Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Judgement Day and We Can Know: What the hell?

12425262830

Posts

  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    First that 'can of worms' you'd rather not open is basically the only relevant question. Yeah, it's easier if you assume that any member of a religion is a strict adherant and you know their beliefs and how that translates to behavior based on their stated religious affiliation. But that's a strawman at best; that selective application of their religion is the reality.

    And finally there's the ad hominem against all theistic religious folks I wasn't sure had happened yet.

    Well correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the argument posed was: "Hey, religion is just as valid a way to find meaning, happiness and goodness as any other philosophy."

    So why is it wrong to point out that if you actually do what it says, you know, approach it in good faith. It instructs you to directly do things that can potentially cause grave emotional/psychological harm? Something tells me an approach to solving a problem that asks me to accept potentially severe psychological consequences is not as equally valid as a philosophy that does not.

    Oh really?

    Religion instructs you to do things that can potentially cause grave emotional/psychological harm?

    Please cite your sources on religion in general doing this. Individual examples re: specific religions won't cut it here.

    UA1OmVB.png
  • AtomikaAtomika YOU ARE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE YOU ARE A BARNACLERegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    mythago wrote: »
    I once heard a rabbi explain it this way: If he walked into his congregation one morning and said "Hands up, who believes in the literal existence of God?" he expected that about a third of the people would immediately put their hands up, a third wouldn't put their hands up at all, and the rest would be kind of wavering with their hands half-up. Whereas if you went into a Christian church and asked the same question, you'd expect everybody to put their hands up. And if somebody didn't, you would ask that person "So, um, what are you doing here?"

    What I'm suggesting is that anyone without their hand up isn't practicing a religion by any reasonable definition other than the most archaic, "communal ritual"-type definitions.

    And I would have to think that if a third or better of the people in the room think that magic exists, there's a good chance that's being urged on by something.


    Likewise, I'd argue that if you subscribe to a dogmatic belief system without a divine element, that's kind of crazy, too. But some people just really like having a group to belong to, regardless of rationality. I know Catholics who will argue all day long about how the Vatican is irrelevant to their being Catholic.

    Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.

  • zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    MechMantis wrote: »
    Oh really?

    Religion instructs you to do things that can potentially cause grave emotional/psychological harm?

    Please cite your sources on religion in general doing this. Individual examples re: specific religions won't cut it here.

    Please cite your examples. (No using examples!)

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    So, not to change the subject away from "the general religion argument thread" that this has turned into, but: has anyone heard back from any of these people? It looks like all the major players quietly redesigned their websites last week. Family Radio, eBible Fellowship, etc. are all acting like nothing happened. wecanknow.com didn't change, but everyone that they link to did. I know Harold Camping said something about "damn, huh, maybe October, then?" and then shut up, but what happened to that old veteran with the sign in Times Square or that crazy mother who was ranting that her kids were going to hell on May 21st and the rest?

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    What I'm suggesting is that anyone without their hand up isn't practicing a religion by any reasonable definition other than the most archaic, "communal ritual"-type definitions.

    And, again, this is because you are defining "religion" by the particular tenets of a faith - Christianity - that is familiar to you, and dismissing any deviation from that model as "not religion". Hence your use of the term 'archaic', which is a typical approach of supercessionist religions like Christianity: our model is Religion 2.0, and older or incongruent practice is obsolete and archaic.

    When you make statements that the literal belief in the historical reality of the Exodus myth is essential and central to Judaism, or that people who have doubts about the literal reality of God as described in the Bible are not Jewish, that's not so much an argument as a big red flag that says "I dunno much about this Judaism thing, but it's Abrahamic, right? So it's like being Christian only you don't have to get to the New Testament part." And that's not much of a basis for sweeping statements about "religion." (We're not even getting into non-monotheistic religions, which really dump on the God Or Bust theory.)
    Likewise, I'd argue that if you subscribe to a dogmatic belief system without a divine element, that's kind of crazy, too. But some people just really like having a group to belong to, regardless of rationality. I know Catholics who will argue all day long about how the Vatican is irrelevant to their being Catholic.

    Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.

    Sure. But are those Vatican-denying Catholics not Catholic? Or not Christian?

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    MechMantis wrote: »
    Oh really?

    Religion instructs you to do things that can potentially cause grave emotional/psychological harm?

    Please cite your sources on religion in general doing this. Individual examples re: specific religions won't cut it here.

    I'd say the part in almost every variation (with some minor exceptions) of Abrahamic religions which represent the vast amount of active religious practitioners, where it says that God and your duty to God are the most important thing in the world, full stop. Where you accept that your life must be devoted to God and to love God and do your best to emulate good moral things he likes. The parts where you say you will worship this guy with all your heart and soul, devote your essence to loving him above all others, doing as he wishes, what he says and following his every whim as best you can.

    If I said the same thing about a person I was infatuated with I'd get labeled a stalker with a severe psychological problem. Yet religion considers this an acceptable practice. When you center your emotional and psychological well being around the presence of a specific entity and a laundry list of tenants set out, many of which require belief in specific claims which ARE indeed falsifiable, such as camping's claims, evolution deniers and many other sects, you are endangering your mental health.

    You're playing Russian roulette because you must accept those things to gain entry, but once you have accepted them you can now no longer not accept them because you just became severely codependent on religion to maintain your sanity and if you could refute them then you'd shatter your entire new framework for emotional/mental well being and life in general. If you could, then you obviously never truly became a member of the faith and practiced it as you were told to begin with. I'd argue such people weren't really religious to begin with because they could not actually practice what they were specifically told was required for entry and they're just playing a rationalization game to appear sociable in a climate where being of none or the wrong religion will hurt your advancement in life.

    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    zerg rush wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    Oh really?

    Religion instructs you to do things that can potentially cause grave emotional/psychological harm?

    Please cite your sources on religion in general doing this. Individual examples re: specific religions won't cut it here.

    Please cite your examples. (No using examples!)

    See, thing is, the way he worded that, he was saying "All religion tells you do to things that can cause psychological harm"

    To which I said "No, bullshit, prove that all religion tells you to do things that can cause psychological harm. Bringing up examples specific to one religion won't cut it here."

    EDIT: Abrahamic religions=/=Religion, capitol R.

    And I'm going to take the "If you believe in a God you are endangering your mental health" with a gigantic grain of salt.

    UA1OmVB.png
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I'd say the part in almost every variation (with some minor exceptions) of Abrahamic religions which represent the vast amount of active religious practitioners, where it says that God and your duty to God are the most important thing in the world, full stop. Where you accept that your life must be devoted to God and to love God and do your best to emulate good moral things he likes. The parts where you say you will worship this guy with all your heart and soul, devote your essence to loving him above all others, doing as he wishes, what he says and following his every whim as best you can.

    Thanks for providing a clearer example of what I was talking about. When did "Abrahamic" stop meaning "Judaism, Christianity and Islam" and start becoming a marker of somebody who wants to generalize from fundamentalist Christianity to all Western monotheistic religions?

    And, of course, you did a neat shimmy from 'religion' to particular, individual religions. What part of Buddhism requires you to follow the every whim of God? Or is that OK because it's all cool and Eastern and shit so it doesn't count as "religion"?

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Well correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the argument posed was: "Hey, religion is just as valid a way to find meaning, happiness and goodness as any other philosophy."

    So why is it wrong to point out that if you actually do what it says, you know, approach it in good faith. It instructs you to directly do things that can potentially cause grave emotional/psychological harm? Something tells me an approach to solving a problem that asks me to accept potentially severe psychological consequences is not as equally valid as a philosophy that does not.

    Okay, see the bolded part? The thing that says "religion"? And later on in that post, how the "it" assumes the antecedent of "religion"? And how you claim that religion demands things that can cause emotional/psychological harm?

    That's what I'm calling you on.
    I'd say the part in almost every variation (with some minor exceptions) of Abrahamic religions which represent the vast amount of active religious practitioners, where it says that God and your duty to God are the most important thing in the world, full stop. Where you accept that your life must be devoted to God and to love God and do your best to emulate good moral things he likes. The parts where you say you will worship this guy with all your heart and soul, devote your essence to loving him above all others, doing as he wishes, what he says and following his every whim as best you can.

    Which is why the bolded part here, saying "Abrahamic religions", makes that diatribe completely and entirely irrelevant. You made the claim that Religion, capital R, demands things that can cause harm.

    Prove it. Give me some evidence that Religion demands things that can cause psychological/emotional harm.

    There's also a large amount of frankly idiotic stuff contained within that second post but that's not the issue here.

    Religion=/=Abrahamic religions.

    UA1OmVB.png
  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Personally I'm fine with most religions being wiped off the face of the earth. No one should need a complex system based on faith to tell them to not be huge cocks.

    Funnel all that money and manpower to something that doesn't have a long history of corroding humanity as much (if not more than) it helps it.

  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    mythago wrote: »
    Thanks for providing a clearer example of what I was talking about. When did "Abrahamic" stop meaning "Judaism, Christianity and Islam" and start becoming a marker of somebody who wants to generalize from fundamentalist Christianity to all Western monotheistic religions?

    And, of course, you did a neat shimmy from 'religion' to particular, individual religions. What part of Buddhism requires you to follow the every whim of God? Or is that OK because it's all cool and Eastern and shit so it doesn't count as "religion"?

    When a little over 80% of the U.S.A. and half of the world adhere to either of the three I think equating religion with Abrahamic religion, especially after adding that qualifier sure does help. But let's try addressing your point using your example. Obviously Buddhists don't believe the same way a fundie does, yet the same mechanism which allows one to believe in divinity is the same mechanism which allows fundamentalists to function and flourish. Not all sects of Buddhism are required to believe in such divinity though.

    It's being able to believe something that sounds absolutely ridiculous on its face with the idea that you can take it on faith and never once require even one slightly credible shred of evidence to back it. And because our human world is colored with social interactions all of which operate on a real, practical interpretation of faith which does require such reinforcement, such as my faith a friend will pay me back, we consider it an admirable quality instead of a detestable one.

    It's that mechanism that opens one up to severe mental and psychological harm because suddenly how do you separate one huckster selling you garbage from someone selling you something sensible? Obviously it's all faith so they're all equal! We can't require actual rational analysis because this breed of faith specifically says it's required you NOT have such things. Disregard the man behind the curtain!

    So because you're suddenly accepting an idea that it's not only okay but preferable (considering how those not of a religion are characterized by the religious often as amoral degenerates and their social advancement is severely hindered by that) to believe in something that practically requires the complete absence of any and all credible supporting evidence, to which the majority of practitioners have historically and are today inadvertently opened up to being able to believe in an entire other swathe of vastly harmful beliefs such as:

    Apocalyptic fantasies, evolution denial, denial of modern medicine, geocentricity, severe delusions of persecution, etc. without being able to legitimately accept criticism of said harmful beliefs, since it would destroy their faith, which would crush their remaining sanity. Of course they can't because this faith is a central part of their emotional and psychological makeup because the instruction of the most practiced religions all states that faith and God are more important than even feeding yourself or relieving your bodily functions.

    So if the Buddhist in this case wants to tell the Christian fundie that they're full of shit for bombing an Abortion clinic, if they both hold divinely religious beliefs, he's pretty much fucked because he has no ground to stand on in insisting the fundie is ridiculous. They both require the exact same suspension of belief in the name of a "faith" that requires there be no analysis or justification.

    How is that not harmful to society or social discourse? Sure he can try to handwave it away with a No True Scotsman argument but that's just throwing grease on the fire and saying that we can be even more irrational as a society without justifying it because LOLSOCIALNORMSQWHICHCANCHANGEONAWHIM!

    TL;DR: If you accept religious, supernatural divinity you lose your ability to criticize any religious practice in a good-faith-style-argument. This lets religion do whatever it wants because you can't draw a line in the sand without being horribly, horribly hypocritical.

    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    No. Western society does not consider Religion to mean "Abrahamic religions" (read: Christianity, at least in your case).

    Religion means Religion. All religions

    Furthermore, no, not all religions are equal.

    To use your example of a Buddhist not being able to call someone shitty who follows a sect of Christianity that calls for the bombing of abortion clinics, who also bombed an abortion clinic: yes, the Buddhist absolutely can call that person shitty.

    Because the person who bombed an abortion clinic is full of shit because he's actively being a pathetic excuse for a human being, using his faith as some lame excuse to continue being a pathetic excuse of a human being.

    The Buddhist is not being hypocritical either, unless that Buddhist follows a sect of Buddhism that calls for the bombing of abortion clinics, and also bombs abortion clinics himself.

    Also: Having faith in something=/=not being able to question it.

    I don't know where you got that idea.

    UA1OmVB.png
  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Being a "shitty person" is in no way connected to the faith being followed. It depends on devotion either to ones faith or ideals and takes an active efford to get rid of. Religion is not the problem. Its attitude.

  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    MechMantis wrote: »
    No. Western society does not consider Religion to mean "Abrahamic religions" (read: Christianity, at least in your case).

    Religion means Religion. All religions

    Is this going to be another debate about capitalization or about the practical implications of the majority of actual religious practice and its contents as we can observe? All religions? Really? Even Bill who thinks that Barbie is the daughter of the supeme being Ma-tel and decorates his bicycle with doll heads as an alter to his God?
    Furthermore, no, not all religions are equal.

    Really? What makes one religion more or less equal than another? Is it being born a Pig? :p (just in case no one gets that, animal farm reference.)
    To use your example of a Buddhist not being able to call someone shitty who follows a sect of Christianity that calls for the bombing of abortion clinics, who also bombed an abortion clinic: yes, the Buddhist absolutely can call that person shitty.

    Because the person who bombed an abortion clinic is full of shit because he's actively being a pathetic excuse for a human being.

    Bob: So I totally bombed an Abortion clinic today, it was awesome. Doctor parts everywhere, now they know how those babies feel!
    Joe: you know Bob, I really think that was pretty goddamn extreme of you.
    Bob: So what, you believe that the Raeliens created man!
    Joe: No u!

    Can we find where Joe lost his ability to criticize Bob in a meaningful way?

    Hint: It was where undermining Bob's faith equally undermined Joe's.
    The Buddhist is not being hypocritical either, unless that Buddhist follows a sect of Buddhism that calls for the bombing of abortion clinics, and also bombs abortion clinics himself.

    Also: Having faith in something=/=not being able to question it.

    I don't know where you got that idea.

    Maybe it was the point where you are not allowed to return from said questioning of faith with an answer other than YES I am affirmed! which was considered acceptable. Saying you're allowed to question religious faith is like saying you're allowed to question Sarah Palin, but please, just read off your series of questions from ones on this here convenient list that we've prepared answers for!

    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Quoting split quoted posts like that (for me, anyway) is a clusterfuck, I'll just go down the handily provided list.

    1: When you make a claim saying "religion demands things that can cause emotional/psychological harm" you don't get to sidestep actually supporting that claim by then adding "Oh but religion means THIS to most people", when that is false, then bitch about how "Oh but that claim was too hard to prove, because religion means religion, inclusive!"

    I didn't make the claim.

    2: When a religion demands you do something that would make you a pathetic excuse of a human being. Seems to be a good metric, at least for me.

    3: That is the equivalent of "You just broke someone's nose!" "BUT YOU SMELL." Completely irrelevant defense. The observer smelling or not smelling is completely irrelevant to the observer criticizing the the nose-breaker for breaking a nose.

    4: Since we're talking about Christianity when an Apostle gets away with questioning God I'm pretty sure normal people can get away with it too.

    UA1OmVB.png
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    The Buddhist is not being hypocritical either, unless that Buddhist follows a sect of Buddhism that calls for the bombing of abortion clinics, and also bombs abortion clinics himself.

    Also: Having faith in something=/=not being able to question it.

    I don't know where you got that idea.

    Maybe it was the point where you are not allowed to return from said questioning of faith with an answer other than YES I am affirmed! which was considered acceptable. Saying you're allowed to question religious faith is like saying you're allowed to question Sarah Palin, but please, just read off your series of questions from ones on this here convenient list that we've prepared answers for!


    Except that's not all religions. as several people have pointed out in this discussion, myself included.

    Judaism encourages questioning the teachings of your faith. The teachings and yes the faith in God itself. You are encouraged to ask questions, to argue, to explore and to find out the answer for yourself.

    Now, the more extreme Sects of Judaism (the far right everything is literal) may look down on you for not seeing things their way, they have even known to become violent (It was one such man who killed PM Rabin so many years ago). But they, like fundamentalists of every belief and religion and creed, are a minority.

    We would sit for hours on saturday morning in the synagogue asking the Rabbi questions. About Moses and the exodus, about God, about why the jews had been persecuted throughout history and how we could still be considered the "Chosen People" if we were so poorly viewed upon.

    For some of us, such questions strengthened our faith in our religion, and our belief systems. For some, they couldn't reconcile one with the other and they moved on with their lives. They weren't shunned, or excommunicated, or even ridiculed. They asked the questions, they got the answers and from there it was to them what happened next.

    I believe in God. Ok, if that's a bit much for you, I believe in a spiritual being or presence or existence of some kind that is mostly benevolent but also mostly irrelevant. God is not going to come sweeping down here in a chariot of fire and wipe nations and peoples off the face of the earth. But is there something out there? I believe so. Does it make me feel better to say a prayer during difficult times? yes. Does it make sense? No. But am I going to become unraveled at the edges when somebody tells me that it makes no sense? No.

    My best friend died on this day five years ago. And every year since I have woken up, dressed in black mourning clothes, and I have said the mourners kaddish. I do the same on the anniversary of my grandmother's deaths as well. It's not something that is dictated in the religion, but a practice of my own that's rooted in my faith that brings me comfort on a difficult day. Do they hear my prayers and know that I'm thinking about them? I hope so. Just like I hope my best friend hears my talking to him about WWE and the NCAA tournament. But if you tell me that it's silly and he doesn't hear me, then yeah, you could possibly be right, but i'm going to keep doing what i'm doing anyways because it brings me comfort.

    But I'm not going to be undone by somebody questioning God or my belief in God's Existence. if I, or any religious person, were to do that, then the internet would be a lot less populated and a lot more loony.


    Just because a person is religious doesn't make them less capable of rational thought. It might in your mind make them that way, but I can look at a question and examine the answer and not once ask 'what would God want me to believe?'. My religion is mine, nobody else's, and it effects me, nobody else. if it's not a question on my beliefs and my faith, then I can put it to the side. It's not a black and white thing. it really isn't.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Faith, religious or secular, is inherently irrational. However, being irrational is not always relevant or harmful. It can create an additional vulnerability in someone, but in many if not most cases this is evened out by the psychological relief and social benefits. For others, however, that vulnerability is very large, and they and those around them can be deeply harmed by it, and it can get downright absurd, like with those folks who gave away all their stuff because they expected to be Raptured. And as with the news, nobody cares about things that are going fine, but man everyone is going to be concerned over something that has gone wrong, and so most conversations are going to be about that. Abrahamic religions are eyeball deep in the biggest visible conflicts of our time, even if secular greed and bigotry and tribalism and so forth are just being painted with religious iconography, so naturally conversations will center on them. The great Wiccan Wars are still decades off, so most people forget they exist until you remind them. Numbers, of course, are a huge part of this. People would be going on about pagans if they were the global majority.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • AtomikaAtomika YOU ARE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE YOU ARE A BARNACLERegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    mythago wrote: »
    When you make statements that the literal belief in the historical reality of the Exodus myth is essential and central to Judaism, or that people who have doubts about the literal reality of God as described in the Bible are not Jewish, that's not so much an argument as a big red flag that says "I dunno much about this Judaism thing, but it's Abrahamic, right? So it's like being Christian only you don't have to get to the New Testament part." And that's not much of a basis for sweeping statements about "religion." (We're not even getting into non-monotheistic religions, which really dump on the God Or Bust theory.)

    The internet is also apparently full of people who will argue that religion is whatever they want it to be.

    How does the quote go? "When you include all definitions, the concept loses all value."

  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    mythago wrote: »
    When you make statements that the literal belief in the historical reality of the Exodus myth is essential and central to Judaism, or that people who have doubts about the literal reality of God as described in the Bible are not Jewish, that's not so much an argument as a big red flag that says "I dunno much about this Judaism thing, but it's Abrahamic, right? So it's like being Christian only you don't have to get to the New Testament part." And that's not much of a basis for sweeping statements about "religion." (We're not even getting into non-monotheistic religions, which really dump on the God Or Bust theory.)

    The internet is also apparently full of people who will argue that religion is whatever they want it to be.

    How does the quote go? "When you include all definitions, the concept loses all value."

    To some degree? Religion is whatever they want it to be. It's a very personal thing. Shocking, I know.

    UA1OmVB.png
  • AtomikaAtomika YOU ARE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE YOU ARE A BARNACLERegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    MechMantis wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    When you make statements that the literal belief in the historical reality of the Exodus myth is essential and central to Judaism, or that people who have doubts about the literal reality of God as described in the Bible are not Jewish, that's not so much an argument as a big red flag that says "I dunno much about this Judaism thing, but it's Abrahamic, right? So it's like being Christian only you don't have to get to the New Testament part." And that's not much of a basis for sweeping statements about "religion." (We're not even getting into non-monotheistic religions, which really dump on the God Or Bust theory.)

    The internet is also apparently full of people who will argue that religion is whatever they want it to be.

    How does the quote go? "When you include all definitions, the concept loses all value."

    To some degree? Religion is whatever they want it to be. It's a very personal thing. Shocking, I know.

    More to the point, if you're tailoring dogma to better fit your own predisposition, how is that any different than just jerking off and sating whatever spiritual needs your psyche demands?

    It's weird to me that people will take a dogmatic faith system, jumble it around like it's a prix fixe menu, and claim, "Voila! I'm religious!"


    It just goes to show how with many people, the need to self-identify as religious and/or feel a spiritual connection with something is as important or more than actually following the mandates of divine instruction or even subscribing to its divinity.

  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    That perplexes me too, I'll admit.

    Once met a self-proclaimed devout Catholic who A: didn't believe in Jesus Christ being the son of God, and B: didn't believe in God at all.

    Which are two of the few big "You really have to believe this at least most of the time, guys" contained in the Nicene Creed.

    I blinked a few times, shrugged, moved on with the class. Different strokes, and if that made her sleep easier at night, all the power to her.

    UA1OmVB.png
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    MechMantis wrote: »
    That perplexes me too, I'll admit.

    Once met a self-proclaimed devout Catholic who A: didn't believe in Jesus Christ being the son of God, and B: didn't believe in God at all.

    Which are two of the few big "You really have to believe this at least most of the time, guys" contained in the Nicene Creed.

    I blinked a few times, shrugged, moved on with the class. Different strokes, and if that made her sleep easier at night, all the power to her.

    So, essentially in her case the word "Catholic" means nothing. The way she uses it is so far divorced from the real meaning of the word that she could insert any other religion and it would sound the same.

    Dumb Hero wrote: »
    "Okay, you take 2d4 damage from the ogre's dick impaling your 2inch anus"
    Satan! Look here!
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    mythago wrote: »
    When you make statements that the literal belief in the historical reality of the Exodus myth is essential and central to Judaism, or that people who have doubts about the literal reality of God as described in the Bible are not Jewish, that's not so much an argument as a big red flag that says "I dunno much about this Judaism thing, but it's Abrahamic, right? So it's like being Christian only you don't have to get to the New Testament part." And that's not much of a basis for sweeping statements about "religion." (We're not even getting into non-monotheistic religions, which really dump on the God Or Bust theory.)

    The internet is also apparently full of people who will argue that religion is whatever they want it to be.

    How does the quote go? "When you include all definitions, the concept loses all value."

    I find this ironic because it's exactly what you're doing - defining religion (as == theism) because that's convenient for you. It kind of loses all value when you restrict your definitions to suit your purposes, too.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Because religion has often tied itself deeply into culture and family, many people will remain affiliated with it so that they can continue to belong to the community, even if they're ignoring the basic concepts of their religion to do so. Indeed, there are too many families who will kick their own children out if they ever drop their religious affiliation in an official manner.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • AtomikaAtomika YOU ARE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE YOU ARE A BARNACLERegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Because religion has often tied itself deeply into culture and family, many people will remain affiliated with it so that they can continue to belong to the community, even if they're ignoring the basic concepts of their religion to do so. Indeed, there are too many families who will kick their own children out if they ever drop their religious affiliation in an official manner.

    That still doesn't account for those atheists (or non-practicing, or whatever) who claim in places like internet message boards that they're still subscribers of Religion X.

    It's like saying you're a Marxist because you like the people at the meetings you go to after you leave your investment banking job at the end of the day.

  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    ITT People confuse Religion with Culture.

    Seriously, when these guys say it's logically impossible to be a member of a religion whilst also disagreeing with its most basic foundational principles and then you other guys say that people can totally disavow a religion's teachings and still call themselves members of that religion, you aren't actually disagreeing with each other. Especially when one of you is using "religion" to mean the expressly worshipful rituals and edicts laid down by various holy books and the others are using it to mean all that plus the culture that has grown up around/with those rituals and laws.

    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
    DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
  • AtomikaAtomika YOU ARE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE YOU ARE A BARNACLERegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    When you make statements that the literal belief in the historical reality of the Exodus myth is essential and central to Judaism, or that people who have doubts about the literal reality of God as described in the Bible are not Jewish, that's not so much an argument as a big red flag that says "I dunno much about this Judaism thing, but it's Abrahamic, right? So it's like being Christian only you don't have to get to the New Testament part." And that's not much of a basis for sweeping statements about "religion." (We're not even getting into non-monotheistic religions, which really dump on the God Or Bust theory.)

    The internet is also apparently full of people who will argue that religion is whatever they want it to be.

    How does the quote go? "When you include all definitions, the concept loses all value."

    I find this ironic because it's exactly what you're doing - defining religion (as == theism) because that's convenient for you. It kind of loses all value when you restrict your definitions to suit your purposes, too.

    Why do you persist in quibbling over the most marginal slivers of all possible subsets? This is Unitarians all over again. This is Ross' Law. I'm naming it. It's mine.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    That still doesn't account for those atheists (or non-practicing, or whatever) who claim in places like internet message boards that they're still subscribers of Religion X.

    It's like saying you're a Marxist because you like the people at the meetings you go to after you leave your investment banking job at the end of the day.

    1) Stop using "atheists" when you mean "non-religious."

    2) People do exactly that all the time. People very commonly affiliate with groups because they enjoy being in them even if they disagree with everything they do or say if you actually ASK them.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • AtomikaAtomika YOU ARE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE YOU ARE A BARNACLERegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    That still doesn't account for those atheists (or non-practicing, or whatever) who claim in places like internet message boards that they're still subscribers of Religion X.

    It's like saying you're a Marxist because you like the people at the meetings you go to after you leave your investment banking job at the end of the day.

    1) Stop using "atheists" when you mean "non-religious."

    I've already admitted it's isn't the most apt descriptor, but it does match the functionality of their practice. I don't self-identify as an atheist, but I might as well. The functionality and practical application is what I refer to.
    2) People do exactly that all the time. People very commonly affiliate with groups because they enjoy being in them even if they disagree with everything they do or say if you actually ASK them.

    Which is fine, but it's not a valid or logical rhetorical position to maintain in debate and/or discourse.

  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Is there really that much difference between somebody looking down on others because of following a religion and somebody looking down on others because of not following a religion?

    It seems to me the real problem is neither being able to share the others perspective. Not neccesarily to agree to it, just to listen to consider it at least.

    Both approaches can lead equally astray, for the very same reasons.
    Both are of equal quality and equally difficult.

    And when you finally realize it, you will be able to listen.
    Before that... its quite difficult.

  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    MechMantis wrote: »
    Quoting split quoted posts like that (for me, anyway) is a clusterfuck, I'll just go down the handily provided list.

    1: When you make a claim saying "religion demands things that can cause emotional/psychological harm" you don't get to sidestep actually supporting that claim by then adding "Oh but religion means THIS to most people", when that is false, then bitch about how "Oh but that claim was too hard to prove, because religion means religion, inclusive!"

    I didn't make the claim.

    Let's play the quote game! :D

    First here's me:
    Just because there are some universal truths and instructions for finding happiness embedded in the Bible doesn't change that accepting it as divine invites a whole massive host of other problems, many of which can potentially lead to dangerous and in certain cases deadly actions which are a net harm to all involved.

    It's like saying why is it any different to just keep eating mold until you find Penicillin versus actually taking antibiotics. Because hey, you're totally getting the Penicillin anyway.
    Well correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the argument posed was: "Hey, religion is just as valid a way to find meaning, happiness and goodness as any other philosophy."

    So why is it wrong to point out that if you actually do what it says, you know, approach it in good faith. It instructs you to directly do things that can potentially cause grave emotional/psychological harm? Something tells me an approach to solving a problem that asks me to accept potentially severe psychological consequences is not as equally valid as a philosophy that does not.

    now here's you:
    MechMantis wrote: »
    Okay, see the bolded part? The thing that says "religion"? And later on in that post, how the "it" assumes the antecedent of "religion"? And how you claim that religion demands things that can cause emotional/psychological harm?

    That's what I'm calling you on.

    Which is why the bolded part here, saying "Abrahamic religions", makes that diatribe completely and entirely irrelevant. You made the claim that Religion, capital R, demands things that can cause harm.

    Prove it. Give me some evidence that Religion demands things that can cause psychological/emotional harm.

    There's also a large amount of frankly idiotic stuff contained within that second post but that's not the issue here.

    Religion=/=Abrahamic religions.

    Now maybe it's just me, but I think you're the one putting words into my mouth. I specifically tried to clarify my point regarding who I was addressing. The fact that I don't include Jedi in my statement doesn't change anything regarding the context of what was said. We were talking specifically about the Bible, divinity and Religious Faith practiced as advertised. So in this context I'm pretty damn sure who we're talking about and you trying to make me categorize all religions under a broad brush if anything seems more like an attempt to make the crazy less crazy by throwing in Buddhists as distractions.

    Which, from my understanding there are many sects of Buddhists, some are philosophers and some do believe in monsters and sky gods depending on where you go. But that's neither here nor there. Religion as practiced can generally be assumed to fall under the umbrella of being Islamic or Christian, or Judaism although in reality the jews represent a small minority compared to Christian and Islamic populations.

    So when talking about the Bible, divinity the danger of accepting Sky Gods and why it opens you up to mental harm I'm so sorry for only referring to the practices that the vast majority of the world's religious population follow (or at least claim to follow.)
    MechMantis wrote: »
    2: When a religion demands you do something that would make you a pathetic excuse of a human being. Seems to be a good metric, at least for me.

    If you accept that it's okay to do shitty things because RELIGION then you don't get to suddenly start picking and choosing things that only you think make people a pathetic excuse of a human being. What if your religion just tells you to sit on the couch and eat cheetos and drink Mr. Pibb all weekends? You're not really harming anyone but you're still doing something pretty stupid if you do it just because you think it's your divine duty and not because of enjoyment.
    MechMantis wrote: »
    3: That is the equivalent of "You just broke someone's nose!" "BUT YOU SMELL." Completely irrelevant defense. The observer smelling or not smelling is completely irrelevant to the observer criticizing the the nose-breaker for breaking a nose.

    That's a nice anecdote but if both if these guys smell and break noses because of religion then that changes it a lot more. Smelly guy can't tell the nose breaker he's wrong if he was doing it on divine instruction. If God tells you to roll in garbage all day, and you do it for God, then you can't tell someone else who received different forms of religious instruction that they're wrong without resorting entirely to fallacious arguments. Because at the end of the day you've both already accepted it's okay to do shitty things for religion because God commands it. Anything else is just hypocrisy.
    MechMantis wrote: »

    I really hope you understand the irony of quoting the Bible as a valid example of being legitimately able to question the serious tenants of faith, divinity and other such problems when I had just responded with a joking anecdote about only being allowed to ask scripted questions and to come back with a specific answer.

    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    That still doesn't account for those atheists (or non-practicing, or whatever) who claim in places like internet message boards that they're still subscribers of Religion X.

    It's like saying you're a Marxist because you like the people at the meetings you go to after you leave your investment banking job at the end of the day.

    1) Stop using "atheists" when you mean "non-religious."

    I've already admitted it's isn't the most apt descriptor, but it does match the functionality of their practice. I don't self-identify as an atheist, but I might as well. The functionality and practical application is what I refer to.
    2) People do exactly that all the time. People very commonly affiliate with groups because they enjoy being in them even if they disagree with everything they do or say if you actually ASK them.

    Which is fine, but it's not a valid or logical rhetorical position to maintain in debate and/or discourse.
    You seem to have decided that self-identification is meaningless and personal belief is determinative of religious preferance. That....doesn't really square with reality. It doesn't even come close.

    I'm not really sure what the debate is even about at this point; clearly not all people who are religious are dogmatically theistic (and if you doubt that you can take a look at the Pew numbers in the area. I'm not sure what the point is of arguing that the folks who don't fit that descriptor are no true religious Scotsmen.

    They think they are. They participate in their religious communities. Your '...but it's not a logical and rhetorically sound position to be religious without being a dogmatic theist!' is a completely meaningless statement because it's quite simply not true that personal belief determinative of religious affiliation or vice versa. These people exist. Within the US they may even be the majority position in some sects you consider strictly theistic (including Judaism). Refusing to talk about them because they don't fit your preconceived notion of 'religion' as being entirely defined by personal doesn't accomplish anything at all.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Because religion has often tied itself deeply into culture and family, many people will remain affiliated with it so that they can continue to belong to the community, even if they're ignoring the basic concepts of their religion to do so. Indeed, there are too many families who will kick their own children out if they ever drop their religious affiliation in an official manner.

    This is especially true of Catholicism, where there's a tradition of "Cultural Catholics" - ie going to church is part of a familial/social/ethnic obligation rather than tied to close adherence to the Church.

    I'm not a practicing Catholic, and don't have much use for Mass. However, in thinking about how my future children will be raised I do feel a little regret that they won't undergo the same rites of passage (First Confession, First Holy Communion, CCD etc) that I did. While those are at least nominally religious, they are also tied closely to a cultural and ethnic history.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    *snip*

    1: I did miss that first part, which adds some context. However:

    Religion is as valid a philosophy as any other. You can't make the claim that "Abrahamic religions by definition can lead to emotional and psychological harm, therefore all religion is potentially harmful." You can make the claim "Abrahamic religions are potentially harmful."

    Also: believing in God does not somehow open you up to mental harm that one was open to before. Also, you listed off things that Abrahamic religions demand that could cause emotional/physical harm. The irony of it was that there were just as many larger secular movements based on the same thing. There is some overlap in that a bunch of gullible people happen to follow a variety of religions. But in the case this thread exemplifies, the circus regarding 2012 is both bigger and completely secular, and I'm pretty sure just as many, if not more, secular people are going to have their sanity shattered on Dec 21, 2012.

    Seriously there's businesses based on 2012.

    I think it comes down to "people who are easily manipulated will be easily manipulated." Correlation between gullible people following a religion, in this case, does not necessarily mean causation.

    2: I don't accept that it's okay for religion to tell you to do shitty things in practice, in fact I was trying to say the opposite. And if that's what someone's religion says? All the power to em.

    3: Are you seriously trying to say that all divine mandates from all sources are completely and utterly equal, regardless of what they ask, because "they're all based on faith", regardless of what they're actually asking? Furthermore, anyone who follows a religion cannot criticize meaningfully people who follow other religions who commit horrible actions then use their religion as a shield because "IT'S A RELIGION"?

    So "Do not harm any living thing"="BOMB THE ABORTION CLINICS" completely?

    At some point, the fact that they're both faith-driven becomes irrelevant. Just because someone tries to use faith as a shield to do horrible things doesn't mean that it is always entirely 100% effective against all other people with a belief system that could be considered a religion all the time no questions asked. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is what you're saying.

    If not, please, correct me, because I've seriously misunderstood your point.

    4: When a major tenant of a religion says "You can question the major tenants of your religion", I will take that as an endorsement of questioning the major tenants of that religion. Astounding.

    UA1OmVB.png
  • AtomikaAtomika YOU ARE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE YOU ARE A BARNACLERegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    You seem to have decided that self-identification is meaningless and personal belief is determinative of religious preferance. That....doesn't really square with reality. It doesn't even come close.

    It matters in terms of practical application and functionality, which I would assume most would agree is the most important context as far as tangible consequences go.

    I can self-identify as a giant squid; that grants me neither gills nor tentacles.
    I'm not really sure what the debate is even about at this point; clearly not all people who are religious are dogmatically theistic (and if you doubt that you can take a look at the Pew numbers in the area. I'm not sure what the point is of arguing that the folks who don't fit that descriptor are no true religious Scotsmen.

    They think they are. They participate in their religious communities. Your '...but it's not a logical and rhetorically sound position to be religious without being a dogmatic theist!' is a completely meaningless statement because it's quite simply not true that personal belief determinative of religious affiliation or vice versa. These people exist. Within the US they may even be the majority position in some sects you consider strictly theistic (including Judaism). Refusing to talk about them because they don't fit your preconceived notion of 'religion' as being entirely defined by personal doesn't accomplish anything at all.

    The debate was over whether or not core beliefs within a dogmatic system could be ignored while still laying legitimate claim to membership of that system, to which I still say no. It doesn't matter if a person "believes" or "feels" that they do.

    The ramifications of which are hardly "completely meaningless," as you imply, unless you somehow are implying that a life filled with willful self-delusion and cognitive dissonance contains a worthy supply of meaning.


    I'm a firm believer that the great obligation we have to ourselves is honesty of thought. If you're willing to rationalize the irrational for no greater reason than gratifying your own psyche, then I'm afraid we're at an impasse..

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2011
    So I just saw the "invisible judgement" quote. Is that like how god's judgements are written on Rosh Hashannah but only sealed on Yom Kippur?

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Bagginses wrote: »
    So I just saw the "invisible judgement" quote. Is that like how god's judgements are written on Rosh Hashannah but only sealed on Yom Kippur?

    I think it's like, God threw the Rapture and nobody qualified.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Is there really that much difference between somebody looking down on others because of following a religion and somebody looking down on others because of not following a religion?

    It seems to me the real problem is neither being able to share the others perspective. Not neccesarily to agree to it, just to listen to consider it at least.

    Both approaches can lead equally astray, for the very same reasons.
    Both are of equal quality and equally difficult.

    And when you finally realize it, you will be able to listen.
    Before that... its quite difficult.
    It does not necessarily follow that because you look down on someone for certain beliefs they hold, that you also have never considered their perspective.

    While both of your stated approaches can lead someone astray, they certainly do not do so equally, nor do they do so for the same reasons.

    steam_sig.png
  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I think the mechanisms are quite the same, though they tend to use different lables at different levels of perception. Of course you can argue:"requiring scientific proof is not the same reason as backing by a divine scripture", but if you look at it closely it all boils down to faith. One has faith in the (supposedly) divine scriptures and the other one in the (supposedly flawless) scientific method.

    If you are convinced one path has an advantage over the other that is true.

    For you. For sombody else the opposite may be true. Its very personal.

    You can't apply the same to other people because perhaps they think different. It might work (some people share your point of view almost certainly), but then it may also fail (some absolutely won't, regardless how hard you try). The only thing you achive is to upset them, just like you might be upset when somebody comes along and tries his solution on you (for example if you prefer the scientific method and Jehovah's Witnesses come to your door to save you).

    That doesn't mean you are wrong, but it also means they aren't wrong. Its just that faith isn't universally compatible.

    And when you realize that, and realitze that INCLUDES you, how are you supposed to be able to look down on somebody? That would equal looking down on yourself. It does not compute.

    That is MY perception ;)

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    ACSIS wrote: »
    I think the mechanisms are quite the same, though they tend to use different lables at different levels of perception. Of course you can argue:"requiring scientific proof is not the same reason as backing by a divine scripture", but if you look at it closely it all boils down to faith. One has faith in the (supposedly) divine scriptures and the other one in the (supposedly flawless) scientific method.

    That is MY perception ;)

    Then your perception is completely and totally wrong.

    No one has "faith" in science. Or rather - because there are ignorant people everywhere - no one who understands what science is about has faith in science. Because science is not about faith. If you can say you have faith in science, then you're doing science wrong (or you don't know the meaning of the word "faith", but most likely the former).

    Science isn't about faith at all. It's about the opposite of faith. It's about tediously documenting everything we see. It's about making falsifiable hypotheses and then trying our hardest to falsify them. It's about making reproducible experiments so others elsewhere can reproduce them and double-check our results. We do the opposite of accepting things on faith, we check and recheck everything over and over.

    The scientific method is four simple steps: make and document observations, devise a falsifiable hypothesis that explains these observations, develop a set of reproducible experiments that try to falsify that hypothesis, and observe and document the results of these experiments (notice how we've come full circle here). The method is not assumed to be flawless. Quite the opposite, it's assumed that errors will happen. That's why the experiments need to be reproducible: so if you've done an error, others repeating your work will find them and correct them.

    Scientific work only involves "faith" in the most fundamental philosophical level - we have faith that the world around us is real and our senses are not deceiving us, that we're not really looking at shadows on the wall or plugged into the matrix. But even if we are, even if this world is an illusion, it's an illusion with predictable rules, and science aims to discover these rules by faithless tedious observation and experimentation.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.