User talk:Chameleon/NPOV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Why is religion bad?

Sam Spade 17:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, because it is based on abandoning reason, primarily. I'm against astrology for similar reasons. — Chameleon 19:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen User_talk:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases#Of_God_and_Logic? Sam Spade 21:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I have now. There's some pretty crazy stuff, like "Scriptures can also be confusing or unpleasant, particularly if manipulated by the arts of the wicked (the bible itself warns against those who speak the word, yet bear ill fruits)", which sounds like you are implying that people who point out the bad stuff in scripture are somehow bad themselves. In reality, it is good to point out such things, and the existence of such things show that scripture is obviously the work of flawed mortals, and no god; a god would have written something far more sensible. — Chameleon 22:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Well God didn't write the Bible, anymore than he wrote Winnie the pooh. People did, and by most accounts, we have freewill. And no, I wasn't talking about attempts to sow disbelief using scriptures. While that is a wicked enough act of satanism, I was discussing false prophets, blasphemers of the holy spirit. Their desire rather is to perpetuate false belief, rather than to convert another into atheism. Amalek is an applicable concept for the latter. Sam Spade 23:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

False belief? As in what? Islam, Hinduism? — Chameleon 23:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Heck no, see User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases, I am a Perennial Philosopher, a Interdenominational Inclusionist universalist (Non-Roman) Catholic monist ;) I embrace Islam and Hinduism as alternate paths to God. Sam Spade 00:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Who then? — Chameleon 00:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Wicked tele-evangelists, like Robert Tilton. Sam Spade 00:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's a rather obvious example of scum. Let's get back to "attempts to sow disbelief using scriptures[...] a wicked enough act of satanism". No it's not! We atheists are quite right to point out crazy stuff in scripture, just as might point out crazy stuff in a political manifesto. It's a matter of helping people not get sucked in. — Chameleon 00:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

religion and politics are not the same, thats a mistake communism makes (one of many). As you probably know from reading the thread I linked you to, denying my God is nonsensical, since he is pantheistic. That said, should you be exposing errors or ugliness in scriptures? I think not. If you are so offended by something in the bible that you can't call yourself a christian, so be it. But why try to ruin it for somebody else? Religion helps people, psychologically, emotionally,, even medically. Its a fact. Perhaps you question the morals of a book where daughters get their father drunk and sleep with him, or kids get killed by stonethrowing mobs for gathering sticks on sunday. But think about this: What kind of guy was Jesus? From what we hear about him, did he seem like a good role model, or advisor? WWJD? Sam Spade 19:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say religion and politics were the same, and I don't think "communism" necessarily says so either. But they are both areas of human belief and my analogy was valid. You speak of "ruin[ing] it for somebody else" as though we were talking about spoiling a movie. We are talking of real life here. Why is religion the special exception? That is to say, it would be considered absurd by all to say that flaws in political manifestos or scientific theories should not be pointed out lest we "ruin it for somebody else". In fact, even in the subjective, artistic sphere, it is only low-brows who complain about (say) films or novels being ruined by intelligent people pointing out their flaws. (I am a great fan of the Movie Physics website.)

You are also presenting a false dilemma between religion on one hand and empty disappointment on the other. It is also perfectly possible to find comfort in truth. Subjectively, it seems to me that the comfort found in truth and reality is superior to the comfort found in faith. In addition, finding comfort in faith is all too often detrimental to other people's happiness: if I am a Muslim and believe that I will be rewarded in the afterlife for struggling against murderous false religions such as Judaism (or vice versa) then, regardless of any personal comfort, I am making the world a worse place for others. Note that this is not a theoretical argument but an observation of what religious nuts are doing right now in 2005 and have done throughout history.

As for Jesus, well, we don't know much about Jesus. He is mostly mythical. But as far as we can tell, the guy was both good and bad. I do like his opposition to usury, and I don't like his acceptance of many other bads things that were accepted during his lifetime. I mean, if he was the son of god (or had any sort of direct line to enlightenment at all) then he could have been a bit more visionary, and perhaps written the Bible himself and filled it with only good, sensible stuff.

So, in conclusion, Jesus was flawed and shouldn't be held up as such a fantastic a role model. Indeed, any 2000-year-old role model is likely to be largely irrelevant to people trying to figure out how to act today. If we are looking for the best role model, why not pick someone who is still alive and has consistently fought against tyranny? Old Noam would be a good one (even though in his e-mails to me he comes across as an irritable old bastard). Jesus? A really poor candidate. — Chameleon 13:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)