People, please read this... (re: Same sex mariage)

quote:

---

This kind of religious hatred scares me a lot.

---

Oh please. This type of thinking is as much a legacy of our simian heritage as our tail bone. Let's not pretend that religion has any more to do with this type of hatemongering than giving the culprits an excuse to define certain behavior as 'sin' as well as a community of like 'minds' to reinforce their ignorance.

I agree that their opinions are ignorant. However, that's a matter of opinion, too. What a shame that everybody isn't as tolerant and cool as we are, huh?We can't change minds. Haven't we learned anything from our efforts to engage folks in reasonable conversation who start threads entitled 'Destroying Darwinism' and who argue against concepts they're both unwilling and ill-equipped to understand?This might sound strange, but opinions such as the ones we're discussing aren't useful for anything other than making people feel good. The fundies feel good because they realize someone shares their ridiculous bigotry, and we feel good because we can act superior to them.

Is their crusade against political correctness or grammatical correctness?

Let's be careful how we blame religion for allowing people to vent their bigotry. I didn't try to excuse this behavior by noting its resemblance to simian tactics concerning ingroup/outgroup conflict, I just wanted to point out how primitive and irrational it is.We've all heard the familiar creationist tactic of blaming Darwin for the horrors of totalitarianism, eugenics, the breakdown of society in general, etc. It's an indisputable fact that many have used the theory of evolution by natural selection to excuse prejudice, the sterilization of 'inferior' people, or brutal socioeconomic theories.I'm sure you agree with me that Darwin's theory had absolutely nothing to do with any of the above, but the line cuts both ways. I'm not going to blame religion for the heinous acts committed in its name.

quote:

---

So, I very much DO blame religion for the atrocities it has perpetrated.

---

And I repeat, no religion has ever perpetrated anything. We can only ascribe motives to human beings.I'm not religious, and I deplore the way religion has been used to take advantage of the gullible. I fully agree that religion differs from rationality in its essence: it's meant to be accepted and not understood. It sickens me that the I'll-pay-you-back-after-you-die scam is still convincing people to suffer and/or make others suffer.However, I fail to see how this relieves from responsibility the actual human culprits of genocide, holy wars, suicide bombings, abortion-clinic shootings, and bigotry spouted from the pulpit. Blaming the ideology effectively exonerates the perpetrator. The vast majority of 'believers' are far too apathetic and docile to be used to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between religious thinking (irrational as it is) and reprehensible brutality.

quote:

---

...[R]eligion's main purpose [is] to prescribe moral behavior and attitudes.

---

That's a definition that I'm sure many share, but personally I regard religion as the original form of feel-good entertainment. It allows its followers to define 'God' or 'truth' or 'justice' or any other term in whatever manner seems convenient at any time. Scriptural authority is so broad and contradictory that it can be used to support virtually any conclusion. Religious people base their morals and behavior on whatever basis they feel 'religion' justifies, regardless of how consistent they are in their reasoning.

quote:

---

It is the apathy in the face of members of your groups' brutality that allows the brutality to continue.

---

Our primate heritage makes us place high priority on defining ingroups and outgroups, choosing with whom to identify and whom to demonize. How convenient that your ingroup does not include religionists, since they are the ones you blame for brutality or the tacit acceptance of brutality. That way 'we' don't have to identify with people who are directly responsible for brutality or those who unknowingly aid and abet them.

quote:

---

Do you or do you not agree that using religion in a way in which it was meant to be used; to prescribe morality and moral behavior, is DIFFERENT from USING scientific theories in a way they were NEVER meant to be used; to prescribe morality and moral behavior?

---

Yes. I absolutely agree. However, my point was that blaming religion is different than blaming people for their use or misuse of it. My revulsion for Christian abortion-clinic snipers is due to their murderous behavior, not their ideology. Since there's nothing to suggest that religion in itself leads to such behavior, I see no cause and effect there.

quote:

---

You said that I wanted to excuse religious people for brutal acts, and that you did not blame religion for the acts perpetrated by it's followers, much like you do not blame people for misusing the ToE.

---

That's not what I said. You said you blame religion for 'perpetrating' crimes, and I feel that you're de-emphasizing the responsibility of the human perpetrator for his own crime. And I still don't understand why I should blame anyone else for aiding and abetting him simply on the basis of association.Furthermore, I said I DO blame people who misuse the ToE, but taking Darwinism in vain isn't the issue: the real crimes are the eugenics, the genocide, the discrimination.[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 06-30-2003]

Zealot,Thanks ever so much for displaying the tolerance we all recognize as the hallmark of religious fundamentalism.Far be it from me to interrupt you while you're busy dropping your pronouncements from on high, but I just wanted to know if you've already lost interest in discussing the falsifiability criteria for scientific theories. Several people have taken the time and effort to contribute to the discussion you yourself started with this thread, but if you've decided to spread your message of love elsewhere, let us know that we were mistaken in our assumption that you wanted to engage in fruitful dialogue.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 08-14-2003]

If there are three things in this world that terrify me, they are:1) Environmental Disaster2) International Terrorism3) Gay people getting married.It's no surprise that certain people begin to doubt their faith. What kind of God would allow such things to exist in our world? I suppose I could accept the prospect of breathing polluted air, drinking radioactive water, and eating toxin-laden food. I could even get used to sudden attacks by brutal psychopaths on crowds of innocent people. But the fact that two men would be allowed to marry in certain countries or states, well, that just means God is not listening to our prayers.

Hey folks, let's face facts here. Our buddy Zealot and his ilk don't have a faith that would force them to confront or question their beliefs or behavior. Their faith doesn't force them to struggle with ethical dilemmas or admit responsibility for their actions. These people have a faith that allows them to think whatever they want and feel good about it.As we've seen time and time again, the Bible can be used to support any wacko theory. Does the Bible really excuse slavery, condemn homosexuals, or chronicle the occurrence of a worldwide flood for which there is no other evidence? It doesn't matter. The oft-translated text can be used to support any conclusion that makes the believers happy.Despite their insistence that Scripture is not to be taken bit by bit, believers are no more likely to 'agree' with any Bible verse than nonbelievers. We've all long since made up our minds about what's right or wrong, and nothing is going to change anyone's mind. The difference is that believers pretend their beliefs are sanctioned by holy authority, and the rest of us take responsibility for what we believe.So lighten up on the Z-man, okay? Let him think God is backing him up if it makes him feel good. He's just doing what everybody else does when they don't want to take responsibility for their own beliefs. And for a guy who claims his religion is anti-gay, he sure uses a lot of smilies in his posts.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

Zealot,Since you say

quote:

---

Christianity does consider homosexuality a sin. It also considers murder, rape, stealing, swearing, gossiping, masterbation, and many many other things sinfull. Infact it consideres all sins equal!

---

And also that

quote:

---

From a Christian point of view, which ultimately my opinion is going to be from, I'm opposed to it, just as I am opposed to legalisation of anything I believe is sinfull.

---

Are we to believe that you oppose legal leniency concerning such things as swearing, gossiping and masturbation? I mean, I don't curse much and I mind my own business. But would you believe I'm having one off the wrist right at this very moment?------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall