|
Bolocko posted:But we are talking about human relationships. The Bible is about relationships. We can pass things down to grow our knowledge, but we also pass down race hatred and family blood feuds. We cure disease, but oh, sorry, it involved experimentation without consent on a minority population and resulted in some terrible outcomes that affect their families for generations. So instead of passing down the cure for diseases God instead let us experiment on a minority population, presumably for shits and giggles.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
To be fair to science, I think the most important contributions to mankind's welfare have come about in comparatively ethical ways, and the most obvious examples of scientifically motivated abuses of human rights have no led to the most impressive gains. E.g., while Salk killed a bunch of children, that was due to accident. Borlaug didn't experiment on humans. Neither Flemming or Margaret Hutchinson Rousseau (who made producing penicillin at scale possible) did any abhorrent research. And neither Mengele nor the Tuskegee folks made contributions even approaching the contribution of any of the former. So the abhorrent and the beneficiary aspects of science seem to be in principle largely separable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:God let us Free will's a tough cookie
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Free will's a tough cookie How do you know free will even exists?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:This is something a lot of people — religious and non — don't always grasp, which reveals itself every time someone scoffs and says, LOL, but if the Torah/Bible/Qur'an/other were really the so-called word of God then wouldn't he have thrown some advanced physics in there? Some advanced chemistry for formulating important medicine? I think you fundamentally missed the point. Even the people in developing nations being exploited at sweat shops are still winning. They don't have to actually worry about survival or passing on their genes. The Bible is a political document that outlines the structures and some specifics for family structure, politics, worship method, the nature of existence, etc. The Bible is not primarily about relationships, and it's kind of a cop out to frame it that way. The idea that humans are flawed, sinners, in need of redemption, comes from a religious interpretation. The idea that we can be saved because we are worthy is ridiculous on its face. Why did we need to be saved in the first place then? I think love is important too but that's a weird rear end thought train. 1. Love is the most important thing. 2. We don't love each other often enough. 3. We should be ashamed at our societal level lack of love and tendency to hate. 4. Humans are therefore giant fuckups in general, but still worthy of divine grace. It still seems the foundational level of that perspective is seriously flawed, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The realization that the universe is hostile & unforgiving is a precondition to changing it. A belief in a universe that is fundamentally 'just' encourages inaction. A belief that the universe is hostile and unforgiving can just as easily be taken as a reason for inaction. After all, if the universe is hostile and unforgiving, how can we hope with our own small means to possibly effect it positively? Similarly, a belief in a just universe encourages inaction when you take it to a fundamentalist, irrational extreme. Clearly there is injustice in (what I believe) to be a universe meant for justice. This injustice encourages me to be just, in order to help the universe, which is just in intention, to be more itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:How in the hell can you conceive of people being gently caress ups in a scientific view? If your conception of victory is merely the continuation of human genetic material, and simple existence then I really don't know what to say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Things that do not exist: Freedom Pride Blame Praise Love (maybe)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Things that do not exist: We've known about the concept of concepts for a long time, my dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:If your conception of victory is merely the continuation of human genetic material, and simple existence then I really don't know what to say. It basically is though ultimately? I mean surviving the death of our solar system would be the most amazing thing imaginable. We could outlive the life cycle of our original planet. Of course doing that is all sci-fi now but if we manage to not kill ourselves maybe in a few thousand years. It's about viewing our scope in both the world and the universe as accurately as possible. We "won" life on Earth already. We are currently the most successful species on land. Life on Earth is competition, and we simply outcompeted every other species because we utilized our intelligence. We reshape our local environments and species to better accommodate humans. It is unprecedented for a single species to affect things at the global scale like humans are able to. Agriculture, infrastructure, fishing, animal husbandry, medicine, etc. and now even direct genetic modification. So yes on the biological scale humans have already won, we just don't know what to do with the spoils. I think our societies and general communal constructs have a lot of improvement that needs to be done. Especially given how unnecessarily harsh living conditions are for most people. But as a species, humans are hardcore winners. My conception of personal and societal victories, my "purpose" in life, does not need to counter the fact that humans have dominated the Earth and are an incredibly successful and capable species. It's one of the points of abrasion in a progressive and scientific understanding of the universe versus spiritually grounded thinking. Conceiving of people as flawed, fallen, needing a connection to the divine, and all the other nonsense forged in religious thought just muddies the water when trying to change society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
We've pretty much already killed the planet we live on, we extinguish entire other species on a daily basis. I don't really consider this winning. We may dominate our natural environment, but if we carry on with our current trajectory this will have dire consequences for the viability of life itself on this planet and the distant dream of slipping earth's surly bonds and forging on into space is as deluded as believing in the rapture. We have one planet and we're loving it up massively. If we somehow do find a way to abandon spaceship earth and carry on elsewhere it'll only be a few of us and billions of folk will carry on living and dying on this toxified, decrepit sphere of ruin until our habitat becomes truly untenable -- a state of affairs creeping closer by the day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:We've pretty much already killed the planet we live on, we extinguish entire other species on a daily basis. I don't really consider this winning. We may dominate our natural environment, but if we carry on with our current trajectory this will have dire consequences for the viability of life itself on this planet and the distant dream of slipping earth's surly bonds and forging on into space is as deluded as believing in the rapture. We have one planet and we're loving it up massively. If we somehow do find a way to abandon spaceship earth and carry on elsewhere it'll only be a few of us and billions of folk will carry on living and dying on this toxified, decrepit sphere of ruin until our habitat becomes truly untenable -- a state of affairs creeping closer by the day. Secular morality has a better track record on this though. Religious Americans mostly voted for a government that intends to dismantle the EPA, revive coal etc while the irreligious mostly voted against it and it's scientists that lead the struggle to change our current path.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:It basically is though ultimately? I mean surviving the death of our solar system would be the most amazing thing imaginable. We could outlive the life cycle of our original planet. I can think of several things more amazing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:How do you know free will even exists? Determinism is a pastry of an entirely different flavor, and not a pleasant one at that. Either way, it's a bum rap. The Problem of Evil still exists, and was enough to break my faith. If anything, in a fully deterministic universe the Problem is worse, because it means that all evil is actively chosen by God.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:We've pretty much already killed the planet we live on, we extinguish entire other species on a daily basis. I don't really consider this winning. We may dominate our natural environment, but if we carry on with our current trajectory this will have dire consequences for the viability of life itself on this planet and the distant dream of slipping earth's surly bonds and forging on into space is as deluded as believing in the rapture. We have one planet and we're loving it up massively. If we somehow do find a way to abandon spaceship earth and carry on elsewhere it'll only be a few of us and billions of folk will carry on living and dying on this toxified, decrepit sphere of ruin until our habitat becomes truly untenable -- a state of affairs creeping closer by the day. Perfect example on why providing an unconditional endgame is self-destructive. Religion might have been great to set the moral tone several thousand years ago, but it outlived its' purpose since before the dark ages and lives on as a corrupted version of itself in the New Testament, Quran, tanakh & revised Catholicism (the best one). The dark ages were the ages where the bible was rule of law, but why does everybody (including the religious type) remember them as dark? It was terrible. Technology actually reversed several hundred years instead of stagnating, religious wars (crusades) were common and plague was rampant. Religion is still the biggest killer (of people and non-people) on this planet. Even if you ignore the whole environment thing (lol) you have that terrible voting base across the planet that believes that bi or homosexuality is evil, any sort of abortion or contraceptive on this already overpopulated planet is baby murder, and literally defines our whole political system despite our constitutional firewall between church & state. As a result, we have the highest crime rate of any developed country, more jailed per capita than any country period, terrible literacy rates, are scientists are second rate despite having access to the highest monetary resources, and we spend more on military than the next 26 countries combined. We have so many homeless people despite being so economically prosperous. How many homeless people holding signs have you seen that DID NOT say "god bless" at the end? Sure, religion still provides some minor benefits like food drives for the homeless, but how many people are homeless directly because of religion & the assumption of Gods' Will shall lead the way for them, so they don't need to personally better their situation? Almost all the global stress can be attributed to religion today. Do you think America would be protecting the borderline sadistic behaviors of Israel if not for religion? Would Al'Qaeda have a base to operate on? How much earlier would have womens' rights came, and slavery ended? You can't even discuss anything worthwhile about it to the religious. The vast majority are trained to belch out some passage from their book of choice as a retort, often barely comprehending what they even parroted so the merits of which cannot even be questioned & further indoctrinates them. There may be some wonderful people who are religious, but the vast majority are a far cry from practising the actual teachings of their religion (especially those of jesus christ) & are completely outclassed by atheists & the agnostic in that regard. Of course, this as well is covered through their indoctrination by stating we are born of sin & god's will, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Free will's a tough cookie I'm having a difficult time finding anything about free will in the Torah/Bible/Qur'an, instead it's full of god directly intervening and some time changing the minds of people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
Nobody serious refers to the early Middle Ages as the "dark ages" anymore. The Catholic Church was the only institution that kept the old knowledge alive in Europe and there were many technologic advances made during that time. Religion is not the biggest killer of people on the planet and it is not the biggest "global stress." Climate change denialists would absolutely exist without religion because capital would simply adopt a different rationale for their propaganda. In fact I doubt the majority of climate change denialism is rationalized in religious terms. America would absolutely support Israel regardless of religion for the same reasons America also supports brutal secular and Islamic states. Al-Qaeda would still exist on secular terms for the same reasons that nationalist terrorist groups also exist. It is just as easy to justify slavery on secular terms as it is on religious terms. Contemporaries of the American abolitionist movement considered them a bunch of crazy religious zealots. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
John Brown was a literal prophet. As was Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:We've pretty much already killed the planet we live on, we extinguish entire other species on a daily basis. I don't really consider this winning. We may dominate our natural environment, but if we carry on with our current trajectory this will have dire consequences for the viability of life itself on this planet and the distant dream of slipping earth's surly bonds and forging on into space is as deluded as believing in the rapture. We have one planet and we're loving it up massively. If we somehow do find a way to abandon spaceship earth and carry on elsewhere it'll only be a few of us and billions of folk will carry on living and dying on this toxified, decrepit sphere of ruin until our habitat becomes truly untenable -- a state of affairs creeping closer by the day. That's why I said we circle back around to losing. Unless we can get enough of the species on board with serious measures to protect the environment, we are sort of hosed. Even then though it will likely not be a species killing event. We might lose 40-50% of our population, and that would be horrific. Lots of horrible things coming with climate change, but again we will still survive as a species and hopefully learn our lessons. Religion does not have the answer for these global problems. Sure there are good examples like Japan protecting massive amounts of forests for spiritual reasons, but overall a religious method of thinking makes most people not worry about it because God(s) can fix things anyways. Countries with higher religiosity trend towards not giving a poo poo about the environment, and that's a big goddamn deal that gets brushed away because not every single religion acts that way. I don't have a rapture/lottery winning idea I will personally be saved. I said it's not happening for thousands of years, if at all. CountFosco posted:I can think of several things more amazing. I maybe should have said one of the most amazing things, but still it would be an achievement that takes our species to a whole new level. It's crazy this isn't a long term (hundreds of years) goal for people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
I can tell someone who talks of the dark ages doesn't actually know any history. The only part of the world that was "dark" was western europe and this was due to specific breakdown of institutions of government. The rest of the world did alright (Well up till the Mongols came). Also to the rest about America being this backward nation you actually think religion did that? Yeah America may be ground zero for Neoliberal destruction but thats now happening all over Europe, and yet it is somehow religionsfault for the destructivness of neoliberalism? Despite the fact Neoliberalisms designers were mostly agnostics? On Israel yeah certainly some Calvis help back some ofthe actions but I know plenty of atheist neocons who also back that nation, hell I know plenty of the same who back Saudi Arabia. Also lol about slavery, you know plenty in the enlightenment advocated scientifically for blacks to be endowed with characteristics that made them enjoy or need bondage right? To the fct that many are hypocrites, so are most humans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
Interstellar colonization is not a priority because capital determines the goals of our society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Interstellar colonization is not a priority because capital determines the goals of our society. If you want to go to the stars, smash capital.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
Literally nothing happens in late-stage capitalism without a profit motive. But religion is the real problem because of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
Here's the deal about Calvinism: It's insanely good so long as you trust God to not be an rear end in a top hat about who gets saved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Here's the deal about Calvinism: It's insanely good so long as you trust God to not be an rear end in a top hat about who gets saved. And it has no response to the problem of evil besides "pray harder", which means god is not only inherently an rear end in a top hat but also rewards faith over actually not being a jackass. That's not even going into what historical calvinism has been, which is easily the worst branch of the reformation even accounting for Luther being a giant poo poo. At least the society of friends and the breakaway black churches don't have "we embraced chattel slavery wholesale" as part of their history. More importantly, the obsession with the afterlife is like reason number 2 the left is historically hostile to monotheistic religions, slightly after their tendency to get in bed with reactionary powers that be the instant anything happens that might shake them up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
*hot take incoming* The left is not hostile to islam boy howdy! Did you guys know that millions of muslim women are coerced into covering their hair and bodies every day? BUT since *some* of them choose to wear it I'm gonna make a siiiiiiick american flag poster with this hijabi woman on it cause it's like we're *all* slut-shamed daily by our husbands and brothers and fathers and sons. (found this thread through some guy's rap sheet.. sorry) Oh and the left *should* be hostile to religion. Religions are just cults with lots of members, so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:*hot take incoming* Religious garb for women that covers them "sexually" has always been a huge sore spot in meshing religion with progressive ideology. Whether it be nuns, hajibs, or just a head scarf there is a not subtle implication that women are sexual objects. The main counter argument is that it is a choice and that is what feminism is all about. That falls flat though when the religion does not have the same restrictions for men. Even if it is a choice, that choice reinforces stereotypes and objectification and should be frowned upon. American's puritan history makes us not immune to this at all. Up through the early 20th century women had to wear and be depicted in "modest" clothes. It was a scandal that Emma Watson showed half her breasts in an artful Vanity Fair cover because of worldwide religious reinforcement of "purity" and "chastity" for women. It's a complete bullshit double standard that religious clothing only helps perpetuate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:The main counter argument is that it is a choice and that is what feminism is all about. That falls flat though when the religion does not have the same restrictions for men. Even if it is a choice, that choice reinforces stereotypes and objectification and should be frowned upon. Meanwhile, muslim men are wearing hijab in protest of middle eastern laws requiring women to wear them http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/men-in-iran-are-wearing-hijabs-in-solidarity-with-their-wives-a7160146.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 12:08
|
|
|
The flip-side of this is stuff like France's burkini bans, though, where the implication is not "woman, cover thyself", but "woman, reveal thyself." If modest dress standards enforce objectification, I'd argue that enforcing immodest standards of dress does the same, demanding that women make their bodies available to male delectation. Clothing in western secular society is gendered too, though perhaps more fluidly, and is geared towards a certain presentation and expectation. I mean, sure, some western women choose to wear high heels, but even if it is a choice, that choice reinforces stereotypes and objectification and should be frowned upon, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It is just as easy to justify slavery on secular terms as it is on religious terms. Contemporaries of the American abolitionist movement considered them a bunch of crazy religious zealots. Non-religious arguments for slavery exist but they are inconsistent with the popular movements of secular morality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:demanding that women make their bodies available to male delectation The only people I know asking for bans (specifically, banning full face veil in some contexts, e.g. classrooms) are women and they're from what I can tell not motivated by male delectation, but out of righteous anger at sexism and/or pragmatic reasons (need to see the face to detect emotions).
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Literally nothing happens in late-stage capitalism without a profit motive. But religion is the real problem because of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
The issue with the language of 'objectification' is that, more often then not, it's simply used to refer to 'sexualized' - the implication being that whenever a woman starts projecting a sexual image, or acts in a sexual manner, they automatically degrade themselves. This is a trap that a lot of feminist thinkers fall into, and the 'flip side of the burka'/'high heels' thing is like exhibit A in this: A woman wearing high heels no more 'reinforces stereotypes'/'objectifies herself' than anyone does to themselves when they're flirting. The truth is that arguments around the burqa have very little to do with women, and everything to do with relations between the west and the muslim world - the most prominent agitators of the 'sexism of muslims' are the exact same kind of people who, in any other context, demand that woman 'stop acting like sluts' (read: get back in the kitchen).
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Here's the deal about Calvinism: It's insanely good so long as you trust God to not be an rear end in a top hat about who gets saved. Why would you ever trust god to not be an rear end in a top hat about who gets saved?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:The flip-side of this is stuff like France's burkini bans, though, where the implication is not "woman, cover thyself", but "woman, reveal thyself." If modest dress standards enforce objectification, I'd argue that enforcing immodest standards of dress does the same, demanding that women make their bodies available to male delectation. Clothing in western secular society is gendered too, though perhaps more fluidly, and is geared towards a certain presentation and expectation. I mean, sure, some western women choose to wear high heels, but even if it is a choice, that choice reinforces stereotypes and objectification and should be frowned upon, right? Counter hot-take, aside from the usual suspects, some of the biggest supporters for these bans have been secular arabs or "drinks, sometimes remembers to pray" muslims. There's a strong tendency to hate the university of Cairo among more orthodox muslims because a lot of the legal scholars there have opinions that go from setting the hijab as the limit to considering all forms of veil to be an antiquated cultural interpretation with no actual scriptural support beyond a vague call for modesty. The politicization of the whole thing on all sides and the way it's largely been turned into a propaganda war for european and middle eastern far rights basically poisoned the well on the subject anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Bates posted:Non-religious arguments for slavery exist but they are inconsistent with the popular movements of secular morality. You know secular morality was at one time based explicitly on racial hirarchy right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why would you ever trust god to not be an rear end in a top hat about who gets saved? Because its better than the alternative and it makes no difference either way?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Tonetta posted:Meanwhile, muslim men are wearing hijab in protest of middle eastern laws requiring women to wear them Ok that's cool? Still makes the hijab horrible. I also said that nuns in habits have the same exact problem. TomViolence posted:The flip-side of this is stuff like France's burkini bans, though, where the implication is not "woman, cover thyself", but "woman, reveal thyself." If modest dress standards enforce objectification, I'd argue that enforcing immodest standards of dress does the same, demanding that women make their bodies available to male delectation. Clothing in western secular society is gendered too, though perhaps more fluidly, and is geared towards a certain presentation and expectation. I mean, sure, some western women choose to wear high heels, but even if it is a choice, that choice reinforces stereotypes and objectification and should be frowned upon, right? Nope this argument is full of poo poo. A legal requirement to wear more revealing clothing is a continuation of objectification. Are you seriously comparing wearing heels to be the equivalent of someone wearing a habit or full veil? One of them has religious connotation specifically protecting the modesty of women, the other is a freaking shoe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Nope this argument is full of poo poo. A legal requirement to wear more revealing clothing is a continuation of objectification. Are you seriously comparing wearing heels to be the equivalent of someone wearing a habit or full veil? One of them has religious connotation specifically protecting the modesty of women, My point was that it's not merely religious societies where women's modes of dress are influenced by an objectifying male gaze.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
I don't think France's burkini stuff is a feminist issue at all? It's about secularism, pure and simple. France is the living embodiment of everything the US Religious Right fears. Religion is adamantly kept out of the public square and government because of French cultural history of a lot of wars and other bad poo poo happening because of religion. This is the explanation I got from French posters and diplomats anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 19:12
|
|
