|
RandomBlue posted:My point was that the right has loving mastered cognitive dissonance, as this last election has shown. Really it's just an extension of how religious beliefs work, reality is what you chose it to be. This is a group of people that would laugh and shake their heads if you asked if magic was real but then get angry when you ask how miracles, angels and demons are different from magic. I'm with you that cognitive dissonance is the norm, but it goes beyond religion to the way most people process information. Hillary dead-enders are proof enough of that, or all these Putin-stole-the-election people waiting for a magical do-over. That's why I mention chemtrails, some classic non-denominational bullshit. But if we accept that everybody believes what they want, and nobody can talk to anybody (or even that there's no point talking to %75 of the country), then where does that leave us?
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
Agag posted:I'm with you that cognitive dissonance is the norm, but it goes beyond religion to the way most people process information. Hillary dead-enders are proof enough of that, or all these Putin-stole-the-election people waiting for a magical do-over. That's why I mention chemtrails, some classic non-denominational bullshit. I don't know, I don't think anyone does, which is why religion has been with us for thousands of years. Calm, rational debate without trying to score points is probably the best way to eventually sway a few of them. Most of the time I see atheists debating with religious people they spend more time trying to score points and "win" than actually trying to convince the other side of their views.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Rational argument doesn't change minds. Emotion, peer pressure, the endorsement of trusted authorities, and personal crises do. If you want to influence the cultural balance of power in this country, the #1 battleground is the education system, and #2 is probably churches. There isn't really any secular equivalent to the community binding that churches represent, at least not that I can think of, which doesn't work in our favor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Yeah, the idea that you can turn people atheist through rational argument has always been the weakness of nu-atheists. Same issue Sorkin liberals have. Churches going hog wild like they're already doing in the US, though? That's always been pretty much the number one thing that leads to ministers hanging from lampposts a few years down the line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:You know not all 501(c)(3) organizations are charities, right? Yes but churches claim to be highly charitable organizations. They don't just sell themselves as "non profit community builders", they clearly identify as a charity, not just non profit. Alhazred posted:No he did not: "And one day we must ask the question, 'Why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth.' When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society Speech to Southern Christian Leadership Conference Atlanta, Georgia, August 16, 1967. "Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God's children." - Speech to the Negro American Labor Council, 1961 "We must recognize that we can't solve our problem now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power... this means a revolution of values and other things. We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together... you can't really get rid of one without getting rid of the others... the whole structure of American life must be changed. America is a hypocritical nation and [we] must put [our] own house in order."- Report to SCLC Staff, May 1967. He may have specifically said communism was too materialistic, but his core message was always more economic justice than Jesus saving people. But again that doesn't fit the popular TV narrative that nice Christianity is the reason things got better. Agag posted:Yep. And an overwhelming majority of Americans are religious. Therefore the left has to speak to religious people in a persuasive manner to shave off some of those votes. You keep writing your own history of events. I already pointed out that it was only when secularism started getting involved in Abolition that progress started to be made. The reasons why those White Christians were persuaded to be against slavery were primarily secular arguments based on our government structure and constitution. But no progressives should keep trying to change Christianity to fit a progressive mold in the face of centuries of ineffectiveness. E: artifacts RasperFat fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:that quote should follow rasperflats around everywhere like an angry poltergeist I misspoke when I said communism specifically. Radical redistribution of capital coupled with racial justice was his core message. I guess I'm projecting on MLK when he repeatedly said capitalism as a system is a huge problem. He was a reverend of course he talked about God a lot, but that wasn't his primary message when speaking about civil rights. We just don't talk about he fact that he was pushing radical wealth redistribution all the time because the Cold War anti-communist view dominates our teaching of history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Yes but churches claim to be highly charitable organizations. They don't just sell themselves as "non profit community builders", they clearly identify as a charity, not just non profit. "Churches" perform and manage a ton of charitable activity, but churches, more narrowly and, for our purposes here, defined, are not charities, they're churches: places to serve the spiritual needs of the local faith community. They don't sell themselves as either "non-profit community builders", or business enterprises, or as charities, though they may in part include each of those things — they sell themselves as houses of worship. quote:He may have specifically said communism was too materialistic, but his core message was always more economic justice than Jesus saving people. But again that doesn't fit the popular TV narrative that nice Christianity is the reason things got better. His economic justice, like that of Christians across the ages, followed directly from his religious principles and focus, such that they were inextricably linked. Justice and charity are part of the work of a follower of Jesus; Christian activity comparable to 'socialist' action has existed since the dawn of the Church. You're right that this doesn't fit the popular TV narrative (or a lot of what passes for "Christian" in the U.S. today), which is, as it usually is, wrong, but it isn't alien to Christianity. Dr King spoke harshly against capitalism, but he did so within a long tradition of Christian activism. Bolocko fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
I would find it rather difficult to separate King's philosophy from his religious views, he certainly seemed to regard them as being part of each other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:"Churches" perform and manage a ton of charitable activity, but churches, more narrowly and, for our purposes here, defined, are not charities, they're churches: places to serve the spiritual needs of the local faith community. They don't sell themselves as either "non-profit community builders", or business enterprises, or as charities, though they may in part include each of those things — they sell themselves as houses of worship. In what world do churches not sell themselves as charity? Go ask any church leader if their church is a charity organization and they will say yes. "Doing the Lord's good work" and all that is a central message to basically every church. Have you ever read King's speeches in their entirety? Because what you are arguing is simply not true. King argued that principles laid out by the constitution granted rights to all Americans. He didn't use spiritual mumbo jumbo or proselytize with Jesus for his evidence. Let's take a look at his most famous speech: MLK posted:"I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation. If you look you'll see some references to God's children and a single Bible quote. However, his overwhelming message was not religious. It was secular arguments based on secular ideas. Just a dashing of religious rhetoric, not sermonizing or trying to force other churches to be progressive. This was one of his most poetic and spiritual speeches that wasn't a straight up sermon. All of his movement speeches follow a similar format. I'm not taking out of my rear end when I say MLK's main push wasn't religion, it was justice. It's a deliberate rewriting of history. The overwhelming majority of churches didn't support the civil rights movement, just like they didn't support Abolition. The narrative framing makes it seem like there was widespread religious support for these movements, which is simply untrue. It makes American Christianity look a whole lot less lovely though, which is why it is popular. Can't have it look like 75%+ of our churches were complicit in systematic racism just a few decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
And I'm sure it's hard to separate the views of Bayard Rustin, Angela Davis and the BPP from largely atheistic communism. The black church is also too small a subgroup of the church to use it as the basis for apologetics when most mainline churches have been almost always consistently reactionary (and before the quakers are brought up, look up their numbers) and used to be firmly opposed to their liberation movement or most liberation movements period. The religious beliefs of a Tolstoy or a John Brown weren't those of the mainline churches of their day either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:If you look you'll see some references to God's children and a single Bible quote. However, his overwhelming message was not religious. It was secular arguments based on secular ideas. Just a dashing of religious rhetoric, not sermonizing or trying to force other churches to be progressive. This was one of his most poetic and spiritual speeches that wasn't a straight up sermon. It is all religious and what you're doing is disengenious and ignores the history of Christianity. I also think you know enough to know why your arguement is one of bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
yeah bit see mlk didnt go up on stage and shout 'ooga booga' and sacrifice a chicken so im pretty sure it wasnt religious
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It is all religious and what you're doing is disengenious and ignores the history of Christianity. I also think you know enough to know why your arguement is one of bad faith. The calvinist church in South Africa was literally one of the ideological roots of apartheid. The southern baptists separated from the mostly defunct northern ones over slavery. The catholic church barely managed to give a gently caress about slavery until it was abolished and when push came to shove sided with power unless it was absolutely, pointless safe not to do it, and had a history of tolerating slavery for non-christians just fine. The church of England had shares in the slave trade. Catholic missionaries were deeply involved in the Rwanda genocide as part of the birth of the garbage ideology that caused it. The history of christianity is full of bullshit like this. Cherry-picking one particular movement that included some rabidly secular people as some sort of inherent root of christianity is crass apologia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It is all religious and what you're doing is disengenious and ignores the history of Christianity. I also think you know enough to know why your arguement is one of bad faith. It's not an argument in bad faith at all. The history of Christianity is reactionary, not progressive. A few splinters joining the tide of secular progress does not get to define Christianity when it represents an extreme minority. MLK was a brilliant rhetor and that's why he allied his cause and rhetoric with secularism. Many of his closest allies were not even Christian. The entire speech is framed around the promises of the explicitly secular constitution and the promises of democracy. These are not spiritual arguments no matter how you try to frame it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:yeah bit see mlk didnt go up on stage and shout 'ooga booga' and sacrifice a chicken so im pretty sure it wasnt religious How inflammatory and edgy, and not at all what I was talking about. What you don't see is MLK promising damnation or salvation for opposing/joining the civil rights cause. You know, religious based arguments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
mmm yeah surely the depth and span of a black man's spirituality is limited to 'jesus saves'-isms and fire-and-brimstone jeremiads
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:You keep writing your own history of events. I already pointed out that it was only when secularism started getting involved in Abolition that progress started to be made. No offense, man, but that is major bullshit. RandomBlue posted:I don't know, I don't think anyone does, which is why religion has been with us for thousands of years. Calm, rational debate without trying to score points is probably the best way to eventually sway a few of them. Most of the time I see atheists debating with religious people they spend more time trying to score points and "win" than actually trying to convince the other side of their views. I see what you are trying to say, but this also seems a bit like Sorkinism. "We are the rational adults, we just need to explain it to the people who aren't." Hasn't been working too well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:And I'm sure it's hard to separate the views of Bayard Rustin, Angela Davis and the BPP from largely atheistic communism. The majority of churches are reactionary because the majority of people are always reactionary. What Christianity (in an overwhelmingly Christian population) provides is a moral language and framework from which to argue for reforms. Something that can appeal to people who grew up within that culture and, in many cases historically, don't know anything else. Its also quite a stretch to assume that atheism or secularism or rationalism automatically leads to a progressive or desirable society. There's no reason to assume it will, and there are few historical or present day examples in which it has. When we ask people to abandon their religious or traditional view of the world in favor of a better one, we don't actually have any concrete examples to show them. The only thing I can think of is the Gay Rights movement, which I certainly support %100, but which some Christians also support, and which is very recent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:The entire speech is framed around the promises of the explicitly secular constitution and the promises of democracy. These are not spiritual arguments no matter how you try to frame it. Where does the idea of equality under law come from? How does it end up in American civic religion?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Agag posted:I see what you are trying to say, but this also seems a bit like Sorkinism. "We are the rational adults, we just need to explain it to the people who aren't." Hasn't been working too well. Actually I was describing how two people generally discuss differing viewpoints like rational people, on both sides. You're the one throwing in disparagement/patronizing of the other side. I do think their religious views are irrational, as in "not based in reason or logic", but treating them like children, which is basically what you were saying, won't help in opening their eyes. Christianity, specifically, has many many defenses built into it and hammered into their followers. I was taught that the Devil knows scripture as well as any Christian and will twist it's wording to use it against you. The bible outright states that one of the worst things anyone can do is cause someone else to lose faith: "It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble." etc... etc... So basically anyone arguing against the religion is just the Devil attacking your faith and of course the things they say make sense because the Devil is a trickster yada yada yada. Anyone have good sources on methods used to counter brainwashing or help rehabilitate cult members, etc.. besides the obvious separation from other cult members? Really the only difference between organized religion and cults are basically the number of followers and society's view of them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Where does the idea of equality under law come from? Christianity has a 2000 years history that is a lot more relevant than liberals trying to see their reflection in the gospels, hth. Also it was already America's main religion when the country was a colony of royalist slavers. I am also fairly sure that the plebeian revolts didn't need to wait for Jesus to be born to think it might be cool to be equal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:I am also fairly sure that the plebeian revolts didn't need to wait for Jesus to be born to think it might be cool to be equal. Right another religious tradition with a boner for the "Logos" came up with the idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
RandomBlue posted:Actually I was describing how two people generally discuss differing viewpoints like rational people, on both sides. You're the one throwing in disparagement/patronizing of the other side. Ok you aren't talking about talking down to anyone, and I'm definitely not talking about talking down to anyone, so apparently we agree? quote:Christianity, specifically, has many many defenses built into it and hammered into their followers. I was taught that the Devil knows scripture as well as any Christian and will twist it's wording to use it against you. The bible outright states that one of the worst things anyone can do is cause someone else to lose faith: "It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble." etc... etc... So basically anyone arguing against the religion is just the Devil attacking your faith and of course the things they say make sense because the Devil is a trickster yada yada yada. Except this sounds just a little bit condescending......
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Christianity has a 2000 years history that is a lot more relevant than liberals trying to see their reflection in the gospels, hth. Not sure what you mean by "plebian revolts" but slave revolts had very immediate motivations, and the French and American revolutions are products of the Enlightenment, but also don't make sense without looking even further back to the Reformation and the assertion of the rights of the individual in a Christian context, even if the compromise in that era was cuius regio, eius religio. This entire notion of equality developed in the West within a Christian context. Which is not to say that equality is unthinkable in other contexts (other religions, socialism), just to say that this is how it developed in the West.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
Agag posted:Except this sounds just a little bit condescending...... Well I'm not trying to debate your religion or lack thereof with you and it's obviously something I wouldn't say or state outright in such a discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
RandomBlue posted:Well I'm not trying to debate your religion or lack thereof with you and it's obviously something I wouldn't say or state outright in such a discussion. Don't assume I'm religious. My point is that you said you didn't want to talk down to people, and then said that the group I'm talking about speaking to politically on their own terms are really a bunch of brainwashed cult members.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Agag posted:Don't assume I'm religious. My point is that you said you didn't want to talk down to people, and then said that the group I'm talking about speaking to politically on their own terms are really a bunch of brainwashed cult members. I was actually assuming you were agnostic or atheist but I have no idea, we've been discussing HOW to discuss/change religious views, I thought... My view is that the majority of religious believers are brainwashed since birth is something I've stated multiple times in this thread and I don't see it as condescending because they were basically given no choice in the matter. That's why I was religious the first 20 or so years of my life. It's why most people are religious. The majority of religious people were born into religion and something like 83-89% of people never change from the religion they were born into, I forget the exact stat. The cult thing is new but I brought it up because there isn't much difference, by definition, between them and anti-cult tactics might be something to look into for tactics to use in order to help change people's views. cult: "a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister." or "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object" So basically exactly what I said. The difference between a cult and a religion is the size and acceptance by society. RandomBlue fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Apr 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
RandomBlue posted:I was actually assuming you were agnostic or atheist but I have no idea, we've been discussing HOW to discuss/change religious views, I thought... Sorry if I was being unclear. I was talking about changing people's political positions by speaking to them in religious terms. Not artificially by pretending to be religious when you are not, but by forming and authentic synthesis between Christianity and your political aims (as per the MLK example earlier). quote:My view that the majority of religious believers are brainwashed since birth is something I've stated multiple times in this thread and I don't see it as condescending because they were basically given no choice in the matter. How can you possibly consider this view anything but condescending? I get that you personally believe it, but what is the political use of such a view?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Agag posted:Sorry if I was being unclear. I was talking about changing people's political positions by speaking to them in religious terms. Not artificially by pretending to be religious when you are not, but by forming and authentic synthesis between Christianity and your political aims (as per the MLK example earlier). How is this different than what is currently being done?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
So you can't tell the difference between a synthesis and what the thread MO is...
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:How is this different than what is currently being done? At the national level liberals are perceived as being hostile to religion and contemptuous of people who identify as religious. Transparent attempts to pander to them are seen through immediately.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Agag posted:At the national level liberals are perceived as being hostile to religion and contemptuous of people who identify as religious. Transparent attempts to pander to them are seen through immediately. Support your argument using examples. Be sure to clearly distinguish what is "pandering" and what is "genuine belief". Shbobdb fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Apr 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Support your argument using examples. The total collapse of the Democratic party at the state and congressional level. The imminent threat to even such modest concessions as have been won from the religious right during the Obama years on gay rights and reproductive rights. The failure of the left to offer any effective opposition to this except hostility and condescension.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
That's not an example. So you are saying the dems should give up on gay and reproductive rights? That would be genuine belief?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:edit: Be sure to clearly distinguish what is "pandering" and what is "genuine belief". Hillary is a pandering fraud. MLK was genuine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
Agag posted:The total collapse of the Democratic party at the state and congressional level. The imminent threat to even such modest concessions as have been won from the religious right during the Obama years on gay rights and reproductive rights. The failure of the left to offer any effective opposition to this except hostility and condescension. And we're sure that the hostility started from the left rather than from the reactionary churches because...
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:That's not an example. I don't think you're being serious. Nothing like that is implied by what I wrote, and I've been pretty clear. You look down on Christians, and as long as you do you will continue to lose and fail and be irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:And we're sure that the hostility started from the left rather than from the reactionary churches because... Does it matter? Both sides are hostile now, and the right is winning in that climate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Agag posted:I don't think you're being serious. Nothing like that is implied by what I wrote, and I've been pretty clear. You are the one who brought up gay and reproductive rights. How should I have taken that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:And we're sure that the hostility started from the left rather than from the reactionary churches because... When and why did the break between religious socialists and socialists occur?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 03:31
|
|