|
Jastiger posted:My argument is that it isn't Islamophobia to criticize religions, even Islam, because the ancient traditions, myths, superstitions are garbage and untrue. This is true, but the problem is Christian theocrats in places like America who at the same time denounce 'radical Islam' - Ted Cruz was at a Christian event where the host was calling for the execution of all gay people in the United States, and yet he turns around and declares that Islam is the biggest threat to America's values. There's a disconnect there, and it's from a phobia of Muslims being 'not Christian', not a criticism of their religiosity. You do not see the same fear of Jewish Americans (outside of the neo-Nazi circles, of which I admit the GOP has some overlap).
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
Also, what defines a religion is completely arbitrary. You won't be able to craft a definition that doesn't either exclude many belief systems we've acknowledged as religions, or include many belief systems that we haven't acknowledged as religions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Also, what defines a religion is completely arbitrary. You won't be able to craft a definition that doesn't either exclude many belief systems we've acknowledged as religions, or include many belief systems that we haven't acknowledged as religions. He hasn't been able to grasp this for like two days, I'm starting to think he never will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
I have grasped that a while ago, I don't know why you're so hung up on it. I feel like you're so mad about some tiny detail that you're ignoring the larger argument being made. Religion is "special" in that other cultural aspects haven't been around for 2000 years and are given tacit approval as "moral and good" the way (Abrahamic monotheism) has been. Christians are A-OK mocking Scientologists, but Islam or Mormonism (though less so) is somehow moral and noble. Religion is unique because it gets special status.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I have grasped that a while ago, I don't know why you're so hung up on it. I feel like you're so mad about some tiny detail that you're ignoring the larger argument being made. Religion is "special" in that other cultural aspects haven't been around for 2000 years and are given tacit approval as "moral and good" the way (Abrahamic monotheism) has been. Christians are A-OK mocking Scientologists, but Islam or Mormonism (though less so) is somehow moral and noble. Religion is unique because it gets special status. It's not a tiny detail, it is something which completely undermines your point of view, and you don't actually understand it. quote:Religion is "special" in that other cultural aspects haven't been around for 2000 years and are given tacit approval as "moral and good" the way (Abrahamic monotheism) has been. Yes they have, you idiot. How on earth can you believe this? How about the belief in male superiority?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Christians are A-OK mocking Scientologists, but Islam or Mormonism (though less so) is somehow moral and noble. Yes, a Christian has never, ever done something disparaging about Islam.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
I never said they didn't  Obdicut posted:It's not a tiny detail, it is something which completely undermines your point of view, and you don't actually understand it. Male superiority can be debunked in empirical terms. The idea of god or faith not so much. Its an unfalsifiable claim, ad unfalsifiable claims suck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:
Nice complete change of argument, self-parodying man. Again, your claim: quote:other cultural aspects haven't been around for 2000 years and are given tacit approval as "moral and good" the way (Abrahamic monotheism) has been. Answer, no, you're wrong, because male superiority is a cultural aspect that's been around for 2000 years and gets tacit and vocal support as moral and good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Also, what defines a religion is completely arbitrary. You won't be able to craft a definition that doesn't either exclude many belief systems we've acknowledged as religions, or include many belief systems that we haven't acknowledged as religions. This is probably true. To me a religion is a set of supernatural belief about the world where we live that uses these supernatural beliefs to support moral opinions and sometimes even opinions about how the members must behave. Religions are "A Thing". A phenomenon with cultural significance that provide the means for their self-preservation sometimes at the expense of the host infested with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Nice complete change of argument, self-parodying man. I wasn't aware that male superiority was considered moral and good, though? Edit: it should be noted in the context by which you're framing this that all major religions we're familiar with have male superiority built in. Coincidence?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I wasn't aware that male superiority was considered moral and good, though? Oh, so it happens to be a dominant idea but people think it's immoral and wrong. How does that work in your brain?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:The idea of god or faith not so much. Its an unfalsifiable claim, ad unfalsifiable claims suck. Thou shalt not murder is unfalsifiable but I don't think it's a sucky rule E: And it's really weird that one post you're agreeing that religious law is malleable and arbitrary and changes with the times, then in the next you're saying religious laws are thousands of years old and believers refuse to question them VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Oh, so it happens to be a dominant idea but people think it's immoral and wrong. How does that work in your brain? Read the edit, I think it more or less explains it. Religion has been pretty much legion since forever. Its no surprise that the ideas religions espouse have become cultural norms over time. That doesn't make them justifiable or noble. Whether it be unquestioning faith or male superiority. This is why its fair to criticize Islam and isn't necessarily hate speech as noted in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Thou shalt not murder is unfalsifiable but I don't think it's a sucky rule A good rule, sure. We can forget that its broken over and over again in religious texts( really means thou shalt not murder who I want you to/ or its ok to murder heathens). It doesn't mean the way we get there is good. A society is stronger when people don't murder because they recognize why its wrong vs just doing/not doing something because someone told them to. Granted, we'd all rather live in a society with no murder, and if its because of the text, thats better than one with no text and tons of murder. But there are other ways to get there that don't require unfalsifiable claims.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:
Quite the opposite, religion is an arbitrary definition of cultural norms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Quite the opposite, religion is an arbitrary definition of cultural norms. re·li·gion rəˈlijən/ noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More a particular system of faith and worship. plural noun: religions a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. I think its not as vague as you're saying. I think we can agree on this kind of definition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:re·li·gion So Buddhists aren't religious, good to know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Read the edit, I think it more or less explains it. No, that's you begging the question and axiomatically saying you're right. You suck at logic. quote:Religion has been pretty much legion since forever. Its no surprise that the ideas religions espouse have become cultural norms over time. That doesn't make them justifiable or noble. Whether it be unquestioning faith or male superiority. This is why its fair to criticize Islam and isn't necessarily hate speech as noted in the OP. Or, as would be obvious to a severely hung over freshman at a bad state school, the superiority of men idea either arises separately from religion or predates it and informed all religions. Wow, causal pathways, amazing. I"m an atheist. I loving hate atheists like you because your logic is backwards and lovely, and it's so loving bad you wind up crediting religion for every aspect of culture. That is seriously your explanation, any bad cultural norm must have been caused by religion. You are the most religious person here, you're loving obsessed with it and think it has near-omnipotent influence over humans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:A good rule, sure. We can forget that its broken over and over again in religious texts( really means thou shalt not murder who I want you to/ or its ok to murder heathens). It doesn't mean the way we get there is good. A society is stronger when people don't murder because they recognize why its wrong vs just doing/not doing something because someone told them to. All morality is unfalsifiable, there are no ethicons that you can collide in a big atom smasher to observe their fundamental constituents. That's what you don't get about religion, religion is a big-rear end false positive of human pattern-finding, it reforms itself all the time in response to changing cultural values because for most people god is just a post hoc justification for what they really want to do anyway. If we were talking about this in 1970 and I told you we'd live to see the day the Episcopal Church performs gay wedding ceremonies you'd call me crazy and tell me to stop fantasizing. Marketing works really, really well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Its no surprise that the ideas religions espouse have become cultural norms over time. And yet, religions change according to region. Some Christians perform FGM as a religious duty even though it has nothing to do with the Bible texts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
No important comment, please ignoreVitalSigns posted:Thou shalt not murder is unfalsifiable but I don't think it's a sucky rule It depends on how you define "murder", I guest. Because if somebody is killing childrens. And you can stop it and the only way is to kill him, you have a moral obligation to murder the motherfucker. This happens very rarely in a black and white way. Sometimes is more blurry, somebody ask you to join a military force that is stooping a invasion from a army that is using artillery against civil targets. You must say yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Oh, so it happens to be a dominant idea but people think it's immoral and wrong. How does that work in your brain? You are obnoxious. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, that's you begging the question and axiomatically saying you're right. You suck at logic. Nothing you said here is incompatible with what I said except for you putting words in my mouth. I never said that all bad things are from religion or that religion is all powerful. I actually said the opposite before you barged in here shitposting everywhere. You're more mad that I don't regurgitate what you say than really addressing what I'm saying about monotheism. computer parts posted:So Buddhists aren't religious, good to know. I'm not sure if that follows from that definition. VitalSigns posted:All morality is unfalsifiable, there are no ethicons that you can collide in a big atom smasher to observe their fundamental constituents. I don't agree that all morality is unfalsifiable. It can't be put under a microscope, but you can measure the results of moral actions. I also agree with your statement on religion, I think I've even said as much! People use it to justify whatever bullshit they want which, to me, undermines the very value it purports to hold. Its a bad way to get answers. The nuance I put in a few pages ago was that lot of the stuff people "want to do" is directly informed by religious norms, misguided as they may be, like hating on gays, anti abortion, young earth, etc. I'm saying that if religious "ideals" derived from faith weren't given as much clout in a culture, you'd have less people going down those paths because there would be less social permission to justify those behaviors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I'm not sure if that follows from that definition. They don't worship the superhuman controlling force any more than scientists worship the superhuman controlling force of gravity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I don't agree that all morality is unfalsifiable. It can't be put under a microscope, but you can measure the results of moral actions. What are the units of morality one can measure these actions in?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They don't worship the superhuman controlling force any more than scientists worship the superhuman controlling force of gravity. a particular system of faith and worship. plural noun: religions "the world's great religions" a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. "consumerism is the new religion" Tesseraction posted:What are the units of morality one can measure these actions in? Please google Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science. Morality is relative. You can see how things change over time and use statistics to inform your analysis of behaviors and compare that to what you value.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Nothing you said here is incompatible with what I said except for you putting words in my mouth. I never said that all bad things are from religion or that religion is all powerful. I actually said the opposite before you barged in here shitposting everywhere. Your logic to explain male superiority, something which is found in almost all cultures regardless of that culture's religiosity, is that it had a religious source. Your reason for believing this is that male superiority is encoded in religion. You fail to account that the cultural belief could predate the religion, or could inform the religion. quote:You're more mad that I don't regurgitate what you say than really addressing what I'm saying about monotheism. No I am actually amazed you can put together grammatical sentences but not understand what I wrote above about why you're begging the question. You are making an assertion without an argument. Your assertion is that the belief in male superiority is because it was encoded in religion. Your argument for this is just that assertion, no more. Not even any more logic, just saying that that's so, not accounting for any other plausible causal pathway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They don't worship the superhuman controlling force any more than scientists worship the superhuman controlling force of gravity. Not to mention there's Jainism who primarily believe in morality above all, and perform said morality by non-violence towards all living things, on a hierarchy of harms that allow them to harm plants only if directly for sustenance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Please google Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science. All of these are antipositivist subjects. They are not empirically falsifiable at all. It may be you who needs to Google them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:a particular system of faith and worship. quote:Please google Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science. Morality is relative. You can see how things change over time and use statistics to inform your analysis of behaviors and compare that to what you value. How does it follow from this that it's possible to make a falsifiable moral claim? Bryter fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Your logic to explain male superiority, something which is found in almost all cultures regardless of that culture's religiosity, is that it had a religious source. Your reason for believing this is that male superiority is encoded in religion. You fail to account that the cultural belief could predate the religion, or could inform the religion. I never said this. You assumed it because you're just a mad bro that wants to find something to be mad at me about. quote:No I am actually amazed you can put together grammatical sentences but not understand what I wrote above about why you're begging the question. Yeah, I never said any of this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I never said this. You assumed it because you're just a mad bro that wants to find something to be mad at me about. Okay, then back to your original lovely claim: That there are aren't 'other cultural aspects that have been around for 2000 years that are accepted as moral and good. Male superiority is one. So, you're wrong. Right? Tesseraction posted:All of these are antipositivist subjects. They are not empirically falsifiable at all. It may be you who needs to Google them. Holy poo poo just noticed this. He doesn't even understand the fundamentals of science.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Bryter posted:So if you expand the definition to include consumerism you're right? I don't think that exactly bolsters your point. If you considered consumerism to be the end all be all of everything, had shrines and prayers, and considered it more important than life itself, I think it could possibly qualify. Thats a high bar to hit (though we probably get closer than we like to think). Perhaps I should back off from what I said about falsifiable moral claims. Perhaps I should say moral behaviors and their effects. For example if one said: "It is moral to treat men as equal to women but then I don't think women should vote" would be a way to falsify my claim that men and women are equal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:If you considered consumerism to be the end all be all of everything, had shrines and prayers, and considered it more important than life itself, I think it could possibly qualify. Thats a high bar to hit (though we probably get closer than we like to think). No that's just a contradiction, not a falsification. You don't understand falsification.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes they have, you idiot. How on earth can you believe this? How about the belief in male superiority? gently caress that, how about the entirety of the legal system? Unless you subscribe to the view of natural law (which in the west was largely pushed by Christians) it's just as much of a dogmatic, made up system as any religion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No that's just a contradiction, not a falsification. You don't understand falsification. Thats fair (also its an example I used from religious texts before and I think someone bashed on me for it) I think I was wrong to say all morality is unfalsifiable. I should clarify when comparing to religion in that a lot of the morality and absolute claims found in religious texts, we find contradictions in there quite a bit when we hold them up to Western modern aspects. What I mean to say is that there are aspects of culture and behavior that we know lead to those things we find "moral" and those behaviors and norms can be measured.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:What I mean to say is that there are aspects of culture and behavior that we know lead to those things we find "moral" and those behaviors and norms can be measured. Who the hell is this 'we' who agree on what is moral? Also you skipped this: Obdicut posted:Okay, then back to your original lovely claim: That there are aren't 'other cultural aspects that have been around for 2000 years that are accepted as moral and good. Male superiority is one. So, you're wrong. Right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Perhaps I should back off from what I said about falsifiable moral claims. Perhaps I should say moral behaviors and their effects. Is that person who doesn't think they should vote enforcing a moratorium on them voting, or is it merely a personally held belief? What if the women were like Phyllis Schlafly, evil incarnate?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:gently caress that, how about the entirety of the legal system? Unless you subscribe to the view of natural law (which in the west was largely pushed by Christians) it's just as much of a dogmatic, made up system as any religion. Suh.. suh...! Stuff like "In dubio pro reo" are not moral. The romans invented it because the romans where a bunch of clever and rational people. If you really want to catch criminals, you will do a poor job if you stop searching when you find somebody that seems culpable. This simple rule of dumb helps get better sentences and a better ratio criminals/inocents in jails. This one "Societas delinquere non potest" is clever and political, not moral. It means that some guy can't blame his corporation, there is going to be a name in the final judge conclusion, and it will be a person name. This are not dogmas, more like practical rules and political decisions made with a objective: put the criminals in jails and the innocent safe from hurt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Latin_legal_terms Of course, this can be true for countries with a latin heritage in the legal system. I dunno about anglosaxon countries. They all look like barbarians to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Is that person who doesn't think they should vote enforcing a moratorium on them voting, or is it merely a personally held belief? What if the women were like Phyllis Schlafly, evil incarnate? Why not both? Obdicut posted:Who the hell is this 'we' who agree on what is moral? The royal we. I said I don't think people consider male superiority as moral and good in modern western cultures. I was pointing out that religious ideals seem to be beyond reproach, have taken up a lot of these older norms, and have codified them into their texts giving them "cover" because religious belief is often held in special esteem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 16:30
|
|