Gonzo wrote:What's harmful about godliness, or spirituality, then? I've already stated why it's neutral.
ÂGonzo wrote:True maybe in relation to you, but not chump. He's made no positive contribution, he snipes from the sides,
I admit, that question was a mis-step (I conflated your negative opinion of atheists/rationalism with your example of homophobia in China, somehow thinking that you were trying to say that the homophobia in China was due to rationalism). I was wrong and you were right to ask for clarification, but I didn't bother to give it because it became clear where you were going with the China example - that the root cause of the homophobia there is "social conservatism".Gonzo wrote:"because science",
I'll engage how I please, that's not for anyone else to decide. Likewise, it's not for me to decide how anyone else should engage.Gonzo wrote:fails to engage,
So what?Gonzo wrote:implies points with questions,
If I ask a question, it's because I'd like an answer and probably believe it will lead somewhere.Gonzo wrote:and then claims he really was asking a true question honest,
If you make a claim (e.g. "Religion does no harm") then yeah, onus is then on you to qualify that if questioned (if you want, not saying you have to). And if I'm asking questions, then I'm applying my mind.Gonzo wrote:but it's for me to explain everything and for him to just fail to apply his mind to the question.
innit.Gonzo wrote:So I won't accept a foul in relation to him; you maybe, but then goading you is fun.
Agree roughly with you there about spirituality etc. - people can believe what they want (hence I've never tried to tell people that they *shouldn't* believe in whichever religion they want to). If people wish to make statements I consider to be false, I may disagree, but I won't tell them that they shouldn't believe in God or whatnot.Gonzo wrote:Now, do you believe: a belief in a creator (the divine, spirituality, godliness) is harmful per se? is your answer different if the belief is religious credo, or the issue about harm arises from adherence to organised religion? In answer to the first, for reasons which appear from this here thread (and past ones), is no to the first (you could argue it's wrong, but is it harmful?) And I think far more arguably, no to the second. That's because I'm assuming built in societal safeguards, such as separation of church (used relatively abstractly) and state, democratic government, individual liberty etc. I think it's important to separate the two, because they get conflated. But even in the case of the second question, I think religion is neutral, it's a tool. It can (and has) been a force for good. It can be a force for bad. I therefore see no value in some of the crusading efforts of atheists to eliminate religion from society.
Mod74 wrote:I've always been and still am an agnostic atheist
Gonzo wrote:What's harmful about godliness, or spirituality, then? I've already stated why it's neutral.
cockbeard wrote:Hahaha, a friend actually makes those for a living, and her name's Cross o_0
Ali wrote:I don't think you can be both. The latter over-rules the former.Mod74 wrote:I've always been and still am an agnostic atheist
It was.Gonzo wrote:No, you implied a point in half-arsed way with a question, and when pulled up on it, claimed - and still claim- it was a genuine bona fide question.
So you agree that religion is not just a "value-neutral tool" used by "social conservatives", but is actually part of the many influences that goes to form and spread that "social conservatism"?Gonzo wrote:You can choose to label the source of western homophobia "religion", while in china it is something else. I argue this is obfuscatory, and that religion in the west has become a tool of social conservatism. It is one form of propagating homophobia- but certainly some anglicans have moved in a different direction. And the church has been in great decline in some parts of the west, and yet homophobia- to take one example- persists. But it certainly is difficult to find out which is the dog and which is the tail.
I'm not entirely sure if you've understood the word tautology there - it's not a causality statement, it's an identity statement.Gonzo wrote:There's a lot of confusion in this post; about tautology (two words sound similar so one can't cause the other);
So why are you saying that you *do* know and that they *don't* shape their views (and then play an integral part of the dissemination and proliferation of those views)?Gonzo wrote:social conservatives might be homophobes because they believe in the nuclear family, that social fabrics must be maintained, they believe in menaces they might label depravity, chaos, anarchy, they believe in sacrificing individual wants for a greater good. These often find certain religions a useful harbour for their views. Did religion shape their views, or the other way round? Well I don't know,
So what? What bearing does that have on whether or not religion is currently one of several/many causes of homophobia?ÂGonzo wrote:but since your focus is on christianity, we can find plenty of social conservatives well before christianity's advent. Take Augustus, ore the older Romans, well known for prudishness and cultural conservatism. The idea that humanity's heading into depravity and the wrong path is very old, and might well have shaped religions rather than the other way round.
Because anyone that comes to religion (for whatever personal reason) and believes in God, places authority in the holy book and the religious hierarchy.Gonzo wrote:Another source of confusion is about rules. The "right to tell others that homosexuality is bad because god said so" is identified as an ill. But I have that right. I can tell anyone that. It's up to them whether they believe it. What is so special about God that makes my claim that he posited a rule so harmful?
I wasn't talking about legal authority, I was talking about the credence believers place in the authority of the scripture as passed down and the authority of the church to tell them what is and what is not God's will.Gonzo wrote:... [a bunch of stuff about rules and legal authority]....
Neither do I - they won't disappear overnight, but one of the causes would be gone, so maybe there will be less of them in time.Gonzo wrote:I don't kid myself that if I got rid of the very concept, the sort of people who want to hate muslims, eradicate homos, etc etc will disappear.
Maybe, or maybe they won't. It would probably help that they can't point at an old book that is supposedly God's unchanging last word on the matter and say "look, it says it's a bad thing right here, so that's all the justification necessary".Gonzo wrote:A particular medium for their views will have disappeared. They'll find another one.
Gonzo wrote:I find it more valuable to concentrate on root causes. And that's one of my chief objections to the fanatic anti-religious elements out there: I ultimately believe that they help obfuscate the root causes of very real harm. In some cases, like Chomsky observes, theirs is a state religion. That's why I'll never forgive Hitchens, teh fucking cunt.
cockbeard wrote:See I'm confused again, it's easily done so I apologise. The existence of gods is surely true or false. Having a belief is true or false as well. We have three words, and three situations. Why does atheism get to cover two of those bases
Gonzo wrote:And the church has been in great decline in some parts of the west, and yet homophobia- to take one example- persists. But it certainly is difficult to find out which is the dog and which is the tail.
Ali wrote:A bunch of people listening to a bloke drone on about being nice or burning in fire, and then having a good old chat afterwards. But it's not that part I object to.
cockbeard wrote:Over zealous Atheism, as described by Gonzo above, even if innocently just wishing to lift the veil from people's eyes, could easily become the devil it wished to eradicate
Gonzo wrote:Ah, it's impossible to have a long post anymore.
WorKid wrote:Right, Petey, sort us out a poll function, so we can settle this once and for all.
cockbeard wrote:Where was the fabrication?
Why is the slope slippery?
I genuinely believe that religion is not a force for ill, but that any text can be used to assert anything if so desired. The Leviticus passages oft quoted about homosexuality, also state don't fuck your ma, your auntie, kids, and animals. Elsewhere it states don't spill seed on the soil. To my (non-homophobic) mind that seems to clearly state that you shouldn't partake in sex except to produce offspring. Taken alongside the stories of Lot and the goings on at the foot of Sinai, I would assume the intended meaning was stop being self serving, turn away from hedonism
If a hateful prick wants to interpret that as anti gay, they'd likely interpret anything else as anti gay as well
I would assume the intended meaning was stop being self serving, turn away from hedonism
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!