After reading posts form the blogs, I was introduced a new word “atheist” that, doubtlessly, it means someone who believes that God or gods do not exist (Cambridge Advance Learner’s Dictionary), but I was still wondering why someone choose to be an atheist. Perhaps, religions are based on the supernatural beings and there are no reliable evidences for god or even Jesus and The Lord of Buddha. Are they only fictional characters? If someone reclaim the religious documents, it would be sacred or not.From an exhibition, next to the copy of the Bible at the Gallery of Modern Art (Goma) in Glasgow is a container of pens and a notice, which says: 'If you feel you have been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it.' The exhibition stimulates people to write in a Bible as one’s preferences with the aim of reclaiming the Bible as a sacred text. However, its pages have been written by lot of offensive words in which are not the point of works ,but it was an open gesture. As the result, the idea was separated into three groups. First, some artists do not mind doing this because people have a right to do something like this and it is the cutting-edge of contemporary art. On the other hand, a lot of people strongly oppose this idea. They say that we would discourage anyone from defacing the Bible and it should not be used like that. Someone stays in the middle by holding the idea that writing on the Bible does not change the truth.
After reading this article, I realized that it is a provocative aspect based on personal faith, but is it permissible to comment offensively on religion. If religions were able to be examined and critiqued, religious claims would be reasonable and avoid any ongoing blames. On the contrary, if we maintain a religious believe is vague and disapproval, we should have a right to critic. Consequently, religious person has a right to show amendment not keeps quiet. Religions should not be a privileged class because they should be close to our lives. Criticism may be a good way to reclaim and reconsider the religious beliefs as someone said that we need to “break the spell”.
__________
References
Fury as art exhibition encourages visitors to deface the Bible, (2009, July 23). Daily Mail. Retrieved July 6, 2010 from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201568/Art-exhibition-encourages-visitors-deface-Bible.html
Taey,
ReplyDeleteI like your thoughtful response on an often controversial topic, also your relating it to earlier topics here.
I will be interested to see how your classmates respond.
This is crazy. I mean without religion, we will go back to the age of witches and black magic. Men must be govern in some sense either by law, or by belief. Without religion, we are only a not developed sentient beings. If some one claim that he's not believe in religion at all, he may have a high potential to harm any one, because, he have no consideration of what is right or wrong. If a Bible really is a religious dogma representing the word of Jesus Christ, it's always be sacred.
ReplyDeleteThis is crazy. I mean without religion, we will go back to the age of witches and black magic. Men must be govern in some sense either by law, or by belief. Without religion, we are only a not developed sentient beings. If some one claim that he's not believe in religion at all, he may have a high potential to harm any one, because, he have no consideration of what is right or wrong. If a Bible really is a religious dogma representing the word of Jesus Christ, it's always be sacred.
ReplyDeleteA's comment is very similar to one that Apple made on Petch's post on polyamory.
ReplyDeleteWhat is relevant evidence to help us decide whether that idea about the need for religion is true or false?
Is it true or false?
Does religious belief make people behave better?
Why do you think that?
(I think it's a very common belief, but also false. It's a good question on which to practice critical thinking. Please feel welcome to disagree with me if you think that religion is necessary for good behaviour.)
I like A's clear statement @ July 6, 2010 10:04 PM of what I think is a common and popular belief about the role that religion plays, but although that belief is common, I am also sure that it is wrong. The fact that it is a common belief does not make it true, it just means that many people believe that atheists are less moral in their behaviour than those who believe in a religion, but then why do so many people commit terrorist acts for their religion, such as in the South of Thailand, the attacks on the 9/11 World Trade Centre, and Christian crusades, the Hindu attack on a Muslim temple in India, and so on? And why do people go to war for their religion? People also use religion as an excuse to violate the rights of other people, for example when homosexuality is made illegal, and people are imprisoned or killed for doing something that a religion says is wrong. Other examples would be religious arguments against teaching evolution, against the use of life saving medical technologies, and access to legal abortion, which Buddhism has prevented in Thailand as Christianity did until 1976 in the US. Petch's post on polyamory is another example: unless it can be shown that having multiple partners is morally wrong, then laws or social sanctions against it inspired by religious teaching are immoral and show that the religious teachings are immoral.
ReplyDeleteIf you think that there is evidence that religions really do make people morally better behaved than atheists, you can present evidence to support that idea.
This is exactly the sort of thing that people do in academic work: they take a stand and support it because they think their idea is right. So, what's your stand and what's your support?