Muslins WTF.

[Robert_S]

No no. That's your opinion, and you're using it as an excuse to attack the majority. The responsibility lies with the author, not its readers. Otherwise, if you read a book by some atheist, and in it the author recommends violence or whatever, you'd be morally responsible for its contents, even if you don't buy the book, or read it all, or even agree with every word. Which is clearly absurd. And that's why you're being hypocritical.

It depend on whether or not I've donated money and/or time to an organization that printed and distributed the book, or if I personally recommended it. When I do give or recommend a book to another person, I take some responsibility for what's in there. If it is non-fiction, I usually take some time to look over some criticisms of it and pass those on to the person I'm dealing with. Or, I just say i can't vouch for the contents of the book, but here it is.

I think that's just the bare minimum of what I should do when passing along information.

[Chuck Jones]

No no. That's your opinion, and you're using it as an excuse to attack the majority. The responsibility lies with the author, not its readers. Otherwise, if you read a book by some atheist, and in it the author recommends violence or whatever, you'd be morally responsible for its contents, even if you don't buy the book, or read it all, or even agree with every word. Which is clearly absurd. And that's why you're being hypocritical.

It depend on whether or not I've donated money and/or time to an organization that printed and distributed the book, or if I personally recommended it. When I do give or recommend a book to another person, I take some responsibility for what's in there. If it is non-fiction, I usually take some time to look over some criticisms of it and pass those on to the person I'm dealing with. Or, I just say i can't vouch for the contents of the book, but here it is.

I think that's just the bare minimum of what I should do when passing along information.

It's not down to the reader of a book to vouch for anything. Every individual is responsible for their own opinions and their own actions, not the words of someone else. I've read many things that I strongly disagree with but I'd never dream of vouing or disclaiming any of it if I were to show someone else, the reaon being that the thoughts in their head and their actions belong to them, not to me. They can make of it whatever they like, my opinion is my business, theirs is theirs. That's true responsibility.

[Robert_S]

No no. That's your opinion, and you're using it as an excuse to attack the majority. The responsibility lies with the author, not its readers. Otherwise, if you read a book by some atheist, and in it the author recommends violence or whatever, you'd be morally responsible for its contents, even if you don't buy the book, or read it all, or even agree with every word. Which is clearly absurd. And that's why you're being hypocritical.

It depend on whether or not I've donated money and/or time to an organization that printed and distributed the book, or if I personally recommended it. When I do give or recommend a book to another person, I take some responsibility for what's in there. If it is non-fiction, I usually take some time to look over some criticisms of it and pass those on to the person I'm dealing with. Or, I just say i can't vouch for the contents of the book, but here it is.

I think that's just the bare minimum of what I should do when passing along information.

It's not down to the reader of a book to vouch for anything. Every individual is responsible for their own opinions and their own actions, not the words of someone else. I've read many things that I strongly disagree with but I'd never dream of vouing or disclaiming any of it if I were to show someone else, the reaon being that the thoughts in their head and their actions belong to them, not to me. They can make of it whatever they like, my opinion is my business, theirs is theirs. That's true responsibility.

You feel no responsibility for the information you spread? If spreading information is morally and ethically neutral, then why do Christians and Muslims think they're doing good by printing their books?

If someone is sick and I give them a pamphlet about some homeopathic quackery leading them to forgo real treatment which leads to greater health problems down the road, have I not wronged them? Should I be trusted the next time?

Oftentimes the truth is important in more than a philosophical sense.

[Chuck Jones]

Christians and muslims think that they're doing good by printing their books because that's their opinion. That has nothing to do with the opinions of anyone who may read those books. Censorship is never the way to go. If you feel that the information is wrong and needs challenging, then you have the right to challenge it with your own information, rather than censoring what you disagree with. If you don't want to do that, that's your call. You have as much right to challenge anything I say as I do to say what I think. Use it, don't censor others. If you take away my right to impart my views, then you're also taking away your own right to impart yours. You should use your right, not remove mine. Otherwise, that's facism.

[FBM]

They aren't the same thing. A religion is effectively a culture, and nobody would say that a culture is the contents of a book. The book is part of the religion, it isn't the whole of it. What a religion is effectively is determined by what occurs within it, and as everyobody knows, the vast majority of people in religions are decent enough people. So to judge a religion by cherry picking when it's convenient rather than looking at the whole is ignorance. Sometimes, some atheists do this. In order to attack religion, they create a strawman and attack that, and then equate the strawman with the entirity of the religion and the entirity of the behaviour of all the hundreds of millions of people in that religion, when that is not the case.

There's a lot of truth in that, whether you're talking about religions, nationalities, football teams, politics, etc.

It's about as ignorant as me judging atheists and atheism by the works of Dawkins.

I agree that hasty generalizations are often distortions for convenience (and bias), and thus tend to exacerbate error and the original problem. Seems to me the more you specify particular individuals and particular behaviors, the more weight your argument carries. (Generic 'you' there.)

The Koran is only part of Islam and Islam is part of what a person who is also a Muslim is. I would judge a person's religion, but I wouldn't judge a whole person based on their religion alone.

Same here. The behavior is my problem, regardless of the inspiration. Their wacky ideas about imaginary friends in high places is none of my concern.

[Robert_S]

Christians and muslims think that they're doing good by printing their books because that's their opinion. That has nothing to do with the opinions of anyone who may read those books. Censorship is never the way to go. If you feel that the information is wrong and needs challenging, then you have the right to challenge it with your own information, rather than censoring what you disagree with. If you don't want to do that, that's your call. You have as much right to challenge anything I say as I do to say what I think. Use it, don't censor others. If you take away my right to impart my views, then you're also taking away your own right to impart yours. You should use your right, not remove mine. Otherwise, that's facism.

I'm not advocating censorship. I'm advocating people taking a little time to think about what they are supporting. I'll gladly accept the legal right of anyone to print almost anything, but I'm not giving the moral and ethical right out so freely.

[FBM]

Christians and muslims think that they're doing good by printing their books because that's their opinion. That has nothing to do with the opinions of anyone who may read those books. Censorship is never the way to go. If you feel that the information is wrong and needs challenging, then you have the right to challenge it with your own information, rather than censoring what you disagree with. If you don't want to do that, that's your call. You have as much right to challenge anything I say as I do to say what I think. Use it, don't censor others. If you take away my right to impart my views, then you're also taking away your own right to impart yours. You should use your right, not remove mine. Otherwise, that's facism.

While I agree with the bulk of this view, there is, I think, legitimacy in keeping people from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. I wouldn't try to censor peaceful religious literature, but literature specifically designed to incite violence? Hmmmm...

[Chuck Jones]

Christians and muslims think that they're doing good by printing their books because that's their opinion. That has nothing to do with the opinions of anyone who may read those books. Censorship is never the way to go. If you feel that the information is wrong and needs challenging, then you have the right to challenge it with your own information, rather than censoring what you disagree with. If you don't want to do that, that's your call. You have as much right to challenge anything I say as I do to say what I think. Use it, don't censor others. If you take away my right to impart my views, then you're also taking away your own right to impart yours. You should use your right, not remove mine. Otherwise, that's facism.

I'm not advocating censorship. I'm advocating people taking a little time to think about what they are supporting. I'll gladly accept the legal right of anyone to print almost anything, but I'm not giving the moral and ethical right out so freely.

No problem. Every individual has the right to think whatever they like, and say wat they like. Likewise, they also have the right to accept or reject whatever someone else tells them. Those rights are inherent and inalienable, so if by "freely" you mean without a challenge, that's fine. Perhaps you could help someone else to think about what they're supporting, by using your right to express your views to them, and then hope for the best. And I know that sometimes people will suffer as a result of making poor decisions, but that's life. So be it. In life you're going to suffer some time, and if you believe that this life is all there is, then we may aswell live it free to express what's on our minds instead of keeping it inside. And if you believe that after this life comes another, then that's fine too. At least you can tell God "I did it my way".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4766176794#

Good night, and god bless.

[Hermit]

...to judge a religion by cherry picking when it's convenient rather than looking at the whole...

Ahhhhhh. The smell of irony in the morning...

[Ronja]

Most people don't "choose" their religious books. /pedantry

Good point.

[Thinking Aloud]

No problem. Every individual has the right to think whatever they like, and say wat they like. Likewise, they also have the right to accept or reject whatever someone else tells them. Those rights are inherent and inalienable, so if by "freely" you mean without a challenge, that's fine. Perhaps you could help someone else to think about what they're supporting, by using your right to express your views to them, and then hope for the best. And I know that sometimes people will suffer as a result of making poor decisions, but that's life. So be it. In life you're going to suffer some time, and if you believe that this life is all there is, then we may aswell live it free to express what's on our minds instead of keeping it inside.

This is all just fine in a day-to-day, business as usual sense, however the ire and impatience comes when groups of organised individuals band together to attempt to force everyone else to think the way they do, say what's approved by them to say, and woe-betides anyone who speaks out against it. And when it's people waving holy books (and calling for the Islamification of Europe, or for Intelligent Design to be taught as science) that are doing the shouting, backed by big money or explosives, that's when folks like atheists are going to speak out about it. But "sometimes people will suffer as a result of making poor decisions, but that's life. So be it." So I guess we should all be quiet and not "generalise" just in case some of the people doing the shouting don't quite fit our description.

[Chuck Jones]

Well then why don't you band together and promote the opposite of that which you disagree with instead of thinking that you can deny others their right to promote whatever they want. Maybe then people will listen to you rather than see you as a joke. And if the opposing side shouts louder than you and gets their way, then that's life, and you lose.

[FBM]

Well then why don't you band together and promote the opposite of that which you disagree with instead of thinking that you can deny others their right to promote whatever they want. Maybe then people will listen to you rather than see you as a joke. And if the opposing side shouts louder than you and gets their way, then that's life, and you lose.

Yeah, that's the way it goes, innit? The one who shouts loudest is rightest.

There are lots of atheist/agnostic/anti-theist groups springing up these days. They're, as far as I've seen, fueled by a mixture of reason and outrage. Some of them are fueled more by outrage, others more by reason. On this forum, we're kinda mixed, I think. Most of us are pretty good at defending our positions with reason, but that doesn't mean that we're not susceptible to what many of us see as justifiable outrage.

In my experience, moderates tend to have the quieter voices. I sometimes get my panties bunched up about it, but I try to be moderate most of the time. I'm fine with letting anyone else believe what they want as long as they aren't violent about it, or as long as they don't knock on my door over and over and over and over again trying to convert me. Then I lose my moderation and start bitching.

Anyway, I don't get the impression that you're on a 'mission from God'. (Are you? ) If you've got a good sense of humor, which I think you do, you're cool with me. One thing I know for sure is that you won't be knocking on my door trying to convert me...

[Chuck Jones]

FBM, have I mentioned the kingdom of god to you? I haven't, have I? Let's talk about it. Send me your email address and I'll send you some really interesting stuff, which I can confidently say will make you think again about your beliefs. It's no pressure, just something for you to consider. And if you're not convinced, we'll try again. And again.

In response to what you're saying, I'm afraid the opening post of this thread is not a good example of someone who is in control of their emotions. What society (the world) has forgotten is the principle of freedom. We live in a mollycoddled world, with everyone suing everyone else because they upset them and people complaining because someone on tv tells a distasteful joke. And if someone wants to preach, let them preach, and if they want to teach others their religion, that's fine too. I just don't understand what has happened to the idea of live and let live. I was joking in the last paragraph, but actually knocking on doors and preaching, if you don't want to hear it don't open your door. If politicians knock on mine, I do'nt complain I just stay put. People need to grow up and just do their own thing and allow others to do theirs. Society has become infantile.

And also, think about this. Here's a scenario. Let's say that the world has gone mad and there's chaos everywhere. The only people left who still want peace are christians. Ok, you don't believe in god but we'll put that aside. If those christians went around preaching and converting people, and those people did the same, the result would eventually be peace. The fact that god is part of their pitch is irrelevant. And I'm pretty sure that many a drug addict or anyone whose life is messed up and who has been influenced by a christian has had their lives turned around. It's mainly about morality, not necessarily believing i god. And yes I know you don't have to believe in god to be moral, but it's better to be moral whether you believe or not, than to not be moral. If your moral compass was out of sync and I came to you, you'd surely appreciate it, even if you couldn't get your head around the idea of an existent god.

[normal]

FBM, have I mentioned the kingdom of god to you? I haven't, have I? Let's talk about it. Send me your email address and I'll send you some really interesting stuff, which I can confidently say will make you think again about your beliefs. It's no pressure, just something for you to consider. And if you're not convinced, we'll try again. And again.

LOL