Originally Posted By jonvn "Doesn't make the plane irrelevant." If there is no plane, it's neither releveant or irrelevant.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think that his religious affiliation had nothing to do with what he was trying to accomplish. << And you'd be incorrect. Read more about him and you'll see. Read his own writing. He drew strength from his faith, and that helped him summon the courage to face hostility and personal risk. Ironically, you're ignoring factual evidence and taking it on "faith" that his faith had nothing to do with what he accomplished.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If there is no plane, it's neither releveant or irrelevant.<< But the "plane" in this increasingly stretched metaphor is religion itself.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Here's why you can't win this debate, jonvn. You talk of religion in absolutes, declaring it ALL bad. To make a lie of that, I have to point out only one or two examples of people, motivated by church or faith, doing good works. Or just doing good work in the name of their religion. If i said religion was ALL good, which i have not, all you'd need to do would be find one or two examples of evil done in the name of religion by some crackpot. There are LOTS of examples of that. But there are also LOTS of examples of people doing good thanks in part at least to religion. To speak in absolutes that it is all bad, it requires you turn explain away and ignore solid, documented evidence. On the global warming threads, you rightly point out that isn't a very scientifc or prudent approach.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Read his own writing. He drew strength from his faith, and that helped him summon the courage to face hostility and personal risk." He would have drawn strength from someplace else then. What he describes as drawing strength from is more likely seeing his people suffer than his religion. "you're ignoring factual evidence and taking it on "faith" that his faith had nothing to do with what he accomplished." I'm saying his faith would have simply been some other thing had he no religion to believe in. "But the "plane" in this increasingly stretched metaphor is religion itself." And if it is not there, it doesn't matter. You can get there without a plane. "You talk of religion in absolutes, declaring it ALL bad." I said it starts out as basically worthless, not bad.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Here's why you can't win this debate, jonvn." That's not why, btw. The reason why is because I never win any of them.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I'd say I was making an analogy more towards it being poison, and not food.<< Poison = bad, regardless of the dosage. >>It's not the extremists. It's all of it. There are varying degrees of bad.<< That's what you said. >>And if it is not there, it doesn't matter. You can get there without a plane. << Of course you can. But a plane speeds things along quite a bit. All I'm saying is that the motivation to do good that religion provides can speed good works along for some people. >>I'm saying his faith would have simply been some other thing had he no religion to believe in.<< You have nothing to base that on, except your own faith. You're ignoring facts here to advance your own faith.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>In other words, if you can credit religion for the evil things people do in its name, you have to also give credit to religion for the good works it inspires.<< I totally agree. I don't think religion is necessarily the evil scourge some people see it as. It has its place. But I do think we give any number of behaviors that we would otherwise never tolerate a pass when they're cloaked in the name of religion. Bill Maher made the point, how would we all react if France started requiring all their black men to cover their faces so no one had to look at their skin? I think the entire U.S. population would self-combust in outrage. But we don't complain, and some even defend, the practice of wearing burkas as if it's just a quaint religious tradition. It's disgusting and we should be marching in the streets over it. It's just hard to take claims of extremism seriously when the supposed mainstream is so silent about everything. Where are the "mainstream" Muslims speaking out against riots over cartoons? Where are the mainstream Christians demanding equal rights for gays or rising up against the government interference with Terri Schiavo? To some of us, the mainstream often appears to be the extreme everyone points a finger at.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I totally agree. I don't think religion is necessarily the evil scourge some people see it as. It has its place. But I do think we give any number of behaviors that we would otherwise never tolerate a pass when they're cloaked in the name of religion.<< No argument from me regarding that. And I think as much as we can keep religion separated from governemnt, the better, generally speaking. Here's but one example of religion doing some good, courtesy the NY Times... <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09churches.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09 /09/national/nationalspecial/09churches.html</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc >>He would have drawn strength from someplace else then. What he describes as drawing strength from is more likely seeing his people suffer than his religion.<< Sorry jonvn, you're wrong on ths one. David Garrow goes into this in his superb biography of King. He had an experience late at night in his kitchen, during the Montgomery Bus Boycotts. He felt touched by God that this was his mission and he leaned on that experience throughout his life when times got tough. I'm critical of religion and an avowed agnostic, but MLK, my personal hero, is a shining (and rare) example of someone truly living and believing his religion.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't agree with jonvn's stance here, but I can respect its integrity. If, like jon (but unlike me), you don't believe that God exists, then all religion is, at best, a delusion. In this view, some people take that delusion and do horrible things; some people take that delusion and do wonderful things (like King) - but at bottom they're looking to a delusion they don't need to look to. People CAN take strength from delusions. I remember some story years ago about some guy trapped in a cave who took strength from the belief that there was a search party looking for him, and that he had to stay alive until they got there. In reality, no one realized where he was, and there was no search party. But believing there was kept his will to live strong, and he lasted an amazingly long time. Again, I do believe in God and think that all man-made religion is highly imperfect, but that, as 2oony said, you have to acknowledge the good it inspires as well as the evil. But from a perspective like jon's, it's all done from a place of delusion, and we'd be better off without the delusion, doing good for its own sake and ridding ourselves of the great evil of religious fanaticism at the same time. At least, that's how I read jon's position.
Originally Posted By ecdc And now there's this from a "secular" country trying to join the EU. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/28/dawkins.turkey.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/ europe/11/28/dawkins.turkey.ap/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn "That's what you said." Yes, I did. I also said that at best, it is worthless. It runs the spectrum from worthless to extremely bad. "You have nothing to base that on, except your own faith." I have very little to no faith in much of anything involving religious beliefs. But the reason I say this is because people can and do accomplish things with absolutely no religious faith driving them to do it at all. I used to have more faith in people, but this last year has taught me that was not a good idea, either.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Sorry jonvn, you're wrong on ths one." Metaphysically impossible. "He felt touched by God that this was his mission and he leaned on that experience throughout his life when times got tough." I'm sure he was fully sincere in this belief, too. That does not mean it was necessary.
Originally Posted By jonvn "If, like jon (but unlike me), you don't believe that God exists, then all religion is, at best, a delusion." It's not like I believe that no god exists or can exist, there simple is not a bit of reason to think that he does. I can't say there is no god. I can't know that. I can't take it on faith that this is correct. However, unless there is something shown to me to give reason to believe in some sort of supreme being existing, I don't really understand or see any reason that would compel me to think there is something there. In that fashion, I am absolutely not an atheist. That requires a degree of certainty and determination in something I can't possibly posess, and as such is just as much a religion as anything else. Show me where this god is, and then we can talk about it. If it's just a "feeling," then it truly is nothing more than a self serving delusion that people use to make themselves feel better about whatever it is they have done in life, or not done. If it gives you comfort to think that something is out there, fine. I not only can't, but even attempting for me to think in such a manner makes my skin crawl. I think people should be better than this, and not fall prey to what is basically superstition. I think we'd all be better off for it.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<< "Sorry jonvn, you're wrong on ths one." Metaphysically impossible. >>> ROFL! good one jonvn... LOL
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <And before anyone jumps on me for being nasty about christians, or any other dumb thing, it goes for all religions, christians, moslems, jews, taoists, whatever< because like the 10 o ' clock news -- the good things never get press - or air time- whereas the bad things follow the mantra of ' if it bleeds , it leads'.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Returning to the original article posted, I am confused as to why it would be considered an insult to Islam to name a bear after Mohammed. People name their children after Mohammed all around the world. In fact, I think I read once that it was the world's most popular name to give a child. So, in effect, didn't the children in the teacher's school give the bear that name as a way of honoring Mohammed? I'm not sure I get why it was considered an insult in the first place.
