Bigotry as practice

[F1fan]

It's not 'some Christians' but ALL Christians SHOULD believe that because
it's in the bible. Same for Jews. The real issue really concerns whether the
bible itself is accurate.

The Bible is incorrect about many things. It has a lot of stories that can't be interpreted literally. So it comes down to human judgment. So should humans think themselves so powerful as to adopt an idea that those outside the tribe of belief will be tortured for eternity? What if you are mistaken?

 

[Clara Tea]

It's not 'some Christians' but ALL Christians SHOULD believe that because
it's in the bible. Same for Jews. The real issue really concerns whether the
bible itself is accurate.

The bible says "thou shalt not kill."

Does it matter if the entire bible is accurate if many of the parts of the bible make sense?

God's law, seems to also be the law of the land....police arrest those who kill.

Of course, we a flawed bible, we never know if one of the passages that we follow might be wrong.

I think that the real problem is that people know what to do (as taught in the bible), but they refuse to do it. For example, we just had a war in Iraq after God told us not to kill and turn the other cheek.

 

[Clara Tea]

What you might be observing is the correlation of poor education to belief in irrational concepts.

Religion is a bit different in that religion tends to be ingrained in cultural frameworks, so are adopted as part as social experience. It's a non-rational process.

I'm a dumb hick. Daddy was a dumb hick. Grandpa was a dumb hick. But that don't stop me from drinkin' a toast to dumb hicks ever-where.

Even so, I fit into high society. When presented a cork, I realized that I'd look pretty dumb if I didn't eat it in order to sample the wine. It was very chewy, and I needed to use my hands to help me chew it (one hand on top of my head, the other under my chin), but it was part of a high fiber diet. I told the waiter to keep bringing the corks (hard to get schnockered on corks, but if that's all they had...).

Just as I judge that I fit into high society, theists judge themselves to be worthy of debating scientists on such topics as Global Warming, use of condoms in preventing unwanted pregnancies and stopping STDs like AIDS, and the effect of smut on teens (thus ending the internet). Sure, the scientists have PhDs, and have done research, but how does that compare with hoisting a beer with fellow hicks or downing 24 corks in one dinner. I have to go now....them thar corks is about to exit, theys reluctant to do so.

 

[F1fan]

By who's definition?

It's what is observed. Religion in practice is non-rational, and critical thinking is a threat.

 

[PruePhillip]

The bible says "thou shalt not kill."

Does it matter if the entire bible is accurate if many of the parts of the bible make sense?

God's law, seems to also be the law of the land....police arrest those who kill.

Of course, we a flawed bible, we never know if one of the passages that we follow might be wrong.

I think that the real problem is that people know what to do (as taught in the bible), but they refuse to do it. For example, we just had a war in Iraq after God told us not to kill and turn the other cheek.

The Bible is incorrect about many things. It has a lot of stories that can't be interpreted literally. So it comes down to human judgment. So should humans think themselves so powerful as to adopt an idea that those outside the tribe of belief will be tortured for eternity? What if you are mistaken?

There are multiple 'bibles' in the bible. And there's figurative and literal.
Until recently many felt the stories of King David were figurative - we know
know there WAS a House of David. And a few months back we learned
that there really WAS a Sodom and Gomorrah, struck from the heavens.
I take anything pre-Abraham to be not Jewish but Sumerian. I accept that
from Abraham onwards the Old Testaments accounts are historical.

 

[Lain]

I accept that
from Abraham onwards the Old Testaments accounts are historical.

Why that division when the story does not itself make that division?

 

[F1fan]

There are multiple 'bibles' in the bible. And there's figurative and literal.
Until recently many felt the stories of King David were figurative - we know
know there WAS a House of David. And a few months back we learned
that there really WAS a Sodom and Gomorrah, struck from the heavens.
I take anything pre-Abraham to be not Jewish but Sumerian. I accept that
from Abraham onwards the Old Testaments accounts are historical.

Accepting from whom? By accepting you are still making a judgment that the OT is historical. What if you are mistaken?

The OT can be assessed as historical IF it conforms to fact. That is the only rational measure.

 

[crossfire]

Okay. Let me break this down for you a bit.

I dont know where you had got this passage from, but its a part of the second paragraph of the Kalama Sutta. I must say the transliteration is pretty strange. Where it should be "ng", it is "m". And and where it should be p they have put m.

I got it here:
SuttaCentral

Anyway, no worries. This passage is talking about the Buddha, following Itipiso Bhagava Saima Sambuddho, and praises him with with caste kshathreeya and then goes onto speak of a Bamuna or a hermit type of person who visits their village. He comes and preaches his own philosophy. He denounces the other persons philosophy. then comes another hermit/priest, and he does the same thing. Between these two who should we trust? Or rather, how do we know who is "lying"? You see the end of your cut and paste? It says "Musa" which means "lie".

Thats a question put forward to the Buddha.

What in the world is bigoted in that?

Thank you for your explanation.
The words of the English translation are rather strong and suggest bigotry to me:

"There are some monks and brahmans, venerable sir, who visit Kesaputta. They expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Some other monks and brahmans too, venerable sir, come to Kesaputta. They also expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Venerable sir, there is doubt, there is uncertainty in us concerning them. Which of these reverend monks and brahmans spoke the truth and which falsehood?"​

My Pali is limited to recognizing a few words here and there (such as sacca and musa, for example.) I don't really have a good understanding of the words translated as "despise, revile, and pull to pieces." Perhaps those Pali words aren't as strong as the words used in the English translation? Perhaps the association of the word "musa" with "prejudice" in some cases planted that seed in my mind. I don't know.
Thank you for your explanation though.

 

[firedragon]

Well, the words of the English translation are rather strong and suggest bigotry to me:
"There are some monks and brahmans, venerable sir, who visit Kesaputta. They expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Some other monks and brahmans too, venerable sir, come to Kesaputta. They also expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Venerable sir, there is doubt, there is uncertainty in us concerning them. Which of these reverend monks and brahmans spoke the truth and which falsehood?"

Where in this is bigotry?

My Pali is limited to recognizing a few words here and there (such as sakka and musa, for example.) I don't really have a good understanding of the words translated as "despise, revile, and pull to pieces." Perhaps those Pali words aren't as strong as the words used in the English translation? I don't know. Thank you for your explanation though.

What ever you wish to translate as, the words revile, despise and pull to pieces is addressing other peoples "doctrines" as you gave here. So it is not about doing anything to people.

Again, I said this once, so ill say it again. First, I will correct this translation. It does not say "Monks and Brahmans". Its absurd. It says "samanabrahmana" which is one word, not two words. It is "Monk/brahmana" together. And its "Eke" which is "singular".

"Bottomline is, one comes, and preaches his philosophy or doctrine as you have said above, and another comes and he debunks the other persons doctrine and preaches his own doctrine, thus please advice us how we could know who is lying".

There is no bigotry here.

Anyway our translation says "doctrines of other they despise, revile and pull to pieces". It is not speaking about people. It is speaking about declaring the other persons doctrine is false. The word Paribhavanthi means "cast away".

I have no clue why you think this is about Bigotry. This is only talking about two separate monks coming and preaching two different things and the second monk would declare the other monks teachings are false.

 

[crossfire]

Where in this is bigotry?



What ever you wish to translate as, the words revile, despise and pull to pieces is addressing other peoples "doctrines" as you gave here. So it is not about doing anything to people.

Again, I said this once, so ill say it again. First, I will correct this translation. It does not say "Monks and Brahmans". Its absurd. It says "samanabrahmana" which is one word, not two words. It is "Monk/brahmana" together. And its "Eke" which is "singular".

"Bottomline is, one comes, and preaches his philosophy or doctrine as you have said above, and another comes and he debunks the other persons doctrine and preaches his own doctrine, thus please advice us how we could know who is lying".

There is no bigotry here.

Anyway our translation says "doctrines of other they despise, revile and pull to pieces". It is not speaking about people. It is speaking about declaring the other persons doctrine is false. The word Paribhavanthi means "cast away".

I have no clue why you think this is about Bigotry. This is only talking about two separate monks coming and preaching two different things and the second monk would declare the other monks teachings are false.

Thanks again. Perhaps the lack of acknowledgement of common ground suggested? It very well might be my own biases coming through.
Thanks again. I don't want to pull your thread further off course. {I'm off to contemplate any possible connection between "black and white thinking" and prejudice.}

 

[firedragon]

Thanks again. Perhaps the lack of acknowledgement of common ground suggested? It very well might be my own biases coming through.
Thanks again. I don't want to pull your thread further off course. {I'm off to contemplate any possible connection between "black and white thinking" and prejudice.}

No problem. See, even though this is a bit irrelevant because we are speaking of Buddhism, it is still about bigotry. I only tried to clarify this particular chapter. Kesaputthi sutaa is probably one of the most famous Sutta's in the Pali canon because it is short, and a lot of people use it for various things. Just a side note, even the Kesaputthi is "M" instead of "P" in the website you had provided. I must ask someone why that is. In the original Pali it is "M" or the letter "Ma". Anyway, that's not relevant.

The passage you provided speaks of two priests giving two different doctrines. Thats it. And the people called the Kalama's are asking the Buddha "who should we pick". No one in this particular passage is preaching any bigotry or violence or anything like that. Two people are preaching two different doctrines.

Peace.

 

[Clara Tea]

I think the root cause of examples you are giving is the desire of being better than others, or pride in a negative sense.
It is often, the Believers of any religion feel they are superior to others who are not believers. They imagine they found the truth and God is with them, while everyone else is mislead or misguided. Same with some atheists who think those who believe are stupid or delusional. But in my opinion the underlying cause is the desire to feel superior: They are stupid, they are fooled, or they are misguided and I know truth, therefore I am better.

Socrates considered himself smarter because he realized how much he really didn't know. (He had an argument with the mayor of Athens about that).

 

[Clara Tea]

Thanks again. Perhaps the lack of acknowledgement of common ground suggested? It very well might be my own biases coming through.
Thanks again. I don't want to pull your thread further off course. {I'm off to contemplate any possible connection between "black and white thinking" and prejudice.}

Perhaps we are all a bit gray, and in our lack of knowledge we miss each other's points?

Isn't there room for all beliefs?

However, if one religion gains political control, they can play God and make wars (like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), they can occupy foreign countries (though elected as president in only one country), they can make trade deals that cut out starving Africans, make alliances that lead to world wars (or world peace), and that means that there is no longer room for other religions. This is because all would want to be in charge. Each religion has its own sense of morality, so it will craft its laws and appoint its supreme court judges (who rule for life). It becomes a contest of which religion is politically the strongest.

But somehow God's will is marginalized when religion mixes with politics. "Thou shalt not kill" becomes "we must kill to defend ourselves, even if we don't have evidence of wrongdoing" (as it happened in Iraq, where about 1,000,000 Iraqis died in the recent war).

Surely, if one is religious, one should adhere to God's laws, especially if taking over the politics of a country (and thereby taking over the world).

 

[Clara Tea]

This is a good lession for @firedragon. He wants to define it in a way that doesn't include believing x group is deserving of hell in general because Quran contradicts that. So he says that is not bigotry. But semantics is not set in stone, and people dispute definitions.

There are groups in Europe who believe Quran should be banned because by their definition, it is hate speech, and hate speech should be banned in "free societies" per them.

It is a good idea to ban hate speech. People have to be protected from bullies, no matter if they are motivated by their belief in God.

 

[Clara Tea]

Apparently, it was weird to have a friend group comprised of different races? I thought that was normal. People tell me now that it was uncommon.

Were any bigots invited, or were they excluded?

 

[Clara Tea]

I remember watching the news at the beginning of Trump's term about two senators(on opposite ends of the political spectrum) having to carpool together... and bonding quickly... over doughnuts. They said once they realized they both shared a deep love of doughnuts, they realized they probably had more in common than not. They took a few videos of themselves on the road to prove that Democrats and Republicans can be friends.

I think cliquishness in general is a huge problem in the US. People must look the same/act the same/have the same amount of money/have the same beliefs(or lack of) to interact anymore...

Wave a doughnut under their nose and they'd vote for anyone....including Satan.

 

[JustGeorge]

Were any bigots invited, or were they excluded?

We were all bigoted. We liked creative and open minded people, and disliked those who were content with the status quo. (We were teenagers/young adults, after all.)

 

[Clara Tea]

It is a clear and integral part of Islamic ideology. Morality comes from Allah, through Muhammad.
Now, this does not necessarily mean that a person who does not follow Islam has no morals (an atheist can be teetotal, abstain from extra-marital sex, etc), but it is claimed by apologists that they have no basis for their morals, and it is certainly the case that those who reject Islamic morality are seen to be lacking in morals.

The Abrahamic religions are, by definition, bigoted. They are prejudiced against those who do not share their opinions.

This is just a feeble straw man. I'm not sure that you could find many, if any, atheists who think this.

Can you give some examples of atheists rejecting valid research simply because the author was religious?

Ironically, your argument is displaying the kind of poor and prejudiced thinking that you are complaining about.

KWED's question: "Can you give some examples of atheists rejecting valid research simply because the author was religious?" This presumes that there is valid research that atheists didn't do.

Non-scientists generally have something to prove, and they will stop at nothing to prove it. Scientist, on the other hand, seek truth.

For example, look at all of the theists who have claimed to have found Noah's Ark. Real scientists date the wood and find that it is much too recent. Does this slow down the zeal of theists?

 

[Clara Tea]

We were all bigoted. We liked creative and open minded people, and disliked those who were content with the status quo. (We were teenagers/young adults, after all.)

I'm only against those who disagree. It's lonely at the top.

 

[Truthseeker]

Perhaps faith is not about thinking, but believing? Perhaps the truly faithful are good people trying to do good?

If so, how do we explain the war in Iraq? The US lacked proof that Iraq was tied to terrorism, and we were told that once we defeat it, we will have the proof (1,000,000 dead Iraqis later). Should a person of faith defy God's commandment not to attack Babylon (in Revelation)? God said "thou shalt not kill," and "turn the other cheek." How can we consider that we are doing good if we defy God and kill?

Not sure what you are getting at.

We need to think to establish what the truth is, don't you think? We need to think. By my thinking Babylon doesn't refer to Iraq. It's a symbol. We need to think whether this is literal or not.

The rest of what you say seems garbled to me. How can we come to an understanding about this? I want to understand you. Help me.