|
Jastiger posted:What makes Marxism different from a religion? That depends on how you define religion. By your definition, it, and almost everything else in the world, is actually religion. To people with a normal definition of religion, it's not a religion because of what I already said about it, maybe you missed it.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
Tei posted:Just because somebody is atheist, it don't mean is rational. He or she can still be faith base. And people change. Somebody could have been rational in their teenager years, become atheist, then change and become irrational as he mature but still support atheism because is now his "religion". You know that being rational is hard, is a hard to do thing and many people lack the skill. You know because you have posted about it in this thread (If I am not mistaken). Oh interesting, so to explain someone's behavior we need to look at the society they grew up in, the beliefs they got from other places, the political situation in their country, and everything else and not just assume it's the atheism that made them do it. hm. Also interesting, people compartmentalize, what someone's (non)religion is tells you pretty much nothing about whether they'll approach a given empirical or moral question rationally or not, you don't say.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:That depends on how you define religion. By your definition, it, and almost everything else in the world, is actually religion. I must have because you just said "Its not a religion". I agree with you, it isn't a religion but this: Obdicut posted:No, they believe this because of an actual system of axioms, empirical observation, and a logical argument. You may think they're wrong, but it's not an irrational argument and it's not based on just believing. Have you ever read Marx? is not a good description because you can replace Marx with The Bible/Koran/Dianetics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I must have because you just said "Its not a religion". Nah, I didn't. quote:is not a good description because you can replace Marx with The Bible/Koran/Dianetics. No, you can't. Those have revealed truth. Seriously, dude, you don't understand falsification, or science, so why do you think you can figure any of this out? You need to actually understand science to talk about it, and you don't. VitalSigns posted:
For example, Ben Carson is super evidence-driven when it comes to brain surgery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Nah, I didn't. Obdicut posted:You won't find proofs of that, because Marxism is not a religion. It may be treated as some as a religion. It is not a religion. Yeah you kind of did man. I agree with you that Marxism isn't a religion. Just because you really like something or ascribe to an ideology doesn't make it a religion. My point was more along the lines that what you said is the same thing a lot of religious people say. "The Bible is true because have you even read the Bible bro?!" You need to stop being so ad hominem up in here. Ever since you came in the thread I feel like you've thrashed around and killed it 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
Anyone seen this? So a geography teacher asks students to copy some Islamic calligraphy as part of homework. Everyone's parents  poo poo THEMSELVES and all 23 schools are shut down in Augusta County, Virginia as a security precaution.I am not making this up. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/18/us/virginia-school-shut-islam-homework/index.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Anyone seen this? "A developed country, #1 GDP in the world" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Yeah you kind of did man. That doesn't bear the least resemblance to what I said. I didn't say Marxism was 'true', because it can't be true or not true. quote:You need to stop being so ad hominem up in here. Ever since you came in the thread I feel like you've thrashed around and killed it I'm not saying your argument suck because you suck. I'm saying you suck because your arguments suck. The exact opposite of an ad hominem--again, you seem like you're mocking yourself. Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Anyone seen this? Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:That doesn't bear the least resemblance to what I said. I didn't say Marxism was 'true', because it can't be true or not true. Everyone thinks my arguments are good and you're just being really aggressive. Its not good:( Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Anyone seen this? This is Islamophobia and is also retarded. YOU ESS AY YOU ESS AY
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Anyone seen this? That is some next-level stupidity. Maybe we should stop debating the finer points of "are there some problems in Islam, and are they representative of religion or the society it exists in, etc.?" since it's more or less immaterial, and start discussing what to do about the very real Islamophobia that exists and is actively harming people as we speak. There's simply no excuse for something like this, regardless of whether you regard Islam as flawed or perfect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
PT6A posted:That is some next-level stupidity. Maybe we should stop debating the finer points of "are there some problems in Islam, and are they representative of religion or the society it exists in, etc.?" since it's more or less immaterial, and start discussing what to do about the very real Islamophobia that exists and is actively harming people as we speak. There's simply no excuse for something like this, regardless of whether you regard Islam as flawed or perfect. I think speaking up in public is important, not so much for convincing Islamaphobes, but for stopping it from becoming the norm in everyday conversation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I think speaking up in public is important, not so much for convincing Islamaphobes, but for stopping it from becoming the norm in everyday conversation. Agreed, but always check your area first. If there's an abundance of unnecessary camoflague in the fashion sense, or randomly throbbing forehead veins in the crowd? Might want to pick another day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
I think Jastiger is haven't trouble over your use of the term 'revealed truth' - perhaps because he doesn't realise it's a term referring to supreme knowledge of a divine being. The reason you can't replace 'Marx' with 'the Bible' is because Marx is a (dead) person and the Bible is a collection of teachings describing the Abrahamic god. Additionally you can't really even compare Das Kapital to the Bible because Das Kapital was a tome attempting to apply the scientific method to formulate sound economic theory. It was because of the difficulty combining empirical evidence (quantitative data) with sociological observation (qualitative data) that he pioneered (though not necessarily invented) the use of dialectical materialism. More the point, Das Kapital is by no means an anti-capitalist work, it just states that the rate of profit would decline until the system became untenable. While the system has not yet become untenable, there has been an observed decline in the global rate of profit. Will he be proved right? Some people religiously agree, others cautiously observe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Anyone seen this? I think the asking them to copy 'there is no god but God and Mohammed is God's messenger' is a little problematic, but drat. What a stupid overreaction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Oh, it was the shahada? I can see why people might be a liiittle worried about that given its prominence on Daesh's flag but yeesh, at least just talk to the teacher who set the homework.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
It was definitely a stupid idea, given the current environment. I worry that the teacher is looking to make a statement about it all through this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:It was definitely a stupid idea, given the current environment. I worry that the teacher is looking to make a statement about it all through this. It'd be lovely if a teacher asked the students to copy out the lords prayer in French or something, too. Maybe it'll turn out this school used bible-based poo poo for a lot of stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Oh, it was the shahada? I can see why people might be a liiittle worried about that given its prominence on Daesh's flag but yeesh, at least just talk to the teacher who set the homework. If anything, it was probably the Saudi flag version because that version doesn't look like it was copied out by a drunken three-year-old.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
a facebook comment from that article posted:"This is so WRONG! There is only ONE GOD and HIS NAME is JESUS!" one user posted. That is also wrong, buddy. God is the God, Jesus is his son, Jesus only has has higher status via the Trinity, wherein he is part of God. God's name is YHWH anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I think Jastiger is haven't trouble over your use of the term 'revealed truth' - perhaps because he doesn't realise it's a term referring to supreme knowledge of a divine being. No I DO understand that which is why I think his explanation was not very good. The Bible and Das Kapital are very different works, but the explanation of "read the book" because it has "scientific proofs in it" is used with the Bible all the time. See stuff like Answers in Genesis and Ray Comforts stuff. Thats what I was getting at.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:No I DO understand that which is why I think his explanation was not very good. The Bible and Das Kapital are very different works, but the explanation of "read the book" because it has "scientific proofs in it" is used with the Bible all the time. It is trivially obvious when you read both works - or if you even read the basic background of the two works off Wikipedia - that Karl Marx applied a scientific methodology to attempting to understand the inner workings of the capitalist mode of production, whereas the Bible is a collection of oral histories from various peoples surrounding the Mediterranean. I don't know why you consider someone saying "read a book and make your own judgment on its veracity" to be such a bizarre statement; that's the absolute basis for proper scholarly inquiry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Yeah I could understand being sceptical of "read the Bible cover-to-cover if you want to criticise it" defences of biblical validity, but there's very little proof you can provide that Das Kapital is more scientifically valid that doesn't fundamentally rely on the person having encountered the book in something more than just name.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Vermain posted:It is trivially obvious when you read both works - or if you even read the basic background of the two works off Wikipedia - that Karl Marx applied a scientific methodology to attempting to understand the inner workings of the capitalist mode of production, whereas the Bible is a collection of oral histories from various peoples surrounding the Mediterranean. I don't know why you consider someone saying "read a book and make your own judgment on its veracity" to be such a bizarre statement; that's the absolute basis for proper scholarly inquiry. I agree that its obvious. A ton of Christians and Muslims don't is what I was getting at, which ties back to my previous posts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:No I DO understand that which is why I think his explanation was not very good. The Bible and Das Kapital are very different works, but the explanation of "read the book" because it has "scientific proofs in it" is used with the Bible all the time. See stuff like Answers in Genesis and Ray Comforts stuff. Thats what I was getting at. "Sure, you may say radiotherapy can treat cancer, but some people say crystals cure cancer." Yes, and?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
I actually forgot, what was Jastiger's point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
It was more to the point that holy texts are a bad way to figure things out and that its a lot more difficult to say "read the book bro" when trying to suss out moral claims or find differences between something like The Bible and Das Kapital. I agree, its obviously different between the two books. I was pointing out that it isn't obvious for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Perhaps, but Das Kapital isn't a great place to learn neuroscience. Different books for different things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Tei posted:Okay. But something I have learned in this thread is to ignore what the official text say and pay attention to what the actual practicers of a cult believe/do. This isn't just true for religions and cults - it also applies to organizations, political parties and movements, and just about any other group organized enough to write things down about itself. Even if the group's beliefs and rules later change, it's often politically or procedurally impossible to change the founding texts and declarations, and therefore the group either changes its official interpretation of those words or mutually agrees to ignore the founding texts and stick to the informal, up-to-date rule lists instead. Also, sometimes the founding texts aren't realistic descriptions of the group's beliefs in the first place - for example, the Declaration of Independence was criticized almost from the very beginning for praising liberty and equality while colonists (including Jefferson himself) worked to preserve slavery and expel the Native Americans. Surprisingly enough, the whole idea of the Bible as being exactly and literally true about everything is a relatively recent phenomenon, only a bit more than a century old. Catholicism has considered the Bible to be largely metaphorical and subject to varying interpretation for a long time, and most Christian traditions have been cautious of the fact that the Bible they know is most likely a translation of a translation of a translation. The idea of every single word of the Bible (as well as certain specific translations of the Bible) being literal and direct truth actually comes from the Evangelical movement in the late 19th century and the Fundamentalist movements in the early 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This isn't just true for religions and cults - it also applies to organizations, political parties and movements, and just about any other group organized enough to write things down about itself. Even if the group's beliefs and rules later change, it's often politically or procedurally impossible to change the founding texts and declarations, and therefore the group either changes its official interpretation of those words or mutually agrees to ignore the founding texts and stick to the informal, up-to-date rule lists instead. Also, sometimes the founding texts aren't realistic descriptions of the group's beliefs in the first place - for example, the Declaration of Independence was criticized almost from the very beginning for praising liberty and equality while colonists (including Jefferson himself) worked to preserve slavery and expel the Native Americans. I agree but with one caveat about your part about the historical interpretation: Certain parts have always been considered canonical and literally true, namely the existence of Jesus, Jesus being the son, and the existence of some form of trinity. A lot of the rest has risen and fallen, but its important to note that there has always been (and almost has to be) a literal interpretation of religious texts. The difference in sects is often not so much interpretation but rather how much you consider to be literal. More a sliding scale than a modular choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I agree but with one caveat about your part about the historical interpretation: Certain parts have always been considered canonical and literally true, namely Jesus being the son, and the existence of some form of trinity. Congrats on actually naming the first highly contentious issues in Christianity that spawned tons of argument and actual schism. There are also lots and lots of non-trinitarian Christians. Maybe some day you could learn about a subject instead of theorizing about it. That'd be a hoot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Congrats on actually naming the first highly contentious issues in Christianity that spawned tons of argument and actual schism. There are also lots and lots of non-trinitarian Christians. I never said there weren't. But its one of the most basic tenets of the faith for a large swath of the population. Grats on finding SOMETHING to pick a fight about though, Obdicut.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I agree but with one caveat about your part about the historical interpretation: Certain parts have always been considered canonical and literally true, namely the existence of Jesus, Jesus being the son, and the existence of some form of trinity. A lot of the rest has risen and fallen, but its important to note that there has always been (and almost has to be) a literal interpretation of religious texts. The difference in sects is often not so much interpretation but rather how much you consider to be literal. More a sliding scale than a modular choice. Do you mean that all religions will interpret some part of their holy text literally or that all holy texts have some religion that will interpret some of it literally? Either way, why does that have to be true? Or are you saying it's just inductively true based on observed religions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I never said there weren't. But its one of the most basic tenets of the faith for a large swath of the population. The statement you made was objectively wrong in every way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I never said there weren't. Yes, you did: Jastiger posted:Certain parts have always been considered canonical and literally true, namely the existence of Jesus, Jesus being the son, and the existence of some form of trinity. It has not always be considered canonically and literally true that Jesus was the son, nor that a trinity existed. And for god's sake (hah) stop whining. Edit: oh yeah and the difference between sects is really obviously highly about interpretation, you were super wrong about that part too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I agree but with one caveat about your part about the historical interpretation: Certain parts have always been considered canonical and literally true, namely the existence of Jesus, Jesus being the son, and the existence of some form of trinity. A lot of the rest has risen and fallen, but its important to note that there has always been (and almost has to be) a literal interpretation of religious texts. The difference in sects is often not so much interpretation but rather how much you consider to be literal. More a sliding scale than a modular choice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism I mean, I want to write more to this reply but I'd just be rehashing that article. I mean half the point of Jehovah's Witnesses is that there is only Jehovah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Lame Devil posted:Do you mean that all religions will interpret some part of their holy text literally or that all holy texts have some religion that will interpret some of it literally? Both? Nevvy Z posted:The statement you made was objectively wrong in every way. I'm not convinced it was. Jesus is the crux of Christianity, no? Most believe he's the son of god. A lesser, but still significant amount recognize the Trinity and handle it in some way. Obdicut posted:Yes, you did: I disagree. without Jesus being divine there is no Christianity. There are sects that place different importance on this, especially when looking at John, Matt, Paul, and Luke. But each one considers Jesus central to the faith. I didn't think that this is really contentious. Same with the holy spirit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism This is important, namely that its ~600 years after what I'm referring to. It wasn't until much debate, reinterpretation, and a whole slew of factors that this came about. They also use the same documents to justify their beliefs as true. Its like saying expansion teams like the Panthers in the NFL are around so CLEARLY football wasn't always played on a flat turf. I'm saying obviously there are additions and revisions, but there are some pieces of the puzzle that were considered canon-and changed later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Both? Jesus being the son and jesus being divine are different things entirely. The nature of the trinity was hotly debated, with a ton of early church people being Arianists. You know gently caress-all about the subject. You must know, on some level, that you're completely ignorant about this. So what would drive you to start talking about it? Humiliation fetish? Also, Jehovah's witnesses and Christian Scientists are both non-trinitarian, you rube. quote:I'm saying obviously there are additions and revisions, but there are some pieces of the puzzle that were considered canon-and changed later. Oh you must think this guy was a real idiot then: quote:Certain parts have always been considered canonical and literally true,
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I disagree. without Jesus being divine there is no Christianity. There are sects that place different importance on this, especially when looking at John, Matt, Paul, and Luke. But each one considers Jesus central to the faith. I didn't think that this is really contentious. Same with the holy spirit. They aren't central to the faith, they're central to the specific groups you're focusing on while ignoring the others.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:Jesus being the son and jesus being divine are different things entirely. The nature of the trinity was hotly debated, with a ton of early church people being Arianists. You know gently caress-all about the subject. You must know, on some level, that you're completely ignorant about this. So what would drive you to start talking about it? Humiliation fetish? Right and they came later after the traditional interpretation was normalized in historical churches. I'm not saying that every sect believes the same thing, I'm saying the original foundation of Christianity as we know it in broad terms relies on Jesus and certain aspects of Jesus, namely the son, divinity, and the trinity. A lot of these sects that I'm referring to as what we can call "mainline Protestantism" don't consider say, Jehovah's or Mormons or Christian Scientists Christian and its a real rats nest because those groups DO consider themselves Christian. My point isn't that its always been true for ALL sects but that its been true for the traditional sects that help define why the other sects are different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:18
|
|