Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philadelph
Northern Ireland is more of a politial/teritorial conflict, isn't it? With one side wanting independance from Great Britain, the other wanting to remain as part of G.B. The one side happens to be Catholic, the other Protestant.
911 may qualify as a religiously motivated act.
The Holocaust, the Jews are the victims, not the perpetrators. Hitler acted out of fascist/nationalistic reasoning, not religious belief on his part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philadelph
Fair enough.
Now I guess I'll have to go see the movie!:hmmm:
Mao and stalin may have not have been religious, but the actions that they undertook were not a result of their secular nature. Stalin and Mao weren't Americans either, but that doesn't mean there's a correlation between being an American and abstaining from mass violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
Anti stem-cell research legislation hurts an uncountable number of people, and that legislation is based on religious ideas.
:OTAre you talking adult stem cell research or "murder as a means to a healthier longer life"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge
I'm talking about possible treatments for genetic disorders that are borderline impossible to make progress on because stem-cells can't be worked with in a governmentally funded laboratory (= nearly every lab with the necessary sophistication).
Adult stem cell research is not illegal and is showing great results last time I checked!
Sorry, I didn't realize the distinction you were trying to make.
Yes, by stem-cells, I meant embryonic.
There are surpluses of viable embryos in fertility clinics, yet the opposing laws are much stronger when those embryos become the subject of scientific testing.
Many religions consider all life equal, yet most of us have no problem with the large scale slaughter of farm animals. Who's religion gets to choose what is right and what is wrong?
I disagree. I think their actions were based in their secular nature. They both had created their own ideologies and then persued them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge
I think I see what you are saying with your "they weren't Americans either..." comment, but the point I'm attempting to make is in opposition to Mr Maher's conclusion that religion/religious views are a widespread danger.
If his conclusion was "religion is for kooks and knuckleheads" then that would have apparently been supported by the rest of the film (which I have not seen...) and I could therefore at least agree with his argument in that regard.
Stem cell research has not helped nor hurt anyone as of yet. It has the potential to help if the theoretical benefits can be made manifest. That research is costly and unproven. They should simply use the viable embryoes from which the stem cells would be taken, incubate them into mature cell formations and then harvest the fully formed organs to use as replacement parts.
The Spanish Inquisition was a direct action in the name of religion that resulted in thousands of people being tortured to death because they were heretics.
The Salem Witch trials were a direct action in the name of religion that resulted in the deaths of innocent people that just couldn't prove that they held the right religion.
Stalin and Mao killed people as a way of gaining or maintaining power, not because those people had different religious beliefs.
Neither situation is any more justified, don't get me wrong, I just mean to say that there has yet to be a connection between not having a religion and being more likely to commit murder.
Huh? :confused: :thinking:Quote:
Originally Posted by PhiladelphYeah, it's a damn good thing too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
And vice versa, thus my original issue with Maher's drawn & overly dramatic conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge
And I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition...of course nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
It's been suggested by various statisticians that abortion and crime are inversely related. I am not personally endorsing or disagreeing, I am just explaining why it was brought up.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
All the Crusades, including the ones in Europe and the 3rd which was against Constantinople - a Christian city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
The Thirty Years War
Cortez, Pizarro both were accompanied by priests- to convert the heathens.
Polish/Livonian/Teutonic Order incursions into the Ukraine/Russia were based on Roman vs. Eastern Christianity.
Last week, Christians in India were fleeing in the face of threats from Hindus.
Pakistan and India - Muslim vs. Hindu...with nukes.
Were/are these conflicts based on adherence to religious tents? No, these were/are the perversion of religious teachings for the benefit of those in power....(hmmm...sounds familiar....). However, you have to have followers who are willing to fight/die for what you tell them to believe.
I have always found it interesting that it is the followers who are doing the dying - be it terrorist bombings or "crusaders".....I don't recall many religious leaders who had exhorted theri followers to kill in God's name out in front, facing the "enemy".
I do not care what a person believes.....no religion can be proven to be the absolute truth - that is why we have the word "faith" and the word "science"....until they try and force their views on me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
Ah, but there are examples of people killing in the sole and explicit name of religion and idolotry, while there has yet to be an example of a person killing in the sole and explicit name of secularism or reason.
Thank you. I think these two quotes above best sum up the message of the movie. They aren't the only opinions in the movie, but this is why you should SEE it before taking an out-of-context quote from the internet and perverting the meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by WireBeard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philadelph
I apologize to Mr. Maher for using his quotes out of context just to make a point.
I look forward to seeing his film, as I'm sure that is not the way he'd go about it;)
Some others great theocratic wars and atrocities, Iran/Iraq war, the Crusades, the support of Fascist States by the Church (Italy and Germany), the Inquisition., the burning and torturing of witches, the mutilation of female genitals, the ethnic/racial/religious genocides in the the Balkans and Africa, the Taliban, Pakistan/India, Israel/Palestine and the Religious Police in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria ect.
The question isn't really what wars were over religion, but what wars and atrocities theocratic societies have instigated, participated in or condoned.
That is not to say there have not been secular atrocities as well. Unlike religious folks I don't feel the need to defend all secularist or atheists, nor do I take offense for the acts of other brutal mammals.
Some other wars and atrocities that are attributed to the secular world were committed by totalitarian regimes which are actually faith based systems, such as North Korea, China, and Soviet Union.
Its not really about a tally, its about the hypocrisy of the argument that religion is good. All those who practice it are somehow superior to those that question or don't believe in "Faith", when the imperical evidence is that religious mammals are no better than non religious mammals, both are capable of good and bad. Morals come from within not from outside. To attribute ones moral and ethical stance to a religious belief personally is doing oneself a disservice, this says that if you didn't believe you'd be unethical and immoral.
What are you getting at? That statement seems to be randomly tossed into your post. I'm not even sure what it meansQuote:
Originally Posted by Hutch
I think the point should be made that it may not be religion that is the final resting place of blame for the above mentioned atrocities. It's blind adherence to a system of beliefs and actions as a general phenomenon.
And I think WireBeard was getting at this as well; people have a strange tendency to get so wrapped up in a belief system, be it religious, governmental (as in the worship of a dictator like Stalin or Mao) or otherwise, that they will follow the ideologies of that groups leader(s) to astounding degrees.
The "us vs. them" mentality is prayed upon to no end in all of the abhorrent examples of mass murder/violence cited above. And it's that tendency of not thinking critically that facilitates the whole mess. It's too bad that the phenomenon occurs, but the facts are that the people of have historically been able to exploit this sad tendency are egocentric megalomaniacs and extremist religious leaders. And as long as people remain ignorant to the need for awareness of such events and tendencies, they will continue to be vulnerable to a repeated history. Which is what I get as the essence of Maher's claim, not necessarily that all religious people are dangerous to society (on the contrary, many are wonderful individuals, as the gentleman of this forum, no doubt, typify).
Yes. Often, and in many settingsQuote:
Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge
You stole my thunder Lee!Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
I don't really know what you meant by this comment. :thinking:Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
I made that point in my own post.
(Mark also) Can I hope it wasn't intended to be a snide rebuke? I was trying to get at what is fundamentally wrong in these situations that are obviously and egregiously offensive, and remove the burden of blame from the particular people who usually recieve it, not chastize you or anyone else in our midst.
Russell no I should have been more clear.
I agree with what you said. I was referring to previous statements in the thread that lump together folks together into either religious or non religious in order to make blanket statements. Maybe I should have left it alone :)
No harm, no foul, friend.
Tht's just one of the negatives of internet communication; words are even more subject to interpretation and misunderstanding than in general speech. :(
p.s. your avatar is making my avatar anxious, Otto loves to "play" with cats, though they don't seem to share his sentiments. :w:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge
What Lee said! And it goes way beyond the subject matter of this thread!Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
In other words, I agree with you!
It's not random, if you go back and read the defenders of religion, they defend all religion as a whole. This is done by intoning that religious people are some how more moral and ethical than non-religious people. I have not noticed that secularist or atheists, saying that all secularists or atheists are better.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
In fact secularists and atheists are grouped together not by their beliefs but by what they don't believe. Where religious followers are grouped together by a common belief, that belief is in a common supernatural creator and a religious dogma that has answers to all life's question.
Are you sure?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutch
Isn't that the whole point of the film? A smug sense of intellectual superiority to the irrational beliefs of religious adherents?:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutch
Have you seen it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
I would say it's a exploration of religion and the blind following of a man made dogma.
If you want to term it as a smug sense of intelligent superiority so be, as apposed to the fear induced religious following that condemns fellow mammals that happen to believe in a different form of worship or non belief into an eternity to torment and torture. You tell me which group professes superiority.
Has anyone else seen this?
Bill does come off as a little self righteous, but he's a comedian and his tone of voice hasn't changed in years, this movie is no different from his stand-up shows.
The main things that I got from the movie are:
1) Every person who considers himmself religious knows what his holy book "really" means, despite what generations of theologians, church officials, and other citizen's have interpreted the books to mean.
2) There is never an account in a holy book that actually calls for violence, those parts are metaphorical, despite what the words say.
3) Amazingly (or not), a person's interpretation of religion is an extension of what they would do if they were God.
4) Our country is far too willing to let religious individuals exercise their religious beliefs within a political office.
And his conclusion, as I understood it, isn't nearly as inflamatory as it has been made out to be, read between the lines about what we need to do and I think everyone can find common ground.