|
rudatron posted:The fundamental assumption of religion is the 'leap of faith', i.e. the adoption of a non-parsimonious assumption in your knowledge base, because of 'divine revelation'. The fundamental assumption of science is universal skepticism and the application of parsimony to all beliefs (to state it more rigorously - minimize the total entropy of all beliefs). They're not equivalent, but you have to go beyond theories/knowledge into the process of deriving beliefs/knowledge to tell the difference. But it exists, and so for the purposes of this discussion, you can proceed from that assumption. Naomi Oreskes talks about this issue: https://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_oreskes_why_we_should_believe_in_science/transcript?language=en Leaps of Faith and consensus are very much part of science. And the false dichotomy continues to be harmful.
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:51 |
|
|
Being hostile to religion is stupid. It's like being hostile to a language.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:It really isn't. For one, syllables aren't known for spying in the name of fascists. Some people that speak English are spying for the Russians does that make English culpable? The religions are collections of symbols and stories that people use to talk about thier experience of reality.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:Pretty sure languages aren't campaigning to enslave women and minorities. One can rather easily demonstrate that language can be used to do that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Religions are religions because of the God or whatever other supernatural part. Language is simply a tool where agreed upon symbols are used to convey messages. That analogy falls pretty flat considering that language doesn't require suspension of belief nor has any of the cultural baggage religion does. "Agreed upon symbols used to convey messages" Yeah people get together in councils and did just that. They went well we will use this symbol and not that one. Lets roll with these stories and not those stories. That literally what the nicene creed is and what they did to put the bible together. The religions are languages people use to talk about thier relationships with the ineffable real.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Y'all know we have a religion scholar on a cable news network , who makes this argument. This is not an esoteric view point.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:but even he says that there's no real way to tell the difference between a cult and a religion. Hidden religious cults, by this I mean groups of people who hold in common sets of beliefs, and use in common sets of symbolic language, are pretty widespread right now and they are very harmful. As many are corrupt religions that pretend to be neither religious or cults. rudatron posted:The purpose of a language is to not just express things, but express things clearly and concisely, and religious-mythos-as-a-language fails on that last test. Well thats becsuse many of the metaphors are dependant on experience. Some of the metaphors are clear as daylight to a particular group and utterly opaque to another group. Fig trees come to mind.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Would each of you say that as a category religion was universally harmful?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well it isn't when alot of people here ascribe Calvinist beliefs to all christians. As a category Christianity contains denominations that range from neo-platonists who know things with science to basically having no epistemology or real philosophy whatsoever. But they do love to pretend that we are all Calvinists for some reason. ..
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:Wasn't it Jesus that said you'd know a tree by the fruit it bears? When the gently caress does that start applying to Christianity? Not in this thread, but that fig tree thing none of you seem to get... bookends the money changers in the temple, of course the tree metaphors apply to Christianity and corrupt religion.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Tbh Plato is part of the problem here. He had things to say about democracy, that makes him valuable to people who argue against progressive causes, because it excuses oppression as There Is No Alternative. I think we have a larger problem with the metaphors of King of Kings and monarchy of Christ...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
Wow several real poo poo heads here. You going to tell us Muslims should not teach next?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:Last I checked, Muslims weren't re-writing the laws in this country. It's mostly libertarians.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:LO-loving-L if you think Libertarians have any real influence in government right now. They just sank health care repeal. Their think tank lists are why Gorsuch was nominated and confirmed. Etc.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Happy Easter everybody. Peace be with you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Covok posted:Yeah, to be honest, I'm slowly kind of agreeing that, at the very least, the people in this thread are hostile to religion. They seem like the kind of atheist who thinks being atheist makes them inherently smarter, which tends to be a bad position to take and is rather narcissistic. A good chunk are ex-evangelicals or other right wing Christians. Adult converts to anything tend to be more... enthusiastic.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Its such blatant hypocrisy. I don't think any of us here (with the exception of the occasional nut ) will defend corrupt religion. And if we are honest and authentic we should be saying to it (corrupt religion) “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Sounds good. Hop to it!  I try to irl. But moral influence often works and spreads slowly. So I'll keep plugging at it until away until I die. I don't have to tell you that I'm an irritatingly persistent fucker."Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:This is actually a pretty interesting starting point for the truly inseparable gulf between humanist Leftism (which is by no means the only kind, mind) and the Christian faith. Nah, here's another way to say it: “I imagine a big seesaw, and one end of this seesaw is on the ground with a basket half-full of big rocks in it. The other end is up in the air. It’s got a basket one-quarter full of sand. And some of us got teaspoons, and we’re trying to fill up sand… “One of these years, you’ll see that whole seesaw go zooop in the other direction. And people will say, ‘Gee, how did it happen so suddenly?’ Us and all our little teaspoons.”
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:People that talk in what they think are metaphors are usually assholes. http://i.imgur.com/cTdIJCO.jpg
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I'm saying that humanism by definition privileges the human perspective, and that Christianity necessarily privileges God's, Not necessarily that privileging of God was from liberal theology before Barth. Barth obliterates it. After Barth liberal theology does respond, but not by rejecting what Barth asserts. https://archive.org/details/TheHumanityOfGod-KarlBarth "From the fact that God is human in the sense described, there follows first of all a quite definite distinction of man as such. It is a distinction of every being which bears the human countenance. This includes the whole stock of those capacities and possibilities which are in part common to man and to other creatures, and in part peculiar to him, and like- wise man's work and his productions. The acknowledgment of this distinction has nothing to do with an optimistic judgment of man. It is due him because he is the being whom God willed to exalt as His covenant-partner, not otherwise. But just because God is human in this sense, it is actually due man and may not be denied him through any pessimistic judgment, whatever its basis. (On the basis of the eternal will of God we have to think of every human being, even the most- villainous or miserable, as one to whom Christ is Brother and God is Father; and we have to deal with him on this assumption. If the other person knows that already, then we have to strengthen him in the knowledge. If he does not know it yet or no longer knows it, our business is to transmit this knowledge to him. On the basis of the knowledge of the humanity of God no other attitude to any kind of fellow man is possible. It is identical with the practical acknowledgment of his human rights and his human dignity. To deny it to him would be for us to renounce having Jesus Christ as Brother and God as Father. " And to those who would put God above humanity at the expense of and to the detriment of humanity, well, Barths conclusion as to what that act entails is pretty harsh: "To deny it to him would be for us to renounce having Jesus Christ as Brother and God as Father. " Any evangelism that is not a humanism in the face of Barth's arguement... just doesn't hold up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I'm also saying -- because it's closely related -- that even small or futile acts of kindness are important. I think BrandorKP agrees about small ones, which I didn't get from the Niebuhr quote but I did get from his second post, but I'm not sure if he agrees about futile ones. None of it's futile, we just generally don't get to see the fruit of our actions.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:pretty much Since logocentrism yeah, Shbobdb just figuring it almost 2 millennium later.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:If you look you'll see some references to God's children and a single Bible quote. However, his overwhelming message was not religious. It was secular arguments based on secular ideas. Just a dashing of religious rhetoric, not sermonizing or trying to force other churches to be progressive. This was one of his most poetic and spiritual speeches that wasn't a straight up sermon. It is all religious and what you're doing is disengenious and ignores the history of Christianity. I also think you know enough to know why your arguement is one of bad faith.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:The entire speech is framed around the promises of the explicitly secular constitution and the promises of democracy. These are not spiritual arguments no matter how you try to frame it. Where does the idea of equality under law come from? How does it end up in American civic religion?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:I am also fairly sure that the plebeian revolts didn't need to wait for Jesus to be born to think it might be cool to be equal. Right another religious tradition with a boner for the "Logos" came up with the idea.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
So you can't tell the difference between a synthesis and what the thread MO is...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:And we're sure that the hostility started from the left rather than from the reactionary churches because... When and why did the break between religious socialists and socialists occur?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Hand wave away Bonhoeffer, the guy everybody in Christianity looks to, right left or otherwise instead of recognizing the opportunity present.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Agag posted:Civil Rights was the example of a successful mass political movement. And the black church profoundly interacted with those exact theologians. Bonhoeffer goes back to Germany for two reasons, Barth and his time in Black churches in Harlem. Niebhur brings many of the religious thinkers that matter who had to flee germany: Tillich, Bonheoffer, etc through union. They spend time in Harlem during the Harlem Renaissance. Union students goto study nonviolence with Ghandi, in the same time period. Confessing church and Union are huge. Edit: and when and why do many of these people move away from socialism? Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Apr 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:The idea of equality under law was an Enlightenment ideal that was borne out of separating religion from the government. Religious laws explicitly state different rules for non believers or people of different birth. Enlightenment is looking back to something. It's a stoic idea.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:The Enlightenment was a revival of secular ideas practiced by the Greeks and Romans with a twist of romanticization. It's widely accepted as a secular movement that promoted secularism, championing free thought and scientific pursuit. The Greek philosophy schools were religions. They fit well most definitions of cults. They even have saviors. What we think of as the characteristics of religions, well quite a lot of that comes from them. Further, secular has changed in meaning over the years, what was meant by the word at the time of founding fathers?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:
So we are absolutely clear my response to corrupt religion is: “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:So are you planning on just pretending 2000 years of church history isn't true christianity because it doesn't fit your politics? Because Schweitzer had something to say about that. Most of the problem is American protestants, outside of much of that tradition and who are more American than Christian.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ah, so they arent true They are Christian, but American Christianity is just weird in general in both political directions. And a lot of the weirdness in the rest of the world in Christianity, is coming from American Christains. They get around.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:51 |
|
|
That's fair. And that's going to be a hard one to ever get the catholics to change on.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 17:23
|
|