qcrisp
Grimscribe
Amusing video clip in which the Dalai Lama pretends to say "fuck it" by mistake:
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbC-TXNGK1M[/ame]
I would agree, anyway, though possibly make qualifications (e.g., that it's not about forgetting differences so much as embracing them, which seems to be very difficult).
There's an oft-repeated argument by atheists that basically goes: "Well, there are so many religions, and they all claim to be the only true religion, and they can't all be the only true religion."
And the inference or implication is that, therefore, they must all be rubbish. Of course, this doesn't follow logically, but it's clear, when faced with the small-mindedness of sectarianism and so on, why such a conclusion is tempting.
I would have thought that we are at least at a point in history where enforced ideological conformity would be considered grossly passe (I would hope that is the case, anyway), and that in the same way a person, in order to be a person, must be an individual, a creed, to be a creed, must be an individual, and in both cases they can have something to 'contribute to the conversation' without it having to be the whole debating society thing we were taught at school, where you pick sides and the team with the best or most aggressive sophists wins.
In other words, I would hope there is a way of converging that also preserves what is valuable in the individual (person or creed).
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbC-TXNGK1M[/ame]
I would agree, anyway, though possibly make qualifications (e.g., that it's not about forgetting differences so much as embracing them, which seems to be very difficult).
There's an oft-repeated argument by atheists that basically goes: "Well, there are so many religions, and they all claim to be the only true religion, and they can't all be the only true religion."
And the inference or implication is that, therefore, they must all be rubbish. Of course, this doesn't follow logically, but it's clear, when faced with the small-mindedness of sectarianism and so on, why such a conclusion is tempting.
I would have thought that we are at least at a point in history where enforced ideological conformity would be considered grossly passe (I would hope that is the case, anyway), and that in the same way a person, in order to be a person, must be an individual, a creed, to be a creed, must be an individual, and in both cases they can have something to 'contribute to the conversation' without it having to be the whole debating society thing we were taught at school, where you pick sides and the team with the best or most aggressive sophists wins.
In other words, I would hope there is a way of converging that also preserves what is valuable in the individual (person or creed).
