posted
Now then, comrade. Lunatic, possibly, but raving? No, I am the calm, suave sort of lunatic who will smile even as the blade slides between your ribs.
Seriously, though, are you going to argue for why religion is good, or are you just going to shake your head and 'draweth aside the hem of the garment?'
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seriously, though, are you going to argue for why religion is good, or are you just going to shake your head and 'draweth aside the hem of the garment?
I'd be willing to argue that the idea that criminalizing religion is not only a loathesome idea in principle, but a foolish one for the purposes of reducing stupidity.
Incidentally, you are guilty of the same hubris of Jack Chick. Everyone else is stupid until they do as I do. People would be much wiser, happier, sexier, with better teeth, if only they subscribed to MY way of life.
I, personally, cannot convince you that religion is a good thing. Not only because it's such a subjective question, but because you're so obviously biased against a 'yes' answer. I can, however, point out that some of the most murderous, inhuman, loathesome policies on Earth have been carried out in the absence of religion. The USSR, PRC, Irish Republican Army, for example. If you want to count death tolls, KoM, examine that of the USSR and the PRC and remember-since I expect you already know-how much it outnumbers the Holocaust, which was not-I think-a religious matter at all, but a matter of sociologically-justified hate and bigotry.
As for the good things religion has done? The people in America who ended slavery were religious. So was Gandhi, MLK Jr., Malcolm X, Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama.
What you're complaining about-stupidity and cruelty of people-is certainly not because they're religious (or because they disbelieve your way of thinking), but because they're human.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, please! Go marry and be merry! (Hey, that's nice! My english is getting quite cool! I got to make a joke! Soon even Hobbes will applaud my funny!) Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I gotta go, so this will have to be quick : Does Mother Theresa really justify all the priests who tell people that condoms do not protect against AIDS? And remember that the opponents of MLK were also strongly religious people.
Communism, etc, are based on exactly the same amount of proof as Christianity - indeed, many have argued that it is a religion, and with considerable justification at that. The IRA were indeed religious, though certainly nationalism got mixed in with it - an even more dangerous mix, to be sure. The people who defended slavery in the US were also religious, and frankly, had more support in the Bible than the good guys.
Dagonee, you're right, I didn't justify my position very coherently, but briefly : "Without religion, good men will do good, and evil men will do evil. Only religion can cause good men to do evil." Inquisition, crusades, Galileo, repression of all sexuality, and religious warfare. Defender of slavery, apologist for the divine right of kings, champion of the oppressive status quo : That is what religion means to a European. And in all honesty, what I'm seeing here in the US is not convincing me to change my mind.
quote:I'd be willing to argue that the idea that criminalizing religion is not only a loathesome idea in principle, but a foolish one for the purposes of reducing stupidity.
Well, why don't you, then? You are not arguing, you are asserting. Why is it 'loathesome in principle' to forbid a major cause of bigotry and stupidity? Not the only cause, by any means, but a major one. Which principle?
As for reducing stupidity, it seems I haven't been clear, for which I apologise. Certainly, if you removed religion, the idiots would find something else to be stupid about - Communism, perhaps, or in the US they're more likely to join the KKK. But belief in a God is a point of congruence between idiots and quite bright people. The idiots can justify themselves by pointing to a common God, and good and smart people will nod approvingly, for the idiots are clearly doing Good Work.
I do not accuse anyone here of this. But ask yourselves again : If there were no churches, how much of a market would comrade Chick have for his interesting brand of poison? A much reduced one, certainly. I do not believe that the percentage of stupid people is large enough or rich enough to support him, even in the US; it follows that some of his customers must be average Joes who really think he is doing the right thing. Those are the people I want to reach, not the lunatic fringe.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I gotta go, so this will have to be quick : Does Mother Theresa really justify all the priests who tell people that condoms do not protect against AIDS? And remember that the opponents of MLK were also strongly religious people.
Those priests are liars, KoM. Are you asserting they wouldn't be lying if they weren't religious? No, you're arguing the unknowable-that if they were not religious, they would not lie OR their lies would be less harmful.
As for Mother Teresa, I did not bring her up to go tit for tat. I brought her up as part of an example of how many of the best and brightest human beings have been devoutly religious. I challenge you to come up with a similar list of atheists.
quote:The IRA were indeed religious, though certainly nationalism got mixed in with it - an even more dangerous mix, to be sure.
Some of them were, yes. But the worsts ones were atheists.
quote:The people who defended slavery in the US were also religious, and frankly, had more support in the Bible than the good guys.[/quotes]
Says you. Since you've made the assertion that the Bible supports slavery more than it condemns it, care to back it up? My point in bringing up slavery, though, was again not to go tit for tat, but to point out that the people who worked hardest to end one of the greatest cruelties in American history were religious. Can you look through history and find a similar effort by atheists? I'll give you the entire course of human history to find one, since I admit atheists are a tiny minority and less likely to be found at all.
[quote]"Without religion, good men will do good, and evil men will do evil. Only religion can cause good men to do evil." Inquisition, crusades, Galileo, repression of all sexuality, and religious warfare. Defender of slavery, apologist for the divine right of kings, champion of the oppressive status quo : That is what religion means to a European. And in all honesty, what I'm seeing here in the US is not convincing me to change my mind.
So religion really is the opiate of the people. That's essentially what your thesis is, you know. The Crusades would not have happened without religion? Two resource-strapped, populous, expanding sets of empires would not have had a war without differences in religion? People would not have defended the right of Kings to rule without religion? How, then, do you justify atheistic 'kings' such as Stalin and Mao? Right, they're really religious, too. I forgot.
That's what religion means to you, perhaps. But certainly not what it 'means to a European'. While I confess you're vastly more wise than suckers like myself, even in my limited wisdom I do not believe you speak for Europeans in general.
quote:Why is it 'loathesome in principle' to forbid a major cause of bigotry and stupidity? Not the only cause, by any means, but a major one. Which principle?
Now I get a chance to return your tit-for-tat favor. It's not just a major cause of bigotry and stupidity. It's also a major cause of tolerance, charity, and wisdom. As to which principle, that would be the freedom to worship as we choose, based ultimately on a respect for individual rights. Your entire thesis is based on the idea that you are intelligent enough to choose which ideas and which rights the people really need. I think that kind of arrogance, bigotry, and willingness to forbid something so precious to people is loathesome.
quote:But belief in a God is a point of congruence between idiots and quite bright people. The idiots can justify themselves by pointing to a common God, and good and smart people will nod approvingly, for the idiots are clearly doing Good Work.
Then the quite bright people aren't quite bright, are they? Or good, if they let simple similarity in belief justify something. Christians in general do not justify or condone the actions of, say, the KKK-who are often 'Christian', btw-or abortion-doctor murderers. On the contrary: they frequently serve as their juries, their prosecuting (and defending) attornies, and their judges, and their prison guards.
quote:I do not accuse anyone here of this.
No, you accuse religious people in general of this. Since there are (many) religious people here, you are accusing people here of this.
quote:But ask yourselves again : If there were no churches, how much of a market would comrade Chick have for his interesting brand of poison?
He would find some other commonly-held belief and exploit it. You and Jack Chick have something substantial in common, you know: certainty that you each have a lock on the truth, and that the masses need you to teach them.
Ahh, well. I'll bow out of this discussion, now: I've said my piece and you can have the last word. Incidentally, although I am LDS now, it is a recent thing for me. And I have made the same arguments and assertions against beliefs like yours when I had no religion. Feel free to again assert that communism is really a religion. When you change all the definitions, it's easy to win an argument.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The idiots can justify themselves by pointing to a common God, and good and smart people will nod approvingly, for the idiots are clearly doing Good Work.
I think the Jack Chick tracts are a pretty good examle of how this is not true. The only people nodding their heads approvingly are other idiots, IMO. If they are taken in by these tracts, what makes you think they wouldn't be taken in by other equally damaging non-religious ideas?
As for his publications only being able to be supported if "bright" people are being suckered in, I often wonder about all the telemarketing calls, junk mail, and spam email that's out there. Who is buying into it? Someone must be or they wouldn't be doing it, right?
You say that religion makes good men evil. I think in most cases, they would have been evil anyway. From how I look at things, religion can help evil men become good. It would be a shame to lose that. I would argue that a religion that makes good people evil is not a very good religion. But I tend to place the blame on the shoulders of the individuals rather than the institution. It seems to me that most religions teach good.
KoM, it is probably a good thing for me to be reminded that there are people out there who feel as you do. I must admit, I do not come in contact with many.
I personally do not understand the belief that the world would be better off without religion. Seems to me that anything that religion is to blame for can be explained by the less noble parts of human nature. Eradicating religion will not get rid of that.
Your definition of religion is so incredibly broad, it includes anything that people believe in passionately, passionately enough to die for. How, exactly, do you propose to rid the world of passionate human beings? As you already pointed out, they would turn to something else if religion were not an option.
It seems that you wish to reduce humans to automatons, in essence, they must all join your religion. I find this very disturbing.
posted
I know they aren't supposed to be, but these Jack Chick tracts are hilarious! I wonder if people buy them for the entertainment value?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's amazing that some people can actually believe in a Jesus that rules only by anger and fear. If Jack Chick's Christ works that way, what in the world is his Satan like?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
His Satan is featured prominently in many strips, Geoff. He's a whiny, petulant, hedonist type with a nasty persecution complex.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We see the world as we ourselves are. What do these tracts say about Jack Chick?
In his tracts, if you are not Saved it is a) Because you have never heard of Christ at all or b) You are evil. I mean, *really* evil. Petty evil.
Edit: Maybe he is so obnoxious in his "converting" efforts that even the nicest of people have to shut him down, and in his mind they are all acting like the "evil" people in his tracts. I find the idea more than a little disturbing.
Also here sure seem to be an amazing number people in his stories who know nothing whatsoever about Christ.
posted
The the one about Apes and Mrs. Henn is particularly amusing. Apparently, the rich white girl knows a whole lot about Jesus and black kid has never heard of him. In what alternate universe?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to Jack Chick, if you're a nice person and do lots of great works... but you never accept Jesus as your saviour... then you will suffer in the lake of eternal fire
Because if you *ever* heard about Jesus, but refused to believe... then you're damned. (See the one about the virtuous Moslem whose plane crashes on the way back from Mecca.)
Has anyone found what Jack Chick's take is on nice people who die without having EVER heard about Jesus? Do they go to hell, too?
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
