Kids these days. Haven't even seen The Blues Brothers. What the hell.
I haven't seen it.
Me neither.
Add another person to the list. Funny how we're all of the female variety.
I don't know why I never got into them. To be honest I didn't even know who they were until Blues Brothers 2000 came out. I then realized that a lot of the songs I played in pep band were from that movie.
Also, big loss of respect for the "no true Scotsman" argument.
Which one? It's not a "no-true" Scotsman" if you use the Scotsman's own rules.
Scotsman (with black hair): "To be a Scotsman, one must have red hair." Naysayer: "You do not have red hair, and therefore are not a Scotsman by your own definition."
The majority of people who call themselves "Catholics" in the US aren't likely so by the church's definitions.
Yes, your argument was pretty much a "no true Scotsman".
Maybe this example from Wikipedia will help you:
Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis. Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis! Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.
That's the "no true Scotsman" argument. Here is what you said from before:
Exorcism is a real part of the Catholic faith to this day. If one does not believe in it, then is not fully Catholic.
That's exactly what you're doing here:
Rym: All Catholics believe in exorcism. Joe: I'm a Catholic, and I don't believe in exorcism. Rym: Well, all true Catholics believe in exorcism.
Also, you're not using their own definition. I'm no expert on Catholicism (I suppose that makes me not a true Catholic), but I've never, never, heard or read anything in Catechism nor have I heard any priest saying that Catholics MUST believe in exorcism or otherwise they're not Catholic. In fact, I remember when the movie The Exorcist came out. Many people questioned whether priests performed the exorcism rites shown in the movie. The Church specifically denied there was even such a thing as exorcism. Show me where it says that I will be excommunicated if I don't believe in exorcism.
Now, if you want to quibble about being a "lapsed Catholic", I guess I fit that definition, but for different reasons than not believing in exorcism. Mel Gibson has some weird fundamentalist Catholic beliefs right now. I don't agree with many of those beliefs, but that doesn't mean that either one of us are not Catholic.
Finally, as to these definitions you're so sure of - religion is a deeply personal thing to most religious people. They believe what they believe. It doesn't necessarily have to fit into pigeon hole definitions. They're free to call themselves what they want and belong to the groups they want. If I was born into or converted to the Catholic faith, I'm Catholic. If I decide to start identifying as Buddhist tomorrow, then I'm a Buddhist from that point forward. If you don't think I'm doing it right, or that I don't fit the definition, my response is "Fuck you, I believe what I want. We have a little rule in this country that allows this." Further, this over-reliance on definitions and doctrine is part of what spawned all the different sects. It's not productive in any way. It's tantamount to arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
What's the problem?
They vote.
So, people who believe in a religion shouldn't be allowed to vote? Nice. That makes you sound about as sane and rational as Scott. In fact, considering all the time you spend thinking and arguing about religion, I sort of think that any ban on religious people voting would include you as well.
Achievement Unlocked: Crazy as Scott Medal.
I really don't understand why some atheists get so upset with believers. I really, really don't care what others believe as long as they don't try to force me to have the same belief.
Believing stupid things often makes people do stupid things, and I don't want people to do stupid things that make their own lives, or those of other people, worse. In particular,
They vote.
Well, let's talk about belief in stupid things. I remember Rym saying recently that we should all try to be "more than human", and that we should "shed our humanity". That sounds pretty stupid to me.
Scott said recently that he doesn't think that countries should exist. Stupid? Yes, indeed. In fact, I'll submit that we all know many stupid things Scott has said and that we all remember many times when Scott has expressed stupid beliefs.
Does this mean you want to take away Scott and Rym's right to vote? They've certainly demonstrated the capacity for stupidity. In my opinion, they've both gone a lot further in proving they believe in stupid things than someone who merely identifies with one religion or another. Does that mean they're any less worthy of respect or that they're dangerously insane? Everyone has made some stupid statements and everyone has some beliefs that are not entirely rational. None of us are Spock. None of us are even Data.
This whole discussion began when Lou said that a scientist existed who could believe in his religion but still do his science. I still don't see what's wrong with that. If the sole objection to people subscribing to religious beliefs is that they make stupid statements and have stupid beliefs and people who believe stupid things or make stupid statements shouldn't be allowed to vote or are somehow not worthy of respect, I'd say, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone."
Every one of you need to watch it as soon as possible. I really don't know how you've survived this long without it.
Quite well, actually.
I really don't feel the need to watch it. I read the plot on Wikipedia and it seems like a wacky movie with good music. I already know the music of Blues Brothers, so I see no point in watching it.
I guess I should watch the Blues Brothers soon. I need something to get the awful taste of the Medallion out of my mouth Why the fuck would they give Jackie Chan superpowers? He's supposed to do martial arts!
I really don't understand why some atheists get so upset with believers. I really, really don't care what others believe as long as they don't try to force me to have the same belief.
Believing stupid things often makes people do stupid things, and I don't want people to do stupid things that make their own lives, or those of other people, worse. In particular,
They vote.
Well, let's talk about belief in stupid things. I remember Rym saying recently that we should all try to be "more than human", and that we should "shed our humanity". That sounds pretty stupid to me.
That depends on what he meant. There are definitely elements of ourselves that we should improve upon and surpass, but to completely abandon humanity would be silly and nonsensical.
Scott said recently that he doesn't think that countries should exist. Stupid? Yes, indeed. In fact, I'll submit that we all know many stupid things Scott has said and that we all remember many times when Scott has expressed stupid beliefs.
Again, that depends on what exactly is meant. Do we need multiple levels of organisation? Definitely. However, I don't think there's anything particularly good about having many separate sovereign states as opposed to a unified world.
Does this mean you want to take away Scott and Rym's right to vote? They've certainly demonstrated the capacity for stupidity. In my opinion, they've both gone a lot further in proving they believe in stupid things than someone who merely identifies with one religion or another. Does that mean they're any less worthy of respect or that they're dangerously insane? Everyone has made some stupid statements and everyone has some beliefs that are not entirely rational. None of us are Spock. None of us are even Data.
I'm sorry you misinterpreted me (and probably Rym), but I don't want to take away anyone's right to vote, just as I don't want to take away people's right to free speech.
However, my point is that people with stupid beliefs do stupid things, and they vote for stupid things, so it most definitely does matter what other people believe, and hence it is something we should act to change. Of course, I don't condone 'forcing' beliefs on other people - free speech should be countered with free speech, no matter how stupid.
Similarly, I have much more respect for an evangelical Christian than one who is not - both of them believe I'm going to hell for being an atheist - and both are equally wrong in this regard - but at least the evangelist tries to do something about it.
However, my point is that people with stupid beliefs do stupid things, and they vote for stupid things . . .
Does Scott have any stupid beliefs?
Officially rejected from USC.
I'm very sorry to hear that. You probably are not in the mood to hear this right now, but that's a hard school to gain acceptance to, and they reject many good people.
You can either try again at USC, go to a different school and forget about it, or go to a different school and harbor resentment and bitterness for the rest of your life and become a nasty old man with a huge chip on his shoulder who constantly snipes at USC and its alums, all the while doing small things to get petty revenge like keying the dean's car. I advise going the bitterness route.
Nobody is saying stupid people voting means that the best answer is not allowing them to vote. Everyone is saying that we want them to stop the stupid thinking so we don't mind how they vote. I don't mind people voting the opposite of me, as long as it is based on the same facts and just a different outlook on life, rather than on bad facts and faulty logic.
Should we then, as you say, act to change his beliefs? Are you concerned, as you say, that he will engage in stupid acts based on his stupid beliefs?
I'm not sure you understand how often a gathering turns into a argue with Rubin night.
Okay, it seems that you all think that people with religious beliefs deserve little or no respect because they have stupid beliefs, that their capacity to do valid work is compromised because they have stupid beliefs, and that their stupid beliefs make it dangerous for us to allow them to vote.
Since Scott has many stupid beliefs, doesn't all of the above apply to him as well? Is he not worthy of respect, compromised at work, and apt to vote for dangerous things because of his stupid beliefs?
I respect Scott in many way. In many other ways, he needs to shut the fuck up.
Thankfully I think everyone is similar. Scott is just louder than most people. Unfortunately, religious people are often louder than others too. I respect everyone, as I know outside of any element of stupidity, they are probably completely cool and harmless. It's just that area of stupidity I don't respect, even though I can't blame them or their intelligence for believing such a thing.
Okay, it seems that you all think that people with religious beliefs deserve little or no respect because they have stupid beliefs,
People deserve respect.; it's the beliefs that do not deserve respect.
that their capacity to do valid work is compromised because they have stupid beliefs,
Generally they can work fine, but it depends on the beliefs and it depends on the work. There are definitely specific beliefs that can render one entirely unsuitable for specific positions.
and that their stupid beliefs make it dangerous for us to allow them to vote.
Yet it would be even more dangerous not to allow them to vote.
I don't really think they should vote any more than I think most people should vote. My cynicism for Democracy is far deeper than my annoyance at religious people who don't actively oppose a secular society.
Okay, it seems that you all think that people with religious beliefs deserve little or no respect because they have stupid beliefs, that their capacity to do valid work is compromised because they have stupid beliefs, and that their stupid beliefs make it dangerous for us to allow them to vote.
You should really change "you all" to "Most/some of you" or "Rym and Scott" because that view point is no where near everyone in this forum.
Comments
I don't know why I never got into them. To be honest I didn't even know who they were until Blues Brothers 2000 came out. I then realized that a lot of the songs I played in pep band were from that movie.
Maybe this example from Wikipedia will help you: That's the "no true Scotsman" argument. Here is what you said from before: That's exactly what you're doing here:
Rym: All Catholics believe in exorcism.
Joe: I'm a Catholic, and I don't believe in exorcism.
Rym: Well, all true Catholics believe in exorcism.
Also, you're not using their own definition. I'm no expert on Catholicism (I suppose that makes me not a true Catholic), but I've never, never, heard or read anything in Catechism nor have I heard any priest saying that Catholics MUST believe in exorcism or otherwise they're not Catholic. In fact, I remember when the movie The Exorcist came out. Many people questioned whether priests performed the exorcism rites shown in the movie. The Church specifically denied there was even such a thing as exorcism. Show me where it says that I will be excommunicated if I don't believe in exorcism.
Now, if you want to quibble about being a "lapsed Catholic", I guess I fit that definition, but for different reasons than not believing in exorcism. Mel Gibson has some weird fundamentalist Catholic beliefs right now. I don't agree with many of those beliefs, but that doesn't mean that either one of us are not Catholic.
Finally, as to these definitions you're so sure of - religion is a deeply personal thing to most religious people. They believe what they believe. It doesn't necessarily have to fit into pigeon hole definitions. They're free to call themselves what they want and belong to the groups they want. If I was born into or converted to the Catholic faith, I'm Catholic. If I decide to start identifying as Buddhist tomorrow, then I'm a Buddhist from that point forward. If you don't think I'm doing it right, or that I don't fit the definition, my response is "Fuck you, I believe what I want. We have a little rule in this country that allows this." Further, this over-reliance on definitions and doctrine is part of what spawned all the different sects. It's not productive in any way. It's tantamount to arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. So, people who believe in a religion shouldn't be allowed to vote? Nice. That makes you sound about as sane and rational as Scott. In fact, considering all the time you spend thinking and arguing about religion, I sort of think that any ban on religious people voting would include you as well.
Achievement Unlocked: Crazy as Scott Medal. Well, let's talk about belief in stupid things. I remember Rym saying recently that we should all try to be "more than human", and that we should "shed our humanity". That sounds pretty stupid to me.
Scott said recently that he doesn't think that countries should exist. Stupid? Yes, indeed. In fact, I'll submit that we all know many stupid things Scott has said and that we all remember many times when Scott has expressed stupid beliefs.
Does this mean you want to take away Scott and Rym's right to vote? They've certainly demonstrated the capacity for stupidity. In my opinion, they've both gone a lot further in proving they believe in stupid things than someone who merely identifies with one religion or another. Does that mean they're any less worthy of respect or that they're dangerously insane? Everyone has made some stupid statements and everyone has some beliefs that are not entirely rational. None of us are Spock. None of us are even Data.
This whole discussion began when Lou said that a scientist existed who could believe in his religion but still do his science. I still don't see what's wrong with that. If the sole objection to people subscribing to religious beliefs is that they make stupid statements and have stupid beliefs and people who believe stupid things or make stupid statements shouldn't be allowed to vote or are somehow not worthy of respect, I'd say, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone."
I really don't feel the need to watch it. I read the plot on Wikipedia and it seems like a wacky movie with good music. I already know the music of Blues Brothers, so I see no point in watching it.
This is your baby eater.
However, my point is that people with stupid beliefs do stupid things, and they vote for stupid things, so it most definitely does matter what other people believe, and hence it is something we should act to change. Of course, I don't condone 'forcing' beliefs on other people - free speech should be countered with free speech, no matter how stupid.
Similarly, I have much more respect for an evangelical Christian than one who is not - both of them believe I'm going to hell for being an atheist - and both are equally wrong in this regard - but at least the evangelist tries to do something about it.
You can either try again at USC, go to a different school and forget about it, or go to a different school and harbor resentment and bitterness for the rest of your life and become a nasty old man with a huge chip on his shoulder who constantly snipes at USC and its alums, all the while doing small things to get petty revenge like keying the dean's car. I advise going the bitterness route.
You say that people with stupid beliefs vote for stupid things. Should Scott not be allowed to vote because of his stupid beliefs?
Since Scott has many stupid beliefs, doesn't all of the above apply to him as well? Is he not worthy of respect, compromised at work, and apt to vote for dangerous things because of his stupid beliefs?
Thankfully I think everyone is similar. Scott is just louder than most people. Unfortunately, religious people are often louder than others too. I respect everyone, as I know outside of any element of stupidity, they are probably completely cool and harmless. It's just that area of stupidity I don't respect, even though I can't blame them or their intelligence for believing such a thing.