-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ Homer on Tuesday 05 Jul 2011 15:05 : \____
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>> ____/ Homer on Saturday 02 Jul 2011 19:43 : \____
>
>>> Do you or do you not see religion as a "problem" that must be solved?
>>
>> I view the the teaching of falsehoods as facts as a problem.
>
> I don't presume to know for an absolute fact what proportion of any
> given religion is fact or fiction. I know some science, I know some
> religion, and I know what I believe to be true in my opinion, which
> is the literal interpretations of religious doctrine are wrong, and
> the theories of science are based on observable fact, even if those
> facts are constantly being rewritten (such is the nature of science
> and proof). However it's also true that science does not have /all/
> the answers, and that religion is about more than literal meanings,
> so I draw from both science and religion (and other things like art
> and politics) those things that are important to me.
>
> What's important to me about science, is that which has a practical
> implementation, and is actually used for some practical benefit, at
> which point it proves itself. Everything else is just theory, which
> may or may not turn out to be true or even have any real value. The
> only thing important to me about /religion/ are the moral values it
> expounds, where those moral values intend good rather than harm. If
> those ethics derive from an unproven (and likely fictitious) theory
> of creation, then that has no bearing on the merit of those ethics,
> any more than ethics drawn from /any/ work of fictional literature.
>
> I don't chastise those who pursue unproven scientific theories, nor
> do I attack those who pursue unproven religious beliefs, so to call
> such activities the "teaching of falsehoods" is tactless and serves
> no useful purpose but militant interventionism. The results of such
> activities might be entirely harmless and may even produce (perhaps
> secondary) benefits. OTOH not all religion is harmless, but neither
> is all science (take weapons research, for example). One needs some
> sense of balance when dealing with both positions, especially where
> there may be ulterior motives (political, financial, etc.), such as
> seems to be the case in Texas.
>
>> It is possible to have religions that do not contradict facts.
>
> Today's "facts" may be tomorrow's disproved theories, so it's quite
> arrogant and presumptuous to claim absolutes, and it is not for you
> to determine what others are allowed to believe. It may be that you
> and I share a belief in those "facts", but others should be allowed
> the freedom to believe otherwise, provided their beliefs don't harm
> others. Simply believing in something, that may contradict what you
> consider a "fact", is not in itself harmful - ignorant perhaps, but
> not harmful per se. And even that "ignorance" may be a presumption.
>
> You are, of course, free to advocate your own opinions, but there's
> a big difference between advocacy and oppression. Religious beliefs
> that advocate harm to others should not be tolerated, but that's no
> excuse to oppress all religion.
>
>> I do not attack religion, I oppose having my future children having
>> neurons wasted on things that are untrue
>
> In your opinion.
>
> But it's not your opinion that matters ... to others. These are not
> your children, and merely being taught religion is not harmful, and
> it's certainly not unethical, unless it also promotes doing harm to
> others. Unfortunately that does seem to be the case in Texas.
>
>>> But as I pointed out earlier, militant atheism is not about a
>>> preponderance of facts, or any sort of civilised academic debate,
>>> it's about attacking religion for altogether more political reasons.
>>> Suggesting that teaching children about religion is predatory is one
>>> very clear indication of that, especially when you fail to elucidate
>>> the true political threat responsible for your concerns. You're
>>> really just making religion a scapegoat for political extremism, and
>>> you're doing so deliberately and in full knowledge of that fact,
>>> simply to serve your own bigotry.
>>
>> The same can be said about some of the more assertive religious
>> leaders.
>
> But that is no excuse to attack all religion. A bigoted response to
> a bigot is still bigotry.
>
>>> By imposing regulations that prohibit religious education.
>>
>> Not prohibit. I think it just needs to come with the 'warning labels',
>> e.g. "this is a history lesson about culture", this is "how people
>> used to think before we discovered germs, etc."
>
> But you may as well mandate such labels on /all/ "facts", since the
> only difference between fact and opinion is consensus. In a diverse
> culture there are bound to be many different groups each with their
> own consensus of opinions. In a fair and balanced society we should
> respect their right to individuality, whilst ensuring they don't do
> harm to others.
>
>> Religion is sometimes being used to rally the masses, not just
>> intimidate them. In the case of Texas, one might even argues that
>> religion is being used against the state.
>
> But that's not religion, it's extremist politics pretending to be a
> religion. Not all Christians are neo-fascists promoting supremacist
> ideals, which is the /actual/ harm caused by these people in Texas,
> not the religious banner they're waving.
>
> And not a single criticism you've forwarded so far has admitted the
> political nature of this problem. Instead your only objection seems
> to be about the dubious validity of theism, and the rights of those
> who believe in theism to teach it as "fact", because you dispute it
> in your opinion. I may share your scepticism but I don't share your
> desire to oppress a harmless belief, even if I also dispute it, and
> I certainly don't share your predilection for turning religion into
> a scapegoat for a minority of political extremists.
>
>> The "beating your wife" joke was intended as a bit of humour to
>> lighten things up. I assume everyone knows the phrase... "so, when
>> did you stop beating your wife?"
>
> That must be an Americanism that's alien to me, along with the idea
> that Christians should promote neo-fascist ideals instead of things
> like tolerance and compassion.
I'm surprised you didn't hear it before. Wow, that must have sounded really
harsh if the joke was misunderstood, so please accept my apologies.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): schestowitz@xxxxxxxxx (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4T6Y4ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5kGwCcCVsheN7TcktBx2lVyp1Gd5qP
87kAoI2nzGFN3s483YyArPZUseeBqSxF
=DoQt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
