Or couples committed to gaming together regularly. :)
Sigh. If only my wife didn't view the game as a total waste of time she could otherwise spend listening to techno-pop.
I went and took an excerpt (just under half of the full survey, it seems) from the test and beat the pants off 99% of those surveyed: 15 of 15. It was pretty easy, but then I've given much more than trivial thought to religion.
In a phenomenally religious society, I suspect it would be difficult to find a non-believer who hasn't. It's not exactly the path of least resistance. The proportions, I imagine, would be flipped if you surveyed those under thirty in the USSR in the mid-50s who knew little save Stalinism.
I went and took an excerpt (just under half of the full survey, it seems) from the test and beat the pants off 99% of those surveyed: 15 of 15. It was pretty easy, but then I've given much more than trivial thought to religion.
In a phenomenally religious society, I suspect it would be difficult to find a non-believer who hasn't. It's not exactly the path of least resistance. The proportions, I imagine, would be flipped if you surveyed those under thirty in the USSR in the mid-50s who knew little save Stalinism.
You don't need knowledge if you have enough faith.
Come and worship at my porcelain throne!
Come and worship at my porcelain throne!
I tried that, but it just wasn't satisfying.
I tried that, but it just wasn't satisfying.Come and worship at my porcelain throne!
Then you're not doing it right.
You don't need knowledge if you have enough faith.
I do not know about anyone else, but that statement is unsettling.
|
I went and took an excerpt (just under half of the full survey, it seems) from the test and beat the pants off 99% of those surveyed: 15 of 15. It was pretty easy, but then I've given much more than trivial thought to religion.
In a phenomenally religious society, I suspect it would be difficult to find a non-believer who hasn't. It's not exactly the path of least resistance. The proportions, I imagine, would be flipped if you surveyed those under thirty in the USSR in the mid-50s who knew little save Stalinism.
I missed one :( (damn you Job!!). I still scored above 97% of the population and only below 1%.
Indeed it is. What makes it even more unsettling is that, while this isn't an official position that religion takes, it is how alot of people seem to treat faith and religion.
That isn't unique to religion. Once most people make up their mind about something, it becomes much more difficult to sway them with additional information.
|
|
Indeed it is. What makes it even more unsettling is that, while this isn't an official position that religion takes, it is how alot of people seem to treat faith and religion.That isn't unique to religion. Once most people make up their mind about something, it becomes much more difficult to sway them with additional information.
It is unique to religion in that people are willing to kill and die for that faith.
|
It is unique to religion in that people are willing to kill and die for that faith.
Not even a little bit true. Neither Hitler nor Stalin nor Pol Pot used religious faith as a basis for their willingness to kill millions.
They did have strong beliefs, but they were secular beliefs, and all three of them were convinced that they were making the world a better place.
Religion is just one of many reasons people will kill or die. They'll do it for politics, philosophy, national pride, ethnic pride, to impose their moral beliefs on others, out of jealousy, possessiveness or some twisted definition of 'love,' or, sometimes, for a shiny nickel.
As long as a person regards any of these intangible made-up concepts or social constructs as more important than the life of another human being (or their own life), that will always be the case.
It is unique to religion in that people are willing to kill and die for that faith.Indeed it is. What makes it even more unsettling is that, while this isn't an official position that religion takes, it is how alot of people seem to treat faith and religion.That isn't unique to religion. Once most people make up their mind about something, it becomes much more difficult to sway them with additional information.
Not quite, people are willing to die and kill for their country, political persuasion, their "leader", family values and traditions, their mafia family, money, honor, and a list of things which usually is not considered religion.
Conclusion, "religion" is not a valid anthropological category. It is based on a perception of Western religious thinkers which equate "religion" with their monotheistic biases, or at least with some sort of belief in imaginary friends.
If you observe coldly, there's no difference between religion and other manifestations of ritualized social superstructure, unless you count the imaginary friends. And there are so-called "religions" without them too, if you dig enough in Asia and in aboriginal cultures.
|
|
Let this day be a day that will live in infamy!!
I was wrong.* I fingers get ahead of my brain.
I will however say it is more common for religious fervor to lend itself to a killing/dying state of mind than it is for other faiths/beliefs (from a historical standpoint).
Religion and 4e.
|
|
Let this day be a day that will live in infamy!!
I was wrong.* I fingers get ahead of my brain.
Okay. Hell has frozen over, and there's a V-formation of flying pigs passing overhead as I speak.
Someone on the internet just admitted he was wrong.
That's like the Fifth Seal, right? Should we buckle up and prepare for Rapture?
:)
|
|
Let this day be a day that will live in infamy!!
I was wrong.* I fingers get ahead of my brain.
Okay. Hell has frozen over, and there's a V-formation of flying pigs passing overhead as I speak.
Someone on the internet just admitted he was wrong.
That's like the Fifth Seal, right? Should we buckle up and prepare for Rapture?
:)
Uh-Oh...what have i done?!?!
Uh-Oh...what have i done?!?!Let this day be a day that will live in infamy!!
I was wrong.* I fingers get ahead of my brain.
Okay. Hell has frozen over, and there's a V-formation of flying pigs passing overhead as I speak.
Someone on the internet just admitted he was wrong.
That's like the Fifth Seal, right? Should we buckle up and prepare for Rapture?
:)
At least you didn't divide by zero.
"Many respondents could not correctly give the most basic tenets of their own faiths."
Pure gold.
|
"Many respondents could not correctly give the most basic tenets of their own faiths."
Pure gold.
Unfortunately I think that this is more a sad sign of our times than being strictly limited to religion. I've heard many people say that they are "democrat" or "republican" without any real understanding what that means. Or even understanding "the most basic tenets" of what the political party is about. I think that people, in general, seem to care less -- about most things.
Neither Hitler nor Stalin nor Pol Pot used religious faith as a basis for their willingness to kill millions.
Good point, but one incorrect example. Take Hitler off the list and you've got it down. This doesn't detract from your point; two mass murderers are as good as three. But Hitler expressly stated he was doing God's work in killing Jews.
I've heard many people say that they are "democrat" or "republican" without any real understanding what that means.
I love my cousin. She puts her political views as "Conservative, Constitutionalist, Anti-Progressive." The thing is, I don't think she's ever read the Constitution, and has no idea what's in it. She uses the word "progressive" to mean "anything she personally disagrees with" -- things like faith-based initiatives, a balanced budget, whatever.
Unfortunately I think that this is more a sad sign of our times than being strictly limited to religion. I've heard many people say that they are "democrat" or "republican" without any real understanding what that means. Or even understanding "the most basic tenets" of what the political party is about. I think that people, in general, seem to care less -- about most things.
No doubt. I'm just always amazed anew at stuff like this, whether it's about religion, politics, or whatever.
What's wrong with "I don't know enough about that topic to have an informed opinion?"
I've heard many people say that they are "democrat" or "republican" without any real understanding what that means.I love my cousin. She puts her political views as "Conservative, Constitutionalist, Anti-Progressive." The thing is, I don't think she's ever read the Constitution, and has no idea what's in it. She uses the word "progressive" to mean "anything she personally disagrees with" -- things like faith-based initiatives, a balanced budget, whatever.
I'm far from a Constitutional law scholar (I have to look up most of the Amendments beyond the big ones), but even I recognize some strange positions. How, for example, could someone who supports the expansion of warrantless wire-tapping be a "Constitutionalist?"
What's wrong with "I don't know enough about that topic to have an informed opinion?" ?!!?
C'mon Mr. Bugleyman! If people actually admitted that, most online conversation would be pretty thin. And Rimmer, +1.
C'mon Mr. Bugleyman! If people actually admitted that, most online conversation would be pretty thin.
I am not so sure of that. It is nice to think that an informed person would arrive at the same conclusion we did. I have seen too many examples that refute that to make such assumption anymore.
Except Hero. Anyone that actually played it would give up all the other lame RPGs and play only it.
|
|
Not even a little bit true. Neither Hitler nor Stalin nor Pol Pot used religious faith as a basis for their willingness to kill millions.Couldn't even get past page two before Goodwin's Law was enacted, eh?
Considering it was an appropriate answer (if incorrect on the Hitler part) counterpointing a false statement, I don't see the need to bring up a trite and tired internet cliche. It does nothing to advance the conversation.
Wow, you know internet crap, whoop-de-doo.
|
Considering it was an appropriate answer (if incorrect on the Hitler part) counterpointing a false statement, I don't see the need to bring up a trite and tired internet cliche. It does nothing to advance the conversation.
Wow, you know internet crap, whoop-de-doo.
As if anything in this thread really had a core topic to follow anymore. Except your post of course, it was fantastic, and oh-so-on-topic!
The point was that bringing up Hitler was incorrect in a historical context and was meant as a mechanism to validate his argument via the shock value of nazism, which is really the whole point of Goodwin's Law. In the context of the original post in regards to how well the general public truly understands religion, it only solidifies the points brought up in the original article, people talk about religion as if they know what they're talking about, when in actuality they don't.
|
|
Considering it was an appropriate answer (if incorrect on the Hitler part) counterpointing a false statement, I don't see the need to bring up a trite and tired internet cliche. It does nothing to advance the conversation.
Wow, you know internet crap, whoop-de-doo.
As if anything in this thread really had a core topic to follow anymore. Except your post of course, it was fantastic, and oh-so-on-topic!
The point was that bringing up Hitler was incorrect in a historical context and was meant as a mechanism to validate his argument via the shock value of nazism, which is really the whole point of Goodwin's Law. In the context of the original post in regards to how well the general public truly understands religion, it only solidifies the points brought up in the original article, people talk about religion as if they know what they're talking about, when in actuality they don't.
No, he used Hitler as an example of an ideology that wasn't explicitly religious being used to validate mass murder and fanaticism. As a direct response to a poster who stated only religion could cause such fanaticism. And, frankly, Kirth's point notwithstanding, the Third Reich wasn't an explicitly religious cult, it was an explicitly nationalist cult.
I actually take back that I think it was incorrect. It was a perfect example of a non-religious movement that created murder in the minds of its adherents.
He wasn't using the example as for shock value any more than he was Pol Pot or Stalin (and I would have thrown Mao in there as well). Godwin's Law makes perfect sense if we're discussing, say, rebuilding carburetors, but in a thread like this, it applies like saying "Water is wet". As in: "Durrr...."
Maybe there should be a new law: in any thread about a religious topic, the longer it get, the chance that some Atheist bringing up religious mass murder approaches 1:1.
Maybe there should be a new law: in any thread about a religious topic, the longer it get, the chance that some Atheist bringing up religious mass murder approaches 1:1.
You sir just won the thread.
|
|
You sir just won the thread.
Maybe there should be a new law: in any thread about a religious topic, the longer it get, the chance that some Atheist bringing up religious mass murder approaches 1:1.
It doesn't count the other way though?
That law would work two ways.
Law: Any thread about a religious topic, the longer it gets, the chance that *anyone* bringing up *any* mass murder approaches 1:1
You don't need knowledge if you have enough faith.I do not know about anyone else, but that statement is unsettling.
And also very wrong.
And also very wrong.
You need to talk to your fellow Catholics -- did you see how lousy they scored, compared to just about everyone else? When I was a kid we had Sunday School and all that -- maybe that wasn't such a bad idea.
You sir just won the thread.
Maybe there should be a new law: in any thread about a religious topic, the longer it get, the chance that some Atheist bringing up religious mass murder approaches 1:1.It doesn't count the other way though?
That law would work two ways.
Law: Any thread about a religious topic, the longer it gets, the chance that *anyone* bringing up *any* mass murder approaches 1:1
really? Cause you rarely see it from the other side. Just saying.
You sir just won the thread.
Maybe there should be a new law: in any thread about a religious topic, the longer it get, the chance that some Atheist bringing up religious mass murder approaches 1:1.It doesn't count the other way though?
That law would work two ways.
Law: Any thread about a religious topic, the longer it gets, the chance that *anyone* bringing up *any* mass murder approaches 1:1
Good point. Christians have the tendency to quote the Stalin/Pol Pot angle. It wouldn't be fair to single out the atheists.
|
|
You sir just won the thread.
Maybe there should be a new law: in any thread about a religious topic, the longer it get, the chance that some Atheist bringing up religious mass murder approaches 1:1.It doesn't count the other way though?
That law would work two ways.
Law: Any thread about a religious topic, the longer it gets, the chance that *anyone* bringing up *any* mass murder approaches 1:1
really? Cause you rarely see it from the other side. Just saying.
Maybe in your experience. Not mine. It's brought up every bit as often, and is usually irrelevant to the conversation at hand. All the argument ever does is prove that people have the capacity for really rotten things whether they're religious or not.
|
|
Good point. Christians have the tendency to quote the Stalin/Pol Pot angle. It wouldn't be fair to single out the atheists.You sir just won the thread.
Maybe there should be a new law: in any thread about a religious topic, the longer it get, the chance that some Atheist bringing up religious mass murder approaches 1:1.It doesn't count the other way though?
That law would work two ways.
Law: Any thread about a religious topic, the longer it gets, the chance that *anyone* bringing up *any* mass murder approaches 1:1
Thank you, that's exactly the angle I usually see leveled at atheists. It's unfair to lump us with them the same way it is to lump anybody with a sociopath.
|
|
You sir just won the thread.
Maybe there should be a new law: in any thread about a religious topic, the longer it get, the chance that some Atheist bringing up religious mass murder approaches 1:1.It doesn't count the other way though?
That law would work two ways.
Law: Any thread about a religious topic, the longer it gets, the chance that *anyone* bringing up *any* mass murder approaches 1:1
really? Cause you rarely see it from the other side. Just saying.
Usually only as a response to my new Law.
(And, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm saying this as an Atheist.)
You sir just won the thread.
Maybe there should be a new law: in any thread about a religious topic, the longer it get, the chance that some Atheist bringing up religious mass murder approaches 1:1.It doesn't count the other way though?
That law would work two ways.
Law: Any thread about a religious topic, the longer it gets, the chance that *anyone* bringing up *any* mass murder approaches 1:1
really? Cause you rarely see it from the other side. Just saying.
Usually only as a response to my new Law.
(And, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm saying this as an Atheist.)
Should we call this "Tallman's Law"?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Are we seriously discussing who hypothetically starts an asinine argument first in some abstract discussion?
Can we dial back the meta just a little? I'm no longer certain whether we're discussing a topic, discussing the means of discussing a topic, or discussing the ways in which a discussion of the means of discussing a topic influences the way that a topic is discussed.
Maybe we could argue about which political party started saying scary things first. My money is on the Free League of Sparta or perhaps the Monkey Ball Scratcher's United Worker's Party Local 201 back in 10,000 BC.
The bickering about bickering is even stupider than the actual bickering. Quit trying to show that your side is the original victim and just avoid these f!%$ing conversations if you can't do that.
|
|
And also very wrong.You need to talk to your fellow Catholics -- did you see how lousy they scored, compared to just about everyone else? When I was a kid we had Sunday School and all that -- maybe that wasn't such a bad idea.
When I was being indoctri...err, went to Catholic Sunday School (Sacred Heart, Vailsburg, NJ), we weren't taught much Scripture or history, mostly just what we needed for Communion then Confirmation. I think the Catholic Church still clings to the idea that only the clergy shouyld have access to the big book.
I went to my friend's father's funeral in a Catholic Church and was surprised to find they still didn't have copies of the Bible in the pews, just the hymnals and prayer books. I have yet to go to a Protestant church that doesn't have a copy of the Bible in the pews.
|
|
Are we seriously discussing who hypothetically starts an asinine argument first in some abstract discussion?
Can we dial back the meta just a little? I'm no longer certain whether we're discussing a topic, discussing the means of discussing a topic, or discussing the ways in which a discussion of the means of discussing a topic influences the way that a topic is discussed.
Maybe we could argue about which political party started saying scary things first. My money is on the Free League of Sparta or perhaps the Monkey Ball Scratcher's United Worker's Party Local 201 back in 10,000 BC.
The bickering about bickering is even stupider than the actual bickering. Quit trying to show that your side is the original victim and just avoid these f@~#ing conversations if you can't do that.
Obviously it was them damned Cro-Magnons. I never trusted those pinko bastards...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2012
|
Are we seriously discussing who hypothetically starts an asinine argument first in some abstract discussion?
Can we dial back the meta just a little? I'm no longer certain whether we're discussing a topic, discussing the means of discussing a topic, or discussing the ways in which a discussion of the means of discussing a topic influences the way that a topic is discussed.
Maybe we could argue about which political party started saying scary things first. My money is on the Free League of Sparta or perhaps the Monkey Ball Scratcher's United Worker's Party Local 201 back in 10,000 BC.
The bickering about bickering is even stupider than the actual bickering. Quit trying to show that your side is the original victim and just avoid these f*!*ing conversations if you can't do that.
I'm certain Sebastian victimized everyone here first.
We can all agree on that.
Are we seriously discussing who hypothetically starts an asinine argument first in some abstract discussion?
Can we dial back the meta just a little? I'm no longer certain whether we're discussing a topic, discussing the means of discussing a topic, or discussing the ways in which a discussion of the means of discussing a topic influences the way that a topic is discussed.
Maybe we could argue about which political party started saying scary things first. My money is on the Free League of Sparta or perhaps the Monkey Ball Scratcher's United Worker's Party Local 201 back in 10,000 BC.
The bickering about bickering is even stupider than the actual bickering. Quit trying to show that your side is the original victim and just avoid these f~@#ing conversations if you can't do that.
You are just upset you missed out on the Sci-Fi themed dorm floor. ;)