wollte ja erst hier antworten, aber f�r einen einfachen Kommentar war's dann doch etwas lang und hab's a.a.O. abgelegt.
Declan on :
It is time for rational liberal thinking to set the agenda. Religion is organised, we only have to look at the sorry state in the US, it is time we were organised too. We have to even the media converage. I call on anyone who reads this to do one thing to promote liberal thought in the next week. It doesn't have to be big, maybe a comment to someone who isn't liberal, maybe a post on a blog, maybe write to a politician. Do something small and lead by example. We don't need god to change the world we can do it ourselves.
The state of affairs in the US is indeed scary (random pseudo-Christian related link fished from today's news: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/08/rudolph.plea/ ). I guess one issue however is that not all criminals are spiritual, and not all believers are criminals.
I've pretty much given up on rational discourse; if faith were subject to rational thought, it would've been proved or disproved a long time ago ("sciene is the record of dead religions"), or at least people would have held back judgement until they have sufficient evidence one way or the other (ie, people would all be agnostics). This seems to be the problem chiefly with faiths based around "historical" figures and events. If An Ideal For Living is handed to me with the words, "you'd better believe these, cos G-d said so" and then they turn out faulty, the whole thing comes a-tumbling down. (Actually, what's with the "G-d said so" bit in the first place, you'd have to prove that first.) If on the other the "appeal to authority" -- an example for a popular logical fallacy -- is omitted and the goods are handed over with the words, "check these out, they're good stuff, use the ones that work for you", I'm much more inclined to look into it. It punts the circular logic, puts the choice back in my hands, and does not pose an all-or-nothing deal. If even some of the stuff doesn't work for me, so what, it's not like anyone claimed that the techniques weren't man-made, that they were infallible. No bootstrap-problem. No leap of faith. Subjective proof (or at least subjective tests) can be impromptu and selective. Who cares whether they're G-d's ideas or those of Joe Shmoe in Bumblefuck, PA as long as they work? (On the other hand, let's say the 1o commandments were really handed out by G-d, was he stoned at the time, or something? Two entries for "Thou shalt not covet" (depending on how you count), but none for "thou shalt not rape"? Sure, maybe what I read was seriously messed up over the centuries, and in translation ("If the King's English was good enough for Jesus..."), but if so, what's the point of handing out bibles in the first place? "It boggles the mind!" : )