|
In the US at least, the left is more distrustful of religion due to it being cited over and over against as a tool for oppressing women/gays/trans/etc. while passing religious freedom laws.
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:28 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:They aren't going to cease to exist from this earth any time soon, but America is also pretty unique among first world countries with how religious it is. Like Japan is 57% atheist and france is 40% with most first world countries being in the 30s, america is like 9 or 10%. America is pretty unique for a first world country. Well, in the US as well, religion, whil having great visible impact, is most often used as a scam to bilk people out of their money, like with Trump and his alliegence to Prosperity Gosepl preachers. But overall, church attendance is declining in the US. botany posted:since it hasn't been posted in full, here's the marx quote: Are we assuming that everyone is following strict marxism? I think most, at least US, leftists do not.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
jabby posted:The right is far more hostile towards religion than the left, they just make an exception for one religion in particular. The American right for example is incredibly hostile towards anything other than Christianity. The left in general is much better at religious freedom than the right. Agreed, and very true. But the Left also tends to support limits on religious freedom where it comes to Church/State seperation and such, but overall supports more tolerant religious freedom.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:Can you expand a little on this? Moderate/Progressive leftists tend to support religious freedom so long as it: does not push for government endorsement, does not advocate harm/discrimination against LGBT/Children/women etc., and tend to support free expression. Yes, you have your hardcore athiest types, but they are very much the hard-Left minority. This versus the current trend among the US Right like the Prosperity Gospel and Evangelical types Trump has surrounding him that push for breaking Church/State barriers, public endorsement of a specific religion in schools and government (DeVos and Jerry Falwell), and want to specifically target other religions as non-grata (i.e. Trump's Immigration ban focusing on Muslims and the targetting of Muslims/Middle Eastern individuals in general without due cause) CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:OK sure, but I don't see how that's limiting religious freedom I never said it was. However, there are those in the Right who argue that limits against bigotry and discrimination limit religious freedom.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Coercive religious charities are better than nothing but it's hugely inefficient at best and more often actively coercive. Religious Charities (and charities in general) tend to only work during relatively mundane periods of downturn, that's why Social Welfare programs are all the more important: they function even during severe downturns.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:France, America and Turkey. All governments run explicitly on a philosophy of logical positivism. Turkey not so much since Erdogan is slowly consolidating power and introducing elements of theocracy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Uhhh, I mean, it's true that Edogan is upping the religious element in Turkey, but as a reply to my statement you're pretty wrong. I sincerely doubt a state actively jailing large amounts of their opposing parties members in a quest to consolidate a growing dictatorship are still practicing logical positivism.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I think a logistical positivist could go either way, honestly. What the hell?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Naomi Oreskes talks about this issue: Ehhhhhhhhhh....kind of. Leaps of Faith in science still assume an evidentiary result at the end, or are often based on at least some minute level of evidence to begin with. Its not really the same as a 'leap of faith' i.e. a Religious level of faith. If you take a leap of faith in science and get no tangible results at the end and no evidence to support your leap, it was for naught. Sure, you should publish the negative result, but if you were taking the leap without using the scientific method to SUPPORT taking that leap in the first place, people are going to be very wary of your paper. Versus, a leap of faith in the religious sense can be just dismissed regardless of the outcome as 'God works in mysterious ways'. Its not the same idea of 'Faith'. Its not a religious level of 'Faith', its more of a Hypothesis 'Faith' where you are making guesses based on some findings and testing your hypothesis on faith in the initial evidence. Not 'faith' as in blind belief that religion pushes. Even if you took a 'leap of faith' in science, you'd better have evidence to back at least your starting claims. That's very much counter to the religious idea of 'faith without knowledge' However, of COURSE science tends to seek a consensus, that's kind of a given. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
botany posted:I don't really have anything substantial to contribute to the discussion cause y'all talking past each other and misusing words, but I want to just point out that anybody who cites the solar eclipse 1919 and the Eddington expedition as an example for the scientific (hypothetico-deductive) method has very obviously never really looked into how that worked out in practice. That evidence was tenuous as poo poo and they threw out half the plates. The confirmation of general relativity is actually a really good example for the social nature of consensus building in science as opposed to the impact of cold, hard facts. Well, the Expedition was more to CONFIRM for the scientific world that the hypothesis held up. They didn't need a lot of plates to confirm, just 2-3 for the lensing to be visible. quote:The production of such an experiment is considered necessary for a particular hypothesis or theory to be considered an established part of the body of scientific knowledge. It is not unusual in the history of science for theories to be developed fully before producing a critical experiment. A given theory which is in accordance with known experiment but which has not yet produced a critical experiment is typically considered worthy of exploration in order to discover such an experimental test. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimentum_crucis
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
botany posted:Yeah, and one of the plates they decided on using showed way too much deviation, one showed way too little and one was blurry. And several others who showed values in line with non-relativistic space time were ignored because they didn't fit the expectations. Seriously, the Eddington excursion was a prime example of scientists knowing what conclusion to look for and then creatively interpreting the available data until they supported that conclusion. They happened to be right of course and that's great, but people always hold the eclipse up as a paragon of the scientific method. I'm gonna have to disagree, because the plates were viewed by others as well who came to the same conclusions as Eddington. And the plates were comparisons of night shots of the stars versus the stars during the eclipse, it was well viewable that the position of the observed stars was dramatically different than during the ecplise, confirming the bending. Measurements and photographs were also taken from Brazil that also confirmed the findings during the same eclipse. There was no 'fluke' in being right, the observations played out the claims.  There was no creative interpretation of the results. That's a claim you need to prove. Even Dyson, who was a skeptic of Einstein's theory, said the resulting plates showed the bend. http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~jackph/2012f/kennefick_phystoday_09.pdf CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:... what's that picture telling us here?..  Its showing that the plates were well readable enough from the eclipse to be used against the reference plates taken in January and Febuary by Eddington.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Bates posted:Well the answer is "No" in any case. For one thing a majority of leftists are religious and I think even most of the irreligious live their lives quietly and indifferently to religion. Pretty much, minus the /r/athiest types and the Dawkins/Hitchens types.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
botany posted:That is certainly not true at the time, where considerable skepticism was the general answer by the commissions who Dyson presented the results to. Go read that paper. They said, regardless of any possible bias Eddington might have had, Dyson and Eddington reached the same conclusions that the later re-review of the results of the 1919 Eclipse came to. Its not a fluke, and its generally accepted that enough evidence was gathered to support Einstein's claims. Sorry. Einstein's theories were still very much up in the air in the general science fields at the time, the proof Eddington and Dyson provided helped solidify backing of Einsteins claims. You don't get to argue that it was just Eddingtons bias playing out when re-review of the evidence says "No, they read it correctly and came to the correct conclusions". That's not chance.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Let me try to write something we can all agree on. Fair enough, I can agree to this as well.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Bates posted:Sure and minus far right evangelical sects and the Pat Robertsons Christians are not hostile to homosexuals. All groups have loud and obnoxious subsets with bad and wrong opinions. Naturally, but I think most of the Left's angst with religion is with specific groups that back Religious Freedom legislation, and it does tend to also net non-Evangelical sects as well.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:Few people would want religion banned even if they might think its rubbish we could do without. Most non religious people don't want religion anywhere near politics but don't mind letting people practice on their own time. Is that hostile? No, and that's all I think most leftists (like me) want: Just Church/State barriers and barriers against Religious Bigotry being legalized as Free Speech in regards to Buisinessses and Law. '
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Well, but do we also hope for a generally more secular society? I think I do. This is not so much a matter of law - nobody here is gonna feel well proposing laws banning any religion, of course - but I think I hope that over time, the general trend of secularization in the West (excluding the US) continues. I'd be happy to see an atheist US president. We also cannot afford to burn bridges by attacking religious groups like Dawkins/Hitchens did. There are plenty of religious folk who long for a secular government. We need their support to.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Where is this coming from? I'm lost, what is this about? Pretty sure he's just being obtuse.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Cingulate, you'd need to have a brain that wasn't riddle with wormholes to understand that the way you talk about religion is to fantasize about its imminent nonexistence but you are unwilling to take any action to exterminate the madness that is religion, retreating into insisting that it's harmless. Cool, let's just trample on Freedom of expession then.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
If you are seriously going to treat religion as a mental illness, you'd have to trample over free expression of belief.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Not that free expression of belief shouldn't be trampled on a bit. Well obviously we're talking about belief, not enforcement of beliefs on others. i.e.: Some Fundie whacko can believe gays are icky, but he still has to accept them as human being and no refuse to serve them in a public buisiness or deny them rights.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
twitter and bisted posted:Long story short he is the skunk ape from which we are descended (which is what Dostoevsky meant when he wrote that "we are all Fyodor Karamazovs"). If you can't see that Hitchbitch would have pretended to be a member of a religion if it served his interests then it makes you a mark on the level of the majority of the religious people that you/he criticize. I'm not a fan of Hitchens, or Dawkins, for that matter, but I feel like you need to expand upon this without the ad homs. rudatron posted:The loss of religion is a necessary stage in achieving real self-awareness. That's a difficult thing to do, because illusions are comforting. Agreed, but its going to be difficult to push that sort of enlightenment through when religion has dug itself in as a core support of most people's self-definition.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:That poor man was idealistic to the point of absurdity. If anything, the concept of race has only gotten more entrenched in our lives with white nationalism on the rise all over. .....but isn't that the point of the outrage over White Nationalism and Populism rising again? Arguing that because its entrenched that we should accept its existence is rather a disgusting proposition, it follows that by that same logic we should accept sexism and other -isms just because they are culturally entrenched. Progress depends upon us throwing out entrenched ideas. Just because White Nationalism is growing again does not mean we should accept the inevitable. He may be idealistic to a point of absurdity, but its an idealism we should promote. NikkolasKing posted:How can you change a person's self-definition? Change is hard. My point was more: Religion has placed itself at the center of our culture and paraded itself as the end-all solution to our moral woes. When we know better than that now, but now religion presents itself as a pillar of the community and in people's lifes: A social centerpoint for friends and family. We need to realize that we are perfectly connected and capable as a community and a society without religion defining what our community is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Religion is something far more substantial to me, even if I'm not part of any religion. Explain. How is religion substantial but you are agnostic?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:And I've heard Jesus credited as the most important man in Western history. Him or Alexander or maybe Aristotle. But my point is just that, religion has been so integral to everything we know, that I can't imagine just shrugging it off as worthless, even if there is no God or afterlife. Easy. We can shrug it off right now. Its not integral, if it was, you wouldn't be agnostic. You are making the very argument that religions and Evangelicals make right now: "We need religion, its our moral center, without it, everything is chaos" but that's not true. Jesus is hardly the most important man in Western History. Its the people who acted in his name that are important. He's just a motivator, not a cause. History and Philosophy is not dependant upon religion, c'mon now, that's a bold claim if ever I heard one. Has religion contributed to these things? Sure, no denying that. But to claim that these things are DEPENDANT upon religion? No.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Man, if we tear down all those Ten Commandments monuments, gonna be a lot of dead people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:would it be gauche to point out that the scientific method is literally based on an article of faith? The difference being where scientists say "We don't know that yet" and demand evidence versus faith that just says "God did it, and don't question it" 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
magnavox space odyssey posted:I think, and I'm not entirely sure on this one, but I think this is a horribly false view of theology. Also religion, at least modern religion, is not used to explain the natural world, despite what creationists would have you believe. It's more to do with morals, at least as far as I remember mass.  Then its being addressed at those who do use it as a way to explain the natural world. People like Senator Inhofe who uses religion as proof Climate Change cannot be real, and others like him. Or people like Ken Hamm, who do real damage to science education through faithful ignorance.magnavox space odyssey posted:Actually reading the poster you quoted in context I have no idea what he was trying to say. But the fact remains that you cannot prove the scientific method using the scientific method, for obvious reasons. magnavox space odyssey posted:Science is the use of the scientific method and philosophy is what then defines what science is or at least should be. Saying it's based on "faith" is perhaps wrong, but it's not based on any "objective, scientific" fact. magnavox space odyssey posted:Saying it's based on "faith" is perhaps wrong, but it's not based on any "objective, scientific" fact. So it's not based on evidence, at least. Cingulate posted:Creationism is a very modern phenomenon, isn't it? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
magnavox space odyssey posted:You misunderstand me, I'm not saying science is not rigorous or not evidence based, I'm saying the very basis of science, the scientific method, the way we get information and determine the truth, I'm saying that cannot be proven with evidence. How could it? What is truth, how could you test for truth? What is information and why is this method of gaining information better than some other? When you get to the very foundation of the system of science it's not based on evidence, but it's also not based on faith. It's based on thinking about it, but that's all that it is based on, reasoned arguments and thinking up methods on how to achieve whatever it is you want to achieve. Again, its a TOOL, not a religious figure. Nobody is worshiping the scientific method, nor implying that its an unquestionable diety. Why are you even following this train of thought? It makes absolutely no sense. Why are you even pointing out that the method, the tool, is not based on evidence? That has no bearing on science being faith derived. The scientific method is a thought process, a method for finding things out. There's no need to prove it because its not neccessary. Its a flowchart for how to best validate discovery and test things. It makes no sense for you to even comes to this conclusion, its incomparable to what you are trying to compare it to.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No, not exactly, the opposite of exactly. You are not using "prove" in a valid manner here. Seriously, this is what I was saying. He keeps appealing to the scientific method as some sort of 'Look, you can't prove it, ergo Science is based on lack of proof' and it really doesn't work that way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
hog fat posted:We'll see whose melting down when I've headlocked you into submission and am giving you noogies because you're an obese man with T. rex arms who posts John Oliver-derivative poo poo all day. ....wow, calm down dude. This is very hostile.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Please stop addressing hog fat, he's just a loving troll.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Big Bang Theory was developed by Vatican scientists. It was originally met with extreme skepticism in the scientific community because it was way too teleological. I wouldn't say extreme skepticism. There was just a lot of cosmological evidence for it yet, but Hubble and others gladly filled in th gap.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:I think you might be conflating creationist with young earth creationist. While I personally think it's still void of merit, a Deist style creationist position is tolerable. God just started everything. It's a cop out but a difficult/borderline impossible belief to disprove. Regardless, while I have no problem with Creationists versus YEC, there's a time and a place to teach that: Church and Sunday School. Not Public Education. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:That would be nice, but YEC are rarely capable of completely silencing their insanity publicly. The values of our teachers and other authority figures are imprinted on the young generations; a "science" teacher personally being a YEC adds unwarranted validity to the bonkers idea, as well as diminishing the validity of physical sciences in general. School lessons don't happen in a vacuum, that YEC will see a good chunk of their students in church and around town. Agreed, that wasn't my point, but yes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:28 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How you feel about that is irrelevant unless, as I said, you plan to outlaw religion. The motivation to practice it is present and, absenting an overt and prolonged crackdown, is likely to perpetuate. We shouldn't outlaw religion, but overall its on the decline in the US, without any need for a legal crackdown.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 19:44
|
|