Starving Wives in Afganistan

Originally posted by BackinBlack
claiming they dont really understand their religion is different from saying they are not following the true religion. big difference, mate. you can gobble up before exams but that's not really understanding the material. same thing.

why do you think that i think that. you seem to always suggest this? 😕

to know someone isn't following the true religion, you need to know the true religion

you don't know what they are being spoonfed isn't the truth

lol, like what, do you need me to agree with you? I'm an anarchist, the idea of someone telling me what is true is abhorrent. However, you don't have privilege to supernatural truth.

Post-modernism is still relevant in this type of debate.

to know someone isn't following the true religion, you need to know the true religion. you don't know what they are being spoonfed isn't the truth

lol, like what, do you need me to agree with you? I'm an anarchist, the idea of someone telling me what is true is abhorrent. However, you don't have privilege to supernatural truth.

Post-modernism is still relevant in this type of debate

Originally posted by BackinBlack
i'm not talking about the interpretaton, mate. i'm talking about the level of understanding really. a teacher can walk into class and tell the kids everything there is to know about a play or poem etc and she might be right about everything and the kids walking out of that class will be parroting all the right things. but do they really understand it? in religion, the spoonfed guys can go around parroting a verse or hadith but without the required understanding of cultural context, social context etc they have not really understood what they are saying. not talking about right and wrong but the very idea of understanding what you're saying.
that's the point i'm trying to make.

ok, but you don't know that isn't what God wants

thats sort of it

you have what you think is right, they have theirs, end of the day, the only thing you might have is probability on your side.

Originally posted by BackinBlack
post-modernism is ALWAYS relevant.

lol, unless we are talking about something important 😉

ok, but you don't know that isn't what God wants

lol, unless we are talking about something important

Originally posted by BackinBlack
yeah, HE always wants the weird stuff doesn't he? 😄

I've stopped questioning the motives of God, not for the inability to ever know, but just for my own personal sanity

Originally posted by BackinBlack
or nothing at all. that works too 😛

lol, just like my anthropology courses 🙂

Unless I missed it, I'm still waiting to find out what print edition of the Koran you read MR. ANDERSON...

LOL

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

so he has the A and the C, but, god no, we can't be critical of the B.

the world would be a better place without black people
...
What? that isn't oppressive

1. Religion is, in this instance, used to denote the conglomerations that constitute 'organized religion.'
2. Black people are not an organization.
3. Because dislike of a people and of a hierarchy are very different things, your analogy fails to mesh the two concepts.

4. The dislike of black people is arrived at (generally) through a combination of ignorance and hate.
5. DDM's dislike of religion is, most likely, derived from an examination of the results it achieves.
6. The racist comment, then, is not analogous to the irreligious one because it has been generated (presumably) rationally.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I would like to call that a strawman. Sadly, it is not. It is a run of the mill faulty analogy. 😐

oh boy...

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
1. Religion is, in this instance, used to denote the conglomerations that constitute 'organized religion.'

/post

cool, we can stop right here. This was never the implication of DDMs comment, nor of the comment made by Mr.Anderson which he replied to, nor, iirc, any of the follow-up comments.

Further, it is an absolutely absurd argument that claims it is religious institutions that are the cause of oppression in people's lives. Terrorism is more a grass-roots phenomenon, and the oppression of women starts in the home. Look at a nation like Jordan, where the mainstream political and religious institutions are attempting to modernize and eliminate gender based honor killings and other oppression, but it still occurs, even in urbanized areas.

Oppression is not, by default, a quality of institutions. Oppression begins in the home.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
2. Black people are not an organization.

you are the first person to use the term organization in this debate. You are needlessly segregating the two concepts. This would be a false dichotomy fallacy 😐

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
3. Because dislike of a people and of a hierarchy are very different things, your analogy fails to mesh the two concepts.

the analogy was not aimed at making two dissimilar groups appear the same. It was aimed at showing how "daydreaming" about a type of person no longer existing is oppressive, or, leads to oppressive consequences. Like I said, the A and the C.

A) world with religious people and world with black people

C) world without religious people and without black people

that being black and being religious aren't the same is moot, as it is the restriction of people based on them being a "type" of people (religious or black) that I am putting forward as being oppressive.

A better criticism would be that there could be an infinite number of types of people, some which we would all agree deserve some form of oppression, such as "violent people" etc. However, the justification for the removing of their rights comes not from the logic of daydreaming of a world without them, but from the real damage they do to society (notice, not potential damage).

In both cases presented, it is NOT an argument about harm to society. The best you have is that some people are oppressed as a consequence of their religion, but honestly, looking at statistics, oppression has FAR stronger causes than religion. Religion is a mechanism for oppression, so is race. Also, what appears to be deemed as oppression in many conversations about Muslim women, is, in fact, choice. We should daydream of a world where women are free to express their modesty, sluttiness, religion and sin in whichever way they feel is appropriate.

It is the desire to move from A to C that is oppressive. Even if we assume there is no forced persuasion or removal of those "types" of people, there is, at least, some point where we go from a world where they exist to one where they don't. That moment is oppression.

"God, I wish there were no more Jews around" need not be accompanied by a specific plan for their removal. It shows implicit intolerance toward a type of people, even if you don't want to violently stop them from being who they are.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
4. The dislike of black people is arrived at (generally) through a combination of ignorance and hate.

irrelevant

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
5. DDM's dislike of religion is, most likely, derived from an examination of the results it achieves.

also irrelevant

or, if you don't like irrelevant, wrong

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
6. The racist comment, then, is not analogous to the irreligious one because it has been generated (presumably) [b]rationally. [/B]

ok, so you have shown that logic can be used to oppress people...

oh goodness whatevs.

You're right, the idea that a world without religion would be superior is absolutely atrocious; only a pathological power hungry tyrant [strike]would could possibly have the opinion that the various ills religion has inflicted upon the world would be better left out of history.[/strike]

You are right. I did not think my position through completely and it shows.

This seems like a ridiculous argument. If a person thinks religion is bad, he has every right to believe that. Oppression is an act.

I think his argument is that wanting to get rid of something generally leads to trying to get rid of it.

I have a cold. It bothers me. I should get rid of it. I drink chicken soup.
I see some Jews. They bother me. I should get rid of them. I become Chancellor of Germany then take over the entire executive branch and force the legislature to give me emergency powers do I can kill some Jews.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
oh goodness whatevs.

You're right, the idea that a world without religion would be superior is absolutely atrocious; only a pathological power hungry tyrant [strike]would could possibly have the opinion that the various ills religion has inflicted upon the world would be better left out of history.[/strike]

You are right. I did not think my position through completely and it shows.

indeed, a world without religion would be atrocious, as it is oppressive to those whom religion is fulfilling to.

Originally posted by King Kandy
This seems like a ridiculous argument. If a person thinks religion is bad, he has every right to believe that. Oppression is an act.

I'd never argue someone doesn't have the right to believe anything

try this:

wanting no religion is no different than wanting one religion

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd never argue someone doesn't have the right to believe anything

try this:

wanting no religion is no different than wanting one religion

ok, but this is a forum with the expressed purpose of discussing people's opinons

I just don't understand why you've made such a big issue out of this given how you've spoken out so much in favor of free thought in the past. It just seems more like you were looking for something to argue about than actually having a real target.

And BTW I said people were entitled to believe what they want. I never said they were entitled to ACT on what they believe.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I just don't understand why you've made such a big issue out of this given how you've spoken out so much in favor of free thought in the past.

you see those wanting the end of personal religious expression on the side in favor of free thought on this issue?

Originally posted by King Kandy
It just seems more like you were looking for something to argue about than actually having a real target.

fair enough...

Originally posted by King Kandy
And BTW I said people were entitled to believe what they want. I never said they were entitled to ACT on what they believe.

I don't think I've challenged either of those positions

Originally posted by inimalist
you see those wanting the end of personal religious expression on the side in favor of free thought on this issue?

I mean, if I told you I wanted universal healthcare, would you be okay with that, or would you start complaining about all the insurance agents who would lose their jobs? I don't think this is the issue you were making it out to be.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah, because I think everybody should be free to have fantasies. I mean seriously if somebody has some sex fantasy, is the first thing you say going to be "that's degrading to women"? No. Everybody has their own idea of what would make the world better.

I mean, if I told you I wanted universal healthcare, would you be okay with that, or would you start complaining about all the insurance agents who would lose their jobs? I don't think this is the issue you were making it out to be.

I don't know where you are getting this from. The logical conclusion of the argument I've been making would be that people are allowed whatever fantasies they want, sexual or otherwise. If people are into genocide, I can't really help it, nor would I care to if I could.

I've discussed something brought up in the thread, I wasn't the instigator, nor was I the first person to express the view I have.

And yes, were universal health care going to have major repercussions for the labor force, I would bring it up as a valid criticism of the plan.

I'm sorry I don't think religion is the bane of man's existence. I'm sorry I think there are way more basic socio-economic and psychological reasons for the way people behave aside from the religion they are brought up in. I'm sorry I think it is repressive and insulting to human expression to want to limit how people can interpret their own existence or to even suggest that it would be a better world if they just were able to interpret the world as us secular humanists [sic] do. However, it is because free thought is so important to me that I'd make this an issue. This being a discussion forum, and the topic being generally about religion and oppression, I thought it would be relevant, especially given I didn't bring the subject up.

[blah, that is way more cynical in tone than I wanted it to be, so no offense please, its just concise and I'm too lazy/tired to try and reword... lol, really, nothing personal]

Originally posted by Bicnarok
But it so happens that Islamic countries barbaric middle ages type customs are decremental to human survival, happiness and development.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Thats why they come to the west.

People migrate to other regions in hope for getting better education or job opportunities. Sometimes it is the circumstances that serve as the driving force.

Originally posted by inimalist
really? which of your freedoms would you be willing to give up, so that someone else can have their perfect world?

You do know that I'm a devote Mormon, don't you?

I've also already discussed this same point, already.

I said I would give up my religion, in a heart beat, if it meant that the world would be a better place.

Like I said, I'm not a hypocrite.

It it was tongue in cheek, not some uber philosophical point of social governance.

Originally posted by inimalist
ya, I'm speaking of religion in general

wanting a world without religion is, imho, fairly naive.

Being the sympathetic libtard that I am, I'd rather have the CHOICE to religion than not have religion at all.

Like I said, my comment was tongue in cheek. I was being cynical. Don't look too much into.

Edit- And not seeing the net benefit of a world without religion is also naive. Not seeing the massive harm religion has caused the world and humanity in general, is absurdly naive. However, we both know what the other is saying and the reprocussions of each. Neither is naive in the slightest. 😐