Forums | MacLife

Organized religion is just another tool. Just as a hammer can be used to build houses or bash in someone's head, religion can be constructive or destructive. There should be no question in anyone's mind that both great good and great evil often has had organized religion as the prime motivator, even simultaneously in some situations.

On the other hand: I'm pretty sure that banishment of religion--organized or otherwise--would NOT necessarily help in Sir Elton's causes. I think that even without religion homosexuals would have still had a difficult time because of the inherent suspicion that humans seem to have toward those who are different from the conventional. There are still people alive today in the Western world who suffered through being born left-handed which is about as trifling and as benign a difference as ever existed. The inherent "ick" feeling that many heterosexuals have towards homosexuals would have been more than enough to mark the latter as different and therefore suspect. There is the entire mythology surrounding gays in particular ("They want to convert our boys!") which doesn't strike me as based on any particular religious text.

Steyr AUG wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

resedit wrote:

btw - I find it very scary that people who claim to love freedom of thought want to ban religion.
That tells me you don't give a rats ass about freedom, you want to impose YOUR thoughts upon others, and are lying through the skin of your teeth when you talk about freedom of thought.

I think it's more along the lines of not tolerating intolerance.  Kind of like how we don't like tolerating Arabs forcing women to wear burqas.

No its more along the lines of mass generalizing about religions and the people who are part of them, which is the exact opposite of open mindedness.

Well, I wasn't particularly endorsing Sir Elton's views as being my own.  My own parents are MAJORLY church going folk and are extremely loving and tolerant of my sodomizing bacchanalia filled "lifestyle choice."  However, as far as the rank and file homosexual goes it's quite easy to make a statement like Elton did.  There are many vocal sects in religion that are breathlessly obsessed with homosexuals far and above the very few ambiguous passages in the Bible that would warrant such utter mania.

and now you're generalizing about lines of argument. It never stops.

Richard Dawkins makes a similar, but more coherent argument.

It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say, “Enough!” Let our tribute to the September dead be a new resolve: to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe.

Last edited by jerwin (2006-11-13 8:44 pm)

jerwin wrote:

and now you're generalizing about lines of argument. It never stops.

Richard Dawkins makes a similar, but more coherent argument.

It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say, “Enough!” Let our tribute to the September dead be a new resolve: to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe.

So you are either one or the other - a person of intellect or a person of faith?
Is that what Dawkins is saying?

resedit wrote:

Any less dishonest debate than statements like "You can't ban ignorance" (actual quote in this thread) equating religion with ignorance?

That's not much of a defense of your own post.

resedit wrote:

oatmeal wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

Is anyone here, as opposed to Elton, arguing such?  Most are weighing the pros and cons, but I don't see anyone saying that elton is spot on.

That appears to be the "Help, Help! I'm being oppressed!" ploy.  No one here - except Elton John, who is arguably not here - is actually suggesting that we ban religion.  In fact, many have come out against the idea with open hostility to it.

But nonetheless, the fact that someone somewhere mentioned it means that we all want to "impose our thoughts on others" and "are lying through the skin of our teeth" when we talk about "freedom of thought."

Honest debate?

Any less dishonest debate than statements like "You can't ban ignorance" (actual quote in this thread) equating religion with ignorance?

Yes.  Your tactic, defending religion by flailing out at any target within arm's reach (and despite the fact that everyone in here agrees that banning religion would be stupid at best and an atrocity at worst), perpetuates the equation between ignorance and religion.  Your irrational response is actually working against your cause.

If it helps to step outside a little, it's EXACTLY the same way that XYZ operated. 

You could sneeze a sneeze that sounded a little like "gay" and he was on you like white on rice shrieking "homophobe!"  Now someone posted a thread about a stupid idea by a guy who sings for a living, and you're in here shrieking "religion haters!"

Come on.  You don't want to be that guy.  We don't need that guy around here.

resedit wrote:

oatmeal wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

Is anyone here, as opposed to Elton, arguing such?  Most are weighing the pros and cons, but I don't see anyone saying that elton is spot on.

That appears to be the "Help, Help! I'm being oppressed!" ploy.  No one here - except Elton John, who is arguably not here - is actually suggesting that we ban religion.  In fact, many have come out against the idea with open hostility to it.

But nonetheless, the fact that someone somewhere mentioned it means that we all want to "impose our thoughts on others" and "are lying through the skin of our teeth" when we talk about "freedom of thought."

Honest debate?

Any less dishonest debate than statements like "You can't ban ignorance" (actual quote in this thread) equating religion with ignorance?

It's my honest opinion that religion is ignorant. How could that be dishonest debate?

The dishonesty that oatmeal was referring to was your talking of fictitious statements that no one in this thread made.

resedit wrote:

jerwin wrote:

and now you're generalizing about lines of argument. It never stops.

Richard Dawkins makes a similar, but more coherent argument.

It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say, “Enough!” Let our tribute to the September dead be a new resolve: to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe.

So you are either one or the other - a person of intellect or a person of faith?
Is that what Dawkins is saying?

Pretty much.

Faith is about emotion, not intellectual curiosity.

user wrote:

resedit wrote:

jerwin wrote:

and now you're generalizing about lines of argument. It never stops.

Richard Dawkins makes a similar, but more coherent argument.

So you are either one or the other - a person of intellect or a person of faith?
Is that what Dawkins is saying?

Pretty much.

Faith is about emotion, not intellectual curiosity.

That then is a naive ignorant position, as there are many religious people with an intellect far greater than anyone here has, and there are also idiots who are athiest.

Hank Rearden wrote:

oatmeal wrote:

Elton John, who is arguably not here

Don't try to throw us off your  trail, "oatmeal".  We all had our suspicions about your true identity! 

You found me out.  ... But I don't care what you've heard about me, do your best to keep your candle in the wind and away from my circle of life, k?

oatmeal wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

oatmeal wrote:

Elton John, who is arguably not here

Don't try to throw us off your  trail, "oatmeal".  We all had our suspicions about your true identity! 

You found me out.  ... But I don't care what you've heard about me, do your best to keep your candle in the wind and away from my circle of life, k?

Most certainly, Sir!

ShnickyShnack wrote:

!!!ANARCHY NOW!!!

Look, I already told you that you're on the torch committee.  We can't go ahead with this without pitchforks AND torches.

resedit wrote:

user wrote:

resedit wrote:

So you are either one or the other - a person of intellect or a person of faith?
Is that what Dawkins is saying?

Pretty much.

Faith is about emotion, not intellectual curiosity.

That then is a naive ignorant position, as there are many religious people with an intellect far greater than anyone here has, and there are also idiots who are athiest.

It is my opinion that religious people supress their intellect in regards to religion. If they did not, they would not be religious.

I have yet to encounter an "idiot athiest".

Note that I am not saying that religious people are stupid or mentally deficient. I know that is not true and it's one of the most troubling aspects of religious belief.

Last edited by user (2006-11-13 9:15 pm)