2nd July 2011

“Intolerance bred by the monotheism of the People of the Book – mostly Christian and Muslim – in their mutual and conflicting wars and quest for world domination embroiled mankind in hatred and massacres of each other and ‘the other’ over the past 1,700 years. Even today, we see the baleful effects of residual monotheism and its apocalyptic vision.”

Dr Gautam Pingle

7 Responses to “2nd July 2011”

  1. Dan Says:

    Yeah, Christian and Muslim intolerance of others has been pretty deadly over the centuries. But self-righteousness, though not as bad, is still pretty damn annoying.

  2. Jeff Says:

    The largest problem with discussing self-righteousness whether religious or not is that it is largely an act of self-righteousness to condemn it in others. LOL.

    Intolerance, on the other hand, has had such deadly consequences over time as to make it unacceptable in practice – and almost impossible to root out due how widely practiced it has become.

  3. Dan Says:

    The largest problem with discussing self-righteousness whether religious or not is that it is largely an act of self-righteousness to condemn it in others.

    How do you figure that?

    By that logic then, condemning this comment of Sol’s for instance in the previous thread as self-righteous is itself self-righteous:

    Atheists are actually allies of SATAN.
    Allies of SATAN won’t ever bow to true humans.

    I just don’t see how I was being self-righteous by objecting to that.

  4. Jeff Says:

    Since the appearance of self-righteousness in another is usually inversely proportional to the degree of agreement with the viewpoint of the one being so condemned…

  5. Dan Says:

    Jeff,
    That’s basically what you said in the first place, so I’ll ask you again – How exactly do you come to that conclusion?

    Putting it another way myself, I’ll refer to how most dictionaries define “Self-righteous” in terms of smug moralism. By your view, self-righteous smug moralism has no basis whatsoever in objectiveness. On the other hand, in my mind, you simply don’t have to be moralizing to identify others as being moralizing.

  6. Jeff Says:

    You ignored the word USUALLY. Not always, but often enough that it is worth noting the phenomena. Don’t care about you political leanings, but when the GOP gets huffy because the Pres reminded them that the budget and debt ceiling stuff is their job, and they damn well better do their job, that’s a perfect example.

    It’s not that there’s no objective basis – it’s that so often there isn’t, and it always pays to remind oneself of that before one opens the mouth to condemn it in another.

  7. Dan Says:

    Jeff,
    Why even usually though?

    Also, I’m pretty sure I’ve never heard the term “self-righteous” being used outside of discussions of religion.