So I was Reading The Book Of Luke... Vol. Jesus Christ Is Amazing.

[Methodical Management]

And I'd like to know why they hold it so dearly. If it's the values and morals then they can still have that without religion. If all it comes down to is wanting their to be an afterlife and the peace of mind that you'll be in a better place then that's something personal to them they shouldn't be arguing if they aren't willing to accept that it doesn't make sense given all the other options/possibilities and how it was presented/indoctrinated to them. If they refuse to realize that, they should refuse to be a sparring partner. I don't see how I can be held accountable for someone being mad about an argument they chose to be involved in, especially if they're gonna claim they're being attacked or disrespected. I said it before but discussion shouldn't be shaking their faith since they should've already asked themselves similar questions. If they're too sensitive about this they should recognize that and bow out.  
I'm intrigued by the human response to momma snaps.  It's my contention that words can't hurt you and that aggressive defenses of a woman's "honor" are base and irrational.
To sate my intellectual curiosity, I plan to publicly insult your fat, ugly, ignorant mother in order to gauge your response.  I've also brought along a bunch of my friends, who aren't intellectually curious as such, but find momma snaps hilarious.  In order to engage you, I'm going to stake out my turf someplace that I know you frequent.  It could be the gym, it could be a park, it could be a store.  Whatever.  I'll be there, and I'll have just as much right to be there as you. 

If you'd prefer not to engage, you can either endure my ridicule or cede this ground to me in order to avoid my harassment.  Don't want me to insult your mother and be laughed at?  Well, I guess you shouldn't have gone to the gym then.  If you're too sensitive to endure harassment, don't go out in public. 

And really, what's the harm?  They're not blind.  They already know their mothers are fat.  I'm simply revealing the truth to them in a clever way. 

Well for one, I think the OP was trolling with this thread

And, if that is the case, I suppose you think we should allow that, what, since they're just words and all. 

Yo don't tolerate intolerance. That's not how cultural relativism works.
You're assuming that the core of religion is intolerance.  People used to cite the bible to justify overt racism and sexism.  You don't see that as much these days, do you?  Religions are capable of reform precisely because their texts, much like the data we interpret in the sciences, are subject to interpretation.  
Faith-based movements have contributed a great deal to social justice.  

This is where I disagree. Saying the electron is the smallest particle and then discovering on a subquantum level that quarks or w/e else found were actually the smallest is not in any way the same as eugenics. Scientists are suppose to be impartial to the evidence. There isn't suppose to be a hidden agenda. Just because we find new evidence that changes or discards a scientific theory held in high regard does not make that theory and it's entire study pseudoscience. It's science because it can be objectively tested, experimented on without foul play or secret motive.   

Unfortunately, if something is being passed off as science and is accepted by the masses we can only look at it as pseudoscience in hindsight, until the truth of the matter is revealed. Upsetting as it may be that's the case when humans are involved.
But the "truth of the matter" isn't invariably revealed.  The paradigm is simply replaced - and it isn't necessarily replaced with "the truth."  Rather, it's supplanted by an idea that better suits the current sociocultural environment. 

Can anyone tell me the flaw in not believing before having some support or evidence for a claim?

You can ask the average atheist "why does matter exist" and the average Christian "who created God" and both explanations will likely be pretty much the same.  ("It/he always existed" or "It/he simply emerged from nothing.")  

There's more common ground there than you might think and it's important to encourage, not discount, the ability of religious ideologies to adapt and change.  

Instead, what this is creating is an overly simplistic binary opposition, not unlike how the TBONE political troll threads progressed.  It's less about position than affiliation.  Case in point, useless, counterproductive replies like this:

Religious people - 1

Aspiring scumbags - 0

When you frame the discussion as secular vs. spiritual, all you're doing is creating a spiral of defensive responses.  Everyone feels attacked by association.  

Your actual problem doesn't seem to be about religion per se so much as its misuse.  The old cliche, "if you accept your opponent's framing, you've already lost," applies in this regard. 

If someone were to say "atheists are pompous, condescending, and sophomoric," it's difficult not to take offense at that if you're included by association.  That framing immediately puts you on the defensive.  It's not only adversarial, but adversarial on a personal level.  You're not just talking about ideas in the abstract; you're defending yourself and, perhaps, peers and family, against an attack.  

The upsetting thing about all of this is that it seems that this is actually what some of you want.  If you're concerned about the causes of broad-scale social conflict, more fundamental than religious strife is sectarianism, and it seems as though that, rather than mutual understanding, is what you're actually producing here.  

But your right maybe one of the atheists NTers should make an official atheist thread and keep it all in there.

That seems like it would be a solution everyone could live with.  Clearly the existing strategy has produced far more heat than light. 

Oh dear God, I hope we're not being like TBONE.  But yes, some *ahem* have taken it overboard by posting a thread about religion  every. single. day.  I don't assert that all Christians are bigots because of what the Westboro Baptist Church does.  Did I do that somehow?  What we do is go straight to the text that is the basis of the hate spewed by the WBC, and we call them out on it.  But for clarification, can we ridicule the concept of God, religious scriptures, and anyone that is not an NT member who spouts religious nonsense?  It seems like we can if you can ridicule Sarah Palin for her beliefs.

I had a feeling the TBONE comparison would hit home.  Sorry, but that's exactly how some of you are coming across right now.  
A lot of this is perpetuating itself because of the sectarianism.  Some people seem to be starting these threads because they know there's a built-in audience that will reward them for it.  Don't.  You're helping them make us all look bad.  Don't laugh when they insult others.  Tell them that, although you agree with their ideas, you don't agree with their presentation.  Refuse to participate in their threads and make it clear:  we've had enough already and this is making it far more difficult for you to have a meaningful and respectful discussion that you'd actually enjoy.  They're doing this stuff to impress you.  Stop encouraging it. 

As far as NT rules go, let me clarify this way:

I think Kobe Bryant is overrated.  Surely, I'm entitled to that opinion.  If there's a game day thread or a playoff series thread involving the Lakers, I can express that view if I like.  What I can't do is call Kobe fans idiots.  What I can't do is go into the Lakers season thread and start trolling.  What I can't do is start a post every single time Kobe has a bad run or misses a shot with the game on the line.  In short, I can't be a jerk about it.  

I don't have a problem with creating a thread to discuss Bill O'Reilly's "if there's no God, how come the tide goes in and out" rant.   That's fine.  It's the constant trolling, insults, and personal disrespect shown towards others that I find so problematic.  Let's face it, some of you guys enjoy getting people upset in this thread.  That should be your first indication that something's wrong.  Personally, I don't think some of you are being entirely honest with yourselves regarding your methods or your motives.  

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Meth, what's your take on religion affecting the legislation in this country? I personally think it's important to be vocally against religion because I don't believe there is such a thing as a "personal belief". I think the argument that one's beliefs don't affect anyone but themselves is a myth. One's beliefs shape the way one thinks and votes and we can easily see the affect it's taken in our own country. Due to the socially conservative right, we've had major opposition to abortion, stem-cell research, and same sex marriage among other issues.

I'm not sure if you saw this question earlier Meth. I really would like your opinion.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Meth, what's your take on religion affecting the legislation in this country? I personally think it's important to be vocally against religion because I don't believe there is such a thing as a "personal belief". I think the argument that one's beliefs don't affect anyone but themselves is a myth. One's beliefs shape the way one thinks and votes and we can easily see the affect it's taken in our own country. Due to the socially conservative right, we've had major opposition to abortion, stem-cell research, and same sex marriage among other issues.

I'm not sure if you saw this question earlier Meth. I really would like your opinion.

 

[itsgettinhot]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Religious people - 1

Aspiring scumbags - 0

When you frame the discussion as secular vs. spiritual, all you're doing is creating a spiral of defensive responses.  Everyone feels attacked by association.  

Your actual problem doesn't seem to be about religion per se so much as its misuse.  The old cliche, "if you accept your opponent's framing, you've already lost," applies in this regard. 

If someone were to say "atheists are pompous, condescending, and sophomoric," it's difficult not to take offense at that if you're included by association.  That framing immediately puts you on the defensive.  It's not only adversarial, but adversarial on a personal level.  You're not just talking about ideas in the abstract; you're defending yourself and, perhaps, peers and family, against an attack.  

The upsetting thing about all of this is that it seems that this is actually what some of you want.  If you're concerned about the causes of broad-scale social conflict, more fundamental than religious strife is sectarianism, and it seems as though that, rather than mutual understanding, is what you're actually producing here.  

I was actually just making a comment on some of the team rosters.

I'm an atheist, but i've decided to stop going into the most religion threads because they're usually just big heaps of ignorance.  From both sides.

 

[itsgettinhot]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Religious people - 1

Aspiring scumbags - 0

When you frame the discussion as secular vs. spiritual, all you're doing is creating a spiral of defensive responses.  Everyone feels attacked by association.  

Your actual problem doesn't seem to be about religion per se so much as its misuse.  The old cliche, "if you accept your opponent's framing, you've already lost," applies in this regard. 

If someone were to say "atheists are pompous, condescending, and sophomoric," it's difficult not to take offense at that if you're included by association.  That framing immediately puts you on the defensive.  It's not only adversarial, but adversarial on a personal level.  You're not just talking about ideas in the abstract; you're defending yourself and, perhaps, peers and family, against an attack.  

The upsetting thing about all of this is that it seems that this is actually what some of you want.  If you're concerned about the causes of broad-scale social conflict, more fundamental than religious strife is sectarianism, and it seems as though that, rather than mutual understanding, is what you're actually producing here.  

I was actually just making a comment on some of the team rosters.

I'm an atheist, but i've decided to stop going into the most religion threads because they're usually just big heaps of ignorance.  From both sides.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by Method Man

And I'd like to know why they hold it so dearly. If it's the values and morals then they can still have that without religion. If all it comes down to is wanting their to be an afterlife and the peace of mind that you'll be in a better place then that's something personal to them they shouldn't be arguing if they aren't willing to accept that it doesn't make sense given all the other options/possibilities and how it was presented/indoctrinated to them. If they refuse to realize that, they should refuse to be a sparring partner. I don't see how I can be held accountable for someone being mad about an argument they chose to be involved in, especially if they're gonna claim they're being attacked or disrespected. I said it before but discussion shouldn't be shaking their faith since they should've already asked themselves similar questions. If they're too sensitive about this they should recognize that and bow out.  

I'm intrigued by the human response to momma snaps.  It's my contention that words can't hurt you and that aggressive defenses of a woman's "honor" are base and irrational.
To sate my intellectual curiosity, I plan to publicly insult your fat, ugly, ignorant mother in order to gauge your response.  I've also brought along a bunch of my friends, who aren't intellectually curious as such, but find momma snaps hilarious.  In order to engage you, I'm going to stake out my turf someplace that I know you frequent.  It could be the gym, it could be a park, it could be a store.  Whatever.  I'll be there, and I'll have just as much right to be there as you. 

If you'd prefer not to engage, you can either endure my ridicule or cede this ground to me in order to avoid my harassment.  Don't want me to insult your mother and be laughed at?  Well, I guess you shouldn't have gone to the gym then.  If you're too sensitive to endure harassment, don't go out in public. 

And really, what's the harm?  They're not blind.  They already know their mothers are fat.  I'm simply revealing the truth to them in a clever way. 

As far as threads created by atheists, there's other gyms(threads) to go to. As for threads like these, discussion wouldn't persist if it's truly unwanted. Whether it's by outright (re) announcing that this is not what the thread is about and ending it there or conceding to an atheist's point for the sake of the thread not being derailed.

And, if that is the case, I suppose you think we should allow that, what, since they're just words and all.
I meant that to say I don't think he's innocent in how you viewed it. It goes back to the baiting mentioned earlier.

Yo don't tolerate intolerance. That's not how cultural relativism works.
You're assuming that the core of religion is intolerance.  People used to cite the bible to justify overt racism and sexism.  You don't see that as much these days, do you?  Religions are capable of reform precisely because their texts, much like the data we interpret in the sciences, are subject to interpretation.  
I'm not assuming that about the core of religion. I know that some things taught in certain religions are interpreted in a way for the followers of it to be intolerate and to perpetuate it and put it in a positive light/make it seem right. If anything was truly being reformed then verses from their texts would be omitted or redacted. Chapters in the old testament aren't taught as history lessons where they observe through literature how these groups of ppl thought and what laws they lived by back then. It's open to interpretation to the individual or not taught at all and left up for the individual to find on their own. All the times I've went to church I never heard any preacher address something as wrong in the bible.

Faith-based movements have contributed a great deal to social justice.
Nothing that could not have been contributed by a non-faith based movement imo especially in the realm of social justice.

But the "truth of the matter" isn't invariably revealed.  The paradigm is simply replaced - and it isn't necessarily replaced with "the truth."  Rather, it's supplanted by an idea that better suits the current sociocultural environment.
It's supplanted by an idea that better suits what the new evidence suggests not to the whims of the sociocultural environment. If it is being led by that then there's a problem.

You can ask the average atheist "why does matter exist" and the average Christian "who created God" and both explanations will likely be pretty much the same.  ("It/he always existed" or "It/he simply emerged from nothing.") 
If an average atheist is being asked "why" they should be saying "I don't know." If it's "who" they should be replying that there's no evidence that suggests a who created it and if it's "how" then they'd give that similar explanation. Notice though that adding on GOD after an atheist would say that the universe was always there is unnecessary and an unfounded claim. It has no support. Instead of refraining from assuming they rush to a GOD of the gaps assumption which only creates another bigger gap that they never bother to address.

There's more common ground there than you might think and it's important to encourage, not discount, the ability of religious ideologies to adapt and change.
I've felt I've always been encouraging critical thinking and for ppl to think for themselves (in these topics) putting aside all of the links, pics, holy texts, etc. when it comes to what they're told or what they're raised to believe.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by Method Man

And I'd like to know why they hold it so dearly. If it's the values and morals then they can still have that without religion. If all it comes down to is wanting their to be an afterlife and the peace of mind that you'll be in a better place then that's something personal to them they shouldn't be arguing if they aren't willing to accept that it doesn't make sense given all the other options/possibilities and how it was presented/indoctrinated to them. If they refuse to realize that, they should refuse to be a sparring partner. I don't see how I can be held accountable for someone being mad about an argument they chose to be involved in, especially if they're gonna claim they're being attacked or disrespected. I said it before but discussion shouldn't be shaking their faith since they should've already asked themselves similar questions. If they're too sensitive about this they should recognize that and bow out.  

I'm intrigued by the human response to momma snaps.  It's my contention that words can't hurt you and that aggressive defenses of a woman's "honor" are base and irrational.
To sate my intellectual curiosity, I plan to publicly insult your fat, ugly, ignorant mother in order to gauge your response.  I've also brought along a bunch of my friends, who aren't intellectually curious as such, but find momma snaps hilarious.  In order to engage you, I'm going to stake out my turf someplace that I know you frequent.  It could be the gym, it could be a park, it could be a store.  Whatever.  I'll be there, and I'll have just as much right to be there as you. 

If you'd prefer not to engage, you can either endure my ridicule or cede this ground to me in order to avoid my harassment.  Don't want me to insult your mother and be laughed at?  Well, I guess you shouldn't have gone to the gym then.  If you're too sensitive to endure harassment, don't go out in public. 

And really, what's the harm?  They're not blind.  They already know their mothers are fat.  I'm simply revealing the truth to them in a clever way. 

As far as threads created by atheists, there's other gyms(threads) to go to. As for threads like these, discussion wouldn't persist if it's truly unwanted. Whether it's by outright (re) announcing that this is not what the thread is about and ending it there or conceding to an atheist's point for the sake of the thread not being derailed.

And, if that is the case, I suppose you think we should allow that, what, since they're just words and all.
I meant that to say I don't think he's innocent in how you viewed it. It goes back to the baiting mentioned earlier.

Yo don't tolerate intolerance. That's not how cultural relativism works.
You're assuming that the core of religion is intolerance.  People used to cite the bible to justify overt racism and sexism.  You don't see that as much these days, do you?  Religions are capable of reform precisely because their texts, much like the data we interpret in the sciences, are subject to interpretation.  
I'm not assuming that about the core of religion. I know that some things taught in certain religions are interpreted in a way for the followers of it to be intolerate and to perpetuate it and put it in a positive light/make it seem right. If anything was truly being reformed then verses from their texts would be omitted or redacted. Chapters in the old testament aren't taught as history lessons where they observe through literature how these groups of ppl thought and what laws they lived by back then. It's open to interpretation to the individual or not taught at all and left up for the individual to find on their own. All the times I've went to church I never heard any preacher address something as wrong in the bible.

Faith-based movements have contributed a great deal to social justice.
Nothing that could not have been contributed by a non-faith based movement imo especially in the realm of social justice.

But the "truth of the matter" isn't invariably revealed.  The paradigm is simply replaced - and it isn't necessarily replaced with "the truth."  Rather, it's supplanted by an idea that better suits the current sociocultural environment.
It's supplanted by an idea that better suits what the new evidence suggests not to the whims of the sociocultural environment. If it is being led by that then there's a problem.

You can ask the average atheist "why does matter exist" and the average Christian "who created God" and both explanations will likely be pretty much the same.  ("It/he always existed" or "It/he simply emerged from nothing.") 
If an average atheist is being asked "why" they should be saying "I don't know." If it's "who" they should be replying that there's no evidence that suggests a who created it and if it's "how" then they'd give that similar explanation. Notice though that adding on GOD after an atheist would say that the universe was always there is unnecessary and an unfounded claim. It has no support. Instead of refraining from assuming they rush to a GOD of the gaps assumption which only creates another bigger gap that they never bother to address.

There's more common ground there than you might think and it's important to encourage, not discount, the ability of religious ideologies to adapt and change.
I've felt I've always been encouraging critical thinking and for ppl to think for themselves (in these topics) putting aside all of the links, pics, holy texts, etc. when it comes to what they're told or what they're raised to believe.

 

[bleezys and heem]

jesus is a punk b

/thread

 

[bleezys and heem]

jesus is a punk b

/thread

 

[nash]

Originally Posted by Bleezys and Heem

jesus is a punk b

/thread

Wow.  All this intelligent, civil discussion and then an immature response like this. 

 

[nash]

Originally Posted by Bleezys and Heem

jesus is a punk b

/thread

Wow.  All this intelligent, civil discussion and then an immature response like this. 

 

[Methodical Management]

If an average atheist is being asked "why" they should be saying "I don't know."

That's exactly right; and that humility is sorely lacking in threads like these.  If you can at least admit that you don't know, then you probably shouldn't force upon others the opinion that your beliefs are superior. 

As far as threads created by atheists, there's other gyms(threads) to go to. As for threads like these, discussion wouldn't persist if it's truly unwanted. Whether it's by outright (re) announcing that this is not what the thread is about and ending it there or conceding to an atheist's point for the sake of the thread not being derailed.

Some of you are TRYING to make the entire forum miserable for those who hold religious beliefs.  I don't think you'd accept the above rationale for a minute if the harassment had to do with anything other than religion.  

And as far as "outright announcing that this is not what the thread is about," how does this strike you:  "PLEASE DO NOT MAKE THIS A BASHING CHRISTIANITY THREAD/SARCASTIC/PRIVATE FLAMES.

IM TIRED OF SEEING ARGUMENTS."  

 All the times I've went to church I never heard any preacher address something as wrong in the bible. 

Does that mean it never happens, that being religious precludes this possibility? 

Nothing that could not have been contributed by a non-faith based movement imo especially in the realm of social justice.

That's like saying that every invention on the planet could just as easily have been created by a White man and that, therefore, we don't need other races.   We live in a diverse society along with the followers of many religious faiths.  The question is: can we all coexist without forced assimilation? 

If your goal is for everyone to think the same way, then perhaps you really do want to eliminate all religion.  If the goal is social justice, then I don't think it's fair to assume that the existence of organized religions prohibits us from attaining that goal.

It's supplanted by an idea that better suits what the new evidence suggests not to the whims of the sociocultural environment. If it is being led by that then there's a problem.

Do you believe that biological evolution is leading us toward something?  Do you think we're becoming "more perfect" beings or merely better suited to our environment?  

In the marketplace of ideas, the most popular paradigms tend to win out.  Within most fields of inquiry, contradictory findings are generated all the time.  Evidence doesn't fall from the sky; it's produced.  If evidence did fall from the sky, which pieces of evidence are found, disseminated, and emphasized would still be determined by human beings and subject to the influences of power, culture, material conditions, thus and so.  Research is never conducted in a vacuum and all observation is by definition subjective.  

I would seriously recommend The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as a starting point if you're interested in this sort of thing. 

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Meth, what's your take on religion affecting the legislation in this country? I personally think it's important to be vocally against religion because I don't believe there is such a thing as a "personal belief". I think the argument that one's beliefs don't affect anyone but themselves is a myth. One's beliefs shape the way one thinks and votes and we can easily see the affect it's taken in our own country. Due to the socially conservative right, we've had major opposition to abortion, stem-cell research, and same sex marriage among other issues.

I'm not sure if you saw this question earlier Meth. I really would like your opinion.

I think you're being awfully indirect in targeting "religion" in that respect for a number of reasons.  That bigotry is often expressed or rationalized through religion no more requires one to be a vocal critic of religion as a broad sweeping ideological category than it does science.  
After all, you have to bear in mind that science has been used in very similar ways.  

I hate to circle back to this, but I really do think it's helpful to look at how knowledge is produced, formalized, and evaluated.  The church was once considered the center of formal knowledge production in most European societies.  This, of course, represented a means of control.  Secularization, however, did not result in the democratization  and decentralization of formal knowledge production.  Rather, this task was merely recentralized within the University.  This is a privileged environment, and one, in our society, traditionally controlled and dominated by straight White males. 

This is why scholars like Patricia Hill Collins argue in favor of the formation of alternative epistemologies to challenge the hegemony of the University as the center of knowledge.  As Bourdieu notes in Distinction,  

“it is written into the tacit definition of the academic qualification formally guaranteeing a specific competence (like an engineering diploma) that it really guarantees possession of a ‘general culture’ whose breadth is proportionate to the prestige of the qualification; and conversely, that no real guarantee may be sought of what it guarantees formally and really or, to put it another way, of the extent to which it guarantees what it guarantees.  The effect of symbolic imposition is most intense in the case of the diplomas consecrating the cultural elite.

 

[Methodical Management]

If an average atheist is being asked "why" they should be saying "I don't know."

That's exactly right; and that humility is sorely lacking in threads like these.  If you can at least admit that you don't know, then you probably shouldn't force upon others the opinion that your beliefs are superior. 

As far as threads created by atheists, there's other gyms(threads) to go to. As for threads like these, discussion wouldn't persist if it's truly unwanted. Whether it's by outright (re) announcing that this is not what the thread is about and ending it there or conceding to an atheist's point for the sake of the thread not being derailed.

Some of you are TRYING to make the entire forum miserable for those who hold religious beliefs.  I don't think you'd accept the above rationale for a minute if the harassment had to do with anything other than religion.  

And as far as "outright announcing that this is not what the thread is about," how does this strike you:  "PLEASE DO NOT MAKE THIS A BASHING CHRISTIANITY THREAD/SARCASTIC/PRIVATE FLAMES.

IM TIRED OF SEEING ARGUMENTS."  

 All the times I've went to church I never heard any preacher address something as wrong in the bible. 

Does that mean it never happens, that being religious precludes this possibility? 

Nothing that could not have been contributed by a non-faith based movement imo especially in the realm of social justice.

That's like saying that every invention on the planet could just as easily have been created by a White man and that, therefore, we don't need other races.   We live in a diverse society along with the followers of many religious faiths.  The question is: can we all coexist without forced assimilation? 

If your goal is for everyone to think the same way, then perhaps you really do want to eliminate all religion.  If the goal is social justice, then I don't think it's fair to assume that the existence of organized religions prohibits us from attaining that goal.

It's supplanted by an idea that better suits what the new evidence suggests not to the whims of the sociocultural environment. If it is being led by that then there's a problem.

Do you believe that biological evolution is leading us toward something?  Do you think we're becoming "more perfect" beings or merely better suited to our environment?  

In the marketplace of ideas, the most popular paradigms tend to win out.  Within most fields of inquiry, contradictory findings are generated all the time.  Evidence doesn't fall from the sky; it's produced.  If evidence did fall from the sky, which pieces of evidence are found, disseminated, and emphasized would still be determined by human beings and subject to the influences of power, culture, material conditions, thus and so.  Research is never conducted in a vacuum and all observation is by definition subjective.  

I would seriously recommend The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as a starting point if you're interested in this sort of thing. 

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Meth, what's your take on religion affecting the legislation in this country? I personally think it's important to be vocally against religion because I don't believe there is such a thing as a "personal belief". I think the argument that one's beliefs don't affect anyone but themselves is a myth. One's beliefs shape the way one thinks and votes and we can easily see the affect it's taken in our own country. Due to the socially conservative right, we've had major opposition to abortion, stem-cell research, and same sex marriage among other issues.

I'm not sure if you saw this question earlier Meth. I really would like your opinion.

I think you're being awfully indirect in targeting "religion" in that respect for a number of reasons.  That bigotry is often expressed or rationalized through religion no more requires one to be a vocal critic of religion as a broad sweeping ideological category than it does science.  
After all, you have to bear in mind that science has been used in very similar ways.  

I hate to circle back to this, but I really do think it's helpful to look at how knowledge is produced, formalized, and evaluated.  The church was once considered the center of formal knowledge production in most European societies.  This, of course, represented a means of control.  Secularization, however, did not result in the democratization  and decentralization of formal knowledge production.  Rather, this task was merely recentralized within the University.  This is a privileged environment, and one, in our society, traditionally controlled and dominated by straight White males. 

This is why scholars like Patricia Hill Collins argue in favor of the formation of alternative epistemologies to challenge the hegemony of the University as the center of knowledge.  As Bourdieu notes in Distinction,  

“it is written into the tacit definition of the academic qualification formally guaranteeing a specific competence (like an engineering diploma) that it really guarantees possession of a ‘general culture’ whose breadth is proportionate to the prestige of the qualification; and conversely, that no real guarantee may be sought of what it guarantees formally and really or, to put it another way, of the extent to which it guarantees what it guarantees.  The effect of symbolic imposition is most intense in the case of the diplomas consecrating the cultural elite.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Boys Noize wrote:

---

Meth, what's your take on religion affecting the legislation in this country? I personally think it's important to be vocally against religion because I don't believe there is such a thing as a "personal belief". I think the argument that one's beliefs don't affect anyone but themselves is a myth. One's beliefs shape the way one thinks and votes and we can easily see the affect it's taken in our own country. Due to the socially conservative right, we've had major opposition to abortion, stem-cell research, and same sex marriage among other issues.

I think you're being awfully indirect in targeting "religion" in that respect for a number of reasons.  That bigotry is often expressed or rationalized through religion no more requires one to be a vocal critic of religion as a broad sweeping ideological category than it does science.  
After all, you have to bear in mind that science has been used in very similar ways.  

I hate to circle back to this, but I really do think it's helpful to look at how knowledge is produced, formalized, and evaluated.  The church was once considered the center of formal knowledge production in most European societies.  This, of course, represented a means of control.  Secularization, however, did not result in the democratization  and decentralization of formal knowledge production.  Rather, this task was merely recentralized within the University.  This is a privileged environment, and one, in our society, traditionally controlled and dominated by straight White males. 

This is why scholars like Patricia Hill Collins argue in favor of the formation of alternative epistemologies to challenge the hegemony of the University as the center of knowledge.  As Bourdieu notes in Distinction,  

“it is written into the tacit definition of the academic qualification formally guaranteeing a specific competence (like an engineering diploma) that it really guarantees possession of a ‘general culture’ whose breadth is proportionate to the prestige of the qualification; and conversely, that no real guarantee may be sought of what it guarantees formally and really or, to put it another way, of the extent to which it guarantees what it guarantees.  The effect of symbolic imposition is most intense in the case of the diplomas consecrating the cultural elite.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Boys Noize wrote:

---

Meth, what's your take on religion affecting the legislation in this country? I personally think it's important to be vocally against religion because I don't believe there is such a thing as a "personal belief". I think the argument that one's beliefs don't affect anyone but themselves is a myth. One's beliefs shape the way one thinks and votes and we can easily see the affect it's taken in our own country. Due to the socially conservative right, we've had major opposition to abortion, stem-cell research, and same sex marriage among other issues.

I think you're being awfully indirect in targeting "religion" in that respect for a number of reasons.  That bigotry is often expressed or rationalized through religion no more requires one to be a vocal critic of religion as a broad sweeping ideological category than it does science.  
After all, you have to bear in mind that science has been used in very similar ways.  

I hate to circle back to this, but I really do think it's helpful to look at how knowledge is produced, formalized, and evaluated.  The church was once considered the center of formal knowledge production in most European societies.  This, of course, represented a means of control.  Secularization, however, did not result in the democratization  and decentralization of formal knowledge production.  Rather, this task was merely recentralized within the University.  This is a privileged environment, and one, in our society, traditionally controlled and dominated by straight White males. 

This is why scholars like Patricia Hill Collins argue in favor of the formation of alternative epistemologies to challenge the hegemony of the University as the center of knowledge.  As Bourdieu notes in Distinction,  

“it is written into the tacit definition of the academic qualification formally guaranteeing a specific competence (like an engineering diploma) that it really guarantees possession of a ‘general culture’ whose breadth is proportionate to the prestige of the qualification; and conversely, that no real guarantee may be sought of what it guarantees formally and really or, to put it another way, of the extent to which it guarantees what it guarantees.  The effect of symbolic imposition is most intense in the case of the diplomas consecrating the cultural elite.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by Method Man

If an average atheist is being asked "why" they should be saying "I don't know."

That's exactly right; and that humility is sorely lacking in threads like these.  If you can at least admit that you don't know, then you probably shouldn't force upon others the opinion that your beliefs are superior.

I agree but I wouldn't call it us forcing superior beliefs. It's just that in these arguments that may be going fine for a few pages a theist will suddenly spring on us that all morality comes from GOD or that the bible does mention dinosaurs or they'll say nothing said in the bible contradicts itself or that you can do anything you want as long as you believe in Jesus and GOD because they will forgive you or that something had to create the universe but nothing had to create GOD. Some of those things said lack the common sense necessary to be taken seriously so it may seem that we're asserting superior beliefs because the other side is failing to properly explain their side.

Some of you are TRYING to make the entire forum miserable for those who hold religious beliefs.  I don't think you'd accept the above rationale for a minute if the harassment had to do with anything other than religion.
I do. When I first got on NT back in '05-'06 I read a couple of the political threads and by the time I started posting I never bothered to join in those arguments. At the most I'd lurk and just read. Don't engage a lot in race threads much anymore either.

Does that mean it never happens, that being religious precludes this possibility?
No but when I ask questions here and the ppl try to paint themselves in the light of infallibility that false sense of righteousness continues to be perpetuated through lack of knowledge. That's why videos end up being posted to break down an argument or where even theists are conceding points and explaining why they are not certain.

That's like saying that every invention on the planet could just as easily have been created by a White man and that, therefore, we don't need other races.
When I say that all I mean is that it doesn't take religion as the source to contribute ______. It just so happens that a faith-based movement has made those contributions. Just like being a certain skin color is not a prerequisite to make any invention.

Do you believe that biological evolution is leading us toward something?

Not one specific thing like there's an endgame.

Do you think we're becoming "more perfect" beings or merely better suited to our environment?   

I think the idea is to become the best we can be. Better than we were every decade and century prior. In doing that, it involves what is best suited for us, not just favoring the complex over the simple or vice versa. Understanding and being able to realize what should be done away with, what we should keep, and what should be considered. Not just a huge random system of a continually changing environment where we are forced to adapt to it.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by Method Man

If an average atheist is being asked "why" they should be saying "I don't know."

That's exactly right; and that humility is sorely lacking in threads like these.  If you can at least admit that you don't know, then you probably shouldn't force upon others the opinion that your beliefs are superior.

I agree but I wouldn't call it us forcing superior beliefs. It's just that in these arguments that may be going fine for a few pages a theist will suddenly spring on us that all morality comes from GOD or that the bible does mention dinosaurs or they'll say nothing said in the bible contradicts itself or that you can do anything you want as long as you believe in Jesus and GOD because they will forgive you or that something had to create the universe but nothing had to create GOD. Some of those things said lack the common sense necessary to be taken seriously so it may seem that we're asserting superior beliefs because the other side is failing to properly explain their side.

Some of you are TRYING to make the entire forum miserable for those who hold religious beliefs.  I don't think you'd accept the above rationale for a minute if the harassment had to do with anything other than religion.
I do. When I first got on NT back in '05-'06 I read a couple of the political threads and by the time I started posting I never bothered to join in those arguments. At the most I'd lurk and just read. Don't engage a lot in race threads much anymore either.

Does that mean it never happens, that being religious precludes this possibility?
No but when I ask questions here and the ppl try to paint themselves in the light of infallibility that false sense of righteousness continues to be perpetuated through lack of knowledge. That's why videos end up being posted to break down an argument or where even theists are conceding points and explaining why they are not certain.

That's like saying that every invention on the planet could just as easily have been created by a White man and that, therefore, we don't need other races.
When I say that all I mean is that it doesn't take religion as the source to contribute ______. It just so happens that a faith-based movement has made those contributions. Just like being a certain skin color is not a prerequisite to make any invention.

Do you believe that biological evolution is leading us toward something?

Not one specific thing like there's an endgame.

Do you think we're becoming "more perfect" beings or merely better suited to our environment?   

I think the idea is to become the best we can be. Better than we were every decade and century prior. In doing that, it involves what is best suited for us, not just favoring the complex over the simple or vice versa. Understanding and being able to realize what should be done away with, what we should keep, and what should be considered. Not just a huge random system of a continually changing environment where we are forced to adapt to it.

 

[Methodical Management]

Why does religion get a pass? In any other situation in life, one would be called delusional or crazy if they believed in an invisible cosmic force that can "speak" to them yet because millions of people believe in the same thing, it's different and we're not suppose to call them out on it? Why should I have to respect another's delusion?

This reminds me of early, Eurocentric attempts at anthropology and ethnography, which were characterized by condescending, heavily subjective descriptions of other cultures as "primitive," their beliefs as "superstitions," etc.  

There's a difference between respecting religion and respecting one's right to different beliefs.You've made the assumption that religion is a root cause behind various social ills, but I think the evidence - so long as we're hailing the virtues of empiricism - confounds that assumption.  Religion is neither the first nor the only expression of control, dominance, or prejudice.  

The process that creates and validates formal knowledge is a subjective and, often, hierarchical one, which can serve to reinforce the matrices of privilege and power.  

Of course you believe your ideology is preferable, but that only explains why you've chosen it.  To browbeat others into accepting your beliefs under the premise that your ideology holds a corner on knowledge and represents "the one truth" (or, at least, the one path to its acquisition) would simply be hypocritical.  

It's kind of sad to me that I'm not sitting here defending religion, its abuses, or intolerance but, rather, simply promoting respect, civility, and humility - yet that very simple message has been doggedly (and dogmatically) resisted.  

I think the idea is to become the best we can be. Better than we were every decade and century prior. ....  Not just a huge random system of a continually changing environment where we are forced to adapt to it.

And what constitutes "better?"  Is there a universal, objective definition?  

 

[Methodical Management]

Why does religion get a pass? In any other situation in life, one would be called delusional or crazy if they believed in an invisible cosmic force that can "speak" to them yet because millions of people believe in the same thing, it's different and we're not suppose to call them out on it? Why should I have to respect another's delusion?

This reminds me of early, Eurocentric attempts at anthropology and ethnography, which were characterized by condescending, heavily subjective descriptions of other cultures as "primitive," their beliefs as "superstitions," etc.  

There's a difference between respecting religion and respecting one's right to different beliefs.You've made the assumption that religion is a root cause behind various social ills, but I think the evidence - so long as we're hailing the virtues of empiricism - confounds that assumption.  Religion is neither the first nor the only expression of control, dominance, or prejudice.  

The process that creates and validates formal knowledge is a subjective and, often, hierarchical one, which can serve to reinforce the matrices of privilege and power.  

Of course you believe your ideology is preferable, but that only explains why you've chosen it.  To browbeat others into accepting your beliefs under the premise that your ideology holds a corner on knowledge and represents "the one truth" (or, at least, the one path to its acquisition) would simply be hypocritical.  

It's kind of sad to me that I'm not sitting here defending religion, its abuses, or intolerance but, rather, simply promoting respect, civility, and humility - yet that very simple message has been doggedly (and dogmatically) resisted.  

I think the idea is to become the best we can be. Better than we were every decade and century prior. ....  Not just a huge random system of a continually changing environment where we are forced to adapt to it.

And what constitutes "better?"  Is there a universal, objective definition?  

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by Method Man

I think the idea is to become the best we can be. Better than we were every decade and century prior. ....  Not just a huge random system of a continually changing environment where we are forced to adapt to it.

And what constitutes "better?"  Is there a universal, objective definition?  

Well that has to be discussed. It's not so much of a this is bad don't do this anymore situation but more of a be mindful of your actions and words if you're going to do ______ because if you don't it may lead to these unwanted outcomes. Regulating the escalation of things that can go out of control. Not so much looking at certain things in the past and assuming because it was done then it's not suited for us now. Most of that has been known for centuries but it's about getting ppl to realize it.

I agree about coexisting and finding that balance. It's going to be an agreed upon subjective definition.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by Method Man

I think the idea is to become the best we can be. Better than we were every decade and century prior. ....  Not just a huge random system of a continually changing environment where we are forced to adapt to it.

And what constitutes "better?"  Is there a universal, objective definition?  

Well that has to be discussed. It's not so much of a this is bad don't do this anymore situation but more of a be mindful of your actions and words if you're going to do ______ because if you don't it may lead to these unwanted outcomes. Regulating the escalation of things that can go out of control. Not so much looking at certain things in the past and assuming because it was done then it's not suited for us now. Most of that has been known for centuries but it's about getting ppl to realize it.

I agree about coexisting and finding that balance. It's going to be an agreed upon subjective definition.

 

[antonlavey]

formal knowledge/scientific can be subjective, but in many/most situations it is NOT. I think these religious debates make a mockery of  the practicality of scientific discovery/advancements.


Before a drug gets approved by the FDA is goes through a vigorous series of tests for safety and efficacy. This isn't subjective.

A bridge gets built, we don't subjectively assume the structure is going to hold up and not collapse


The data that is interpreted "subjectively" in science, is usually not passed off as "fact".


now on the subject of the unknown, heaven, hell, ....neither science nor religion has answers.

 

[antonlavey]

formal knowledge/scientific can be subjective, but in many/most situations it is NOT. I think these religious debates make a mockery of  the practicality of scientific discovery/advancements.


Before a drug gets approved by the FDA is goes through a vigorous series of tests for safety and efficacy. This isn't subjective.

A bridge gets built, we don't subjectively assume the structure is going to hold up and not collapse


The data that is interpreted "subjectively" in science, is usually not passed off as "fact".


now on the subject of the unknown, heaven, hell, ....neither science nor religion has answers.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Why does religion get a pass? In any other situation in life, one would be called delusional or crazy if they believed in an invisible cosmic force that can "speak" to them yet because millions of people believe in the same thing, it's different and we're not suppose to call them out on it? Why should I have to respect another's delusion?

This reminds me of early, Eurocentric attempts at anthropology and ethnography, which were characterized by condescending, heavily subjective descriptions of other cultures as "primitive," their beliefs as "superstitions," etc.  

There's a difference between respecting religion and respecting one's right to different beliefs.You've made the assumption that religion is a root cause behind various social ills, but I think the evidence - so long as we're hailing the virtues of empiricism - confounds that assumption.  Religion is neither the first nor the only expression of control, dominance, or prejudice.  

The process that creates and validates formal knowledge is a subjective and, often, hierarchical one, which can serve to reinforce the matrices of privilege and power.  

Of course you believe your ideology is preferable, but that only explains why you've chosen it.  To browbeat others into accepting your beliefs under the premise that your ideology holds a corner on knowledge and represents "the one truth" (or, at least, the one path to its acquisition) would simply be hypocritical.  

It's kind of sad to me that I'm not sitting here defending religion, its abuses, or intolerance but, rather, simply promoting respect, civility, and humility - yet that very simple message has been doggedly (and dogmatically) resisted. 

I'm going to be blunt. If you believe that everyone has to hold hands and sing kumbayah to progress in this world, you're off your rocker. It's pretty clear to me that there is a portion of the population in the US that is incredibly ignorant and hold archaic views regarding both science and how society should be.

This reminds me of early, Eurocentric attempts at anthropology and ethnography, which were characterized by condescending, heavily subjective descriptions of other cultures as "primitive," their beliefs as "superstitions," etc. 
People STILL think that other cultures are "primitive" or that their beliefs are "superstitions". Nothing has changed and it's definitely not Eurocentric. People just they think that their own beliefs are the right ones. Is that not a root cause of the strife in the Middle East right now? Christian/Islam warfare throughout Africa? In the Philippines? Indonesia? Throughout history? The list gos on and on and on. Religion doesn't cause all the world's ills but it's definitely a vehicle for them. I believe the world would be a better place without religion; if people just lived the best lives they could because of themselves and those around them, not for some master in the sky.

Why do you think that, in this day and age with what we KNOW, and, no, not all formal knowledge is subjective, that we have to still tolerate religion? I'm not saying tolerate any one religion but ANY religion? Why perpetuate ignorance and blind faith? If we're truly going by empiricism, where does that leave religion? The burden of proof is on them and until ANYONE can present even a sliver of evidence that can be tested by man and isn't some anecdotal he said she said bull %!$$, I'm not going to even entertain the idea of it being valid. People can believe whatever the hell they want... Jesus, Allah, Lucky the Leprechaun, Yoda... but until they can explain why it is they believe what they believe and support it with empirical evidence, they may as well believe in nothing at all. Funny enough, they just might end up happier people.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Why does religion get a pass? In any other situation in life, one would be called delusional or crazy if they believed in an invisible cosmic force that can "speak" to them yet because millions of people believe in the same thing, it's different and we're not suppose to call them out on it? Why should I have to respect another's delusion?

This reminds me of early, Eurocentric attempts at anthropology and ethnography, which were characterized by condescending, heavily subjective descriptions of other cultures as "primitive," their beliefs as "superstitions," etc.  

There's a difference between respecting religion and respecting one's right to different beliefs.You've made the assumption that religion is a root cause behind various social ills, but I think the evidence - so long as we're hailing the virtues of empiricism - confounds that assumption.  Religion is neither the first nor the only expression of control, dominance, or prejudice.  

The process that creates and validates formal knowledge is a subjective and, often, hierarchical one, which can serve to reinforce the matrices of privilege and power.  

Of course you believe your ideology is preferable, but that only explains why you've chosen it.  To browbeat others into accepting your beliefs under the premise that your ideology holds a corner on knowledge and represents "the one truth" (or, at least, the one path to its acquisition) would simply be hypocritical.  

It's kind of sad to me that I'm not sitting here defending religion, its abuses, or intolerance but, rather, simply promoting respect, civility, and humility - yet that very simple message has been doggedly (and dogmatically) resisted. 

I'm going to be blunt. If you believe that everyone has to hold hands and sing kumbayah to progress in this world, you're off your rocker. It's pretty clear to me that there is a portion of the population in the US that is incredibly ignorant and hold archaic views regarding both science and how society should be.

This reminds me of early, Eurocentric attempts at anthropology and ethnography, which were characterized by condescending, heavily subjective descriptions of other cultures as "primitive," their beliefs as "superstitions," etc. 
People STILL think that other cultures are "primitive" or that their beliefs are "superstitions". Nothing has changed and it's definitely not Eurocentric. People just they think that their own beliefs are the right ones. Is that not a root cause of the strife in the Middle East right now? Christian/Islam warfare throughout Africa? In the Philippines? Indonesia? Throughout history? The list gos on and on and on. Religion doesn't cause all the world's ills but it's definitely a vehicle for them. I believe the world would be a better place without religion; if people just lived the best lives they could because of themselves and those around them, not for some master in the sky.

Why do you think that, in this day and age with what we KNOW, and, no, not all formal knowledge is subjective, that we have to still tolerate religion? I'm not saying tolerate any one religion but ANY religion? Why perpetuate ignorance and blind faith? If we're truly going by empiricism, where does that leave religion? The burden of proof is on them and until ANYONE can present even a sliver of evidence that can be tested by man and isn't some anecdotal he said she said bull %!$$, I'm not going to even entertain the idea of it being valid. People can believe whatever the hell they want... Jesus, Allah, Lucky the Leprechaun, Yoda... but until they can explain why it is they believe what they believe and support it with empirical evidence, they may as well believe in nothing at all. Funny enough, they just might end up happier people.