Concerns About Sony's Religious Intolerance

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

People that pray to Jesus do believe he is God. Part of the Holy Trinity.

BOb

Now you've gone and done it BOb!! You've poked the Wolfie!! How many times have I told you NOT to poke the Wolfie!! He'll just make another sweeping declaration about things we are not supposed to do (ever) and then I'll have to add it to the list of "don't annoy the Wolfie" things that I KNOW I shouldn't do, but then I find I can't help myself, and I do them anyway, and then I have to beat myself soundly about the head with a trout (although a salmon will do in a pinch) because I've broken my own rule, not to mention one of his.

I am so crushing your head right now. (I'm cruuusssshing your head ..... )

And, oh yes .... Holy Trinity ... Jesus is supposed to be "God made flesh." Dead on.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Now you've gone and done it BOb!!

HA HA! Karma to you for that one.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

And, oh yes .... Holy Trinity ... Jesus is supposed to be "God made flesh." Dead on.

10 years in Catholic school, confirmation classes and being an alter boy I guess I learned something.

BOb

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck;335195}
Are you just as accepting of prayers in the name of Kali, Loki, Coyote, or Lucifer?

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. I offer reverence to all four of those, among others, in my religious services. (Sometimes. Not all at once. I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid.)

Originally Posted by DixieGal

I'm sorry that you have such a bad view of Christianity. I know from my own experience that there are some among us Christians who use their religion as a battering ram instead of gently offering to share our religion, finding points of common beliefs that we can discuss.

The monotheist/polytheist difference is much, much bigger than most Christians understand. I get along fine with the ones who don't consider it important--but they tend not to be the ones who like religious debate & discussion.

I treasure the few monotheists I know who are willing and able to thoroughly discuss religion with someone who doesn't share their basic concepts of how the universe works.

Can you not find a way to accept some of us as people who only want to do good in the world?

Some? Sure. Individuals. People I know and trust. People whose religious affiliations are not to a jealous god of wrath and carnage.

Sorting out which Christians are loving, tolerant and dedicated to everyone having a better life, and which are dedicated to *Christians* having better lives, and which are actively attempting to eliminate non-Christians from the planet (the politest ones only want to convert them all)... is generally more effort than I care to spend on other people's religions. At least during casual encounters.

Agreed, except I reserve the right to express my Christian beliefs and will not attack anyone who believes differently. OK?

And that's fine too. I have nothing against Christians in principle; I've just had enough unpleasant encounters to make me wary.

[CCDMan]

Are you sure about that? I looked, and cannot find the court transcript or a copy of the ruling. You need to show that that sentence is in one or the other. Otherwise it wasn't said in an official capacity.

Not sure - I assumed from the post context that it was said officially. If not, no problem.

[CCDMan]

And that's fine too. I have nothing against Christians in principle; I've just had enough unpleasant encounters to make me wary.

This is true. Some allow others to have their opinions. In fact, my wife is a solid practicing Catholic and I am an agnostic and we are both fine with that and have been for 28 years.

OTOH, some christians (typically the more radical evangelicals) I have met are loud-mouthed, pushy, ignorant jerks who want to shove their religion down everyone's throat. In fact, they are some of the least moral folks I have known.

I think it really depends on the individual. The problem is that radical beliefs attract radical people and radicals of any persuasion are not exactly known for their tolerance.

[Gideon]

I'd just be angry cause it was a badly thought-out book with a terrible argument.

Give me some of those classy old atheists... these new ones are morons and need to stick to their fields! I'm a pretty committed religious person, but don't mind a good argument as long as it's half intelligent.

His book was, unfortunately, not.

Otherwise... it's just one more of the crappy books that came pre-loaded. So it goes.

[Cthulhu]

@ Gideon:

What part of his arguments against faith were so atrocious?

The part where children should not be sold into spiritual slavery?

Telling people that they have a right to choose, and letting people know that "none of the above" is an option when it comes to religion?

Could the fault lie in his assessment that saying "it's Turtles [my apologies for earlier] all the way down" is just as silly and indefensible as "Jesus told me to kill that doctor?"

Maybe it was the part where he said that being a staunch "THERE IS NO GOD" atheist was rather as foolish as "THERE IS A GOD THERE IS A GOD" theists are?

That last part made me really think. Here is a man whose work has been misunderstood by layman and turned into something as repugnant as social Darwinism (see Jeff Skilling & _The Selfish Gene_) pointing out the absolute folly of absolutism.

What part of Dr. Dawkin's book was so unintelligent?

Personally, I loved all the resources at the end for people who believed that there was no hope, and no way out of the cult into which they were bred.

[Gideon]

Actually, I'm just as against that sort of thing as Dawkins. The big problem with his book was his reductionism and his incessant straw-man arguments. The same problem that exists with most the new atheists.

I'm religious, but despise the sort of religion he talks about probably more than he does. But that's the whole point - plenty of people don't treat their religion like that, and most of his arguments were more or less nonsense in the end.

If you're going to call religion those things he talks about and pretend like that is the bulk of it you're making a mistake. It's stupid to do and Dawkins is smarter than that. The problem is he is a biologist, not someone who actually studies religion and social science.

There are plenty of arguments against religion, and it isn't that he doesn't use some of them, it's just he reduces all religion to that thing.

Religion is like politics - it exists almost universally, right or wrong, and talking about how bad one or the other is doesn't stop the problems. Religion is something people do, and when you take religion away, something else fills its shoes (look at communist Russia or China, for instance) and it can be just as bloody and terrible (and just as often, worse.)

There are plenty of good discussions about the problems with Dawkins books, and not from a religious perspective. It's bad philosophy. It's bad history. And it's bad social theory. It's the Ayn Rand of discussions of religion - no one in the fields he discusses (many atheists, I assure you) want anything to do with it. These guys are good at rhetoric throwing things around, but they are not saying anything all that rational (despite their beloved scientism).

He acts just as badly, just as reductionistic as those theists he decries.

Personally, I find these arguments tiresome... It's not provable one way or another and as long as people are decent I couldn't care less what they believe or don't believe. Of course religion is often dangerous and evil. So is everything people do, taken to extremes. But pretending the extremes is most of it while paying scant attention to what happens in the middle is just the same thing, dressed up in reason.

I, and certainly most the religous people I associate with, would agree with most the criticisms these guys offer against religion and religious people. I'm in Oklahoma, for God's sakes.... you have any idea what kind of religious monsters I live around? But I know it's not all religious people. The people that run the center for children and families are religious, the people who run the organizations that rehabilitate drug addicts and prisoners are religious, the organizations (like the one I work for) that promote interfaith (and lack of faith) dialogue and social justice are ran by largely religious people... None of whom are trying to convert anyone.

But ultimately... reductionism and straw man arguments. That's the crux of it. It's bad work for an academic and has more to do with a Jack Chick track than any sensible literature on the subject. I'd suggest Bertrand Russell for a good atheist read. Or Nietzsche (though he gets reductionist at times as well.) He's still offering more.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

And, why would Bertrand Russell be lecturing on astronomy?? He wasn't an astronomer. He wasn't even a scientist. He was a philosopher ... at least he was the last time I read any of his work.

He did write a few science books aimed at the layman ('The ABC of Relativity' for example).

[Gideon]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

He did write a few science books aimed at the layman ('The ABC of Relativity' for example).

He was pretty impressive mathematician as well. But a lot of his work really helped establish analytic philosophy (along with Wittgenstein). Of course, since then philosophy departments (in the English speaking world at least) have been terribly irrelevant places (imo.) Well, you know.... irrelevant for philosophy. Epistemology just bores the hell out of me!

[pdurrant]

Umm.. on Discworld the Turtles swim through space, they don't stand on each other.

But I was thinking of the now well-known anecdote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

It's elephants all the way down in the Buddhist parable. It's only turtles all the way down on Discworld.

[pdurrant]

I see you have repented. You are forgiven. Go, and sin no more....

(It's fortunate that arranging a burning take a fair bit of time.)

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Could the fault lie in his assessment that saying "it's Turtles [my apologies for earlier] all the way down" is just as silly and indefensible as "Jesus told me to kill that doctor?"

[ShellShock]

Originally Posted by Gideon

Actually, I'm just as against that sort of thing as Dawkins. The big problem with his book was his reductionism and his incessant straw-man arguments. The same problem that exists with most the new atheists.

I totally disagree with your opinion Gideon. Rather than go through all the arguments here, I suggest that anyone who is interested in the other side of this debate pop along to www.richarddawkins.net.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Well elephants is older than turtles (dating back several centuries). Man ... that sentence just sounds wrong .... "elephants is older than turtles"??

The original saying is from a very old Buddhist parable about faith, and why it is futile to argue a point of faith.

And, why would Bertrand Russell be lecturing on astronomy?? He wasn't an astronomer. He wasn't even a scientist. He was a philosopher ... at least he was the last time I read any of his work.

What? You said the original saying was elephants all the way down and claimed that turtles all the way down was from Discworld. Ask Stephen Hawking about the story about the scientist since it is in his book. The same story was told a bit differently by Russell in the book I read by him. It was in connection with a discussion of religion and more specifically some of Aquinas proofs of Gods existence.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by ShellShock

I totally disagree with your opinion Gideon. Rather than go through all the arguments here, I suggest that anyone who is interested in the other side of this debate pop along to www.richarddawkins.net.

I disagree also. And from the outside it looks like the book is very relevant for US today since it seems that religion in the sense that Dawkin argues against influence US politics in a bad way.