
I like what you say except -- marginalizing faith is not, repeat not, "just as dangerous as a suicide bomber." Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris have killed no one.
No, but an anti-religious attitude taken to extremes can. I know Dawkins and Hitches don't advocate violence towards the religious. I mentioned them because they have very black-and-white thoughts about religion, and that attitude towards anything can breed intolerance, which leads to violence.
Well, contempt for religion has inspired religious people to respond violently, but I don't blame that on those with contempt for it. What would be an anti-religious attitude "taken to extremes"? Killing believers? I'm sure the men you mention aren't interested in that. Jokes at the expense of believers? I think that's okay, even if the Moslems riot over irreverent cartoons. Dawkins and Hitchens got all fired up over the religious nuts of 9/11. I forgive them. : )
Thank you. I appreciate that someone who is not religious wrote this.
I think, if there was no belief in God, then people will be killing each other "in the name of justice", or "in the name of goodness" whether what they were doing was just or good at all. But it wouldn't be justice's fault, or goodness' fault, and it wouldn't be so easy to say, "the world would be better without justice" because that's just ludicrous.
I think South Park demonstrated this well... I don't watch a lot of South Park because I don't enjoy it a lot of the time, but every now and then, they can be pretty smart.
The kids go to the future and discover that there is no longer any religion, but simply enlightenment, everyone is atheist and so the world is a better place where they can all advance and improve. In theory. But there are two warring factions, fighting over what they call themselves in relation to their science-philosophy. They disagree on the name, and kill each other over it, even though their ideaologies are exactly the same.
Getting rid of religions isn't going to change human nature.
I think, if there was no belief in God, then people will be killing each other "in the name of justice", or "in the name of goodness" whether what they were doing was just or good at all. But it wouldn't be justice's fault, or goodness' fault, and it wouldn't be so easy to say, "the world would be better without justice" because that's just ludicrous.
I think South Park demonstrated this well... I don't watch a lot of South Park because I don't enjoy it a lot of the time, but every now and then, they can be pretty smart.
The kids go to the future and discover that there is no longer any religion, but simply enlightenment, everyone is atheist and so the world is a better place where they can all advance and improve. In theory. But there are two warring factions, fighting over what they call themselves in relation to their science-philosophy. They disagree on the name, and kill each other over it, even though their ideaologies are exactly the same.
Getting rid of religions isn't going to change human nature.
Sorry, to continue, getting rid of religion isn't going to change human nature, but it's like you said, religion can be used as a catalyst for evil, but at the same time, it can also be an excellent motivator for a lot of good.
Someone once said, "Good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things. But for a good person to do evil things, that takes religion." I almost agree with that, but instead of saying religion I would broaden the aspect of it to "irrational beliefs" or "a philosophy of absolutes." Religion can be included in this category, but it's not always the case.
Quick Links
Latest Comment
Re: Boom - Those are some big rocks by the school all right. I thought they where snow drifts for a second,...
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy
christianity