Sure; for about a year from mid 2004 to mid 2005~, starting with the publication of 'The End of Faith' and capping-off with the Dover trial, there was an open & honest public discussion going on about the role of religion & superstition in society (and, for once, it wasn't a conversation dominated by western bias, which was nice to see). Then the wagons were circled by the religious lobby in the U.S. & U.K., and It Was Decided by the popular press that this conversation was just too heated and dominated by those elitist academics, and the conversation shifted towards, "Gee whiz, which tone is really appropriate to use."
In the meantime, a YEC dentist in Texas pushed through new textbook standards that would ultimately carve both biological science & an accurate picture of history out of American textbooks (and believe you me, that's the sort of thing that will ripple outward), and everyone was a little too busy patting themselves on the back with regards to Dover and demonizing the 'fundamentalist' atheists to really notice or care.
So, yeah. I don't think so much of the 'weak atheists' or people who claim we shouldn't judge so harshly.
Just a heads up, it's not a great idea to use statistical outliers like "what some guy in Texas did" as an example. We (Texans) know these people are crazy, and we're trying to change it, but this is also a state almost entirely controlled through religious conglomerations (Our governor held a prayer meeting against Obama, even the most Militant Atheist can't do anything against that kind of crazy).
What happens in Texas doesn't reflect upon weak atheists.
It wasn't 'some outlier' - it was the rabid religious lobby in Texas putting lawmakers into place that then executed a program to undermine education.
Where were the 'moderate' atheists or even the 'moderate' theists who claimed that they totally, totally are against the fundy fringe? They were off chastising Dawkins / Dennet / Harris for being rude. Seriously. Ken Miller was busy writing op eds about how 'intolerant' Sam Harris was while a fundamentalist lunatic was raking textbook publication over a grater.
The only people who spoke-up about it and tried to do anything about it were those labelled as extremists.
You might not be able to actually go and stop Governor Perry's prayer meetings, but you could at least speak up about it - or, at the very least, do something other than complain about the tone of those loud atheists that want to shake people out of a dangerous stupor.
Concerning the actual push to get creationist texts in the classroom, last I heard the Texas Board of Education excluded only proposed textbooks with creationist leanings from the updated review. This was in November?
I'm not gonna lie: that was largely an excuse to share my anecdote. ^_^
But yes, Semantics are a Thing.
Oh, that reminds me! I think it was you with whom I disagreed about the utility of 'right' and 'left'. Here is a highly pertinent Slavoj Zizek quote that isn't necessarily an argument for or against, but is (imho) elucidating nonetheless:
Take for example the distinction between left and right. It's not simply a distinction within a certain social code. It's not that in a certain society if we take account of all the political forces we can say 'these are right-wing forces, these are left-wing forces,' and then all the intermediate phenomena -- inbetween, center, center-right, whatever you want.
It's different. If you ask a right-winger, how is the entire social field structured, you will get a totally different answer than if you ask a leftist or for that matter if you ask a centrist. To simplify it, a right-winger will tell you that society is an organic, harmonious unity -- at least the traditional right-wingers -- and that leftist radicals are external intruders. What is anathema for the radical conservative is the idea that there is antagonism and imbalance inscribed into the very heart of the social edifice.
For a left-winger, the struggle is admitted as central. So, again, the point is that there is no neutral way to define the difference between left and right. It's just a void. It's just that you can approach it either from the leftist or the rightist point of view.
Of course people fight over definitions. It's an attempt for control. I particularly hate the one where people tell agnostics they are actually atheists. The people saying they are agnostics are trying to express something about their beliefs, and being shut down because this particular area of though (belief) is seen as binary and logical. Which it isn't.
I am an atheist. But I was raised Catholic. There are dozens of ways in which that culture still affects my thinking. But much more importantly, I'm only an atheist most of the time. I've prayed when in serious life-threatening danger. I've prayed for the health of my loved ones when they were in danger. So my belief isn't 100%. It feels complete, but in certain, replicable, situations will change. I totally accept the logic of 'God doesn't exist.' I feel perfectly certain that that is a logical position to hold. But I'm not logical, and neither are you. I'm not saying you'll pray when your family are near death. I'm saying that I do, and I'm an atheist, because belief is not a simple binary. Logical positions are simple binaries, and those are what we hold to, express, communciate, and conclude. But they are not identities.
Basically:
People aren't syllogisms, persecution complexes are self-fulfilling, and a hilarious experiment could be carried out with a cliff, an atheist, a rope, and a bible. Also probably a box, some poison, some uranium, and a cat, because fuck cats, mirite?
Do you know, I had what I thought was an Interesting Discussion about this with a (now former) friend of mine.
Basically, the context is that there was apparently some measure of Hullabaloo (ie. schoolyard gossip) about the nature of this person's relationship with someone who used to attend the uni I'm at. The person in question maintained that it was a Romantic Relationship, while everyone else seemed to feel it was one-sided and not reciprocal. I talked to this person at some length about it, and he made it clear that regardless of what anyone else said, what he experienced was a romantic connection, and so it doesn't matter what anyone else might think.
I basically tried to explain my thoughts to him by using a related-but-different hypothetical. I could, hypothetically, start telling people some random girl is my girlfriend, or some random guy is my boyfriend... but this wouldn't per se make it so, based on the conventional definition of those terms.
He responded by saying that his definition of a romantic relationship just didn't fit that conventional definition, and if people misunderstood when he used the word "boyfriend," that it was their own fault. I replied that when you choose to use certain words, with very specific meanings, that you can mean whatever you want by them... but you also can't be surprised or upset when people tell you that they understand those words to signify something completely different from what you're trying to communicate.
I don't think that's analogous. Of course, sometimes people use words strangely, or with their own special definition that nobody shares, or just lie, as I mentioned before.
In this situation I'm arguing for a conventional definition, that it's quite normal to respect people's self-definition, and that people can express a belief system that may well be irrational, but that you have to take that belief system on when involved in discourse with them, as opposed to attacking rational belief system that you hold they believe but they actually do not.
As far as I can see, some others are arguing for unconventional definitions mostly because they want a good excuse to give those sloppy agnostics what for, or because they just haven't had much experience of speaking to agnostics.
I don't like analogies much, but try this one:
I'm a socialist. For some people a socialist means a communist, someone who doesn't believe in democracy. For most people it means someone who works within democracy and loves governments like Sweden's - called a social democrat (or running dog crypto-capitalist) by those who believe socialism=communism. Now, we can argue about the conventional definitions, and which is predominant, all we want. I may be mistaken that the predominant English-language usage is mine. An American may well differ, and a European English-speaker agree with me. There is room for debate there.
BUT if we are talking about politics, and I clearly explain what I think, and you spend all your time telling me I hate democracy and love Stalin, you're just being deliberately obtuse. That's what telling an agnostic they're actually an atheist is. Being deliberately difficult and obtuse, either because you despise religion or you are a prescriptivist obsessed with etymology over usage.
And there's no excuse for being deliberately obtuse just to win arguments.
But what would you say if someone had your exact politics but didn't call themselves a socialist because they didn't want to kill every republican in a FEMA camp? I assume that you would try to set them straight about what a socialist is and isn't.
I often find myself questioning, in this modern world, what is to be gained from religious discussion in most conversation? I generally consider the answer to be very little and it's why it's a topic I usually avoid.
What can be gained is insight, your ideas get challenged so you can define them and learn any faults you missed and have an interesting conversation with somebody. That said, you don't need to gain anything from a discussion or argument like this to this.
I don't see the sense in most cases in convincing an atheist, theist, agnostic, religious, or irreligious person to alter their position. That, to me, speaks to some kind of political agenda that in many instances doesn't measurably improve lives. Certainly there are specific dogmatic notions and memetic ideas carried forward that are (in my opinion) regressive and harmful to society and those should obviously be challenged, and of course we shouldn't let any person's religious beliefs form the exclusive foundations of legal policy.
These are contradictory statements. It's true that it's difficult to change people's mind on subjects when they're in the opposite corner in the conversation but it can educate third parties watching/reading the conversation and sometimes you can get them to open their mind to new ideas. What's wrong with standing up for your political agenda in conversations? Politics in embedded in the fabric of society, with religion tied into it. People talk about politics everywhere, so why are you ok with that but not religion?
But outside of that? I just don't see the bloody point, really. Like, my mother for instance is a Catholic. Her and I have a multitude of religiously incompatible viewpoints that are pretty massive from a theological and philosophical perspective. If I got into a religious discussion with my mother (which I don't), we'd find we agree on almost nothing when it comes to the whys and whats of the universe and such. And yet, from a practical standpoint, in terms of how our faiths inform our choices in how we interact with other human beings, there's not much difference. How we arrive at those practices might be very different, but the end result is not measurably different in most ways. There might be a couple of sticking points here and there on political issues, like for example my mother considers herself strongly anti-abortion (being a Catholic and all), but even then it amounts to very little because she's not a political activist and it doesn't actually effect who she votes for or anything like that. So even that stance is sort theoretical rather than practical.
Given that my mother is fairly happy with her Catholicism, I have no impetus to really try to introduce new ideas to her or really challenge her viewpoints on the subject or extol the ways in which my faith has changed my life. Why? Even if I feel she is absolutely wrong in what she believes, what does she stand to gain from me doing this? What do I stand to gain? Some kind of smug self-assertion that I'm right? Pfft, please. I am not so insecure in my faith that I need to needle others to re-affirm to myself what I feel to be true. She's happy, she's not harming anyone with what she believes, it's not leading her to be part of some larger political movement that is harming society, she's not actively propagating regressive or harmful ideas. It's her own upaya, I don't need to mess with it.
Do you talk about religious issues with people you aren't related to? Since she is your mother I can understand why you'd rather not do so to avoid creating ideological divisions that can hurt her feelings and vice versa.
Now, all of this said, there are lots of people in this world today harming other people in the name of their religious faith. There are people attempting to institute laws and policies that hurt and deny rights to other people, and the basis for these movements is the preaching of religious leaders utilizing pick-and-choose interpretations of religious texts and then claiming to be dogmatic. That's a serious issue. There are still people in the world killing other people simply because of the faith they self-identify by. That's a serious issue.
That's a good reason for these discussions to take place. Politics and religion do cross-over with each other.
But unless you're dealing with that situation, unless you're in that circumstance and interacting with those people, I gotta ask... why? What's the point? Like, yes by all means oppose the political machinations of would-be theocrats trying to change the laws of your country into something you don't want it to be. By all means argue with people who are attempting to damage the education of children with masquerading mythology as history or science. Of course do these things. These things are important.
The rest of it though? I dunno, brah.
People talk about stupid shit all the time so why not discuss important topics relating to organized religion, faith, deities, souls etc? Those are fascinating subjects to talk about whether you believe in them or don't.
I don't find them especially fascinating or edifying in most venues and most notably not in an atmosphere of casual conversation. In academic study, formal debate, or even perhaps structured on-topic discussion (like say, an online thread)? Perhaps. But those are environments specifically for such things. The participants know what they're involving themselves with. They opt-in, and carry with them their own goals and agendas and methodologies. They're bringing things to the table, whether they're honest with themselves about it or not.
Outside of that, I don't really have a taste for the subject and don't see the point. Even within those frameworks, I'm often deeply skeptical of the worthiness of the endeavor at all, and it's an activity I largely refrain from indulging in. For example, there was a time when D&D used to have a rotating cycle of threads oriented around religion, often hostile and confrontational in nature, which at one point had a rule instituted limiting their page limit because they became so pointlessly cyclical in their arguments.
I don't find them especially fascinating or edifying in most venues and most notably not in an atmosphere of casual conversation. In academic study, formal debate, or even perhaps structured on-topic discussion (like say, an online thread)? Perhaps. But those are environments specifically for such things. The participants know what they're involving themselves with. They opt-in, and carry with them their own goals and agendas and methodologies. They're bringing things to the table, whether they're honest with themselves about it or not.
Outside of that, I don't really have a taste for the subject and don't see the point. Even within those frameworks, I'm often deeply skeptical of the worthiness of the endeavor at all, and it's an activity I largely refrain from indulging in. For example, there was a time when D&D used to have a rotating cycle of threads oriented around religion, often hostile and confrontational in nature, which at one point had a rule instituted limiting their page limit because they became so pointlessly cyclical in their arguments.
It sounds like you need to find better company to talk about these subjects with. It is possible in real life, though you'd need to time to find those people to do it. These discussions don't have to be fights or uncomfortable. You should be able to express your opinions without restraint.
This is the labels thread, not the censorship thread
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't find them especially fascinating or edifying in most venues and most notably not in an atmosphere of casual conversation. In academic study, formal debate, or even perhaps structured on-topic discussion (like say, an online thread)? Perhaps. But those are environments specifically for such things. The participants know what they're involving themselves with. They opt-in, and carry with them their own goals and agendas and methodologies. They're bringing things to the table, whether they're honest with themselves about it or not.
Outside of that, I don't really have a taste for the subject and don't see the point. Even within those frameworks, I'm often deeply skeptical of the worthiness of the endeavor at all, and it's an activity I largely refrain from indulging in. For example, there was a time when D&D used to have a rotating cycle of threads oriented around religion, often hostile and confrontational in nature, which at one point had a rule instituted limiting their page limit because they became so pointlessly cyclical in their arguments.
It sounds like you need to find better company to talk about these subjects with. It is possible in real life, though you'd need to time to find those people to do it. These discussions don't have to be fights or uncomfortable. You should be able to express your opinions without restraint.
But I'm uninterested in doing so? And I'm not especially interested in the unrestrained religious opinions of others, either.
I found this piece to be really interesting re: the utility or lack thereof of labels and (in this case) typologies. I basically agree with his conclusion: Phenomena are special unique snowflakes, irreducible and infinitely distinct, etc etc...
But at the end of the day, if you want to talk about anything in a comparative sense... we need a Vocabulary. This isn't to say said Vocabulary won't be the subject of infinite (legitimate) debate... but you've got to have some kind of referent object/abstraction. Zizek also refers to this when he talks about the Derridean poststructuralists' fascination with eschewing The Universal in favor of the Local/Finite, ie. 'there is no one phenomenon that can be called Modernity, but a collection of modernities -- Anglo-Saxon liberal capitalist modernity, African modernity, Middle Eastern modernity, etc.' Though they may in fact all be unique and irreducible phenomena with their own idiosyncrasies and specificities... they often share overlapping features -- for instance, being (in large part) direct responses to Western imperialism, etc.
So all these modernities share some key features (actors, antagonisms, etc.) which form the outlines of the abstract, universal phenomenon of Modernity.
Sure; for about a year from mid 2004 to mid 2005~, starting with the publication of 'The End of Faith' and capping-off with the Dover trial, there was an open & honest public discussion going on about the role of religion & superstition in society (and, for once, it wasn't a conversation dominated by western bias, which was nice to see). Then the wagons were circled by the religious lobby in the U.S. & U.K., and It Was Decided by the popular press that this conversation was just too heated and dominated by those elitist academics, and the conversation shifted towards, "Gee whiz, which tone is really appropriate to use."
In the meantime, a YEC dentist in Texas pushed through new textbook standards that would ultimately carve both biological science & an accurate picture of history out of American textbooks (and believe you me, that's the sort of thing that will ripple outward), and everyone was a little too busy patting themselves on the back with regards to Dover and demonizing the 'fundamentalist' atheists to really notice or care.
So, yeah. I don't think so much of the 'weak atheists' or people who claim we shouldn't judge so harshly.
Just a heads up, it's not a great idea to use statistical outliers like "what some guy in Texas did" as an example. We (Texans) know these people are crazy, and we're trying to change it, but this is also a state almost entirely controlled through religious conglomerations (Our governor held a prayer meeting against Obama, even the most Militant Atheist can't do anything against that kind of crazy).
What happens in Texas doesn't reflect upon weak atheists.
It wasn't 'some outlier' - it was the rabid religious lobby in Texas putting lawmakers into place that then executed a program to undermine education.
Where were the 'moderate' atheists or even the 'moderate' theists who claimed that they totally, totally are against the fundy fringe? They were off chastising Dawkins / Dennet / Harris for being rude. Seriously. Ken Miller was busy writing op eds about how 'intolerant' Sam Harris was while a fundamentalist lunatic was raking textbook publication over a grater.
The only people who spoke-up about it and tried to do anything about it were those labelled as extremists.
You might not be able to actually go and stop Governor Perry's prayer meetings, but you could at least speak up about it - or, at the very least, do something other than complain about the tone of those loud atheists that want to shake people out of a dangerous stupor.
I believe the generally accepted wisdom of how the textbook thing came through is nothing to do with the rudeness or the gentility of the arguments, but because the issue was decided months earlier when the board was appointed (and I'm pretty sure you'll find that there were a number of moderates who argued vociferously against the decision).
Personally I find it apropos that a small number of strongly worded Op Eds by non-appointees chastising someone in another country is advanced to support the position of why fundamental Christians were able to stack grass roots elected positions, within a thread that includes the discussion of whether it's possible to prove or disprove the existence of some kind of supreme spiritual force(s). Sometimes the reason that these debates are unending is nothing to do with (lack of) evidence, but how it is used in support of a position.
Speaking of labels, my mother identifies as catholic, but doesn't believe in any of it, and doesn't really like the church.
She may be what Dara O'Briain calls "culturally Catholic", in that it's been a part of her life and self-identity for so long that she doesn't really know how to separate it from who she is even if she really doesn't believe in any of the religious tenants and doesn't agree with the Church at all. My youngest brother is like this.
I don't find them especially fascinating or edifying in most venues and most notably not in an atmosphere of casual conversation. In academic study, formal debate, or even perhaps structured on-topic discussion (like say, an online thread)? Perhaps. But those are environments specifically for such things. The participants know what they're involving themselves with. They opt-in, and carry with them their own goals and agendas and methodologies. They're bringing things to the table, whether they're honest with themselves about it or not.
Outside of that, I don't really have a taste for the subject and don't see the point. Even within those frameworks, I'm often deeply skeptical of the worthiness of the endeavor at all, and it's an activity I largely refrain from indulging in. For example, there was a time when D&D used to have a rotating cycle of threads oriented around religion, often hostile and confrontational in nature, which at one point had a rule instituted limiting their page limit because they became so pointlessly cyclical in their arguments.
It sounds like you need to find better company to talk about these subjects with. It is possible in real life, though you'd need to time to find those people to do it. These discussions don't have to be fights or uncomfortable. You should be able to express your opinions without restraint.
But I'm uninterested in doing so? And I'm not especially interested in the unrestrained religious opinions of others, either.
Then how do you change your opinions on the subject? How do you learn to define your thoughts on the matter when no one will challenge you about what you believe? When I say unrestrained religious opinions I mean being able to discuss the details about every facet about the subject - this leaves nothing unsaid so every aspect of thought is analyzed thoroughly so the whole opinion is reviewed and updated. That leaves no flaws untouched by criticism.
Speaking of labels, my mother identifies as catholic, but doesn't believe in any of it, and doesn't really like the church.
If you don't buy into the supernatural parts of it -- and I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume lots of people here don't -- then religion is by definition a sociological phenomenon. As such, it's perfectly possible to associate with that group of people -- because honestly, it's as arbitrary as associating with any group of people -- over others even if you don't share their devotion to the dogmatic bits.
I identify as Muslim in specific times and places because I was raised a certain way, and as a result have a strong affinity to the groups of people who typically also fall under the 'Muslim' part of the Venn Diagram of People on This Planet. It's exactly as legitimate as identifying as "culturally Jewish."
I don't find them especially fascinating or edifying in most venues and most notably not in an atmosphere of casual conversation. In academic study, formal debate, or even perhaps structured on-topic discussion (like say, an online thread)? Perhaps. But those are environments specifically for such things. The participants know what they're involving themselves with. They opt-in, and carry with them their own goals and agendas and methodologies. They're bringing things to the table, whether they're honest with themselves about it or not.
Outside of that, I don't really have a taste for the subject and don't see the point. Even within those frameworks, I'm often deeply skeptical of the worthiness of the endeavor at all, and it's an activity I largely refrain from indulging in. For example, there was a time when D&D used to have a rotating cycle of threads oriented around religion, often hostile and confrontational in nature, which at one point had a rule instituted limiting their page limit because they became so pointlessly cyclical in their arguments.
It sounds like you need to find better company to talk about these subjects with. It is possible in real life, though you'd need to time to find those people to do it. These discussions don't have to be fights or uncomfortable. You should be able to express your opinions without restraint.
But I'm uninterested in doing so? And I'm not especially interested in the unrestrained religious opinions of others, either.
Then how do you change your opinions on the subject? How do you learn to define your thoughts on the matter when no one will challenge you about what you believe? When I say unrestrained religious opinions I mean being able to discuss the details about every facet about the subject - this leaves nothing unsaid so every aspect of thought is analyzed thoroughly so the whole opinion is reviewed and updated. That leaves no flaws untouched by criticism.
Why do that when you can just amputate that part of yourself and save a lot of discussion time
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't find them especially fascinating or edifying in most venues and most notably not in an atmosphere of casual conversation. In academic study, formal debate, or even perhaps structured on-topic discussion (like say, an online thread)? Perhaps. But those are environments specifically for such things. The participants know what they're involving themselves with. They opt-in, and carry with them their own goals and agendas and methodologies. They're bringing things to the table, whether they're honest with themselves about it or not.
Outside of that, I don't really have a taste for the subject and don't see the point. Even within those frameworks, I'm often deeply skeptical of the worthiness of the endeavor at all, and it's an activity I largely refrain from indulging in. For example, there was a time when D&D used to have a rotating cycle of threads oriented around religion, often hostile and confrontational in nature, which at one point had a rule instituted limiting their page limit because they became so pointlessly cyclical in their arguments.
It sounds like you need to find better company to talk about these subjects with. It is possible in real life, though you'd need to time to find those people to do it. These discussions don't have to be fights or uncomfortable. You should be able to express your opinions without restraint.
But I'm uninterested in doing so? And I'm not especially interested in the unrestrained religious opinions of others, either.
Then how do you change your opinions on the subject? How do you learn to define your thoughts on the matter when no one will challenge you about what you believe? When I say unrestrained religious opinions I mean being able to discuss the details about every facet about the subject - this leaves nothing unsaid so every aspect of thought is analyzed thoroughly so the whole opinion is reviewed and updated. That leaves no flaws untouched by criticism.
Why do that when you can just amputate that part of yourself and save a lot of discussion time
That's what arguments/discussions are good for. They find flaws you'll miss unknowingly.
I don't find them especially fascinating or edifying in most venues and most notably not in an atmosphere of casual conversation. In academic study, formal debate, or even perhaps structured on-topic discussion (like say, an online thread)? Perhaps. But those are environments specifically for such things. The participants know what they're involving themselves with. They opt-in, and carry with them their own goals and agendas and methodologies. They're bringing things to the table, whether they're honest with themselves about it or not.
Outside of that, I don't really have a taste for the subject and don't see the point. Even within those frameworks, I'm often deeply skeptical of the worthiness of the endeavor at all, and it's an activity I largely refrain from indulging in. For example, there was a time when D&D used to have a rotating cycle of threads oriented around religion, often hostile and confrontational in nature, which at one point had a rule instituted limiting their page limit because they became so pointlessly cyclical in their arguments.
It sounds like you need to find better company to talk about these subjects with. It is possible in real life, though you'd need to time to find those people to do it. These discussions don't have to be fights or uncomfortable. You should be able to express your opinions without restraint.
But I'm uninterested in doing so? And I'm not especially interested in the unrestrained religious opinions of others, either.
Then how do you change your opinions on the subject? How do you learn to define your thoughts on the matter when no one will challenge you about what you believe? When I say unrestrained religious opinions I mean being able to discuss the details about every facet about the subject - this leaves nothing unsaid so every aspect of thought is analyzed thoroughly so the whole opinion is reviewed and updated. That leaves no flaws untouched by criticism.
Why do I need to? Why is the onus on me to assume I'm wrong or need to change? I'm quite happy with my religious faith. It works just fine. It serves my life just fine. It harms no one. It doesn't harm me. It does not compel me to enact theocratic policies that inflict my religious values on others. I fail to see the issue that requires further outside analysis.
Also, such outside analysis would require me, me personally, to educate you (or whoever else I was exposing my faith to critical analysis to) on every single aspect of my faith that I have come to learn, understand, meditate upon, contemplate, and integrate into my life. I would have to sum up an extended journey of my life for you over the course of what? A forum post or two? Ten minutes of conversation? You're not going to glean sufficient insight into what I think and believe from a quick glean of a wikipedia page or a book you read in first year of college, mate.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Why do I need to? Why is the onus on me to assume I'm wrong or need to change? I'm quite happy with my religious faith. It works just fine. It serves my life just fine. It harms no one. It doesn't harm me. It does not compel me to enact theocratic policies that inflict my religious values on others. I fail to see the issue that requires further outside analysis.
People aren't perfect. No one is. Especially on abstract subjects like religion where no one can confirm either way otherwise the subject would be over. "Harming" has nothing to do it, you don't need to think an opinion is harmful to want to change it when you get new information. Examining your opinions about subjects isn't a bad thing. Religious ideas don't have to be theocratic to be analyzed and updated when new information appears.
Also, such outside analysis would require me, me personally, to educate you (or whoever else I was exposing my faith to critical analysis to) on every single aspect of my faith that I have come to learn, understand, meditate upon, contemplate, and integrate into my life. I would have to sum up an extended journey of my life for you over the course of what? A forum post or two? Ten minutes of conversation? You're not going to glean sufficient insight into what I think and believe from a quick glean of a wikipedia page or a book you read in first year of college, mate.
You don't have to discuss this with me. That was why I bought up talking to people you're ok opening to you about the subject.
And in the hopes of what, exactly?
Growing. Knowledge and understanding isn't static, the world changes. What was known twenty years ago is going to be outdated today.
Why do I need to? Why is the onus on me to assume I'm wrong or need to change? I'm quite happy with my religious faith. It works just fine. It serves my life just fine. It harms no one. It doesn't harm me. It does not compel me to enact theocratic policies that inflict my religious values on others. I fail to see the issue that requires further outside analysis.
People aren't perfect. No one is. Especially on abstract subjects like religion where no one can confirm either way otherwise the subject would be over. "Harming" has nothing to do it, you don't need to think an opinion is harmful to want to change it when you get new information. Examining your opinions about subjects isn't a bad thing. Religious ideas don't have to be theocratic to be analyzed and updated when new information appears.
Also, such outside analysis would require me, me personally, to educate you (or whoever else I was exposing my faith to critical analysis to) on every single aspect of my faith that I have come to learn, understand, meditate upon, contemplate, and integrate into my life. I would have to sum up an extended journey of my life for you over the course of what? A forum post or two? Ten minutes of conversation? You're not going to glean sufficient insight into what I think and believe from a quick glean of a wikipedia page or a book you read in first year of college, mate.
You don't have to discuss this with me. That was why I bought up talking to people you're ok opening to you about the subject.
And in the hopes of what, exactly?
Growing. Knowledge and understanding isn't static, the world changes. What was known twenty years ago is going to be outdated today.
This has little to do with my original point, which was about how I find such conversations meaningless for the most part and in most circumstances and not as an absolute with all people at all times, which you seem to imply. You've gone way off track here.
Sure; for about a year from mid 2004 to mid 2005~, starting with the publication of 'The End of Faith' and capping-off with the Dover trial, there was an open & honest public discussion going on about the role of religion & superstition in society (and, for once, it wasn't a conversation dominated by western bias, which was nice to see). Then the wagons were circled by the religious lobby in the U.S. & U.K., and It Was Decided by the popular press that this conversation was just too heated and dominated by those elitist academics, and the conversation shifted towards, "Gee whiz, which tone is really appropriate to use."
In the meantime, a YEC dentist in Texas pushed through new textbook standards that would ultimately carve both biological science & an accurate picture of history out of American textbooks (and believe you me, that's the sort of thing that will ripple outward), and everyone was a little too busy patting themselves on the back with regards to Dover and demonizing the 'fundamentalist' atheists to really notice or care.
So, yeah. I don't think so much of the 'weak atheists' or people who claim we shouldn't judge so harshly.
Just a heads up, it's not a great idea to use statistical outliers like "what some guy in Texas did" as an example. We (Texans) know these people are crazy, and we're trying to change it, but this is also a state almost entirely controlled through religious conglomerations (Our governor held a prayer meeting against Obama, even the most Militant Atheist can't do anything against that kind of crazy).
What happens in Texas doesn't reflect upon weak atheists.
It wasn't 'some outlier' - it was the rabid religious lobby in Texas putting lawmakers into place that then executed a program to undermine education.
Where were the 'moderate' atheists or even the 'moderate' theists who claimed that they totally, totally are against the fundy fringe? They were off chastising Dawkins / Dennet / Harris for being rude. Seriously. Ken Miller was busy writing op eds about how 'intolerant' Sam Harris was while a fundamentalist lunatic was raking textbook publication over a grater.
The only people who spoke-up about it and tried to do anything about it were those labelled as extremists.
You might not be able to actually go and stop Governor Perry's prayer meetings, but you could at least speak up about it - or, at the very least, do something other than complain about the tone of those loud atheists that want to shake people out of a dangerous stupor.
Do you want us to apologize for being outnumbered by the press covering the event too? (over 250 press people in person covering it on national TV, with only independent online journals covering the protests and opposition to it)
McLeroy has also been opposed multiple times in public settings, as have many actions of the Texas schoolboards and the state board of education. Unless you're here though, you probably never hear about it. You don't get a mention unless you make a federal case apparently. http://www.texscience.org/
You don't find it the least...the least bit hypocritical to be chastizing atheists instead of the problem makers for chastizing other atheists instead of the problem makers? Even though it's patently false, it's ridiculously nonsensical and advances nothing.
I often find myself questioning, in this modern world, what is to be gained from religious discussion in most conversation? I generally consider the answer to be very little and it's why it's a topic I usually avoid.
I don't see the sense in most cases in convincing an atheist, theist, agnostic, religious, or irreligious person to alter their position. That, to me, speaks to some kind of political agenda that in many instances doesn't measurably improve lives. Certainly there are specific dogmatic notions and memetic ideas carried forward that are (in my opinion) regressive and harmful to society and those should obviously be challenged, and of course we shouldn't let any person's religious beliefs form the exclusive foundations of legal policy.
But outside of that? I just don't see the bloody point, really. Like, my mother for instance is a Catholic. Her and I have a multitude of religiously incompatible viewpoints that are pretty massive from a theological and philosophical perspective. If I got into a religious discussion with my mother (which I don't), we'd find we agree on almost nothing when it comes to the whys and whats of the universe and such. And yet, from a practical standpoint, in terms of how our faiths inform our choices in how we interact with other human beings, there's not much difference. How we arrive at those practices might be very different, but the end result is not measurably different in most ways. There might be a couple of sticking points here and there on political issues, like for example my mother considers herself strongly anti-abortion (being a Catholic and all), but even then it amounts to very little because she's not a political activist and it doesn't actually effect who she votes for or anything like that. So even that stance is sort theoretical rather than practical.
Given that my mother is fairly happy with her Catholicism, I have no impetus to really try to introduce new ideas to her or really challenge her viewpoints on the subject or extol the ways in which my faith has changed my life. Why? Even if I feel she is absolutely wrong in what she believes, what does she stand to gain from me doing this? What do I stand to gain? Some kind of smug self-assertion that I'm right? Pfft, please. I am not so insecure in my faith that I need to needle others to re-affirm to myself what I feel to be true. She's happy, she's not harming anyone with what she believes, it's not leading her to be part of some larger political movement that is harming society, she's not actively propagating regressive or harmful ideas. It's her own upaya, I don't need to mess with it.
Now, all of this said, there are lots of people in this world today harming other people in the name of their religious faith. There are people attempting to institute laws and policies that hurt and deny rights to other people, and the basis for these movements is the preaching of religious leaders utilizing pick-and-choose interpretations of religious texts and then claiming to be dogmatic. That's a serious issue. There are still people in the world killing other people simply because of the faith they self-identify by. That's a serious issue.
But unless you're dealing with that situation, unless you're in that circumstance and interacting with those people, I gotta ask... why? What's the point? Like, yes by all means oppose the political machinations of would-be theocrats trying to change the laws of your country into something you don't want it to be. By all means argue with people who are attempting to damage the education of children with masquerading mythology as history or science. Of course do these things. These things are important.
The rest of it though? I dunno, brah.
If the conversation is never had in the public, it will be way, way too late by the time anything terrible is found floating through a courtroom (See: The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes).
The idea that you can just step up from out of the aether and prevent an indoctrinated body of people from creating a theocratic apparatus is ridiculously naive.
Because somehow, being needlessly hostile at all times is incredibly important to the fight to make sure that theocrats don't introduce regressive policy? Please. Can you refrain from slinging accusations of naivety at people? You do this fairly consistently whenever someone doesn't agree with the tenacity with which you fling yourself at your pet issues, Ender, and I find it tiresome. This isn't a command, merely a request for some measure of civility.
Everything isn't a fight. Every conversation is not an opportunity for attack. There is, I think, room for being able to tolerate a person being wrong about something without needing to confrontational with them about it so long as they're being wrong in a way that ultimately isn't really having a measurable negative effect on people. This is a consequentialist ethical view, I suppose, that ultimately is viewing their beliefs by way of the consequences of their beliefs and if the end results of those beliefs don't end up harming themselves or others I don't especially care.
The point I was trying to make was, being thus, I don't see the value in most cases in those conversations. I don't talk about religion with my family, co-workers, friends, etc. in most circumstances. In fact, on the internet is one of the few places I do talk about religion and even then it's generally in extremely oblique and general terms. The exception to that is where religion foists itself upon law and politics and policy and suchlike. That's an area I am opinionated on, something I will argue with people about, something I will fight about. This idea that you seem to have, that you cannot have opposition to one aspect without picking a fight with people otherwise is sort of troubling to me. It seems to imply this cynical idea that unless I'm constantly frothing at every Christian I meet about the regressive elements of political American Evangelical Christianity, that I will then be powerless to stand in the way of such people if they to implement theocratic policy. That... that doesn't strike me as quite right.
Well, pardon me: they are certainly prepared to fight over it - it's just a matter or whether or not you want them to walk all over you. Because if you're not going to talk to your co-workers or family members, rest assured that they will, and that's how & why the discussion is framed the way that it is in contemporary western culture. If you don't see the point of it, I think you're taking your present conditions for granted.
Christ is not God, not the saviour of the world, but a mere man, a sinful man and an abominable idol. All who worship him are abominable idolaters and Christ did not rise again from death to life nor did he ascend into heaven.
For saying those words during his kangaroo trial, Hammond was tortured, disfigured and ultimately burned at the stake just over 5 centuries ago. I'm not so eager to be marched bowed and complacent back to that space.
I often find myself questioning, in this modern world, what is to be gained from religious discussion in most conversation? I generally consider the answer to be very little and it's why it's a topic I usually avoid.
I don't see the sense in most cases in convincing an atheist, theist, agnostic, religious, or irreligious person to alter their position. That, to me, speaks to some kind of political agenda that in many instances doesn't measurably improve lives. Certainly there are specific dogmatic notions and memetic ideas carried forward that are (in my opinion) regressive and harmful to society and those should obviously be challenged, and of course we shouldn't let any person's religious beliefs form the exclusive foundations of legal policy.
But outside of that? I just don't see the bloody point, really. Like, my mother for instance is a Catholic. Her and I have a multitude of religiously incompatible viewpoints that are pretty massive from a theological and philosophical perspective. If I got into a religious discussion with my mother (which I don't), we'd find we agree on almost nothing when it comes to the whys and whats of the universe and such. And yet, from a practical standpoint, in terms of how our faiths inform our choices in how we interact with other human beings, there's not much difference. How we arrive at those practices might be very different, but the end result is not measurably different in most ways. There might be a couple of sticking points here and there on political issues, like for example my mother considers herself strongly anti-abortion (being a Catholic and all), but even then it amounts to very little because she's not a political activist and it doesn't actually effect who she votes for or anything like that. So even that stance is sort theoretical rather than practical.
Given that my mother is fairly happy with her Catholicism, I have no impetus to really try to introduce new ideas to her or really challenge her viewpoints on the subject or extol the ways in which my faith has changed my life. Why? Even if I feel she is absolutely wrong in what she believes, what does she stand to gain from me doing this? What do I stand to gain? Some kind of smug self-assertion that I'm right? Pfft, please. I am not so insecure in my faith that I need to needle others to re-affirm to myself what I feel to be true. She's happy, she's not harming anyone with what she believes, it's not leading her to be part of some larger political movement that is harming society, she's not actively propagating regressive or harmful ideas. It's her own upaya, I don't need to mess with it.
Now, all of this said, there are lots of people in this world today harming other people in the name of their religious faith. There are people attempting to institute laws and policies that hurt and deny rights to other people, and the basis for these movements is the preaching of religious leaders utilizing pick-and-choose interpretations of religious texts and then claiming to be dogmatic. That's a serious issue. There are still people in the world killing other people simply because of the faith they self-identify by. That's a serious issue.
But unless you're dealing with that situation, unless you're in that circumstance and interacting with those people, I gotta ask... why? What's the point? Like, yes by all means oppose the political machinations of would-be theocrats trying to change the laws of your country into something you don't want it to be. By all means argue with people who are attempting to damage the education of children with masquerading mythology as history or science. Of course do these things. These things are important.
The rest of it though? I dunno, brah.
If the conversation is never had in the public, it will be way, way too late by the time anything terrible is found floating through a courtroom (See: The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes).
The idea that you can just step up from out of the aether and prevent an indoctrinated body of people from creating a theocratic apparatus is ridiculously naive.
Because somehow, being needlessly hostile at all times is incredibly important to the fight to make sure that theocrats don't introduce regressive policy? Please. Can you refrain from slinging accusations of naivety at people? You do this fairly consistently whenever someone doesn't agree with the tenacity with which you fling yourself at your pet issues, Ender, and I find it tiresome. This isn't a command, merely a request for some measure of civility.
Everything isn't a fight. Every conversation is not an opportunity for attack. There is, I think, room for being able to tolerate a person being wrong about something without needing to confrontational with them about it so long as they're being wrong in a way that ultimately isn't really having a measurable negative effect on people. This is a consequentialist ethical view, I suppose, that ultimately is viewing their beliefs by way of the consequences of their beliefs and if the end results of those beliefs don't end up harming themselves or others I don't especially care.
The point I was trying to make was, being thus, I don't see the value in most cases in those conversations. I don't talk about religion with my family, co-workers, friends, etc. in most circumstances. In fact, on the internet is one of the few places I do talk about religion and even then it's generally in extremely oblique and general terms. The exception to that is where religion foists itself upon law and politics and policy and suchlike. That's an area I am opinionated on, something I will argue with people about, something I will fight about. This idea that you seem to have, that you cannot have opposition to one aspect without picking a fight with people otherwise is sort of troubling to me. It seems to imply this cynical idea that unless I'm constantly frothing at every Christian I meet about the regressive elements of political American Evangelical Christianity, that I will then be powerless to stand in the way of such people if they to implement theocratic policy. That... that doesn't strike me as quite right.
Well, pardon me: they are certainly prepared to fight over it - it's just a matter or whether or not you want them to walk all over you. Because if you're not going to talk to your co-workers or family members, rest assured that they will, and that's how & why the discussion is framed the way that it is in contemporary western culture. If you don't see the point of it, I think you're taking your present conditions for granted.
Christ is not God, not the saviour of the world, but a mere man, a sinful man and an abominable idol. All who worship him are abominable idolaters and Christ did not rise again from death to life nor did he ascend into heaven.
For saying those words during his kangaroo trial, Hammond was tortured, disfigured and ultimately burned at the stake just over 5 centuries ago. I'm not so eager to be marched bowed and complacent back to that space.
Why do I need to? Why is the onus on me to assume I'm wrong or need to change? I'm quite happy with my religious faith. It works just fine. It serves my life just fine. It harms no one. It doesn't harm me. It does not compel me to enact theocratic policies that inflict my religious values on others. I fail to see the issue that requires further outside analysis.
People aren't perfect. No one is. Especially on abstract subjects like religion where no one can confirm either way otherwise the subject would be over. "Harming" has nothing to do it, you don't need to think an opinion is harmful to want to change it when you get new information. Examining your opinions about subjects isn't a bad thing. Religious ideas don't have to be theocratic to be analyzed and updated when new information appears.
Also, such outside analysis would require me, me personally, to educate you (or whoever else I was exposing my faith to critical analysis to) on every single aspect of my faith that I have come to learn, understand, meditate upon, contemplate, and integrate into my life. I would have to sum up an extended journey of my life for you over the course of what? A forum post or two? Ten minutes of conversation? You're not going to glean sufficient insight into what I think and believe from a quick glean of a wikipedia page or a book you read in first year of college, mate.
You don't have to discuss this with me. That was why I bought up talking to people you're ok opening to you about the subject.
And in the hopes of what, exactly?
Growing. Knowledge and understanding isn't static, the world changes. What was known twenty years ago is going to be outdated today.
This has little to do with my original point, which was about how I find such conversations meaningless for the most part and in most circumstances and not as an absolute with all people at all times, which you seem to imply. You've gone way off track here.
I'm really confused why you are having an argument about how this discussion, which you are choosing to take part in, is meaningless. Irony is running rampant all up ins.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Religion cannot be ignored when the world is still ruled by those who use it to determine or excuse their harmful behavior.
Until it becomes as powerful as whether you prefer Cartoon Network or the Disney Channel, it's an important consideration, even if you personally do not want to engage about it.
For a huge portion of the world, religion is politics.
Religion cannot be ignored when the world is still ruled by those who use it to determine or excuse their harmful behavior.
Until it becomes as powerful as whether you prefer Cartoon Network or the Disney Channel, it's an important consideration, even if you personally do not want to engage about it.
For a huge portion of the world, religion is politics.
I don't think anyone has to look further than the Dover trial to see the importance of this: the Discovery Institute & school board were willing and nearly able to subvert every process to do something plainly illegal (establish a Christian dogma within a public school in place of actual science education). And they had about half of the town behind them.
Saying that it's 'not a fight' is absolutely insane: if Tammy Kitzmiller had not actually fought them in Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, kids in Dover would - as we speak - be elbow deep in Magic Thinking 101.
If people want to say that it's not a fight because, hey, you can just let them punch you in the face all day and then it's not really a fight, well i guess that's your prerogative.
Religion cannot be ignored when the world is still ruled by those who use it to determine or excuse their harmful behavior.
Until it becomes as powerful as whether you prefer Cartoon Network or the Disney Channel, it's an important consideration, even if you personally do not want to engage about it.
For a huge portion of the world, religion is politics.
I don't think anyone has to look further than the Dover trial to see the importance of this: the Discovery Institute & school board were willing and nearly able to subvert every process to do something plainly illegal (establish a Christian dogma within a public school in place of actual science education). And they had about half of the town behind them.
Saying that it's 'not a fight' is absolutely insane: if Tammy Kitzmiller had not actually fought them in Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, kids in Dover would - as we speak - be elbow deep in Magic Thinking 101.
If people want to say that it's not a fight because, hey, you can just let them punch you in the face all day and then it's not really a fight, well i guess that's your prerogative.
It's not the fight that you believe it is - neither religion nor Christianity in particular requires anti-science belief or rhetoric. While you quote those unfairly persecuted by the Christian church, there are whole reams of scientific thought generated at the same period. In many respects, science would not be anywhere near the level it is today without the help and support provided by religious organizations over the centuries.
What I'm saying is assholes are going to ass (and/or hole) and the topic of this thread (labels, specifically within belief) is particularly pertinent to your view that there is a fight with "religion".
Religion cannot be ignored when the world is still ruled by those who use it to determine or excuse their harmful behavior.
Until it becomes as powerful as whether you prefer Cartoon Network or the Disney Channel, it's an important consideration, even if you personally do not want to engage about it.
For a huge portion of the world, religion is politics.
I don't think anyone has to look further than the Dover trial to see the importance of this: the Discovery Institute & school board were willing and nearly able to subvert every process to do something plainly illegal (establish a Christian dogma within a public school in place of actual science education). And they had about half of the town behind them.
Saying that it's 'not a fight' is absolutely insane: if Tammy Kitzmiller had not actually fought them in Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, kids in Dover would - as we speak - be elbow deep in Magic Thinking 101.
If people want to say that it's not a fight because, hey, you can just let them punch you in the face all day and then it's not really a fight, well i guess that's your prerogative.
See, but that's a reason to fight that religious view, not a reason to fight all religions. No Daoists were arguing for creationism in Dover. No Buddhists were torturing people in the Inquisition. No Wiccans were burning witches at the stake. It's unreasonable an unenlightened to hold every single religious idea accountable for every incident.
You can't even create a reasonable claim that it's all Christians who are making it a fight, because there are plenty who are for the teaching of creationism and are willing to fight for it to be in the textbooks. That was even what was happening in Dover.
There's no need to eliminate religion. There is a need to disempower it from being a method to cause significant harm, just as you would with a secular belief system or ideology. For example, I personally feel communism is a really bad idea as an enforced government system, but it can be a really cool way for consenting individuals to choose to live! In just the same way, I wouldn't want the Dali Lama or the like to have any power over me, but I had absolutely no problem attending a Buddhist service a few years back with a friend.
Power to harm is the issue. I don't care if an individual chooses to believe the world is flat and that Jesus rode a stegasaurus, but it sure as hell needs to not be an idea that has power over the lives of everyone else.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
See, but that's a reason to fight that religious view, not a reason to fight all religions. No Daoists were arguing for creationism in Dover. No Buddhists were torturing people in the Inquisition. No Wiccans were burning witches at the stake. It's unreasonable an unenlightened to hold every single religious idea accountable for every incident.
You can't even create a reasonable claim that it's all Christians who are making it a fight, because there are plenty who are for the teaching of creationism and are willing to fight for it to be in the textbooks. That was even what was happening in Dover.
But that way only really suggests itself if we can assume that all religions (indeed, even different viewpoints within a religion) are unrelated and share nothing in common. Or at least, nothing that might be considered objectionable.
But the thing is that it seems that when any religion is given power someone will start fucking with other people in ways that are not generally considered cool. So you can't really fight the bad religious viewpoints, you have to prevent all religion from gaining too much power.
There's no need to eliminate religion. There is a need to disempower it from being a method to cause significant harm, just as you would with a secular belief system or ideology. For example, I personally feel communism is a really bad idea as an enforced government system, but it can be a really cool way for consenting individuals to choose to live! In just the same way, I wouldn't want the Dali Lama or the like to have any power over me, but I had absolutely no problem attending a Buddhist service a few years back with a friend.
Power to harm is the issue. I don't care if an individual chooses to believe the world is flat and that Jesus rode a stegasaurus, but it sure as hell needs to not be an idea that has power over the lives of everyone else.
Yeah, not going to happen. Mainly because over the course of history pretty much anything you can name has been cited as a justification to cause significant harm to others - religion, communism, scientific progress, sustainability, democracy, "the greater good", freedom.
People feeling the need to exert powers over others is the method of causing significant harm. Everything else is just an excuse.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Posts
Concerning the actual push to get creationist texts in the classroom, last I heard the Texas Board of Education excluded only proposed textbooks with creationist leanings from the updated review. This was in November?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
But yes, Semantics are a Thing.
Oh, that reminds me! I think it was you with whom I disagreed about the utility of 'right' and 'left'. Here is a highly pertinent Slavoj Zizek quote that isn't necessarily an argument for or against, but is (imho) elucidating nonetheless:
I don't find them especially fascinating or edifying in most venues and most notably not in an atmosphere of casual conversation. In academic study, formal debate, or even perhaps structured on-topic discussion (like say, an online thread)? Perhaps. But those are environments specifically for such things. The participants know what they're involving themselves with. They opt-in, and carry with them their own goals and agendas and methodologies. They're bringing things to the table, whether they're honest with themselves about it or not.
Outside of that, I don't really have a taste for the subject and don't see the point. Even within those frameworks, I'm often deeply skeptical of the worthiness of the endeavor at all, and it's an activity I largely refrain from indulging in. For example, there was a time when D&D used to have a rotating cycle of threads oriented around religion, often hostile and confrontational in nature, which at one point had a rule instituted limiting their page limit because they became so pointlessly cyclical in their arguments.
It sounds like you need to find better company to talk about these subjects with. It is possible in real life, though you'd need to time to find those people to do it. These discussions don't have to be fights or uncomfortable. You should be able to express your opinions without restraint.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
But I'm uninterested in doing so? And I'm not especially interested in the unrestrained religious opinions of others, either.
But at the end of the day, if you want to talk about anything in a comparative sense... we need a Vocabulary. This isn't to say said Vocabulary won't be the subject of infinite (legitimate) debate... but you've got to have some kind of referent object/abstraction. Zizek also refers to this when he talks about the Derridean poststructuralists' fascination with eschewing The Universal in favor of the Local/Finite, ie. 'there is no one phenomenon that can be called Modernity, but a collection of modernities -- Anglo-Saxon liberal capitalist modernity, African modernity, Middle Eastern modernity, etc.' Though they may in fact all be unique and irreducible phenomena with their own idiosyncrasies and specificities... they often share overlapping features -- for instance, being (in large part) direct responses to Western imperialism, etc.
So all these modernities share some key features (actors, antagonisms, etc.) which form the outlines of the abstract, universal phenomenon of Modernity.
EDIT: Whoops, forgot to insert the link.
Personally I find it apropos that a small number of strongly worded Op Eds by non-appointees chastising someone in another country is advanced to support the position of why fundamental Christians were able to stack grass roots elected positions, within a thread that includes the discussion of whether it's possible to prove or disprove the existence of some kind of supreme spiritual force(s). Sometimes the reason that these debates are unending is nothing to do with (lack of) evidence, but how it is used in support of a position.
She may be what Dara O'Briain calls "culturally Catholic", in that it's been a part of her life and self-identity for so long that she doesn't really know how to separate it from who she is even if she really doesn't believe in any of the religious tenants and doesn't agree with the Church at all. My youngest brother is like this.
Then how do you change your opinions on the subject? How do you learn to define your thoughts on the matter when no one will challenge you about what you believe? When I say unrestrained religious opinions I mean being able to discuss the details about every facet about the subject - this leaves nothing unsaid so every aspect of thought is analyzed thoroughly so the whole opinion is reviewed and updated. That leaves no flaws untouched by criticism.
If you don't buy into the supernatural parts of it -- and I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume lots of people here don't -- then religion is by definition a sociological phenomenon. As such, it's perfectly possible to associate with that group of people -- because honestly, it's as arbitrary as associating with any group of people -- over others even if you don't share their devotion to the dogmatic bits.
I identify as Muslim in specific times and places because I was raised a certain way, and as a result have a strong affinity to the groups of people who typically also fall under the 'Muslim' part of the Venn Diagram of People on This Planet. It's exactly as legitimate as identifying as "culturally Jewish."
Why do that when you can just amputate that part of yourself and save a lot of discussion time
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That's what arguments/discussions are good for. They find flaws you'll miss unknowingly.
Why do I need to? Why is the onus on me to assume I'm wrong or need to change? I'm quite happy with my religious faith. It works just fine. It serves my life just fine. It harms no one. It doesn't harm me. It does not compel me to enact theocratic policies that inflict my religious values on others. I fail to see the issue that requires further outside analysis.
Also, such outside analysis would require me, me personally, to educate you (or whoever else I was exposing my faith to critical analysis to) on every single aspect of my faith that I have come to learn, understand, meditate upon, contemplate, and integrate into my life. I would have to sum up an extended journey of my life for you over the course of what? A forum post or two? Ten minutes of conversation? You're not going to glean sufficient insight into what I think and believe from a quick glean of a wikipedia page or a book you read in first year of college, mate.
And in the hopes of what, exactly?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
People aren't perfect. No one is. Especially on abstract subjects like religion where no one can confirm either way otherwise the subject would be over. "Harming" has nothing to do it, you don't need to think an opinion is harmful to want to change it when you get new information. Examining your opinions about subjects isn't a bad thing. Religious ideas don't have to be theocratic to be analyzed and updated when new information appears.
You don't have to discuss this with me. That was why I bought up talking to people you're ok opening to you about the subject.
Growing. Knowledge and understanding isn't static, the world changes. What was known twenty years ago is going to be outdated today.
This has little to do with my original point, which was about how I find such conversations meaningless for the most part and in most circumstances and not as an absolute with all people at all times, which you seem to imply. You've gone way off track here.
Obviously not someone from or in Texas at the time.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/07/rick-perrys-call-to-prayer
http://www.dallasvoice.com/fw-church-heading-houston-protest-perrys-prayer-meeting-1082798.html
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2011/07/rick_perrys_prayerapalooza_acl.php
Do you want us to apologize for being outnumbered by the press covering the event too? (over 250 press people in person covering it on national TV, with only independent online journals covering the protests and opposition to it)
McLeroy has also been opposed multiple times in public settings, as have many actions of the Texas schoolboards and the state board of education. Unless you're here though, you probably never hear about it. You don't get a mention unless you make a federal case apparently.
http://www.texscience.org/
You don't find it the least...the least bit hypocritical to be chastizing atheists instead of the problem makers for chastizing other atheists instead of the problem makers? Even though it's patently false, it's ridiculously nonsensical and advances nothing.
It is a fight.
Well, pardon me: they are certainly prepared to fight over it - it's just a matter or whether or not you want them to walk all over you. Because if you're not going to talk to your co-workers or family members, rest assured that they will, and that's how & why the discussion is framed the way that it is in contemporary western culture. If you don't see the point of it, I think you're taking your present conditions for granted.
For saying those words during his kangaroo trial, Hammond was tortured, disfigured and ultimately burned at the stake just over 5 centuries ago. I'm not so eager to be marched bowed and complacent back to that space.
Are you kidding? Is this a joke post?
Sometimes it's hard to tell.
I'm really confused why you are having an argument about how this discussion, which you are choosing to take part in, is meaningless. Irony is running rampant all up ins.
Until it becomes as powerful as whether you prefer Cartoon Network or the Disney Channel, it's an important consideration, even if you personally do not want to engage about it.
For a huge portion of the world, religion is politics.
I don't think anyone has to look further than the Dover trial to see the importance of this: the Discovery Institute & school board were willing and nearly able to subvert every process to do something plainly illegal (establish a Christian dogma within a public school in place of actual science education). And they had about half of the town behind them.
Saying that it's 'not a fight' is absolutely insane: if Tammy Kitzmiller had not actually fought them in Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, kids in Dover would - as we speak - be elbow deep in Magic Thinking 101.
If people want to say that it's not a fight because, hey, you can just let them punch you in the face all day and then it's not really a fight, well i guess that's your prerogative.
It's not the fight that you believe it is - neither religion nor Christianity in particular requires anti-science belief or rhetoric. While you quote those unfairly persecuted by the Christian church, there are whole reams of scientific thought generated at the same period. In many respects, science would not be anywhere near the level it is today without the help and support provided by religious organizations over the centuries.
What I'm saying is assholes are going to ass (and/or hole) and the topic of this thread (labels, specifically within belief) is particularly pertinent to your view that there is a fight with "religion".
See, but that's a reason to fight that religious view, not a reason to fight all religions. No Daoists were arguing for creationism in Dover. No Buddhists were torturing people in the Inquisition. No Wiccans were burning witches at the stake. It's unreasonable an unenlightened to hold every single religious idea accountable for every incident.
You can't even create a reasonable claim that it's all Christians who are making it a fight, because there are plenty who are for the teaching of creationism and are willing to fight for it to be in the textbooks. That was even what was happening in Dover.
I just like to say that I'm areligious (or simply "not religious" in speech of course)
well, if asked, I say "I'm not christian" most of the time because that's probably what that question was about, which gets across the same idea
which I like better than atheist, since it is simply, more accurate. Better term. A buddhist and me are both atheists, I'm not religious. Done.
Not that this is something that comes up often at all, because why discuss religion with people?
Power to harm is the issue. I don't care if an individual chooses to believe the world is flat and that Jesus rode a stegasaurus, but it sure as hell needs to not be an idea that has power over the lives of everyone else.
But that way only really suggests itself if we can assume that all religions (indeed, even different viewpoints within a religion) are unrelated and share nothing in common. Or at least, nothing that might be considered objectionable.
But the thing is that it seems that when any religion is given power someone will start fucking with other people in ways that are not generally considered cool. So you can't really fight the bad religious viewpoints, you have to prevent all religion from gaining too much power.
I WANT TO WIN
I don't believe in losing. I'm aloser.
People feeling the need to exert powers over others is the method of causing significant harm. Everything else is just an excuse.
Edit: Read as: Make things no longer vectors, not murder all the vectors.
Oh come on.
now there's a label
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm pretty sure if you ranked the "Vectors for people causing help to other people", religion would almost certainly be in the top 5.
This is getting fairly off topic though - let's try to keep it more on the labels and definition, rather than the impact of belief.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Why do "light" products advertise with containing less fat when the product doesn't contain very much fat to begin with?