|
this is like trotting out fuckin branch davidian as an example and then extrapolating whatever inane conclusion you draw to the behavior of religious people across the country
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
i mean lets also not forget that the pastor who drilled this all into her was her grandfather who allegedly hit his kids with a mattock handle so perhaps that has some role to play in all this you goddamn idiot
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:you're literally saying "why did this woman stop hating gays after she stopped believing in the specific brand of christianity peddled by her cult that was about literally nothing but hating gays" and using this as proof that really guys if people stopped going to church there would be less homophobia Holy poo poo, no I'm not. To reiterate: GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Let's start from the top: there is hatred of gays which is religious, hatred of gays which is not, non-hatred of gays which is religious, and non-hatred of gays that is not. My point is that the first category A) exists, and B) is at least partially comprised of people for whom either the sole or the primary motivation for their hatred is their religious doctrine. Pointing out the fact that the second, third, and fourth categories exist does nothing to address this. You know your are over simplifying my positions to make them sound absurd, and you know you are skipping over topics worthy of actual discussion in order to toss off something you hope will sound like a mega-burn. Stop doing both of those, or stop posting in this thread. You have made it abundantly clear so far you have no interest in discussion. By the way: what I'm trying to prove is actually the nearly tautological strawman quote of me you posted: quote:"why did this woman stop hating gays after she stopped believing in the specific brand of christianity peddled by her cult that was about literally nothing but hating gays" It is being disputed that this is ever a thing that happens, and Megan Phelps-Roper is a solid counterexample to challenge that notion. If we can establish that, we can talk about more nuanced cases, but it's been like pulling teeth to even get the extreme cases recognized.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:this is like trotting out fuckin branch davidian as an example and then extrapolating whatever inane conclusion you draw to the behavior of religious people across the country No, it's like saying someone who defected from the Branch Davidians probably stopped holding views that the Branch Davidians held. Something even this simple is being disputed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Holy poo poo, no I'm not. then why did you bring it up as an example while talking about how no really guys religion causes homophobia where there would be none GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Stop doing both of those, or stop posting in this thread. you don't get to set the rules, and you aren't contributing poo poo that's worthy of serious consideration. anything anyone says to you is discarded as YOU'RE DELIBERATELY MISREADING ME instead of you fuckin engaging with it get the gently caress over yourself
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Okay, here's a good example: Megan Phelps-Roper. Granddaughter of Fred Phelps, fervent member of Westboro Baptist Church until her mid-twenties. Hated gays, picketed soldiers' funerals, the works. Just as in the swim of barbarism as everyone in her church. She escaped her family because she ran their twitter and had an opportunity to interact with people outside the cult. When she realized that they were treating her with compassion and being fair to her, that caused her to question what the cult had been telling her. She was only hateful because that was normal and expected with the Phelps cult. The social dynamic that Fred Phelps cultivated within his own family can be seen in many other cults, not all of them espousing metaphysical or supernatural ideas--or at least not constructed on them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:No, it's like saying someone who defected from the Branch Davidians probably stopped holding views that the Branch Davidians held. Something even this simple is being disputed. your posts do not exist in a vacuum devoid of your other posts bringing up an example of someone from a cult renouncing the views of their cult is a terrible way to make a point about a group that the cult is a subset of
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
I am loling loving hard at the OP accusing others of no true scotsman arguments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Again, not what I have said. I am actually trying to say it is an entirely normal compulsion that matches the compulsion seen when a belief is not a religious one. If we looked together at a specific community we would probably discover that religious ideas and nonreligious ideas are not often so easily disentangled from one another and especially not from the historical and economic contexts of that community because religious beliefs are not some alien or other or discretely separate and uniquely powerful kind of idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:then why did you bring it up as an example while talking about how no really guys religion causes homophobia where there would be none Because, in this case, the religion clearly did cause the homophobia? quote:you don't get to set the rules, and you aren't contributing poo poo that's worthy of serious consideration. anything anyone says to you is discarded as YOU'RE DELIBERATELY MISREADING ME instead of you fuckin engaging with it First of all, yes I do. Second, I don't know how else to respond when I post something, someone responds with quotation marks around a stupidly simplistic sentence I didn't say, I respond to correct them, and they respond with "holy poo poo you're literally saying we should nuke Muslims". Clearly, being thorough and actually "engaging with it" did no good. When I am being deliberately misread, why is it bad of me to point that out? And what other options do I have? Literally The Worst posted:bringing up an example of someone from a cult renouncing the views of their cult is a terrible way to make a point about a group that the cult is a subset of It's a loving excellent way to make that point, why wouldn't it be? Again, I do not bring up Megan to prove that all Christians hate gays. I bring her up to prove that sometimes religious hatred of gays is the primary or sole motive, something you and Sedan continuously deny, even with an obvious and straightforward example ("oh no, that doesn't count, because you see it was a cult, which is somehow different")
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Because, in this case, the religion clearly did cause the homophobia? ok now what does that have to do with religion as a broad topic you cited one person GAINING WEIGHT... posted:First of all, yes I do. no you don't, dude, you're the OP not a fuckin cop. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:they respond with "holy poo poo you're literally saying we should nuke Muslims". now who's putting words in people's mouths, i was talking about sam harris not you, you self centered twit
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:Think ISIS or ISIS 2.0, not Iran. Yeah ISIS didn't exist at that point, in fact Iraq was under our boot at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I am loling loving hard at the OP accusing others of no true scotsman arguments. Oh good, glad you're enjoying your stay in this thread! Godbless. Jack Gladney posted:If we looked together at a specific community we would probably discover that religious ideas and nonreligious ideas are not often so easily disentangled from one another and especially not from the historical and economic contexts of that community because religious beliefs are not some alien or other or discretely separate and uniquely powerful kind of idea. Not in all cases, no, but there are some cases where that is clearly possible. That's why I brought up the communion wafer. This is not just some community practice that would have been created anyway which just happens to be dressed in Catholicism. No, this is a practice that comes directly from the religion. The metaphysical beliefs about Jesus, God, the efficacy of prayer, etc. are all the basis for this, and not any secular ones. Take the exact same group of people in exactly the same geographical area, economic situation, language, history, whatever but remove Catholic belief - do they still eat wafers each week? No.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Oh good, glad you're enjoying your stay in this thread! Godbless. people don't engage in ritual if you remove the source of that ritual? no poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Because, in this case, the religion clearly did cause the homophobia? Religious hatred of gays was a function of living in a family of a mother, father, siblings, and many extended relations, one situated within a community of many others who all helped and cared for one another, one that gave everyone a place and a function and a sense that they mattered. Again, there's no way of seeing religion as specially disconnected from or categorically unlike all the other ideas, conventions, or desires a person has. I have no religious ideas and belong to no religion, but it's not like the religious people I encounter every day have some extra category of idea that is alien and exterior to all the other familiar ideas I can see operating within them. That I don't agree with those ideas really doesn't matter any more than it doesn't matter that somebody has an unexamined belief in white supremacy that feeds his feeling that I'm normal because I'm white and I'd be abnormal if I wasn't white. I won't be able to reason him out of it, but it's not because he's infected by some strain of thinking that is otherwise totally divorced from every other "non-white-supremacist" idea he's ever encountered or held.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:That doesn't seem to be the case... Speaking of suicide bombers aren't major employers of it, the secular Tamil Tigers and the secular PKK? Also suicide attacks were done long before the wahabists decided it would be the best way to spread their filth.  Chinese soldier ready to blow up some Japanese tanks in ww2.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Oh good, glad you're enjoying your stay in this thread! Godbless. i like that you can tell that he's waiting for people to agree taht yes if you didnt have a religion with this specific practice people wouldn't jsut do the practice for shits and gigs so he can go "and the homophobia is the same thing"
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Oh no, I used a good, solid example of exactly my premise being demonstrated to prove it! Oh no! Sorry it was...too perfect an example? It's indeed not a bad example. It's still on you to offer evidence that this is worse than any other form of indoctrination. Like this one: http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2134-5-things-i-learned-growing-up-in-neo-nazi-militia.html quote:"Every kid needed to know how to shoot [and] what to do in case of war with the blacks. I went on weekend trips to the countryside with other AWB families for shooting practice and defense training." In one exercise, Pieter had to shoot cutouts of Nelson Mandela and other black politicians attached to hay bales to simulate an "invasion." They would also build pillboxes and electric fences for white families who requested them, every action pounding the same message into the brain of every member: It's us or them, and we must strike first. Also, as someone who potentially agrees with some of the points you seem to be trying to make...you are uniquely unqualified at this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:ok now what does that have to do with religion as a broad topic Again: establishing the foundation before exploring more nuanced areas. If we can agree that religious belief was the primary cause, IN THIS ONE CASE, for bigotry, then we can start to talk about other cases, and begin to get a picture of general trends. If this is the only case, in other words, and the rest of Christendom is perfectly rosy, then I think we'd arrive at an answer of "Christianity is actually pretty great as a whole." But until we agree that it's possible for religion to have ill-effects for which it is the primary cause - which again, is still being disputed for some reason - we just can't move on. Side note, the fact that I began my Megan Phelps-Roper post with "As an example" should have been enough to convey all of this to you. I am really really tired of having to guide conversations and explain how they work at the same time as having them. quote:now who's putting words in people's mouths, i was talking about sam harris not you, you self centered twit I thought it would be obvious I was doing that deliberately because of what I said above, but oh well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
the best way to talk about general trends: start with an incredibly specific example from an incredibly small sample groupGAINING WEIGHT... posted:I am really really tired of having to guide conversations and explain how they work at the same time as having them. god there's osmething funny about you having a martyr complex
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Oh good, glad you're enjoying your stay in this thread! Godbless. But why does communion survive as a ritual and why do people go each week to take it? Because they want to be there. Why do they want to be there? If church wasn't there then they wouldn't go, but they'd still get the things they need socially to fill their human needs. They'd get them where I get them, or someplace else. You're looking at this backwards: there is a religion because people have diffuse, complex psychological and social needs that can be met with an institution like religion. Communion survives because community can be organized around it, while many other things routinely done 2000 years ago by mediterranean semites don't survive because they don't meet current human needs quite so well. They may come into conflict with the other practices and institutions humans have developed to satisfy their needs, or be prohibitively expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:It's indeed not a bad example. It's still on you to offer evidence that this is worse than any other form of indoctrination. No it's not, because I'm not making that claim. If I have said religion is the worst institution in the world in this thread, I apologize profusely, as that is not my stance. It is possible to discuss whether something is a problem in and of itself without having to prove it's the worst thing on offer. This reminds me of the people on Facebook who will respond to posts about police brutality with "that's nothing compared to what our soldiers go through!!!" Sephyr posted:you are uniquely unqualified at this. You don't know that, and it's irrelevant. Talk about the ideas I put forth. Thank you. Jack Gladney posted:Religious hatred of gays was a function of living in a family of a mother, father, siblings, and many extended relations, one situated within a community of many others who all helped and cared for one another, one that gave everyone a place and a function and a sense that they mattered. You keep tossing in community as if religion is not part of a religious community. Again, you're just pushing this back a step: fine, she got it from her grandfather, where did he get it? They justified their actions ad nauseam with Biblical quotations and nothing else, so I can't for the life of me understand why you continue to insist the religious element had nothing to do with it (or if that's not you, sorry. That's someone though). Megan Phelps-Roper did not go, "oh my family's really nice to me, they tell me to hate gays, so I will." She had a belief that a book was inerrant and authorized by an omnipotent being that created the universe, and then read in that book that gay people are sinful. quote:Again, there's no way of seeing religion as specially disconnected from or categorically unlike all the other ideas, conventions, or desires a person has. I think there is a way of seeing it that way, but let's put that aside for now. What is continuously being argued in this thread is that it's never the religious belief that motivates an action, it's only ever other things, with maybe religion falsely tacked on later by the believer. All I'm trying to establish is that it can be, and sometimes is, the primary or sole motivation for what someone does, just like any other belief. So in a sense I agree with you. When I propose that a belief that Fred kidnapped Jim's daughter was the primary or even sole motivation for Jim shooting Fred, no one disagrees. When I propose that a belief that Fred is violating God's laws is the primary motivation for Jim shooting Fred, I get deflections about community and political instability and how that's just the way Jim acts regardless of the window dressing of religion you put around it. Why is it so hard to accept that people really do believe what they say they believe, and that they act on those beliefs?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:the best way to talk about general trends: start with an incredibly specific example from an incredibly small sample group When I say, "let's talk about how often thing X happens in general" and I'm met with "thing X never happens", then yes, I have to bring in a specific example to prove that it does. What is your actual position, anyway? What do you think? Not on Sam Harris, on beliefs as motivations for actions? Give me an actual stance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:But why does communion survive as a ritual Because of specific metaphysical beliefs quote:and why do people go each week to take it? Because of specific metaphysical beliefs and also a delight in the company of your beloved community. quote:You're looking at this backwards: there is a religion because people have diffuse, complex psychological and social needs that can be met with an institution like religion. That may be part of it, but specific religion exists because people are convinced of a metaphysical reality that isn't actually there. There's a reason that when a Christian couple moves to a new town, they don't seek out and try the local Mosque to see if it's the best fit. There's also a reason that if a Christian couple moves to a new town and finds a contradancing class that they love, they don't give up church, or praying before meals, or using up any mental energy considering what God thinks about some recent event.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Because of specific metaphysical beliefs Then your conception of religion has no means of explaining why some rituals or beliefs survive and others do not, or why and how new ones arise. Creationism and biblical literalism were unknown before the nineteenth century, and people haven't feared witches in a long time except that starting in the 1960s some american christians have started fearing witches again. Metaphysical belief as you're using it isn't really a thing, unless things like nationalism, capitalism, or racism are also metaphysical in nature. The belief that capitalism is a perfectly just system (if only it would be implemented according to certain absolute specifications) or that representative republican democracy as described in the constitution of the united states is a perfectly just system (if only it were administered in the correct way) seem pretty close to what you're calling religious ideas, insofar as they're demonstrably false and their adherents can't be convinced of that. I think people do shop around for religions to different degrees. Otherwise there would be no christians or muslims outside the mediterranean and north africa.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:When I say, "let's talk about how often thing X happens in general" and I'm met with "thing X never happens" cite
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Because, in this case, the religion clearly did cause the homophobia? This is actually a perfect example of what I was talking about, of the importance of personal relationships over ideology. In this case, what caused the virulent homophobia was not Christianity or even the weird branch of Calvinism professed by WBC, but the toxic family relationships centering around the poisonous man Fred Phelps. Escaping the man was more important than escaping his creed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
how do i measure suffering
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:This is actually a perfect example of what I was talking about, of the importance of personal relationships over ideology. In this case, what caused the virulent homophobia was not Christianity or even the weird branch of Calvinism professed by WBC, but the toxic family relationships centering around the poisonous man Fred Phelps. Escaping the man was more important than escaping his creed. Fred Phelps was also a white supremacist who represented black families at reduced rates during the civil rights movement because he liked getting them to sign contracts that had racist language dropped into them. He also beat his children and forced them to worship the Planters peanut mascot. These beliefs would have to be metaphysical if his homophobia was indeed born from sincere Calvinism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:The belief that capitalism is a perfectly just system (if only it would be implemented according to certain absolute specifications) or that representative republican democracy as described in the constitution of the united states is a perfectly just system (if only it were administered in the correct way) seem pretty close to what you're calling religious ideas, insofar as they're demonstrably false and their adherents can't be convinced of that. I wouldn't call them religion, I'd call them dogma, and I'd take just the same issue with them. And if someone said, "I believe in the perfectness of socialism so much that I am willing to blow up congress", would you still be making these shifts of blame/credit to community, and a need for love, and all that other stuff? SedanChair posted:This is actually a perfect example of what I was talking about, of the importance of personal relationships over ideology. In this case, what caused the virulent homophobia was not Christianity or even the weird branch of Calvinism professed by WBC, but the toxic family relationships centering around the poisonous man Fred Phelps. Escaping the man was more important than escaping his creed. This just seems completely unfounded, given that what drove her away from the place was not some spat with grandad, but being convinced her God wasn't real. When a Catholic tells you they participate in communion - that is specifically the wafer and wine - because they believe it is the body and blood of Christ, that Christ commanded us to do it, and that he was God, do you think that this is their motivation for taking communion? Do you say, "well, that's what they think, but they're wrong, it's actually due to family dynamics, and enjoying wafers anyway, and such"? Why when a belief is religious is it so hard to accept that it is operative, especially when that's what the believer says themself? Nude Bog Lurker posted:how do i measure suffering *person from 1000 AD" lol how do you measure how much energy food gives you? like with numbers n poo poo? haha it's just feelings man
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Stated beliefs are nothing more than a cover for our animal instincts. Within Christianity you have Fred Phelps and Martin Luther King Jr. Within Islam you have ISIS and the Zakat Foundation. In those places where ISIS is operating, there are always civilians who deplore their actions and cite verses to show their hypocrisy. Most religions are broad enough to encompass the entire spectrum of human values, and people segregate themselves to different points on that spectrum. Do they teach their children humanity or brutality using religious frameworks? Of course. But to get hung up on the religion itself is foolish. They'd be deploring gays and beheading people, or housing the homeless and building schools, with different frameworks. What really drives people is individual relationships. No, it's not you that said it, but if you'll notice, I never claimed it was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:the best way to talk about general trends: start with an incredibly specific example from an incredibly small sample group I don't think he has a martyr complex, but I'll give him credit for having the patient of a Saint putting up with the nonsense you guys have been peddling. Anyway, going back to the original post: GAINING WEIGHT... posted:
There was a further part about Sam Harris bemoaning his views about being misrepresented, which has already been acted out by Gaining Weight as Harris and a few others as his detractors with essentially the same results. It seems no one really feels strongly enough to support the truth claims of any particular religion here, which isn't to surprising since this is SA. As to the second it seems there really isn't going to be anything beyond this. Despite things getting drug out of 18 pages. While I personally feel the answer is "yes" I've long ago felt the discussion is pointless beyond that. Religion or spirituality is pretty obviously part of the human condition, and positing the question that history would be filled with less suffering had religion not been there is silly because that was an unavoidable step to arrive at the current. Furthermore humans are far from rational actors who will likely believe in many different absurdities in the absence of a religious framework. With that in mind combating religion as a whole is pointless, and any effort should be saved for discrediting harmful and clearly counter factual beliefs like Women's Rights or YEC. I'd say New Atheism has contributed good arguments to use in support of these issues, but as pointed out earlier fighting the good fight on these issues doesn't require a specifically Atheist movement nor should it, and considering the amount of contention and misrepresentation on display here between what I assume are largely Atheists with a smattering of left leaning believers, it is really a fools errand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:*person from 1000 AD" lol how do you measure how much energy food gives you? like with numbers n poo poo? haha it's just feelings man ok but how do i measure suffering
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I wouldn't call them religion, I'd call them dogma, and I'd take just the same issue with them. And if someone said, "I believe in the perfectness of socialism so much that I am willing to blow up congress", would you still be making these shifts of blame/credit to community, and a need for love, and all that other stuff? Yes I would. That kind of fanaticism almost always comes from people who are poorly integrated into their communities or who go looking for something to make them feel whole or for a community that validates them. Certain practitioners of political violence actually keep this in mind when recruiting people. The us military is one example. People who employ suicide bombing are another.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:ok but how do i measure suffering +1 for this, and also how do you scientifically decide that reducing suffering is a moral thing to do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I wouldn't call them religion, I'd call them dogma, and I'd take just the same issue with them. And if someone said, "I believe in the perfectness of socialism so much that I am willing to blow up congress", would you still be making these shifts of blame/credit to community, and a need for love, and all that other stuff? Talking doesn't do it. Swift said "Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired." quote:When a Catholic tells you they participate in communion - that is specifically the wafer and wine - because they believe it is the body and blood of Christ, that Christ commanded us to do it, and that he was God, do you think that this is their motivation for taking communion? Do you say, "well, that's what they think, but they're wrong, it's actually due to family dynamics, and enjoying wafers anyway, and such"? Why when a belief is religious is it so hard to accept that it is operative, especially when that's what the believer says themself? Yes of course it's due to family dynamics. Another poster above made excellent points about what people get from Mass. Community, belonging, connection etc. Very few people think too hard about a little piece of Jesus' toe floating around in their stomach.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:ok but how do i measure suffering Alright. I will spell it out for you. I will spell it out because I honestly don't know if you're trying to understand or just being a pithy rear end in a top hat like several others in this thread so far. I will do this, for you. Because I am the lord jesus. The accurate and consistent measuring of suffering is not currently possible. That is a fact. But there is no reason to think this will always be the case, or that human suffering is definitionally unmeasurable. By analogy, think of the science of nutrition. 1000 years ago, we did not understand the food that we ate on a scientific level, to much if any extent. But now? Now a person can download a Smartphone App that allows her to input everything she has eaten, and get a readout of what foods, and in what amounts, she can eat for the rest of the week in order to lose or gain a certain amount of weight, based on her particular goals. The science of nutrition isn't perfect, but it's far, far more developed than it was a millennia or even a century ago, and it has at least reached the benchmark of being objectively useful to everyday people. Those in the distant past may have doubted that this would ever be possible, but they would have been wrong. Our current neurotechnology is admittedly primitive; we can get vague notions of pleasure and pain based on FMRI scans and such, but it's not even useful yet. Given how science normally goes, however, I suspect that the smartphone app of the future would be able to read Happiness Levels or some such thing, to give us a thorough measurement of suffering. Once this is achieved, discussions of the basis of morality will be able to go a lot smoother: you just compare the numbers. Jack Gladney posted:Yes I would. That kind of fanaticism almost always comes from people who are poorly integrated into their communities or who go looking for something to make them feel whole or for a community that validates them. Certain practitioners of political violence actually keep this in mind when recruiting people. The us military is one example. People who employ suicide bombing are another. Well then I'm really not sure what the next step in the conversation is. If you think people never act on the basis of sincerely held beliefs, I don't know what to tell you. I can tell you that they do, and that I have witnessed them doing so. I can ask if any action in your life was ever even modified by a belief you held, be it political or otherwise. But if you just refuse to accept this, then we are truly at an impasse. Uroboros posted:Religion or spirituality is pretty obviously part of the human condition, and positing the question that history would be filled with less suffering had religion not been there is silly because that was an unavoidable step to arrive at the current. I actually share the concern that what we call "spirituality" is a positive that it would be a shame to lose if we threw out religion, but I also think there are secular ways to preserve it, as absurd as that sounds. Take meditation, for one, without any supernatural baggage. quote:Furthermore humans are far from rational actors who will likely believe in many different absurdities in the absence of a religious framework. Yes, but surely removing one of those absurdities is a step in the right direction? I think this is just pessimistically self defeating. Saying people will find ways to hate each other without racism is not a good argument to abandon trying to eradicate racism, is it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Alright. I will spell it out for you. I will spell it out because I honestly don't know if you're trying to understand or just being a pithy rear end in a top hat like several others in this thread so far. I will do this, for you. Because I am the lord jesus. so in other words you have faith that it will be possible to measure suffering in the future because of calories plus you think we should determine how we behave based on a score that will one day be measured in the future presumably leading to punishment or reward
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Alright. I will spell it out for you. I will spell it out because I honestly don't know if you're trying to understand or just being a pithy rear end in a top hat like several others in this thread so far. I will do this, for you. Because I am the lord jesus. Therefore science is silent on it, the end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Talking doesn't do it. Swift said "Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired." Yes. I think this is one of the many shibboleths at the heart of this discussion. I think it is not true. I think there are clear examples - Megan Phelps-Roper being one - of people having exactly that happen to them. There are people who have read Harris's or Dawkins's or whoever's book and lost their faith because of it. I do not think talk is impossible, and there are many reasons and examples to support this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 01:40
|
|