Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/8/prweb10987248.htm


Okie

I wouldn't want to be a Catholic, but I wouldn't want to be part of your religion as well. I'm happy were I am. You seem to be the one who is unhappy.

I'm Catholic, but thankfully I don't have to be lumped in with anyone that tries to force their views on others in an attempt to make little of people.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I'm Catholic, but thankfully I don't have to be lumped in with anyone that tries to force their views on others in an attempt to make little of people.

If that's true then why did you make that website?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If that's true then why did you make that website?

Originally posted by -Pr-
I'm Catholic, but thankfully I don't have to be lumped in with anyone that tries to force their views on others in an attempt to make little of people.

You take the label, you take the heat.

Like most Christians and Catholics, you seem to be rather hypocritical in saying you are Catholic but not like the other brand of Catholic.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Okieshowedem
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/8/prweb10987248.htm


Okie

Catholics will not give a damn about any criticism.

All Christians live in a hypocritical bubble.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
You take the label, you take the heat.

Like most Christians and Catholics, you seem to be rather hypocritical in saying you are Catholic but not like the other brand of Catholic.

Regards
DL

lol, no.

Nice of you to try to tar anyone who identifies as catholic all with the same brush, though. Is there a reason you're so openly hostile and judgmental?

Originally posted by -Pr-
lol, no.

Nice of you to try to tar anyone who identifies as catholic all with the same brush, though. Is there a reason you're so openly hostile and judgmental?

Yes. Have a look at what you support.

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

Huh?

Who says I support any of that?

Originally posted by Greatest I am
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.

you don't feel that sweeping generalizations of potentially billions of people sounds a little fundamentalist in itself? I mean, it is the extremists in general who spend their time decreeing who is or isn't part of their religion, what there religion does or does not support, or brandishing accusations of evil. Moderates, like Pr, would tend to be more interested with what their faith means to themselves, not sticking their noses into other people's personal relationship with the divine.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Huh?

Who says I support any of that?

Ha, that's basically what my mother said when she read the God Delusion.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ha, that's basically what my mother said when she read the God Delusion.

I can't stand Dawkins at the best of times, tbh.

I mean, I like that he stands up for what he believes in (and I do think that people need to not let themselves be brainwashed by any sort of religious organisation), but I just wish he didn't come across as such an insufferable **** most of the time.

I'm pretty sure Jesus Camp is about a pentecostal ministry.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm pretty sure Jesus Camp is about a pentecostal ministry.

...And?

Originally posted by -Pr-
...And?

And they aren't Catholics? Idk, I don't understand the question...

Originally posted by Bardock42
And they aren't Catholics? Idk, I don't understand the question...

I just didn't understand what your statement was in reference to, was all.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I just didn't understand what your statement was in reference to, was all.

Hmm, okay, give me three hail marys and we call it even.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, okay, give me three hail marys and we call it even.

lol

Greatest I Am isn't stating his case well at all. But I do think there's a nugget to be gained from his train of thought. Allow me to try...

My sister is Catholic. She fully supports gay marriage as non-sinful behavior. While trying to be as PC as possible, the Catholic Church still officially recognizes homosexual acts as sin.

Now, does my sister believe that interpretation? No. But she supports an organization that believes it, and that bases their doctrine and policies around it. In this case, I'd definitely say there's a level of personal responsibility to be associated with this kind of tacit endorsement.

Of course, Catholicism isn't the biggest culprit here. I use it only for a convenient example.

Second point: first of all, the videos GIA posted are evangelical extremists. Things like the Jesus Camps are the extremist exception, not the rule, and not a damnation of moderate Christianity. But there's a deeper problem that relates to such extremism. For such extremism to exist, it must be within a culture that will allow it to function and thrive. Now let's say that Joe Christian is at a 4 on "severity" of belief. The Jesus Camp people are a 10. And an average member of Joe's church congregation is a 6 or 7. In an institution where faith is rewarded, and faith despite evidence or even in the face of evidence is praised, for something as delusional as the Jesus Camps to gain traction, they must exist in a culture that will allow more moderate levels of the same factors to go unquestioned. Because the beliefs are no less ridiculous, and the articles of faith and doctrine are largely similar between Christian denominations. The only difference is severity.

Someone who is a "4" can easily dismiss a "10" as wrong and extremist, but I have rarely, if ever, seen someone truly scrutinize the "4s" contribution to the "10s". Or rather, the lower numbers providing a cultural climate that allows more extreme versions of the same faith to take root.

The exception I could see to all of this is someone to whom belief is almost entirely internalized. As soon as you're part of the larger religious movement - in any form - imo you're part of the extremism problem.

What constitutes "support" really needs to be defined here, tbh.

Originally posted by Digi
Someone who is a "4" can easily dismiss a "10" as wrong and extremist, but I have rarely, if ever, seen someone truly scrutinize the "4s" contribution to the "10s". Or rather, the lower numbers providing a cultural climate that allows more extreme versions of the same faith to take root.

I'm not sure that logic works. By mere existence, a moderate contributes to an extremist?

So, the existence of any individual atheist supports the anti-religious policies of the USSR or CCP?

Like, the fact you or I are atheists contributes to the oppression of Christians in China?

Speaking specifically of Islam, it is often the moderates who are most vocal and provide the most support to secular society when confronting extremists.

I guess it depends if you see extremism as a result of believing certain things or whether it is a characteristic of certain individual's psychology... I don't think eliminating moderates would do anything but embolden the extremists. Hell, in that scenario, there is nobody left to argue their interpretation of scripture, in the same way that Christopher Hitchens and Osama Bin Laden believed the same interpretation of Islam (one not believed by the vast majority of Muslims around the world).

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm not sure that logic works. By mere existence, a moderate contributes to an extremist?

So, the existence of any individual atheist supports the anti-religious policies of the USSR or CCP?

Like, the fact you or I are atheists contributes to the oppression of Christians in China?

Speaking specifically of Islam, it is often the moderates who are most vocal and provide the most support to secular society when confronting extremists.

I guess it depends if you see extremism as a result of believing certain things or whether it is a characteristic of certain individual's psychology... I don't think eliminating moderates would do anything but embolden the extremists. Hell, in that scenario, there is nobody left to argue their interpretation of scripture, in the same way that Christopher Hitchens and Osama Bin Laden believed the same interpretation of Islam (one not believed by the vast majority of Muslims around the world).

I'm speaking institutionally. It's why I made a caveat for theists who are largely removed from institutionalized religion. No meaningful influence can be exerted individually. Atheists aren't immune to contributing to extremism, but atheism is much more of an individual thing for most. It's also one of the reasons I tend to avoid endorsing atheist groups.

There's also spheres of influence. I'm reasonable. A religious organization here isn't meaningfully influencing one half a world away. But there are smaller socio-economic pockets where it's harder to extricate various groups and their influence upon one another. Most would probably be within their town, or region, occasionally state or country.

I think, to be absolutely honest, we can't isolate the variables, because we're working with sociological ideas that are thousands of years old, and have never existed in a culture without widespread institutionalized religion.

Your point about psychological factor is also well made, and I can't say I have a definite rebuttal to it. A variation on the nature/nurture argument, no doubt.

But I can't shake this overarching idea. If Jed T. Hillbilly is an adamant racist, but exists in a society that is largely tolerant of race relations, he's not going to speak out against it as much. But if the town has a KKK chapter, he'll be much more actively racist. And if it's in the middle - say, a rural town that harbors some racist tendencies - he's going to feel emboldened to pronounce his racism more fully but won't start a KKK chapter on his own. It's herd mentality, or social dynamics. It's the same reason one of my old friends (a term used loosely here) will use the word n*gger liberally, but never in front of anyone he's not friends with. It's not accepted.

And if there isn't anyone saying "Jesus is Lord" along with a few hundred others each week, there won't be anyone saying "Jesus is Lord, and anyone who says otherwise is going to Hell." And there's several degrees between those statements, I understand that. But it's a severity thing again.

*entirely hypothetical scale:
2 - I believe in the divinity of Jesus, but others are welcome to believe what they like.
4 - Jesus is Lord.
6 - Jesus is Lord, and I wish those poor lost souls would come back to the flock. They're missing out on true happiness.
8 - Jesus is Lord, and those poor souls have turned their back on their God.
10 - You're going to burn in Hell for your beliefs.

I don't think 10 exists (again, institutionally, on a large scale) without a certain amount of the population being 4, 6, or 8. A few lonely bastards would think it, and it would fester far away from the harsh gaze of societal enlightenment.

It's also a clever way to package the idea that I think the world would be better off without religion, which sounds more nefarious than how I'm presenting it here. Evil would still exist, extreme opinions would still exist. I don't think for a second that religion is the only breeding ground of such bile. But it's still a large one. Doing away with religion would do away with a lot of both good and bad, and much of it would be replaced in other forms. But I do think there's some kernel of truth to the otherwise cliche "Good men will do good, and evil men will do evil. But for a good man to do evil, that takes religion." I have a hard time finding anywhere else where someone will do evil and think that they are right. There are self-serving assh*les, there are people who don't care about morality, there are people whose education makes them incapable of seeing the consequences of what they do, there are psychologically bent nutjobs, there are a hundred different reasons to do evil. But religion is pretty much the only way I've found where the person actually believes they are doing good.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'd love to see a cogent explanation of a variable or influence I'm not accounting for. Maybe you have it and I'm just not seeing it yet.

I'm not even on that list

Originally posted by Digi
Someone who is a "4" can easily dismiss a "10" as wrong and extremist, but I have rarely, if ever, seen someone truly scrutinize the "4s" contribution to the "10s". Or rather, the lower numbers providing a cultural climate that allows more extreme versions of the same faith to take root.
I may be misinterpreting what you're saying but the 1-4s in Mormonism are the ones that have gotten most of the positive changes to occur within the LDS Church.

For instance, it was an almost dishonest and underhanded group of 8's-10's that got the preface in the Book of Mormon to say "the lamanites were the primary ancestors of the Native Americans" when that was both controversial and debated at the time of its release. About 17 years later, our 1-4 people finally got that changed in our preface. It says something like, "are part of the ancestry of the Native Americans" instead of the factually incorrect "primary ancestor" statement.

There are many other examples (slavery, black's holding the priesthood, you know the drill) where our 1-4's have been an excellent moderating source for more positive change against our extremist views.


However, I don't foresee the "gays can get married" idea ever being allowed in our church as it is a fundamental canon belief that the family unit is mother-father-children.


If I'm off base and got wrong with what you were saying there, feel free to call me an idiot.


Originally posted by Digi
*entirely hypothetical scale:
2 - I believe in the divinity of Jesus, but others are welcome to believe what they like.
4 - Jesus is Lord.
6 - Jesus is Lord, and I wish those poor lost souls would come back to the flock. They're missing out on true happiness.
8 - Jesus is Lord, and those poor souls have turned their back on their God.
10 - You're going to burn in Hell for your beliefs.



Imma 3.

3 - I believe in the divinity of Jesus. Many people would be happier if they practiced a positive faith but not necessarily Christianity; others are welcome to believe what they like.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I may be misinterpreting what you're saying but the 1-4s in Mormonism are the ones that have gotten most of the positive changes to occur within the LDS Church.

For instance, it was an almost dishonest and underhanded group of 8's-10's that got the preface in the Book of Mormon to say "the lamanites were the primary ancestors of the Native Americans" when that was both controversial and debated at the time of its release. About 17 years later, our 1-4 people finally got that changed in our preface. It says something like, "are part of the ancestry of the Native Americans" instead of the factually incorrect "primary ancestor" statement.

There are many other examples (slavery, black's holding the priesthood, you know the drill) where our 1-4's have been an excellent moderating source for more positive change against our extremist views.


However, I don't foresee the "gays can get married" idea ever being allowed in our church as it is a fundamental canon belief that the family unit is mother-father-children.


If I'm off base and got wrong with what you were saying there, feel free to call me an idiot.

This is all well and good, and I have no reason to doubt you, but it actually doesn't address my point imo. 1-4's softening the evil in the church is just that, a lessening of evil. It makes it less reprehensible, but in and of itself doesn't justify the presence of either 8-10's or 1-4's.

There's a term in sports called Value Over Replacement. Essentially, it looks at a player's performance relative to the league average at his position, and occasionally takes into account salary, to see if that player is being overpaid, underpaid, or is in a reasonable contract relative to the rest of the league. A player can be above average and still be a bad deal.

Pointing to the good done in religion isn't enough to justify it alone. We have to see what it would have been replaced with. I look at Mormonism and I see racism and bigotry that was institutionalized for decades, that also isn't entirely stamped out, and could be brought up again pending a reinterpretation of the texts of a particular sect. I see a group that does some good, and that has made a lot positive change, but whose value over replacement (in this case, if it hadn't existed) is probably pretty neutral. And I see an institution where the 8-10's wouldn't have existed in such influential numbers at any point in its history if it hadn't gained such traction in the first place.

1-4's can indeed moderate the extremes, and change them in some cases. Viewed internally, they can be a positive influence. But it ignores the fact that all of them, 1-10's, compromise an organization that has allowed for the development and influence of the 8-10's. And the influence can still be felt - Mormonism is still dealing with the fallout of many of the ideas you mention. And, as you say, they may never reform on certain others.

That may seem harsh. It is. I'm learning that this isn't a popular opinion, even among non-religious.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I'm not even on that list

It was a hypothetical list. I don't want anyone trying to peg themselves on an arbitrary scale I made up for an example. But if you're not in those distinctions, I'm probably not talking about you in my current critique of religion.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Huh?

Who says I support any of that?

Are you a Christian?
Do you fight it?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Oliver North
you don't feel that sweeping generalizations of potentially billions of people sounds a little fundamentalist in itself? I mean, it is the extremists in general who spend their time decreeing who is or isn't part of their religion, what there religion does or does not support, or brandishing accusations of evil. Moderates, like Pr, would tend to be more interested with what their faith means to themselves, not sticking their noses into other people's personal relationship with the divine.

I agree. Proving that only religion will cause good people to do evil things.

I feel quite comfortable telling billions they are foolish when they are doing foolish things.

Do you let the numbers against what you say shut you up?

If you do then you would be a coward so why would you suggest I do the cowardly thing and allow my speech to be silenced just because many do not agree?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ha, that's basically what my mother said when she read the God Delusion.

Ouch.

Which goes to show that you are never too old to smarten up.

Give my congratulations to your mom.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Digi
Greatest I Am isn't stating his case well at all. But I do think there's a nugget to be gained from his train of thought. Allow me to try...

My sister is Catholic. She fully supports gay marriage as non-sinful behavior. While trying to be as PC as possible, the Catholic Church still officially recognizes homosexual acts as sin.

Now, does my sister believe that interpretation? No. But she supports an organization that believes it, and that bases their doctrine and policies around it. In this case, I'd definitely say there's a level of personal responsibility to be associated with this kind of tacit endorsement.

Of course, Catholicism isn't the biggest culprit here. I use it only for a convenient example.

Second point: first of all, the videos GIA posted are evangelical extremists. Things like the Jesus Camps are the extremist exception, not the rule, and not a damnation of moderate Christianity. But there's a deeper problem that relates to such extremism. For such extremism to exist, it must be within a culture that will allow it to function and thrive. Now let's say that Joe Christian is at a 4 on "severity" of belief. The Jesus Camp people are a 10. And an average member of Joe's church congregation is a 6 or 7. In an institution where faith is rewarded, and faith despite evidence or even in the face of evidence is praised, for something as delusional as the Jesus Camps to gain traction, they must exist in a culture that will allow more moderate levels of the same factors to go unquestioned. Because the beliefs are no less ridiculous, and the articles of faith and doctrine are largely similar between Christian denominations. The only difference is severity.

Someone who is a "4" can easily dismiss a "10" as wrong and extremist, but I have rarely, if ever, seen someone truly scrutinize the "4s" contribution to the "10s". Or rather, the lower numbers providing a cultural climate that allows more extreme versions of the same faith to take root.

The exception I could see to all of this is someone to whom belief is almost entirely internalized. As soon as you're part of the larger religious movement - in any form - imo you're part of the extremism problem.

Is your first an offer to ghost write for me? I have actually been looking for such.

Thanks though for expanding the thinking in an eloquent way.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by -Pr-
What constitutes "support" really needs to be defined here, tbh.

If you go to church and or put cash in the basket or call yourself a Christian then you are part of the problem and not a part of the solution.

Regards
DL

Being Canadian, I like to promote Canadian ideas.

FMPOV, all religions began the same basic way and this clip is an analogy for them all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06jF1EG8o-Q

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Digi
This is all well and good, and I have no reason to doubt you, but it actually doesn't address my point imo. 1-4's softening the evil in the church is just that, a lessening of evil. It makes it less reprehensible, but in and of itself doesn't justify the presence of either 8-10's or 1-4's.

There's a term in sports called Value Over Replacement. Essentially, it looks at a player's performance relative to the league average at his position, and occasionally takes into account salary, to see if that player is being overpaid, underpaid, or is in a reasonable contract relative to the rest of the league. A player can be above average and still be a bad deal.

Pointing to the good done in religion isn't enough to justify it alone. We have to see what it would have been replaced with. I look at Mormonism and I see racism and bigotry that was institutionalized for decades, that also isn't entirely stamped out, and could be brought up again pending a reinterpretation of the texts of a particular sect. I see a group that does some good, and that has made a lot positive change, but whose value over replacement (in this case, if it hadn't existed) is probably pretty neutral. And I see an institution where the 8-10's wouldn't have existed in such influential numbers at any point in its history if it hadn't gained such traction in the first place.

1-4's can indeed moderate the extremes, and change them in some cases. Viewed internally, they can be a positive influence. But it ignores the fact that all of them, 1-10's, compromise an organization that has allowed for the development and influence of the 8-10's. And the influence can still be felt - Mormonism is still dealing with the fallout of many of the ideas you mention. And, as you say, they may never reform on certain others.

That may seem harsh. It is. I'm learning that this isn't a popular opinion, even among non-religious.



It was a hypothetical list. I don't want anyone trying to peg themselves on an arbitrary scale I made up for an example. But if you're not in those distinctions, I'm probably not talking about you in my current critique of religion.


There is nothing offensive about it and it seems like the truth, to me. I would say that the moderate and liberal Mormons actually made changes that were emphatically 1-4 stuff/ideas. So it is not quite what you say. It is undoing the crap from the 8-10s and making new stuff that is the reflection of the 1-4's. That's the opposite of just coming to a middle ground. And some of the long-standing and tolerated stuff from the 8-10s is being cracked down upon (such as the gay-hate or race-hate. That has never been supported in an official capacity by Mormons and has always been officially taught against).




I wonder if Mormons will change their idea on "bodies" if we are ever able to transfer our brains to a computer? If we could digitally simulate drugs, then what would be the harm in doing digital drugs?

Digital drugs...sounds awesome.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Is your first an offer to ghost write for me? I have actually been looking for such.

Thanks though for expanding the thinking in an eloquent way.

Regards
DL

Lol, no problem.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I agree. Proving that only religion will cause good people to do evil things.

That's an outright stupid thing to say.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's an outright stupid thing to say.

I'm sure if you define it circularly it makes perfect sense.

I'd argue that authority and thus oppression doesn't really stem from religion, but religion shares the same issue that government have when it comes to dealing with power. They both establish their influence through the manipulation of speech, pretty much censoring and imposing ideas through their communication. It all comes down to that, the ability to speak, it's all marketing -a fundamental part of any marketing campaign is opacity, this is also the inner work for most human corruption-.

Marketing works on ideals, it presents and idea and presents its morality, but you never get to question nor oppose those concepts because its a one-way street of built-in cultural sense. Without cultural weight there cannot be oppression in the sense we're trying to set here.

Originally posted by Digi
I don't think 10 exists (again, institutionally, on a large scale) without a certain amount of the population being 4, 6, or 8. A few lonely bastards would think it, and it would fester far away from the harsh gaze of societal enlightenment.

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.

Originally posted by Digi
"Good men will do good, and evil men will do evil. But for a good man to do evil, that takes religion." I have a hard time finding anywhere else where someone will do evil and think that they are right.

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.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I agree. Proving that only religion will cause good people to do evil things.

well, no, that would mean you disagree.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I feel quite comfortable telling billions they are foolish when they are doing foolish things.

you said evil, not foolish, though it is the same lack of mental flexibility seen in extremists either way.

also, beware when fighting monsters and all that. The abyss is staring back into you.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Do you let the numbers against what you say shut you up?

which numbers? Generally yes, if someone shows me valid empirical data that proves me wrong, I would change my position.

so what empirical data do you have against my points?

Originally posted by Greatest I am
If you do then you would be a coward so why would you suggest I do the cowardly thing and allow my speech to be silenced just because many do not agree?

That is entirely unrelated to what I said in fact... I called you the same type of extremist you were criticizing, I have no interest in you stopping such behaviour. You are both welcome and encouraged to continue making hypocritical statements against religious people, trust me, you have my blessings.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Are you a Christian?
Do you fight it?

Regards
DL

I don't identify as Christian, no, even if that is the technical term.

Define "fight it", please.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
If you go to church and or put cash in the basket or call yourself a Christian then you are part of the problem and not a part of the solution.

Regards
DL

I don't do any of those things.

So I guess you think even identifying as catholic is a "problem" then?

Originally posted by -Pr-
Define "fight it", please.


1. Get a tattoo of Jesus on your dick.
2. Ask girls if they'd like to know what it feels like to have Jesus enter their body
3. ???
4. PROPHET.


uhuh

You identify as Catholic but not Christian?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You identify as Catholic but not Christian? Maybe he means "small c" catholic.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You identify as Catholic but not Christian?

I know that by definition all Catholics are Christians. In Ireland it's just not something that was ever really an issue. If you ask me what my faith is (well, what little faith I have), I identify as Catholic.

I know the implication is that it means I'm a Christian, I just don't think about it that much. That, and I really don't want to be associated with the kind of Christians that exist in North America. It's very different on this side of the world, tbh.

They are scary to begin with

Originally posted by Bentley
They are scary to begin with

They are.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I don't identify as Christian, no, even if that is the technical term.

Define "fight it", please.



I don't do any of those things.

So I guess you think even identifying as catholic is a "problem" then?

Yes. It denotes a person whose morals have been compromised.

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

Christians have to embrace the notion that human sacrifice is good so that they can ride their scapegoat Jesus into heaven. They forget that that goat goes to hell.

I am not an atheist but Satan and Christians want atheists to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that we should profit from punishing the innocent instead of the guilty and here you are preaching for him. Shame on you.

In reality, if God did demand such a barbaric sacrifice, he would be sinning.
He would know that barbaric human sacrifice is immoral.

You do too. Right?

Those with good morals will know that no noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a so called son just to prove it's benevolence.

When you die, Satan will ask you; How was your ticket to heaven purchased? With innocent blood?

When you say yes, you become his.

Regards
DL

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?

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I have more. Shall I print them for you?

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.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Reason is apparently your greatest enemy as well.

Heh.

I do somewhat agree with what "Greatest I Am" possibly means (maybe, who knows). On some of the negative influences of the Catholic church for example. Like PR said, it's not really noticeable in Western Europe, the influences aren't particularly strong, if anything the faith has fit itself into secular humanist belief systems here, however a lot of the Catholic doctrine has immense negative effect in developing nations, and in some form a lot of it is supported by Western money (in Germany at least quite literally, as there is a church tax).

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do somewhat agree with what "Greatest I Am" possibly means (maybe, who knows). On some of the negative influences of the Catholic church for example. Like PR said, it's not really noticeable in Western Europe, the influences aren't particularly strong, if anything the faith has fit itself into secular humanist belief systems here, however a lot of the Catholic doctrine has immense negative effect in developing nations, and in some form a lot of it is supported by Western money (in Germany at least quite literally, as there is a church tax).

Agreed @ developing nations; it's sad how bad shit is getting in some places.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

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

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Note that you ask how to fight evil when agood man would certainly know how.

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.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I know that by definition all Catholics are Christians. In Ireland it's just not something that was ever really an issue. If you ask me what my faith is (well, what little faith I have), I identify as Catholic.

Man, interesting point. I get it, just without the same context, would have never made that Catholic/Christian distinction...

I guess even, what, 50 years ago in NA it would have been a major distinction too...

Originally posted by Oliver North
Man, interesting point. I get it, just without the same context, would have never made that Catholic/Christian distinction...

I guess even, what, 50 years ago in NA it would have been a major distinction too...

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.

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:

Od7v16QOGrI

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 ), 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.

I don't know, man..."Greatest I Am" really makes me want to praise Allah for some reason.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know, man..."Greatest I Am" really makes me want to praise Allah for some reason.

Well, he is pretty preachy. Ironic maybe, but still.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
When is religious tolerance applicable in your book?

When it does no harm.

Do you tolerate those who harm others without just cause?

For evil to grow all good people need do is nothing.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
When it does no harm.

Do you tolerate those who harm others without just cause?

For evil to grow all good people need do is nothing.

Regards
DL
You speak in platitudes.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You speak in platitudes.

Was that little question out of your skill range?

Apologies. I will try to dumb down our talks.

Regards
DL

ya, smarten up OV, this guy has solved the question of good and evil

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

Methinks someone just started a course on theology.

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. 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.

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 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 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.

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 :O).

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 :P

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 North

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 :O).well 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 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.
who said i'm hetero though

It's just your cis-privilege.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Or they go for the tired "a woman is something that can bear children" argument, as the misinformed person did.

Originally posted by -Pr-
lol, I remember that.
All I'll say is that he should stick to debating comics, because every time he speaks on another subject stupidity just tumbles out.

To me, that subject is all relative.

Originally posted by Omega Vision


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.

Just reverse what those clips show and you would have what I can tolerate and what would be good for religions.

No killing of gays, no brainwashing children and no self delusion by belief in fantasy, miracles and magic.

Regards
DL

DL: what does a good person do to fight the evil in Syria?

Originally posted by Oliver North
DL: what does a good person do to fight the evil in Syria?

Put an end to Islam and all the Abrahamic cults.

Many are working on that from both without and within.

Everyone who asks a question contributes to the downfall of religions.

Everyone who answers a question truthfully contributes to the downfall of religions.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Put an end to Islam and all the Abrahamic cults.

and this would help how?

Originally posted by Oliver North
and this would help how?

If I have to tell you then you would not understand.

These might jog something though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c0RFxXrYzg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqN8EYIIR3g&feature=related

Regards
DL

You wouldn't understand, it's a secret.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
If I have to tell you then you would not understand.

These might jog something though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c0RFxXrYzg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqN8EYIIR3g&feature=related

Regards
DL

do you actually think the Syrian conflict is religious at its origins?

Originally posted by Oliver North
do you actually think the Syrian conflict is religious at its origins?

I do not see a separation of church and state.
I think that quite impossible.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I do not see a separation of church and state.
I think that quite impossible.

Regards
DL

/slow clap

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.

An old-ish discussion, but I missed this reply.

You have a point, and I won't disagree on the psychological underpinnings of many extremists as opposed to religious ones. What I could probably still assert is that it gives the extremes ("10's" in my earlier example) a platform from which to gather others. There's probably a lot of hateful 8's and 9's that are only so because they found an environment accepting of their prejudices, and a handful of extremist 10's goading them on from, in this case, a religious pulpit.

Religion is one of the best accomplices to this sort of thing. Not the only one, mind you...politics, social causes, etc. And I guess I just don't accept that there are entire tribes or sects of psychologically pre-destined extremists, and instead see it as the psychologically imbalanced few leading on the sheltered and ignorant many. It creates a trend where only case studies would exist otherwise.

Which still turns my argument on its head a bit, because then it's not the many supporting the extremist few but the reverse. But I do think there's still something to be said for the religious environment breeding hatred, or exacerbating evils that would otherwise be quite isolated or benign.

Originally posted by Oliver North
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.

Dudemon's definition of agnostic is incredibly broad. He's tried to call me one too.