It’s often said that it is not religious principles that are at fault but their practice (or rather their non-practice).<\/p>\nIt’s often said that it is not religious principles that are at fault but their practice (or rather their non-practice).<\/p>\n
On dit souvent que ce n\u2019est pas les principes religieux qui sont fautifs mais leurs pratiques (ou plut\u00f4t leurs non-pratiques). <\/i>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Although that already makes me somewhat uneasy, calling to mind the slogan of the US National Rifle Association (“Guns Don’t Kill, People Do”), I’d say that with the religious principles on the treatment of animals — unlike the principles on the treatment of humans — it is the utilitarianism and permissiveness of Judeo-Christianity that I find horrifying.<\/p>\n
Bien que \u00e7a m\u2019inqui\u00e8te d\u00e9j\u00e0 un peu, faisant penser aux dictons de la National Rifle Association am\u00e9ricaine (\u201cGuns don\u2019t kill, people do\u201d), je dirais qu\u2019avec les principes religieux pour le traitement des animaux \u2014 contrairement aux principes pour le traitement des humains \u2014 l\u2019utilitarisme et la permissivit\u00e9 du jud\u00e9o-christianisme m\u2019horrifient. <\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
My non-belief is empirical, based on the observable, objective facts. But I have to say that even if there were empirical evidence for the truth of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, I would never, ever become a practitioner. Instead of being an atheist I would then be an anti-theist, not just because of the treatment of animals approved by an omnipotent deity but also because of the treatment of humans — not approved, but not prevented either — in the name of a divine game, capricious and psychopathic, called “free will,” which would not only be immoral, but the apotheosis of immorality (rather like breeding pit bulls so as to watch them fight it out).<\/p>\n
Mon incroyance est empirique: Elle est bas\u00e9e sur l\u2019ensemble des faits observables et objectifs. Mais j\u2019avoue que m\u00eame s\u2019il y avait des preuves empiriques de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 des \u00e9crits saints jud\u00e9o-chr\u00e9tiens, je ne serais jamais, jamais adh\u00e9rent. Au lieu d\u2019\u00eatre ath\u00e9e je serais alors anti-th\u00e9e, non seulement \u00e0 cause du traitement des animaux approuv\u00e9 par une d\u00e9it\u00e9 omnipotente, mais \u00e0 cause du traitement des humains aussi \u2014 non-approuv\u00e9, mais non-pr\u00e9venue non plus \u2014 au nom d’un jeu divin, capricieux et psychopathe, intitul\u00e9 le \u00ab libre arbitre \u00bb, qui serait non seulement immoral mais l\u2019apoth\u00e9ose de l\u2019immoralit\u00e9 (comme \u00e9lever les pitbull pour s’amuser \u00e0 les voir combattre).<\/i>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(On the other hand, I would immediately become a faithful follower of any creed that really did put an end to the horrors.)<\/p>\n
(Par contre, je serais adh\u00e9rent fid\u00e8le de n\u2019importe quel culte qui mettait fin aux horreurs pour de vrai.)<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
It’s often said that it is not religious principles that are at fault but their practice (or rather their non-practice). On dit souvent que ce n\u2019est pas les principes religieux qui sont fautifs mais leurs pratiques (ou plut\u00f4t leurs non-pratiques). Although that already makes me somewhat uneasy, calling to mind the slogan of the US … <\/p>\n