|
The hypocrisy is the desire to treat religiosity as a medical condition rhetorically without committing yourself to treating it as a medical condition materially, to have your cake of spitting on religion by classifying it as a disability and eat it too by never actually treating it as one. That is, if religion is the medical disorder you all insist it is, you are unwilling to advocate the equivalent of wheelchairs or glasses for those disabled by religiosity, and indeed defend the notion that those disabled ought receive no assistance whatsoever.
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:How is this helping anybody? If you cared about people's well-being you wouldn't post.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If you are seriously going to treat religion as a mental illness, you'd have to trample over free expression of belief. Right. I disagree with the notion that religion is a mental illness or ought to be treated as such, mind.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:What would you call believing things that aren't real, then? Well, provide your disproof of the concept of religion. Tell you what, I'll even leave out the Church of Positivism and LaVeyan Satanism for you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:We don't have to make it about religion - hopefully I don't have to prove Hogwarts isn't real, we can just accept that it obviously isn't, right? How would you classify someone's belief that Hogwarts is real? Go ask Max Tegmark.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:I did call them delusions instead, for the record. And yea I myself brought up that this is in no way limited to religion so no argument there. Nobody is telling you you can't be an atheist. I am telling you that if you want to claim religion is false you need to have proof. Just like you could claim astrology is inaccurate by proving that it relies on false positives and vagueness of horoscopes to get results, but just insisting astrology is inaccurate does not constitute such proof.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
I don't understand why you're using belief in the material reality of an expressly fictional artifact as equated with religion, except as an unsubtle slander against religion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Squalid posted:It sounds like the thread is headed down a sort of positivist track, where one should be a default agnostic through never even beginning to ask the question of if there is or isn't a god, as all present claims either way are evidently nonsensical. No? I am arguing against the use of science as a knock-down argument. There are plenty of good philosophical arguments for atheism, but alas, they don't involve a line to an absolute truth from which to stand on and hurl insults, and mostly offer doubt and some humility, so it's not surprising fans of Sam Harris are unaware of their existence.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Squalid posted:At their root most modern religions derives their claims about the universe from logic that goes something like: It's in the Vedas. The Vedas are given to us from the heavens, and so it must be true. All one needs to establish Faith in the Harry Potter universe is to develop the premise that the novels are divine truth, and the express intent for the material to be fictional becomes irrelevant. This kind of innovation occurs not infrequently, see the way some American Protestant movements treat the KJB or some modern people have begun to behave as if zombie apocalypses or Mad Max represent a real potential. This is certainly an argument made in good faith and not just a gussied-up "get owned, godhavers".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Falsifiability is pretty outdated philosophy of science and explicitly doesn't render a verdict on truthfulness.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Virtually every other post is about how the religious are mentally defective, but punching back is "trolling". Uh huh.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Squalid posted:It's something many religious people will say repeatedly, it's no secret Christianity is founded on the Bible. Of course there are many religious traditions with no texts, their practitioners typically appeal to tradition as a justification. This certainly is an argument made in good faith, (or should I say Faith, like we're loving Germans) and not just a gussied-up way to say "get owned, godhavers".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I think for most people it should be sufficient to say: Falsifiability in the sense of "all that is scientific is Popperian" is pretty outdated philosophy of science. Anyways, it's funny how your insults are "helpful" but mine aren't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
So how much does the intellectual inferiority of being religious extend? Is any atheist a better thinker and scientist than Stephen Jay Gould?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What? What insult? In terms of philosophy of science, that is the loving discipline, as opposed to scientists themselves, who often wear suspenders for christ's sakes, falsifiability as the basis for all science is well out of date. Squalid posted:Instead of attacking my intentions why don't you defend the argument I was responding to? There's no reason to believe authorial intent should be assumed to have any relevance to faith in a text, the way the KJV is used is ample proof of that. No thank you, I have no intention of slamming my foot on top of a landmine just because you're asking me to. Hell, your incompetence at using the quote function has somehow made me less likely to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:It is correct that Die Logik der Forschung was published a good many years ago. I'm not so sure what that does for us here though? Hmm, verrrry dishonest of you to pretend I meant chronological age rather than being outdated as an understanding of philosophy of science. Your posts are an insult to your parents and to anyone with eyes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I will phrase it in another way. Okay, so for "scientific" I should read "critical rationalist" instead? Because I thought we were talking about science and religion, not Popper's positivism and religion. Liquid Communism posted:Is the shocking lack of self-awareness in your posting normal? You might want to step away and breathe for a minute, and maybe come back in a better state of mind for discussion. I don't get how calling people who disagree with you crazy is intended to foster discussion. Perhaps you should go back to insisting people at high risk of suicide ought to own guns?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Popper's philosophy is called Critical Rationalism. It's not really a positivist philosophy. I am saying it is not a particularly relevant philosophy in philosophy of science. I am not saying anything about its age. Your inability to distinguish this is one of the many, many insults you hurl at anyone with the severe misfortune to read one of your posts.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Fascinating how it seems everyone besides Brainiac Five is dishonest and insulting, advancing rigged propositions and dropping rhetorical land mines. When they're wrong they are not just wrong, they are contemptibly wrong. Their uncharitable slanders have of course spoiled the threads tone, which Brainiac Five was trying sooo hard to keep civil. Civility is the hobgoblin of little minds. Anyways, why is insinuating that religious people are all crazy anything other than an insult? If I were to suggest that atheists were all devoid of morals, I would rightly be castigated for such a thing, but I guess that you're ideologically blinded to the prospect that religious people could be anything other than mentally defective. Such a sad turn of events to have warped you so.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I'm fairly certain that the only one in the thread who is insinuating that religious people are crazy is you. Maybe you should learn to read, and then apply this skill you have learned to determine what "delusional" means, and then consider what it would mean to suggest that being religious is to be inherently delusional. I mean, you won't because you probably haven't reasoned yourself into believing religious people are all mentally subnormal, you've got an emotional reason for believing in science as a thing which lifts you up from the idiot masses. Cingulate posted:Ok, I think it is very relevant to scientists, e.g. the LIGO team. It's possibly the most important fleshed-out normative theory for scientists. Buddy, if your posts are unintentional you need an intervention or something. Well, Cingulate, people are talking about science, and using falsificationanationistic positivism as the arbiter of "is it science" is wrong. I'm sure you will continue "just asking questions" until your body begins to physically rebel against you making any more posts.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Squalid posted:It's a pretty dumb insinuation I admit. But are you implying that's something I believe? because that would be retarded. If you considered that being in insanely on noxious is not a good way to bring people around towards your point of view? Liquid Communism posted:I think you're projecting a little there, friend. The only one I've yet seen bring up delusion in the context of religion is you. The strongest thing I've said, and which I stand behind, is that a sincere belief in physical transubstantiation is effectively a belief in magic. Well, if you'd read, you'd have seen multiple people make that assertion, and you have decided that I was targeting you, "Liquid Communism", or you, "Squalid" with a strawman because you can't be damned to read posts if they're not by suspected or known godhavers to take up your cudgels against. So you decided to implicitly defend this claim, because for all that you whine about me being "on noxious" it seems pretty deserved in the face of your jackassery. Cingulate posted:I promise you I'm not trying to insult you. To be honest, it's at times a bit hard because you're spewing a lot of bile, but by carefully dosing the powerful sedatives I am constantly under whenever I spend time on D&D, it is manageable. The basic point is that post-Kuhn, determination of what science is, which is important for a thread obsessed with the lines between science and religion, has generally not relied on Mr. Popper's Penguins as a definition. I'd mention Karl Feyerabend but that might push you to overdosing on your sedatives.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:I did bring it up (using the above as my definition for delusion in this context) to be fair. Irrational probably would have been a better term in hindsight if delusion has too much baggage attached to it. It's, uh, not about the "baggage", the very insistence that religion is inherently false and religious people necessarily do not perceive reality is a claim that religious people are all insane.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Who here is talking about religious people being insane? (With the exception of you.) I am using Kuhn as signifying the shift away from the use of Popper as the sole determinative you stupid loving computer jockey. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don't see how you signifying this shift brings us any closer to you having demonstrated inquiring if a potentially scientific claim is falsifiable has no force. Where did I say that? I want you to find the words "inquiring if a potentially scientific claim is falsifiable has no force", those exact words, in this thread, and quote me saying so. Squalid posted:This thread is insanely bad so one should be forgiven for not reading it, especially not your posts. I know you were discussing delusions at some point, but in your post quoting me it looked like you were attributing it to me, probably because you are about as rhetorically adept as a sack of potatoes. *nods sagely* Not all heroes is sandwiches, indeed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:If you're going to be pedantic, he didn't put any quote marks so I don't think that's necessarily a direct quote. But in intervening posts I have clarified my position repeatedly and so his objection would seem to be from him being braindead.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Please stop getting sucked into B5's endless holy war against perceived threats to his ego. Please, please just put him on ignore, he will go away. This was a not-terrible thread before he showed up and we can turn it around if we believe hard enough. Man, it's pretty awesome knowing I have made you materially suffer simply by refusing to suck up to you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:God: You may live in one of two places, little consciousness. The first is a technologically advanced Western democracy with robust social safety nets, but it comes at the cost of existential guilt over your country's exploitation of the world's poor. The second is a postcolonial nation rife with corruption and riddled with crumbling infrastructure, but you will be possessed with a righteous indignation over your nation's treatment by the bourge-- Intriguing how your conception of the divine is that any god would necessarily believe in white guilt. Your gods are made in your own image, and yet you believe that people are subject to religion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:You're really, really, really stretching here. There was no evidence whatsoever that there was any such thing as a popular abolitionist movement in the time of Jesus. There's equally no reason whatsoever to think that Jesus or any of his disciples would have been a abolitionists, or thought of slavery as anything other than a fact of life. Slaves show up in the background of just about every book in the New Testament. They're disposable, they suffer beatings, they're killed with no consequence, and there is no moral commentary on any of this that could possibly be interpreted as an argument against slavery on moral terms. None of those are teachings of Jesus, though. Two of those are Pauline, and Paul's essential argument was an apocalyptic one- Jesus was returning soon. That's why he elsewhere advocates for complete celibacy- there is no need to have any more children, the end of the world is imminent. Slavery will be destroyed with the return of the Son of Man, so opposing it now is tertiary compared to preparing yourself to be worthy of eternal life. Timothy is pseudo-Pauline, and dates from an effort to reorient Christianity into something non-apocalyptic and that could survive in the conditions of the Roman Empire, which is why it and the other Pastoral Epistles specifically condemn the radical social arrangements of the early church. 1 Peter is also about accommodating Christianity to the Roman world. But in a larger sense, if you tried to pull this poo poo in a literature class about, say, Native Son you'd be flunked. What is being done here resembles nothing so much as arguments about whether Goku could beat Superman. Looking at the New Testament's books in terms of their overall message, what we see repeatedly is the message that the existing social order will be completely overturned. Many who are first will be last, in your life you received your good things and Lazarus his evil things, I have come to minister to the sick and not to the healthy. While Jesus probably rejected the idea of a secular solution to slavery, consider the religious imagery surrounding abolitionism and the American Civil War 1800 years later, and the question of whether people ever believed in a secular solution to slavery before it is eliminated becomes fairly questionable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Who gives a poo poo? Shbobdb, someday your web of dishonesties will choke you to death. It would be better for you to abandon them now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Straight to the character assassination. You can't assassinate your character since it doesn't actually exist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
The obvious explanation for why religious people would be more traditional is that religion is traditional and atheism is not, and nowhere has mass atheism been a phenomenon long enough to become traditional and thus for conservatives to flock to it. But this would suggest that religion is ultimately a neutral force rather than an absolutely good or bad one, and most people would rather not think in such a ternary logic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:You don't think "conservative" ought apply to ancient institutions resistant to change? I think rigged questions are one of the few good arguments for the death penalty.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Seriously though, do some research. It isn't leftism that's hostile to religion, it's religion that's hostile to leftism. In America, as Churches go left their membership declines. "Adapt and die" is a very real phenomenon. What a stunning insight! I have been ripped asunder by your logic!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:As a society becomes less bound by mysticism, it can focus more on changing social structures and adapting for the future. Moving away from religion is a step towards unity, where everyone can agree on the basic facts of reality and move forward from there. Why is a monocultural society an ideal one?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:Religion isn't required for a multicultural society. The argument I am quoting is that the elimination of religion will push things towards "unity" and this is characterized as monolithic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:Unity of facts, such as "don't murder gays, women are people with bodily autonomy, and things like that." Okay, so why is eliminating religion necessary for that, since there are religions that believe those things which exist today? It seems like if this is all that is desired, there is no reason to eliminate religion. So either we classify the speaker as an imbecile or we assume they know what they're talking about. Which is it?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:Did you even read his post, or just decide to be a dick about it? I suggest you get off your pedestal, since people who put themselves on one are liable to a fall, or to being pushed, if you get what I mean. You have failed to engage with my argument, which is that eliminating religion does not have anything to do with "unity of facts" in the sense you outlined, and only makes sense in the sense of establishing a monoculture. To put it another way, eliminating the Presbyterian Church (USA), which began performing gay marriages a year before Obergefell v. Hodges, does not make sense as a way to get everyone on the same page regarding LGBT people, so either you and the guy you're stanning for are pig-ignorant about things, or you have an ulterior motive.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean if I was trying to create a unified monocultural society I would probably include a strong spiritualist element to it and definitely wouldn't found it on the idea that everyone should have access to lots of information and trust that they'll all come to the same conclusions. I'm not suggesting this notion is likely to create one, I am questioning why "unity" is seen as a goal in and of itself rather than, say, mutual respect or other ways of formulating human rights concerns.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Wow. So go shoot up a seminary about it instead of fantasizing about how sneering will get you a world where all the Jews are dead.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The God and Flag people are the ones trying to kill all the Jews. Not the secularists. Hell, not even the Maoists. In a world without religion, there's no such thing as Jewishness, since it is the shared relationship to the Jewish faith which binds together the disparate Jewish people. Desire to eliminate religion is of necessity desire to eliminate Jewishness.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 04:52
|
|