Counterattack? Josh, I don't believe anyone had posted anything in Religion's behalf until I did. Before that, it was a huge religion-shit-on party, with people saying things like "Religious Faith should be considered a mental disease", amoung other things. Who was on the offensive here?
Let’s keep things in perspective. The reply you made prompted my response, to which GreenGannon took offense. He was foolish enough to do so in written form, and things proceeded from there.
When I say
counterattack, let me explain what I mean, so that there can be no mistake. But first allow me a short prologue: If you can believe it, religion is a minor province in the kingdom of my life. I don’t practice a religion, nor do most of my friends. Artistically, religion is a curiosity and source for inspiration. Philosophically, it gives me much to consider. Politically, it is the source of much debate, suffering, and strife. But it isn’t a big part of what I do, or who I am. Most of the time, therefore, not only am I not “attacking” religion, I am not even
thinking about religion.
Knowing that, you might look at my topics of discussion here on the Compendium and wonder, then, why I am so aggressive toward religion. My answer has been that I am
counterattacking religion in response to some wrong that it has already committed—and answer which you either do not understand or refuse to accept…maybe a little of both.
Remember what started this thread: Legend posted links to a short documentary by Professor Richard Dawkins about religious faith as the major source of conflict and manmade suffering in this world. I assume you didn’t watch it and don’t plan to, so you will have to take my word for it that the content of his documentary is not some unprovoked hit job. It has all the tone and language of somebody who feels besieged. It is a
counterattack—in other words, a defensive action. I and others in this thread proceeded to expand upon the documentary with our own personal insights.
It is important that you recognize the difference between “counterattack” and “unprovoked attack.” We are not simply being malicious for the heck of it. I for one am a peaceful person; I resent destruction and resist needless confrontation. People like me want to go about our lives, working for our own self-enrichment as well as the betterment of the world that has given so much to us. Religion, were it not so aggressive, would provoke no response from me whatsoever. But it
is that aggressive, and I do not have the luxury of ignoring it—nobody does—which is what all of this is about.
A man and his church are not what you believe them to be. For over a decade the Religious Right in America has seized control of all three branches of government, framed the way news is reported in the media, attacked the scientific establishment, attacked civil liberties, attacked women and minorities, attacked the separation of church and state, and attacked the First Amendment’s implicit guarantee of freedom
from religion. It begins with leaders like James Dobson, but it ends with ordinary people in ordinary churches committing
extraordinary wrongs.
There’s an old cliché that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That’s not quite true. Power doesn’t corrupt…it
emphasizes what we already are. In a way, you might say that power frees us to be our true selves. Well, fundamentalist Christianity has achieved a great deal of
power in the United States, and we have therefore glimpsed its true nature: Your religion, Sentenal, is one part bully, one part tyrant, and one part murderer. Your religion wants to intimidate us, control our lives, and destroy any who oppose it. This is broadly known as
Christian Dominionism, and you can read up on it at your leisure. But you won’t, so here are the three central concepts of Christian Dominionism:
Dominionists celebrate Christian Nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
Dominionists promote Religious Supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
Dominionists endorse Theocratic Visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.
You may go on record, Sentenal, and tell us how you feel about these three concepts. But your past writings here on the Compendium have already revealed that you do indeed support Christian Dominionism, in spirit if not by name.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, such a philosophy is both aggressive and invasive. Christians in America have brought war upon their own country, not by firing guns but by refusing to teach science in the classroom, refusing women the right to control their own bodies and lifestyles, refusing gays the right to marry or adopt, refusing blacks and other minorities the opportunity to stand as equals…and on and on. I don’t need to list the news stories of the past decade. We both know where this country has been. And I believe with much trepidation that, if it had the
power to do so, fundamentalist Christianity would indeed revive the medieval practices of torture and murder.
Nor is it just your violent, backward little fundamentalist resurgence here in the Earth’s most powerful nation. Islam has made its mark all over the world, and doesn’t need to worry about reverting back to the Dark Ages because it is
already there. I don’t need to tell you, Sentenal, what the problems are with Islam, because you hate that religion already, and I would just be preaching to the choir. My point in bringing it up, then, is simply to note that the entire planet is under attack either by this religion, that one, or the other. As science and materialism preclude all that is supernatural from manifesting itself in our lives, religion is forced to retreat further and further, speaking in metaphors and allegory. Some of the faithful refuse to accept that; they see their scripture as the
literal truth. In their zeal, they bring war to us all.
When I say
counterattack, I am not talking about one little thread on an insignificant message board in some obscure corner of the Internet. Your earlier post, and GreenGannon’s anger at my reply to it, gave me the opportunity to carry on with a counterattack that never truly ends.
As bullies, you fundamentalists can’t take it when your victims strike back at you. As tyrants, our rebellion makes you feel insecure and vulnerable. As murderers, you simply hate us for the fact that we and our way of life continue to exist at all.
I’m sorry, Sentenal. When you swear by that Good Book of yours, you are putting on the uniform of my world’s enemy. You, and GreenGannon, for all your sweetness of character and weakness of intellect, are legitimate targets. In another world I would leave you alone, but in this world I cannot afford to do that. The day your people stop preaching outside the church, is the day I go back to talking about the weather. Until then, the
counterattack will continue.
My Turn:
Is personal growth becoming atheist? Please just give it a rest. Atheism is pretty pathetic when you think about it? What prevents you from doing whatever you want? There is no divine judgement. No great powerful force to eternally damn you. Nothing besides your own personal morals. And really there is nothing absolute about it.
These are the words of a committed believer. These are the worlds of a man who has been blinded by faith. Consider your logic, which states that, because your religion is true, atheism is pathetic. Well, I would agree!...
if your religion were true. It is not. And that’s really the crux of it. You whole argument is pointless, because you assume at the beginning that there is a divine truth out there, in which case rejecting that truth is ridiculous—and yet the existence of that truth is all but a proven falsehood.
I want you to do a logic puzzle: For the moment, suppose that every religion is false and that no god exists. Now, reconsider your own question: What prevents you from doing whatever you want?
Human will ChronoMagus, is the answer to that. Our brains guide our behavior. And if there is no divine god to overrule us, our brains have the final say in what is worth doing, and what ought not to be done. Indeed, it would be rather silly to try and interpret the will of a god who does not exist.
And yet that is what happens here in the real world every day.
I don’t need the threat of eternal damnation in some lake of fire to convince me not to run a red light. Nor do I require the promise of an everlasting paradise to bribe me into doing good. All I need is a strong sense of self…an
identity, if you will. I have one of those. Likewise, I don’t need your god to think for me. I think for myself. I have my own will. I know what I want, and where I am going.
The same is true of all people. We all choose our own actions. We all have our own principles, our own convictions. Your god does not exist, and yet somehow this world has not descended into anarchy. And why not? Well, that’s the problem with assuming things that have not been proven. That’s the problem with
faith.
Divine law is absolute.
There can be no
justice so long as laws are absolute. That’s a quote by Jean-Luc Picard, with whom I believe you are well acquainted. His point was that laws are not their own end, and therefore should not be treated as infallible. That doesn’t change when you put the word “Divine” in front.
Furthermore, there is more than a little danger involved when people start creating deities and then declaring the made-up laws of those deities to be absolute. If you aren’t God yourself, I don’t trust you to speak for God. Nor do I trust your holy book, sacred crystal, or enchanted bong to speak for God. Only
God can speak for God—it must be a personal relationship with no intermediary. But this “God” doesn’t exist. I’m not an atheist; I couldn’t tell you that there is
no God, with the capital G, but I was persuaded long ago that the specific gods of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and other religions…do not exist. I am atheist with respect to them—which is a point Professor Dawkins raised in his documentary when he said we are all “teapot atheists.”
You honestly believe every Muslim agrees with 9/11. The majority of the intelligent ones do not. The majority in general does not.
No, I do not “honestly believe” that every Muslim supports terrorism. What I believe is that
Islam itself supports terrorism. So does any religion with some power on its side. Hell, that’s not even limited to religion: Terrorism, when it is not being used as a means of tyrannical control, is often the last resort of oppressed people who are weak and desperate. I could probably dream up a scenario under which I myself would blow up a building, and I’m not religious at all.
What is different is that, while people’s individual faith varies, organized religion provides a certain absoluteness of law that has the effect of justifying terrorism without the benefit of a distinct secular goal. And when
faith becomes a justification to commit acts of terror, terrorism loses whatever shred of legitimacy it may have. Religion is, among other things, an excuse to commit needless violence.
Look at the Islamic world. Look no further…
quot erat demonstrandum.But idiot oppurtunists managed to manipulate innocent people and turn them into these horrible warriors. Jihad doesn't even have to refer to holy war. Thats a piece of shit western misinterpertation used to demonize the Islamic religion. It means "struggle." Nothing more than "struggle."
Now you are being an apologist. Everyone’s faith is distinct, even among people who share in a common organized religion. Islam can be interpreted many different ways, and militant Muslims are no more and no less legitimate than pacifist Muslims. You speak of “idiot opportunists” manipulating “innocent people,” but really you’re just selectively applying your values. Burning Zeppelin and I had this discussion at some point: He contended that Islam is an inherently peaceful religion. I responded by quoting dozens of instances in the Koran that can intuitively be interpreted as an incitement to violence, cruelty, war, and militancy. Had I the time, I could have quoted hundreds, maybe even thousands.
Every religion claims the mantle of peace for itself, but, like any corrupt leader, the claim is a hollow one. Religion justifies the whims of the believer, and, because faith creates the delusion of an irrefutable truth, nobody who is religious can question the faith of anybody else without being a hypocrite. Yet that is exactly what religious people do, just as you have done here. It is that simple. Your apologetics are null and void.
And just because I have a religion does not mean I do not accept science. Science is fact. It is absolute.
Ah, science. It was inevitable that somebody would bring it up. Let’s talk about science, then.
Science is a process of discovery. The scientific method is the crucible by which discoveries are made, but what science establishes is the consistency of the empirical. The word “absolute” does not enter into the equation. The very concept of absoluteness is a human contrivance. The universe is what it is; it is “absolute” only inasmuch as it is
the universe, and thus there is nothing we know of to outrank it. Now, there is a sort of truth to be had from this: We rely upon the consistency of the dynamics of our universe in order to develop systems of mathematics, and mathematical statements
can be absolute, but only insomuch as these statements are either true
a priori, or true based upon what is empirically consistent.
I myself am guilty of using the “absolute” label from time to time when I talk about physical knowledge and the laws of physics. But mostly that is a convenience; and, if you pressed me, I would always admit that nobody owns a monopoly on the truth. So I correct you in your faulty declaration that science is absolute. Having done so, now permit me to address your claim that, just because you have a religion, you do not necessarily not accept science.
Your acceptance of science isn’t really the point here. I see what you are trying to do. When “science” comes up in a religious discussion, the fallacious dichotomy between the two is almost always a red herring—that is, a distraction from the unsavory fact that science is beyond religious reproach, and yet has caused religion to suffer great losses. You use your acceptance of science and its supposed absoluteness as though these things legitimize your
religious beliefs and
their supposed absoluteness, but I’ve already explained how science is not absolute in the way you describe it, and I hope to point out presently why science is not the appropriate counterpart of religion, nor does your support of “absolute” science validate the implicit absoluteness of any religion.
Empirical consistency may not be a monopoly, but in practice it can be the next best thing, and that is why religion is so hateful toward science. These two institutions are not counterparts; religion picks science as its foe, but, really, the opposite of religion is non-religion. Science is an unfortunate victim of religious aggression because scientific discovery has contradicted centuries of religious tradition.
For instance, women are now known to be human beings, and they are therefore logically entitled to the same rights as men. That goes against the holy teachings in pretty much every large religion, and has caused continuous trouble. Did you know that in some parts of the United States it is still considered inappropriate for women to wear pants instead of skirts? It is the same line of thinking that, in a more grotesque form, has given rise to the ridiculous coverings worn by Muslim women. In each case the idea is to deprive women of their sexual independence, because the Abrahamic religions define women by their sexuality, and therefore sex is seen as their only reason to exist. (Indeed, were it not for sex, women would probably have been slaughtered to extinction a long time ago.) And yet science has found no physical reason to support this sort of sexual oppression of women, and therefore women in the United States are now free to dress as they wish, with the covering of the breasts being the only remaining sexist taboo with regard to clothing. Religious people point to women who wear pants as a sign of moral decay, and blame the secular values of a materialist world for allowing this to happen. Science, as the enabler of materialism, is an easy target of their anger, but it is not a true counterpart to religion. Science just happens to get in religion’s way in modern times.
Consider it this way: Science is a planet whose resources nurture an enlightened empire of non-religiousness. Religion is the unconquered continent peopled by superstitious savages. In this metaphor, religion’s enemy is not the planet itself, but the empire. Thus, you can be religious and yet still accept science as surely as you can be a barbarian outside the empire and still accept the planet beneath your feet and its natural power over you. The difficulty lies in accepting that the planet supports the empire’s way of life over your own, as surely as science supports a nonreligious way of life rather than a religious one. How long are you willing to go on being the proverbial barbarian? The empire is always expanding, and very few savages who become a part of it ever want to go back. You can accept science and still be religious, but science will forever erode your justification for being religious.
In all of this, there is nothing to support the logic that accepting science legitimizes religion in any way. Indeed, religion is doomed to forever be discredited by, yet never able to neutralize, the empirical power of science.
Thus, there really is no point in bringing science into the discussion.
Being a lamb is [a degradation of personal growth], but most people are lambs with or without religion.
Ah, now finally you’ve said something I can agree with. Maybe you can begin to understand why I do what I do.
Religion is not the root of all evil, nor is Satan or Shaitan. Man is. Man concieved evil. Man accepted evil to grow in his heart, and man failed to purge it properly. Religion was an oppurtunity to purge out this corruptness. How is that evil? How is seeking redemption and good sinful? How is it a mental disabilty? Religion only gives redemption to those who grow the most from their mistakes.
Evil is ignorance, and willful ignorance. Faith, as a form of willful ignorance, is an evil thing. Religious faith is the strongest flavor of faith, and therefore an exceptionally potent evil. Humanity did not create ignorance, but we have found many ways of perpetuating it in ourselves. Among other things, we created religion. Religion is but one of our more successful attempts at remaining willfully ignorant.
Ignorance is the proverbial Garden of Eden, a place of bliss, a prison so comfortable that we would never choose to leave it—yet still a prison. Eating the forbidden fruit was the beginning of humanity’s evolution. You speak of redemption, but there is nothing about humanity that we need to redeem. It is enough to follow the path to Illumination.
That entire reply is totally flawed-If you're Muslim, then you'll suffer in the next world, but then so will he, because God is absolute, no? Saying that Atheists won't suffer in the afterlife is in a way agreeing with them-Religion exists only in the mind of beliveres. Now, why does there HAVE to be a divine justice or eternal damnation or bliss? Who are you to claim you know such divine truths just by having read a book? You can't just say 'This'll be like this, that'll be like that. God said so in this here book.', presenting the book as sole evidence. It's just as Josh said-People made religions to answer questions and remove doubt that maybe, just maybe, something good IS looking forward to them after all this suffering. And all they gotta do is believe! How cool is that?!
The video (and Josh, and yours truly) never meant that ALL Muslims are terroritsts and they all agree with 9\11. We don't say 'Oh, he's a Muslim, he's a terrorist'. We're saying 'Hey, look at that, Islam can drive people to terrorism.' After all, I have respect for BZ, and he has respect for me. We come from opposing religions, have opposed view on some matters, but we're still buddies. We've never come to say that religous people bring war, but mearly that RELIGION CAUSES WAR. War could happan without religion, but will be rare-Why does Iran hate their enemies so, that they develop nuclear weapons? Because they have religous rivalry with the west and Israel, because of disagreements which were, at core, caused by religion.
As for you, Legend, I want to commend you. In the short term, people’s minds are hard to change…but give it time and water, and those minds can outgrow their old constraints and achieve new heights. It is a distinct pleasure to see someone’s mind open up before my very eyes.
Furthermore, it is a rare treat for a post by somebody else to say what I myself might have said, before I said it.
