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.
But you listed voting a few posts above as your only problem with religious people. Were you joking? Is it possible that you don't really have much of a problem with them at all?
As usual, Luke pegs the needle on the respectometer in one direction, and Rym pegs it in the opposite direction. It is left to the reader as an exercise to determine which direction they peg the needle, respectively.
In my opinion, it's almost as bad to denigrate, disrespect, or generally rail and kvetch about a person's stupid beliefs as it is to do the same about their gender, race, or sexual preference. Please note before you respond that I said "almost", keeping in mind that beliefs are changeable whereas the other things are not (however, I'd argue that some people hold core beliefs can approach immutability). As I've said many times before, in my opinion, a person can believe all sorts of stupid things without harming others in the least. Also, in my opinion, an atheist that bullies religious types just for being religious is just as bad as a religious type that bullies an atheist just for being an atheist. I think the best thing for atheists or agnostics to do with respect to religious beliefs is say "Meh." The time and energy wasted on religion on this board is just astounding. I've seen more religious discussion here than I've ever seen in a church. Just say "Meh", and carry on with what you were doing.
So, if someone is, for example, Seventh Day Adventist and decides to become a doctor, I have no problem seeing that doctor and respecting his/her medical opinion as long as it's medically reasonable. I don't have to know that he/she is a Seventh Day Adventist and I don't care (actually, my primary care physician is an Indian woman. She might be Hindu, but as I said, I don't know and I don't care. She knows her medical science, and that's all that matters.). The only way that religion should ever be a problem is if that doctor tries to get me to go to his church or if he/she tries to use medically unreasonable treatments.
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.
Is this extreme view limited to Rym and Scott? As far as I can see, that's just more evidence that they hold stupid/crazy beliefs that are every bit as stupid/crazy as the people they disrespect.
In my opinion, it's almost as bad to denigrate, disrespect, or generally rail and kvetch about a person's stupid beliefs as it is to do the same about their gender, race, or sexual preference. Please note before you respond that I said "almost", keeping in mind that beliefs are changeable whereas the other things are not (however, I'd argue that some people hold core beliefs can approach immutability). As I've said many times before, in my opinion, a person can believe all sorts of stupid things without harming others in the least. Also, in my opinion, an atheist that bullies religious types just for being religious is just as bad as a religious type that bullies an atheist just for being an atheist. I think the best thing for atheists or agnostics to do with respect to religious beliefs is say "Meh." The time and energy wasted on religion on this board is just astounding. I've seen more religious discussion here than I've ever seen in a church. Just say "Meh", and carry on with what you were doing.
Really? I actually wanted more religious debates, we usually shut down any discussion of religion :-p
I actually wanted more religious debates, we usually shut down any discussion of religion :-p
There's still way too much. Look, either religion is important or it isn't. WIth the volume of discussion about religion on this board, you'd think we were all seminary students. Scrym kinda reminds me of the type of kid that has a crush on a girl and tries to act like he doesn't care, but all the while he thinks about her and talks about her all the time to the point where most people are sick of it. Maybe instead of "Get a room", we should say, "Get a church".
Yo, new thread.
Meh. I think this is done. Rym cannot back up his claim about Catholicism and I think everyone gets my point that, in my opinion, atheists and agnostics should view religious types with more of a bemused tolerance than Scrym's harch intolerance. It's kind of like when my nephew would talk about Santa Claus. I'd say, "That's nice. Now go and play.", instead of "GODDAMMIT! YOU CAN"T BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS!!!!1111!!!!"
What, that the Catholic church has specific dogma and doctrine, and that not believing in it makes one not a Catholic in the same way that not following the rules of the Freemasons makes one not a Freemason?
To argue that a Christian who does not believe in Christ as a supernatural figure is still a "Christian" by any useful, practical, acccepted, or realistic definition of the word is to say that no definition of any word has any meaning in debate. It's a laughable position.
It's kind of like when my nephew would talk about Santa Claus. I'd say, "That's nice. Now go and play.", instead of "GODDAMMIT! YOU CAN"T BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS!!!!1111!!!!"
That's fine and good. But if an adult without severe mental handicap professed a belief in the existence of Santa Claus to me, I would say to him that Santa Claus does not exist. Were he to persist in this belief after evidence was presented, I would assume he lacked certain mental faculties.
Further, were a child to ask me directly if Santa Claus existed, I would not lie. But, were the question not to be posed, I would not raise it myself.
Ridiculous ideas warrant ridicule. You spend a lot of time attempting to ridicule Scott. Should the moon conspiracy nuts be afforded intellectual respect for their ludicrous positions? Would you trust someone who believes that the earth is expanding with any logical task?
What, that the Catholic church has specific dogma and doctrine, and that not believing in it makes one not a Catholic in the same way that not following the rules of the Freemasons makes one not a Freemason?
No, that's not what you said. You said that disbelief in exorcism makes one not a Catholic. Show me where any dogma or doctrine specifically says, "If you don't believe in exorcism, you are not Catholic."
To argue that a Christian who does not believe in Christ as a supernatural figure is still a "Christian" by any useful, practical, acccepted, or realistic definition of the word is to say that no definition of any word has any meaning in debate.
Um, no. That's a false equivocation and a ridiculous hyperbole. Philosophies are flexible things, and must be in order to have any value at all. Further, because any theism is inherently a philosophy, that theism is defined however people choose to define it. If everyone who is a Catholic decides that Catholicism means "I have sex with goats," guess what - Catholicism means having sex with goats.
The problem with arguing the "dictionary definition" of something is that usage changes over time. A dictionary exists to catalog the use of words, not to dictate that use. If word confusion exists, the parties involved in a discussion need to define their terms before communicating. Most of the time, we use a common set of words, but sometimes, we use the same word to mean different things. Welcome to the history of language.
I'll go back to a previous point: if the Catholic church does not actively enforce its definition of Catholicism on its members, then the definition of Catholicism is effectively useless and should be ignored, changed, or discarded entirely. See every argument you and/or Scott have made regarding laws which are inconsistently enforced.
What, that the Catholic church has specific dogma and doctrine, and that not believing in it makes one not a Catholic in the same way that not following the rules of the Freemasons makes one not a Freemason?
No, that's not what you said. You said that disbelief in exorcism makes one not a Catholic. Show me where any dogma or doctrine specifically says, "If you don't believe in exorcism, you are not Catholic."
However, modern Catholic dogma is fairly anti-exorcism. It's still on the books, of course, but the Church really, really discourages people getting exorcisms performed, at least anywhere that modern mental health facilities are available (supposedly they still are somewhat common in the boonies of Africa and Asia and the like). Essentially, anyone that may have been accused of demonic possession, oh, 300 years ago or whatever, is now assumed to be mentally ill and referred to mental health professionals. Exorcism itself has become something of an embarrassment to the Church that they're trying to get away from as much as possible given that the dogma still lists it as legit.
Philosophies are flexible things, and must be in order to have any value at all. Further, because any theism is inherently a philosophy, that theism is defined however people choose to define it. If everyone who is a Catholic decides that Catholicism means "I have sex with goats," guess what - Catholicism means having sex with goats.
But if the Catholic church said that wasn't true, then there are now two definitions of Catholic: one being a member of this particular organization, and one being a colloquial term for goat-sexers. Your position basically says that almost nothing can be argued because definitions are personal.
The problem with arguing the "dictionary definition" of something is that usage changes over time.
So what do you define "christian" as? What specific definition do you want to use for purposes of this particular debate?
'll go back to a previous point: if the Catholic church does not actively enforce its definition of Catholicism on its members, then the definition of Catholicism is effectively useless and should be ignored, changed, or discarded entirely.
So I'll make these claims then:
1. The Catholic church as an organization has official doctrine which advocates the existence supernatural actions/events. 2. There is no evidence supporting any of these supernatural claims. 3. There is historical evidence of a secular origin for the church itself, nevermind its doctrine. 4. Anyone who believes in the supernatural doctrine (which actually makes some very specific claims) holds an unreasonable position underlied with multiple unfounded and extraordinary claims.
My position on religion is very simple. Anyone who asserts an extraordinary claim, but who cannot provide the necessary extraordinary evidence to support it, and yet persists in their belief in this claim despite demonstrable contrary evidence, should be challenged and, if they will not relent, loses a great deal of my intellectual respect.
Claim to be a Catholic? Well, do you believe in anything supernatural related to this? If so, you're pretty demonstrably wrong, due primarily to the burden of proof being on you and your belief as it was asserted. The only defense against challenge is to fall back on philosophy and retract all specific claims: in doing so, one effectively argues my original point that the claims were faulty in the first place and had to be discarded.
The fourth one is a little "eh" to me. I can see reasonable positions for the espousing of a particular belief, but it involves taking the supernatural doctrine as a metaphor.
So what do you do with people who treat most of the supernatural doctrine as a metaphor, but still apply it as a belief? Does that count as "believing" the supernatural doctrine?
So what do you define "christian" as? What specific definition do you want to use for purposes of this particular debate?
Anyone who espouses any part of the teachings of the New Testament and "grounds" those teachings in the existence of a supernatural "god."
The fourth one is a little "eh" to me. I can see reasonable positions for the espousing of a particular belief, but it involves taking the supernatural doctrine as a metaphor.
Which is fine. Nothing in the world is wrong with metaphors.
So what do you do with people who treat most of the supernatural doctrine as a metaphor, but still apply it as a belief? Does that count as "believing" the supernatural doctrine?
What does that mean? If one lives their life by the example of "Jesus" while simultaneously understanding that he never existed is fine. It's the same as living one's life by the example of Bilbo Baggins.
I still don't see anything that specifically says that if I don't believe in exorcism, I can't be Catholic. That was your original claim, Rym. If you can't defend it, you should just admit you were shit-talking.
I still don't see anything that specifically says that if I don't believe in exorcism, I can't be Catholic. That was your original claim, Rym. If you can't defend it, you should just admit you were shit-talking.
What supernatural aspects of Catholicism do you literally believe in? Any? Anything at all?
I still don't see anything that specifically says that if I don't believe in exorcism, I can't be Catholic. That was your original claim, Rym. If you can't defend it, you should just admit you were shit-talking.
What supernatural aspects of Catholicism do you literally believe in? Any? Anything at all?
Stop avoiding being proven wrong. The one belief that I have that I am willing to share with you is that I do not believe in exorcism. You've said there is specific teaching, doctrine, dogma, or some such that says that my disbelief in this particular thing means that I am not Catholic. I am asking you to show me that specific specific teaching, doctrine, dogma, or some such that says that my disbelief in this particular thing means that I am not Catholic. I'm beginning to believe that you can't do it and that you're just spinning your wheels because you hate being called out on shit-talking on a subject that you think you know so much about.
It's the same as living one's life by the example of Bilbo Baggins.
My fail: I now have the "Bilbo Baggins" song in my head. It's not going away. Given that past mentions of his name means the song gets stuck in there for a day or two ... Maybe some GaGa will clear it out ...
Lets get this bad boy back on track here. I ate some bad Sushi, my butt hurts and it sounds like fire crackers. FRC Bring the same vigor that you bring to religious debates to my pooping problems. Namely I want to be able to sit down again.
Stop avoiding being proven wrong. The one belief that I have that I am willing to share with you is that I do not believe in exorcism. You've said there is specific teaching, doctrine, dogma, or some such that says that my disbelief in this particular thing means that I am not Catholic. I am asking you to show me that specific specific teaching, doctrine, dogma, or some such that says that my disbelief in this particular thing means that I am not Catholic. I'm beginning to believe that you can't do it and that you're just spinning your wheels because you hate being called out on shit-talking on a subject that you think you know so much about.
OK, so you're a "Catholic." I happen to be a Republican. I'm also a Mormon.
So what do you do with people who treat most of the supernatural doctrine as a metaphor, but still apply it as a belief? Does that count as "believing" the supernatural doctrine?
The problem is the massive population of Christians that don't realize those are metaphors and believe in things like the flood, the plagues, and the immaculate conception.
Stop avoiding being proven wrong. The one belief that I have that I am willing to share with you is that I do not believe in exorcism. You've said there is specific teaching, doctrine, dogma, or some such that says that my disbelief in this particular thing means that I am not Catholic. I am asking you to show me that specific specific teaching, doctrine, dogma, or some such that says that my disbelief in this particular thing means that I am not Catholic. I'm beginning to believe that you can't do it and that you're just spinning your wheels because you hate being called out on shit-talking on a subject that you think you know so much about.
The problem is the massive population of Christians that don't realize those are metaphors and believe in things like the flood, the plagues, and the immaculate conception.
Well, it's that people pick and choose what is considered a metaphor, and pick and choose what to believe literally.
And picking and choosing from a philosophy is fine. The problem is the aforementioned term confusion, when different people pick and choose what it means to be "Catholic" or "Christian," and then claim that they're right over anyone else.
The real problem isn't that any Christian holds an untenable position. Many people hold untenable and irrational positions about things. The problem is that they hold an untenable position and then claim that it's right and we should all behave that way.
It's the espousing of the position as being "right" that is the problem, moreso than the problem of espousing that the position is "true."
What does that mean? If one lives their life by the example of "Jesus" while simultaneously understanding that he never existed is fine. It's the same as living one's life by the example of Bilbo Baggins.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. And yes, that means that I'm saying that any and all theistic claims are equally valid. They are. They're all inherently unprovable, meaning that it doesn't actually matter what you profess. If Jesus is as provable as the FSM, then placing your belief in either is equally valuable. That's my whole point. That's why I continue to say that gnostic atheism isn't really a valid position: theisms by themselves are devoid of logic.
The agnostic atheist elects to withhold belief from any theism precisely because theisms are all equiprobable. You cannot know which is more likely than any other because the beliefs are devoid of logic, and thus cannot be tested; hence, we admit that knowledge is impossible and withhold belief because of that.
So once we've established that all theism is essentially equal in its logical content (which is to say that all theism is devoid of logical content), we can focus on the specific philosophies espoused. And that's where the value of any religion lies: what do you convince people to do? How do you apply that irrational theism in the real world?
The real problem isn't that any Christian holds an untenable position. Many people hold untenable and irrational positions about things. The problem is that they hold an untenable position and then claim that it's right and we should all behave that way.
It's the espousing of the position as being "right" that is the problem, moreso than the problem of espousing that the position is "true."
The above states my position more succinctly, cogently, and eloquently than I have been able to do so far. Thank you.
Well, it depends. Store bought bacon is vacuum-sealed. Unless you can do that at home, it's going to spoil faster.
Try getting some deli-sliced bacon some time. The stuff that's wrapped loosely. It keeps for about a week.
I used to buy one package of center cut bacon and keep eating 2 slices a day for about two weeks or more. I suspect that my cutting board and knife were not as clean as I thought they were as only the 1 side of the 2 I had seemed bad and discolored.
Comments
As usual, Luke pegs the needle on the respectometer in one direction, and Rym pegs it in the opposite direction. It is left to the reader as an exercise to determine which direction they peg the needle, respectively.
In my opinion, it's almost as bad to denigrate, disrespect, or generally rail and kvetch about a person's stupid beliefs as it is to do the same about their gender, race, or sexual preference. Please note before you respond that I said "almost", keeping in mind that beliefs are changeable whereas the other things are not (however, I'd argue that some people hold core beliefs can approach immutability). As I've said many times before, in my opinion, a person can believe all sorts of stupid things without harming others in the least. Also, in my opinion, an atheist that bullies religious types just for being religious is just as bad as a religious type that bullies an atheist just for being an atheist. I think the best thing for atheists or agnostics to do with respect to religious beliefs is say "Meh." The time and energy wasted on religion on this board is just astounding. I've seen more religious discussion here than I've ever seen in a church. Just say "Meh", and carry on with what you were doing.
So, if someone is, for example, Seventh Day Adventist and decides to become a doctor, I have no problem seeing that doctor and respecting his/her medical opinion as long as it's medically reasonable. I don't have to know that he/she is a Seventh Day Adventist and I don't care (actually, my primary care physician is an Indian woman. She might be Hindu, but as I said, I don't know and I don't care. She knows her medical science, and that's all that matters.). The only way that religion should ever be a problem is if that doctor tries to get me to go to his church or if he/she tries to use medically unreasonable treatments. Is this extreme view limited to Rym and Scott? As far as I can see, that's just more evidence that they hold stupid/crazy beliefs that are every bit as stupid/crazy as the people they disrespect.
To argue that a Christian who does not believe in Christ as a supernatural figure is still a "Christian" by any useful, practical, acccepted, or realistic definition of the word is to say that no definition of any word has any meaning in debate. It's a laughable position. That's fine and good. But if an adult without severe mental handicap professed a belief in the existence of Santa Claus to me, I would say to him that Santa Claus does not exist. Were he to persist in this belief after evidence was presented, I would assume he lacked certain mental faculties.
Further, were a child to ask me directly if Santa Claus existed, I would not lie. But, were the question not to be posed, I would not raise it myself.
Ridiculous ideas warrant ridicule. You spend a lot of time attempting to ridicule Scott. Should the moon conspiracy nuts be afforded intellectual respect for their ludicrous positions? Would you trust someone who believes that the earth is expanding with any logical task?
The problem with arguing the "dictionary definition" of something is that usage changes over time. A dictionary exists to catalog the use of words, not to dictate that use. If word confusion exists, the parties involved in a discussion need to define their terms before communicating. Most of the time, we use a common set of words, but sometimes, we use the same word to mean different things. Welcome to the history of language.
I'll go back to a previous point: if the Catholic church does not actively enforce its definition of Catholicism on its members, then the definition of Catholicism is effectively useless and should be ignored, changed, or discarded entirely. See every argument you and/or Scott have made regarding laws which are inconsistently enforced.
1. The Catholic church as an organization has official doctrine which advocates the existence supernatural actions/events.
2. There is no evidence supporting any of these supernatural claims.
3. There is historical evidence of a secular origin for the church itself, nevermind its doctrine.
4. Anyone who believes in the supernatural doctrine (which actually makes some very specific claims) holds an unreasonable position underlied with multiple unfounded and extraordinary claims.
Anything wrong with these statements so far?
Claim to be a Catholic? Well, do you believe in anything supernatural related to this? If so, you're pretty demonstrably wrong, due primarily to the burden of proof being on you and your belief as it was asserted. The only defense against challenge is to fall back on philosophy and retract all specific claims: in doing so, one effectively argues my original point that the claims were faulty in the first place and had to be discarded.
So what do you do with people who treat most of the supernatural doctrine as a metaphor, but still apply it as a belief? Does that count as "believing" the supernatural doctrine? Anyone who espouses any part of the teachings of the New Testament and "grounds" those teachings in the existence of a supernatural "god."
The greatest little hobbit of them all ...
I ate some bad Sushi, my butt hurts and it sounds like fire crackers. FRC Bring the same vigor that you bring to religious debates to my pooping problems. Namely I want to be able to sit down again.
These claims are all about equal.
And picking and choosing from a philosophy is fine. The problem is the aforementioned term confusion, when different people pick and choose what it means to be "Catholic" or "Christian," and then claim that they're right over anyone else.
The real problem isn't that any Christian holds an untenable position. Many people hold untenable and irrational positions about things. The problem is that they hold an untenable position and then claim that it's right and we should all behave that way.
It's the espousing of the position as being "right" that is the problem, moreso than the problem of espousing that the position is "true." Yes, that's what I'm saying. And yes, that means that I'm saying that any and all theistic claims are equally valid. They are. They're all inherently unprovable, meaning that it doesn't actually matter what you profess. If Jesus is as provable as the FSM, then placing your belief in either is equally valuable. That's my whole point. That's why I continue to say that gnostic atheism isn't really a valid position: theisms by themselves are devoid of logic.
The agnostic atheist elects to withhold belief from any theism precisely because theisms are all equiprobable. You cannot know which is more likely than any other because the beliefs are devoid of logic, and thus cannot be tested; hence, we admit that knowledge is impossible and withhold belief because of that.
So once we've established that all theism is essentially equal in its logical content (which is to say that all theism is devoid of logical content), we can focus on the specific philosophies espoused. And that's where the value of any religion lies: what do you convince people to do? How do you apply that irrational theism in the real world?
:keeps fingers crossed for headlines that end with 'And their bodies have not been found':
Not surprising, but still fucking outrageous.
Just sayin'.
Try getting some deli-sliced bacon some time. The stuff that's wrapped loosely. It keeps for about a week.