|
Brainiac Five posted:
Wow. One whole year before the Supreme Court pulled the country kicking and screaming into modernity. Such progress.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Wow. So go shoot up a seminary about it instead of fantasizing about how sneering will get you a world where all the Jews are dead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So go shoot up a seminary about it instead of fantasizing about how sneering will get you a world where all the Jews are dead. The God and Flag people are the ones trying to kill all the Jews. Not the secularists. Hell, not even the Maoists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
shbob... WHY do you want to kill all the jews?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The God and Flag people are the ones trying to kill all the Jews. Not the secularists. Hell, not even the Maoists. In a world without religion, there's no such thing as Jewishness, since it is the shared relationship to the Jewish faith which binds together the disparate Jewish people. Desire to eliminate religion is of necessity desire to eliminate Jewishness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:In a world without religion, there's no such thing as Jewishness, since it is the shared relationship to the Jewish faith which binds together the disparate Jewish people. Desire to eliminate religion is of necessity desire to eliminate Jewishness. There are atheist Jews, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:There are atheist Jews, though. But the term "atheistic Jewish person" only makes sense in the context of the Jewish faith which binds together various ethnicities and converts together, allowing there to be "atheist Jews" rather than "atheist Ashenkazim" or "atheist Mizrahim" or "atheist Beta Yisraeli" or "atheist Sephardim".
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
Every Jew I've ever known with the notable exception of two Conservatives would strongly disagree with your assertion that Jewishness is necessarily religious, but whatev's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Every Jew I've ever known with the notable exception of two Conservatives would strongly disagree with your assertion that Jewishness is necessarily religious, but whatev's. I'm not saying that you repulsive little toad. What you are saying is that Jewishness is purely ethnic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm not saying that you repulsive little toad. What you are saying is that Jewishness is purely ethnic. LOL.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
I'm left leaning and Catholic so not me Hostility comes from both sides regardless of political alignment
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The God and Flag people are the ones trying to kill all the Jews. Not the secularists. Hell, not even the Maoists. how many Jews do you think your republican day of the rope would kill
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
intriguing... note the animalizing of the opposition. people are "toads", "snakes" etc. which is to say, less than human. pest and vermin
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Why is a monocultural society an ideal one? How do you get monoculture out of unity? That's a pretty extreme version of unity they was in no way implied. Why would an atheist from the boondocks of Siberia be culturally identical to an atheist from New Jersey Suburbia or an atheist from Beijing? Unity means we aren't fighting each other and work towards some common goals. Like, you know, the United States where every state is known for being exactly the same. Or the United Nations that is also known for trying to make its member states all culturally identical. Brainiac Five posted:In a world without religion, there's no such thing as Jewishness, since it is the shared relationship to the Jewish faith which binds together the disparate Jewish people. Desire to eliminate religion is of necessity desire to eliminate Jewishness. Please don't do this. It's stupid as hell nobody is trying to argue this Nazi poo poo except for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:how many Jews do you think your republican day of the rope would kill I'm proud to report that the Jewish people overwhelmingly pull the lever for Team D.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I'm proud to report that the Jewish people overwhelmingly pull the lever for Team D. you'd still be exterminating thirty percent of them which is pretty hosed up
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:you'd still be exterminating thirty percent of them which is pretty hosed up While the Jewish people do vote in high percentages, not 100% of them voted in 2016. But that minor detail aside, would it be more or less hosed up than exterminating 81% of the voting white Evangelicals? Why?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:While the Jewish people do vote in high percentages, not 100% of them voted in 2016. another possibility is that the morals man should exterminate 0% of any demographic
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:How do you get monoculture out of unity? That's a pretty extreme version of unity they was in no way implied. I think if you're serious about creating a unified group you really do need to go monocultural. Neither of those two examples are especially known for their co-operative nature. Certainly if you're proposing eradicating religion to foster greater unity, you have many, many other targets which are just as, if not more legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:another possibility is that the morals man should exterminate 0% of any demographic It's certainly a possibility. Not a good one. But a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
RasperFat, I'll come back to you later!Shbobdb posted:It's certainly a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
Reactionaries are evil people. You beat them now the same way they've been beaten throughout history. Not through words or coddling but through direct action. Right now, in America, Reactionaries are killing people every day. With the Trump administration, they're going to be killing a lot more. Hell, we've already transitioned from the government having a soft, weakly enforced monopoly on killing minorities for sport to a more open system where you average Reactionary feels emboldened to kill someone for being the wrong color or speaking the wrong language. The war has been going on for a long, long time. I'm just saying it's OK to fight back. Most people intuitively agree with the notion of self-defense but when it's actually applied they balk because they've bought into the system perpetuating asymmetrical violence. Self defense is a fine and worthy thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Reactionary feels emboldened to kill someone for being the wrong color or speaking the wrong language
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think if you're serious about creating a unified group you really do need to go monocultural. Neither of those two examples are especially known for their co-operative nature. Certainly if you're proposing eradicating religion to foster greater unity, you have many, many other targets which are just as, if not more legitimate. I feel like eradicate is too strong of a word for peacefully phasing out, with education, over a period of decades. I would hope we eventually have some level of monoculture, but that would probably just be some Star Trek-esque world government where everyone operates under the same government and laws. This is mostly a fantasy utopia though and I don't see it happening anywhere close to my lifetime, if ever. I've never said that eradicating religion should be a priority or even be part of a political plan, the optics are terrible. At the beginning of the thread I said the need for progressive and protective actions are way more important than alienating religion. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to encourage secular thought over religious thought though. Overall the U.S. and the U.N. have done pretty well internally as far as unity goes. Only one violent transition of power in the U.S.'s 200 year history. No major powers have had direct conflict since the creation of the U.N. Of course there's been internal disagreements and lovely things done, but that doesn't mean they aren't more unified than if the U.S was divided into different nations or the U.N. didn't exist. Our primary focus for leftism, as it has almost always been, is the rich. The greedy assholes at the top have rigged things against the 99+% below them and that's by far the biggest priority target. Religion is just one of the many tools of oppression coopted and abused by the powerful. "Prosperity Gospel" bullshit is a good example, and it is believed by a striking number of Americans. What Americans think about God 25% of Americans believe in Prosperity Gospel, and a whopping 37% of Evangelicals. Also quite insidious that poor people are at 28% and rich people at 20%, which is 40% more likely for the poor. Literally one in four poor people in America believes God will reward them with money for praising him/following his spiritual path correctly. Also only 47% of Americans accept that evolution is a real thing. The opposition is nearly 100% religious in nature. If we can't even get more than half the country to accept basic facts of reality, how are we going to elect sane and competent leaders? This does actually directly tie into politics, because conservative assholes they deny evolution on religious grounds also deny that poisoning our waterways and blasting chemicals into the ground is no biggie because God can fix anything anyways. It might not be the biggest or first obstacle, but it's definitely still an obstacle. A gigantic population of people devoutly believing this nonsense, or being susceptible to similar nonsense, is a deterrent to equality and progress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
Actually rounding up and killing people, yea no what's wrong with you. But if it's more of a natural selection kind of thing? Like if in the far future natural mixing results in the races blending to the point you can no longer say "that guy is white", or a religion becomes historical because none believes it anymore, I would not consider those scenarios a loss.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Reactionaries are evil people. You beat them now the same way they've been beaten throughout history. Not through words or coddling but through direct action. the morals man, ladies and gentlemen
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:I argue against religion because it is mostly a distraction and a waste of effort and time. (...) ...effort spent praying for a sick person could be spent volunteering, donating, or even slacktivism raising awareness for a disease or a hospital would have actual benefit to people that need it. This applies to almost all aspects of religions where the effort put in would be more effective in a secular execution including feeding the hungry, educating children, and charity work in general. Of course because we're coming at this from different sides, with different perspectives and goals, we'll disagree on the preliminary matter of whether doing religiousy things has any worth. That's fine. But first, I'd draw this criticism out a little more, to add that contemporary American/Western society is filled with time-draining diversions. We're a people who often celebrate time poorly spent! Suppose some woman has traded in three hours of, for example, playing video games each week, and instead uses that time to attend religious service and pray regularly: even if you think these acts are pointless I hope you'd at least agree this is just a lateral move. Maybe the rest of her week is packed with work, raising children, attending to a sick parent, and trying to just make it. The video games gave her a lot of stress release and connected her to a community of friendly players around the country, but through church and prayer she found both material help for keeping atop her responsibilities and an inner peace that eases her stress regularly, and not just that time she set aside for gaming. Should she stop wasting her time and just go do secular charity work? Or, maybe a guy has been addicted to porn, masturbation, and drugs for twenty years. He's tried to quit on his own innumerable times, but through a twelve step program he finally gets clean, opens up to a life of faith and clean living, starts putting the pieces back together. He insists that he couldn't get through this without that submission to a higher power, and for him that power is God. Do you tell him his experience is wrong, that he should drop the spiritual nonsense, instead try the ice bucket challenge and research cognitive therapy or something? My point actually isn't, look at how great religion is!, it's that we should be more sensitive to how others wish to conduct their lives, and not presume to know what's right for them. I think these outdoorsy types who spend weeks of the year mountain climbing and hiking remote locales are kooks, but that's their choice. Maybe they do it for work, testing products for REI or something, and it's their dream job. Maybe being out there helps focus their minds so they offer more respect and kindness for humans in civilization, and maybe it's a deep, spiritual ecstasy to encounter nature as they do. Which brings up my second point: secular activity does not preclude prayer. Prayer isn't just a thing done in isolated silence before bed. We can pray as we work, we can pray before and after and between tasks, and we can turn our work itself into a kind of prayer. The charity, teaching, being face to face with other human beings, can be a form of prayer. When Christian mysticism is allowed to shine on a person's spiritual life (  ) our whole relationship to the world and each given moment changes.And third, volunteering, donating, etc. are mainstays of religious organizations. Believers often fail to offer the support they could, but this is true even outside the doors of the church. Yes, you can be good without God. But! To roll around just a bit to the initial disagreement — the wisdom of the spiritual in the first place — please consider that if you DO believe there is a God, who hears our prayers and acts through the world and through believers toward His ultimate ends, one shall desire to be an agent of his grace. God doesn't just call us to be good, he calls us to be saints. So I agree that more people should be active in their communities, working to the betterment of society, but I don't think it's fair to call out religion for taking a lot of time away from them, whether religious observation — if observed at all — is limited to an hour or two once a week, or five prayers a day, or going full cloister. quote:On a single planet in a solar system of eight planets, which is one of a hundred billion solar systems in the Milky Way, which is one of a hundred billion galaxies, which could potentially be part of a bubble universe or something we aren't sure on the full scope of existence yet. This massive scale of time, life, and space is absolutely nothing like what is described in religions, and it seems to show that humans and earth are very likely a nothing blip in the scope of the universe. And not some predestined or lucky random one in a billion chance, literally next to nothing. (...) ... we clawed our way through mass extinction events and chaos. We only get one shot at life, and it is brief and difficult. And God so condescended, so self-emptied, to meet us in love through Christ. His coming way down to us lifts us up. Richard Feynman in his "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out" video interview (I think that was that one) has a fun bit where he scoffs at the idea of God coming to "the Earth!" Throughout its history the Incarnation has been controversial, challenging, infuriating, blasphemous, dangerous, problematic. But this is key! We aren't mere humans, it's not just that we're apparently insignificant, rare, fleeting, or that we're sinners, born of ash (or star stuff): we're beloved, every one; we are precious, tiny jewels in the crown of the cosmos, capable of radiant beauty. We are called to be saints, to participate in the nature of Christ, to be divinized, and encounter the very God "in whom we live and move and have our being." Every neglect or violence against another human is neglect or violence against Christ, against God. When we sacrifice anyone in the name of our own ideas of society or progress or whatever, we might as well be hammering the nails into Jesus with our own hands. Apologies if any of the above is muddled or asinine. I'm phone-posting, and my mobile device is possessed of many very noisy and impolite demons. At any rate I likely made many errors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Nah, there's major sexual asymmetry here: there's no equivalent of this procedure for a man if he was suspected of straying. On the other hand, if found "guilty" by this procedure she'd not still be sentenced to capital punishment, but only shamed and, likely, divorced. (If CAUGHT in the act of adultery, man and woman alike were due death.) 'Only' shamed and likely divorced in a society where women were property, and could not own anything nor do paid work. So at best she would spend the rest of her life as an unpaid drudge for whatever male relative felt like maybe feeding her sometimes. Even slaves have value in that they can be sold, a woman who has lost her 'purity' is less than worthless in that society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 10:14
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:I don't want to crush religion, it is a fascinating part of our culture and history. In a hypothetical, I would want to educate all of the world to have at minimum a lower college level knowledge of history, physical sciences, and social sciences. After a few generations of all children being well educated and have critical thinking skills, religion would slowly fade to historical myths. It's not that any given religion inherently must come down on the wrong side of any of these issues. "Mother Earth is God's gift and we are set here into this Garden Eden as nature's stewards. We must protect God's other creatures, and use it only to the extent he has provided for us." "The world's gonna end in 30 years anyways, drill baby drill." People will easily justify either one with their religion. (I'm not saying it's wholly arbitrary, but the spectrum is at least this wide.) I accept religion might come down more readily on the 2nd kind than we should be comfortable with, but if we want to ensure it comes down on the wrong side, we put people to the choice - are you for the religious people who want to burn the earth, or for the amoral atheists who want to preserve it? Don't want to make grandma angry nor lose all my friends, so burnin' coal in my pickup truck it is! Maybe in the long run, the benefits of ending superstition will outweigh these problems. But at the very least, this issue must be treated with great care. I also personally value people's choices to make bad decisions, like follow stupid religions, and I think cultural diversity - including in spiritual matters - is a plus in itself. Both have to be weighed against the obvious drawbacks of religion and of diversity, but I at least want to put them on the scales. (This is maybe a bit of a Slippery Slope argument, but I think arguments against religious diversity are often also arguments against any other kind of diversity. If we value diversity, we probably automatically leave in a lot of space for bad religious practices and conflicts.) RasperFat posted:25% of Americans believe in Prosperity Gospel, and a whopping 37% of Evangelicals. Also quite insidious that poor people are at 28% and rich people at 20%, which is 40% more likely for the poor. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Mar 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 10:15
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I mean, the bolded part any catholic would sign too... *raises hand* But I'd swap out social sciences for philosophy. quote:...even the ones who think homosexuality should be suppressed. Not this part, though. This part is bad. EDIT: Confounding Factor posted:I would argue for a Christianity that is outside of the mainstream Protestant mold into something more radical . . . I agree with Che, you cannot have a genuine revolution without it guided by love, however I think the kind of love required is what the Gospels set forth. True revolutionaries must go through Christianity, to put a spin on Zizek. I want to echo this one again from a few pages back, because a similar insight helped guide me (among many other things) toward wherever it is I'm headed. Bolocko fucked around with this message at 10:44 on Mar 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:And God so condescended, so self-emptied, to meet us in love through Christ. His coming way down to us lifts us up. Richard Feynman in his "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out" video interview (I think that was that one) has a fun bit where he scoffs at the idea of God coming to "the Earth!" Throughout its history the Incarnation has been controversial, challenging, infuriating, blasphemous, dangerous, problematic. But this is key! We aren't mere humans, it's not just that we're apparently insignificant, rare, fleeting, or that we're sinners, born of ash (or star stuff): we're beloved, every one; we are precious, tiny jewels in the crown of the cosmos, capable of radiant beauty. We are called to be saints, to participate in the nature of Christ, to be divinized, and encounter the very God "in whom we live and move and have our being." Every neglect or violence against another human is neglect or violence against Christ, against God. When we sacrifice anyone in the name of our own ideas of society or progress or whatever, we might as well be hammering the nails into Jesus with our own hands. I just love the blessing in Philippians 4:8: And the peace of the Lord, higher than all reason, may preserve your hearts and spirits in Christus Jesus. Now there are few things I'd put above reason. But peace is one. E.: is there a specific name for Philippians 4:8? Bolocko posted:*raises hand* Cingulate fucked around with this message at 10:36 on Mar 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 10:33
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:
4:8 is also good: "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 10:50
|
|
|
The fate of Holocaust victims is too good for anyone who doesn't despise Christopher Hitchens/Fyodor Karamazov on first sight and I say that as someone who's descended from Holocaust victims (not that I wouldn't say it if I wasn't).Bates posted:Yeah let's be clear about this. Atheism only answers one single question: Do you believe in a God? If your answer is anything other than "yes" you are an atheist. I feel that if you answer "maybe" you are not an atheist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 10:53
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Mine (RSV) just has it under a section called Exhortations. The verse you quoted is 4:7, though. twitter and bisted posted:The fate of Holocaust victims is too good for anyone who doesn't despise Christopher Hitchens I love Hitchens fwiw twitter and bisted posted:I feel that if you answer "maybe" you are not an atheist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:... what? Long story short he is the skunk ape from which we are descended (which is what Dostoevsky meant when he wrote that "we are all Fyodor Karamazovs"). If you can't see that Hitchbitch would have pretended to be a member of a religion if it served his interests then it makes you a mark on the level of the majority of the religious people that you/he criticize. Cingulate posted:exterminate heretic pope worshippers imo The justification for Catholicism (pre-Vatican II at least) is that it's a society founded on music. Certainly the attempted continuation of the Roman Empire gives much reason for criticism but it was a truism when a smart fella by the name of Friedrich Nietzsche pointed out that without music life would be a mistake; any improvements made to society that do not carry forth the musical tradition established by Rome are not legitimate. I don't want to be overly insulting Cingulate and certainly there was some hyperbole in my original statement but based on your posts in (this page of!) this thread it is safe to say that you possess little to nothing of that which differentiates humans from other animals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 11:51
|
|
|
The loss of religion is a necessary stage in achieving real self-awareness. That's a difficult thing to do, because illusions are comforting. For example, believing that 'praying' works is emotionally empowering. That's the illusion. The scary truth is that you are irrelevant, your actions and thoughts have no affect on reality, because the universe does not give a poo poo about you. Worse, lying to yourself always comes back to bite you. You start believing your own bullshit, and it effects your decision making ability. Whatever other value you think religion provides, the truth is that there's always a way to do that, without lying. If you're honest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
twitter and bisted posted:Long story short he is the skunk ape from which we are descended (which is what Dostoevsky meant when he wrote that "we are all Fyodor Karamazovs"). If you can't see that Hitchbitch would have pretended to be a member of a religion if it served his interests then it makes you a mark on the level of the majority of the religious people that you/he criticize. I'm not a fan of Hitchens, or Dawkins, for that matter, but I feel like you need to expand upon this without the ad homs. rudatron posted:The loss of religion is a necessary stage in achieving real self-awareness. That's a difficult thing to do, because illusions are comforting. Agreed, but its going to be difficult to push that sort of enlightenment through when religion has dug itself in as a core support of most people's self-definition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
twitter and bisted posted:Long story short he is the skunk ape from which we are descended (which is what Dostoevsky meant when he wrote that "we are all Fyodor Karamazovs"). If you can't see that Hitchbitch would have pretended to be a member of a religion if it served his interests then it makes you a mark on the level of the majority of the religious people that you/he criticize.  twitter and bisted posted:I don't want to be overly insulting Cingulate and certainly there was some hyperbole in my original statement but based on your posts in (this page of!) this thread it is safe to say that you possess little to nothing of that which differentiates humans from other animals. Also I guess I have opposable thumbs, that surely counts for something
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
How can you change a person's self-definition? This reminds me of a video I saw of a fellow speaking at the UN, praising how young people today will no longer be held down by the myth of race. Because even older and wiser people like himself, who understand racism is wrong, are still shackled by being brought up in a culture that places such an emphasis on it. That poor man was idealistic to the point of absurdity. If anything, the concept of race has only gotten more entrenched in our lives with white nationalism on the rise all over. But my point is, religion is still a more "real" to me than the concept of a white race. And I don't see how it's possible for humans to ever potentially grow beyond either one of these concepts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:That poor man was idealistic to the point of absurdity. If anything, the concept of race has only gotten more entrenched in our lives with white nationalism on the rise all over. .....but isn't that the point of the outrage over White Nationalism and Populism rising again? Arguing that because its entrenched that we should accept its existence is rather a disgusting proposition, it follows that by that same logic we should accept sexism and other -isms just because they are culturally entrenched. Progress depends upon us throwing out entrenched ideas. Just because White Nationalism is growing again does not mean we should accept the inevitable. He may be idealistic to a point of absurdity, but its an idealism we should promote. NikkolasKing posted:How can you change a person's self-definition? Change is hard. My point was more: Religion has placed itself at the center of our culture and paraded itself as the end-all solution to our moral woes. When we know better than that now, but now religion presents itself as a pillar of the community and in people's lifes: A social centerpoint for friends and family. We need to realize that we are perfectly connected and capable as a community and a society without religion defining what our community is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:56
|
|