want to control other peoples' thoughts through threat, coercion, and manipulation. That in itself is the ultimate crime, and when it's done in the name of religion, it makes a mess for everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jajdude
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
^
Thanks for the link. Agree with his views or not, you gotta admit he is intelligent and entertaining. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Khenan
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| djsmnc wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| djsmnc wrote: |
| Respect for privacy, respect for personal belief, and respect for inquiry. They should be golden rules. |
You clearly come from a Christian tradition and it seems that the vast majority of Christians would broadly agree with you.
But what happens when a violence prone religion doesn't share the same bed of assumptions. What then? |
Then we have a problem. Those prone to violence should expect violent retaliation. Another problem is that while ideally people will allow each other to think freely, there are those out there who want to control other peoples' thoughts through threat, coercion, and manipulation. That in itself is the ultimate crime, and when it's done in the name of religion, it makes a mess for everyone. |
Turning the other cheek is so two thousand years ago.
Hypocrites. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
merkurix
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Location: Not far from the deep end.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
Excellent! He's awesome. His site: http://www.patcondell.net/ (see FAQ and feedback)
Faith is:
(a) staunch belief in X
(b) staunch refusal to give up belief in X
despite (c) overwhelming evidence that X is totally false
'Faith' is an entirely negative term. People who have no faith do so because of (c) and we hope those who have faith might one day find a remedy for their sickness. |
Thanks for that diagnosis, doc.
Last edited by merkurix on Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
merkurix
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Location: Not far from the deep end.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| There may be arguments against free thinkers, but that we are repetitive isn't one. |
Both are repetitive. The video was no different from what you could find on alt.atheism since the beginning of the internet. C.S. Lewis' explanation of why he used to be an atheist in his 1940 book The Problem of Pain is also almost no different. There's nothing new under the sun in the theist/atheist debate. |
100% agree. The same arguments get repeated over and over again ad nauseum by the same army of atheist regulars here against one Hare Krishna devotee and one Christian fellow (both of whom have tough skin). To me it seems that the real essence of the debate has been lost, and it has basically boiled down to 'who can debate the longest.' It also doesn't help that personal attacks are part of the regular arsenal on the atheist side (though the theists have been guilty of this as well) so the debate has really stopped being interesting long,long, ago. So along with mith and flakfizer, I concur.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifty
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I thought it pretty good.
It has become urgent to cleanse the nominal believers of any ghosts and guilt so that the rabidly religious can be brought to task. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jajdude wrote: |
| Agree with his views or not, you gotta admit he is intelligent and entertaining. |
Yes, both intelligent and entertaining, but also a bit angry. Almost inexplicably so. What's eating this guy, really?
There's a strong inclination among atheists to blame organized religion for countless sources of pain and suffering and General Bad Stuff That Happens. It ignores two things: 1) Religions do actually perform good work in the world, feeding hungry people, medical care to those who can't afford it, education (and just as many fall away from faith by having it forced on them through parochial education, another fact conveniently ignored) and one or two other things that slip my mind at the moment; and
2) There is just so very very much in the world that just falls under the category of Faeces That Occur, things that have no connection at all with organized religion whatsoever, and I'm not just talking about tsunamis and earthquakes, either, because you can't blame any church at all for Hitler's Final Solution, Pol Pot's Killing Fields, American slavery of Africans or torture of political prisoners anywhere ... On balance, I think religion does about as much good as it does bad, and while atheists are keen to point out that humans don't NEED a guy behind a pulpit to tell them to do charitable acts, the fact remains that churches DO involve themselves in such things, and a rational person has to acknowledge that as well.
One problem I've always had with western faiths has to do with the importance of Great Big Rules That Everyone Must Obey. I think Mel Brooks did a comedy interview spoof years ago as Moses, where he says (something like), "You know when I first came down fro the mountain, we called them The Ten Suggestions, but the guys in PR said it didn't have enough oomph, and it wasn't gonna stick in people's minds so they made us change it ..."
And as Mr Condell says, you break the rules, you got some bad stuff on its way, right? If not in this world, then certainly the next. So, it's all about being punished for infractions, hence all the metaphors in so many religions with god as father and people as children.
Well, how about we sell it this way. You see these two guys? One follows the Rules, and the other one talks back to his mom, fornicates with his best friend's girl, steals if he won't get caught and kills without remorse just because he can. Who do you think will live to a ripe old age after living a good life, surrounded by people who love and respect him? Well, it ain't the second dude, take that to the bank ...
But most religions don't talk to people with that kind of logical attitude, or respect. And that might be a mistake.
Is faith a curse? Maybe. How about, instead of basing religion on one's ability to believe 7 impossible things before breakfast, we instead think of it as perhaps a better way to live, think and behave? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
