I hope that people who still think religions "make people better than they would otherwise be" are happy now.
I think you are confusing the issue here. This is not about religion. Bal Thakrey is a politician not a religious leader.
Mumbai girl arrested for Facebook post
101–110 of 126 posts
Re: Mumbai girl arrested for Facebook post
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if India doesn't have a it, the question really is, shouldn't India have it. "Freedom of Expression" is not an American/French/Western concept. Shouldn't it be a natural human right? In any case, its a fundamental right, enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Its not really a part of the culture, even in highly educated circles. Part of that has to do with the Indian apathy towards Humanities and pursuit of pragm…
> "Freedom of Expression" is not an American/French/Western concept. Shouldn't it be a natural human right? It is a distinctly "western" thought[1] (as is "Human Rights"[2]). I actually didn't know whether it had been imported into India, given india's rather "mixed" (east/west) history. The concept of 'natural human rights' is also a western concept, so no, I don't think we should continue to talk like our (western)…
Freedom of speech is a generic concept.
Also, long before Europe became civilized, Indian society (Hinduism) had freedom of speech [1].
Re: Mumbai girl arrested for Facebook post
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
You respect them and then they lynch you. When a tolerant culture meets untolerant culture, the former usually backs off even if it's more advanced. Take France as example. I think we should not be tolerant to people who violate basic human rights. They either behave or we should find a way to catapult them away.
You seem to advocate the silencing of religion, a basic human right. Volunteering to be first in the catapult?
Is arresting people for illoyalty to your god (or even better to a crappy politician) a human right?
Because I'm advocating against that.
Re: Mumbai girl arrested for Facebook post
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's right because all religious people are poorly educated war loving and irrational. Seriously... Do you forget what was responsible for spreading education so rapidly around the world (give you a hint, it wasn't atheists). There are a number of religions that are founded in rationality, and large components of others that are pure rationality. Just because you don't believe in (a) G/god doesn't mean you aren't r…
I meant that sentence to make good atheists distinct from bad ones (such as various brands of communists). In general, I agree with you. It's incredibly hard to separate out religion from history - almost everything that happened in the world up until about 100 years ago was driven by religious people, and that's the core of my objection that it's a meaningless question. If there never was any religion, you'd have to…
Almost every person in the world up until about 100 years ago had lice and other parasites.
Should we now declare that, given that Newton, Galileo and Socrates likely had lice (the blood-sucking kind) for some part of their lives, we should consider lice a vital part of our cultural heritage and that any modern scientist should get some?
Re: Mumbai girl arrested for Facebook post
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what they claim to give. And many of those people actually believe this, to the point of assuming that anyone who is not religious has no values or morals, and is obviously driven completely by hedonism. The question is not "what role does religion fulfil", but rather, "if religion wasn't there, would things have been better?". Because, e.g. many recreational drugs ALSO provide values, hope, and guidance (on o…
> based on observing mostly-religious states vs. mostly-secular states Be careful. I think the general consensus about these observations is that what's happening is that less stable and secure societies tend to make people more religious, rather than that religion tends to make societies less stable and secure.
But do religion make less stable societies better or worse?
Does it help them climb out of poverty or does it only help them reassure themself the world is exactly right, their poor lives are okay, and everyone smarter than them should be stoned to death?
It seems to me that religions that prey on unstable, unsecure societies are especially nasty these days. Evolved to conquer poor societies and keep them that way!
Re: Mumbai girl arrested for Facebook post
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what they claim to give. And many of those people actually believe this, to the point of assuming that anyone who is not religious has no values or morals, and is obviously driven completely by hedonism. The question is not "what role does religion fulfil", but rather, "if religion wasn't there, would things have been better?". Because, e.g. many recreational drugs ALSO provide values, hope, and guidance (on o…
> based on observing mostly-religious states vs. mostly-secular states Be careful. I think the general consensus about these observations is that what's happening is that less stable and secure societies tend to make people more religious, rather than that religion tends to make societies less stable and secure.
> I think the general consensus about these observations is that what's happening is that less stable and secure societies tend to make people more religious
I am not aware of this consensus, but it is entirely unrelated to my claim: The supposed benefits of religion are nil, because comparable countries that essentially eschew religion fare at least as well, and usually way better than those that do not.
I did not make any claim about the relation between stability and religion. Swedes and Norwegians, as nations, are the best educated, best nourished, among the healthiest, with virtually no crime compared to e.g. the US or Italy. What exactly are the positive benefits that you get from religion that you do not get without?
Re: Mumbai girl arrested for Facebook post
#107Police on Sunday arrested a 21-year-old girl A 21 year old girl ..
This site probably isn't the best place for linguistic prescriptivism.
It's not about prescriptivism. It's questioning a rather bizarre word usage in English. If I called you a "frog" you might query why I were using such an odd term. So it goes here.
Re: Mumbai girl arrested for Facebook post
#108Police on Sunday arrested a 21-year-old girl A 21 year old girl ..
Indian English treats 'girl' as equal to 'woman' in most contexts. Likewise 'boy' == 'man'. as seen in marital partners ads '41 year old boy seeks 35 year old girl ... ' (fwiw I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Indian newspapers should use the local flavor, rather than trying to conform to (say) US English)
That's very intriguing. I was wondering if it was diminution based on gender but if they're doing it for everyone, that makes it more interesting.
Re: Mumbai girl arrested for Facebook post
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Irrational for sure. Everyone's an athiest when they're born. The natural position is non-belief. Religion is a faith based belief system for something that cannot be proven. Hence, belief in religion is by definition irrational. Now, if you are saying 'religion' to mean 'societal construct' or something like that, well, that is a different ballgame. Though I don't think you mean that, so the above applies. Bottom li…
No, nobody is an atheist when they're born. Atheism is the conscious rejection of the existence of god. Agnostic, more likely. Yes, religion is by definition irrational. Humans generally aren't very rational beings. Love is irrational, it makes us do irrational things, but I'm sure we can agree, on the balance, love is a good thing. Thus dismissing religion on irrationality grounds is not very meaningful.
Agnosticism is an epistemological position that many (most?) atheists (such as myself) hold.
Re: Mumbai girl arrested for Facebook post
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Irrational for sure. Everyone's an athiest when they're born. The natural position is non-belief. Religion is a faith based belief system for something that cannot be proven. Hence, belief in religion is by definition irrational. Now, if you are saying 'religion' to mean 'societal construct' or something like that, well, that is a different ballgame. Though I don't think you mean that, so the above applies. Bottom li…
No, nobody is an atheist when they're born. Atheism is the conscious rejection of the existence of god. Agnostic, more likely. Yes, religion is by definition irrational. Humans generally aren't very rational beings. Love is irrational, it makes us do irrational things, but I'm sure we can agree, on the balance, love is a good thing. Thus dismissing religion on irrationality grounds is not very meaningful.
[deleted]