sean price posted:my only question is why does there have to be a historical precedent for everything? some loving things happening every single day have never had any historical analogy I think you'll find that there is nothing new under the sun, that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it, and that wishing is never a substitute for thinking. Thus, with these facts in hand, you could offer something trenchant as opposition. But what you've got is, "things might be different", entirely as platitudinous and intellectually empty as the clichéd quotes I started this post off with.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 03:45 |
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Uh, Islamist parties worldwide are notoriously conservative, so are Buddhist parties in Japan or Cambodia ; Christian-Democrats in Europe are anywhere between the center and the right, and the far-right in Europe is largely Christian and defend their "Christian values" (ans so is the Russian right with its defense of the Orthodox Christian Church). Politics in America are skewed towards the right and infused with religion ; as for South America, the role of the Church in the 20th century authoritarian conservative dictatorships there is pretty well established, liberation theology notwithstanding. These are not convincing examples from the perspective of religion as a source for conservatism, as you have been promoting. In order to rule out the alternative possibility, that conservatism is a source for religiosity, you would need to show universally that all religious folk were more conservative than atheists, or perhaps just secular humanists. The former is absolutely untrue- Jewish Americans are more liberal than self-identified atheist Americans, on average. I suspect that examining religious minorities in other countries will show similar complexity.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 02:25
|
|
blowfish posted:religions are bad as a propagating source of magical thinking Is this definitional or incidental? That is, if I can provide an example of a "religion" that offers no magical thinking, is it not a religion? Or a "secular" philosophy that offers magical thinking, this is actually a religion?
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 03:20
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I'll make sure to tell these guys that they don't have to do what they do. Can you give a reason why you're so consistently ignoring the plain English sentences in Hong XiuQuan's posts in favor of ones you've made up? Are you, perhaps, suffering from a severe mental disability?
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 18:39
|
|
Tei posted:This is the old "I am cesar, a insult to me is a insult to rome". How dare you insult Western culture and civilization by calling it "mediocre at best," you swine, you dog of a man? I ought to demand satisfaction of you this instant!
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 18:49
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:I can think of way worse things than racism and colonialism happening in the Middle East. Nice slandering of Western Culture you've got going on there, rear end in a top hat.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
I don't know why reminiscence of modern scientific understanding is a moral point in a religion's favor. Is it because many supposed nonreligious atheists are actually practitioners of the atheistic religion of scientism?
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 20:44
|
|
The Insect Court posted:I can think of at least one significant impediment to sedanchair taking that particular course of action. And Puritanism and Pentecostalism are identical and emerged for the same reasons. This is why the term "Islamic fundamentalism" as applied to jihadist movements is a bad one, because it opens the door to the kind of mindless response where all Islamic subgroups that are "fundamentalist" (read:assholes) are identical in such a way as to obscure any understanding of why they exist and why people support them, much as if some jackass was to equate Puritanism and Charismatic Christianity.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 16:09
|
|
NNick posted:Religion was also a primary driving force to removing segregation in the 60s. It can work both ways. How is "freedom" not just 'magical' thinking. Conventionally, "magical thinking" refers to certain specific approaches to the world, generally those that involve treating symbolic or semiotic relationships as material ones and rejecting empiricism (these are not how magic is actually understood to work in traditional societies). For many internet atheists, it's a meme that refers to any and all religions, except those graciously designated as acceptable by the speaker.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 18:49
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:That is a really ugly and bigoted thing to say. I am not right wing, in fact I am a communist. My church took me in when I came out of the closet as a lesbian. I am going through homelessness now and my pastor is helping to connect me to the right people. We're participating in the black lives matter protest too. Unfortunately, most people treat atheism as a kind of religion, with conversion stories and exclusivity and misfortunate arrogance concerning truth. Even less fortunately, it tends to be a sort of poisonous religion along the lines of Christian fundamentalism.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 20:09
|
|
Average Bear posted:Just because politics makes for strange bedfellows doesn't mean you have to support sharia law arbitration in America. If you oppose anything because an rear end in a top hat supports it, you're being reactionary and irrational. The argument is that opposing Sharia arbitration materially helps Christian fascists in their goals and so should be opposed. There's more to it than the straw man.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 22:19
|
|
Average Bear posted:To clarify, I didn't know religious arbitration was common in America. The issue of sharia being used as well was brought up, so that's why it catches flak. In the United States, this involves rarely voting period. I'm not even sure if any third parties with nationwide balloting are running atheist or agnostic candidates in 2016.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 22:37
|
|
RACHET posted:He's gay so let's throw him off a building and then stone him to death after his legs are broken. Huh, so all those references to loving other men up the rear end in Islamic poetry, those were just elaborate irony? I mean, cultures are simple and deterministic, except of course for the ones white people belong to.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 21:27
|
|
emoji posted:Over centuries, we have seen that any culture's values can change to their antithesis and back again. The context of discussion should be restricted to the modern era. There is no question that certain places in 2015 have horrifying punishments justified by certain interpretations of Sharia law without any place for what we consider due process or a framework for changing the laws. This is obviously what most Western people think of when they hear the term Sharia rather than rules for inheritance/marriage/contracts because the boring parts aren't newsworthy. The term is poisoned. Non-punitive Sharia law would probably be accepted by Westerners if it was simply called something else. And most Muslims who want "Shari'a law" want the boring poo poo. That still leaves us at an impasse. Manic X posted:Why is it when you question the compatability of certain cultures together, the automatic response by SJWs is the race card. You're making a good case for Euro-American (Islamic culture being Western culture) culture having serious problems, producing people who use this absurd notion of "cultural incompatibility" to justify inhumane behavior.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 23:56
|
|
Tei posted:Well, that would be a problem for step #2. But step #1 was to agree or disagree that a culture can be "Bad". No, that's step number 2. Step 1 is to define "bad".
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 18:50
|
|
An Enormous Boner posted:In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Beneficent Well, it looks like the person you're quoting accurately summed up the reasons for that attack, which I've helpfully bolded for clarity.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Good luck on your holy crusade against Islam.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 01:51
|
|
An Enormous Boner posted:It's not my holy crusade you need to be worried about. I find it far more plausible that people like you will lynch American Muslims than that American Muslims will start any sort of mass-murder campaign, because I have a soul, and know that belief in Islam doesn't destroy your brain. An Enormous Boner posted:*rereads the statement, even the bolded part explicitly stating if you say Muhammed wrong we'll shoot you in the head* Yeah it's all about military action Let's see- a lot of interchangeable gabble, and then specific grievances which are about French military intervention in Syria, in the context of framing Western behavior as being about exterminating Islam and Muslims. Westerners graciously declare that all Muslims are out to get them, because we are a degenerate and evil people.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 01:54
|
|
Rakosi posted:Citations please, it's this kind of shoddy research that caused religion You're not very good at reading. My supporting evidence was in the next clause. I have a soul because I don't arbitrarily declare certain people to be subhuman wretches. Those who do, lack a soul.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 01:58
|
|
An Enormous Boner posted:What the hell is wrong with you? You're accusing Muslims of wanting to commit violence against people, and yet it's not OK for people to turn that around against you. That seems fairly absurd.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 02:08
|
|
An Enormous Boner posted:I'm accusing the organization that planned and executed the attacks in France of wanting to commit violence against people, yes. I'm also saying it's largely because of their extreme religious beliefs, which they have explicitly and repeatedly explained. No, you're not. You've been accusing Islam in general, throughout this thread. You're arguing that this is because of religion. Necessarily, this means that all Muslims are suspect. Meanwhile, your interpretation, where the French intervention in Syria is irrelevant for this Syria-based organization, which is itself incapable of propaganda (presumably because they're religious and thus stupid), is plain ridiculous. Now you're going to start screaming about how I'm defending ISIS, in all probability.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 02:12
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:"Either you're racist, or you have to admit the terrorists are right." Please source your quotes.  An Enormous Boner posted:We're talking about allusions made within a sub-section of a single sentence in ISIS's statement. It's very important, yes, but there's other stuff there and it's also significant. I mean there's stuff in the same sentence, even, that isn't just about France in Syria. The vast majority of it is cruft. It's like emphasizing the use of articles and prepositions and poo poo. They're also not "allusions", it's outright statements that this is in response to/revenge for French interventions in Syria. The other clause, meanwhile, is plainly about contextualizing French interventions as being a new Crusade against all Muslims. This is entirely in keeping with ISIS's particular worldview, but it's also not some kind of "they hate us for being sexual libertines" or whatever culture-war poo poo.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 03:45
|
|
Jastiger posted:Are you saying that its impossible to have a culture that doesn't have religion intertwined into its laws, mores, and norms? And I don't mean just cultural references, but having a position of authority? Are you familiar with the notion of a "civil religion"?
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 19:59
|
|
Jastiger posted:Yes! Its also something that can and has been very damaging to the American political fabric. A bit off topic but I would guess that a lot of the arguments liberal atheists have against Christianity and Islam also apply to civil religion. How do you propose to eliminate mythmaking, ceremony, heroification, and monumentalism from the world?
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 20:13
|
|
Jastiger posted:Well the best inoculation is a good education with a strong liberal arts focus for context. I'm not saying we can abolish all of this, I'm only saying that if we make decisions based on these myths, or use them to influence our reality, its bad epistemology. We make bad policy when we do that. Just like in Christianity and Islam, and to be critical of that isn't to be a X-ophobe. You don't hate America if you point out it was built on slavery, for example. On the other hand, when Abraham Lincoln used the mythological understanding of the United States of America, when the abolitionists used the mythological understanding of America, when the suffragists used the mythological understanding of America, when the Tian An Men Square protesters used the mythological understanding of America, they may have been using "bad epistemology", but we can surely not condemn them as inherently faulty or wrongheaded.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 03:45 |
|
Jastiger posted:They were using bad epistemology, sure. But people aren't robots and there is a place for that which is why I said you can't get rid of it. But if you rely on myth you get bad answers a lot of the time. There is no way to "self-check". Our best policies are those that rely on empirical analysis and view the effect of those policies rather than mythological special pleading. Nobody relies purely on myth, on the other hand, so it's not something we have to worry about.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 20:28
|
|