Is the Left Hostile to Religion?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is the Left Hostile to Religion?

zh1: Dec 21, 2010; by Smythe

*crouches down likes he's talking to children* so do we see why....the left is and should be hostile to religion?? anyone?

# ? Mar 7, 2017 07:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 07:56

BattleMoose: Jun 16, 2010

NikkolasKing posted:

Isn't that a rather sticky moral issue? Like, if you do nothing but help people all your life, how can you be a bad person?

Because if it is driven by 100% selfish motives, ie, not going to hell, it colours it more than a little. Compared to someone who helps people out of a sense of empathy.

Wouldn't necessarily call such a person a bad person but I would rather people help others out of empathy rather than fear.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 07:32

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

NikkolasKing posted:

Isn't that a rather sticky moral issue? Like, if you do nothing but help people all your life, how can you be a bad person?

Because in postmodern society, religious beliefs are relatively fragile. People pass in and out of them all the time, convert to this or that, or decide they don't believe in them at all anymore. Everyone has an inherent, primal, secular understanding of themselves and the world, to which religion is sometimes added like a pair of tinted glasses. If rules like "don't harm other people if you can help it" are based entirely on the religious part, and not understood as inherent, what happens when you lose or change your religion?

Whenever I hear things like "how would people know how to behave without religion" it scares the crap out of me. It's a viewpoint that treats everyone as a sociopath, and religion as the only cure for that condition. It leads me to the obvious assumption that the person making the argument would gladly murder a bus full of nuns if they ever had a crisis of faith.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 07:35

Nude Bog Lurker: Jan 2, 2007; Fun Shoe

zh1 posted:

*crouches down likes he's talking to children* so do we see why....the left is and should be hostile to religion?? anyone?

*posts like he's on an LF offsite from 2011* you should...stop posting?????

# ? Mar 7, 2017 08:18

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

OwlFancier posted:

It starts from a different set of premises and works from there under its preferred method of reasoning, it is neither particularly more closed or open minded than any other theological position.

It's literally the opposite of what you just said. If god parted the clouds and farted, his existence would become a secular belief because we could use the scientific method to confirm his existence. What would convince a Christian that Muhammad is the messenger of God without them converting to Islam or logical reasoning and observation (because that would be the secular method of proving or disproving that Muhammad is the messenger of God)? Magic, the answer is magic.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 09:01

Sole.Sushi: Feb 19, 2008; Seaweed!? Get the fuck out!

Honestly, this is a complex question that isn't easy to answer: forgive the train of thought below, I'll try to summarize at the end if you'd rather not read all of it.

There are people on the left who are hostile to religion, but as a whole, no. The left is fine with whatever faith (or lack thereof) you choose to follow, but what they generally have a problem with is when a faith interferes with basic human rights or contradicts equality.

Notable example: legal rights for homosexuals. Religion is the driving force of persecution behind the anti-gay sentiment that has pervaded the world for a long, long while. The left side of politics argue that religious basis for persecution interferes with basic human rights and does contradict equality for all, and so all over the world laws are being passed that assure them the same rights that heterosexuals have been enjoying this whole time (rights to be recognized as married, anti-discrimination laws, and so on). Now, there are those who still feel that being a homosexual is a sin, and while I cannot personally agree with that, it is their religion, it is their faith and it is wrong to persecute against it. Faith, however, is a personal choice one makes and is rarely consistent among its adherents: basically, the left policy is "be whatever religion you wanna be, but keep it yourself and don't be a dick about it."

Any hostility you may have been exposed to is likely the result of people being dicks about religion and the responses therein. There is also the distinct chance that more right (I.E. conservative) sources have focused only on leftist responses to religious issues rather than what, exactly, they are upset about.

With all this in mind, there are also many people who identify towards the right that have a similar or identical mindset of "be whatever religion you wanna be, but keep it to yourself and don't be a dick." There are also those on the left who push for social reform but only as it benefits themselves. There are also issues of what, specifically, a religion does that people find opposition towards. In the US, the left is generally intolerant of the Westborough Baptist Church, while the right is generally intolerant of Islam. The left and right both generally view Satanism and Scientology as hostile, and both sides generally have favorable opinions of Catholicism. In this respect, it's easier to ask "which religion?" when presented with the question of "is _____ intolerant or hostile towards religion?"

Faith and religion are so mutable and so varied even within the same church that it is impossible to say with perfect accuracy how any of them will respond to most complex social issues, and boy there are a lot of them that we should be aware of: racial equality, gender equality, social equality, reproductive rights, religious tolerance and a whole slew of others. Religions were largely the product of the times that created them, and very, very few grow with the world that they inhabit. Some concessions have been made, but by and large the world of religion has been stagnant and intolerant of change. The attitude of "if my book doesn't say it's good, then it's wrong" is present in every faith that I am aware of, though some do try to make amends. From a political perspective, it is much, much easier to cut religion out of the whole equation and focus on the commonality that we all share, which is that we are all human and we all deserve to be treated fairly, justly and equally. The conservative right in the US (who are mostly deeply religious) see this as an exclusion of their faith rather than an inclusion of the disenfranchised, which is what the liberal left argues it is.

That was a lot of words, so for the TL;DR summary: people on both sides of politics hate certain faiths or aspects of certain religions, and they are very loud to speak out about it. Don't use faith to justify hatred, bigotry or intolerance and you'll do just fine in any circle. If you rely on faith to support a view that directly harms another person based on anything other than the content of their character, then you should stop doing that. If you see people doing this, then they are not the kind of people you need to listen to. Don't hate people for having faith that enriches their lives. Don't hate people that do not feel a need to have religion as part of their lives. All this is true no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, and both sides have guilty parties.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 09:02

Shbobdb: Dec 16, 2010; by Reene

It seems like distaste of (male) homosexual behavior transcends religion though. More importantly, homosexual marriage is something that traditionally doesn't make sense because marriage is a property transfer sealed by children. Romance as the driving force behind marriage is a very modern concept and the institution hasn't fully had time to catch up.

For more people this doesn't matter because who gives a gently caress?

# ? Mar 7, 2017 09:17

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

Sole.Sushi posted:

Honestly, this is a complex question that isn't easy to answer: forgive the train of thought below, I'll try to summarize at the end if you'd rather not read all of it.

There are people on the left who are hostile to religion, but as a whole, no. The left is fine with whatever faith (or lack thereof) you choose to follow, but what they generally have a problem with is when a faith interferes with basic human rights or contradicts equality.

Notable example: legal rights for homosexuals. Religion is the driving force of persecution behind the anti-gay sentiment that has pervaded the world for a long, long while. The left side of politics argue that religious basis for persecution interferes with basic human rights and does contradict equality for all, and so all over the world laws are being passed that assure them the same rights that heterosexuals have been enjoying this whole time (rights to be recognized as married, anti-discrimination laws, and so on). Now, there are those who still feel that being a homosexual is a sin, and while I cannot personally agree with that, it is their religion, it is their faith and it is wrong to persecute against it. Faith, however, is a personal choice one makes and is rarely consistent among its adherents: basically, the left policy is "be whatever religion you wanna be, but keep it yourself and don't be a dick about it."

Any hostility you may have been exposed to is likely the result of people being dicks about religion and the responses therein. There is also the distinct chance that more right (I.E. conservative) sources have focused only on leftist responses to religious issues rather than what, exactly, they are upset about.

With all this in mind, there are also many people who identify towards the right that have a similar or identical mindset of "be whatever religion you wanna be, but keep it to yourself and don't be a dick." There are also those on the left who push for social reform but only as it benefits themselves. There are also issues of what, specifically, a religion does that people find opposition towards. In the US, the left is generally intolerant of the Westborough Baptist Church, while the right is generally intolerant of Islam. The left and right both generally view Satanism and Scientology as hostile, and both sides generally have favorable opinions of Catholicism. In this respect, it's easier to ask "which religion?" when presented with the question of "is _____ intolerant or hostile towards religion?"

Faith and religion are so mutable and so varied even within the same church that it is impossible to say with perfect accuracy how any of them will respond to most complex social issues, and boy there are a lot of them that we should be aware of: racial equality, gender equality, social equality, reproductive rights, religious tolerance and a whole slew of others. Religions were largely the product of the times that created them, and very, very few grow with the world that they inhabit. Some concessions have been made, but by and large the world of religion has been stagnant and intolerant of change. The attitude of "if my book doesn't say it's good, then it's wrong" is present in every faith that I am aware of, though some do try to make amends. From a political perspective, it is much, much easier to cut religion out of the whole equation and focus on the commonality that we all share, which is that we are all human and we all deserve to be treated fairly, justly and equally. The conservative right in the US (who are mostly deeply religious) see this as an exclusion of their faith rather than an inclusion of the disenfranchised, which is what the liberal left argues it is.

That was a lot of words, so for the TL;DR summary: people on both sides of politics hate certain faiths or aspects of certain religions, and they are very loud to speak out about it. Don't use faith to justify hatred, bigotry or intolerance and you'll do just fine in any circle. If you rely on faith to support a view that directly harms another person based on anything other than the content of their character, then you should stop doing that. If you see people doing this, then they are not the kind of people you need to listen to. Don't hate people for having faith that enriches their lives. Don't hate people that do not feel a need to have religion as part of their lives. All this is true no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, and both sides have guilty parties.

This was an excellent post and it was all worth reading. Thank you.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 09:30

RasperFat: Jul 11, 2006; Uncertainty is inherently unsustainable. Eventually, everything either is or isn't.

Sole.Sushi posted:

Honestly, this is a complex question that isn't easy to answer: forgive the train of thought below, I'll try to summarize at the end if you'd rather not read all of it.

There are people on the left who are hostile to religion, but as a whole, no. The left is fine with whatever faith (or lack thereof) you choose to follow, but what they generally have a problem with is when a faith interferes with basic human rights or contradicts equality.

Notable example: legal rights for homosexuals. Religion is the driving force of persecution behind the anti-gay sentiment that has pervaded the world for a long, long while. The left side of politics argue that religious basis for persecution interferes with basic human rights and does contradict equality for all, and so all over the world laws are being passed that assure them the same rights that heterosexuals have been enjoying this whole time (rights to be recognized as married, anti-discrimination laws, and so on). Now, there are those who still feel that being a homosexual is a sin, and while I cannot personally agree with that, it is their religion, it is their faith and it is wrong to persecute against it. Faith, however, is a personal choice one makes and is rarely consistent among its adherents: basically, the left policy is "be whatever religion you wanna be, but keep it yourself and don't be a dick about it."

Any hostility you may have been exposed to is likely the result of people being dicks about religion and the responses therein. There is also the distinct chance that more right (I.E. conservative) sources have focused only on leftist responses to religious issues rather than what, exactly, they are upset about.

With all this in mind, there are also many people who identify towards the right that have a similar or identical mindset of "be whatever religion you wanna be, but keep it to yourself and don't be a dick." There are also those on the left who push for social reform but only as it benefits themselves. There are also issues of what, specifically, a religion does that people find opposition towards. In the US, the left is generally intolerant of the Westborough Baptist Church, while the right is generally intolerant of Islam. The left and right both generally view Satanism and Scientology as hostile, and both sides generally have favorable opinions of Catholicism. In this respect, it's easier to ask "which religion?" when presented with the question of "is _____ intolerant or hostile towards religion?"

Faith and religion are so mutable and so varied even within the same church that it is impossible to say with perfect accuracy how any of them will respond to most complex social issues, and boy there are a lot of them that we should be aware of: racial equality, gender equality, social equality, reproductive rights, religious tolerance and a whole slew of others. Religions were largely the product of the times that created them, and very, very few grow with the world that they inhabit. Some concessions have been made, but by and large the world of religion has been stagnant and intolerant of change. The attitude of "if my book doesn't say it's good, then it's wrong" is present in every faith that I am aware of, though some do try to make amends. From a political perspective, it is much, much easier to cut religion out of the whole equation and focus on the commonality that we all share, which is that we are all human and we all deserve to be treated fairly, justly and equally. The conservative right in the US (who are mostly deeply religious) see this as an exclusion of their faith rather than an inclusion of the disenfranchised, which is what the liberal left argues it is.

That was a lot of words, so for the TL;DR summary: people on both sides of politics hate certain faiths or aspects of certain religions, and they are very loud to speak out about it. Don't use faith to justify hatred, bigotry or intolerance and you'll do just fine in any circle. If you rely on faith to support a view that directly harms another person based on anything other than the content of their character, then you should stop doing that. If you see people doing this, then they are not the kind of people you need to listen to. Don't hate people for having faith that enriches their lives. Don't hate people that do not feel a need to have religion as part of their lives. All this is true no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, and both sides have guilty parties.

One of the weirdest ideas people have is that religion is a "choice", in the same way you could choose which movie to watch.

Upbringing and environment are by far the two biggest factors in determining people's religions. Most people that grow up going to church through their childhood believe in god in some form because that worldview becomes part of their developmental foundation.

Social pressure especially at the community and family level, helps to reinforce this environment that funnels people into a specific religion.

Education, especially in physical sciences, is highly correlated with diminishing religiosity. This is the reason why "book learning" is marginalized among authoritarian sects. If people develop an accurate sense of history and science, as well as critical thinking skills, they are much more likely to withdraw from literalist interpretations and be less zealous in general.

It always strikes me as odd that the leftists' views of religions are always equated with the right wing's view of religion, just like in politics.

Atheist leftists think religious people are stupid/delusional and should get a better education. Also stop denying people basic rights and give them respect and tolerance. Atheists think religious people might be able to enrich their lives in a more productive way that doesn't enable the hateful garbage pushed by millions of people using their same holy texts.

Conservative religious people think atheists and people of other faiths should burn in hell, and should maybe be executed. Their ideas are heresy and should not be entertained.

Of course these views are opposing, so the sensible middle ground is somewhere in the middle.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 09:31

Liquid Communism: Mar 9, 2004; Out here, everything hurts.

NikkolasKing posted:

How is this any different from following civic law? True, we have Anarchists on the Left but by and large I think most people agree a State is necessary to some extent.

So, say, the law says no murdering people. That's a restriction on your freedom to murder people which of course is a rule or law in many religions too.

Any organization in power restricts rights and freedoms is my point. There's absolutely nothing unique about religion in this regard.

There absolutely is.

A functioning State claims its power to enforce laws based on the consent of the populace to be governed, and has a duty to work in the best interest of those governed.

A religious authority claims its right to enforce its laws based on divine revelation, and supposes a duty to force those governed to comply to its dogma for the good of their immortal souls. How stringently they enforce that dogma varies on sect and what the surrounding secular government will allow.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 09:42

RagnarokAngel: Oct 5, 2006; Black Magic Extraordinaire

I will say I disagree with the idea that religion is the primary force against homosexual rights because it's a very western centric way of looking at things. Notable atheist countries Japan, North Korea and China, hell basically much of asia, are all pretty lovely about LGBTQ rights, far worse than religious America.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 10:00

Avalerion: Oct 19, 2012

If god is real and he really hates butt sex to the point that he will make poeple who do it suffer for eternity, then the people trying to make others not have butt sex by any means necesary are right and should be seen as heroes.

He's not, so they are actually wrong to do this. The fundamental difference in how the world works is the crux of the issue here though and you can't really argue around it without adressing the belief itself.

Personally I do think religious people who keep it to themselves and don't force their beliefs on others are fine and I don't go around engaging them, though I do feel that in a way they are not really being... honest? About it. Like I don't get people who genuinelly think I'm going to hell and just shrug, though this is preferable to them trying to save me or whatever.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 10:03

RagnarokAngel: Oct 5, 2006; Black Magic Extraordinaire

Not all religion is centered on the idea that if you don't believe as they believe you go to hell. Judaism for example teaches that the covenant of Israel is reserved for those either born into it or choose to adopt it and has no effect whatsoever on those who dont. I mean, Jews don't even believe in the devil or Hell (second is debatable I guess).

In order to have a reasonable discussion on religion, religion cannot solely be defined by the beliefs of evangelical christianity. I understand that for many goons, who are American, that's the prototype that immediately pops into their mind when you say "religion" but it's not all religions, or even the majority of people on the planet who adhere to a religious belief. It's a minority who has a loud voice because they're born into the right country.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 10:07

Avalerion: Oct 19, 2012

Yea folks with non-harmfull beliefs are not a problem. They are wrong all the same but I don't feel the need to correct someone who believes in reincarnation or horoscopes or a nice god that does not really care what you do, if said belief is not doing any harm.

For religions that do hold actively harmfull beliefs that they try to force on others, I do think the real argument for opposing them is the belief itself being wrong or unfounded in reality and other arguments are just kind of playing along with said delusion.

If someone were to kill a bunch of people claiming they did it because god told them to we would not engage with that belief either, but when some people try to use the same argument to opress homosexuals we let it slide, to me that's just weird.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 11:15

RasperFat: Jul 11, 2006; Uncertainty is inherently unsustainable. Eventually, everything either is or isn't.

RagnarokAngel posted:

Not all religion is centered on the idea that if you don't believe as they believe you go to hell. Judaism for example teaches that the covenant of Israel is reserved for those either born into it or choose to adopt it and has no effect whatsoever on those who dont. I mean, Jews don't even believe in the devil or Hell (second is debatable I guess).

In order to have a reasonable discussion on religion, religion cannot solely be defined by the beliefs of evangelical christianity. I understand that for many goons, who are American, that's the prototype that immediately pops into their mind when you say "religion" but it's not all religions, or even the majority of people on the planet who adhere to a religious belief. It's a minority who has a loud voice because they're born into the right country.

The problem is not limited to American evangelism.

In India, Hinduism helps to reinforce the caste system.

I'm Africa shamanistic beliefs has lead to raping virgins to cure diseases.

In Buddhism there are very quietly next to zero female religious leaders, and this is true of most religious sects.

In Eastern Europe and Russia the Orthodox Church is very uncool with LGBTQ issues.

The Middle East has large gender equality issues directly related to Muslim beliefs and traditions, as does the Jewish population to a lesser degree.

Of course there are more reasonable moderate religious people than the hardliners in these regions as well, but pretending American exceptionalism is a thing with religious extremism is foolhardy.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 12:33

RagnarokAngel: Oct 5, 2006; Black Magic Extraordinaire

Absolutely though as I stated atheist nations have not so hot histories with many of those topics too. Look at North Korea, communist Russia, China (basically any "communist" country I guess) or Japan. Numerous human rights violations or inequal treatment all done in the name of some cause or for the good of the country.

It's not that I'm not saying we shouldn't call out religions individually for their faults because we absolutely should, but saying we would be rational actors without religion is just really wrong.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 12:38

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

The entire priesthood is basically a fascist fifth column in the country and this was proven by the Spanish Civil War.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 12:43

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Panzeh posted:

The entire priesthood is basically a fascist fifth column in the country and this was proven by the Spanish Civil War.

Mr. Wiggles will no doubt be here soon with his #NotAllCatholics speech, but, yeah. If the Catholic Church was not actively Francoist throughout, then it can at least be said they did not complain much as they benefitted greatly from it.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 14:10

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

yeah, it's pretty objectively bad. if the only reason you help people is because of fear, you are a bad person.

From a consequentialist perspective you literally aren't.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 15:53

Avalerion: Oct 19, 2012

No, the actions themselves would be good, but the person doing them only out of fear definitely isn't.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 16:02

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Unless you believe in magic a person who does good things is good.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 16:03

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

BattleMoose posted:

Of course it is. But I am not trying to convert you or trying to force my religious views on you. I actually respect your right to religious freedom

Ah yes, my old friend ideology.

Babylon Astronaut posted:

It's literally the opposite of what you just said. If god parted the clouds and farted, his existence would become a secular belief because we could use the scientific method to confirm his existence. What would convince a Christian that Muhammad is the messenger of God without them converting to Islam or logical reasoning and observation (because that would be the secular method of proving or disproving that Muhammad is the messenger of God)? Magic, the answer is magic.

This sort of misses the point of faith and belief. Proving God�s existence wouldn�t do anything to make the concept secular, as if it would strip the quality of holiness from worshipers or something. They already believe he is real without the scientific method. There is no such thing as the secular.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 16:16

TheImmigrant: Jan 18, 2011

zh1 posted:

Christianity is uniquely vile but you are correct that there is a definite hesitance to call attention to the worst aspects of all world religions, each of which are uniquely abhorrent to anyone with a conscience. The problem is our recent history of invading largely Muslim nations, leading those soupy idiots on the American left to lionize the also-idiotic and harmful religion of those we subjugated. Just another example of American leftists not really being leftists at all.

How is Christianity 'uniquely vile'? The best thing about Christianity is that its theology was able to accommodate secularism. In today's world, the world in which we live, Christianity is a spent force, especially in a political sense. The one Christian theocracy in the world today has a population of 451. Europe, which is the traditional Christendom, is largely nonobservant.

[I'm not a Christian - let me knock down that strawman before anyone erects it.]

# ? Mar 7, 2017 16:25

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

OwlFancier posted:

From a consequentialist perspective you literally aren't.

Well, it's a good thing I'm not a consequentialist then. Why do you keep arguing through first-semester philosophical constructs?

# ? Mar 7, 2017 16:45

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

OwlFancier posted:

Unless you believe in magic a person who does good things is good.

If someone puts a gun to your head and forces you to donate to a good cause against your will you become a better person? :raise:

# ? Mar 7, 2017 16:46

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Bates posted:

If someone puts a gun to your head and forces you to donate to a good cause against your will you become a better person?

Yes?

Again the only way that rule based ethics works is if you believe in something other than observable reality, if someone causes material improvements to the world then by any observation-based metric they are a positive force in the world.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 16:50

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

OwlFancier posted:

Again the only way that rule based ethics works is if you believe in something other than observable reality

This is an inherently baseless, absurd claim that you haven't provided any argument for whatsoever.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 16:55

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

This is an inherently baseless, absurd claim that you haven't provided any argument for whatsoever.

What do you propose is the basis for caring about the immaterial intent of the actor over the effects of their actions?

# ? Mar 7, 2017 16:58

Patrick Spens: Jul 21, 2006; "Every quarterback says they've got guts, But how many have actually seen 'em?"; Pillbug

TheImmigrant posted:

How is Christianity 'uniquely vile'? The best thing about Christianity is that its theology was able to accommodate secularism. In today's world, the world in which we live, Christianity is a spent force, especially in a political sense. The one Christian theocracy in the world today has a population of 451. Europe, which is the traditional Christendom, is largely nonobservant.

[I'm not a Christian - let me knock down that strawman before anyone erects it.]

This is sort of but not entirely true in Western Europe and North America (Abortion) and really not true in Africa and South America.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 17:30

Mr. Wiggles: Dec 1, 2003; We are all drinking from the highball glass of ideology.

PT6A posted:

Mr. Wiggles will no doubt be here soon with his #NotAllCatholics speech, but, yeah. If the Catholic Church was not actively Francoist throughout, then it can at least be said they did not complain much as they benefitted greatly from it.

Lo, I have been summoned.

And really, you're smarter than that. The reason "not all priests" "not all men" "not all gointheists" is a thing is because people are people. Overgeneralizations don't really advance debate here. If you really have a hard on to discuss the church in francoist Spain, ok, but let's not pretend that all of the church marched lockstep in anything involved there.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 17:33

Liquid Communism: Mar 9, 2004; Out here, everything hurts.

Mr. Wiggles posted:

Lo, I have been summoned.

And really, you're smarter than that. The reason "not all priests" "not all men" "not all gointheists" is a thing is because people are people. Overgeneralizations don't really advance debate here. If you really have a hard on to discuss the church in francoist Spain, ok, but let's not pretend that all of the church marched lockstep in anything involved there.

On a more telling note, has the Church's teaching on transubstantiation of the Eucharist changed substantially within the last couple decades? Because if not, as a faithful Catholic, you are professing to a true and honest belief in literal magic as a core part of your faith.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 17:55

Mr. Wiggles: Dec 1, 2003; We are all drinking from the highball glass of ideology.

Liquid Communism posted:

On a more telling note, has the Church's teaching on transubstantiation of the Eucharist changed substantially within the last couple decades? Because if not, as a faithful Catholic, you are professing to a true and honest belief in literal magic as a core part of your faith.

Transubstantiation and other philosophical intricacies of the Catholic faith are a complicated enough can of worms that they're probably a better fit for a dedicated thread.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 18:28

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Liquid Communism posted:

On a more telling note, has the Church's teaching on transubstantiation of the Eucharist changed substantially within the last couple decades? Because if not, as a faithful Catholic, you are professing to a true and honest belief in literal magic as a core part of your faith.

So?

# ? Mar 7, 2017 18:29

Oh dear me: Aug 14, 2012; I have burned numerous saucepans, sometimes right through the metal

OwlFancier posted:

What do you propose is the basis for caring about the immaterial intent of the actor over the effects of their actions?

But nobody is disputing the merit of the actions and effects. We're all happy to call those good. If someone wants to be thought virtuous for doing them, though, they have to have had a virtuous motive in doing them (e.g. benevolence), because that is what virtuous means. One does not have to care more about virtue than results to see that they are different things.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 18:41

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Oh dear me posted:

But nobody is disputing the merit of the actions and effects. We're all happy to call those good. If someone wants to be thought virtuous for doing them, though, they have to have had a virtuous motive in doing them (e.g. benevolence), because that is what virtuous means. One does not have to care more about virtue than results to see that they are merely different things.

If someone cares about virtue then I would suggest they've got some aspect of their worldview rather firmly planted in spiritualism.

I didn't say people were virtuous, I said they were good. If you're bothered about whether someone adheres to your personally preferred rules then that's between you and whatever you get those rules from but it has very little place in a materialist philosophy.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 18:44

Oh dear me: Aug 14, 2012; I have burned numerous saucepans, sometimes right through the metal

OwlFancier posted:

If someone cares about virtue then I would suggest they've got some aspect of their worldview rather firmly planted in spiritualism.

I didn't say people were virtuous, I said they were good.

Virtuous is what 'good' usually means, when it is used of people. I don't know why you think spiritualism has to be involved. Are you actually denying that people have intentions at all?

# ? Mar 7, 2017 18:45

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Oh dear me posted:

Virtuous is what 'good' usually means, when it is used of people. I don't know why you think spiritualism has to be involved. Are you actually denying that people have intentions at all?

They have intentions but they are immaterial beyond the degree to which they effect a particular outcome.

Like, literally immaterial. If you're espousing a philosophy based on observable, material reality then intent really should not matter to you other than as a vehicle to effect particular actions.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 18:47

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

I do have to wonder why it matters why someone helps out another if you're pretending to be a utilitarian.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 18:53

Oh dear me: Aug 14, 2012; I have burned numerous saucepans, sometimes right through the metal

OwlFancier posted:

They have intentions but they are immaterial beyond the degree to which they effect a particular outcome.

Like, literally immaterial. If you're espousing a philosophy based on observable, material reality then intent really should not matter to you other than as a vehicle to effect particular actions.

The number three is 'literally immaterial', but I'm not going to chuck arithmetic out of the window.

We are social beings who have to co-operate with others. Because of this their intentions do matter a lot, to all of us. We need to be able to predict people's actions to some extent, and therefore it matters whether someone did a good action in the past because they wanted to, or just because they were frightened into it. We also wish to encourage good actions, and persuading others to want the good - i.e. to be benevolent, a virtue - is an obvious first step.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 18:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 07:56

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

OwlFancier posted:

What do you propose is the basis for caring about the immaterial intent of the actor over the effects of their actions?

I have no idea what you're trying to express with that turd of a sentence, but empathy and socialisation are inherent traits in a lot of warm-blooded species, humans included. It is not a learned behavior, and does not require religion or a philosophical framework to exist. Raccoons demonstrate cooperative planning, altruism, parent-child attachment and social cognition. I'm pretty sure raccoons have neither a concept of god, nor the Intro to Philosophy concepts you're regurgitating in this thread.

# ? Mar 7, 2017 19:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is the Left Hostile to Religion?

«‹›57 »