Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What have you done specifically for women, gays, or handicap people?
Are you saying that if we have not made tangible improvements in the lives of these people, we are not permitted to fight against their marginalization?
That is a ludicrous standard, and the only reason people support ideas like this is to silence advocates of historically oppressed groups.
So I guess now you guys are saying that it's okay if other people ridicule Hindu and Buddhist texts. Anything else you say will make you look like an idiot.
First of all, nice to see a christian accepting sarcasm as a tactic.
Second, I'm a Buddhist. And it's very clear to me that you know next to nothing about Buddhism. Did you know, for example, that Buddha said it's up to the practitioner to test and decide whether a teaching is valid and whether or not to incorporate into their life? There's nothing like that in christianity. Instead, in christianity people are commanded to believe things. Furthermore, Buddhism does not attempt to answer all questions through its teachings.
Instead, it focuses on how to reduce and/or eliminate suffering. But as to ridiculing things in Buddhism...I'm not sure how you're defining "ridiculing". But take Buddhist depictions of heavens and hells that you see in many temples, either through paintings or "miniature theme parks". Absurd. Take the tales of how Buddha was born that involve an elephant in a dream. Absurd. Take the tale of Mae Thorani. Absurd. At best those are examples of folk tales used to teach principles to simple, uneducated rice farmers.
If you find lots of truth in something that is different than an emotional attachment. I don't know why you don't understand that.
If you find lots of truth in something that is not true, I don't see how that is anything other than an Emotional attachment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
Good answer. You deserve a cracker.
Raffa deserves a reppa for helping you to do a bit of much -needed thinking. And for free. How about giving him one? I can't at the moment.
Quote:
So I guess now you guys are saying that it's okay if other people ridicule Hindu and Buddhist texts. Anything else you say will make you look like an idiot.
I predict (that's if he gets my cheque in time) that Raffs will say that anything that claims to be true that demonstrably isn't can expect critique. We have had a couple of threads here on the Quran which saw it pretty much put down to Men, not divine origin. And I have argued that Buddhism does not make sense, and that the Tripitaka has the fingerprints of plot construction all over it. and in a rather familiar way. One day The Buddha said "Come Ananda, let us go to Kapilavasta". And when they got there Buddha sat down and said "Ananda what do you think? If a mn does evil, thinking it to be good, how will he not fool Karma into giving him good merit other than the bad which he meriteth? and Ananads saithed back unto him ,"Well, I suppose that Karma knows what is a good or bad deed, no matter what the doer thinks of it." "O thou witless disciple." said the Tathagata, flicking his disciple's nose. "Get the behind me, Servant of Mara. Though are a hindrance to me. Thou makesest a God of Karma, not a law. Thou thinkest as a Brahmin thinks, not as I think."
Pretty much like Gospel plot construction where a bit of a random scene is set and Peter acts as the Stooge for a discourse.
Yes, anything is up for critique - if it is presented as true. Then mockery is well -deserved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
I believe there is only one mysterious God. So even Thor was just a human idea which was about the same God. So no, I don't understand the ridicule of any idea of God, even one that no one believes in anymore due to the evolution of society.
What you don't get (though the implication has been made clear to you) is that we don't care about a One size fits all -god, even though we don't see a good case for one.
Our ridicule is reserved for the Holy Books and claims of organised religions when they are presented as true and upon which our lives should be based.
Now, there are sortagod -believers who don't do that - Trouts (1) is a exemplar of a God -believer (sorta ) whom is absolutely on the same page as atheists and we agree on everything (except how much the Atheist global slush fund can afford to pay him, out of our "bribe global scientists to lie about evolution" account, for his continued support) and probably agrees with you and I over the value of the Bible as an interesting ancient text and as the undoubted and undeniable basis of Western civilisation (2) but Not as any particular value today, and it should be relegated to the Ancient literature (if not mythology) shelf. And those who keep trying to Sell it to us as still important to our society (never mind those who back the religion simply because they feel that atheists are trying to obliterate the Bible need to stp thinking with their emotions and start THINKING.
(1) though he is going sorta animist rather than deist these days - what the heck, Animism, Deism or Pantheism - it's all intelligent nature.
(2) which despite Ghandi's slight (3), is what we and the rest of the world - including India - is pretty much following.
(3) (Reporter) "What do you think of Western Civilisation?"
(Ghandi) "I think it would be a good idea."
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-04-2018 at 11:35 AM..
Perhaps you don't understand the difference between truth and wisdom.
Well done. Finding truth in an old text - or even a new one - is not the same thing as finding wisdom in it.
In the first, the truth is already there in the text. In the second, the wisdom is brought by the reader, and he or she finds something to illustrate it in the text. I make a point by doing the latter with LoR, Startrek scripts or Peanuts. There is Nothing Special about finding "Wisdom" in the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
What have you done specifically for women, gays, or handicap people?
Come on Ozzy mate I have fought for gay rights in the days when you could lose your job and be jailed for being Gay (people couldn't believe that I was not Gay myself), and I supported women's equality, though I was rather pointing out the excesses that hurt their case rather than helped it (1) and I've been kicking into cancer, deaf and blind charities. I doubt not that others do the same. And I won't even ask what you have done for them.
Because it is irrelevant. It is a fallacy - specifically a reverse "you too" fallacy. You cannot invalidate a criticism of something another person doesn't do just because that critical person doesn't do it, either (2)
(1) like prove they were not subordinate to men by dressing up just like them (flat hats and pipes, too), or making women Free by passing a passel of laws forbidding women to act like this or dress like that.
(2) unless that person is making a claim to the higher moral ground, in which case a Tuo Quoque looks valid, to me.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-04-2018 at 11:51 AM..
Come on Ozzy mate I have fought for gay rights in the days when you could lose your job and be jailed for being Gay (people couldn't believe that I was not Gay myself), and I supported women's equality, though I was rather pointing out the excesses that hurt their case rather than helped it (1) and I've been kicking into cancer, deaf and blind charities. I doubt not that others do the same. And I won't even ask what you have done for them.
I haven't forgotten that you were an ardent feminist. I just think it's easy for people NOW to say they support minority groups which have already begun to gain acceptance from the masses. When it's no longer the issue it might once have been.
I haven't forgotten that you were an ardent feminist. I just think it's easy for people NOW to say they support minority groups which have already begun to gain acceptance from the masses. When it's no longer the issue it might once have been.
I am glad that we have had our moment of togetherness. I believe that you are still dodging Badlander's point, which is essentially that religion subjugates minorities, including those listed.
This is one reason why secular humanists, a subset of atheists, don't support religion. Because of religions support for anti-humanist policies.
I am glad that we have had our moment of togetherness. I believe that you are still dodging Badlander's point, which is essentially that religion subjugates minorities, including those listed.
This is one reason why secular humanists, a subset of atheists, don't support religion. Because of religions support for anti-humanist policies.
What is your thought on that?
There are just as many, if not MORE, non-religious people who subjugate minorities and are anti-humanist. If you can defend non-religion from that perspective then these questions asked of me will be worth answering.
There are just as many, if not MORE, non-religious people who subjugate minorities and are anti-humanist.
I am interested in seeing your documentation for this. Please provide whatever you can.
Quote:
If you can defend non-religion from that perspective then these questions asked of me will be worth answering.
I don't think that I do have to document from that perspective, as I don't think that perspective is valid.
Instead, I like to look at what religion has done over the ages, including into our current time.
We have religion supporting slavery, we have religion supporting dominance of men over women, we have religion being used as a tool of cultural imperialism. Can you say that non-religion has done any of these?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) whom is absolutely on the same page as atheists and we agree on everything (except how much the Atheist global slush fund can afford to pay him, out of our "bribe global scientists to lie about evolution" account, for his continued support) and probably agrees with you and I over the value of the Bible as an interesting ancient text and as the undoubted and undeniable basis of Western civilisation (2) but Not as any particular value today, and it should be relegated to the Ancient literature (if not mythology) shelf. And those who keep trying to Sell it to us as still important to our society (never mind those who back the religion simply because they feel that atheists are trying to obliterate the Bible need to stp thinking with their emotions and start THINKING. 
I have fought for gay rights in the days when you could lose your job and be jailed for being Gay (people couldn't believe that I was not Gay myself), and I supported women's equality, though I was rather pointing out the excesses that hurt their case rather than helped it (1) and I've been kicking into cancer, deaf and blind charities. I doubt not that others do the same. And I won't even ask what you have done for them. 
