Sorry I took so long to reply. You obviously put a lot of thought into this post, so I thought I should do the same.
Kita-Ysabell
One of the most difficult things about Unitarian Universalism is that it is both insanely hard and stupidly easy to explain. Trying to explain it to a life-long Catholic in Guatemala, in Spanish no less? Not gonna happen. Wikipedia entry? One of the less accurate ones, but
only because only one of the seven principles was included in the overview.
I've went to www.uua.org, and read as much as I could about Unitarian Universalism. As a life long Athiest (though I don't really like using that term, too much baggage attached to it) in Canada, who speaks English, I think I at least grasp the
basics. You would certainly know more about it than me, of course. So again, if I misinterpret something, please let me know.
Kita-Ysabell
The inherent worth and dignity of every person: Well, we start off with that "pious cretin" bit. You might say that I did the same thing, but whereas I phrased it so that an asshat is something that someone (and in fact, anyone) can
be, the OP phrased it so that a pious cretin is something that certain people always
are. What's more, I intentionally chose a word that, while clearly negative, doesn't have a whole lot of meaning and used contextual clues to define that word to mean exactly what I meant it to.
You didn't do the
same thing. Not exactly. As I said before, the OP's use of 'pious cretin' was completely disrespectful. That being said, while calling someone an Asshat is, realistically, the lesser of two evils, I still think name calling in general is disrespectful, and has no place in an intelligent debate.
Kita-Ysabell
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large: So what does this have to do with what's wrong with the OP? This principle is about trust in humanity. It's about being very careful about saying that an idea held by a large group of people is somehow holding them back, and that they should be liberated (forcefully if necessary) from that idea. While the OP's implication that there is a silent majority of "closet non-believers" seems to agree with the ideals of democratic process, the OP says that such non-believers must take leadership roles, not those equal to believers. In effect, the OP advocates reversing, rather than abolishing, the totalitarianism that they claim religion supports.
That's not, strictly speaking true. The OP doesn't claim that religion is totalitarian, but, rather the concept of God is.
CDizzle17
The idea of a God is the embodiment totalitarianism. To say that an entity dictates your every move and intervenes in your life relinquishes reason and free thought.
He says that non-believers must take leadership roles, because Religion is hindering our future. I
think he's talking about things like Stem-Cell research (which a lot of religious groups oppose, on ethical grounds) but he doesn't actually list a reason in his post, so that's just speculation on my part.
Kita-Ysabell
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning: Despite the "everyone should believe what they wish" line, the overall message of the OP is that religion should be abolished. That doesn't sound like a very free search for truth and meaning, and as for responsibility, well. Responsibility means holding your theories accountable for their implications. It means going out and exploring the ideas you're trying to refute. It means being rigorous about the internal logic of your arguments. It doesn't mean doing these things flawlessly, but it means not being proud about failing to do them.
Hmm, yes. I can see your point there. By your definition, CDizzle17's post was anything but responsbile. To be honest, as I was picking his post apart, I often wondered if he was perhaps getting Religion confused with certain Conservative branches of Christianity? Either way, you're right. If he
did research Religion as a whole, his post certainly did not reflect that.
Kita-Ysabell
I don't expect everyone to hold these principles in equal reverence. See Principle #4. But breaking at least five out of seven in one go is right out. That goes beyond "equal reverence" and into "you, sir, need to reconsider your approach, because this one sucks."
I can see that. Of course, I think there's a slight difference between "you, sir, need to reconsider your approach, because this one sucks" and "YOU'RE MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE THAT YOU'RE ACCUSING SOMEONE OF MAKING. PLEASE STOP BEING AN ASSHAT."
Kita-Ysabell
But if I
did write such an essay, I would laud you for not thinking it offensive. As you have given the subject of my hypothetical essay, there's nothing offensive about it. It's not about holding the same beliefs, it's about being genuinely respectful in communicating them, which the OP
does not do, as I have outlined above.
No, no he doesn't. But at the same time, I'm not sure reacting the way you did was the right way to communicate your point. First, because simply getting mad at the way he said it is self defeating. When he sees that he's getting such a rise out of you, he's going to stop taking you seriously, and he's probably just going to start thinking of you as just another pious cretin. who's rejecting his "truth". Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he wouldn't, but judging from what I've seen... well, he doesn't really strike me as the type to react well to a religious person calling him an asshat.
Secondly, you gave up a chance to communicate
your ideas and beliefs respectfully, or simply point out the (numerous) flaws in his argument. Mahatma Gandhi once said “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Who knows? It might have made him go back, and put a lot more thought into how he percieves the world.
Kita-Ysabell
Religion(n. as defined by the OP): the polar opposite of science, a belief in an ultimate truth, a mythology, monotheism, totalitarianism, cowardice, mind control, something divorced from belief, a hindrance to our future, a lie, the polar opposite of reason
You forgot,
delsusion,
force of pain and destruction and
full idiotic idiotic assertions. But yeah. He doesn't have a very accurate idea of what Religion actually
is or
encompasses.
Kita-Ysabell
Maltese_Falcon91
Kita-Ysabell
Science neither opposes nor replaces religion.
Where are you getting this idea that science never opposes religion from? It happens all the time, and is a reality that both atheists and theists have to come to terms with.
I'm getting it from Bertrand Russell and his discussion of the importance of philosophy. Although even his definition of science is... lacking. Science is a model. Religion is a point from which we hang a pendulum and say, "from this, all." Science may refute a literal interpretation of the Bible, but it can never refute a metaphoric one. Religion is not mythology, though it may be involved in one. So on and so forth.
If everyone considered the stories in the bible to be purely metaphorical, then yes, religion (well... Christianity at least) and science would
never clash. The only problem is, certain faiths do. Moral Gutpunch said that a gamer who kills his parents because he was grounded from Warcraft can't represent gamers as a whole, well isn't the reverse true? Can religions who
don't take the bible literally, represent religion has a whole?
100
200
100
