Brovo said
Actually, religious communities argue within themselves about what is acceptable or not all the time, such as some Muslims against sharia law being combined with secular law, or being held above secular law.
They don't "apologize" for holding their beliefs because they sincerely believe they're right. Most just attempt to find some compromise to conform: Which is why I'm saying it's not a problem for this museum to change its stance to be more lenient and have a better public image for Islam. There are plenty of places for Islam's flaws to be pointed out, a court of law, or a debate--but a museum? ?... That is no place for a debate. That is a place for coming together and vowing to never let that happen again.
That's more religion fighting among themselves to find the one true religion though, not religion actually coming out and admitting their own system/core of beliefs has some flaws/holes to it.
Though with religion have so many branches (even right down to so many different bibles) it would be next to impossible to find one standard to view it on, so I can agree with the museum taking a certain stance on it.
If it's meant to be based on a tragedy though then why are they even making the museum somewhat about their religion? That almost seems the same as say a museum on the holocaust also being about Christianity, or a museum on 911 being about Muslims.
Shouldn't simply be on the tragedy in the first place? Why are they doubling up to also make it about their religion?
Brovo said
Again, stop arguing about the validity of religion , and stop broad stroking every religious person as being close minded or ignorant. And, yes, whether you intended to or not, this is what you're doing here. I can say from personal experience one of my family friends is a pastor, it doesn't bother him that I'm an atheist, I'm welcome in his church anytime so long as I'm respectful about his religion, just as he respects my non-religion. (...Note: Okay this is weird normally I'm arguing on the opposite end of the table of religion, but oh well. )
I also know a really cool pastor, he ran a youth group I went to about every week for my high school career and have a ton of great memories at. I'm not arguing that all religious people are messed up, violent or anything. I'm simply saying it's foolish to try to ignore all the bad things said by religion or done because (or with the excuse) of religion simply to put it in a better light. It's hiding the religion's history and true colors, even if some followers may not have adopted the more barbaric things it is still part of that Religion's bible and history.
And it is odd debating you on this topic... We are normally agreeing with each other where this topic comes up. :/
Brovo said
There are other places to debate about what part Islam played in this. This museum is not one of them. Let it go. Trust me. You know I wouldn't be arguing from this position unless I knew with near absolute certainty that it had to be right.
Which I can agree with, but brings me back to why are they even trying to fit a religion into the museum to begin with if it's simply meant to be about a tragedy?
Dervish said
It actually wasn't aimed at you. Generally addressing how segments of the population think and act was what I was aiming for.
Ah, my bad for jumping to assumptions then... :/
Dervish said
I don't ask people to change their beliefs/ how they feel because of something I or anyone else say. I simply ask that they listen and at least consider another perspective.
A good and healthy approach to be having. The world could do with more open mindedness and willingness to be wrong.
Dervish said
Believe it or not, I'm agnostic and used to be hardcore atheist for similar reasons as what you guys have said, but time and no small amount of thinking about it made me decide against outright dismissing religious positions and deciding that the world would be a better place if people just accepted people aren't always going to conform to your values. You don't have to agree with them, but at least try to respect them. You rarely ever know the whole story, y'know?
So basically you're an atheist who doesn't care to debate the topic and try to convince others about it?
This is where tricky terminology come's into play that Brovo and Jorick can explain better than I can. But for the most basic elements there's four categories (there's more if you get complex... but that's part of where Brovo and Jorick are good at).
There's one scale of Agnostic and Gnostic to start with.
Agnostic = Willingness to believe, or simply doesn't care to debate the topic.
Gnostic = Strong in their stance, willing to debate the topic.
Then there's the other scale of Atheist and Religious.
Atheist = Lack of Religion/Belief in a God or Higher being
Religious = Follows a religion of some kind.
So scale wise I'm guessing (correct me if I'm wrong) you'd fall under Agnostic Atheist. You're atheist cause you do not have a religion, but you're agnostic because you simply don't care to debate the topic or convince others of your stance.
Member
