www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:For me it just highlights how silly the whole concept of religion is.

Surely you mean "a particular religion?"

No, I don't. I mean what I say.

Otherwise, you're using particular evidence to make a general assumption. You may very rationally find the idea of religion in general to be silly; but to use this incidence - which references Roman Catholicism only - to generalize about, say, Baha'i, would be uncharacteristically unscientific of you.

Not a matter of being "scientific" since we're not talking about science.

This particular incidence may reference Roman Catholicism only, but it can still be seen to highlight how silly the whole concept of religion is, IF it can serve as an example of a broader principle which applies to most or all religions. Which, in my view, it does. The large majority of religions include god setting various rather arbitrary and often silly rules for Humans, with these rules usually being communicated to us via his representatives, i.e. the leaders of whatever religion it is.

In this case it happens to be the pope going on about homosexuality. But it can equally be the priests/pastors/whatever of other christian denominations talking about the same subject, or about any of the other stupid and absurd or at least badly outdated rules that religion tends to want to foist on us. I find it absurd.

I like how you can just replace the references to "religion" with "government", and the references to "god" and "priests" with "politician" to describe how I view modern society.

Watch:

This particular incidence may reference Federalism only, but it can still be seen to highlight how silly the whole concept of government is, IF it can serve as an example of a broader principle which applies to most or all governments. Which, in my view, it does. The large majority of governments include politicians setting various rather arbitrary and often silly rules for Humans, with these rules usually being communicated to us via the representatives, i.e. the leaders of whatever government it is.

In this case it happens to be the government going on about homosexuality. But it can equally be the senators/representatives/whatever of other political denominations talking about the same subject, or about any of the other stupid and absurd or at least badly outdated rules that government tends to want to foist on us. I find it absurd.

See?

Tsukiyumi wrote:I like how you can just replace the references to "religion" with "government", and the references to "god" and "priests" with "politician" to describe how I view modern society.

Watch:

This particular incidence may reference Federalism only, but it can still be seen to highlight how silly the whole concept of government is, IF it can serve as an example of a broader principle which applies to most or all governments. Which, in my view, it does. The large majority of governments include politicians setting various rather arbitrary and often silly rules for Humans, with these rules usually being communicated to us via his representatives, i.e. the leaders of whatever government it is.

In this case it happens to be the government going on about homosexuality. But it can equally be the senators/representatives/whatever of other political denominations talking about the same subject, or about any of the other stupid and absurd or at least badly outdated rules that government tends to want to foist on us. I find it absurd.

See?

Yeah but the purpose of government regulation is at least to help society from hurting itself and others (at least mine is, I dunno about everyone elses). Religion seems to be around just to fleece me.

Ah, but that's what religion was originally supposed to be here for as well. To help guide us, to make us be more like what certain people wanted us to be. They collected taxes, enforced the "laws", and set standards for people to live by, based on their own personal ideals.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be any governments, just that the ones we have are little better than religions.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Ah, but that's what religion was originally supposed to be here for as well. To help guide us, to make us be more like what certain people wanted us to be. They collected taxes, enforced the "laws", and set standards for people to live by, based on their own personal ideals.

With a major difference. In the West you at least get a say in what happens. With a religion, you don't.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be any governments, just that the ones we have are little better than religions.

Your government must be really fucked then.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Your government must be really f***ed then.

Well, if the shoe fits...

As for getting a say in it, we operate with the "electoral college", so at best we get an indirect say in what happens. And, you're saying that Canada has no laws governing people's private behavior? I recall there being anti-marijuana laws up there; I don't know about Canadian sexuality laws. Where I'm at, it's illegal to perform oral sex, technically.

Tsukiyumi wrote:
Well, if the shoe fits...

As for getting a say in it, we operate with the "electoral college", so at best we get an indirect say in what happens. And, you're saying that Canada has no laws governing people's private behavior? I recall there being anti-marijuana laws up there; I don't know about Canadian sexuality laws. Where I'm at, it's illegal to perform oral sex, technically.

Of course we do, every country does. It's a matter of how much interference there is though. The pot law example you give is bunk for the simple fact that it isn't enforced for personal use and we lack the ridiculous sex laws that you Yanks have.

Cpl Kendall wrote:...The pot law example you give is bunk for the simple fact that it isn't enforced for personal use

My mistake. I'd heard Canada was cracking down on it, in Vancouver particularly.

Cpl Kendall wrote:...and we lack the ridiculous sex laws that you Yanks have.

I've said it before, but again: One ticket to Canada, please.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Not a matter of being "scientific" since we're not talking about science.

This particular incidence may reference Roman Catholicism only, but it can still be seen to highlight how silly the whole concept of religion is, IF it can serve as an example of a broader principle which applies to most or all religions. Which, in my view, it does. The large majority of religions include god setting various rather arbitrary and often silly rules for Humans, with these rules usually being communicated to us via his representatives, i.e. the leaders of whatever religion it is.

In this case it happens to be the pope going on about homosexuality. But it can equally be the priests/pastors/whatever of other christian denominations talking about the same subject, or about any of the other stupid and absurd or at least badly outdated rules that religion tends to want to foist on us. I find it absurd.

I clearly used the phrase "uncharacteristically unscientific" as a reference to a personality trait, not a function of the current topic of discussion. If you are further saying that you admit to not apllying typical rules of logic to the formation of your opinion about religion, then there's really no discussing the matter. I'd like to believe that you consider me, for example, a rational person and at least a fairly well-reasoned thinker, yet I subscribe to the "absurdity" you describe. I personally find it absurd to make a comment on the absurdity of faith in general based on the commentary of the head of one particular sect of one particular faith, which you clearly reference as a basis for your view. I certainly apologize for being so obviously wrong about how I believe, rather than accepting the all-too-apparent rightness of atheism, but there it is, nonetheless.

What stands out to me is this: "IF it can serve as an example of a broader principle which applies to most or all religions. Which, in my view, it does." (my emphasis.)

Of course, we can decide to believe that a blanket generalization is supported, whether or not it is in the most absolute sense. Forcing the empirical observations to fit our hypotheses really doesn't end up meaning anything of any truth, though.

Tsukiyumi wrote:I like how you can just replace the references to "religion" with "government", and the references to "god" and "priests" with "politician" to describe how I view modern society.

I can see that you might believe that, but I disagree with it. Governments rarely if ever enact arbitrary rules, at least in a democracy. They may not go around all deeply caring about the public good, but democratic government systems are usually created with various forces acting within them, and politicians act to balance those forces and keep the machine running.

Mikey wrote:I clearly used the phrase "uncharacteristically unscientific" as a reference to a personality trait, not a function of the current topic of discussion.

Ah, then I misunderstood you. My words here are not intended to prove that that particular statement was representative of religion as a whole; it's merely a personal opinion, and was clearly labeled as such.

If you are further saying that you admit to not apllying typical rules of logic to the formation of your opinion about religion, then there's really no discussing the matter. I'd like to believe that you consider me, for example, a rational person and at least a fairly well-reasoned thinker, yet I subscribe to the "absurdity" you describe. I personally find it absurd to make a comment on the absurdity of faith in general based on the commentary of the head of one particular sect of one particular faith, which you clearly reference as a basis for your view. I certainly apologize for being so obviously wrong about how I believe, rather than accepting the all-too-apparent rightness of atheism, but there it is, nonetheless.

One of the things that has long interested me about religion is how otherwise sane and rational people can make themselves believe in it. I don't understand that. Nevertheless, it is evident that it happens. If you want to be a believer then that's entirely up to you, of course, and I still have respect for those who are believers. But I do not have respect for the belief itself, and see no reason why I should.

I offer respect to all individuals around me. But nobody is expected to offer respect to political opinions which seem absurd to them. Nor are we expected to respect opinions about history or social policy or economics or any other topic if those views seem absurd. I see absolutely no reason why religious views should suddenly deserve any special pass in this respect. Whilst I respect religious people I think religious belief is absurd, and I have no problem saying so.

What stands out to me is this: "IF it can serve as an example of a broader principle which applies to most or all religions. Which, in my view, it does." (my emphasis.)

Of course, we can decide to believe that a blanket generalization is supported, whether or not it is in the most absolute sense. Forcing the empirical observations to fit our hypotheses really doesn't end up meaning anything of any truth, though.

That rather supposes that that's what I did, rather than the opposite of choosing a representative sample after having seen many, many of them over the years.

Of course it supposes that's what you did. The only thing here to which I can respond is what's been discussed in the course of this conversation. We all have to remember that the phrase "in my opinion" is assumed in every statement here - what we're discussing can really only be a matter of opinion in the final analysis, and what other opinion do we each have to express but our own?

I must admit I was a bit put off by some of the comments, and perhaps I'm reading too much into things. But it's no great leap to equate "you're belief is absurd" with something to the effect of "you are absurd" or "you're not too smart for believing as you do." Many times, a promulgation of an atheistic viewpoint comes off as a (no pun intended) "holier-than-thou" attitude; in other words, what comes across (whether or not it was the intention) is "my paradigm is logical and empirical, therefore it is much more intelligent than your dumb one." I think I have very rational and flexible attitudes about my belief system, and furthermore I have demonstrated that I can analyze my faith critically from a third-party POV. I refuse to believe that my choice is absurd merely because someone else doesn't or won't understand it.

Mikey wrote:Of course it supposes that's what you did. The only thing here to which I can respond is what's been discussed in the course of this conversation. We all have to remember that the phrase "in my opinion" is assumed in every statement here - what we're discussing can really only be a matter of opinion in the final analysis, and what other opinion do we each have to express but our own?

I must admit I was a bit put off by some of the comments, and perhaps I'm reading too much into things. But it's no great leap to equate "you're belief is absurd" with something to the effect of "you are absurd" or "you're not too smart for believing as you do." Many times, a promulgation of an atheistic viewpoint comes off as a (no pun intended) "holier-than-thou" attitude; in other words, what comes across (whether or not it was the intention) is "my paradigm is logical and empirical, therefore it is much more intelligent than your dumb one." I think I have very rational and flexible attitudes about my belief system, and furthermore I have demonstrated that I can analyze my faith critically from a third-party POV. I refuse to believe that my choice is absurd merely because someone else doesn't or won't understand it.

You know as long as you don't vote for candidates based on religious grounds, I couldn't care less what you do in your spare time. Though I thought you were Jewish, hence I find myself confused about your position. A page back you were talking about the Bible, I thought Jews only used the first few books?

I'm not saying you personally care one way or the other. I'm talking about the connotation of an earlier post indicating the intellectual superiotity of atheism, and the irrationality of people who subscribe to a religion.

And when I use the term "Bible," I use it to mean what I consider to be the Bible - the Old Testament. Language in general would be pretty unwieldy if I had to write "the original Old Testament, aka the Pentateuch, which is what I consider to be the Bible" every time. I've been taking it for granted that people presume that what I write is an expression of my thoguht processes, and not someone else's.

Mikey wrote:Of course it supposes that's what you did. The only thing here to which I can respond is what's been discussed in the course of this conversation.

Well, now you know better then.

But it's no great leap to equate "you're belief is absurd" with something to the effect of "you are absurd" or "you're not too smart for believing as you do." Many times, a promulgation of an atheistic viewpoint comes off as a (no pun intended) "holier-than-thou" attitude;

That's something that both believers and non believers do. To give an example from the religious side, there are those who tote the phrase "God hates fags", when more moderate believers might say "hate the sin, not the sinner". There are certainly atheists who hate the religious; I, however, am not one of them.