But complaints about tone are ultimately moot as they have nothing to do with the validity of the positions that concern us.
What concerns me are: (a) understanding others' views, and (b) advocating for science, and (c) advocating for atheists' rights. In all three of those endeavors, tone is the crux of what people disagree on. You're no doubt familiar with the "framer" vs. "New Atheist" schism -- on the one hand, we've got people like Chris Mooney at the Intersection telling us to be good little boys and say "Yessah!" and "you betcha, boss!" and maybe the nice Christian folks will pat us on the head and let us play with some of our test tubes. On the other hand, we've got people like PZ Myers who imply that all we need is a bigger stunt to shock people into disbelief. Dawkins, although he gets a lot of (in my opinion undeserved) flack for being "militant" or "strident," actually has this to say:
“Well, there are really two schools of thought... there’s a great debate going on in what’s called the blogosphere at the moment about the right way for us to proceed, and I think we probably need both. I think there is a role for the 'seductive' approach and there’s a role for 'this is just b!*#%#@%,' and some people respond to one and some people respond to the other."
It's no great feat of divination to notice that most people on this thread respond poorly to the "b+@#~&~~" approach.
First of all, I'll note that Jeff holds the site as a compilation of sources, not claiming them all to be his own. Likewise I do not claim to be an expert on the religion I'm defending, just a lifelong member. ^_~
Well that's my fault then. I gave the site a quick skim and it looked like it was mostly his own work. I clearly didn't read closely enough.
If you're not familiar with the Book of Mormon, I would recommend browsing through here before going any further, else you'll have very little context. Further, this is Joseph Smith's own account of his finding of the Book of Mormon.
That's fair. I'm almost infinitely less up on the Book of Mormon than I am on the Bible. (I know the very broad strokes, but that's about it.) I shall give these a looking over. It may take me a bit but I'll try to remember to make the time.
Finally, to address your second point, the fact that the Book is at least "authentic" should serve as an evidence that, at least, angels exist, or else how would Joseph have obtained and translated the book? :3
We might be talking past each other slightly here. When I say that the book is authentic, I am referring to whether or not it is actually an ancient text. The veracity of its contents is a separate issue entirely. Smith could have simply stumbled on the book in his treasure hunting and either puzzled out a translation himself with materials available to him, or plain made the whole translation up.
Having the actual golden tablets would be invaluable here, since we could assess them directly. In their absence, it is much harder to credit the notion that Smith acted as a translator instead of an inventor.
But still I shall devote some time to the matter.
But complaints about tone are ultimately moot as they have nothing to do with the validity of the positions that concern us.What concerns me are: (a) understanding others' views, and (b) advocating for science, and (c) advocating for atheists' rights.
The first concern for me is accuracy. Everything else is necessarily secondary.
In all three of those endeavors, tone is the crux of what people disagree on. You're no doubt familiar with the "framer" vs. "New Atheist" schism -- on the one hand, we've got people like Chris Mooney at the Intersection telling us to be good little boys and say "Yessah!" and "you betcha, boss!" and maybe the nice Christian folks will pat us on the head and let us play with some of our test tubes. On the other hand, we've got people like PZ Myers who imply that all we need is a bigger stunt to shock people into disbelief.
Mooney has shamed himself so consistently and thoroughly that I simply consider him irrelevant. In years of being asked, he has yet to actually describe a coherent program aside "Atheists, SHUT UP!" And I might add it's been more patient people than me asking.
It's no great feat of divination to notice that most people on this thread respond poorly to the "b**~@@**" approach.
Yet they seem equally unmoved regardless of how deferential one is. Instead one's civility becomes simply another excuse not to engage. (That is, after all, what complaints about tone generally amount to everywhere else.) In fact, they respond more or less the same to both approaches. To me this is prima facie evidence that deference is wasted. I'll play instead to my strengths, and what I think is right, since the outcome is the same regardless.
|
I wrote this after non-participation here for yet another gap. Take it for what it's worth:
So far from this thread I've learned that Moff and I have more in common than not, despite our differences in religious opinions. Then again, to the best of my knowledge, neither of us ever said anything like "my faith is the most important thing about me, and without it I am nothing, and it's all that matters to me."
I've learned that there are people, whose views on religion I largely share, who blindly put their passion ahead of any sense of strategy or tact. And that I really don't care to listen to that. So maybe I've just learned that I get along well with people in general who aren't zealots?
I've learned that the yapping of poodles can offer important insights that the humans often miss. Even when the said canines hump your leg and pee on the floor.
I've learned that there are some religious people with whom I simply cannot communicate maningfully on any level, because of a mututal lack of any common frame of reference. And I've learned to accept that that's the case, and there's likely not much I can do about it.
I've learned that some people will defend "their team" regardless of how well-merited a specific red flag call against them might be. And that one red flag doesn't mean an automatic disqualification for the rest of the season, so relax, and adjust your strategy to avoid them in the future.
That's like 5 things, and learning one thing, for me, is a bonus. So the thread hasn't been a total loss.
You forgot that some will defend the other side just for the heck of it.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." Friedrich Nietzsche
or vice versa...
|
This thread, to judge from the name, is about the discussion of religion.I notice that you've either forgotten or ignored the first 33% of the thread's title -- which is mostly what people's annoyed posts have been about (hint: not the "religion" part, nor the "discussion" part).I addressed it directly. I do my best not to be gratuitously insulting.
Here we do disagree. I see that attitude as rather common here. (In fact, it seems to comprise the majority of posts addressed to me.) Either I can twist my self into pretzels to be maximally deferential, or someone will complain. But complaints about tone are ultimately moot as they have nothing to do with the validity of the positions that concern us.
Now, in the larger world, there IS a real dilemma in that many, many people stupidly and mistakenly view any discussion or questioning as an "uncivil attack." I don't have much good to say about those people. However, there seem to be blessedly few of them here, per capita, and I hope we can keep it that way.
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Conan - Tower of the Elephant.
|
|
I've been without internet for a week. Gotta get my dot back.
Fair warning: I am not going to go back and read everything I missed, I am simply starting back up with this page.
Very interested in the apparently upcoming debate on the veracity of Mormonism - the topic is close to me, as my in-laws are LDS.
|
|
Your spouse, as well? Or did (s)he decide to leave the faith? o.o
Very interested in the apparently upcoming debate on the veracity of Mormonism - the topic is close to me, as my in-laws are LDS.
My wife does not consider herself to be a Mormon (I don't actually know what label she'd apply to herself - she's a more private person than I). I'm sure the church still has her on the records somewhere, but trying to get her officially out of the church would just be symbolic and more effort than it's worth.
:3
What is that emoticon? I've never seen anyone else use that before -- and you use it a LOT. Is it supposed to be a beaver (two eyes and buck teeth)? Or someone with food hanging out of his mouth? I'm at a total loss, and it's making it very difficult for me to gauge the tone of your posts.
|
:3What is that emoticon? I've never seen anyone else use that before -- and you use it a LOT. Is it supposed to be a beaver (two eyes and buck teeth)? Or someone with food hanging out of his mouth? I'm at a total loss, and it's making it very difficult for me to gauge the tone of your posts.
I'm going with udders.
I'm going with udders.
Am I automatically a sexist pig if I laugh at that?
|
|
I'm going with udders.:3What is that emoticon? I've never seen anyone else use that before -- and you use it a LOT. Is it supposed to be a beaver (two eyes and buck teeth)? Or someone with food hanging out of his mouth? I'm at a total loss, and it's making it very difficult for me to gauge the tone of your posts.
I was thinking much much worse.
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Conan - Tower of the Elephant.
If the real world had meaningful distinctions between the civilized and barbarous, and this was one of them, it would be difficult indeed to ever take the side of the barbarous in anything. Fortunately the real world doesn't have people who are always evil.
|
|
If the real world had meaningful distinctions between the civilized and barbarous, and this was one of them, it would be difficult indeed to ever take the side of the barbarous in anything. Fortunately the real world doesn't have people who are always evil.
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Conan - Tower of the Elephant.
Serious philosophical question: Do you think evil exists?
:3What is that emoticon? I've never seen anyone else use that before -- and you use it a LOT. Is it supposed to be a beaver (two eyes and buck teeth)? Or someone with food hanging out of his mouth? I'm at a total loss, and it's making it very difficult for me to gauge the tone of your posts.
Dude...it's the Cthulhucon. :)
Serious philosophical question: Do you think evil exists?
In the sense of things that I consider morally reprehensible and, generally speaking, without possible excuse? Yes. It would be hard to have any kind of morals without condemning something as unacceptable. I'm a utilitarian, but I can think of several things that would require such dire circumstances to justify that the universe is unlikely to ever provide them. Several have been topics here before, genocide, theocracy, and conspiracy to facilitate the rape of children being high up on the list.
In the sense of a transcendent malevolence that is the source of all wrongs, the wellspring of all vice, a sort of mental toxin that infects people and induces them to do wrong? No, that's right on the level of witches going off into the forest to fornicate with Satan and sign his black book levels of silly.
There's a reason we only see the latter in fiction and while it can be a great deal of fun to have therein, it's a pretty disastrous way to look at real life.
|
|
Serious philosophical question: Do you think evil exists?If the real world had meaningful distinctions between the civilized and barbarous, and this was one of them, it would be difficult indeed to ever take the side of the barbarous in anything. Fortunately the real world doesn't have people who are always evil.
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Conan - Tower of the Elephant.
Standard boilerplate response: It depends on what your definition of "evil" is.
But yes, I believe there are acts committed by humans that could be called evil, and that some of the humans who commit those acts could be called evil because of them.
|
>:3What is that emoticon? I've never seen anyone else use that before -- and you use it a LOT. Is it supposed to be a beaver (two eyes and buck teeth)? Or someone with food hanging out of his mouth? I'm at a total loss, and it's making it very difficult for me to gauge the tone of your posts.
JESUS CHRIST IT'S A LION, GET IN THE CAR!
|
|
JESUS CHRIST IT'S A LION, GET IN THE CAR!>:3What is that emoticon? I've never seen anyone else use that before -- and you use it a LOT. Is it supposed to be a beaver (two eyes and buck teeth)? Or someone with food hanging out of his mouth? I'm at a total loss, and it's making it very difficult for me to gauge the tone of your posts.
I see it as a man looking up as from a huge pair of jugs.
I too am a pig. Or a typical human man, wichever.|
|
Serious philosophical question: Do you think evil exists?If the real world had meaningful distinctions between the civilized and barbarous, and this was one of them, it would be difficult indeed to ever take the side of the barbarous in anything. Fortunately the real world doesn't have people who are always evil.
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Conan - Tower of the Elephant.
Yes, and it is a creation or at least a result of mankind. Evil is not this mysterious force that pervades and corrupts. Evil, to me, are men(and women) who hold themselves above others and regard themselves and their desires as being more important than their fellow man. Evil comes in many forms, from the twisted murder to the jealousy of a lover. It is a disregard for others as being not worth your consideration.
|
|
Sorry. "Evil" and "Bastard" are not quite the same thing. Sometimes they may overlap, but not always. If you'd like I could draw you a Venn Diagram...
Serious philosophical question: Do you think evil exists?You doubt my existence?
Now I'm hurt.
He,s not a bastard. I've met him IRL.
He's a SEbastard. ;)
|
|
JESUS CHRIST IT'S A LION, GET IN THE CAR!>:3What is that emoticon? I've never seen anyone else use that before -- and you use it a LOT. Is it supposed to be a beaver (two eyes and buck teeth)? Or someone with food hanging out of his mouth? I'm at a total loss, and it's making it very difficult for me to gauge the tone of your posts.I see it as a man looking up as from a huge pair of jugs.
I too am a pig. Or a typical human man, wichever.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I should think that even a cursory study of history would make the existence of evil evident.
I should point out that Christianity teaches that evil is not the opposite of good, some sort of dualistic yin to the yang of good. All evil is a good perverted. Human pride and selfishness are our dignity and self-preservation instincts taken too far, for instance.
Explanation.
So, what you're saying is that when Wyntrewolfe says "Therefore we believe in the Book of Mormon," he's actually threatening us with lions? THAT doesn't sound very civil at all.
Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Oh, good, the Scientologists are here, too!
Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!Oh, good, the Scientologists are here, too!
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxenu!
Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
I know a lot of people don't like this thread, but can we please not turn it into an alias joke post thread? Those things are a dime a dozen elsewhere in the Off-Topic forums if you really feel the need to spam.
Okay, I'll just sssssssssssssshush... :P
Vomit Guy, Sleestak #2, and Epic Beard Man walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, "What is this, some sort of alias joke?"
|
|
Jagyr have you read this thread?
Not all of it. To be honest, I didn't even read the original post by Erian_7. I pretty much started reading at about the same point I started posting.
I would wish for a better handling of this. Right now it is not about, and has not been about the OP, but rather it is the clash of personalities. Until or if, civility is maintained then and only then can the conversation be maintained.
Civil or not, at least the disagreements and clashes of personality were somewhat entertaining (for me, at least). The alias spam is just a pet peeve of mine, I suppose.
|
|
Jagyr have you read this thread?Not all of it. To be honest, I didn't even read the original post by Erian_7. I pretty much started reading at about the same point I started posting.
I would wish for a better handling of this. Right now it is not about, and has not been about the OP, but rather it is the clash of personalities. Until or if, civility is maintained then and only then can the conversation be maintained.Civil or not, at least the disagreements and clashes of personality were somewhat entertaining (for me, at least). The alias spam is just a pet peeve of mine, I suppose.
Then you haven't really seen the thread in full swing. You can go back and find page after page after page of what amounts to nonesense. In someways, this thread is supposed to be cathartic. It really cannot be that way when no one wants to express much or discuss the topics brought up.
Can a thread really feel civil when you're not allowed to post, or more appropriately asked not to? I haven't been a part of this thread since its inception, but I have been around long enough to ask a lot of the questions that have kept the thread going.
Can't we just step back and laugh a little, or does it have to be completely serious all the time? I posted three times here with an alias, numerous places elsewhere. This was the only place anyone complained in all of Off-Topic about it, especially after several pages of declaring people "this" or "that" and general silliness along side what amounts to personal issues. That says many things about the nature of this thread if it is not to be cathartic.
|
|
With regard to the nature of evil, it should be observed that evil is of three kinds — physical, moral, and metaphysical.
Physical evil includes all that causes harm to man, whether by bodily injury, by thwarting his natural desires, or by preventing the full development of his powers, either in the order of nature directly, or through the various social conditions under which mankind naturally exists. Physical evils directly due to nature are sickness, accident, death, etc. Poverty, oppression, and some forms of disease are instances of evil arising from imperfect social organization.
Mental suffering, such as anxiety, disappointment, and remorse, and the limitation of intelligence which prevents humans beings from attaining to the full comprehension of their environment, are congenital forms of evil each vary in character and degree according to natural disposition and social circumstances.
By moral evil are understood the deviation of human volition from the prescriptions of the moral order and the action which results from that deviation. Such action, when it proceeds solely from ignorance, is not to be classed as moral evil, which is properly restricted to the motions of will towards ends of which the conscience disapproves. The extent of moral evil is not limited to the circumstances of life in the natural order, but includes also the sphere of religion, by which man's welfare is affected in the supernatural order, and the precepts of which, as depending ultimately upon the will of God, are of the strictest possible obligation. The obligation to moral action in the natural order is, moreover, generally believed to depend on the motives supplied by religion; and it is at least doubtful whether it is possible for moral obligation to exist at all apart from a supernatural sanction.
|
|
A thing Ive been mulling over. Where do you draw the line at what is a real religion?
Not in the legal definition but in the spiritual one (if there is such a thing).
Three ideas seem essential to the concept of a cult. One is thinking in terms of us versus them with total alienation from "them." The second is the intense, though often subtle, indoctrination techniques used to recruit and hold members. The third is the charismatic cult leader. Cultism usually involves some sort of belief that outside the cult all is evil and threatening; inside the cult is the special path to salvation through the cult leader and his teachings.
The indoctrination techniques include:
Subjection to stress and fatigue;
Social disruption, isolation and pressure;
Self criticism and humiliation;
Fear, anxiety, and paranoia;
Control of information;
Escalating commitment;
Use of auto-hypnosis to induce "peak" experiences.
Cults are absent of the betterment of the individual person but rather than leader only. Cults try to subvert the human will with total and complete obedience to the leader of a group or sect.
Some may say size is what matters, but in truth the size of the group has little or nothing to do with it.
|
|
Just because I think it should be added:
cult
noun
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object : the cult of St. Olaf.
• a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister : a network of Satan-worshiping cults.
• a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing : a cult of personality surrounding the leaders.
religion
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods : ideas about the relationship between science and religion.
• details of belief as taught or discussed : when the school first opened they taught only religion, Italian, and mathematics.
• a particular system of faith and worship : the world's great religions.
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance : consumerism is the new religion.
Because of these definitions and because of the actions of some groups that many feel are religions are in my opinions really big cults.