Originally Posted by Miburo
And goddammit. I wish all the people I like here were goddamn atheists. Because insulting shit my buddies believe isn't something I really enjoy doing. But goddamn.
The reason these guys did this doesn't matter. Even if it was in the name of glorious science or whatever instead of bronze age mysticism it would still be unjustifiable and wrong. So don't get me wrong here. I don't give a fuck what their reason was, because no matter what it was it was stupid and horrible. These guys are assholes, plain and simple.
But the goddamn defensiveness of religious shit is seriously not good. First off, it's not even necessary in this context if we all agree with the above paragraph. These guys are horrible people, we should all hopefully agree, and leave it at that. And secondly, the same defenses could probably be used to defend a lot of belief systems used as the reasoning to do bad things. Like, racial supremacy. Hey man, just because people kill people of other races because they believe their race is superior doesn't mean anything. It's in human nature to be dicks, if they didn't do it for that reason they'd do it for some other reason. So...shouldn't blame the ideology, amirite?
It really isn't that great of a defense.
I didn't mean to defend it, only that he [rokudaime_hokage] needed to calm his tits, because saying "religion turns people into monsters" is an open ended statement that implied any religious person not a sociopath is a monster-in-waiting. I probably read it too fast and saw something he didn't intend, then wrote about it before I thought it through, but still.
And what I think emachina was trying to say [by example] was that people will even use science to achieve an irrational, harmful means.
There's a lot of bad parts about a lot of religion, and I by no means intent to make light of that, I simply think he was targeting something unreasonably.
I also kinda dislike that "it's in their nature" phrase. Since we are social animals I don't believe that shit is in our nature at all.
There's a power struggle in every relationship, regardless of it's nature. This isn't just about abrasiveness, it's about an innate reaction in humans to survive, and power is a factor in survival.
I brought up Kant because he also later says, in the same essay, that "the homage that every nation pays (at least in words) to the concept of 'right' proves, nonetheless, that there is in a man still great, though presently dormant, the moral aptitude to master the evil principle in himself (a principle he cannot deny) and to hope that others will also overcome it." He's talking specifically about the way people relate to one another on an international scale, which is what this situation is, and why I brought it up in the first place. He recognized full well that people, especially in groups, will do what it takes to achieve power. We [being rational, collected individuals/groups] hope that people have the ability to tame that desire and learn to function peacefully with others. They did not, and that's more what this is about, not whatever stupid thing they believe in that they used as their reasoning; it was a grotesque way to gain some sort of upper-hand, likely political and/or social because they feel threatened.
Mybad if that didn't make sense. I usually have to take a lot more time to order my thoughts in a logical manner.