Simon Posted February 4, 2005 Posted February 4, 2005 it has its place for those who can't do the right thing on their own. The only positive I've ever really ever given religion credit for is that it comforts those who may be afraid of the big empty void, and for that I'll never begrudge it. For the rest of the intolerant atrocities it's visited upon humanity, it can kiss my agnostic ass.....
KurtGodel77 Posted February 4, 2005 Posted February 4, 2005 I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had to teach basic history to make a simple point to another adult. The Crusades. September 11th. There you go. My point was that if you take a controversial position without bothering to meaningfully defend it, don't expect everyone else to jump on board your bandwagon. Sept 11 may not be the best example of the point you are trying to make; because there was no overwhelmingly large religious intitution that initiated the attacks. Bin Laden's group; though larger than it should be, is not terribly big. As for the Crusades; I'm curious to know what specific objection you have to them. As to living my life surrounded by "yes men", you're gleening an awful lot from a message board and you're entitled to your opinion based on that. There are few successful people in life who haven't surrounded themselves with like-minded and similiarly driven individuals. If you want to call that "yes men" than so be it. That's pretty simplistic. I'm just saying that if you attack people's intelligence every time they disagree with you; many people will voice agreement just to avoid being attacked. I've seen this kind of risk-adverse groupthink a lot, and it bugs me. I could care less if you like organized religion and feel free to post some feel good stories about it. Invitation accepted. I spent grades N - 4 at a Catholic school; and the teachers at the school really seemed to care about what they did. Others who attended the school really liked it as well. In contrast, the public school was more institutional, less challenging, more sterile, and more apathetic. You basically attacked a post that was a joke. I guess the Michael Jackson reset could have been a clue, but apparently not. We can carry this on as long as you like and you're not going to change my opinion (I'm not trying to change yours - I don't care). 227818[/snapback] Your original post used humor as a vehicle for attacking organized religion. If you want to attack organized religion that's your right, but don't hide behind the whole humor angle.
KurtGodel77 Posted February 4, 2005 Posted February 4, 2005 Here's an alternative:Do the right thing simply because it's the right thing. Not because some book tells you to...... Not because you'll burn in hell if you don't.... Not because of any exterior influence whatsoever..... Just do the right thing for no other reason than it's the right thing to do. 227833[/snapback] How do you know what the right thing is? In the absence of religion, most people base their ideas of right and wrong on what everyone else around them thinks about these ideas. That gives enormous power to whoever happens to control the media. The mass media can make it seem as though the consensus is this, or the consensus is that. People move in a mass; and the mass thinks of right and wrong in different ways. Several examples: - Modern America (People are taught there is no such thing as right or wrong, except the wrong of racism.) - Nazi Germany - Muslim nations - Imperial Japan Each of these four examples had different ideas as to what was right, and what was wrong. "Doing the right thing" means something very different to a Nazi than it means to a Muslim or a modern American or to someone from Africa. Many in the Muslim world see the U.S. as being more evil than Nazi Germany. How can you know if they are right if you don't look to a higher truth than the opinions of the people around you? The Muslims, after all, look to the opinions of the people around them.
Alaska Darin Posted February 4, 2005 Posted February 4, 2005 My point was that if you take a controversial position without bothering to meaningfully defend it, don't expect everyone else to jump on board your bandwagon. Sept 11 may not be the best example of the point you are trying to make; because there was no overwhelmingly large religious intitution that initiated the attacks. Bin Laden's group; though larger than it should be, is not terribly big. As for the Crusades; I'm curious to know what specific objection you have to them. I could give a flying :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: if anyone jumps on my bandwagon, and I don't owe you or anyone else a meaningful defense for my opinion. You don't sleep in my bed, depend on my for sustinence, nor sign my paycheck. If you need that spelled out further, YOU don't matter to me (feel free to come back with the standard and lame "then why are you responding" take). While Bin Laden's group may not be large, the overwhelming silence from the Muslim community against him is the result of being cowed by the religious leaders. You can disagree - I don't care at all - it's also one example. Specific objection to war with another group of people over religion? Oh, I can't think of any. I've seen this kind of risk-adverse groupthink a lot, and it bugs me. The irony of that statement coming from someone defending organized religion is off the charts. Invitation accepted. I spent grades N - 4 at a Catholic school; and the teachers at the school really seemed to care about what they did. Others who attended the school really liked it as well. In contrast, the public school was more institutional, less challenging, more sterile, and more apathetic. You're absolutely right and generally, Catholic Schools are pretty good and run with mostly local control. They also have to face the parents of those they teach on a VERY regular basis and rarely try and point at some faceless bureaucrat as the reason they can't educate people. Your original post used humor as a vehicle for attacking organized religion. If you want to attack organized religion that's your right, but don't hide behind the whole humor angle. 227855[/snapback] Who TF are you to tell anyone how to say anything (feel free to refer back to the "you don't sleep..." part earlier in this post)? They teach you about protected speech in Catholic School? Attack? No bullets flying here.
KurtGodel77 Posted February 4, 2005 Posted February 4, 2005 I could give a flying :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: if anyone jumps on my bandwagon, and I don't owe you or anyone else a meaningful defense for my opinion. You don't sleep in my bed, depend on my for sustinence, nor sign my paycheck. If you need that spelled out further, YOU don't matter to me (feel free to come back with the standard and lame "then why are you responding" take). I'm sorry, but unsupported opinions are a dime a dozen; especially on boards like these. While Bin Laden's group may not be large, the overwhelming silence from the Muslim community against him is the result of being cowed by the religious leaders. You can disagree - I don't care at all - it's also one example. Well, if your complaint is about the overwhelming silence rather than the attacks themselves; let me do you one better. Back in the early 1930s when Joseph Stalin murdered 7 million Ukrainians, there was overwhelming silence in this country; as well as in France and Britain. Overwhelming silence in the face of 7 million deaths is clearly worse than overwhelming silence in the face of 3,000; yet the medias in the Western democracies were peopled by secularly-minded reporters and editors. Specific objection to war with another group of people over religion? Oh, I can't think of any. One of the reasons I've heard for the Afghanistan war is that we liberated tens of millions of people from a religiously intolerant regime. In other words, we went to war in part because we didn't like their religion; and that seemed just fine with most of the secular crowd. The irony of that statement coming from someone defending organized religion is off the charts. There was actually more groupthink at the secular public school than there was at the Catholic school. In the case of the latter; there was a clear definition for right and wrong; and nobody questioned it. But outside that circle, there was latitude for independent thinking. At the public school there was less of a distinction between core values and mere beliefs. That blurring did not lead to critical debates about everything, but rather a general uncritical acceptance of the status quo. You're absolutely right and generally, Catholic Schools are pretty good and run with mostly local control. They also have to face the parents of those they teach on a VERY regular basis and rarely try and point at some faceless bureaucrat as the reason they can't educate people. I sense that you have made the effort to look at the Catholic education system honestly, and from a well-informed perspective. Who TF are you to tell anyone how to say anything (feel free to refer back to the "you don't sleep..." part earlier in this post)? They teach you about protected speech in Catholic School? Attack? No bullets flying here. 227867[/snapback] I'm sure you would never tell anyone how to say anything. In this case you WERE hiding behind the whole humor angle, and I make no apology for calling you on it.
Recommended Posts