Bigotry as practice

[loverofhumanity]

Ive been thinking about this topic for about a decade and have been finding bigotry not only prevailing but increasing. Ill give some examples. Mind you, you may consider this anecdotal, no problem.

1. Some Muslims have this idea that all who dont believe in the prophet Muhammed are lacking morals. This seems like an arbitrary idea, and I am yet to see some scholarly exegesis of what ever Islamic text that states this as such. I would say even if some text say this directly, it is bigotry and should be avoided because its just nonsense. The same sentiment goes to some Christians. But it could be that Muslims and Christians are so vast in numbers that I encounter them more.

2. Some Atheists think that all theists are just stupid. They think all theists are just uneducated, and in fact, about a decade ago I did notice that there was a uprising in atheistic polemics that all theists are just uneducated. And I have known some ex Christians who became Muslims who have told me that once they became Muslims they noticed that the atheistic idea that all theists are just plain stupid and uneducated increased. But this is not based on a worldwide study of course. I have noticed in this very forum. Sometimes when you present some kind of research, they find the researcher was Christian, the atheist had this idea that since he is Christian its invalid. But hey, they took Newton and Algebra. I think that's hypocritical really.

Its better to put it bluntly. This is bigotry. Unresearched, yes. But what ever the background is, or the level of research finding, it is in my opinion, just bigotry because I personally believe that this kind of thinking is not based on research. Its just an indoctrination of some kind.

What do you think?

I believe that the true purpose of religion is to foster love and brotherhood amongst men. Anything else is not true religion if it is a cause of hatred, prejudice or bloodshed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who solved them? None of these are to be solved. Or I don't understand what you are saying.

Some people irrationally believe that they can use rationality and evidence on all of the world.

 

[Lain]

That would make some of the acts of the US and Uk during WWII terroristic acts,

In my opinion: they certainly were, and continue to be. The bombing of cities they did under the pretense of civilian areas supporting the war effort was intrinsically evil terrorism (it was explicitly said to be to cause fear) and murder, but I digress, the thread will be derailed.

 

[firedragon]

My point is that you aren't getting others' points

Thats not a point. Its being cavalry to someone else and attacking a person personally.

Try to use the OP and make a point instead. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

So people irrationally believe that they can use rationality and evidence on all of the world.

Maybe.

 

[firedragon]

I believe that the true purpose of religion is to foster love and brotherhood amongst men. Anything else is not true religion if it is a cause of hatred, prejudice or bloodshed.

Religion is not the cause of hatred. Never. Anyone who studies sociology of religion knows this. Its a very common thing. Only the writers who are not sufficiently informed or/and hypocrites paint religions to be the cause of hatred.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe.

Yeah, maybe.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No problem Skeptic Thinker. So you came to the defence of your fellow.

Can you give any evidence to the statement "For good people to do evil things, it takes religion."?

If you dont have any research based, hypothesis quantified statistical evidence, this is just a faith statement.

Please go ahead.

My "whaaa?" was aimed at your claim that quoting someone means you worship them.
I find that statement to be quite bizarre.


Okay ...
For good people to do evil things, it takes religion?
Sure, I can give a few examples:

1. Genital mutilation
2. Flying airplanes into buildings
3. Defending chattel slavery
4. Demonizing gay people
5. Telling people they are going to hell for not believing as you do
6. Murdering "witches"
7. Murdering heretics
8. Advocating that human suffering is a good thing and perpetuating it (See: Mother Teresa)
9. Promoting the idea that this life doesn't matter and that there's some other better life waiting for us if we just give in to the whims of a God that can't be demonstrated to exist

Those are just off the top of my head.

Once you think God is on your side, you can justify just about action, as people throughout history have done.



I've got a better question ...

"Name an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer."
-Christopher Hitchens

 

[KWED]

You know the story. Abraham came out of Sumer originally and settled in Canaan. His nephew
settled in the Jordan Valley and eventually married and lived in Sodom. Two men came to
take him out of the city. Lot's family went to a city outside the blast zone. His wife was returning
to Sodom when it was struck and she was 'turned to a pillar of salt.' The shock blast coated
the valley with vaporized or melted salt to a 25 km radius. Happened at night. Abraham was on
the lee side of a mountain range. In the moring he ventured to a vantage point and saw the
whole valley was like the smoke of a furnace.
Is this a myth, or the world's only eye witness account of cities destroy by cometary air blast?

Whatever, the skeptics have retreated - 'Sodom and Gomorra' is something which happened.
Vaporized by 2,000 C heat and blasted with 1,000 kph shock wave.

No. The Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah has not been verified at all.
There is an hypothesis that an airburst meteor may have been responsible for destroying a city in ancient Palestine.
Even if that turned out to be accurate (which we do not know), it still leaves the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as mere myth. It's like saying because there is some evidence that there was a King Herod, then all the Biblical stories around him must therefore be true. It is a non sequitur of massive proportions.

Also bear in mind that if the Bible story did turn out to be merely an account of a natural event rather than god's magic, then it further disproves Christianity and its god.
Is that really what you want?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thats not a point. Its being cavalry to someone else and attacking a person personally.

Try to use the OP and make a point instead. Cheers.

Yep, it's a point.
It was my point.
Let's see if you take it in.

I'm "attacking" your style of argumentation. I'm not attacking you personally.

 

[firedragon]

Yep, it's a point.
It was my point.
Let's see if you take it in.

I'm "attacking" your style of argumentation. I'm not attacking you personally.

Try to respond to the OP and make a point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Try to respond to the OP and make a point.

I've made several points.

That main one was important to point out. I'm not the only one to notice it.

 

[KWED]

So you have solved Agrippa's Trilemma and the problem of epistemological solipsism? If yes, then please explain.

Do they require solving?
I always thought they were just rhetorical handwaving.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My "whaaa?" was aimed at your claim that quoting someone means you worship them.
I find that statement to be quite bizarre.


Okay ...
For good people to do evil things, it takes religion?
Sure, I can give a few examples:

1. Genital mutilation
2. Flying airplanes into buildings
3. Defending chattel slavery
4. Demonizing gay people
5. Telling people they are going to hell for not believing as you do
6. Murdering "witches"
7. Murdering heretics
8. Advocating that human suffering is a good thing and perpetuating it (See: Mother Teresa)
9. Promoting the idea that this life doesn't matter and that there's some other better life waiting for us if we just give in to the whims of a God that can't be demonstrated to exist

Those are just off the top of my head.

Once you think God is on your side, you can justify just about action, as people throughout history have done.



I've got a better question ...

"Name an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer."
-Christopher Hitchens

Now give evidence for the fact that there are evil things.

 

[firedragon]

I've made several points.

That main one was important to point out. I'm not the only one to notice it.

Its alright ST. Even if you gather a 100 people around you, this is only an Internet forum.

Just try to address the OP.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do they require solving?
I always thought they were just rhetorical handwaving.

So explain how we got from philosophy to science? And how come we have the concept of evidence and what that is? And how it differs from truth?
I mean, you do know how come we don't use truth anymore and how come science is based on methodological naturalism?

 

[KWED]

That would make some of the acts of the US and Uk during WWII terroristic acts,

If they deliberately target innocent civilians in the name of advancing a political or religious agenda, yes.
The area bombing of Dresden in 1945 was absolutely an act of terrorism. A war crime that has no viable defence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If they deliberately target innocent civilians in the name of advancing a political or religious agenda, yes.
The area bombing of Dresden in 1945 was absolutely an act of terrorism. A war crime that has no viable defence.

Evidence of that claim, please.
I think you don't understand this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[KWED]

So explain how we got from philosophy to science? And how come we have the concept of evidence and what that is? And how it differs from truth?
I mean, you do know how come we don't use truth anymore and how come science is based on methodological naturalism?

Did we "get from philosophy to science"?
Are you trying to say that Agrippa's Trilemma is what caused science?
I think you need to explain your position, in detail.

 

[KWED]

Evidence of that claim, please.

It's in the post above. Didn't you see it?

I think you don't understand this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

You've posted this before and it is patently obvious now, as then, that you don't understand what it means.