tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8456620400015224634.post5690842972457530461..comments2024-03-29T15:52:52.044+01:00Comments on Film Fan: Off-Topic: IntoleranceMike Hoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09079744279692869325noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8456620400015224634.post-37731565075070183392016-07-11T06:44:08.812+02:002016-07-11T06:44:08.812+02:00That's bad, Anne. It's proof that people c...That's bad, Anne. It's proof that people can be intolerant, whoever and whatever they are. People like to ban whatever they personally don't like. i.e. your parents aren't homosexuals, so they think nobody else should be allowed to be gay either. Then they use their religion to prop themselves up. They put the blame away from themselves by saying, "The only reason that we don't want to allow homosexuality is because our holy book says it shouldn't be allowed. It has nothing to do with our own personal preferences". That's what's wrong. There's nothing wrong with a person not liking homosexuality. Some people don't like apples, some people don't like pork, and some people don't like gay sex. It's a matter of personal taste. But as soon as I say "Because I don't like eating apples nobody else should be allowed to eat apples" it's wrong. Using a holy book as an excuse for turning my personal taste into intolerance is very bad.<br />Mike Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09079744279692869325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8456620400015224634.post-29707185797207919132016-07-10T05:58:18.515+02:002016-07-10T05:58:18.515+02:00I come from a very strict Christian family. I know...I come from a very strict Christian family. I know my parents would never kill anyone but they're intolerant in other ways. Homosexuality is the ultimate sin for them. They call it Sodom and Gomorra. They would ban gay marriages if they could.Anne Clarkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03884638754851094877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8456620400015224634.post-9451231325802220382016-07-06T07:37:59.452+02:002016-07-06T07:37:59.452+02:00Your second comment (the reply to your own comment...Your second comment (the reply to your own comment) is actually exactly what I think. I can't say with any certainty that God doesn't exist, but I'm sceptical about his existence, especially the God that's described by Christianity. My main argument against the existence of the Christian God (by which I mean my reason for scepticism) is that a loving God wouldn't allow the evil in the world to go on unchecked. All the arguments brought by Christians about God wanting to test our faith, blah blah blah, sound more like excuses than reasonable arguments.<br /><br />If there is a God, which I consider to be a possibility, either he's died by now, or he got sick of mankind's stupidity and wandered off to somewhere else in the universe where he doesn't have to look at us.Mike Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09079744279692869325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8456620400015224634.post-296643822976657112016-07-06T07:33:44.354+02:002016-07-06T07:33:44.354+02:00Please note that I put the words "conservativ...Please note that I put the words "conservative" and "liberal" in quotes at the end of my article. That was very deliberate on my part. I agree entirely with your description of what liberalism should be about, i.e. being open to new thoughts. The problem is that this isn't always the case.<br /><br />If you just accept liberal ideas because you're a "liberal" and know that liberal ideas are right, you've turned liberalism into a new form of conservatism. You've stopped thinking. Your brain has shrunk.<br /><br />Just because the conservatives have viewpoints that they've held for hundreds of years doesn't mean that they're all wrong. Maybe 5% of the conservative opinions are right, maybe only 1%, it doesn't matter. If you're a real liberal (without the quotation marks) you have to sit down and analyse every single viewpoint for yourself.Mike Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09079744279692869325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8456620400015224634.post-24707075667966618172016-07-05T21:23:34.353+02:002016-07-05T21:23:34.353+02:00Replying to the comment that you wrote at 15:38, I...Replying to the comment that you wrote at 15:38, I think you misunderstood me by mixing up different points that I was trying to make. My friend and her lack of arguments has nothing to do with the Russian question. Not directly, anyway.<br /><br />Concerning Russia, the majority of the population believe that homosexuality is wrong because the media tells them it's wrong. I'm not criticising the Russian population, it's the media that's at fault. The people need to be educated better.<br /><br />As for my friend, she's an example of a non-thinker. Let me tell you a bit about her. She worked in a record store (CD and vinyl). She associated with a left-wing subculture that's very typical to Germany, which is of a type that doesn't exist in England and certainly not in America. Young people sit in cafes and exchange left-wing-ish thoughts, a mixture of anti-Americanism and rebellion against anything their parents believe in. I went to places like that a lot in Germany, but it's difficult to describe them, sorry. They're so typically "German".<br /><br />Now, my problem with my friend is that she went to these places and soaked up whatever they had to say without question. They told her that homosexuality is cool, so that's what she thought. I didn't disagree with her, but there was a big difference between us. I accepted homosexuality because I'd sat down and thought about it; she accepted homosexuality because someone had told her it's okay. I would still hold my opinion if 99% of the population disagreed with me, but what about her? She'd never thought about it, as was obvious from our conversations, so if she'd lived in a different society or associated with different people she would have had the opposite opinion.<br /><br />People should think. Think! Our brain is the most important thing we have, and we should use it. Everyone should make his own mind up about things of importance, especially subjects where there's no simple right or wrong answer. Homosexuality is a good example. It's not objectively right or wrong. It's a matter of opinion. If we don't make up our own mind we're just running with the crowd.<br />Mike Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09079744279692869325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8456620400015224634.post-21600874643629099762016-07-05T20:57:27.127+02:002016-07-05T20:57:27.127+02:00Replying to the comment that you wrote at 15:33, y...Replying to the comment that you wrote at 15:33, you're correct about the consistency of the Torah, but not about the Koran. The problem with the Koran is that Mohammed wrote it when he was about 40, but revised it later in his life when he had different ideas. This is strongly denied by Moslems, because they insist that the Koran was revealed to Mohammed by God, so it must have been right first time. Archaeological finds contradict this. The oldest Koran texts are different to what exists today. The most blatant difference is that in the early version of the Koran it was said that believers should face Jerusalem when they pray. This was later changed to Mecca, the town where Mohammed was born. Today's Moslems reject the older texts as fakes, because they can't bring themselves to accept that Mohammed just sat down and invented his own religion on a whim.<br /><br />There's no cognitive dissonance in my thoughts about differing levels of intolerance. One religion says "Kill homosexuals". The other religion says "Don't kill homosexuals". Even though the second religion says that homosexuality is wrong, it still allows them to live, which is a big difference.<br /><br />Of course, there are Christians who kill homosexuals, even today. This exemplifies what I said to you in our recent Facebook discussion: "I strongly condemn anyone who says he's a Christian but doesn't read the Bible". Anyone who follows a religion that he knows nothing about is likely to make up his own rules of conduct. He's likely to become a bigot. It's inconceivable to me that anyone who reads the Bible every day would kill homosexuals. He might still say that homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes, but he would restrict himself to talking to homosexuals and telling them to stop. Is that intolerant? Yes, inasmuch as the Christian totally denies that homosexuality is correct and refuses to listen to counter-arguments. That's my core belief (2). But it's not intolerant in another way, because the Christian allows the person to practise homosexuality, even though he considers it to be wrong. That's my core belief (3).<br />Mike Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09079744279692869325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8456620400015224634.post-80850354767180814312016-07-05T20:27:50.886+02:002016-07-05T20:27:50.886+02:00Replying to your comment that you wrote at 14:41, ...Replying to your comment that you wrote at 14:41, you're absolutely right about the departure from Abrahamic ideals being one of the reasons for accepting homosexuality. The "church", or whatever the active religious body of a society is called, is also a form of media that tells people what's right or wrong. People believe what they're told. For centuries England has been a Christian country. Now Christianity is dismantling itself, which is a good thing, and television is replacing the church as the entity which tells people what's right and wrong, which isn't a good thing.<br /><br />On the other hand, I don't believe the Abrahamic religions are solely responsible for the condemnation of homosexuality. For instance, the prejudices against homosexuality in Africa existed long before Christian missionaries arrived. There have always been cultures that accept homosexuality and others that don't, and we have no idea which viewpoint is older. It doesn't really matter. The two viewpoints have always existed at the same time in different cultures. For instance, the early Roman Empire accepted homosexuality at the same time that Judaism forbade it.<br />Mike Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09079744279692869325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8456620400015224634.post-80147494066467145662016-07-05T19:48:20.080+02:002016-07-05T19:48:20.080+02:00I'm not saying that atheism is wrong as a conc...I'm not saying that atheism is wrong as a concept. I'm merely objecting to the smugness of certain atheists who think they're better than the followers of a religion because they're rational thinkers who only believe what's been proved. That very statement is irrational in itself. Atheism is in itself a type of religious belief, because it makes a claim about the Divine, i.e. that the Divine doesn't exist. I'm a rational thinker. I've looked at the arguments brought by theists and atheists, and I've come to the logical conclusion that neither side can prove its point. When it comes to the existence of God I'm an agnostic; I simply don't know. That's what my rational thought brings me to.<br /><br />My thoughts are strongly influenced by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, probably the most remarkable thinker of the 20th Century. In 1922 he wrote a book that was considered the pinnacle of philosophical reasoning, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. After that he spent the rest of his life trying to prove that this book and its underlying thoughts were wrong. In his later books, all of which were published posthumously, he makes remarks such as "The author of the Tractatus doesn't understand that ..." as if talking about a different person. I don't think any other philosopher has ever put so much effort into trying to prove himself wrong. But I'm getting off the subject. What I want to say is that I'm strongly influenced by Wittgenstein's post-Tractatus years. In his early years he claimed that it is nonsensical for philosophers to discuss the existence of God, because we have to be able to point at an object to discuss it. We can discuss a chair, but we can't discuss God. In his later years he reduced all of human conversation, including philosophical discussions, into language games. The definition of the words we use is part of the game. We're not only defining meanings, we're defining the rules of the game. In this case discussion about God is relevant within a game, but the problem that leads to the breakdown of most discussions is that the people on either side are playing different games. Putting it simply, the theist and the atheist have different definitions of God, so whatever they say is irrelevant to one other.<br /><br />Now, getting back to your talk about how scientific proof works, that's a philosophical question in itself. The philosopher Karl Popper made the statement that no scientific theory can be proved, only disproved. This puts the person making a scientific claim into a position of vulnerability. He's calling on other scientists to prove him wrong. This puts atheists on slippery ground when they claim science is on their side. If a Christian says "God exists" he's not asserting a scientific theory, he's merely saying what he believes based on his intuition or upbringing. If an atheist says "There is no God" it's fine as long as he accepts it's also his intuition, but as soon as he claims it's a scientific fact that God doesn't exist he's requiring the other side (the theists) to disprove him. Until the proof is brought that he's wrong the atheist's statement is nothing more than a theory.<br /><br />What you say about "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence" is quite true. However, the claim that God exists is not an extraordinary claim, whether it's intended as a scientific claim or not. It's a claim that has been made for thousands of years. I'm not saying that to imply that the claim is true. It's very possible that it may be wrong. All I'm saying is that it's not an extraordinary claim.<br />Mike Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09079744279692869325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8456620400015224634.post-7270949885744773622016-07-03T17:02:30.881+02:002016-07-03T17:02:30.881+02:00Finally, about your liberal/conservative comment. ...Finally, about your liberal/conservative comment. The very definitions of those are important to remember. Considering Liberal means open to new schools of thought and ideas based on empirical peer reviewed evidence. As we know scientific facts are constant until proven otherwise. With new information, comes new constants. Conservatism, Specifically Social Conservatism, isn't for the intelligent. There is a physical difference in the brain structures of liberals and conservatives. Liberals have increased reasoning capability and corresponding regions of the brain. Whereas Conservative brains have decreased reasoning function, as well as an increased Amygdala which increases aggression, and close minded-ness. Obviously, extremist liberalism is just as bad as all of social conservatism, which lends the argument to Moderation and political pragmatism. Conservatism, not liberalism has been responsible for every major case of oppression, racism and bigotry of any kind over the last 400 years. Every. Single. Time. And uses the same circular reasoning, and fallacious and baseless arguments in every case of oppression. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03206640887897339504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8456620400015224634.post-79714082123513924272016-07-03T16:38:45.488+02:002016-07-03T16:38:45.488+02:00Also, on Russia. To state that Russia is in the ri...Also, on Russia. To state that Russia is in the right demonizing a certain demographic because your other friend could not defend her point properly is fallacious. Every single modern country has accepted that Gay people have the same human right as the rest of it's citizens. Except for Russia. It is not pro LGBT propaganda that has sparked tolerance for the LGBT community, it is properly educating the public that has done so. Yes, the answer is yes russia is less civilized. When the whole world, except you and a few third world intolerant countries say you're in the wrong. It's not that society is wrong saying LGBT people are humans too and deserve the same rights. It's homophobic countries and people Like Putin's Russia that is in the wrong, by removing basic freedoms and criminalizing what amounts to love. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03206640887897339504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8456620400015224634.post-32930911171725059532016-07-03T16:33:01.075+02:002016-07-03T16:33:01.075+02:00Now I must address the next paragraph. Which state...Now I must address the next paragraph. Which states, "But let's not stay with my third core belief. Let's go back to the first. Who are the people who object to homosexuality? It's mainly religious people. The world's two largest religions, Christianity and Islam, both condemn homosexuality. Christianity's holy book, the Bible, says that homosexuality is a sin that will be punished by God. Islam's holy book, the Koran, says that homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals should be executed. In recent years some groups within the Christian church have tried to relativise the passages on homosexuality by re-interpreting them, while all the major factions in Islam insist that the Koran passages have to be understood and applied literally. Let's dismiss modern Christian theology and assume that the New Testament passages on homosexuality should be understood exactly as they're written. Even in that case the Christian attitude towards homosexuality wouldn't bother me. The Bible says that God will punish homosexuals at the last judgement, so they can be left to do what they want till then. That's a critical but tolerant policy. Islam, on the other hand, is totally intolerant by telling its followers to murder homosexuals."<br /><br />In my opinion you are experiencing some kind of cognitive dissonance about what is tolerant and what is not. First. The argument of misinterpretation. The Torah, and the Koran have an EXACT number of words in them. All versions are nearly identical. The likelihood that the Koran is mistranslated or misinterpreted is exponentially less than the likelihood that the Christian Bible is mistranslated or misinterpreted because every single version of the Christian bible is different and we're talking dozens of versions. <br /><br />As far as the Christian idea that God will punish LGBT people on the day of judgement... That is in no way a tolerant ideal. It's literally still demonizing the LGBT community. Deeming them less human. Not to mention, American Christian Zealots are almost solely responsible for the modern anti-LGBT laws in African nations. In this respect the Christians who in America think it's alright to kill LGBT people, are NO better or more tolerant than the Muslims you have called out. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03206640887897339504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8456620400015224634.post-27362041147849629232016-07-03T15:41:16.475+02:002016-07-03T15:41:16.475+02:00Addressing your gay marriage argument. You've ...Addressing your gay marriage argument. You've stated quite a bit. I'm trying to wrap my head around it. You start with the following, "How can something which was wrong a short time ago be right today? Many people would answer that we're more enlightened today. I judge the matter less positively. I say that people are sheep, believing whatever the media says is right. In countries such as Russia gay marriages aren't allowed, and the majority of the population support this policy. Are Russians somehow less enlightened than us in the West? Are they somehow more primitive or less evolved? Or do they just live in a country where the media says something different?"<br /><br />The answer to why it has become more acceptable is because of the dismantling of the Abrahamic cultural conditioning that took homosexuality and the rest of the LGBT community and deemed them as sub human because they would not conform to procreation standards set forth by these religions. Long before Christianity, Islam, or even Judaism, Homosexuality was well in acceptance. I believe you're asking the wrong question. You aren't going back far enough. What was it that caused homosexuality to lose it's acceptance and what caused the Abrahamic religions to demonize that demographic?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03206640887897339504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8456620400015224634.post-88026511591303344622016-07-03T15:33:50.902+02:002016-07-03T15:33:50.902+02:00My opinion on the existence of the divine is the f...My opinion on the existence of the divine is the following. The terms of the argument for the question of whether the divine exists are incomplete. Until which time the proper question can be asked in order to get an proper answer, judgement will be suspended. But I will remain skeptical because the burden of proof is not on me to disprove something that has no evidence to suggest it ever existed. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03206640887897339504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8456620400015224634.post-69157222702009376732016-07-03T15:32:13.553+02:002016-07-03T15:32:13.553+02:00Ah, where to begin. I think I'll start with th...Ah, where to begin. I think I'll start with the first bullet point marked with the number 3. The argument of the existence of the divine. Scientific proof does not work the way you have stated it. Your opinions on the matter are fine, but factually you are inaccurate. Extraordinary Claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is not on those claiming nonexistence, the burden of proof is on those claiming the supernatural. I can't disprove the existence of the easter bunny or Chun-li from Street Fighter, but that doesn't change the fact that both are fictional characters and should be taken as such unless proven otherwise. That's how I feel about that part. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03206640887897339504noreply@blogger.com