I see a lot of religious types claiming that Atheists are set out to make them look bad, but from what I can see religion does a pretty good job of doing that all on it's own. Many of its practitioners seem compelled to participate in strange activities..
..all in the name of their God. It's plainly evident that there are great sacrifices to be made in order to become religious. Many that travel well into the realm of mental stability. So, I guess the real question that I would like to ask is..
Is it worth it?
Oh I think so! I admire those people who are good at sacrificing their sanity for joy. It's something I aspire to.
ReplyDeleteHmm.. not too sure about that one. At some point you've got to draw the line.
ReplyDeletewhat's the line? and why do you put it where you do?
ReplyDeleteIf it infringes on the belief of others and does more damage than good then that's crossing the line. You put it there because it is the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteWho decides what "the right thing to do" is?
ReplyDeleteAssuming I accept your premise of "rightness", (excluding the examples of doing personal harm to others (killing, torturing, pedophilia), because atheists are equally guilty of those offences so I wouldn't argue those in relation to religion) how do your examples above (a) infringe on the belief of others, and (b) do more damage than good?
Well, it seems to me that (a) religion is set out to pigeonhole the bulk of society into their way of thinking through bigotry, discrimination, etc.. Examples being beaten and jailed for Atheism, Church discounts, etc. Clearly that isn't right and is an infringement on those that choose to be free of religion. When such acts create discord and disturb the overall harmony of a society then you can't help but wonder if (b) religion does more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteAh, I see... yes, indeed, if you are comparing religion to perfection you will certainly be disappointed and find it does harm. It is, after all, a human institution. But, then, it begs the question as to whether we can exist without any institutions. To me, then, this is a conversation completely different from a discussion of beliefs/faith.
ReplyDeleteTrue indeed. Nobody's perfect.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that I can share your enthusiasm
ReplyDeletethat these acts are sane and rational activities. To make a practice out of devouring your own
deity (symbolically or otherwise) is a -very- loose parallel to eating a Turkey
dinner. But, I guess you’re right about
one thing. Everyone is entitled to
freedom of speech. Even if it is in an incoherent language unbeknownst to the world.
Hi Nowhere Man,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply - it is helpful to understand a variety of views on these perspectives! :)
Below are some of my ideas, in case of interest, about these issues... :) I suppose a lot of this depends on one's cultural background, and the way that certain things seem (i.e. 'weird' or 'normal') depends on how the culture perceives these things. Western culture would probably view some ideas of other cultures as 'weird' that the cultures themselves would view as perfectly normal - for example, some Middle Eastern countries view showing the bottom of the foot to someone as extremely disrespectful. In this example, neither the Western or the Middle Eastern view is more 'rational' or 'sane' or 'correct' - they are just different views. Indeed, certain features of other cultures (and Western culture) can legitimately be viewed as being immoral (such as any form of
unfairness or discrimination), but this is not the case for all features; many features (such as the foot example) are morally neutral. There is, in my view, not a hypothetical
'perfect culture', as many aspects of cultures are morally neutral, giving space for choice and diversity. I, personally, for example, probably view some things as weird that many cultures view as a normal part of life, as do we all. As long as a particular practice has good intentions and is supposed to convey a loving, inclusive, gracious message, then, even if it may seem odd to some, there is nothing irrational or insane or wrong with it.
I would say that, to some extent, this is the case with certain symbols used in Christianity. To some, they may seem odd, but this does nothing to invalidate Christianity itself - in fact, it has no bearing on its truth; it is merely an expression of culture. Both Communion and the idea of 'spiritual gifts' in Christianity, if understood properly from the Christian's point of view, have good intentions; they both have virtuous objectives, with the former, for example, emphasising unity and harmony amongst diverse peoples (as seen in the very word 'Communion' itself), aiming to break down barriers which cause discrimination, celebrating God's love and emphasising sacrificial love (the giving of oneself for others), and advocating generosity. Neither of them are in any way immoral, if properly understood in the context of the positive ideas that they are viewed by Christians to symbolise. They may seem weird to some (and this is only to be expected), but there is nothing objectively wrong or irrational about them, just as the Middle Eastern convention about showing the bottom of the foot is in no way inferior to Western views. Instead, the counter-cultural nature of certain ideas such as these could be viewed as promoting richness and diversity rather than simply conformation.
Thanks again for the reply - I really appreciate your replies to everyone's comments - this is a wonderful thing to do! :)
All kind wishes, Elliot :)
I actually welcome the input. It helps me to learn more on a subject that I know absolutely nothing about so thanks for volunteering the information.
ReplyDeleteYou're very welcome! :)
ReplyDelete