Are you sure you want to be a Catholic?

Originally posted by -Pr-
I honestly don't know exactly how it is in America bar what I read on Reddit and the like. I just know that, for as long as I can remember, Ireland has considered itself a Catholic nation. On the census, and in general, Catholic (or, more precisely, Roman Catholic) is what any person of that faith would identify themselves as (and that's most of the country). We just never really used the word "Christian" and for the longest time, I actually thought they were somewhat separate.

Then again, we're a pretty progressive nation in the sense that, as much influence as the church used to have, Ireland has done something of a 180. Abortion is now legal in certain circumstances, our PM basically flipped off the Vatican, and a referendum is planned for next year concerning gay marriage.

We might be, for the most part, a Catholic nation, but it doesn't influence things it really shouldn't for the most part, which is nice.

Thats sort of what I meant, up until very recently the distinction between Baptist/Catholic/Lutheran would have been just as important. Penn Jillette actually explains it really well, but like, major political movements in the last 50 years, against abortion and rising secularism, brought all these faiths together for largely political-identity reasons, that bled into a self-identity in all of the denominations as "Christian" rather than Catholic, etc.

He has a better video explaining it, but I could only find this one:

YouTube video

I wasn't trying to say anything broader about the culture of Ireland or anything like that (hell, iirc they even recently became progressive on abortion issues [EDIT: doh, you even mentioned that in your post... Go reading comprehension!!]), just that it is always enlightening to understand why people from different cultures perceive things in different ways.

It makes a lot of sense to me that a person from Ireland would distinguish Catholic from Christian (or, as you were saying, the "Christian" label might just be irrelevant).

Oh okay. Yeah, I see what you mean. And yeah, though to be fair, the public had been wanting it for a lot longer than the government had been talking about it. We're talking at least a decade or two of discussion and protest over the right to choose.

TBH, the main reason I don't call myself a Christian much (if at all), is because of the negative perception that it carries. I'm more a person of faith and science than a religious person anyway.

lol, nice edit.

nevermind, gotta read to the end.

Originally posted by Bardock42
nevermind, gotta read to the end.

that's what I said for the most part. They are coming around, and there was a recent signing in to law of "Abortions under certain circumstances" for people. It's not a blanket allowance, but it is a step in the right direction (imo, as i'm pro choice).

TBH, it more stems from Ireland's government taking a while to actually change the laws to match attitudes than anything else. I mean, we're the country that had homosexuality illegal only a few decades ago.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Thats sort of what I meant, up until very recently the distinction between Baptist/Catholic/Lutheran would have been just as important. Penn Jillette actually explains it really well, but like, major political movements in the last 50 years, against abortion and rising secularism, brought all these faiths together for largely political-identity reasons, that bled into a self-identity in all of the denominations as "Christian" rather than Catholic, etc.

That's neat, I never knew that.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Oh okay. Yeah, I see what you mean. And yeah, though to be fair, the public had been wanting it for a lot longer than the government had been talking about it. We're talking at least a decade or two of discussion and protest over the right to choose.

I think that is sort of the same everywhere. Something has to be so assured of success before politicians will get on board with it for fear of being elected out by whichever interests they might offend.

I feel that is the case with stuff like ending marijuana prohibition at least.

Originally posted by -Pr-
TBH, the main reason I don't call myself a Christian much (if at all), is because of the negative perception that it carries. I'm more a person of faith and science than a religious person anyway.

I'm actually fairly similar with my approach to atheism. If we look at religion as some objective taxonomy, I'm an atheist (or to DDM an agnostic), but in terms of self-identity I hardly use those words at all. I'm just not-religious, or without-religion, as being an "Atheist" doesn't do much to convey how I feel about myself or the universe.

Originally posted by -Pr-
lol, nice edit.

my brain just skims text for F-scores and p-values these days... I'm sure you mentioning it was the only reason I thought of it

lol, Maybe.

I can sympathise; I don't think my own faith really has a classification; I just pick the one that seems closest to it.

Also, I hate that every time I post to you, I end up having to google certain words. 🙁

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's neat, I never knew that.

I found it really strange: finding that something I had basically taken for granted (I took almost as many religious studies undergrad courses as psych) was such a modern and almost artificial construct in that way. I'm inclined to be skeptical about it, but I've never heard the idea refuted and it actually blends nicely with the whole political resurgence of Christianity in the 80s.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I can sympathise; I don't think my own faith really has a classification; I just pick the one that seems closest to it.

I sort of try to avoid any type of group or self identification in general, but I hear you. I'll generally just call myself an atheist in conversation to avoid prolonged explanations.

imho yours is the most honest type of religion, but I try not to make those kinds of judgments because, as someone with no religion, it's really not my place.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Also, I hate that every time I post to you, I end up having to google certain words. 🙁

Thats more about me being oblivious than anything else, lol.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm actually fairly similar with my approach to atheism. If we look at religion as some objective taxonomy, I'm an atheist (or to DDM an agnostic), but in terms of self-identity I hardly use those words at all. I'm just not-religious, or without-religion, as being an "Atheist" doesn't do much to convey how I feel about myself or the universe.

Yeah, you had better properly label or my exactitude radar goes off. uhuh

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, you had better properly label or my exactitude radar goes off. uhuh

so like, I understand how I fall into your category of "agnostic", I just wonder why you think that is a meaningful place to put me when I not only don't identify with the term, I would actively say I am not an agnostic.

Like, I get my own bias might be to an individual's own definition of their identity, but what value is a system that classifies people according to definitions they don't agree with? Like, what value is there to your system that calls me an agnostic?

It seems almost akin to someone insisting that transgendered people have the same gender as the sex they were born into, not the gender they feel or experience the world as. Like, maybe in terms of self identity, we need to come up with something akin to the sex/gender dichotomy that exists in biology, but even still, I would question the use of such a strict and inflexible system.

Originally posted by Oliver North

It seems almost akin to someone insisting that transgendered people have the same gender as the sex they were born into, not the gender they feel or experience the world as.

With a bit less negative consequences...

I have a couple of theories as to the reasons for that kind of behaviour (most of these theories come from the fact that I myself exhibited them earlier in my life (and quite publicly on KMC as well (and tbh, probably still do, always very hard to tell)), not a full list of course.

1. Believing it is possible, and needing to be able to strictly put things in neat and simple labels that are absolutely applicable. Thereby often disregarding important differentiating factors. For example I did that a lot when talking about atheism: "Everyone is an atheist if they don't believe in god(s)". In terms of transgender that's obviously "Everyone fits into either the category male or female"

2. Preserving beliefs or definitions one grew up with. Being very attached to ones own understanding of a word or concept. For example, to me agnosticism had been defined as not knowing whether there is a God or not. That is obviously not the only definition, but one might be so attached to that initial exposure that it is hard to see other POV. In terms of transgender that's again the "There are men and women, there's no other possibilities, it's all biological, etc."

3. Being the lone truthsayer to a bunch of sheeple. Pretty self explanatory I guess, especially with transgender that seems to often be the case. Like "All these other people can't see someone is definitely male or definitely female, I must educate them for I am smarter than them"

4. Lack of understanding of an important part of the issue.

In the case of dismissing transgender it's generally the understanding of the difference between sex and gender. Even if one has heard of the issue, and thinks to understand it, it doesn't necessarily mean that they truly do.

5. Focussing on a small issue that seems in itself logical but disregarding the bigger picture that changes it. Usually in terms of transgender that is "But I'm only focussing on biology here" (disregarding all sort of intersex people and genetic disorders of course)

6. Playing devil's advocate

I don't mean to apply this to the issue with dadudemon, just going off a bit on your transgender point.

Originally posted by Bardock42
With a bit less negative consequences...

I have a couple of theories as to the reasons for that kind of behaviour (most of these theories come from the fact that I myself exhibited them earlier in my life (and quite publicly on KMC as well (and tbh, probably still do, always very hard to tell)), not a full list of course.

1. Believing it is possible, and needing to be able to strictly put things in neat and simple labels that are absolutely applicable. Thereby often disregarding important differentiating factors. For example I did that a lot when talking about atheism: "Everyone is an atheist if they don't believe in god(s)". In terms of transgender that's obviously "Everyone fits into either the category male or female"

2. Preserving beliefs or definitions one grew up with. Being very attached to ones own understanding of a word or concept. For example, to me agnosticism had been defined as not knowing whether there is a God or not. That is obviously not the only definition, but one might be so attached to that initial exposure that it is hard to see other POV. In terms of transgender that's again the "There are men and women, there's no other possibilities, it's all biological, etc."

3. Being the lone truthsayer to a bunch of sheeple. Pretty self explanatory I guess, especially with transgender that seems to often be the case. Like "All these other people can't see someone is definitely male or definitely female, I must educate them for I am smarter than them"

4. Lack of understanding of an important part of the issue.

In the case of dismissing transgender it's generally the understanding of the difference between sex and gender. Even if one has heard of the issue, and thinks to understand it, it doesn't necessarily mean that they truly do.

5. Focussing on a small issue that seems in itself logical but disregarding the bigger picture that changes it. Usually in terms of transgender that is "But I'm only focussing on biology here" (disregarding all sort of intersex people and genetic disorders of course)

6. Playing devil's advocate

I don't mean to apply this to the issue with dadudemon, just going off a bit on your transgender point.

So what you are saying is Dadudeman reminds you of a teenage girl? Amirite?

Originally posted by Paul Calf
So what you are saying is Dadudeman reminds you of a teenage girl? Amirite?

I wasn't saying that.

It's true, but that's a different matter.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I wasn't saying that.

It's true, but that's a different matter.

So what were you saying simply for me as I am a simple chap.

Originally posted by -Pr-
So you presume to question my morals simply because I identify as being Catholic?

Not to mention the insane presumptions you make about my attitudes.

Really?

Denial without argument is for children.

Note that you ask how to fight evil when a good man would certainly know how.

Do you think taking advantage of a human sacrifice is a good moral position?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The premise "Some X are Y" does not lead to "All not-X are not-Y", nor does self-righteousness convince me of anything rhetorically. You failed logos and pathos which is undermining your ethos. Aristotle would be very sad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Oliver North
You know Voltaire believed in God, yes? And was a great supporter of the same religious tolerance you are combating?

that can only be true if your ideas about good and evil are less nuanced than a Disney movie.

I'd throw the fighting monsters and abyss quote at you again, but I'm sure you aren't getting the picture and it's a bit self indulgent at this point.

I am all in for religious tolerance when applicable. Where not I will not tolerate and neither will other good men.

Some, like you perhaps, do not know when to tolerate or not.

Poor morals is the usual cause.

Regards
DL

When is religious tolerance applicable in your book?

I don't see why a good man would necessarily know how to fight evil. I don't think that's a prerequisite. Lot of good men and women aren't professional evil fighters...some of them are dentists.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Denial without argument is for children.

Note that you ask how to fight evil when a good man would certainly know how.

Do you think taking advantage of a human sacrifice is a good moral position?

Regards
DL

I really don't get where all this hostility of yours comes from. Or the condescension.

Though tbh, I'd wager that I'm more likely to spot real evil than someone who looks for it where it doesn't actually exist. Especially seeing as how you like to put words in my mouth, and claim that I asked things that I didn't.