Personally, I think it is more about prostelytizing. If I am having a discussion with someone and they cross the line of righteousness into self-righteousness and I become unable to discuss points with them because they have tapped into fundamental ‘right-ness’.
It doesn’t matter what the philosophy is if the thread has stopped discussing it and turned into a shouting match without and self-reference on the part of the posters.
Xunzian,
I feel like it’s possible to be self righteous and still have it be a good thing in some instances. That is, I feel there is a definite distinction between self righteousness and trying to be fundamentally right.
Take say… an artist who is completely self centered/absorbed.
That is where the Faustian (ours) sense of the argument’s magnificence comes into play and appreciation, regardless of it’s truth value within a social context. Thus why I could appreciate an artist of the philosophical sense such as Jesus.
Sure I personally see him as wrong, and he (perhaps) saw himself as fundamentally right, but the way he presents it has to be admired on a number of grounds. For me, the major admiration is the at least theoretical vision of peace he had in mind, for that time period.
The same goes for modern day people I think of. I’ve met some amazingly complex, and well thought out Christians which I’ve admired from a appreciative point of view despite sort of being annoyed with their persons.
Edit: I don’t mind if someone yells and calls me a fucking retard for not agreeing with them, if they can do it in a way that I have to smile to myself at, behind my annoyed face.
I’m sorry that I misread your implications. You started off by talking about how you’ve looked at this forum and you’ve seen intolerance from Christian points of view, but yet you didn’t mention from all points of view. That led me to believe you really didn’t look at many of the post on this forum and that you feel it’s your need to step up and tell us what we already know. This led me to believe this “Christian Intolerance” was the implied topic of your post, with an addition of speaking of narrow minded dogma’s…what was I too expect other than you are ranting from the Christian intolerance you’ve seen on this site? But yes I’m sorry, and I will try to see you as totally neutral on everything from now on.
Sometimes I’m absolutely amazed that there is a lack of acceptance that once we step into the metaphysical realm, it all becomes opinion based on faith. Any animosity comes from those who declare their opinion to be the way, the truth, the light - for others. This is true for every single point of view and has nothing to do with any particular religion or other way of faith. Discussion of differences isn’t about right or wrong for another, but for our own understanding - or at least it ought to be that way.
I havn’t been around here much but it seems to me that religious users would be despised by the atheists and not the other way around, so the reverse has happened here? The religious now love the smell of their own farts as opposed to the self-righteous atheists?
Hmm that’s not quite the impression I get…
[size=150]“The Twin Towers were legitimate targets…Yes, we kill their innocents and this is legal religiously and logically…
We will not stop killing them and whoever supports them…
It is the duty of every Muslim to fight.
Killing Jews is top priority.” - Osama Bin Laden[/size]
osama bin laden dosent speak for islam
thats like saying all jews are sex hounds just because ron jeremy is one.
Mick, grow a dimension.
And I suppose this guy doesn’t either? -
[size=150]Pres Ahmadinejad of Iran - “Israel must be wiped off the map”[/size]
No it’s equal despising if anything. But here’s what happens, an atheist attacks a religious belief and that religious person defends it, whether he does a good job or not people will accept and not accept what they want. There has been much religious bashing, but when a religious person makes that mistake of doing the same it’s to be brought about as of now.
Well at least you’re admitting what pisses you off. But you don’t sound very “open minded” to me.
Your whole post was anti-Christian in nature and basically implied that we are intolerant haters. I merely pointed out that you had you own agenda that could equally be labelled intolerant and hateful. What exactly were you expecting?
I was thinking the same Ned…That’s irrelevant but that’s how I interpreted it as well sage.
Really? OK, let’s go over it again. You initially said…
(1) “Very few (at least here) hardcore Christians are adept enough to deal with the philosophical onslaught many of us can throw at them if we so wish.” and…
(2) “I feel that a certain hostility develops from the sense that we (seem to be able to) criticize them quite easily, but in return it is quite hard to criticize ‘philosophical athiests’ from a Christian without running into a logical circularity (you’re wrong because you don’t believe).”
These points seem to express your belief that (a) Christians are basically dumb, and (b) you clever old “philosophers” can easily criticize our view while we find it difficult to return the favor
I then responded with some sarcasm which probably should have been beneath me. But it was not.
You then suggested (a) that I had done so because I needed to feel “right in the face of reason” (presumably because I’m a silly old Christian?), (b) noted that atheist philosophy was more “useful in an argumentative sense”
(c) stated your belief system as not feeling like their “is a right or wrong way” (as opposed to us Christians who obviously do) and (d) suggested a reason for all the hostility, namely, that Christians had a “sense of urgency” and that philosophers can’t get anywhere with this crowd “by using pure logic and deduction” (presumably because we don’t understand it?).
I responded by agreeing that Christianity was not based on logic and pointed out that the frustration in these conversations likely derives from a belief that one will easily change the other’s mind through discussion.
How did I do?
I think I’m probably annoying you. I think you probably sincerely believe that you are trying to be reasonable. However, I think you fail to see that you have an inherent low regard for Christian thought and practice. Much less open minded than you probably think. Sometimes it’s good to be honest and not beat around the bush, that’s what I’m doing. I haven’t read many of your posts, but I think you have as biased an outlook as any Christian around here. Most people do.
Unfortunately you are mistaken.
CAIR, speaks for Islam, and when President Bush correctly addressed the problem of IslamoFascism, they cried foul.
Too bad most of the members of CAIR, are members of Hamas, and Hizbollah.
I hate when people approach Cobras with closed minds and intolerance. I mean, there’s only a small chance the cobra will strike you right?
Maybe we should listen to the Foriegn advisor from Iran (courtesy Memri.org)
or maybe we should listen and be open minded about the mufti of Egypt?
also,
Tolerance is a two way street. In order to get tolerance, you have to be given tolerance. If someone doesn’t tolerate you, you shouldn’t tolerate them. If someone hurts/rapes and kills people, you shouldn’t tolerate them.
If a culture promotes honor killings, jailing christians, killing “blood sucking” jews, etc…
That’s not a culture we should tolerate, regardless of what “religious” label it has.
one person cannot speak for an entire religion. you can not let the action of a few extremist, even if temporarily in majority, speak for the entire religion.
tentative,
“Any animosity comes from those who declare their opinion to be the way, the truth, the light - for others.”
There’s a difference between self truth and global truth. (I tried a thread on that topic recently.)
Personal truths are relative. If we all stopped believing in our personal truths, the global, objective truths would become self evident.
Objective truths are self evident, even when confronted with personal truth. The suicide bomber, who is an engineering student, knows that murdering others is wrong, but he justifies it through his god.
yeah, keep thinking it’s only a few. As millions in Syria, Turkey, iran, Egypt and Lebanon all line up to join their own milita ranks to fight Israel.
Like I said before. 20% justify suicide bombing in defense of Islam. How many do you think would justify violence?
And this is a LOW number. In the philipines, and Thailand it’s much HIGHER. IN lebanon, a country that was also in the polls, it was above 80%!!
We’re talking At least 1/4 of a billion people that merely believe in unmaking themselves for their god. At least 1/2 billion that would justify violence in defense of Islam.
But… keep thinking it’s merely a few.
And that’s not fair and this thread should never have been made?
yro:
Thailand: Muslims killing buddhist teachers on such a regular basis, that buddhist teachers are afraid to enter Muslim “controlled” states now.
Philippines: Muslims regularly killing Christians.
India: Muslims killing hindus, buddhists, and christians, and descrating art, and temples.
Iraq: Muslims getting out on the street with “death to america”, “death to Israel” signs.
Iran: Muslims voting for Mahmoud Aminejad. A complete and utter madman, who should ACTUALLY be compared to Hitler. (see quote above.)
Egypt: regularly speaks against america and Israel, still performs honor killings and FGM. When muslims in the street aren’t busy beating up christians, the authorities arrest them.
Saudi Arabia: Same, but they are stricter against christians. They disallow the christian bible even being shown in public.
Dutch: The killings got SO bad, they do this test now:
pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion … s_11-4.htm
Frankly we should start that in other countries.
Spain: The train bombing? From homegrown muslims?
France: Jews regularly targeted and slaughtered. Muslims out on the street rioting with students, because the muslims are taking jobs away from the french.
England: Tunnel Bombing, and foiled airplane bombing… all from homegrown terrorist cells. (directly tied to Islam like the rest of them.)
The prime minister also has recieved threats from local Imams, telling him to change foreign policy “or else”.
Canada: Can you say Sharia law?
USA: Large sect of isolationists in Dearborn, that have set up their own rules in public schools, where they have got prayer in school (why not for christians?) and are regularly tied with terrorist operations over seas. Just recently a couple were arrested that were buying untraceable cell phones to ship over seas for IED’s. (their was another outbreak of that in Arizona this last weekened.)
Just a few?
It’s a few worth worrying about with how widespread it is than. And even if it is a few, the culture of Islam is not worthy of respect. Should we respect cultures that allow honor killings, FGM, and stealing away people in the night that try to convert to kill them in pakistan?
Should we respect a culture that has little hitlers chanting “death to Israel”, while crowds of 10,000+ chant in unison the same thing?
I really don’t understand how anyone can think:
#1) that this problem isn’t directly related to the current way Islam is practiced.
#2) that it’s an isolated problem.
Hi MB,
Yes there are personal “truths”, even though I dislike using that term in any but formal argumentation, but that is the point. My personal beliefs, the outcome of faith is mine and mine alone. We can disagree on anything and we are still voicing opinion only. To suggest that you’re wrong (because you don’t believe what I believe) is the height of arrogance, and the beginning of the intolerance parade.