|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I just wonder why you think it's a bad assumption that the person who says they are doing [bad thing] based on their religion is telling the truth. homo sapiens sapiens is a highly unreliable narrator, hence, bias any model which objectively takes people at their word is actually, flawed let alone your implicit judgement call on whether or not a religious adherent is actually following the tenets of their religion or not
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
let's say one christian kills because of his religion, and the other sacrificies his life to prevent others from being killed. which one is the true christian? if they're both the true christian, then what's the point of determining christianness to begin with?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:homo sapiens sapiens is a highly unreliable narrator, hence, bias This isn't even getting into all the subjectivity that goes into what models get made, what questions are asked, how questions are asked, who is asking the questions, etc. etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
LorrdErnie posted:This isn't even getting into all the subjectivity that goes into what models get made, what questions are asked, how questions are asked, who is asking the questions, etc. etc. i think op is assuming that we're just going to handwave all that and come up with a Perfect Model so i'm taking the tack that data collection itself is prone to bias
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Some New Atheists are xenophobic, yes. It's a hell of a lot more than some, almost certainly a majority. Or, at the very least, a majority see no problem freely associating and agreeing with xenophobic people and positions, but that's a meaningless distinction. The things you read and hear in atheists groups is more often than not only distinguishable from Stormfront or /pol/ because of the thick layer of faux-intellectualism smeared over everything and the lesser emphasis on Jewish conspiracies. It's exactly the reason I stopped going to such places. New Atheists and the Alt-Right share a lot of common arguments and tactics because they are composed of largely the same people, and they absolutely share views of xenophobia, misogyny, and racism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i think op is assuming that we're just going to handwave all that and come up with a Perfect Model so i'm taking the tack that data collection itself is prone to bias That's probably fair, can't talk about every problem. The idea that you can objectively interpret data is a doozy as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Who are New Atheists and what are they doing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Who are New Atheists and what are they doing. Kinda like New Pepsi. But with all natural hipster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Who are New Atheists and what are they doing. Mostly racist assholes and being mostly racist assholes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Mostly racist assholes and being mostly racist assholes. Ok so people I don't like. Does anybody even call themselves New Atheists, and do these people have anything approaching influence or respect? Even Reddit seems to have turned off of people like Dawkins these days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Sort of. I can't list specific examples, I didn't follow him ever since I disavowed him as a teen, but I can tell you what I didn't like before. I think you're mistaken on just bout every point. Let me toss my take on things into the ring: quote:-Harris takes every quote from the Quaran at its basic, most literal interpretation. Then he uses it to lambast the worshippers of Islam. If they do what the Quaran says, they are violent psychopaths. If they do not, then they're not true Muslims (though we should beware anyway) It's weird that a literal interpretation of a holy book is considered a deliberate misuse of it. First of all, there are many, many believers (of Islam and Christianity, to make it clear) who take their books at literal, face value, and Harris is addressing those people when he criticizes what the books say. But second, it is not unreasonable to think that if an omnipotent God wrote a book, then the things in that book should be taken in a straightforward way. I don't understand what is so tendentious about thinking that "...and kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out" really means kill them wherever you find them. Why is that a dishonest take on that verse? quote:-He hates the left. He believes it's regressive and apologetic. The idea to him that you can accept Muslims and decry their violent extremists is completely to foreign to him. Anyone who does this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He does not hate the left and he considers himself to be a liberal on almost every point. He criticizes the left in the areas he thinks it is failing. Saying that a group's stance on one issue is regressive is not the same as saying the group is regressive in totality. quote:-Like most pop-atheists, he tries to score points by needlessly giving religious poo poo. Like Draw Muhammad day and other petty poo poo. Are you against this because you think this is an excuse for people to be dicks for now reason? Then you're a free-speech hating fascist. Draw Muhammed day never happened. The point there was to show that Islam is unique in that it would respond to something like this with violence, whereas Christians would not kill over "Draw Jesus Day" and Mormons would not kill over "Draw Joseph Smith Day". This is a difference between Islam and other faiths that should trouble us. It is not "an excuse for people to be dicks for now[sic] reason". People drawing a picture of Mohammad is not "being a dick", anymore than drawing Jesus is "being a dick" to Christians. quote:-He is super into bootstraps. If the middle east only decided to put aside their barbaric ways, they could ascend to the level of us enlightened first world people and we'd have a lot less problems with them. While he acknowledges western fuckery in the region, he is more quick to blame the culture than the West's involvement. He even had the gall to say that if they weren't so barbaric, the West would never have tried to stir poo poo up in that region, which is what really made me go "yeah ok gently caress off bud" as a kid. He has never said anything like this. I need a citation here, because I honestly don't know which statement you misinterpreted to be saying this. quote:drat if I can find that loving article though. It was released a few years after 9/11. It struck a chord with me because I was on the Muslim hate train along with everyone, and yet this was beyond the pale. Yes, please find the article. Let's address what was actually said. quote:Yes! Absolutely! This reads very sarcastic, but apparently you are serious. Do you really think a Christian is not motivated in any way by the Christian beliefs they hold? You don't think that they, for instance, go to church because of religious prescriptions? Or abstain from premarital sex that they greatly desire because of the idea that God disapproves? And hold on: quote:Westboro Baptist Church believes gays are bad cause of God Okay, so you agree that they got their prejudice from their Holy Book? What are you actually claiming here? quote:People pervert teachings left and right to fit their world view. You cannot have a morality given by religion. Every moral decision is ultimately made by you. Your internal morality can be influenced by religion, but it is, usually, not the only source. You seem to be saying that religion is not playing a role in people's actions then immediately backing off and tempering that with "usually, sometimes, not completely, to some extent". Do you think religious beliefs influence action or don't you? If not, why not? ----- I am trying to respond to every point that every poster has made, but there is a lot to get to and I'm probably doing short shrift to some if not all. Apologies. I will try to be more thorough as I can, and go back to dig in a bit more if things slow down a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:It's weird that a literal interpretation of a holy book is considered a deliberate misuse of it. the quran literally says “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” so thank you for agreeing with me that religiously inspired violence cannot be attributed to Islam, because they are in violation of their religious tenets thus are simple murderers misusing the religion. next!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:the quran literally says “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” so thank you for agreeing with me that religiously inspired violence cannot be attributed to Islam, because they are in violation of their religious tenets thus are simple murderers misusing the religion. next! Are you serious? First of all, the fact that the Quran disagrees with itself does not hurt my case at all. I could just as easily say that the violent Muslims are following the religion correctly and the nonviolent Muslims are cherry-picking to justify their pacifism. The point is that they both can back up their positions with scripture. Second, that verse has an important modifier: that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully. So, do not kill the people that God does not want you to kill, unless it is legal to do so. This is not the outright ban on murder you have taken it to be. I don't understand why, when a Muslim commits violence of any sort, it is never the fault of Islam. Do you think Islam is ever the reason for violence? Do you think Christianity is ever the basis for opposing gay marriage? Do you somehow exempt religious beliefs from affecting behavior?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Mostly racist assholes and being mostly racist assholes. Please do not bring the charge of racism into this. Islam is not a race, and my criticism of its tenants apply with equal felicity to white practitioners as it does to brown or black ones. Also, I am vehemently critical of Christianity as well, it's just that no one has seen the need to challenge me on that point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Please do not bring the charge of racism into this. Islam is not a race, and my criticism of its tenants apply with equal felicity to white practitioners as it does to brown or black ones. Also, I am vehemently critical of Christianity as well, it's just that no one has seen the need to challenge me on that point. Again, I'm not talking about you specifically but New Atheism as a movement, so just go ahead and unbunch those panties. And don't you loving dare pull that "Islam is a religion and not a race" horseshit with me, because you know goddamn well that people use "Muslim" and "arab" completely interchangeably all the loving time. You're straight up deluded if you're just going to ignore the racist overtones in a lot of atheist videos, because the only people ever depicted in their videos are Arabic and they only ever speak about Muslims in middle-east countries immigrating to western nations to kill the men and rape the women. So don't loving lie to try and make New Atheism look better than it actually is, because that poo poo ain't gonna fly with me. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Jul 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Orlanth is the light. Also there are as many religions as there are religious people. Lots of people saying they follow religion X or religion Y, when they actually mean "my wildly loose conception of what religion X means, brought about and maintained by the society that surrounds me". So really, religion is just some sort of societal peer pressure mechanism that we've managed to superficially organize to some degree, and some people have managed to exploit with extreme success and at the expense of participants. I personally think religion as a personal decision is just an intellectual crutch and people should embrace rationality, but I also think it's very disingenuous of people like Dawkins to make religion the source of all evils. That's just stupid. The true problem is with society, religion is just a symptom of other, deeper things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:I personally think religion as a personal decision is just an intellectual crutch and people should embrace rationality You paid money and dedicated some of the limited time in your life to posting here, what makes you think you have a worldview shaped by rationality?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Draw Muhammed day never happened. The point there was to show that Islam is unique in that it would respond to something like this with violence, whereas Christians would not kill over "Draw Jesus Day" and Mormons would not kill over "Draw Joseph Smith Day". This is a difference between Islam and other faiths that should trouble us. It is not "an excuse for people to be dicks for now[sic] reason". People drawing a picture of Mohammad is not "being a dick", anymore than drawing Jesus is "being a dick" to Christians. Islam is scarcely unique in that regard. Christians might not get upset over "Draw Jesus Day," but I bet you could get some protests and some death threats going with "poo poo on a Crucifix Day." Sure, I wouldn't expect it to rise to the level of murder in the west, but that hasn't always been the case; a few hundred years back, accusations that Jews were desecrating communion wafers was a handy pretext for burning them to death and stealing their stuff. In light of this, violence in the Arab world motivated by slights against Islam look less like uniquely Islamic perversion, and more likely to be related of the other social conditions on the ground-- the decades of political instability, the fragile social institutions, the poverty, all that good stuff. Even if you suspect the religion is an issue, I don't see how you disentangle it from everything else. I mean, I'm pretty sure American Muslims weren't killing people over "Draw Muhammad Day, and I would say that's pretty telling. And yes, drawing a picture of Muhammad is being a dick to Muslims. It's a provocation, deliberately antagonizing people over an odd but completely harmless belief. When Muslims get upset over it, it's not just for the sacrilege but because they believe, rightly, that they are being attacked. This is doubly the case in the west, where the "Draw Muhammad Day" stunt originated, and where Muslims are already a small religious minority widely viewed with suspicion and contempt. It's absolutely a hostile act, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous. It's like burning a country's flag, then acting surprised when people are upset with you. "What's the big deal? All I did was burn some cloth."
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:You paid money and dedicated some of the limited time in your life to posting here, what makes you think you have a worldview shaped by rationality? Whoa there friend you seem to be making a mistake, never in my post did I mention myself as an example or anything of the sort.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Blizz Pizz Love Us posted:Islam is scarcely unique in that regard. Christians might not get upset over "Draw Jesus Day," but I bet you could get some protests and some death threats going with "poo poo on a Crucifix Day." Sure, I wouldn't expect it to rise to the level of murder in the west, but that hasn't always been the case; a few hundred years back, accusations that Jews were desecrating communion wafers was a handy pretext for burning them to death and stealing their stuff. In light of this, violence in the Arab world motivated by slights against Islam look less like uniquely Islamic perversion, and more likely to be related of the other social conditions on the ground-- the decades of political instability, the fragile social institutions, the poverty, all that good stuff. Even if you suspect the religion is an issue, I don't see how you disentangle it from everything else. I mean, I'm pretty sure American Muslims weren't killing people over "Draw Muhammad Day, and I would say that's pretty telling. These guys tried.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Are you serious? First of all, the fact that the Quran disagrees with itself does not hurt my case at all. I could just as easily say that the violent Muslims are following the religion correctly and the nonviolent Muslims are cherry-picking to justify their pacifism. The point is that they both can back up their positions with scripture. lmao at this post coming immediately after "but we can literally interpret the book" maybe reflect on whether or not it's possible for anyone to literally interpret a book from a thousand years ago, let alone people who you agree with/agree with you? "we can interpret the quran literally" "ok here's where it says literally "do not kill"" "woah hold up first off they were speaking allegorically, second there's a lot of nuance..." you're a parody of yourself dude
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
i really don't think this thread has much of a future if the op himself can't agree with himself whether religious texts can be interpreted literally or not (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
well now i'm not an islamic scholar but isn't the lives God has made sacrosanct, like, all humans?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:well now i'm not an islamic scholar but isn't the lives God has made sacrosanct, like, all humans? Taqiyya
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Yeah OP I'm with PTD. I know you're annoyed with his posting, he tends to think everyone is on the same wavelength he is, but he does bring up good points. You're asking a lot from us without throwing any of your own evidence into the ring. Also, can everyone please stop brining up Jainism? I have very little knowledge of it, but showing a religion which appears to be an exception and not the rule is silly for discussing religious violence. Yet whenever the subject comes up, everyone uses Jainism like a loving checkmate. It's disingenuous at best and incorrect at worst.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Yet whenever the subject comes up, everyone uses Jainism like a loving checkmate. That's because it is a checkmate for refuting "all religions have problems with violence, stop picking on Muhammed!". Whether you like it or not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:That's because it is a checkmate for refuting "all religions have problems with violence, stop picking on Muhammed!". Whether you like it or not. It is not. At best it's the exception, not the rule.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:It is not. At best it's the exception, not the rule. What?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:It is not. At best it's the exception, not the rule. If people kept insisting that it was 'most' and not 'all' religions that have a problem with violence then you might have a point. But not all religions have a problem with violence. Fact. This is not just using Jainism as an example, either. Neo-pagan religions of all stripes are pretty hippy, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Really neopagans are peaceful?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:If people kept insisting that it was 'most' and not 'all' religions that have a problem with violence then you might have a point. Except for the Nazi ones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:If people kept insisting that it was 'most' and not 'all' religions that have a problem with violence then you might have a point. They do. "All" is a form of shorthand for "the overwhelming majority", don't be dense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:They do. "All" is a form of shorthand for "the overwhelming majority", don't be dense. So... not all? Why not just say most and avoid the confusion?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I am vehemently critical of Christianity as well, it's just that no one has seen the need to challenge me on that point. The most extreme result of labelling Christians backward is some idiot replacing a hotel Bible with the god delusion and thinking "got em!!". The supposed inherent backwardness of Islam is used as a reason to support the invasion of Muslim countries, banning Muslim immigration etc. etc. Not hard to work out why confronting the latter is more of a priority.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:What? The argument goes that all religions have fringe elements who are radical and violent. A common rebuttal to that is Jainism, a religion based around nonviolence I assert that Jainism is the exception in this case (at best) and I disagree when people say "well all religuins could be equally nonviolent if they stripped all the icky stuff from their holy books and tried really, really hard"
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:The argument goes that all religions have fringe elements who are radical and violent. The exception? So that's it can we add anything else here? Why is it the exception? If it is the exception is there a predisposition towards violence among more successful religions and if so why might that be? Following on from that are the other violent religions mostly equal in the amount of violence associated with them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:So... not all? Why not just say most and avoid the confusion? Because usually people aren't being needlessly obnoxious pedants.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
I already posted the why http://www.academia.edu/2158177/Preventing_Religious_Radicalisation_and_Violent_Extremism_A_systematic_Review_of_the_Research I post it every time the subject comes up. People create radical groups because of lovely socioeconomic issues. Government exploitation, antireligion, poverty, you name it. This group says we'll strike back at <insert offenders here>. As Brexit proved, this sort of feeling exists across all humans ever, not just because of religion. Of course it helps if the group you are against has a history for this sort of thing, but no prob you can make do if they don't. These groups accept other recruits. People who are too poor to care what happens to them, people who wish to right an injustice, people who want to make a name for themselves. Then they rally around a goal, or around a religion and voila. One extremist organization made to order.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Are you serious? First of all, the fact that the Quran disagrees with itself does not hurt my case at all. Contradictions existing in religious documents basically point towards the behavior being driven by some source other than the religion itself. People pick and choose different things to believe from a religious text for various reasons that would probably exist independent of whether the religion is used as an excuse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
The important distinction is clearly fundamentalism. I don't care if you believe "in something more" or are a "spiritual christian" or whatever. I don't think it's anyone else's business because it has little impact on others. The problem is when people uncritically accept dogma from authority. I think that is a harmful mode of thinking and we should work to limit it. Uncritical acceptance of authority is obviously not unique to fundamentalist religion but it may be the only case where it's both institutionalized and socially acceptable to indoctrinate children with it. That IMO makes certain brands of religion uniquely worthy of opposition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 04:19
|
|