General/Off-topic |
|
|
|
|
|
The virus of religious moderation
|
| 1. |
29 Dec 2008 Mon 06:24 pm |
|
The virus of religious moderation
PERHAPS it should come as no surprise that a mere wall of water, sweeping innocent multitudes from the beaches of 12 countries on Boxing Day, failed to raise global doubts about God’s existence. Still, one wonders just how vast and gratuitous a catastrophe would have to be to shake the world’s faith. The Holocaust did not do it.
God’s ways are, indeed, inscrutable. It seems that any fact, no matter how infelicitous, can be rendered compatible with religious faith. In matters of faith, we have kicked ourselves loose of the earth. Given the degree to which religion still inspires human conflict, this is not the good news that many of us imagine it to be.
One of the greatest challenges facing civilisation in the 21st century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest concerns — about ethics, spiritual experience, and human suffering — in ways that are not flagrantly irrational. Incompatible religious doctrines have Balkanised our world and these divisions have become a continuous source of bloodshed.
Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it was at any time in the past. The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews v Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians v Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians v Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants v Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims v Hindus), Sudan (Muslims v Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims v Christians)and Iran and Iraq (Shia v Sunni) are merely a few cases in point. These are places where religion has been the explicit cause of millions of deaths in the past decade.
It is in the face of such pointless horrors that many people of goodwill now counsel “moderation” in religion. The problem with religious moderation is that it offers us no bulwark against the spread of religious extremism and religious violence. Moderates do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word “God” as though we knew what we were talking about. And they don’t want anything too critical to be said about people who really believe in the God of their forefathers because tolerance, above all else, is sacred. To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world — to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish — is antithetical to tolerance as moderates conceive it.
In so far as religious moderates attempt to hold on to what is still serviceable in orthodox religion, they close the door to more sophisticated approaches to human happiness. Rather than bring the full force of 21st-century creativity and rationality to bear, moderates ask that we merely relax our standards of adherence to ancient superstitions and taboos.
But by failing to live by the letter of the texts — while tolerating the irrationality of those who do — religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. As moderates, we cannot say that religious fundamentalists are dangerous idiots, because they are merely practising their freedom of belief. We can’t even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivalled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. It is time we recognised that religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance.
Religious moderates imagine that theirs is the path to peace. But this very ideal of tolerance now drives us toward the abyss. Religious violence still plagues our world because our religions are intrinsically hostile to one another. Where they appear otherwise, it is because secular knowledge and secular interests have restrained the most lethal improprieties of faith. If religious war is ever to become unthinkable for us, in the way that slavery and cannibalism seem poised to, it will be a matter of our having dispensed with the dogma of faith.
Moderation in religion has made it taboo even to acknowledge the differences among our religious traditions: to notice, for instance, that Islam is especially hostile to the principles of civil society. There are still places in the Muslim world where people are put to death for imaginary crimes — such as blasphemy — and where the totality of a child’s education consists of his learning to recite from an ancient book of religious fiction. Throughout the Muslim world, women are denied almost every human liberty, except the liberty to breed.
And yet, these same societies are acquiring arsenals of advanced weaponry. In the face of these perils, religious moderates — Christians, Muslims and Jews — remain entranced by their own moderation. They are least able to fathom that when jihadists stare into a video camera and claim to “love death more than the infidels love life”, they are being candid about their state of mind.
But technology has a way of creating fresh moral imperatives. We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom, or in the literal truth of the book of Revelation — because our neighbors are now armed with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that these developments mark the terminal phase of our credulity. Words like “God” and “Allah” must go the way of “Apollo” and “Baal” or they will unmake our world.
Sam Harris is author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article431642.ece
Maybe it´s time to stop pretending it is not a problem.
|
|
| 2. |
29 Dec 2008 Mon 06:55 pm |
|
Basically religious moderates are a diplomatic face for radicals..
|
|
| 3. |
29 Dec 2008 Mon 08:14 pm |
|
Basically religious moderates are a diplomatic face for radicals..
So...do you think Karen Armstrong is radical? The link it to a speech she gave. You can listen and watch her speak. She has a lot to say and is well worth listening to.
Below is an exerpt of a Bill Moyers interview with Karen Armstrong
MOYERS: What appealed to you about Islam? Because in the context of 9/11 ... there´s so much talk about Islam as a violent religion. We saw those suicide bombers, heard those suicide bombers invoking the name of Allah, saying they were doing this in the name of ... of God, and the name of their own faith. So you´re saying, there are good things about this religion, that helped you rediscover your own spiritual journey.
ARMSTRONG: Ironically, the first thing that appealed to me about Islam was its pluralism. The fact that the Koran praises all the great prophets of the past. That Mohammed didn´t believe he had come to found a new religion to which everybody had to convert, but he was just the prophet sent to the Arabs, who hadn´t had a prophet before, and left out of the divine plan. There´s a story where Mohammed makes a sacred flight from Mecca to Jerusalem, to the Temple Mount. And there he is greeted by all the great prophets of the past. And he ascends to the divine throne, speaking to the prophets like Jesus and Aaron, Moses, he takes advice from Moses, and finally encounters Abraham at the threshold of the divine sphere. This story of the flight of Mohammed and the ascent to the divine throne is the paradigm, the archetype of Muslim spirituality.
The whole transcript can be found here.
|
|
| 4. |
29 Dec 2008 Mon 08:28 pm |
|
I didn´t have anybody specific in mind.. I just said what is the main argument against religious moderates. It´s that they give the nice face to religions and shield the radicals, who simply take the religious scriptures more seriously.
|
|
| 5. |
29 Dec 2008 Mon 10:54 pm |
|
I didn´t have anybody specific in mind.. I just said what is the main argument against religious moderates. It´s that they give the nice face to religions and shield the radicals, who simply take the religious scriptures more seriously.
You know catwoman, you replied so quickly, I know you didn´t have time to read or watch the video. There is a lot of wisdom in what she has to say. I suggest you take the time to actually think about what she says, rather than come back with a response.
Ms Armstrong does none of what you claim. My point here was not to get into a cute clever conversation, but to try to bridge some understanding.
|
|
| 6. |
29 Dec 2008 Mon 11:10 pm |
|
You know catwoman, you replied so quickly, I know you didn´t have time to read or watch the video. There is a lot of wisdom in what she has to say. I suggest you take the time to actually think about what she says, rather than come back with a response.
Ms Armstrong does none of what you claim. My point here was not to get into a cute clever conversation, but to try to bridge some understanding.
Well kitty, you have been served! How DARE you not take the time to actually open one of alameda´s gazillion links and take it seriously!!!!! 
|
|
| 7. |
29 Dec 2008 Mon 11:18 pm |
|
It´s very nice that people want to bild bridges of understanding, but until holy books are re-written and religious dogmas updated to the modern ethical standards and scientific knowledge, no such bridge is possible. As long as there´s one person in the equation thinking that the other person is "wrong" in their beliefs and will go to "hell" , there´s not understanding possible, only, at most, "tolerance", and all too often intolerance, hatered and violence.
Here´s some more reading from Sam Harris - he´s far more eloquent than I am on this topic.
"People of faith fall on a continuum: some draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition, and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity, while others would burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy. There are, in other words, religious moderates and religious extremists, and their various passions and projects should not be confused. However, religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.
We have been slow to recognize the degree to which religious faith perpetuates man´s inhumanity to man. This is not surprising, since many of us still believe that faith is an essential component of human life. Two myths now keep faith beyond the fray of rational criticism, and they seem to foster religious extremism and religious moderation equally: (i) most of us believe that there are good things that people get from religious faith (e.g., strong communities, ethical behavior, spiritual experience) that cannot be had elsewhere; (2) many of us also believe that the terrible things that are sometimes done in the name of religion are the products not of faith per se but of our baser natures-forces like greed, hatred, and fear-for which religious beliefs are themselves the best (or even the only) remedy. Taken together, these myths seem to have granted us perfect immunity to outbreaks of reasonableness in our public discourse.
Many religious moderates have taken the apparent high road of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of all faiths, but in doing so they neglect to notice the irredeemably sectarian truth claims of each. As long as a Christian believes that only his baptized brethren will be saved on the Day of judgment, he cannot possibly "respect" the beliefs of others, for he knows that the flames of hell have been stoked by these very ideas and await their adherents even now. Muslims and Jews generally take the same arrogant view of their own enterprises and have spent millennia passionately reiterating the errors of other faiths. It should go without saying that these rival belief systems are all equally uncontaminated by evidence."
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/The-Problem-With-Religious-Moderates.aspx?p=1
|
|
| 8. |
29 Dec 2008 Mon 11:51 pm |
|
You know catwoman, you replied so quickly, I know you didn´t have time to read or watch the video. There is a lot of wisdom in what she has to say. I suggest you take the time to actually think about what she says, rather than come back with a response.
Ms Armstrong does none of what you claim. My point here was not to get into a cute clever conversation, but to try to bridge some understanding.
Alameda, you are insisting that I get into a conversation with you about this person that I´m not interested in at all. I simply explained to you what my earlier post was all about, because I had an impression that I was misunderstood there.
|
|
| 9. |
29 Dec 2008 Mon 11:55 pm |
|
Many religious moderates have taken the apparent high road of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of all faiths, but in doing so they neglect to notice the irredeemably sectarian truth claims of each. As long as a Christian believes that only his baptized brethren will be saved on the Day of judgment, he cannot possibly "respect" the beliefs of others, for he knows that the flames of hell have been stoked by these very ideas and await their adherents even now. Muslims and Jews generally take the same arrogant view of their own enterprises and have spent millennia passionately reiterating the errors of other faiths. It should go without saying that these rival belief systems are all equally uncontaminated by evidence."
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/The-Problem-With-Religious-Moderates.aspx?p=1
High goals, but politically impossible, until, as Dawkins says, religion loses it´s unearned, undeserved utmost respect and we can actually discuss religions as belief systems, not any different then other ideologies.
Alameda, I suggest you research Richard Dawkins, he has a lot of wisdom that everybody should take the time to think about. 
|
|
| 10. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 12:03 am |
|
Alameda, you are insisting that I get into a conversation with you about this person that I´m not interested in at all. I simply explained to you what my earlier post was all about, because I had an impression that I was misunderstood there.
Of course you have the right not to read the article Alameda provided but all she has done is respond to your original post. Surely you didn´t expect no response whatsoever? It seems to me you were stirring the pot and hoping someone would season your mix.
|
|
| 11. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 12:24 am |
|
Alameda, you are insisting that I get into a conversation with you about this person that I´m not interested in at all. I simply explained to you what my earlier post was all about, because I had an impression that I was misunderstood there.
Catwoman, I´m not insisting you do anything....however when you make pronouncements such as:
"Basically religious moderates are a diplomatic face for radicals.."
and
"I didn´t have anybody specific in mind.. I just said what is the main argument against religious moderates. It´s that they give the nice face to religions and shield the radicals, who simply take the religious scriptures more seriously."
What am I/we to do? Should we just accept your opinion, bow down to your great wisdom, brought about by your intensive research on the matter (or is it intuitive?), or are we permitted to engage in dialogue? You have painted a whole lot of people with a very broad brush....and I really don´t think you can include Ms. Armstrong...and others...in that sweep of the brush.
|
|
| 12. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 01:11 am |
|
What am I/we to do? Should we just accept your opinion, bow down to your great wisdom, brought about by your intensive research on the matter (or is it intuitive?), or are we permitted to engage in dialogue? You have painted a whole lot of people with a very broad brush....and I really don´t think you can include Ms. Armstrong...and others...in that sweep of the brush.
You don´t have to bow down to my opinions, but you should indeed respect it. It´s my opinion and I don´t wish to fight about it.. 
|
|
| 13. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 01:34 am |
|
You have painted a whole lot of people with a very broad brush....and I really don´t think you can include Ms. Armstrong...and others...in that sweep of the brush.
why is that? why armstrong cannot be included? is she a somewhat divine?
yes i listened to her. and i think shes rather boring. moreover, shes a complete ignorant on religions. she says she was sent to jerusalem having no idea on the religions of the area. pathetic government bodies send such pathetic things to such areas.
|
|
| 14. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 02:19 am |
|
High goals, but politically impossible, until, as Dawkins says, religion loses it´s unearned, undeserved utmost respect and we can actually discuss religions as belief systems, not any different then other ideologies.
Thank you Catwoman, it´s nice to know there´s at least one person out there who understands. I´m surprised that there´s so many people who do not see the absurdity of it all - the belief systems that religions propagate that are based on myths from times where people thought Earth was flat, the willingness of people to condemn and even kill others based on those beliefs, the absurdity of having to "respect" those beliefs even if they are harmful to the societies and our species as a whole, and the total social ban on criticizing them. I think it´s time to examine those beliefs and ask oneself, why do we believe? Is it because we were told to by our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers? Where´s the evidence for any of the religion´s claims? Are the claims religions make moral? We need to be able to QUESTION and CRITICIZE those beliefs and not play nice when faced with the absurdities and not pretend that we respect other´s beliefs. And the moderates are the guilty here. They pick and choose what to believe, which beliefs are acceptable and which are just to be ignored, and then they propagate the myths that religions are "peaceful". There´s no such thing, at least not among the big 3 (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). People just choose to ignore the uncomfortable parts of the so called holy books and pick and choose whatver fits their needs - at the same time failing to talk against those who take those books literally. At least the radicals are honest in their convictions.
If you like Dawkins, I think you´ll like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyUz2XLp1E&feature=PlayList&p=A490902178E6854D&index=0&playnext=1
Sam Harris is my favorite one, he´s so nice and respectful, and a fantastic debator.
|
|
| 15. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 01:03 pm |
|
I don´t know much about Richard Dawkins but having just googled him I now know that his official website is banned in Turkey!
|
|
| 16. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 03:45 pm |
|
I don´t know much about Richard Dawkins but having just googled him I now know that his official website is banned in Turkey!
Hardly a surprise as he´s a fierce advocate of atheism
|
|
| 17. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 04:02 pm |
|
Hardly a surprise as he´s a fierce advocate of atheism
how come? isnt turkey secular?
|
|
| 18. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 05:51 pm |
|
Hardly a surprise as he´s a fierce advocate of atheism
Turkish court bans Richard Dawkins website
Dawkins (above) described the work of Muslim creationist Adnan Oktar as ´preposterous´
A Turkish court has banned internet users from viewing the official Richard Dawkins website after a Muslim creationist claimed its contents were defamatory and blasphemous.
Adnan Oktar, who writes under the pen name of Harun Yahya, complained that Dawkins, a fierce critic of creationism and intelligent design, had insulted him in comments made on forums and blogs.
According to Oktar´s office, Istanbul´s second criminal court of peace banned the site earlier this month on the grounds that it "violated" Oktar´s personality.
His press assistant, Seda Aral, said: "We are not against freedom of speech or expression but you cannot insult people.
"We found the comments hurtful. It was not a scientific discussion. There was a line and the limit has been passed.
"We have used all the legal means to stop this site. We asked them to remove the comments but they did not."
Oktar, a household name in Turkey, has used hundreds of books, pamphlets and DVDS to contest Darwin´s theory of evolution.
In 2006 his publishers sent out 10,000 copies of the Atlas of Creation, a lavish 800-page rejection of evolution.
Dawkins, one of the recipients, described the book as "preposterous". On his website the British biologist and popular science writer said he was at "a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the ´breathtaking inanity´ of the content."
It is the third time Oktar and his associates have succeeded in blocking sites in Turkey.
In August 2007 Oktar persuaded a court to block access to WordPress.com. His lawyers argued that blogs on WordPress.com contained libelous material that the company was unwilling to remove.
Last April, he made a libel complaint about Google Groups, which was subsequently blocked.
He failed to ban Dawkins´ book the God Delusion in Turkey after a court rejected his claims that it insulted religion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/18/turkey
I guess in Turkey what Oktar thinks is more important than scientific truths.
|
|
| 19. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 06:00 pm |
|
Turkish court bans Richard Dawkins website
Dawkins (above) described the work of Muslim creationist Adnan Oktar as ´preposterous´
A Turkish court has banned internet users from viewing the official Richard Dawkins website after a Muslim creationist claimed its contents were defamatory and blasphemous.
Adnan Oktar, who writes under the pen name of Harun Yahya, complained that Dawkins, a fierce critic of creationism and intelligent design, had insulted him in comments made on forums and blogs.
According to Oktar´s office, Istanbul´s second criminal court of peace banned the site earlier this month on the grounds that it "violated" Oktar´s personality.
His press assistant, Seda Aral, said: "We are not against freedom of speech or expression but you cannot insult people.
"We found the comments hurtful. It was not a scientific discussion. There was a line and the limit has been passed.
"We have used all the legal means to stop this site. We asked them to remove the comments but they did not."
Oktar, a household name in Turkey, has used hundreds of books, pamphlets and DVDS to contest Darwin´s theory of evolution.
In 2006 his publishers sent out 10,000 copies of the Atlas of Creation, a lavish 800-page rejection of evolution.
Dawkins, one of the recipients, described the book as "preposterous". On his website the British biologist and popular science writer said he was at "a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the ´breathtaking inanity´ of the content."
It is the third time Oktar and his associates have succeeded in blocking sites in Turkey.
In August 2007 Oktar persuaded a court to block access to WordPress.com. His lawyers argued that blogs on WordPress.com contained libelous material that the company was unwilling to remove.
Last April, he made a libel complaint about Google Groups, which was subsequently blocked.
He failed to ban Dawkins´ book the God Delusion in Turkey after a court rejected his claims that it insulted religion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/18/turkey
I guess in Turkey what Oktar thinks is more important than scientific truths.
This is crazy!! I thought Turkey was secular? In which case why would they block the site? They would rather believe in fairy tales than science...no problem, but why deny access to something that dares to disagree? Even if Turkey were NOT secular, I understood it to be the case that many modern muslims can happily integrate evolution into their religion ... 
Insults? If you are a public figure you have to accept it. This has the familiar ring of people running to "mummy" when they cant accept criticism...
|
|
| 20. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 06:15 pm |
|
This is crazy!! I thought Turkey was secular? In which case why would they block the site? They would rather believe in fairy tales than science...no problem, but why deny access to something that dares to disagree? Even if Turkey were NOT secular, I understood it to be the case that many modern muslims can happily integrate evolution into their religion ...
Insults? If you are a public figure you have to accept it. This has the familiar ring of people running to "mummy" when they cant accept criticism...
This is one of the tricks that are used by the religions:
1. The religion of (insert name of religion here) is always right.
2. If (insert name of religion here) is wrong, see No. 1 (and then we´ll ban you, kill you, excommunicate you, shun you, send our mummy to spank you).
An example from another religion:
1. The Pope is infallible (when speaking ex-cathedra, bla bla).
2. The very FIRST edict that is considered to be infallible was, yes, you got it, that the pope IS infallible.
You can´t win with that.
Interestingly enough, Oktar was sentenced to 3 years in prison for creating an illegal organization for personal gains, which he´s appealing right now. It reminds me of some of the evangelicals here in the States who preach to ignorant masses on Sundays and count their money on weekdays.
|
|
| 21. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 07:00 pm |
|
This is one of the tricks that are used by the religions:
1. The religion of (insert name of religion here) is always right.
2. If (insert name of religion here) is wrong, see No. 1 (and then we´ll ban you, kill you, excommunicate you, shun you, send our mummy to spank you).
An example from another religion:
1. The Pope is infallible (when speaking ex-cathedra, bla bla).
2. The very FIRST edict that is considered to be infallible was, yes, you got it, that the pope IS infallible.
You can´t win with that.
Interestingly enough, Oktar was sentenced to 3 years in prison for creating an illegal organization for personal gains, which he´s appealing right now. It reminds me of some of the evangelicals here in the States who preach to ignorant masses on Sundays and count their money on weekdays.
Melek I think you are one of the few people on this site who I can agree with about religion! 
|
|
| 22. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 07:05 pm |
|
Interestingly enough, Oktar was sentenced to 3 years in prison for creating an illegal organization for personal gains, which he´s appealing right now.
intersting that your info is half-half.
"According to the indictment of the prosecutor’s office, cited by the daily Cumhuriyet, Adnan Oktar and associates raped young women many of whom were under the age of 18 on camera and blackmailed them by threatening to release the sex tapes to their friends and family members. Many of these young women were then forced to entice select young men from wealthy families with the promise of sex in exchange for attending events organised by the BAV. The court heard how in turn these girls were formed into a group called of what they referred to as "odalisques" (cariyeler) and were ordered to videotape their sex sessions with these young men and deliver the tapes to Oktar.[59]
Amidst ambiguous circumstances all charges were dropped by that court only to be picked by another court 8 years later. In 2008 Oktar was convicted a variety of crimes including engaging in criminal threats.[56][50] On May 2008 Oktar and 17 other members of his organisation were sentenced to 3 years in prison. Oktar intends to appeal these charges"
|
|
| 23. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 07:14 pm |
|
intersting that your info is half-half.
"According to the indictment of the prosecutor’s office, cited by the daily Cumhuriyet, Adnan Oktar and associates raped young women many of whom were under the age of 18 on camera and blackmailed them by threatening to release the sex tapes to their friends and family members. Many of these young women were then forced to entice select young men from wealthy families with the promise of sex in exchange for attending events organised by the BAV. The court heard how in turn these girls were formed into a group called of what they referred to as "odalisques" (cariyeler) and were ordered to videotape their sex sessions with these young men and deliver the tapes to Oktar.[59]
Amidst ambiguous circumstances all charges were dropped by that court only to be picked by another court 8 years later. In 2008 Oktar was convicted a variety of crimes including engaging in criminal threats.[56][50] On May 2008 Oktar and 17 other members of his organisation were sentenced to 3 years in prison. Oktar intends to appeal these charges"
Ah yes, thank you, I couldn´t find more info on that.
|
|
| 24. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 07:16 pm |
|
and i think shes a coward. shes too scared of being specific and gives a gentle generalisation where she bravely criticizes catholics and evangelicals (omitting the peaceful religion a km away) even in the post related to turkey to which the pope has nothing to do with.
it wasnt the pope who blocked the atheist websites and it didnt happent in the christian countries. opposite, dawkins is welcomed and worshipped.
Youtube or some web sites not being banned in western countries is nothing to do with Christianity..
And in most cases, banning web sites or youtube in Turkey is nothing to do with Islam either..
|
|
| 25. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 07:18 pm |
|
Femmeous, please refrain from personal attacks.
Melek has quoted only criticism of Christianity because that´s what Sam Harris deals with mainly, because he addresses the US audiences.
|
|
| 26. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 07:20 pm |
|
and i think shes a coward. shes too scared of being specific and gives a gentle generalisation where she bravely criticizes catholics and evangelicals (omitting the peaceful religion a km away) even in the post related to turkey to which the pope has nothing to do with.
it wasnt the pope who blocked the atheist websites and it didnt happent in the christian countries. opposite, dawkins is welcomed and worshipped.
I made this thread to point out that ALL religions are absurd and none of them (or very few) are peaceful/harmless when you take a closer look at it. And also to point out that people who are considered moderates are guilty of perpetrating the myth of benign religions. This is not a thread about Turkey, this is a threat about religions in general, stemming from my frustration with the whole Christian vs. Muslim war that is in a way reflected by multiple posts on this website.
You´re obviously entitled to your opinion about me. Which brings me to trick #2 used by religious people:
If you can´t argue/disagree with the atheist´s arguments/opinons, attack their personal character.
|
|
| 27. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 07:21 pm |
|
If you can´t argue/disagree with the atheist´s arguments/opinons, attack their personal character.
Just ignore that sour lemon faced old Borat
|
|
| 28. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 07:43 pm |
|
Youtube or some web sites not being banned in western countries is nothing to do with Christianity..
And in most cases, banning web sites or youtube in Turkey is nothing to do with Islam either..
of course the web bannings has to do with countries and their religions. most of christian countries dont ban anything. and most of muslim countries ban almost evrything (oh, they dont ban porn sites )
how do you, dear secular turk explain that dawkins is banned in a secular turkey at the request of such a religious criminal oktar?
|
|
| 29. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 07:44 pm |
|
Ah yes, thank you, I couldn´t find more info on that.
i dont believe that you couldnt find, because one part of your info was there and the other wasnt there.
|
|
| 30. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 07:48 pm |
|
i dont believe that you couldnt find, because one part of your info was there and the other wasnt there.
I hardly could care about what you believe. Maybe we looked in different places
Besides, I was too distracted by laughing at him trying to pass a fishing lure as an evidence against evolution  (this is a pic from his Atlas of Creation, which by the way is available online - and has GEORGOUS photography - for free to all those who want to believe fishing lures are god-made)
|
|
| 31. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 07:57 pm |
|
of course the web bannings has to do with countries and their religions. most of christian countries dont ban anything. and most of muslim countries ban almost evrything (oh, they dont ban porn sites )
how do you, dear secular turk explain that dawkins is banned in a secular turkey at the request of such a religious criminal oktar?
That is to do with lack of democracy culture and the state´s desire to regulate its citizens public and private life..Basically it is result of totalitarianism.
Nothing to do with religion..
Look at China as an example..
As far as Banning Dawkins website, I can say that islamists came to the power and they are using what the state already has..
Turkey always have had these type of rules and regulations for banning the things and the islamists are using them.
|
|
| 32. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 08:06 pm |
|
I made this thread to point out that ALL religions are absurd and none of them (or very few) are peaceful/harmless when you take a closer look at it. And also to point out that people who are considered moderates are guilty of perpetrating the myth of benign religions. This is not a thread about Turkey, this is a threat about religions in general, stemming from my frustration with the whole Christian vs. Muslim war that is in a way reflected by multiple posts on this website.
well, it was you who started about oktar using him to jump on the pope
You´re obviously entitled to your opinion about me. Which brings me to trick #2 used by religious people:
If you can´t argue/disagree with the atheist´s arguments/opinons, attack their personal character.
i dont care about your tricks
i should admit that i use sometimes personal attacks but its not only in case of atheist/religious arguements. so dont think you´ve caught me red handed.
plus, i hardly consider myself religious
|
|
| 33. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 08:10 pm |
|
Femmeous, please refrain from personal attacks.
Melek has quoted only criticism of Christianity because that´s what Sam Harris deals with mainly, because he addresses the US audiences.
yes, maam, ll try to.
i just feel that alameda has multiplied into melek, familyguy and lots of others  (not suggesting that she has different nicks)
it is so difficult to refrain from emotional reactions to such people.
|
|
| 34. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 08:17 pm |
|
That is to do with lack of democracy culture and the state´s desire to regulate its citizens public and private life..Basically it is result of totalitarianism.
Nothing to do with religion..
Look at China as an example..
As far as Banning Dawkins website, I can say that islamists came to the power and they are using what the state already has..
Turkey always have had these type of rules and regulations for banning the things and the islamists are using them.
so long live western christian countries
well, it does come out of religion. you cant deny that all islamic countries domain is to ban and limit freedom.
if you show me at least one islamic country that is as democratic and liberated as the western countries i will withdraw my previous post.
|
|
| 35. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 08:42 pm |
|
If you can´t argue/disagree with the atheist´s arguments/opinons, attack their personal character.
i dont care about your tricks 
i should admit that i use sometimes personal attacks but its not only in case of atheist/religious arguements. so dont think you´ve caught me red handed.
plus, i hardly consider myself religious
Oh in that case, I do beg your pardon. Let me modify my post a bit ..
"If you can´t argue with (insert preferred epithet here)´s opinions, attack their personal character."
And funny, I thought you were a Christian-wannabe. My mistake again  
|
|
| 36. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 08:58 pm |
|
Oh in that case, I do beg your pardon. Let me modify my post a bit ..
i love this part.
"If you can´t argue with (insert preferred epithet here)´s opinions, attack their personal character."
hmmm...
And funny, I thought you were a Christian-wannabe. My mistake again
give me your description of a christian-wannabe and i will tell ya if i fit there.
|
|
| 37. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 09:07 pm |
|
Do we really have to fight here? All of us agree on almost everything and we still manage to find something to fight about! phew!!!
|
|
| 38. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 09:24 pm |
|
so long live western christian countries
well, it does come out of religion. you cant deny that all islamic countries domain is to ban and limit freedom.
if you show me at least one islamic country that is as democratic and liberated as the western countries i will withdraw my previous post.
well..
I believe your idea ´the west is west beacuse of the religion only´ is lacking in scope a bit!
If you think that west is west because of christianity you have no idea how ancestors of european people fought against the religious rules in the past in order to create what you have right now..
Democracy was not invented in the west because of christianity.
It is nothing to do with the religion what so ever..
|
|
| 39. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 09:38 pm |
|
well..
I believe your idea ´the west is west beacuse of the religion only´ is lacking in scope a bit!
If you think that west is west because of christianity you have no idea how ancestors of european people fought against the religious rules in the past in order to create what you have right now..
Democracy was not invented in the west because of christianity.
It is nothing to do with the religion what so ever..
blah blah blah
hairy, you lost it here.
come and proove it all. if you dont have anything strong sit quiet and comb your hair.
|
|
| 40. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 09:39 pm |
|
blah blah blah
hairy, you lost it here.
come and proove it all. if you dont have anything strong sit quiet and comb your hair.
Hehehe made me laugh....but sorry I have to agree with theHairy...religion has nothing to do with it!
|
|
| 41. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 09:41 pm |
|
Do we really have to fight here? All of us agree on almost everything and we still manage to find something to fight about! phew!!!
i see no problema
did anyone complain?
it would be really boring if we all agreed all the time. and i will have to swap cake receppe´s with canli.
|
|
| 42. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 09:41 pm |
|
it would be really boring if we all agreed all the time. and i will have to swap cake receppe´s with canli.
You are make me laugh out loud tonight!
But have to agree...why do people get so stressed when we argue?
|
|
| 43. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 09:42 pm |
|
Hehehe made me laugh....but sorry I have to agree with theHairy...religion has nothing to do with it!
fine, you dont have to be sorry, i dont limit anyone to one opinion
im not complaining.
i know hairy and you have no strong points to stand against mine
|
|
| 44. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 09:44 pm |
|
You are make me laugh out loud tonight!
But have to agree...why do people get so stressed when we argue?
it actually we who should get stressed not those who dont take part in any fight discussion.
|
|
| 45. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 09:47 pm |
|
it actually we who should get stressed not those who dont take part in any fight discussion.
I am too ill to feel stressed OR argue 
|
|
| 46. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 09:55 pm |
|
I am too ill to feel stressed OR argue
i should send hairy to take care of you, so he would finally do something useful instead of posting the nonsense that you agree with.
|
|
| 47. |
30 Dec 2008 Tue 11:39 pm |
|
well..
I believe your idea ´the west is west beacuse of the religion only´ is lacking in scope a bit!
If you think that west is west because of christianity you have no idea how ancestors of european people fought against the religious rules in the past in order to create what you have right now..
Democracy was not invented in the west because of christianity.
It is nothing to do with the religion what so ever..
+1000 
The Enlightment is not called the Age of Reason for nothing 
|
|
| 48. |
31 Dec 2008 Wed 10:28 am |
|
+1000
The Enlightment is not called the Age of Reason for nothing
where did it happen?
|
|
| 49. |
31 Dec 2008 Wed 02:37 pm |
|
where did it happen?
Femm, darling, maybe you need to open up a history textbook from time to time (and no, the Bible doesn´t qualify). Make it your New Year´s Resolution. While you´re looking up history of democracy, you might also want to read up on Athens in the antiquity. If you find that to be a bit too advanced reading for you, I´ll be happy to provide you with some Wiki links.
|
|
| 50. |
31 Dec 2008 Wed 03:08 pm |
|
If you find that to be a bit too advanced reading for you, I´ll be happy to provide you with some Wiki links.
|
|
| 51. |
31 Dec 2008 Wed 05:27 pm |
|
Femm, darling, maybe you need to open up a history textbook from time to time (and no, the Bible doesn´t qualify). Make it your New Year´s Resolution. While you´re looking up history of democracy, you might also want to read up on Athens in the antiquity. If you find that to be a bit too advanced reading for you, I´ll be happy to provide you with some Wiki links.
i decided to ignore this.
|
|
|
