So the only way you could respect a religion is if none of its members were gung-ho enough to try to convince you of its superiority? Do you hold all philosophies to the same standard, or just religious ones? How about other schools of thought? Does it ruin the scientific method for you to know that some scientists are dogmatic and blind to evidence that contradicts their pet theories?
It seems a poor way to live your life, judging every group by the worst of its members, but if it works for you...
![]()
'Course not.1) It have evolved into Parsi nowadays. 2) It is the official religion of an empire that maintained control over people of different cultures and beliefs over several hundred years, and thus it had to be that way (because trying to impose your religion and beliefs on other cultures isn't a good idea for a multicultural empire). And 3), most interestingly, their idea of religion is tied to ones ethnicity: you cannot be converted into Zoroastrianism. You've got to be born into it. So converting is not only against their tenant: it is also impossible for them.
And finally, a lot of people tried to make me to behave like a normal human being (in their eyes). By your logic I should hate the ide of "normality" too. Now excuse me, I've got a dog to iron...
edited 13th Jun '12 3:51:11 PM by IraTheSquire
I think DG is saying that she can't look at a religion that's all like "We're the one true and only, honest to God, way!" and yet it's own followers can't even agree on what that way is, and give it the deference it seeks.
I agree with you Kara that that's not a good way to approach it. In a nation of 300 plus million people, there are many, many, MANY, different definitions of what it means to be an American. Doesn't mean the nation can't still be admired or respected.
It was an honor@Karalora: If a philosophy purports to be moral guidance, then yes, I judge it by the same standard. I'm not going to respect something that claims to be morally correct if it can't decide what "morally correct" means. It is, incidentally, why I can't justify identifying as a feminist, even though I support equal rights.
Science is not a religion or philosophy. It doesn't assign moral-based value judgements, so I judge it by a different standard, based off of how biased the studies are.
Edit: @Starship: Nationalism is different as well. I dislike blind nationalism as much as I dislike religion.
Incidentally, I disagree that America is the greatest, and I'd love to live somewhere else.
edited 13th Jun '12 3:54:30 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianOh, and Carc? I'm going to have to go with the majority opinion and say it is absolutely mad to sacrifice your life in order to prevent desecration of the Eucharist. Whether it's the sacred body of Christ or not, it's replaceable. There will be new ones baked and consecrated next week. Whereas there will never be another Carc, even if we save your cellular nuclei and clone your DNA.
But on the other hand, it does purport to be the single best way to gain knowledge of the natural world. So if certain individual scientists are prone to obtuseness and interpret data in such a way as to stroke their own intellectual egos rather than objectively, doesn't that spoil it the same way that a few pushy (and decidedly non-mainstream) Neopagans spoil Neopaganism?
edited 13th Jun '12 3:56:08 PM by Karalora
![]()
People keep imposing to me that human life is sacred. Should I dislike the idea too?
Maybe I should have gone for virology and learn how to make the H5N1 virus more contagious...
edited 13th Jun '12 4:34:30 PM by IraTheSquire
Actually he did jump on a Koran, just to prove the point still stands regardless of the faith.
I find it interesting how many people are appalled by his behavior and consider him unprofessional. Yet to me many attitudes and behaviors that are sanctioned and encouraged by various religions provoke the same amount of horror and disdain from me. Yet I don't call them rude or jerks. I just ignore them as much as possible.
I don't like the double standard. I think that the double standard actually encourages the extreme behavior.
As I mentioned before, if I didn't live in such a hypocritical and narrow minded state, maybe my professor wouldn't have to give his class a shock treatment to get them to just open up.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurI don't like the double standard. I think that the double standard actually encourages the extreme behavior.
As I mentioned before, if I didn't live in such a hypocritical and narrow minded state, maybe my professor wouldn't have to give his class a shock treatment to get them to just open up.
And we agree with you that the double standard is bs. But again, stooping to the same level as some rash teenager who just wants attention and claiming the moral high ground usually don't go together.
@DG - The point is, maybe you should stop viewing religion, science, nationalism, or anything else as this great big entity, and maybe you should start judging each person individually. If my brand of Christianity is offensive, be offended by it, but if Carc's is actually good, then respect his.
If someone's brand of patriotism is "America can do no wrong, fuck the gays and illegals" then I think you should ignore them. If they're brand of patriotism or more benign and focused on helping all, then maybe it should be respected.
edited 13th Jun '12 4:33:24 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorAll of my professors make a point to keep their religious views and their academic careers apart. It wasn't until I graduated and became a grad student I learned their religious views.
I think this is a very important quality for a secular religious studies academic.
EDIT: Starship, but it's not a dumb teenager. It's grown adults held in high esteem in their communities. Most of the time it's the religious leaders themselves who encourage such behavior.
edited 13th Jun '12 4:34:36 PM by Gabrael
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurThe fact that such behaviour can be encouraged by religious leaders doesn't make it more acceptable when done by a grown adults held in high esteem in their communities. In fact, I'll say that it is just as unacceptable.
It's like saying "killing religious people and burning their churches/temples/places of worship" is acceptable when done by a professor to make a point about religion because other religious leaders condone such things.
edited 13th Jun '12 4:39:43 PM by IraTheSquire
Going with Ira on this.
We except a lot more from an adult than a teenager/child when it comes to knowledge. Individual cases may vary, but the general view is that they should be held in a higher regard and act more mature.
Quest 64 threadHammer that cracker, toss it in the trash, post the photos on the Internet? They weren't ignoring him then.
Okay Taoist, let's got with that.
There are two ways to protest the treatment of non-white Americans. You can go about it the rational, mature, intelligent way, and you'll get people's attention. You also have the option of being a ignorant dick shouting things like "White bitch is the devil", and such, and you'll also get people's attention.
For me though, I'll go with option 1.
It was an honorI'm arguing that it's possible to be rational, mature, intelligent, and offensive as fuck.
Take again the Myers piece. In the pile he desecrated, Myers included ripped out pages from The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins didn't bat an eye, and neither did the atheist community, because we got the point that Myers wanted to make with his protest and that I'm trying to make in this thread. Including an "atheist holy text" (writing that made me cringe, yechh) in the protest was an intelligent and rational move; it highlighted and made very clear that Myers wanted to highlight how paper (and crackers) aren't that big a deal. It also shows maturity, in that Myers wasn't emotionally invested in paper containing arguments he approved of highly.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.EDIT: Starship: You're treating a very grey area as if it's black and white. Doesn't work like that.
I agree with you Taoist
Blah this thread moves fast!
edited 13th Jun '12 5:20:31 PM by Gabrael
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurThe fact that it is ignored doesn't mean the people doing the ignoring is doing the right thing either. And it is pointless to canter to those people because they'll just ignore what the professor did, or be completely offended and not go to class at all, which makes the "practicality" of such behavior questionable.
That is assuming that it is a grey area. Wrong actions are always wrong regardless of intentions. Good intentions only make them more understandable, but not any more right.
edited 13th Jun '12 5:21:18 PM by IraTheSquire
A girl currently.
Being that guy is rather stressful especially with accusations of not addressing points and dodging questions. I've only been in less extreme forms of this position, but I don't much care for it. It's hard to keep up and think clearly during it because there is just so much coming at you from various angles. That and the fear that you aren't answering everything as adequately as you could because of how much there is to deal with.
If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan ChahAnd you'll find no argument on that point here. My rejoinder is that it's possible to be rational, mature, intelligent, and offensive as fuck without resorting to teenage temper tantrums.
Ripping up books and breaking crackers with the sole intent of pissing people off is the province of the adolescent and the ignorantly dickish.
It was an honorRipping up books and breaking crackers with the sole intent of pissing people off is the province of the adolescent and the ignorantly dickish.
The fact that his actions even need to be justified in order for it to be acceptable already tells me that his actions are wrong.

Equal rights aren't the point, the point is that it's not for anyone to turn to anybody else and say that the thing that's important to them really isn't worth it.
To me civil unions with the full rights as marriage, like what NY State had, seemed good enough to me. It's arrogant to assume that that's good enough for gays who want to get married.
Similarly, while I don't know that I'd die to keep someone from burning down a Church, many people have said to me in these threads, "Look, why don't you just keep your religious views quiet? They're not popular and people will give you flack for them so just don't mention it." I feel that hiding something so integral to my identity is a betrayal and I refuse to do it.
It doesn't matter that someone else might think it not that important.
edited 13th Jun '12 3:39:09 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor