Skip to main content

View Diary: Extreme Religion Stops a Thinking Brain - and Kills Women and Teenage Girls (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My voice (6+ / 0-)
    It's very important to keep them distinct, & I'm with gchaucer that I felt somewhat attacked by a failure on your part to do so.  Not all belief is maintained in defiance of knowledge, or rooted in ignorance, something you seem to lose track of throughout the diary.

    I disagree. All belief without evidence IS maintained in defiance (or ignorance) of knowledge.

    And knowledge, not belief, is our only hope IMHO of surviving this modern world with all its perils. Otherwise we will just keep on dancing obliviously around what is esentially the same ages-old totem pole of ignorance that is catapulting us into oblivion.

    Extreme religion gains legitimacy and support from the more moderate forms of it.

    I am not a politician, so I can tell the truth as I see it. In that manner I MIGHT "unsettle" a few believers and even influence some to reexamine their pet beliefs. That is my voice in this struggle for survival.

    Might I be wrong? Absolutely.

    Am I myself ignorant? Without doubt.

    But I have long searched far and wide for any solid evidence of a supernatural being such as "God" and found none.

    As I said in the diary we are all ignorant of more than we are knowledgeable about. Most ignorance is passive lack of knowledge. No one knows all. The ignorance that supports religion, however, is active (even aggressive)denial and defiance of knowledge and understanding.

    But I oppose and work to correct the ignorance in myself instead of rationalizing mental tricks to deny it and flow with it.

    I've never encountered a religious believer who was the least bit willing to genuinely question his/her religious beliefs without in one way or another being strongly confronted with their essential absurdity.

    The stakes are as high as conceivable and I see little hope.

    Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence,but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm?September 11th changed all that.
    -Richard Dawkins

    No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

    by Beket on Tue May 10, 2011 at 08:33:50 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Nonsense. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Name me one Unitarian Universalist involved in the 9-11 attacks. Just one.

      How about one liberal Christian?

      This is absurd.

      "This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it." -- Keith Olbermann

      by allergywoman on Tue May 10, 2011 at 12:20:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The point is... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...that all of those involved in the 9-11 attacks were motivated by religious fervor and that such fervor emantaes from religious belief, no matter how "liberal."

        And that this religious fervor emanating from religious belief exists in ALL religions - such as the domestic Christian terrorism that has resulted in multiple murders of doctors and clinic workers, bombing and arson of many clinics, etc., and strives to eliminate safe abortion care for every American woman and teenage girl, which is sure to lead to terrible hardship, maiming, and death for women and teenage girls. Among many other atrocities, some related to abortion and some not.

        It is not at all "absurd" to connect those dots.

        No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

        by Beket on Tue May 10, 2011 at 06:26:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If you refuse to draw distinctions because you (0+ / 0-)

      personally haven't met religious people who fail to meet your standards for acceptable belief, you're just as much a prejudiced bigot as the religious extremists you rightly see as the enemy.

      You can't rationalize that you are not prejudiced because your conclusions, values, and methods are "correct."   You only believe they are, having made a sincere effort.   You can't however pretend that all religious people have failed to make similar sincere efforts.   It's true for some, but even in those cases, their intentions are generally good.  

      It's really too bad that you operate from a position of anti-religious prejudice, instead of a position critical of religious premises that cause damage, and supporting of religious premises that do good.  You & I could easily be allies creating a broader coalition for the benefit of women, based on this sentence early in your diary which gave me great hope:

      First, let me assure you that it is not that I love embryos and fetuses less, but that I love women and teenage girls more

      which is exactly how I feel, although I do not proceed to lose compassion for a protohuman simply because my compassion and care for women exceeds it.  But that's personal, and I don't expect others to feel the same.  It's why I was once anti-choice, but became pro-choice simply by meeting & talking with women who widened my experience and created empathic capacity I'd previously lacked.

      I want to emphasize is that when I was anti-choice, I left religion out of it.  My goal was to persuade people to oppose abortion legally & I knew that no law could have a religious basis.  I used Science to make my argument: the genetic individuality in a zygote, separate from maternal identity upon conception, ought to confer legal definition of personhood & resulting protections upon conception.  No ensoulment, no Catholicism, nothing.   This is prior to any consideration of the consequences of such legal protection, but my point is that this issue doesn't require religiosity, even if the majority of abortion rights opponents are religious.

      And if you are really interested in a better world for women in which their rights are not only protected, but understood, you will cease to make the mistake of linking their rights to any implied requirement of atheism.  This is such a profound sociopoliticultural error I lack the abillity and desire to describe it further.  Please consider the possibility that your own ego--your "defiance"--isn't leading you down a path of ignorance.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site