Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
And Tibetan Buddhism is really more like polytheistic atheism, if you can believe that. And yet a lot of their moral and ethical and theological underpinnings are indistinguishable from those in any of the other world relgions: be a good person, live ethically, live morally, leave the world a better place than when you arrived etc etc. Why is it they get a free pass from the haters? Buddhist countries have armies. They persecute people. They wage war. They oppress people. They're unreasonable and unfair.
BTW when Maher engages in faint praise of Islam when he essentially says "They don't have any pretensions of NOT being barbarians so we'll give them that" he's sounding exactly like the Muslims who burn down newspaper offices for daring to print drawings of Mohammad. Maybe it's just me but I think that's a borderline nazi point of view.
"Especially when it is regarding events that have deep emotional resonance. Bernal Diaz did regarding Hernan Cortes' march into Mexico. It is an exquisitely detailed account."
A "deep emotional resonance" defines personal bias, which is counter to accurate recollection.
Andrew, you said religion has centuries' worth of high-powered intellection on its side.
I say that "theological studies" is an oxymoron. It's people arguing whether Santa Claus's elves had red & white or green & white striped stockings.
Of course Aquinas and other high-powered intellectuals could spend their lives making up fantasies. Doesn't make them true.
You are unable to face it, everything you believe in is false, a house of cards. Sad.
Michaels,
Perhaps I should clarify (and I caught a typo of my own). I meant that nihilism is more THAN (not that, my bad) the boogeyman of the evil dude smashing shit because he "believes in nothing." That isn't really nihilism. Nihilism is (yes, I'm aware this is an oversimplification, what isn't?) more a deconstruction of the entire set of morality that has evolved over history. Religion has been the main guide by which we have developed our moral code. If Maher has a problem with religion in general, then he really needs to re-examine exactly how he gets his sense of morality. I simply find someone making anti-religious diatribes in the same breath as a moral judgement on anything, absolutely hilarious. Reminds me of my old roommate who drove a Jeep Cherokee with a bunch of enviro bumper stickers on it.
I'm not terribly sure how your argument for the categorical imperative works here, but I'm assuming you mean that morality can exist for non-religious people. I'm not taking issue with that at all. I'm just saying that they should be aware of where their moral code and their very sense of good and bad things comes from. The categorical imperative is great because it tickles the fancy of the current collective Judeo-Christian set of good/bad, which is simply how morality has evolved. If there were no religion, (at least the kind we've evolved from) I'm not sold on the idea that people would have anywhere near our current concept of good and bad.
I certainly don't find Nietzche's set of "good" traits anything to aspire to, but that is because I have lived in a soociety mired in the Judeo-Christian slave morality and it is just darn hard to change your moral framework when you find out that its premise is at best a pretty lie and at worse a cage. So I'm not the Ubermensch, I can live with that.
The point is, you can't completely slam religion on the whole and say the world would be better off without it, because you whole concept of "better" comes directly from religion. You can be non-religious to your heart's content, but you are just a metaphysical George Bailey if you wish it had never existed in the first place.
You know the old maxim "if you like sausage, you don't want to see it made"? Well, that works for your precious sense of good and bad. Guess what, it is all based on the thing you call stupid and terrible.
I guess the general rule should be: You can have morality without being religious. But you can't have your current sense of morality without religion having existed. QED, you can't call religion bad (unless you call your own moral code bad or you have completely rejected conventional morality).
"Not a great translation, but that doesn't matter. "you shall cut off her hand" means that she is to be fined."
OK, great that’s a start…Now please tell me you have more to back that up with, than just saying it.
Some references or evidence or something, as you can tell, I don’t just take what people say on “faith”…How do I know that you didn’t just make that up?
After that, you need to call up those folks who are in charge of making bibles, and let them know that King James is all jacked up, and get it corrected. I mean, if it really means to “give a fine” (with no mercy? Huh?), why cant it just say so? How has this huge mistake gone uncorrected for so long?
See, us non religious people ask a lot of questions.
anyway, I got a million more crazy quotes, that you need to correct....
Tell me, if there are sooooo many things in the bible that are just "translated wrong" or mean something completely different from what they say....How would I know what of or which parts of it to believe in the first place?
For something divinly inspired, it sure is confusing and poorly written, maybe god needs a better editor?
ps. Sorry for the snarkyness, dont take offence, It's just my personality. I am very serious in asking said questions.
I don't think the 'high powered' religious intellectuals that Andy refers to could do much salvaging. True, they do not believe in the most grostesque fantasies of Christianity or Islam, or they shouldn't. However, the so-called liberal defenders of religion that Salon prints are pretty lame folks - they make serious logical mistakes and ad hominum arguments.
I suppose Andy is referring to St. Augustine as one of those serious 'intellects'. St Augustine justified the state torture of heretics, leading to the Inquisition, for instance. Not a small matter.
Religion used to play a role in cementing 'tribes' and groups together against other groups, and might have played a role in survival. However, at this time in history, fundamentalist religion is actually playing a large role in threatening the human races' survival on many levels - the environment, war, prejudice, economics and general irrationalism.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
