|
CountFosco posted:Are those really the hills you want to die on? If I'm picking hills they seem pretty nice, and defensible too. Let's see who's dead when the smoke clears.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Being hostile to religion is stupid. It's like being hostile to a language.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:It really isn't. For one, syllables aren't known for spying in the name of fascists. Some people that speak English are spying for the Russians does that make English culpable? The religions are collections of symbols and stories that people use to talk about thier experience of reality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Being hostile to religion is stupid. It's like being hostile to a language. Pretty sure languages aren't campaigning to enslave women and minorities. EDIT: Also, since pretty much 100% of your posts on religion are about American Christianity, it's a pretty safe argument to say that some religions deserve every bit of hostility they are greeted with. I mean, the God of American Christianity is a book. Not even the god the book is supposedly about, but the book itself (or some edited version of said book, there is much arguing and hand-wringing about whether even the book can be trusted). Some Pinko Commie fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Some people that speak English are spying for the Russians does that make English culpable? Religions are tools for social control. For God and Country! God Bless America.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Religions are tools for social control. For God and Country! God Bless America. Gott mit uns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
And to be fair, if you bother to actually read the book, the God depicted in it is an irredeemable monster that makes the nightmares of HP Lovecraft look gentle in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:Pretty sure languages aren't campaigning to enslave women and minorities. One can rather easily demonstrate that language can be used to do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:One can rather easily demonstrate that language can be used to do that. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
did you guys know that not all muslims want to enslave women? oh, a bunch of muslim women are being enslaved in a bunch of muslim communities the world over? well, have you ever considered that it is not 100% of them? without nuance there is only racism, friends
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:did you guys know that not all muslims want to enslave women? I was talking about American Christianity and The Republican Party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:One can rather easily demonstrate that language can be used to do that. I don't think people are particularly hostile to an interpretation of religion that consciously equivocates it with words you can string together to form whatever meaning you feel like without any authority, claims of absolute truths etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Some people that speak English are spying for the Russians does that make English culpable? Ironically you posted almost the exact definition of what language is as a definition for religion. They are both collections of symbols that are used to interpret and talk about reality. If you want to honestly defend religion, you need to stick to a consistent definition for what religion actually is. At a broad level, there are certain requirements for something to be a religion and it isn't just using symbols to interpret reality. Religion, by definition, is concerned with "spiritual" matters. It also requires the invocation of some sort of ritual, whatever that may be. Additionally, religions must also be proscriptive, whether it require a particular interpretation of the world or a specific set of actions. You can get into details about what specifically counts as a religion, but in general religions are defined separately specifically because of their necessary entwinement with the supernatural. Complex belief systems and thought projects without this competent can be labeled philosophies, studies, etc. Religions are religions because of the God or whatever other supernatural part. Language is simply a tool where agreed upon symbols are used to convey messages. That analogy falls pretty flat considering that language doesn't require suspension of belief nor has any of the cultural baggage religion does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Religions are religions because of the God or whatever other supernatural part. Language is simply a tool where agreed upon symbols are used to convey messages. That analogy falls pretty flat considering that language doesn't require suspension of belief nor has any of the cultural baggage religion does. "Agreed upon symbols used to convey messages" Yeah people get together in councils and did just that. They went well we will use this symbol and not that one. Lets roll with these stories and not those stories. That literally what the nicene creed is and what they did to put the bible together. The religions are languages people use to talk about thier relationships with the ineffable real.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:"Agreed upon symbols used to convey messages" You're still twisting. Religions are not languages, they're ritual and ideology. Language is neither.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:You're still twisting. Religions are not languages, they're ritual and ideology. Language is neither. He's not using the same definitions you are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:He's not using the same definitions you are. He's not using any commonly accepted definition because they hurt his apologetics notion that religion is inherent to culture or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:"Agreed upon symbols used to convey messages" You're conflating the definitions again. Just because religions use symbols extensively, doesn't meant it's equatable to the basic tool of information exchange. Languages don't form narratives, they are used to form narratives. Religions are the narratives that are created from language. Agreeing that a certain sound or letter combo will be used to refer a specific concept or object is not comparable to agreeing on the nature and construct of the universe. Religions are not languages, that isn't a definition used by religious scholars of any denomination. English is a language that people use to talk about the "ineffable real" whatever mumbo jumbo that is, religion is the thing that posited this "ineffable real" even exists in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Y'all know we have a religion scholar on a cable news network , who makes this argument. This is not an esoteric view point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Y'all know we have a religion scholar on a cable news network , who makes this argument. This is not an esoteric view point. Being on a cable news network is a major strike against ones credibility.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:And to be fair, if you bother to actually read the book, the God depicted in it is an irredeemable monster that makes the nightmares of HP Lovecraft look gentle in comparison. Hey now, The All Loving God promised to never again murder every living thing on the planet save a chosen few in a fit of pique. Thats where rainbows come from! And its been a long time since He last firebombed cities for being naughty and turned a woman into salt for the sin of not being able to look away from the horror. He's one up on the modern world there. But seriously religion doesnt accomplish anything positive over and above what a naturally good person would have done anyways, but it does normalize a whole bunch of really horrible poo poo and protects just awful cultural practices in the guise of god and tradition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Hey now, The All Loving God promised to never again murder every living thing on the planet save a chosen few in a fit of pique. Thats where rainbows come from! In the tale of the flood, it doesn't happen because of a fit of pique. It happens because all of humanity reaches a threshold of evil that is unsustainable and is made actionable. It's hard for us to imagine a society that is so universally wicked that it is better for it to be euthanised than to attempt to reform it, but just because it is hard for us to imagine such a society does not make it impossible. Further, in the Sodom story, God already knows that it's a wicked place, a place where justice demands action, but in an act of mercy sends a couple of angels to try to find ten righteous people in order to spare the city as a whole. Before they even can get started, a mob literally comes to Lot's door demanding to rape angels. Naughty indeed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:How many atheist anti-abortion people are there anyways? I'm surprised that it's as low as 87%. I'd expect atheist support of legal abortion would be higher, around 90 or 95%. 13% is a pretty significant minority.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
It gets even more interesting when you realize that 87% includes both the "absolute right to abortion" and "legal in most cases" respondents, and the latter is likely larger than the former. Where are even these atheists willing to draw a line, and why?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
You can reject organized religion and still have rather fuzzy ideas about life, conception, and women's rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Of course, but I'd nevertheless like to know what they'd say.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:In the tale of the flood, it doesn't happen because of a fit of pique. It happens because all of humanity reaches a threshold of evil that is unsustainable and is made actionable. It's hard for us to imagine a society that is so universally wicked that it is better for it to be euthanised than to attempt to reform it, but just because it is hard for us to imagine such a society does not make it impossible. Yeah I can't imagine a society that's so bad that every child in it deserves to be drowned and I find the idea revolting. God is oddly supportive of Lot considering he offers up his daughters to be raped.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:It gets even more interesting when you realize that 87% includes both the "absolute right to abortion" and "legal in most cases" respondents, and the latter is likely larger than the former. Where are even these atheists willing to draw a line, and why? My personal objection to late term abortion as an absolute right is that the fetus becomes a sentient being at some point, and then it really is two individuals and bodily autonomy has to be weighed against right to life. But thats like nearly the third trimester, well past when the heart starts beating or even autonomic pain responses. Before that its just a clump of cells with some recognizable features and abortion should be a readily available right. In an ideal world there should probably be some input from the father at some stage, but lol if we're ever going to sort out that tangle in a society that restricts abortion in the first place. Lets just start with abortion up to the third trimester as a universal right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Why does God bother to send angels to Sodom, or anywhere else? He's supposedly omnipotent and omniscient. Why does he bother to create angels, or the world, or people if he already knows everything that will happen?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
That's because omnipotence and omniscience was tacked on in the early christian era when church fathers decided to try to mash neoplatonicism and the hot new jewish sect together. On a philosophical level it's kinda hard to reconcile a lot of things. The jewish god is initially one of many and up to the Maccabean revolt was probably part of an actual pantheon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Why does God bother to send angels to Sodom, or anywhere else? He's supposedly omnipotent and omniscient. Why does he bother to create angels, or the world, or people if he already knows everything that will happen? The Hebrew term, malak, literally means messenger. Usually they just convey messages but sometimes they actually seem to be a manifestation of YHWH. Agnosticnixie posted:That's because omnipotence and omniscience was tacked on in the early christian era when church fathers decided to try to mash neoplatonicism and the hot new jewish sect together. On a philosophical level it's kinda hard to reconcile a lot of things. The jewish god is initially one of many and up to the Maccabean revolt was probably part of an actual pantheon. You don't think there were moves towards exclusive worship of YHWH in the era of Josiah or the Persian period?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Casaubon posted:The Hebrew term, malak, literally means messenger. Usually they just convey messages but sometimes they actually seem to be a manifestation of YHWH. Exclusive worship, probably, moves towards monotheism and dualism, sure, but that kind of stuff takes centuries to cement itself into cultural ideology at the exclusion of everything else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:I'm surprised that it's as low as 87%. I'd expect atheist support of legal abortion would be higher, around 90 or 95%. 13% is a pretty significant minority. Meh it's not that surprising. As I've repeated many times, the absence of religion doesn't automatically make people progressive or tolerant. There's a significant number of rear end in a top hat sexist atheists out there, I would wager largely centered around the libertarian crowd. Sadly, that's still the best demographic on the subject. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
I'm okay with granting certain elements of contemporary religion as part of a kind of mythic language, but the vast majority of religious believers do not treat it that way, and ingrained in every religion is both a set of statements about the world (metaphysical claims) and moral arguments, and the two are often mixed together in a confusing way. The purpose of a language is to not just express things, but express things clearly and concisely, and religious-mythos-as-a-language fails on that last test.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 11:23
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Y'all know we have a religion scholar on a cable news network , who makes this argument. This is not an esoteric view point. Are you talking about Reza Aslan? He knows a lot about religions but I don't know if he is a good example to defend the virtues of religion. He definitely knows his poo poo, but even he says that there's no real way to tell the difference between a cult and a religion. He then laughs it off as how wacky and diverse religion is, without critically examining how troubling that is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:In the tale of the flood, it doesn't happen because of a fit of pique. It happens because all of humanity reaches a threshold of evil that is unsustainable and is made actionable. It's hard for us to imagine a society that is so universally wicked that it is better for it to be euthanised than to attempt to reform it, but just because it is hard for us to imagine such a society does not make it impossible. No, its all the evidence that makes it impossible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:In the tale of the flood, it doesn't happen because of a fit of pique. It happens because all of humanity reaches a threshold of evil that is unsustainable and is made actionable. It's hard for us to imagine a society that is so universally wicked that it is better for it to be euthanised than to attempt to reform it, but just because it is hard for us to imagine such a society does not make it impossible. That doesn't really make God any less of an rear end in a top hat considering he could have intervened long before Sodom became such a shithole.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Are you talking about Reza Aslan? He knows a lot about religions but I don't know if he is a good example to defend the virtues of religion. He definitely knows his poo poo, but even he says that there's no real way to tell the difference between a cult and a religion. He then laughs it off as how wacky and diverse religion is, without critically examining how troubling that is. I don't see why it's troubling. I'd say it's less to do with how diverse religions are and more to do with how diverse humans are. People want and need different things and that is why there are so many faiths out there. I'm personally very relativistic when it comes to assessing religions vs. cults because the whole idea of "deprogramming" is more disturbing than the idea of brainwashing, at least to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
There really aren't a lot of religions out there if you think about local concentration as opposed to global existence. Usually just one particular religion fills the niche for the area. Edit: People also very rarely choose their creed. That's why it has special protections. Thinking that people "choose" their religion is a very modern, essentially hyper-protestant view of how religion works and doesn't really apply outside of a very narrow subset of humanity. Shbobdb fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
Alhazred posted:That doesn't really make God any less of an rear end in a top hat considering he could have intervened long before Sodom became such a shithole. IE God should just turn us into cenobites.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 20:18
|
|