That's an extremely broad generalization that is rooted in the actions of an extreme minority. Using your very logic, it supports the contention that a group/individual that has no faith are no different than the killers of Virk or Courtepat.
"Christ Meets Bigfoot" Atheist Ads Coming to a Community Near You!
- Thread starter Spade
- Start date
That's an extremely broad generalization that is rooted in the actions of an extreme minority. Using your very logic, it supports the contention that a group/individual that has no faith are no different than the killers of Virk or Courtepat.
Au contraire, mon ami!
Generalization #1
The doubter is by nature introspective and embraces the moral act! It is the true believer who acts blindly.
Sorry Spade, but you can't have it both ways... I expect this kind of duplicitous argument from Cliffy, but you can do better.
So, how about it? If "You and I" are responsible (meaning everyone I'd assume), why lay the blame exclusively at the feet of organized religion?
So, how about it? If "You and I" are responsible (meaning everyone I'd assume), why lay the blame exclusively at the feet of organized religion?
O, I don't! We are all guilty. However, it is time for Religions to strike their chests three times and repeat "We are not worthy and, indeed, have no corner on Truth!"
PS
Neat ploy with the wedge!
How ironic...
You are condemning org religion for passing judgment and yet, here you are (subtly) acting as the judge.
What is a wedge ploy?
It's not judgement, it's a preference for honesty.
PS
Taking an oblique swing at Cliffy, and looking for consent by appealing to vanity.
PS
Taking an oblique swing at Cliffy, and looking for consent by appealing to vanity.
Organized religion consists of those same "You and I's" Captain Morgan referred to being told how to behave and what to think, and most "You and I's" until recently at least gave lip service to belonging to one. Trying to draw distinctions among a religion, the people who belong to it, and the people who claim to speak for it (and are accepted in that role by the members) doesn't get anybody off the hook.
Funny... Theological logic would state that their preference is for honesty as well... What a coincidence!
PS - There was no oblique swing at Cliffy, it was a direct comment based on his previous rebuttals. On that note, I would never dream of seeking any form of consent with you (or Cliffy for that matter) on this issue...
I only calls 'em as I sees 'em
I believe that if you go back a page or so in this thread, you will see that it was Spade that incorporated and supported the "You and I" component... If memory serves, I believe that his stance is not supportive of the religious/theological influences on this issue.
Yes I know, but I was addressing your use of it in post #119. I may have misunderstood you, but I read you as making a distinction I find hard to accept. The religion is the people and the people are the religion, without the people the religion doesn't exist except as an idea and can't be responsible for anything. Holding organized religion responsible is the same as holding the "You and I" who make it up responsible, and vice versa. And since by far the majority of people will at least claim to believe in the tenets of some organized religion, regardless of how unobservant and uninvolved they may be, I find the distinction between a religion and the people somewhat strained and artificial. That's the distinction Tony Blair tried to make in his debate with Christopher Hitchens about whether or not religion is a force for good in the world. There's a thread about that debate here somewhere. It amounted to arguing that religion is good if you discount all the bad things people do in its name, which as Blair presented it is just a subtle and rather peculiar version of the confirmation bias error in thinking.
Religion is useless without there being spirituality involved. Without true spirituality religion is no different than joining a baseball team or knitting circle. It becomes just another social outlet or a political venue.
I'd take that a step further. With true spirituality, religion's not necessary or useful. It just tries to control and direct spirituality to serve other ends. In fact it seems to me based on the assorted church and synagogue services I've been at over the years and the research I've done into the backgrounds of assorted faiths, that what it's really trying to do is prevent real spiritual experiences from happening. Organized religion seems more focused on protecting its dogma and promoting its secular interests. And that, as you imply, turns it into a social club. At best. At worst, it kills people. There are certain Christian missionaries in Africa still promoting the view that yes, HIV/AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse.
Last edited:
I always maintained a distinction between religion and spirituality. To me religion is the political/social network built on dogma and spirituality is a personal journey to the truth, whatever it may turn out to be. That is why I say the truth is only relative to the beholder because those who take the journey don't always end up in the same place and it does not always require the acknowledgment of some form of deity. Science is just as much a spiritual journey as any I have seen and can even be a religion to some who treat it dogmatically.
It is dogma that stifles the open minded search for truth by declaring absolute truths, of which there can be none. There is no room in spirituality for hatred or violence because there is nothing to prove and nothing to defend if the truth is relative. An atheist has no reason to hate or kill because there is no belief to defend either. Politics and religion seem to be the only fields of belief that require, and often encourage, such behaviour since they are so closely related.
Wish I could give you more than one greenie for that one, it strikes me as profoundly and movingly true. If you haven't read Richard Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow, I heartily recommend it to your attention. It's about the spiritual side of being a scientist, and the awe, poetry, and wonder it provokes in a properly sensitive mind. Reality as science has found it to be is vastly richer and more complex than any religion has ever imagined it to be.
Last edited:
Responding in particular to the original post, I can only say that if it's acceptable for anti-abortion ads to be displayed on bus stops here in British Columbia (which they are, and not uncommonly), then it's acceptable for ads that question the validity of God.
All the words in the world cannot do justice to the aw and wonder of just being present and appreciative of life as it unfolds. To me a sunset or a fawn can be more spiritual an experience than anything man has ever been able to write or compose. To me, all man made institutions have been designed to keep the natural world at bay. Our towns and cities are like fortresses that lock out nature, to keep us safe from the boogy man. Ironically, they have created boogy men of such terrifying proportions that I would rather face a Grizzly than set foot in a city like Toronto or New York. When I want to feel truly connected to life, I go to the forest. Certainly not to a church. If there is a creative force, it certainly dwells in life, not in masonry.
Another good one Cliffy, I could not agree more. At least once a year I have to get out into wilderness for a while or I'll go mad. Cities (at least small ones like Regina, where I live) are nice for the services and amenities they provide, but to really feel alive I need lakes and forests. I think I'd really like to sit around a camp fire with you in a forest in the middle of nowhere and chat.
My intent in employing that term (You and I) in that post was to (attempt) to clarify the reason why organized religion is being held entirely responsible for acts of violence while the "You and I's" (defined by Spade) are not considered at all... Ironically, that is the very double standard that religion employed to justify (some of) the heinous acts that have been perpetuated by those groups.
I couldn't agree with you more on this statement, however, my position is that the responsibility boils-down to the individual regardless of the catalyst.
There are a myriad of examples, both historical and contemporary, that were the lightening rods for those situations. Religion justified the Crusades/Inquisition, politics/power fueled the violence associated with Stalin/Pol Pot and an unfavorable court verdict in the Rodney King case catalyzed the wholesale violence in Watts/LA at the time.
The common factor is that terrible acts were committed by individuals that leveraged an event, philosophy, charismatic individual, threat of reprisals, etc, etc to justify an action... That said, vilifying one or two catalysts ignores the "You and I's" in the equation.
I heard only part of that debate but what I did hear was very interesting.. I'll have to find the audio online and listen to the entire discussion.
Religion is a direct extension of spirituality and while there are many differences, there are more commonalities.
Hell, just look at the degree of anger and derision directed at org religion in this thread alone... I can't help but wonder if it was this very mechanism that resulted in events like the Crusades, invasions by the Moors, etc..
The Crusades and the invasion by the Moors was a result of one organized religion attacking another. I fail to see the connection to what has been said in this thread. Religion is political, spirituality is the individual seeking its connection to life/god/truth. I have met people from every religious persuasion that have grasped that concept and quietly became their truth. To me, religion is, as Rudyard Kipling said, more like the monkey tribe running around saying that they all believe it is true therefore it must be true. Religion is holding onto a belief system while spirituality is far more flexible and is more reliant on personal experience.