The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Aesir]

Americans only care about religious tolerance when it's their religion in question.


Discuss.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Americans only care about religious tolerance when it's their religion in question.


Discuss.

Doesn't that apply to everyone? If no one says anything about what you believe, then there's no reason to ask why. But then when someone does, they probably will mention tolerance.

Though Americans do it a lot.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

That's so true...

Using myself as an example.

Also, I saw this:

IIRC, Debaters are just trolls with a bigger vocabulary. <_<

I feel insulted

 

[Dre89]

I feel insulted

The irony is, in saying that they've put forward and argument themself. So they're using debating to debate the validity of debating.

 

[Reaver197]

The ever present issue of the persecution-complex religions inevitably suffer, even when they're in the majority and have more power than all the others.

Also, I love the inherent anti-intellectualism present in most of American society. Can't possibly have any negative repercussions trying to deter people from, you know, knowing things and learning.

 

[Aesir]

Doesn't that apply to everyone? If no one says anything about what you believe, then there's no reason to ask why. But then when someone does, they probably will mention tolerance.

Though Americans do it a lot.

Americans are still under the impression that the faith of Islam has attacked them, by citing 9/11. Which is about as stupid as an atheist saying Christianity is bad because *insert something bad here*

They would scream intolerance over that, but chastising Muslims in the same way is A.okay.

@darkhorse:

I will say I trolled brawl/character discussion boards A LOT when I was active in other rooms/played melee.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Yes, I alwas find it stupid when people blame a religion for a bad thing. Wake up people! It wasn't Islam that attacked us, it was Bin Laden! (err... I think)

@aesir

I don't think it had anything to do with you. The next guy mentioned salt.

 

[rvkevin]

Which is about as stupid as an atheist saying Christianity is bad because *insert something bad here*

I'm curious, what are the non-religious reasons for burning witches?

 

[Reaver197]

Unfortunately, Islam (and religion in general) is an enabler for the actions of the religious extremists/fundamentalists. If you really wanted to get right down to it, you'd find that the religious fundamentalists generally are trying their best to follow as closely as possible to follow the dictations and creeds of their faith (however contradictory they may be at times).

While it would be unfair to immediately presume that every Muslim is someone who is rearing to go kill themselves and as many other innocent people as possible, to say that Islam as a religion has no fault in for the actions people take because of its tenants and belief structure is fallacious.

 

[Deleted member]

Who sez Islam has no fault? They eschew bacon!

 

[Aesir]

I'm curious, what are the non-religious reasons for burning witches?

Land. Resources.

Want me to go on? Religion created the justification for the act. But the motivation has always been the same.

Unfortunately, Islam (and religion in general) is an enabler for the actions of the religious extremists/fundamentalists. If you really wanted to get right down to it, you'd find that the religious fundamentalists generally are trying their best to follow as closely as possible to follow the dictations and creeds of their faith (however contradictory they may be at times).

See saying it's religions fault isn't not attacking the fundamental problem, which is why I find the entire argument lacking. I mean I generally agree with the Oscar Wilde quote. How religion can drive a good man to do evil things. But if you replace religion with any sort of social construct the results will largely be the same. Communism comes to mind for instance, when you replace logic and reason with an ideology the results are scary.

While it would be unfair to immediately presume that every Muslim is someone who is rearing to go kill themselves and as many other innocent people as possible, to say that Islam as a religion has no fault in for the actions people take because of its tenants and belief structure is fallacious.

Ideologues warp meanings of ideologies all the time, Bin Ladin is no different for Islam, just like Stalin is no different with communism. I don't go around blaming the religion because that doesn't attack the fundamental problem which is the capacity of evil every human being possesses.

This isn't to say ideologies are bad, but they should never be a substitute for logic and reasoning.

 

[rvkevin]

Religion created the justification for the act. But the motivation has always been the same.

"In the Niger Delta, children as young as eight have had nails driven into their heads after being identified as witches. Others have been buried alive, mutilated or left to die by their families, who think the children are possessed."-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbDu0-K9cPk

So, parents have always had the motivation to abandon their children when there's a lack of resources? People generally have a desire to assault children walking in public? And religion justifies this? I think the first two are false and the third to be morally bankrupt. I only see this as supporting the case that we are better off without religion and people commit atrocities solely because they believe absurdities.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Daughters have been killed in China for simply being girls, and that has no basis in religion whatsoever. The pressures there are societal, but the result is the same: children are killed.

I think Aesir's major point is that the problem in the phrase, "Man uses religion to justify killing" isn't the religion part, it's the killing part. And if you replace religion with "society," "eugenics," or whatever else, the problem is the same: not that men use those ideas to justify killing, but that men want to kill in the first place.

 

[Aesir]

So RVkevin completely misses the point, and Jam who is inebriated right now did.

New discussion!

 

[Dre89]

I love how people say religion should be abolished, yet don't realise that the only reason why they even have the freedom to say that is because of religion.

 

[rvkevin]

I love how people say religion should be abolished, yet don't realise that the only reason why they even have the freedom to say that is because of religion.

Freedom of speech is protected by a secular document. Yes, I do realize that religion played a role in the development of the constitution. The founding fathers noticed that when religious institutions control the state, it is a detriment to everyone's civil rights and therefore erected a wall of separation between church and state. If that was not present in the constitution, I would not be certain if freedom of speech would still be around today. I would hardly say it had a positive influence on the United States.

However, this is all irrelevant, it is a sunk cost in the annals of history, we must proceed from here as anew. The only reason to bring up religion now is to extol it for its utility or to bring it up as an example to avoid. I don't think it has played and plays the positive role that you suggest. I'll wait for you to make a case for you position since I don't think there is much underneath your assertion.

 

[Dre89]

Actually we only got that far because the Church separated itself from the state probably at a late point in the medieval period.

Had the Church not been around we would still be stuck under a pagan state religion, and probably wouldn't have had adancements such as universities etc.

Also, the social contract the seculars cling to so much began with religion, a Protestant fideist in particular.

That's what I find so ironic about the homosexuality thread. All the arguments against me actually have fideist roots.

 

[Reaver197]

Land. Resources.

Want me to go on? Religion created the justification for the act. But the motivation has always been the same.



See saying it's religions fault isn't not attacking the fundamental problem, which is why I find the entire argument lacking. I mean I generally agree with the Oscar Wilde quote. How religion can drive a good man to do evil things. But if you replace religion with any sort of social construct the results will largely be the same. Communism comes to mind for instance, when you replace logic and reason with an ideology the results are scary.



Ideologues warp meanings of ideologies all the time, Bin Ladin is no different for Islam, just like Stalin is no different with communism. I don't go around blaming the religion because that doesn't attack the fundamental problem which is the capacity of evil every human being possesses.

This isn't to say ideologies are bad, but they should never be a substitute for logic and reasoning.

I whole heartedly agree with what you're saying. I just wanted to address the person saying you couldn't blame Islam for Bin Laden's actions. But, yes, any time you replace logic and evidence-based reasoning for ideology and blind faith (religious or political), you've got a dangerous, self-destructive situation brewing.

 

[rvkevin]

Also, the social contract the secular cling to so much began with religion, a Protestant fideist in particular.

That's what I find so ironic about the homosexuality thread. All the arguments against me actually have fideist roots.

This does not follow. Just because someone is X, does not mean someone does something because of X or X was the cause of their idea or actions. This should be obvious. Newton's law of gravity does not have alchemist roots despite being discovered by an alchemist. This does not mean that alchemy is an important part in any respect. It is insignificant to mention, however, when it comes to religion, its mentioned like its significant. Why is that? Even if the arguments against your position were thought of by a fideist, why is that significant?

 

[Lore]

This does not follow. Just because someone is X, does not mean someone does something because of X or X was the cause of their idea or actions. This should be obvious. Newton's law of gravity does not have alchemist roots despite being discovered by an alchemist. This does not mean that alchemy is an important part in any respect. It is insignificant to mention, however, when it comes to religion, its mentioned like its significant. Why is that? Even if the arguments against your position were thought of by a fideist, why is that significant?

It's significant because without that fideist, that EXACT argument would have never existed. Sure, it could have been made later by someone else, but it wouldn't have been in the same form as it is today.

In other words, even though religion has little to do with it now, religion was a big part of its origins.

The "newton's laws" example is partially irrelevant. Alchemy essentially equals chemistry, and aren't the laws part of physics? They're two different, unrelated subjects, and in Dre's example, the thinker used religious beliefs to reach his conclusion.

I say partially because alchemical researchers helped maked the scientific method, etc.

I apologize if none of that makes sense; I'm really tired.

 

[Reaver197]

Read this, thought it was interesting, and figured people here would like to read it as well.

http://www.alternet.org/story/147859/

 

[rvkevin]

The "newton's laws" example is partially irrelevant. Alchemy essentially equals chemistry, and aren't the laws part of physics? They're two different, unrelated subjects, and in Dre's example, the thinker used religious beliefs to reach his conclusion.

This is what I contest and the point I'm waiting for Dre to elaborate on. The arguments used against him were secular in nature. How does fideism play a fundamental or essential role in formulating that argument? I would say it doesn't, one does not need to be a fideist to agree with the argument, one does not need to be a fideist to discover the argument, nor does fideism entail such an argument . In this way, it is exactly comparable and just as irrelevant to Newton and alchemy.

In other words, even though religion has little to do with it now, religion was a big part of its origins.

So what? So what if they were correlated in history. It is fallacious to say that correlation shows or implies causation. It doesn't help establish the utility of religion, so why is it significant to mention?

 

[Dre89]

Its known that schools of thought influence society.

The social contract stemmed from the radical argument that human nature is evil. Therefore, you can do as many evils as you like, as long as you don't harm others.

The only difference today is that we don't call them evils.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I love how people say religion should be abolished, yet don't realise that the only reason why they even have the freedom to say that is because of religion.

Uh... Lets go back in time to the middle ages where the Catholic Church pretty much dominated everything. People got killed for Heresy, Galileo was put under house arrest for suggesting the Earth moved around the Sun. Sounds like free speech to me!

Look honestly, free speech doesn't appear to be in any religious documents as an unalienable right, but it appears in secular documents.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@bob Jane

You do realize that without religion, the U.S. wouldn't exist. Right?

 

[Aesir]

Actually we only got that far because the Church separated itself from the state probably at a late point in the medieval period.

Really when was this? It must have been a brief point in history because colonials left England and the Church of England were unbearable to the puritans (American colonialists)

So if you can provide some sources to this I would appreciate it, I'm sure every history professor would love to see it.

Had the Church not been around we would still be stuck under a pagan state religion, and probably wouldn't have had adancements such as universities etc.

I don't necessarily think to that extent, but I do agree Religion did the lay the foundation work for the secular society. I assume we both agree a secular society is a society that doesn't favor one religion over the other, because that's always been my interpretation of it.

Also, the social contract the seculars cling to so much began with religion, a Protestant fideist in particular.

I see a problem with you sometimes, you clump all atheists together in the same pool as harris, dawkins and hitchens not realizing there are some dennets out there.

That's what I find so ironic about the homosexuality thread. All the arguments against me actually have fideist roots.

Does that make them less valid coming from an atheist?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

@bob Jane

You do realize that without religion, the U.S. wouldn't exist. Right?

You mean without religion people wouldn't be scared enough to run away from Europe and colonise the new world?

 

[adumbrodeus]

rvkevin, if you can find one conflict or atrocity that was purely religiously motivated, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Aesir]

There isn't one. LIke I said and Jam Clarified, religion creates justifications but the problem lies with in humanity it's self. It's not that we have a justification for killing, it's the fact that man wants to kill. That isn't something religion created, it's a deeply rooted problem that has always existed. (or any evil.)


Bob: You make that sound like it was a bad thing? The founding fathers skepticism toward organized religion was a good thing which lead to impartial treatment of religious institutions. How is that a bad thing? or any party? Impartiality should always be the goal.


I also want to know when did atheism become a synonym for anti-religious cause in the past the two were different.

 

[Dre89]

Aesir, you're talking about Protestant religions, I was only referring to the Catholic Church.

With regards to atheism, most people here have thrown the SC at me, which is why I said it.

It's just interesting that what people are using the SC to call good were actually deemed evil by the person who created the SC.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Bob: You make that sound like it was a bad thing? The founding fathers skepticism toward organized religion was a good thing which lead to impartial treatment of religious institutions. How is that a bad thing? or any party? Impartiality should always be the goal..

Yeah, but it appears that in this conflict that religion was the antagonist, that's the point I'm trying to raise. If people were scared enough to run away to another continent because of it, there was an issue with religion. The outcome may have been good, but religion wasn't a positive force, it was a negative one.

 

[Aesir]

Aesir, you're talking about Protestant religions, I was only referring to the Catholic Church.

Could you still back that up? I'm really curious where you're getting your information.

With regards to atheism, most people here have thrown the SC at me, which is why I said it.

It's just interesting that what people are using the SC to call good were actually deemed evil by the person who created the SC.

You're referring to social contracts right?

I know what you're saying here, but I just don't see the relevance, social attitudes evolve over time. So Locke may have found homosexuality horrendous but that doesn't discredit the social contract to defend it.


Bob: not necessarily. You're making the mistake of treating religion as a sinister united force. When in reality it's anything but that. One religion may have antagonized the other, but to the colonialists they were fleeing to practice their won religion without fear of persecution. Which they likely drew from the positive reinforcement of their own religion.

 

[Dre89]

Aesir, I was told that by two separate students who study theology. They both said the separation was to allow intellectual freedom, to allow the movement from reason to faith, rather than just force faith.

All I know is that it had to have happened sometime after 800 AD.

 

[rvkevin]

rvkevin, if you can find one conflict or atrocity that was purely religiously motivated, I'd love to hear it.

Should we throw gasoline on fires? Was the gasoline the cause of the fire? No. Would it have been better without the gasoline? Yes. Religion is the gasoline to conflict. So, even if your point was valid, it does not help establish the utility of religion.

Here's a starter.

"There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."-Sam Harris

Side issue: Book recommendations. Anyone? Non-fiction only.

 

[Aesir]

Aesir, I was told that by two separate students who study theology. They both said the separation was to allow intellectual freedom, to allow the movement from reason to faith, rather than just force faith.

All I know is that it had to have happened sometime after 800 AD.

Well that's the date after Charlemagne was crowned emperor by the pope, and 300 years later the crusades began. Which didn't end till about 1400, and even after that I see no mention of the church separating it's self for the above reasons or any reasons at all. Might want to go ask a History major about that one.

Should we throw gasoline on fires? Was the gasoline the cause of the fire? No. Would it have been better without the gasoline? Yes. Religion is the gasoline to conflict. So, even if your point was valid, it does not help establish the utility of religion.

So are you saying we should get rid of gasoline then?

Here's a starter.

"There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."-Sam Harris

Side issue: Book recommendations. Anyone? Non-fiction only.

Well aside from Sam Harris being the biggest joke ever; Idealism gets you no where, and the day every human being embraces reason and logic is fairy tale.

Furthermore calling people of faith unreasonable is an insult, people constantly make the horrible assumption that the southern baptist is how all people of faith act which is clearly not the case.

I got an even better one for you;

Today we have a similar phenomenon brewing on the religious right: the inevitability of the End Days, or the Rapture, the coming Armageddon that will separate the blessed from the ****ed in the final day of Judgment. Cults and prophets proclaiming the imminent end of the world have been with us for several millennia, and it has been another sour sort of fun to ridicule them the morning after, when they discover that their calculations were a little off. But, just as with the Marxists, there are some among them who are working hard to "hasten the inevitable," not merely anticipating the End Days with joy in their hearts, but taking political action to bring about the conditions they think are the prerequisites for that occasion. And these people are not funny at all. They are dangerous, for the same reason that red-diaper babies are dangerous: they put their allegiance to their creed ahead of their commitment to democracy, to peace, to (earthly) justice -- and to truth. If push comes to shove, some of the are prepared to lie and even to kill...

 

[Reaver197]

- Godel Escher Bach by Douglas Hofstadter
- Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan
- The Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan
- Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond (haven't read this one yet, but it won a Pulitzer and I've heard great things).
- Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
- A Brief History of Time & The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking
- The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
- Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner
- The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman
- How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer
- Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman by Richard Feynman
- The Pleasure of Finding Things Out by Richard Feynman

Just what I could think of off the top of my head.

 

[Sucumbio]

rvkevin: The Utility of Religion, John Stuart Mill

Aesir: he may be referring to the fall of the holy roman empire...

"The French Revolution of 1789 brought about a shifting of powers from the Church to the State, destruction of churches and the establishment of a Cult of Reason."

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

- Godel Escher Bach by Douglas Hofstadter
- Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan
- The Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan
- Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond (haven't read this one yet, but it won a Pulitzer and I've heard great things).
- Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
- A Brief History of Time & The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking
- The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
- Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner
- The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman
- How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer
- Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman by Richard Feynman
- The Pleasure of Finding Things Out by Richard Feynman

Just what I could think of off the top of my head.

Those are nonfiction?

 

[GoldShadow]

Of the three you bolded DH, I've only read The World is Flat, but they're all definitely very non-fiction.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Oh, so they're philosophical books?