Your answer to my question was insufficient. Perhaps I should have asked you what specific instances and forms of religion you tolerate, but saying that you tolerate something when it causes no harm is trivial, and doesn't qualify your hardline stance against religion, as you seem to hate it on principle. Is there any instance where you think religion is benign, or even beneficial? Because you can't be said to tolerate something if you disapprove of everything about it.
The formula of your posts seems to be:
"-Copout answer to a question posed.
-Loaded question to deflect attention from the failed answer.
-Great Value brand quote from some famous thinker, often unsourced and out of context.
-Regards
DL"
Regards
OV
Originally posted by Bardock42pretty accurate on all accounts, imo. i'm guilty of all of this. my biggest hang up was actually just plain not knowing about the distinction between sex/gender. people tend to use the terms interchangeably.
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.
but to speak in general to your other point about needing to organize concepts, i often feel like the things that have always seemed self-evident to me are always being broken down further and further into oblivion. it feels like a twilight zone where i can't tell if i'm coming out of the matrix or building a brand new one.
Originally posted by Bardock42I know a few frustrating people that seem to fit all 6 of those points, at varying times. Often on the issue of transgenderism. They're ultracrepidarians.
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 Oliver North
ya, smarten up OV, this guy has solved the question of good and evil
I am willing to accept arguments against.
You have none.
Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.
That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."
But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.
If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.
Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.
Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.
Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.
Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.
Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.
This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.
Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.
There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.
Evolutionary theology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1OAL0&list=UUDXjzOeZRqLxhYaaEhWLb_A&index=9
Regards
DL
Originally posted by Greatest I am
I am willing to accept arguments against.
what does a good man do in the case of Syria, oh great and informed scholar of absolute morals?
Originally posted by Greatest I am
You have none.Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.
That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."
But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.
If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.
Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.
Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.
Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.
This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.
Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.
There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.
Evolutionary theology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1OAL0&list=UUDXjzOeZRqLxhYaaEhWLb_A&index=9
Regards
DL
and how are you not an extremist again?
Also, this is probably the fourth time in a row your reply has had almost nothing to do with the point I was trying to get across. Probably my fault though, if the failure in communication is so common, no? I can't imagine it is you who is trying to use every reply as a springboard to rant about your own strictly held rigid belief structure.
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.
I agree, it is a weird one. People probably have a lot of motivations for it, I'm just, more to the religion aspect of what I was saying, questioning the value of 1-6.
Actually, I've been thinking about it, and I think it is impossible to argue that there isn't some value, to 5-6 especially (1 as well to some degree), in the right context. It might be that we need to develop a way of talking about identity and religious taxonomy in a way that reflects the sex and gender dichotomy.
Originally posted by red g jacks
pretty accurate on all accounts, imo. i'm guilty of all of this. my biggest hang up was actually just plain not knowing about the distinction between sex/gender. people tend to use the terms interchangeably.
I taught a stats class fall/winter last year, and absolutely hounded the students about the distinction. To the point where it almost became a joke to me. The easiest way to define it is that sex refers to which chromosomes you have, XX or XY, and gender refers to the way in which you experience the world. Its a hugely complicated issue, but so long as you let people generally express themselves how they wish, there is nothing to feel guilty about.
you know, just don't be the guy who is trying to tell a male-to-female individual they have to use the men's washroom or berate a young child for playing with toys made for the other gender (or, heaven forbid, wearing the clothes of another gender 😮).
Originally posted by red g jacks
but to speak in general to your other point about needing to organize concepts, i often feel like the things that have always seemed self-evident to me are always being broken down further and further into oblivion. it feels like a twilight zone where i can't tell if i'm coming out of the matrix or building a brand new one.
it's just your hetero-normal privilege 😛
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Your answer to my question was insufficient. Perhaps I should have asked you what specific instances and forms of religion you tolerate, but saying that you tolerate something when it causes no harm is trivial, and doesn't qualify your hardline stance against religion, as you seem to hate it on principle. Is there any instance where you think religion is benign, or even beneficial? Because you can't be said to tolerate something if you disapprove of everything about it.The formula of your posts seems to be:
"-Copout answer to a question posed.
-Loaded question to deflect attention from the failed answer.
-Great Value brand quote from some famous thinker, often unsourced and out of context.
-Regards
DL"Regards
OV
Always happy to expand.
It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists as well as those who do not believe. They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief or not. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic are evil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1
They also do much harm to their own.
African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related
Jesus Camp 1of 9
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48b_1185215493
Death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_BVzw&feature=related
For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can my friend. It is your duty to our fellow man.
Regards
DL
Originally posted by Oliver Northwell the distinction makes sense now that it's been pointed out to me. i also think it's useful in general to have a way to distinguish between biological sexes and the characteristics of masculinity and femininity. i was just not aware of it until recently as nobody had pointed it out and i've never really been all that interested in feminism.
I taught a stats class fall/winter last year, and absolutely hounded the students about the distinction. To the point where it almost became a joke to me. The easiest way to define it is that sex refers to which chromosomes you have, XX or XY, and gender refers to the way in which you experience the world. Its a hugely complicated issue, but so long as you let people generally express themselves how they wish, there is nothing to feel guilty about.you know, just don't be the guy who is trying to tell a male-to-female individual they [b]have to
use the men's washroom or berate a young child for playing with toys made for the other gender (or, heaven forbid, wearing the clothes of another gender 😮).[/b]
i never actually spent any time arguing with people about this issue, i would just silently believe society was telling transgender people what they wanted to hear in an attempt to be more pc.
it's just your hetero-normal privilege 😛who said i'm hetero though
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.
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Always happy to expand.It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists as well as those who do not believe. They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief or not. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic are evil.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I had a debate about transgendered people on the Off-Topic Forum of the Comic Book Versus section, and the main point of my opponent was that a transgendered woman, even one who's undergone all the surgeries and hormone therapy is still a man because the male chromosomes still exist. That's almost reasonable, but then he went further to say that having sex with that woman would make a man "gay", as if the chromosomes themselves are what cause attraction.That's still not an answer to my question. I want actual examples of religious practices that in your view don't cause harm and can be tolerated, not propaganda videos, generalizations, and more irrelevant quotes.
lol, I remember that.
Originally posted by Oliver North
well, to be clear, what you mean by "societal enlightenment" is really "societal norms". And you are right, if the societal norms don't include some degree of a particular ideology, it is unlikely that more extreme versions of that ideology would flourish (even though they don't particularly flourish anyways).But I think the crux of our disagreement is that imho removing religion merely changes the things extremists are extreme about and which behaviours or groups of people they target. The issue to me is much more about the psychology of people who become extremists. Something like a low tolerance for ambiguity and a high need for primary control might produce an extremist in any context. It isn't something that is fed by the people with higher tolerance or lower need for control, it comes down to how individuals are able to make sense of themselves in the world. A moderate Christian isn't facilitating the extremist one in any way other than maybe allowing for the extremist to be a Christian, rather than some other type of extremist.
I have more broader issues with wanting the end of religion, but here specifically, it seems like targeting specific individuals with specific cognitive strategies that promote extremist thinking would be far more effective than removing religion.
Love would fit that definition... so would war... it really depends on what you want to call evil, no? If you go by the harm principle, all that would be required is the individual actor being self-justified in their actions, even if all outside observers didn't agree.
All good points. However, one quibble I'll mention is that with the psychologically extreme, if you removed the religious context they might have a harder time rallying others to them. Those whose predisposition is toward some sort of extremism aren't my concern. It's the movements they're able to start. And while we can find examples in other realms, I do think it would be harder to start such a disastrous movement (exclusionary, hateful, etc.) in a predominantly secular context.
There's some line about how there's no atheist suicide bombers. While not entirely applicable in such a watered-down form, I think that this is another popular aphorism with some basis in reality.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I had a debate about transgendered people on the Off-Topic Forum of the Comic Book Versus section, and the main point of my opponent was that a transgendered woman, even one who's undergone all the surgeries and hormone therapy is still a man because the male chromosomes still exist. That's almost reasonable, but then he went further to say that having sex with that woman would make a man "gay", as if the chromosomes themselves are what cause attraction.
The thing is that you don't know their chromosome arrangement. It's just silly. People want to pretend that it's just "male - XY - penis" "female - XX - vagina" when it just isn't that simple.