|
Jastiger posted:Wow, you're way too intense about this. You do that kind of stuff. You're part of why girls like her feel lovely and under suspicion. But seriously, did you actually think a puppetmaster defense was going to make you look better, not worse?
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
Did you seriously think I was serious when I said they agreed with me? It isn't the atheists saying we should deport or ban Muslims and thr like. I can be critical of Islam without pushing that anti Arab sentiment they have going on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I find your critique interesting that its "objectively true" that they worship the same god. The texts for each religion specifically says they aren't. You do know that "the texts for each religion" are in part the same texts? The Torah is part of Christian Biblical canon and is an Islamic Holy Book. Islam in particular is pretty explicit about its relationship with the "people of the book", and outright says that they worship the same god, but are doing it the wrong way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Did you seriously think I was serious when I said they agreed with me? Not the second time, you dope, the first time, when you said I was the only one saying you were wrong. quote:It isn't the atheists saying we should deport or ban Muslims and thr like. I can be critical of Islam without pushing that anti Arab sentiment they have going on. You think that her faith is toxic, right? That it's a bad part of culture that should be eradicated? Bryter posted:You do know that "the texts for each religion" are in part the same texts? The Torah is part of Christian Biblical canon and is an Islamic Holy Book. Islam in particular is pretty explicit about its relationship with the "people of the book", and outright says that they worship the same god, but are doing it the wrong way. He's not really a facts-based guy, he's got his own praxeology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Bryter posted:You do know that "the texts for each religion" are in part the same texts? The Torah is part of Christian Biblical canon and is an Islamic Holy Book. Islam in particular is pretty explicit about its relationship with the "people of the book", and outright says that they worship the same god, but are doing it the wrong way. This could be a academic interpretation on religion, and based on the last 10 pages of this thread, is a wrong one. People don't base their beliefs in their religion. They interpret their religion based on their beliefs.. sometimes injecting in the religion stuff that did not existed before sometimes even contradicting the text. In the case of christians,... "If someone strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other one as well, and if someone takes your coat, don't keep back your shirt, either. " Yes, this is exactly how christian behave and what a random christian would do. /s So no. The holy books are not a valid reference of religion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Bryter posted:You do know that "the texts for each religion" are in part the same texts? The Torah is part of Christian Biblical canon and is an Islamic Holy Book. Islam in particular is pretty explicit about its relationship with the "people of the book", and outright says that they worship the same god, but are doing it the wrong way. In part doesn't mean "is". You also have to remember that the Christian and Islamic faiths built onto the existing Jewish one. It'd be like me writing an addendum to a series and calling it Canon that retroactively jive with the original story. That doesn't mean it's necessarily the same god as understood by the followers. I get that it may be a somewhat reasonable assumption, but I don't think you can call it "fact".
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Not the second time, you dope, the first time, when you said I was the only one saying you were wrong. Oh I said that they were asking questions, not that I was overtly wrong. Maybe they do, but it's not "everyone" as you said. I do think faith based reasoning is toxic, that doesn't mean I think the people are toxic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Tei posted:This could be a academic interpretation on religion, and based on the last 10 pages of this thread, is a wrong one. Whether they are or not is irrelevant, the dude I was replying to made a claim about the content of those books themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Oh I said that they were asking questions, not that I was overtly wrong. Maybe they do, but it's not "everyone" as you said. Everyone else engaging with you who's giving an opinion is saying you're wrong. It's not, as you claimed, just me. This is now your third argument on this subject. There is no definition of religion that doesn't also apply to lots of other poo poo in our culture. There are lovely parts of culture that have hung out for thousands of years while not being religious--sometimes even going contrary to the majority religion, even. You assert wildly unfactual things about the world, you can't use logic, and you didn't even know what falsifiability was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:In part doesn't mean "is". Where in the the texts of each of the Abrahamic faiths do you believe it specifically says that the God worshipped by the others is a different God? Jastiger posted:You also have to remember that the Christian and Islamic faiths built onto the existing Jewish one. It'd be like me writing an addendum to a series and calling it Canon that retroactively jive with the original story. That doesn't mean it's necessarily the same god as understood by the followers. I get that it may be a somewhat reasonable assumption, but I don't think you can call it "fact". By that standard talking about a Christian God is itself pointless, as you can't say it's a fact that all Christians worship a common God. I don't think it's a particularly useful perspective.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:You're right its mostly an American thing now. Well American and Catholic thing. Why is that? Because America and the Church (and many developing countries) are the most likely populations to adhere to religious teachings. Its absolutely because of the religious intertwining that go on, not because they are simply American. As I said before, moderate faith allows other bone headed faith ideas to take root by providing social "cover" for faith. The less religious a population, the less cover, the less legitimate it is in civic, academic, and social avenues. You're just shifting the question without answering it. If your answer to "why is this stuff practically unique to Americans" is "because they're way more religious", then why are Americans way more religious, way more likely to go for fringe beliefs, and way more likely to buy into crazy cults like Mormonism and Scientology? If the answer is "because they're more religious", then why are they so much more religious and so much more willing to really get crazy with their religious beliefs? There's some cultural or social cause to it beyond "ha ha those dumb god lovers are so dumb"; the religiousness is just a symptom of that larger cause, not the cause itself. computer parts posted:No, plenty of actual scientists believed in eugenics too. It requires an axiomatic belief to exist (i.e., some races are fundamentally inferior than others), but that's not a high bar to clear, especially if you're not a scientist in the field of biology. It doesn't even necessarily require that! Eugenics wasn't just about ethnic cleansing - it also targeted the physically and mentally disabled, people with a wide variety of mental illnesses, criminals, people with low IQs, poor people, women who had too many children or were receiving too much welfare, people who were considered to be "idiots" or "imbeciles", and the "feeble-minded". There certainly were quite a number of racists who saw non-whites as inferior and used eugenics for ethnic cleansing, but they weren't the only victims; mental hospitals in particular were hotbeds of forced sterilization. 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. No it doesn't. Ascribing social ills to the culture of a minority group is just as frowned upon as ascribing them to a major religion. Even more frowned upon, in fact, which is why no one does it except for people who aren't trying very hard to hide their open, virulent racism. Religion doesn't get any special protection not available to other cultures - a presidential candidate who went up on stage and claimed that drugs and gang violence were caused by black culture would draw an even more polarized reaction than even Trump and his anti-Muslim bigotry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Bryter posted:Where in the the texts of each of the Abrahamic faiths do you believe it specifically says that the God worshipped by the others is a different God? Where does it say its the same? I think its too open to interpretation to be considered "fact". quote:By that standard talking about a Christian God is itself pointless, as you can't say it's a fact that all Christians worship a common God. I don't think it's a particularly useful perspective. Well I think we can define what a Christian is based on some basic criteria in the bible. God, Holy Spirit, Jesus are generally considered to be the base line Christian qualification with all the rest of the stuff being denominational. So there is some value there, I think, when differentiating between Christianity and other faiths. Main Paineframe posted:You're just shifting the question without answering it. If your answer to "why is this stuff practically unique to Americans" is "because they're way more religious", then why are Americans way more religious, way more likely to go for fringe beliefs, and way more likely to buy into crazy cults like Mormonism and Scientology? If the answer is "because they're more religious", then why are they so much more religious and so much more willing to really get crazy with their religious beliefs? There's some cultural or social cause to it beyond "ha ha those dumb god lovers are so dumb"; the religiousness is just a symptom of that larger cause, not the cause itself. I kind of touched on this. Because religiosity has been intertwined with a lot of the population, so its more socially acceptable to be religious here than it is in say, the UK. That is falling away, but that would be the best explanation, I think. To your point on Mormonism and Scientology, its because they are able to insulate themselves financially as well as take advantage of privileged tax status in order to foster a stronger community. quote:
I'm pretty sure the existence of the Prayer Breakfast and Benediction before every military activity is evidence against your position. Its wrong to say "All Muslims are terrorists" because as you say, thats the terrible rhetoric Trump has. Its totally OK for a lot of Americans to say "They were very religious, therefor they were very moral" which is just as untrue, but gets less push back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I kind of touched on this. Because religiosity has been intertwined with a lot of the population, so its more socially acceptable to be religious here than it is in say, the UK. Why? Why is this the case? That is the question. By saying "it's because they're more religious", you're not actually addressing the question of what makes American behavior so different from other countries, you're just changing the mysterious factor you don't know the reason for. Why are people more religious in a country with constitutional separation of church and state than they are in the UK, a country which to this very day has an official state religion supported by the government? What are the social and cultural factors that cause Americans to be so much more religious than Europeans?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
That college regards what the professor said as proselytizing for Islam but to me, the best way to proselytize for Christianity is to embody the love, and grace and compassion of The Lord. That was what drew me in, not threats or demands for compliance, at most that gets people in the pews but it doesn't get them to believe. To me she is embodying compassion by dressing in solidarity and standing up for them. Jesus didn't look down his nose at nonbelievers. He suffered and went on the cross for people who hated him. He was willing to challenge the powerful who used the law as a cuddle while collaborating with occupiers. That is what a Christian institution means to me. And it is deeply disturbing that people attack Islam on the basis that it is a threat to our Christian values while being a jerk to refugees.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Why? Why is this the case? That is the question. By saying "it's because they're more religious", you're not actually addressing the question of what makes American behavior so different from other countries, you're just changing the mysterious factor you don't know the reason for. Why are people more religious in a country with constitutional separation of church and state than they are in the UK, a country which to this very day has an official state religion supported by the government? What are the social and cultural factors that cause Americans to be so much more religious than Europeans? I think one of the major reasons it is like that TODAY is because of the ability of certain factions to control the American myth and perpetuate a Christian history for an entire generation. The United States wasn't always as overtly religious as it is today. The cold war had a lot to do with it too since "us vs them" became "Jesus vs Atheism" for a lot of people, even though that wasn't really the case. McCarthyism helped push this along, then came the backlash against social liberation in the 60s. Groups like the Moral Majority and mega churches helped monetize faith into big business both for economic and political purposes. Throw in a few select quotes from the founding fathers on religion and boom, you have a myth of a country that is not only Christian, but HAS to be Christian. A cursory study of history disproves this, but a lot of Americans don't look at history that way. Its not as easy to be critical like that. Its part of why I said faith gives bad ideas cover-instead of being critical and researching what Thomas Jefferson or John Jay or Thomas Paine said, its easier to subscribe to your religious cultural identity and assume you're right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Where does it say its the same? I think its too open to interpretation to be considered "fact". The entirety of the Gospels, which portray Jesus as a reformer of Judaism, and, again, the repeated acknowledgement in the Qur'an of the shared beliefs of Muslims and the people of the book. Jastiger posted:Well I think we can define what a Christian is based on some basic criteria in the bible. God, Holy Spirit, Jesus are generally considered to be the base line Christian qualification with all the rest of the stuff being denominational. So there is some value there, I think, when differentiating between Christianity and other faiths. That's the criteria you think should be applied but, as you said, "that doesn't mean it's necessarily the same god as understood by the followers". To an objective observer, it's just as much a fact that the Abrahamic faiths share a God as it is that Christian denominations share a God.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:That college regards what the professor said as proselytizing for Islam but to me, the best way to proselytize for Christianity is to embody the love, and grace and compassion of The Lord. That was what drew me in, not threats or demands for compliance, at most that gets people in the pews but it doesn't get them to believe. Actually Jesus said death to anyone that doesn't follow him either immediately or forever in hell. I'm glad it brings you peace and all, but thats a sanitized rewrite of what was actually said and meant. The problem I see is that the Christians that see Islam as a threat are assholes, but theologically they aren't really wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Bryter posted:The entirety of the Gospels, which portray Jesus as a reformer of Judaism, and, again, the repeated acknowledgement in the Qur'an of the shared beliefs of Muslims and the people of the book. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/01/do-christians-muslims-and-jews-worship-the-same-god/ I think this is a good summation. There is evidence for and against the idea that they are all the same god. I don't think that means its a "fact" that they are the same god, but its true that the later faiths build off of Judaism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/01/do-christians-muslims-and-jews-worship-the-same-god/ Gods don't exist, Jastiger, it can't be true or untrue that they're the same god. For gently caress's sake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Bill Maher and Dick Dorkins are both representative of the New Atheist movement, and are both extremely Islamophobic and sexist. Clearly New Atheism is a toxic ideology that must be expunged from society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Bill Maher and Dick Dorkins are both representative of the New Atheist movement, and are both extremely Islamophobic and sexist. Clearly New Atheism is a toxic ideology that must be expunged from society. New atheism has little reach, influence or respect while also being extremely poorly defined so fixating on it is pointless. Despite that it seems to cast a strange spell on religious people that results in vastly more literature been made attacking its small number of texts compared to the amount of stuff any of the New Atheists ever wrote so I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Bill Maher and Dick Dorkins are both representative of the New Atheist movement, and are both extremely Islamophobic and sexist. Clearly New Atheism is a toxic ideology that must be expunged from society. I get the sense that you are being ironic/sarcastic, but this argument is often made, both online and in the real world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Gods don't exist, Jastiger, it can't be true or untrue that they're the same god. Calm down Obdicut. I think you should relax.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I don't think that means its a "fact" that they are the same god Well neither do I, because Obdicut posted:Gods don't exist, Jastiger But it's as useful and reasonable to talk about an Abrahamic God as it is to talk about a Christian God.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Protip for all the nonbelievers: it's more effective (and more accurate) to label yourself a skeptic rather than an atheist. Calling yourself an atheist gives chuckleheads permission to make a false comparison between atheism and theism. It also broadens your thinking about faith-based thought. As what was rightly pointed out in this this thread, while religion is certainly the most visible when it comes this subject, it's not the only arena where people come up with dumb ideas that ultimately hurts other people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:New atheism has little reach, influence or respect while also being extremely poorly defined so fixating on it is pointless. Despite that it seems to cast a strange spell on religious people that results in vastly more literature been made attacking its small number of texts compared to the amount of stuff any of the New Atheists ever wrote so I don't know. The influence is minor of course, but the reach of it's message is only limited by the English language. Both of the above serial complainers have international audiences. As evidenced by the islamophobia of the Christian Right, they do not appreciate a fellow traveller in evangelist tactics and demonization that does not toe the party line. It really isn't very surprising. Absurd Alhazred posted:I get the sense that you are being ironic/sarcastic, but this argument is often made, both online and in the real world. This is true. It's not the most valid of arguments as far as equivalence, though it's on point in comparing their rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Actually Jesus said death to anyone that doesn't follow him either immediately or forever in hell. I'm glad it brings you peace and all, but thats a sanitized rewrite of what was actually said and meant. That is debatable. There is a vast tradition of theological argumentation on this. Liberal Christians didn't appear out of thin air.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:That is debatable. There is a vast tradition of theological argumentation on this. Liberal Christians didn't appear out of thin air. Thats right. They are created by cherry picking the parts they like and that jive with their liberal Western secular sensibilities. Liberal Christians are better than Conservative Christians, but they are still twisting texts to mean what they want vs the other way around. It just happens to be less bad than the other methods.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Do the muslims really worship a asteroid rock? because thats kinda awesome. How that even happened? . Tei fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I think one of the major reasons it is like that TODAY is because of the ability of certain factions to control the American myth and perpetuate a Christian history for an entire generation. The United States wasn't always as overtly religious as it is today. The cold war had a lot to do with it too since "us vs them" became "Jesus vs Atheism" for a lot of people, even though that wasn't really the case. McCarthyism helped push this along, then came the backlash against social liberation in the 60s. Groups like the Moral Majority and mega churches helped monetize faith into big business both for economic and political purposes. Throw in a few select quotes from the founding fathers on religion and boom, you have a myth of a country that is not only Christian, but HAS to be Christian. Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, and Thomas Paine were all religious - and so, for that matter, were the vast majority of Americans, with many of the colonies having been founded by strongly religious people or groups. Not only that, but weirdo fringe groups (by the standards of the time), tended disproportionately to immigrate to America because they were frowned upon by the Church of England. Separation of church and state was not meant to protect people's right to nonreligiousness, it was a guarantee that people could come up with whatever weirdass new flavor of Protestantism they wanted without having to worry about contradicting an official state religion. The size and isolation of the US only encouraged religious weirdness, as regional variations developed between religions, even the most inspirational preachers usually couldn't get their speeches all the way across the vast country, and there was an immense frontier for particularly weird movements (like the Mormons) to pack up and journey off to if need be. On top of that, internixing and blending between these numerous sects led to even more new movements, as preachers were inspired by different facets of various movements and mix-and-matched up their own flavor. Religion faded from national politics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as political power shifted northward to the educated, urban, capitalist, industrialized, immigrant-heavy New England, but a number of religious awakenings and new movements sprouted up during this time period, mostly in the South or on the frontiers of American settlement at the time. By the early 20th century, evangelicalism and fundamentalism were sweeping through what's now known as the Bible Belt. Naturally, when the civil rights struggle and the Southern Strategy that resulted from it made the South into a major political player once more, it's no surprise that it's around then that religion suddenly rose to become a major political issue. Since religion hadn't been previously been an issue particularly affiliated with one party or the other, the Republicans were able to leverage that formerly non-political demographic (along with Southern discontent at the Civil Rights Act) to finally take the South back from the Dems. In England, on the other hand, its much smaller size and much less isolated boonies meant that a group too extreme to be tolerated by the mainstream couldn't just march a couple thousand miles to the West like the Mormons; instead, if they wanted to get away from British society, they had to hop on a boat and go to America. Meanwhile, the state-run official Church of England was able to play some role in suppressing the growth and proliferation of crazy religious movements, and the much smaller distances in England limited the ability of religions to regionally diversify anyway. In the end, America ended up being a dumping ground and petri dish for British cults and religious crazies, and the vast expanses of shithole boonies and sparsely populated frontiers in the US allowed those numerous sects to interbreed and evolve, free from any organized government effort to rein them in. When those areas finally regained political importance as a result of unrelated shifts in regional politics, the strong yet unorthodox religious and cultural beliefs that had baked in their bigoted uneducated backwaters for a hundred years, left behind long ago by the economic and political power centers if the country, were suddenly turned into political issues as a way to curry the region's favor for quick, cheap votes, and we've suffered from that ever since.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
What very little testing that has been done on it (very little has been done, for obvious reasons) suggests it could possibly be part of an asteroid, which is indeed very cool. A group of Inuits in Greenland used a pre-historic asteroid to craft metal tools, which was cool as gently caress until in typical fashion the white man turned up, stole the rock and subjugated them all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, and Thomas Paine were all religious - and so, for that matter, were the vast majority of Americans, with many of the colonies having been founded by strongly religious people or groups. Not only that, but weirdo fringe groups (by the standards of the time), tended disproportionately to immigrate to America because they were frowned upon by the Church of England. Separation of church and state was not meant to protect people's right to nonreligiousness, it was a guarantee that people could come up with whatever weirdass new flavor of Protestantism they wanted without having to worry about contradicting an official state religion. The size and isolation of the US only encouraged religious weirdness, as regional variations developed between religions, even the most inspirational preachers usually couldn't get their speeches all the way across the vast country, and there was an immense frontier for particularly weird movements (like the Mormons) to pack up and journey off to if need be. On top of that, internixing and blending between these numerous sects led to even more new movements, as preachers were inspired by different facets of various movements and mix-and-matched up their own flavor. Religion faded from national politics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as political power shifted northward to the educated, urban, capitalist, industrialized, immigrant-heavy New England, but a number of religious awakenings and new movements sprouted up during this time period, mostly in the South or on the frontiers of American settlement at the time. By the early 20th century, evangelicalism and fundamentalism were sweeping through what's now known as the Bible Belt. Naturally, when the civil rights struggle and the Southern Strategy that resulted from it made the South into a major political player once more, it's no surprise that it's around then that religion suddenly rose to become a major political issue. Since religion hadn't been previously been an issue particularly affiliated with one party or the other, the Republicans were able to leverage that formerly non-political demographic (along with Southern discontent at the Civil Rights Act) to finally take the South back from the Dems. A good post
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I get the sense that you are being ironic/sarcastic, but this argument is often made, both online and in the real world. Of course by the standards of this thread "but look what terrible governments some Muslim countries have," we can look at the behavior of atheist states like the USSR and the People's Republic of Kampuchea. And I don't want to hear about other historical, political, or economic factors; that's just apologism for atheists' bad morality and evil practices.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Of course by the standards of this thread "but look what terrible governments some Muslim countries have," we can look at the behavior of atheist states like the USSR and the People's Republic of Kampuchea. Communism is irrational. They believe this: - Capitalism will kill itself. - A dictatorship of the workers is to what all societies will evolve to. They just believe in these two things, that are just things they want to be true. So is a faith base belief. Like religions. Communism also hunt people with different believes, like religions. Communism try to have a wide range of answers to random unrelated questions, like religions. Maybe communism is just another religion, and the intolerance of communism with religion is because they use the same space. Maybe "religion" is not the best word to describe it, "Cult" could be a better one. Just because somebody is atheist, it don't mean is rational. He or she can still be faith base. And people change. Somebody could have been rational in their teenager years, become atheist, then change and become irrational as he mature but still support atheism because is now his "religion". You know that being rational is hard, is a hard to do thing and many people lack the skill. You know because you have posted about it in this thread (If I am not mistaken). Tei fucked around with this message at 11:27 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
Tei posted:Communism is irrational. They believe this: No, they believe this because of an actual system of axioms, empirical observation, and a logical argument. You may think they're wrong, but it's not an irrational argument and it's not based on just believing. Have you ever read Marx? Your posts are always quite off-target .May I ask if English is your first language?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 11:33
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, they believe this because of an actual system of axioms, empirical observation, and a logical argument. You may think they're wrong, but it's not an irrational argument and it's not based on just believing. Have you ever read Marx? Okay. But something I have learned in this thread is to ignore what the official text say and pay attention to what the actual practicers of a cult believe/do. And communist believers don't repeat all these empirical observation and logical argumentation thing. So maybe I was wrong in saying these things are irrational. But I don't think I am wrong in that they way (how) they believe in these things is irrational. note: 2) no
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
Tei posted:Okay. But something I have learned in this thread is to ignore what the official text say and pay attention to what the actual practicers of a cult believe/do. And communist believers don't repeat all these empirical observation and logical argumentation thing. Yeah, they do. Some don't, but many do. If you want to say that for some people Marxism (or anything else) can function like a religion, that's trivially true. But who cares? That doesn't mean Marxism itself is like a religion. quote:So maybe I was wrong in saying these things are irrational. But I don't think I am wrong in that they way they believe in these things is irrational. You are. And in fact, your belief in this appears to simply be based in faith.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
I will not say again that communism is a religion until I have profs of that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
Tei posted:I will not say again that communism is a religion until I have profs of that. You won't find proofs of that, because Marxism is not a religion. It may be treated as some as a religion. It is not a religion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:You won't find proofs of that, because Marxism is not a religion. It may be treated as some as a religion. It is not a religion. What makes Marxism different from a religion?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 13:37
|
|