|
OwlFancier posted:I am saying that your placement of value in that search is itself an article of faith. In the absence of an absolute truth, all truth and value becomes entirely subjective, as there is no absolute anchor to hold any system absolute. Everything is just, like, whatever guys. Nothing matters - the religious (??)
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
Except it's not arbitrary - I'm a person, so are you, we share things in common, we share common desires. So long as I'm talking to you, there are things I know you have that I can appeal to. The lack of an objective preference isn't important. Were I speaking with a trans-dimensional lizard monster with incomprehensible intent, there'd be less in common, and therefore less grounds to engage with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:So can we just change the thread title to "Why Do Religions Hate the Left?" I feel like "let's bathe in the enormous jizz pool of r/atheism" may be more sincere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Except it's not arbitrary - I'm a person, so are you, we share things in common, we share common desires. So long as I'm talking to you, there are things I know you have that I can appeal to. The lack of an objective preference isn't important. It is rather arbitrary when I am apparently amply capable of disagreeing with your fundamental premises.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Such disagreement could equally come from a disagreement of knowledge, rather than intent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
See, my way of thinking is just as good as yours if you consider all ways of thinking to be equally worthless. Everything is just a perspective, just an opinion, it's all bullshit because that's the only way I can pretend to have an adult conversation while my magic 8 ball tells me what to do in life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Such disagreement could equally come from a disagreement of knowledge, rather than intent. I'm fairly sure you don't have an actual indisputable line to the creator telling you that the fundamental, absolute truth of the universe really exists and that it's rationalism. So I think it may be a disagreement of intent. zh1 posted:See, my way of thinking is just as good as yours if you consider all ways of thinking to be equally worthless. Everything is just a perspective, just an opinion, it's all bullshit because that's the only way I can pretend to have an adult conversation while my magic 8 ball tells me what to do in life. I think that's really the only sensible perspective of someone who rejects the concept of faith and gods. This does not, of course, preclude you from making up your own preferred ideas to live by, or sticking to them. Since when does a thing need to be absolute to be worth doing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
Why would such a 'line' be necessary for it to be a disagreement of knowledge?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Why would such a 'line' be necessary for it to be a disagreement of knowledge? I'm arguing that there is no such thing as an absolute truth of either fact or ethics. You seem to be disagreeing with that, and saying it's because I don't know enough. So... where does your knowledge that there is an absolute truth come from?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:So can we just change the thread title to "Why Do Religions Hate the Left?" Anecdotally, it seems the winner of the competition for hating the Left is, by a country mile, the Left itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think that's really the only sensible perspective of someone who rejects the concept of faith and gods.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm arguing that there is no such thing as an absolute truth of either fact or ethics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
Here's a magic trick you might like: I'm going to make all the curtains you're trying to hide behind, ~disappear~ Your goal of morally equivocating religion and science is not grounded in a reasoned analysis, but a desire to reduce a political conflict between religious communities and modernity, or reflexively oppose people you do not like (harris et al). The reason you oppose me, is because I'm suggesting that that conflict is an inevitability. This makes you uncomfortable. Your hand-waving and sloppy debate about 'faith', 'absolute truth', etc. is just a bullshit smokescreen for this hidden concern. Your mistake is assuming that the loss of religious community as the binding glue of society constitutes a loss of either humanity or human compassion. In that, you're wrong, it simply means the loss of the structure of authority that religion represents, which has been continually used throughout history to promote the political agenda of whichever power has enough influence that community - whether that be particular governments (saudi arabia and islamism) or financial instiutions (prosperity gospel). rudatron fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Note that I'm not being judgemental here, your naked body isn't as ugly as you think but I don't want to go on a stupid wild goose chase, which is what this debate has turned into
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Here's a magic trick you might like: I'm going to all the curtains you're trying to hide behind, ~disappear~ I'm not remotely religious so I don't really think any of those things, though the person you seem to be imagining in your head sounds very dashing and interesting and I would love to read more fanfic of them. Rather, because as far as I can see, theism and atheism are primarily alternative assumptions about the fundamental nature of reality, I don't have a particular desire to, well, crusade for either one as the absolute righteous truth. From a materialist perspective, I do not find the argument that religion is inherently in opposition to leftism compelling, and to the extent that religious structure is presently in opposition to it, I think that it would be better attacked at the structural level rather than the individual one. You will not topple kyriarchy by hacking at the trappings it cloaks itself in. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Religious communities can not be anything but a roadblock for social change, because they represent the entrenched 'moral authority' of the societies in which they operate, itself tied to the ruling ideology, and therefore to the dominant productive modes. Your fantasy of religious communities not hating on leftists will always and forever remain a fantasy. Religion, then, is not a 'trapping' of authority, but an inherent expression and force of it - it acts as the 'moral' force upon which the ruling ideology can base itself on, capable of 'absolving' the sins of society, without ever threatening the structures that created them. It, like charity, acts as an essential component of the perpetuation of oppression, by acting as a salve on the moral consciousness of people, towards the inequities they see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Even the most brutal autocracy still rules over human beings, and human beings have a moral consciousness. Therefore, such oppression cannot occur without a bullshit 'excuse' for why the oppression is not only necessary, but itself righteous. Religious authority provides exactly that excuse. It is therefore a component of oppression, not an opposition to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Your proposal makes as much sense as firebombing charities as an act of accelerationism. Perhaps your efforts might be directed at the source of the exploitation, not the imperfect responses to it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Religious communities are as a 'cog' in the machine, not a response to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
On the other hand, liberation theology. You might as well suggest banning government because it is rarely socialist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
No one's mentioned anything about 'banning', and I don't think banning religion would be anything other than a total failure. I'm just trying to get you to open your eyes. You will never find meaningful opposition in religion, because that's not it's purpose for existence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
It's purpose for existence is to argue that there is such a thing as absolute knowledge, be it about the nature of the universe, right and wrong, whatever. That knowledge can be anything. Arguing that a belief in absolute truth must inherently favor capitalism is loving retarded. If a religion or community does that it's a problem that you should treat exactly the same way as you would a country, or organization that does that. You change it. Or I guess kill everyone in it if you like your leftism particularly authoritarian but I am going to assume, charitably, that you don't. Why on earth would an avowed leftist look at a structural problem and say "no it's the very nature of the structure that is wrong in this particular instance and so instead of removing the problem elements I'm going to smash the whole thing" like the most blinkered and intellectually malformed pop culture anarchist imaginable?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
What if Nazis hadn't . . . "WELL THEN THEY WOULDN'T BE NAZIS, WOULD THEY?" As soon as American Christianity starts doing cool poo poo I'll shut up about it. As long as it keeps offering bad to worse poo poo, I'll keep saying it's full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
Religious communities are not simply collections of metaphysical statements. People do not kill themselves over that. They die over what that symbolically represents to them - community, in-group, out-group & power. Coming to that realization is a necessary part of an honest analysis of the role of religion in society. I told you before, I don't think 'killing everyone'/'smash the whole thing'/'ban it all' is an acceptable answer. The situation we are in is more nuanced than that, the strategy must be more subtle & complex. What I am advocating is an honest, critical assessment. An assessment which must come to this conclusion: 'Leftism will never find, in religion, a reliable ally, or even a neutral party, but rather, a constant source of frustration'. Yet it is also true that religion is and will likely remain an influence far into the future. It is also true that a simple repression of religion will not work, towards either goal of emancipation from the authoritarianism that religion enables, nor the enculturing of a society of respect. Such a strategy will, instead, fail to achieve both, or push those goal backwards. These two statements are not contradictory, they must both be taken into consideration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's purpose for existence is to argue that there is such a thing as absolute knowledge, be it about the nature of the universe, right and wrong, whatever. That knowledge can be anything. Arguing that a belief in absolute truth must inherently favor capitalism is loving retarded. It's an authoritarian argument and that mode of thinking inevitably favors existing power structures. Not always, but more so than not. At any rate religion isn't very good at defining absolute truths. Religions disagree, within them denominations and within them churches and within them people disagree with each other. Religious people seem to evaluate claims like everybody else and if they do that then how is religion anything but a distraction?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Religious communities are not simply collections of metaphysical statements. People do not kill themselves over that. They die over what that symbolically represents to them - community, in-group, out-group & power. Coming to that realization is a necessary part of an honest analysis of the role of religion in society. So what's the problem? How is that different than a political movement?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
Sheesh I was just referencing the Problem of Induction in a jokey fashion. Obviously i take the pragmatic approach to that since i'm not dead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
rudatron plenty of progressive movements have been religious. I understand you might say on average religion is more often reactionary than not, but you seem to be making a much too hard claim. In principle, you should be able to look at the American right and American Christianity, note their close alignment, and wonder: how much of this is historically contingent, how much is due to something inherent to religions? I'd say an established religion could be a expected to be aligned with the rulers and oppressors, butler of this comes from the "established", not the "religion" part. Or, in one word, liberation theology. I should say I'm hugely biased here because my dad is a Christian and a socialist, so I know way more socialist Christians than most do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 09:26
|
|
|
Question for the religion-defenders. I feel like we can agree that you're defending religion as a regrettable but sometimes incidentally helpful ally to leftism, as a necessary evil that isn't going anywhere and appears to motivate certain people to fight for worthy causes. The problem here is that you could say this about anything, including paternalistic racism. What is the relevant difference between a group of people who argue for social programs based on their own private religious ideas and one who does so based on the idea that minorities are incapable of taking care of themselves and, because they are inferior to whites, need to be given an unfair but ultimately prudent leg up? Would you be defending the racist leftists with the same big tent bullshit as you do the religious leftists? Does this show you why, in a deliberative system, the argument used to arrive at a conclusion is just as important as the conclusion, when accepting those premises normalize them and allow them to be used similarly in other arguments? Either we accept idiocy with good outcomes or we don't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
What are the similarities between religion and paternalistic racism?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
They are both fundamentally poisonous motivators that can incidentally lead to good outcomes (I outlined this in the post, maybe read it)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
I disagree with your premise that religion is a necessary evil. Religion is extraordinarily good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
I don't know if we've had this before, but maybe we could have a show of hands, who's actually leftist, who's religious, who's hostile to religion? Just so we can put things in perspective better. I'd say I'm probably a liberal - the boring, technocratic Obama kind - but with sympathies for more socialist perspectives on economic matters and somewhat more libertarian ideals on social issues. I'm also somehow fairly hostile to the left, don't ask me how that works out. I'm culturally Christian, I'm an atheist, I'm moderately hostile to some religions aspects (I think it's fair to say that as a whole, today, the actual impact of Islam and at least the catholic and orthodox churches is bad), but I also really appreciate others (certain moral teachings, cultural aspects such as the inherent poetry of the texts, the spirit of community). Which is I guess about average on this board. The Kingfish posted:I disagree with your premise that religion is a necessary evil. Religion is extraordinarily good. coyo7e posted:Artificially adjusting cortisol levels is way outside of the scope of anything we did at my facility. Again, this really isn't meant as a diss against the research program as a whole, just the tiny component of it where one might wish to make a causal claim about the relationship between cortisol and decision making. The program as a whole seems very interesting and sound to me. coyo7e posted:Harris is charismatic and easy to talk to, and he's really well-practised at selling his party line after all those books saying the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I disagree with your premise that religion is a necessary evil. Religion is extraordinarily good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don't know if we've had this before, but maybe we could have a show of hands, who's actually leftist, who's religious, who's hostile to religion? Just so we can put things in perspective better. I'm pretty Far Left. I have bounced around a lot in my life but I always come back here because I think big government is good as it's a necessary tool to enforce equality and help people. My religious views are Agnostic but highly tolerant and interested in all faiths because they are fascinating and might be totally or partially right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
We don't actually live in a deliberative system where power and freedom are rationally justified. I think it is desirable to limit certain freedoms on the basis of religious dogma. Calvinst Far-left.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:We don't actually live in a deliberative system where power and freedom are rationally justified. I think it is desirable to limit certain freedoms on the basis of religious dogma. So you're a fascist then? Cool, I get to ignore you forever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
I'm a leftist and I'm only hostile to religion being inserted into the secular government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Culturally catholic cafeteria christian anarchist. I like me some jesus and reckon if you actually interpret scripture as you would any other historical or literary source there's some good poo poo hidden in there glossed over by a series of unreliable, biased narrators and censors through the ages. Of course, the true word of God in his native patois is best gleaned from the Gullah bible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
The verse cited in that Chick track is a major self own. Why would you point to the story of the rich young man as a defense of capitalism?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 17:11
|
|