I helped my Tamil co-worker move some furniture in his house one time, and came across a full-blown temple to Ganesa. It was pretty bad ass.
Anyway, just dropping off a link with no further comment:
For workers revolution from Hyderabad to Hyannis!
(Okay, one further comment.)
The satanists were one thing, but furries!?!?!?!? :)Hey! CRD is active again!
And furries? Really? Hindus == furries?
Yes. There's nothing wrong with either.
Did you click the link to see the image?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
instead of simply seeing it as an invitation to a serious and informative discussion so that maybe, just maybe you can see that looking at the same information others have come to a different conclusion.
A discussion is a two way street. The website gave its position, the above is my response. The key to a better response is a better argument.
one that not only embraces reason but adds faith.
I do not believe those arguments are embracing reason I believe they are merely using reason as a veneer. They ARE entirely faith based but claim to be reasonable and I dislike the deception, which results in some of the brusqueness you're picking up on.
One as strong as your own.
No faith required here. You reach negative conclusions every time you pull a car out into traffic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think poe's law need to be amended. Not even the emoticon will save you...
Was post modernism ever a thing in atheism 30 years ago or something? I've seen a fair number of philosophy types arguing against post modernism as if it disproved atheism or something but i've never met a post modernist atheist.
To a dusty shelf we aspire: Jacques Derrida on Atheism
Life after the death of God? Michel Foucault and postmodern atheism
Bow before my google searches!
Was post modernism ever a thing in atheism 30 years ago or something? I've seen a fair number of philosophy types arguing against post modernism as if it disproved atheism or something but i've never met a post modernist atheist.
Atheism was, and still is, a thing in postmodernism.
The best definition I've seen for postmodernism is "suspicion of metanarratives." Christianity providing one of the huge metanarratives for modern western civilization, it's not surprising that it would provide a handy target for pomo criticism.
Was post modernism ever a thing in atheism 30 years ago or something? I've seen a fair number of philosophy types arguing against post modernism as if it disproved atheism or something but i've never met a post modernist atheist.
Atheism was, and still is, a thing in postmodernism.
The best definition I've seen for postmodernism is "suspicion of metanarratives." Christianity providing one of the huge metanarratives for modern western civilization, it's not surprising that it would provide a handy target for pomo criticism.
So most post modernists are atheists but not most atheists are post modernists... Ok, that explains what the philosophy inclined apologists problem is/was.
Nice definition. It explains the post moderns problems with science...
So most post modernists are atheists but not most atheists are post modernists... Ok, that explains what the philosophy inclined apologists problem is/was.Nice definition. It explains the post moderns problems with science...
Well, that's why I said it was the best definition I'd seen.
It's not quite fair to say that most pomos are atheists. It can be quite trendy to be part of a religion that doesn't incorporate an overarching metanarrative.
But from a Christian apologist's perspective (cf. Lewis, C. S.), if postmodernism leads to Wicca, that's not much better (if any) than leading to atheism.
Nor is insulting someone by saying they have a closed mind for having the temerity to reach a conclusion based on the arguments and information they've seen.
Being dogmatic and unable to show an open mind is not a good way to express yourself or to discuss deeply held conviction from either side.
Yet you come to this thread to have a discussion and state that the conclusion has been found and that we can all go home as you have won the interwebs.
instead of simply seeing it as an invitation to a serious and informative discussion so that maybe, just maybe you can see that looking at the same information others have come to a different conclusion. one that not only embraces reason but adds faith. One as strong as your own.
I looked through a couple of those articles as well, the logic is flawed.
The article on morality for instance assumes that religion presents morale absolutes, except that isn't true. The Bible itself proscribes the positive morality of slavery in many places, while it assigns a negative morality in others. That change also lines up with a widely recognized difference in time between the writings, Old and New Testaments.
Therefore God is not the source of an objective moral code, but rather a subjective one that changes over time. If secular sources cannot be sources of morality because they are subjective, than neither can God, since he is also subjective.
If I do accept the premise that a truly divinely inspired moral code would be objective and not subjective, than I would have to conclude that Christianity is not divinely inspired, since it contains subjective moral codes.
|
Therefore God is not the source of an objective moral code, but rather a subjective one that changes over time. If secular sources cannot be sources of morality because they are subjective, than neither can God, since he is also subjective.
If I do accept the premise that a truly divinely inspired moral code would be objective and not subjective, than I would have to conclude that Christianity is not divinely inspired, since it contains subjective moral codes.
except the Old Testament doesn't present YHWH as having an objective moral code.
For instance, he curses Adam's descendants to work the fields. Abel decides to go and be a shepherd instead, and YHWH blesses him over Cain, who actually was a farmer.
So... in the second story in the bible, YHWH changes his mind. Right there in the text.
Accepting that Christianity follows from Judaism, well... you can draw your own conclusions.
Therefore God is not the source of an objective moral code, but rather a subjective one that changes over time. If secular sources cannot be sources of morality because they are subjective, than neither can God, since he is also subjective.
If I do accept the premise that a truly divinely inspired moral code would be objective and not subjective, than I would have to conclude that Christianity is not divinely inspired, since it contains subjective moral codes.
except the Old Testament doesn't present YHWH as having an objective moral code.
For instance, he curses Adam's descendants to work the fields. Abel decides to go and be a shepherd instead, and YHWH blesses him over Cain, who actually was a farmer.
So... in the second story in the bible, YHWH changes his mind. Right there in the text.
Accepting that Christianity follows from Judaism, well... you can draw your own conclusions.
In your reply to me you cut out the context of my statement.
I am NOT claiming that God is objective. In fact, I'm claiming the opposite. So I'm not sure why you responded to me with a tone that you're disagreeing with me, but you present evidence that agrees with me.
Re-read the portion of my post that you cut out of your response. Hopefully that will make it a little more clear. Context matters, cherry picking sentences for a discussion like this is only going to make this more confusing.
First....wow, I can't believe this thread is still going.
Second...this all boils down to faith. There is, quite simply, no empirical evidence for the existence of God; you either have faith, or you don't. Personally, I don't, but I don't begrudge others their faith as long as they don't use it as an excuse to impinge on the freedom of others.
Live and let live...pretty simple, really.
First....wow, I can't believe this thread is still going.
Second...this all boils down to faith. There is, quite simply, no empirical evidence for the existence of God; you either have faith, or you don't. Personally, I don't, but I don't begrudge others their faith as long as they don't use it as an excuse to impinge on the freedom of others.
This always seems odd. Why is this an acceptable answer for religion but not for anything else? In no other area of life does someone not at least get a ribbing for coming up with whacky ideas.
UFO convention= nut job.
Religious convocation= solemn even beyond social reproach.
This always seems odd. Why is this an acceptable answer for religion but not for anything else? In no other area of life does someone not at least get a ribbing for coming up with whacky ideas.
UFO convention= nut job.
Religious convocation= solemn even beyond social reproach.
I've grappled with this myself...sometimes in this very thread. But I think it comes down to this: Don't be a dick.
While a large number of adherents to a particular belief systems says nothing at all about that belief system's validity (or lack thereof), it does tell us that the belief system resonates with people. From a purely practical point-of-view, why attack it? If people arrived at it through something other than purely logical means -- and the undisputed role of culture and upbringing in the selection of religion tells us that this is very often the case -- you cannot hope to reason someone out of their faith. All you're likely to do is upset them. And even if you could, would you really want to, assuming they didn't want to be disabused of their beliefs? Wouldn't that be selfish?
Like I said, I've struggled with this myself -- and probably will again -- but right now, I feel it's better to refrain from commenting on someone's religious beliefs and focus on their actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First....wow, I can't believe this thread is still going.
Second...this all boils down to faith. There is, quite simply, no empirical evidence for the existence of God; you either have faith, or you don't. Personally, I don't, but I don't begrudge others their faith as long as they don't use it as an excuse to impinge on the freedom of others.
This always seems odd. Why is this an acceptable answer for religion but not for anything else? In no other area of life does someone not at least get a ribbing for coming up with whacky ideas.
UFO convention= nut job.
Religious convocation= solemn even beyond social reproach.
Madness on the part of the powerful has always been excused as charming eccentricity. It's one of those "emotive conjugations," like
* I am firm, You are obstinate, He is a pig-headed fool.
* I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing.
* I have reconsidered the matter, you have changed your mind, he has gone back on his word.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While a large number of adherents to a particular belief systems says nothing at all about that belief system's validity (or lack thereof), it does tell us that the belief system resonates with people. From a purely practical point-of-view, why attack it?
Because it gets used as cover for some really nasty behavior.
Since its not subject to rationale, inquiry, sense, or reason people who want to do things that are not sensible or reasonable very often use it as cover to do some bat guano crazy things. It circumvents debate by making it not debatable and I think history has shown thats a BAD thing.
Because it gets used as cover for some really nasty behavior.
Since its not subject to rationale, inquiry, sense, or reason people who want to do things that are not sensible or reasonable very often use it as cover to do some bat guano crazy things. It circumvents debate by making it not debatable and I think history has shown thats a BAD thing.
Then we should address the nasty behavior. I'm not a big fan of thoughtcrime.
Then we should address the nasty behavior. I'm not a big fan of thoughtcrime.
You can't address it, because its faith. You can't question the nasty behavior without drawing the entire faith into it , and many otherwise good people of faith wind up siding with bad people of faith rather than good people or staying out of it altogether. If Pastor Creflo Dollar sold paperclips or rescued puppies he'd be in jail.
It doesn't need to be a thought crime. It can be a thought lack of endorsement (like most other nutty ideas) , or at the very least make it as socially unacceptable to use a deity as your basis for running the government as it is to NOT use a deity as the basis for running your government now.
You can't address it, because its faith. You can't question the nasty behavior without drawing the entire faith into it , and many otherwise good people of faith wind up siding with bad people of faith rather than good people or staying out of it altogether. If Pastor Creflo Dollar sold paperclips or rescued puppies he'd be in jail.
I guess I don't understand.
If someone is being a bigot, you call them out on it. Why does it matter that they're bigoted because of their religion?
Then we should address the nasty behavior. I'm not a big fan of thoughtcrime.Because it gets used as cover for some really nasty behavior.
Since its not subject to rationale, inquiry, sense, or reason people who want to do things that are not sensible or reasonable very often use it as cover to do some bat guano crazy things. It circumvents debate by making it not debatable and I think history has shown thats a BAD thing.
You're conflating the government with the individual.
The government is responsible for making things illegal. I agree, the government shouldn't get into making thoughts crimes.
That doesn't mean that I as an individual can't speak out against ways of thinking. If nothing else, it's covered by free speech and lack of thought crimes.
I defend people's rights to believe whatever they want. I also defend my right to make fun of them for believing it. Both things get protected by the same philosophy that produced the First Amendment.
I agree with your earlier sentiment. Rarely will people with irrational beliefs change those beliefs when presented with rational evidence. I think the difference between how you view that statement and how I view it is the word "rarely".
I honestly do think that religion should mostly be relegated to the history books. I think humankind is better served by seeking the truth, instead of following fiction and expecting it to solve all our problems. That doesn't mean I think it should be outlawed in any fashion.
So please, stop implying that anytime someone doesn't like religion that they want to make it a thought crime.
You can't address it, because its faith. You can't question the nasty behavior without drawing the entire faith into it , and many otherwise good people of faith wind up siding with bad people of faith rather than good people or staying out of it altogether. If Pastor Creflo Dollar sold paperclips or rescued puppies he'd be in jail.I guess I don't understand.
If someone is being a bigot, you call them out on it. Why does it matter that they're bigoted because of their religion?
It shouldn't but it does. Quote Leviticus 20:13 and you're a preacher. Use your own words and you're ordering a hit.
Its very difficult to tell the preacher he's wrong without calling his rationale into question. Thats the same rationale that the rest of the faithful are using for THEIR faith. They're stuck together (on purpose, often)
OTOH, the difference in the way we treat people with wacky belief X, supported by religion, and wacky belief Y, not supported by religion, makes no sense to me. Religion itself shouldn't be something to attack people for, but it also shouldn't be a shield to hide behind.
Maybe I'm partially playing devil's advocate here (oh, the irony), but how, exactly, do you imagine they'd be treated differently? I don't make a habit trying to debate anti-vaxxers, because doing so is pointless. Irrational people believe irrational things...I can't change that by telling them that they're irrational. In the case of religion, all I'm likely to do is upset them.
Are their beliefs worthy of ridiculous? Yup. But there's absolutely no point in trying to convince them of that.
It shouldn't but it does. Quote Leviticus 20:13 and you're a preacher. Use your own words and you're ordering a hit.
Its very difficult to tell the preacher he's wrong without calling his rationale into question. Thats the same rationale that the rest of the faithful are using for THEIR faith. They're stuck together (on purpose, often)
I have no problem telling the preacher that's he's wrong...I simply don't care what his rationale is.
It shouldn't but it does. Quote Leviticus 20:13 and you're a preacher. Use your own words and you're ordering a hit.
Its very difficult to tell the preacher he's wrong without calling his rationale into question. Thats the same rationale that the rest of the faithful are using for THEIR faith. They're stuck together (on purpose, often)
I have no problem telling the preacher that's he's wrong...I simply don't care what his rationale is.
You don't but other people DO.
And unfortunately we're all stuck on this rocky little sphere together.
Have you noticed the entire recent kerfluffle about allowing people (and companies) to ignore laws if they claim religious reasons? Both the Hobby Lobby contraception coverage case and the state level "religious freedom" laws?
I have, and I find them both ridiculous (the former, especially. More "corporations are people" nonsense). But they can (and should) be refuted without caring about the particulars of the religion in question. I don't care why you believe you should get special treatment; the answer is still no.
It's simply that trying to persuade people that their religion is wrong -- using logic of all things -- is a waste of time.
Fair enough and I largely agree, but it's a blatant example of how wacky religious beliefs get treated differently then wacky non-religious beliefs. Even directly harmful ones get legal protection.
They do, and they shouldn't; no argument there. But to me, that's encapsulated in the "let live" part of "live and let live." No one should be allowed to use their beliefs, religious or otherwise, as an excuse to impinge on the rights of others.
It's simply that trying to persuade people that their religion is wrong -- using logic of all things -- is a waste of time.
Using logic should never be considered a waste of time.
Not saying that all decisions and thoughts NEED to be logical. Just that the sentiment that logic is a waste of time is a bad one.
This is distasteful coverage of Wicca. Everything I have read or seen of it indicates that it is benign, silly at worst.
First....wow, I can't believe this thread is still going.
Second...this all boils down to faith. There is, quite simply, no empirical evidence for the existence of God; you either have faith, or you don't. Personally, I don't, but I don't begrudge others their faith as long as they don't use it as an excuse to impinge on the freedom of others.
This always seems odd. Why is this an acceptable answer for religion but not for anything else? In no other area of life does someone not at least get a ribbing for coming up with whacky ideas.
UFO convention= nut job.
Religious convocation= solemn
even beyond social reproach.and deserving of respect (silly hyperbole there, but from you, I'm not surprised)
REASON: Mainly because we have had religion for the majority of human existence, and have ascribed a certain level of respect, if not for the people who follow their religion, but at least to the convention that religion is not inherently a "bad" thing (as it has been portrayed on these boards).
UFO's, as a convention have only really been a "thing" since about the 50's.
Given time, I'm sure the concept of UFO's will become a question of "when will they arrive", not "whether they exist".
This is distasteful coverage of Wicca. Everything I have read or seen of it indicates that it is benign, silly at worst.
Nothing about alternative religions makes it impossible for disturbed people to join them. Wicca isn't immune to nutcases any more than Islam, Christianity, or John Frum-ism is.
This is distasteful coverage of Wicca. Everything I have read or seen of it indicates that it is benign, silly at worst.Nothing about alternative religions makes it impossible for disturbed people to join them. Wicca isn't immune to nutcases any more than Islam, Christianity, or John Frum-ism is.
True, but a home land security person is killed with a gun and a claw hammer and you conclude witchcraft because ... its a few days before an event kinda sorta related to wicca and they arranged the bodies funny? I'm getting the men in black marsh clouds bouncing off the light of venus vibe here.
True, but a home land security person is killed with a gun and a claw hammer and you conclude witchcraft because ... its a few days before an event kinda sorta related to wicca and they arranged the bodies funny? I'm getting the men in black marsh clouds bouncing off the light of venus vibe here.
We don't know why the cops came to the conclusion that they did. They (the cops) are explicitly holding out on the press. A wait-and-see attitude seems more appropriate than jumping on the press for reporting more or less exactly what the cops told them.
We don't know why the cops came to the conclusion that they did. They (the cops) are explicitly holding out on the press. A wait-and-see attitude seems more appropriate than jumping on the press for reporting more or less exactly what the cops told them.
Hmmm? Not jumping on anyone, much less the press. More the police. I demand more plausibility in my government conspiracy cover stories dammit!
Yeah, I don't think conspiracy cover up here, I think leaping to conclusions.
That malice incompetence thing does get doubled in florida doesn't it...
First....wow, I can't believe this thread is still going.
Second...this all boils down to faith. There is, quite simply, no empirical evidence for the existence of God; you either have faith, or you don't. Personally, I don't, but I don't begrudge others their faith as long as they don't use it as an excuse to impinge on the freedom of others.
Live and let live...pretty simple, really.
WOW. I view myself as pretty religious and I actually 100% agree with this.
In fact, with many religions, faith is the core tenet. You don't have absolute proof because then that would negate faith, and it's the faith that is needed for salvation, at least in some religions.
Which means that for many it seems rather insane what some people do because of faith or religion (and in fact sometimes it probably is).
I also find it remarkable any thread about religion has lasted this many posts.
On the current part of discussion (so my amazement isn't the only thing that brings me to the current thread), I think much of the idea to respect religion is from the US.
Many of the colonies started as religious refugees fleeing to a spot where they could freely practice their religion without persecution. As such, protections were written into their Constitution hundreds of years later to protect religion.
It is from these protections (at least in the US) that there has come some ideal that religion is to be respected to a degree and when it comes to religion, it's a hands off approach in regards to how someone feels or practices it (unless it is a direct threat to others, typically).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many of the colonies started as religious refugees fleeing to a spot where they could freely practice their religion without persecution.
I'm not sure that's 100% true -- at least, as far as it goes. From the history of a lot of the early colonies, it seems that most of the colonists were quite enamored with persecuting members of all other sects as an ideal societal model. In a lot of cases they came to the New World because their particular sect happened to be on the receiving, rather than the giving, end of the persecuting.