As Above, So Below - the religion thread (formerly: People of California, beware)

I would say that someone should do the world a favour and shoot him, but it would just turn him into a martyr. Prick.

Oh, and Sam Harris recently pointed this out:

It makes me laugh, I have to laugh otherwise I'd start crying and never stop.

Indeed.

I fail to see how gleefully wishing a terminal disease on a composer compares to wishing the annihilation of a dictator representing an ancient oppressive and at times murderous system.

....or in fact specific members of this forum.

I understand this. Still, I don't find it ethical to say such thing in a forum where religious people are also members. That's all.
You can hate religion or its representatives but it can be expressed more intelligently.
I always find it amazing how today's liberal world apply double standards in some things. You have to be very tolerant with everything and everybody (gay people, minorities, etc.) EXCEPT religious people and religion.
I honestly wonder what remarks I would receive on the forum if I said something disrespectful about either gay people or some minorities - not that it would be my intention!
Anyway, I think there has been some very intelligent debate in this topic about religion or atheism but comments like Steven's above doesn't belong in that category.
So basically I just need a little respect toward those members here who happen to be religious. You are free to comment on religion in a negative way, of course, but I think you can also do it as a mature, intelligent man.

I am an orthodox Christian myself but what priests and the Pope do with tax payer's money has nothing to do with religion my friend.

I somewhat agree with keky as well. I'm no fan of the Pope in any way, and have expressed my problems with the catholic church in this thread, but I have enough respect for the catholic members of this forum to find it in bad taste to wish a man they love and admire dead.

I wouldn't want moderator action taken though, as I realize that politically incorrect comments are part of Steven's charm, and they shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Peter

PS.Chris, I haven't forgotten our discussion. Just returned from London a few days ago, which explains the long pause. Will make a response one of the following days.

I agree that world leaders is a very different case (compared to the Sunil example), as their decisions do have serious consequences for alot of people. The worst Horner ever did was copy other composers' work and pretending that he wrote it. So I don't consider the cases equal.

There's a time and a place for everything though. I wouldn't rant about atheism if I sit in a church, as that would offend and hurt alot of people I know and would just be poor taste. Likewise, I think a forum dedicated to a hobby unrelated to religion, and where people come to relax, make friends and have fun, might not be the ideal place for too aggressive and (to some) hurtful expressions. A forum dedicated solely to discussing religion, and to free speech and open debate is the kind of place where people come to disagree and expect to occasionally feel offended, and such a comment would fit in well there.

Of course we all have different ideas about what is appropriate or not, and it's not for me to dictate where the line should be. Either way I don't feel too strongly about it, just wanted to add a few thoughts.

Peter

Religiously motivated murder is murder committed from a religious point of view, i.e. because you hold something or someone accountable for either not adhering strictly to or -contrarily- contravening One Revealed Truth.

It's as ridiculous a cause for murder as any other. Maybe more so.

My remarks are analogous to the scenarios that I would shed no tears if the likes of Mugabe or Kim Yun Il would be gunned down during a revolution. Or the Saudi royal house met with an untimely end in a plane crash.

Even though I don't actually want to shoot the pope nor would I if I had the power to order his murder, I'm not sorry for the remark. Not in the least. I'm sick of the pope and I'm sick of the vatican.

Being gay doesn't mean you necessarily belong to an organisation or institute like religion, and isn't something that necessarily harms anyone, anything or that comes with outdated beliefs. It's just a sexual preference, and is for the most part a private affair. So the comparison is a little misleading. Religion is something that can harm, and therefore is more succumb to and deserving of criticism - and is certainly not a private affair. Religious beliefs are no more private than actions since beliefs effect actions. Religious individuals should no more be discriminated than the rest of us, that much is true.

(And at over a billion followers, I don't think Catholicism is a particularly small minority.)

Sounds fine. I'm working on a final project for my degree, too! Hope you're is going better than mine...

Chris

Just finished The God Delusion, after reading so much about it here and feeling left out, as I have a more don't-care-about-religion-because-it's-rather-silly opinion. Now, I have evidence it IS actually stupid.

I read the book in two weeks, a fascinating read! The first 5 chapters are very convincing. It was the first time I saw evolution through natural selection so well explained and used in context I'd never thought of. The fact that altruism is part of evolution through natural selection is the greatest point and proves that humans are good creatures (in the same tribe/group/...) anyway, and that we don't need religion for that. Dawkins' theory that religion is actually also part of this natural selection, but as byproduct that does not help us, is fascinating.

Then there are a couple of chapters about the cruelty of the Bible (he chooses some selections from the Old as well as the New Testament that I never had heard before and are mind boggling. Really, what was wrong with woman in that time? ), the sick minded God, and absolutism of religion creating hate, mistreating and other acts of despair. I also didn't knew the Jewish, Christians and Muslims share the same ancestor (well, according to the books).

Dawkins also touches the point that religion might help people, give them hope and consolation. But also that he questions, and while not all backed with natural selection, it's rather unbelievable people still defend religion because of the fact that it gives all that while so many things are utterly despicable. The fact that we are good or do good things, is independent from the values of the bible. He also mentions that the moderate believer says that we only hear extreme opinions from fundamentalism, while that is actually not true.

And what I really couldn't handle (and have before) is the abuse of children through the indoctrination of religion. Abuse, not sexual (although that seems more frequent than we'd have thought), but because children are put in a mindset and situation that they cannot think free.

The last chapter about the wonders of science and how it has helped us more in the last two centuries than religion ever did, was a fine exit! I can understand why Steven is so 'passionate' about this debate. Getting rid of it will probably never happen but it would be the best outcome.

Oh, and what's up with Great Britain not having a separation of state and church in its constitution? (or perhaps it's the same as in Belgium where it's not explicitly said, but meant)