- Anything Else -

nope, true and false don't apply to religious beliefs.

Posted by: Floyd ( Darwin Fan Club, Cascadia Libre! ) on February 11, 19100 at 00:52:36:

In Reply to: I hope that's enough evidence of why MX was a false prophet. posted by NJ on February 10, 19100 at 15:27:38:

[snip]
: Now given that those goals, of building a society free or war, oppression and hatred were the PAnthers' avowed goals, how effective do you think they were, BY THEIR OWN LIGHTS?

OK, word. Their major goals remain to be accomplished. That doesn't belittle what they actually achieved though. We wouldn't be where we are today without them.

: : What makes you say so? Malcolm X may have said things that you, personally, disagree with, but calling him a "false prophet" is completely non-sensical.

: It's not just me who disagrees with them. How about, 'every major religion'

Wrong argument to use with me, NJ. I don't give a hoot what the major religions think, since the major religions have been responsible for more bloodshed and horror than any other social cause. When religions prove themselves worthy of my admiration, maybe that argument will carry some weight. In the meantime, they've all got a lot of appologizing to do and their opinions don't mean a damned thing to me. (Note, this is not a critique of the opinions of religious PEOPLE, many of whom I have a great deal of respect for. Rather, it's a critique of religions.)

:disagreeing with what he said about racial essentialism, casual use of violence, and his easy acceptance of the principles of revenge or retribution. This has little in common with anything said by Jesus Christ, the Buddha, the Hindu sages, or just about any other religious leader. True religions are not about hatred. Even Marxism,a secular religion to some, completely rejected and laughed at any kind of essentialism. Too bad Malcolm X didn't see things the same way.

Yes, it is too bad. However, without his extremist stance, could moderates like King have achieved what they did? Ifthere hadn't been minister Malcolm, King would have been considered the extremist, rather than the moderate centrist, and the public would have regarded him as such.

:
: :Aside from being a matter of personal aesthetics (as any religious belief is, ultimately,) it is historically inaccurate.

: My religious belief is hardly a matter of personal aesthetics, although that does play a part-

So, you're saying that you could easily switch to another religion that uses different symbolism and has different beliefs in what is good and what is evil, and you'd be happy? The rest of your post, as well as much of your previous writing, suggests otherwise.

:I won't deny that I can only see beauty and meaning in the world if I accept the existence of an afterlife and of a divine plan. First of all, such aesthetics are universal, not personal, as the universailty fo religion

"Universality" of religion, NJ? Are you saying that I'm secretly religious and just not telling myself? I think you're projecting here.

:and the commonality of the different religions demonstrates. 'God is one, the sages call him by many names'. Second of all, I believe that I have received evidence that God exists, things that frankly don'rt make much sense to me in the absence of God. Things in the world (why does the universe act according to rational laws of science, if not because their was a rational lawgiver)

You're mistaken here. The universe doesn't act according to rational laws, the laws are "rational" only because they accord with the way the universe acts. If the universe behaved in a different manner, the laws that describe its behavior would be different. Besides, it is much more parsimonious to explain a godless universe than to try to explain where god came from.

:in my experience (certain strange dreams I have had)

You're drifting too close to superstition and mysticism for my tastes here. Dreams haven't been admissible evidence since the 16th century.

: as well as in the experience of others (people being saved from certain death on the gallows, stories like that).

If people being saved from certain death is proof of god, then logically, people dying unexpectedly must be disproof. Faulty argument, NJ. You know better.

: My decision is tehrefore not based purely on eprsonal aesthetics. Also, what meaning does life have if God is absent?

First, who said life has to have an inherent meaning? Second, what if it only has the meanings that we impose on it? I thought you were an anti-essentialist.

:Graham Greene in his novel 'The Power and teh Glory' summed up in a brilliant phrase what atheism had to offer. "A vacant universe, a cooling [referring to the heat death of the universe] world, and the right to be happy in whatever way they chose."

Fine, James Joyce summed up, in _Finnegans Wake_ "of the fuirst was he to bear arms in the name, Wassillybousillybrezenguibob." Novels are not necessarily the best place to get theology. Besides, I'm not an atheist, I am an agnostic. Agnosticism has everything to offer, since it is the only philosophy that demands we try to know everything we can, rather than limiting ourselves by prohibiting questions about certain subjects.


: : It's... still out of line to call someone's religious beliefs "false." Silly, sure, ridiculous or even insane, fine, but not "false." Religious beliefs can't be evaluated on a "true/false" axis. (How many times am I going to have to say this?)
: : -Floyd


: Exhibit A. Malcolm X preached that whites, Chinese, Native Americans, Indians etc. were all created in the lab of a mad scientist on the island of Patmos, named Yacoob. I am not making this up. Apparently MX really believed this.

The pope believes that a virgin had sex with a bird, but was still a virgin, and then gave birth to a god. People believe all sorts of nonsense.

: Exhibit B. Malclolm X baldly lied when he said that the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima as an act of racism. The absolute nerve of implying that the Japanese of all peopelw ere victims of 'racism'? The people who, in South Africa, were classified as 'white' because of their economic status? The people who treat Koreans and Chinese to this day as second class citizens? The people who arrogated to themselves the right to rule all Asia? The country who massacred the Chinese, the Philipinos, the Burmese, the Koreans, the Russians, the Taiwanese, the Indonesians, the Vietnamese, the Cambodians, the Malays.....Malcolm was surely aware that teh JApanese were no strangers to teh art of racism, and that to this day they are hated by many throughout East Asia. who remember the '30s and '40s.

The fact that they were racists themselves does not make them immune from racism. Malcolm X also expressed "black supremist" sentiments. Does that mean that whites weren't racists?

: Exhibit C. Malcolm complained about racism in America, yet he ate at teh table of the Saudi Royal Family, in a nation which, in that same decade of the 1960s, STILL HELD BLACK SLAVES!!!! The incredible hypocrisy is beyond belief! We may have been making our way far too slowly towards eqality in teh sixties, but at least WE DIDN"T AHVE SLAVERY! Malcolm X just swept under the table the CENTURIES, nay MILLENIA of Middle Eastern oppression of black Africans. And he DENIED the fact that ISlam was JUST AS BAD as ANY OTHER RELIGION in terms of countenancing racsim and slavery. now certainly the Prophet Muhammed was a believer in racial equality and opposed slavery. So did Jesus Christ. The fact remains that slavery persisted in the Middle East long after Europe had done away with it. The fact that MX portrayed Islamic counrteis as a paradise of social equality and racial harmony, in comparison with christianity, just blows my mind, and frankly i don't knwo what to make of it. I can only see him as someone who was more than willing to distort the truth.

Yes, religious people are often hypocrites too.

: Exhibit D. MX glorifoied revenge, violence, and armed citizenry, etc. He had little tiem for teh diea that violnce on one side isn't necessarily a blank check to commit violence in recation. if it were, then the cycle would never end.

False assertion. Prisoners dilemma analyses contradict you.

: Exhibit E. MX often used evdience out fo context. He cited Gandhi as an inspiring example, but completely left out Gandhi's pacifism.

Yes, religious people often do that too. You should see the crap some of the creationists try to pull!

: I hope that's enough evidence of why MX was a false prophet.

Nope. You still haven't proven that his religion was "false," only that you find it distasteful. He obviously did not. Our opinions of his religion do not make his religion "false" at all, any more than his opinion of your belief or my lack of belief would falsify those. Religious beliefs can NOT be evaluated on a true/false scale. This isn't mathematics here, it is, as I said, aesthetics. You might just as accurately say that "Guernica" is a true painting, but "arrangement in black and gray" is a false painting. It's ridiculous, N.J. surely you can see that.
-Floyd


Follow Ups:

None.

The Debating Room Post a Followup