Religion
Related: About this forumWhy we should worry about extreme religion....
This is cross-posted from the A&A group. I think that it is important enough for all to see, not just the atheists and agnostics.
When you think that the atheists are fighting for nothing, or are too intense in their fight, realize that we see this as a possibility if we don't work to battle this, and we really do need believers to help. (Please don't judge this by where it was aired, it really is relevant.)
rug
(82,333 posts)Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)avebury
(10,946 posts)This group is nuts to say the least and give Islamic Fundamentalists a run for their money. People like this is what makes atheists and agnostics so opposed to religion. There is no difference between the Quiverfull's goal to take over this country (and probably beyond the US) and goal of Islamic Fundamentalists goal to wipe out all religions but theirs.
We are living in the 21st Century and way to many people have failed to learn that no religious group deserves to have the right to prevail over all the other religious groups.
rug
(82,333 posts)Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)First, to equate what ISIS is actually doing with what Dominionists are actually saying, not doing, demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of both.
Second, a cavalier equivalence of religions, as is often posted in this group, undermines what you wrote:
Don't worry, both of those groups will be opposed and, I expect, will be beaten. That is because they are not simply "your" enemies, whoever that "your" may be. The only question is whether they will be beaten with or without "you", whoever that "you" may be.
Routine and unchallenged accusations that nonextremist believers are complicit in the existence of ISIS and other groups make it more likely they will be beaten without "you", whoever that may be, if not despite "you", whoever that may be. It is not simply "your" fight and this fight has no need for identity politics.
avebury
(10,946 posts)Islamic Fundamentalism has existed for centuries before ISIS came into existence.
The point is that the Islamic religion has been all about trying to be the dominant global religion. Groups like Quiverfull have the same goal as is clearly stated in that video. Therefore, there is really not much difference between the two groups.
I have a problem with any group claiming that theirs is the one true religion. What a bunch of hog wash. Every group has the right to their own beliefs. However, no group has the right to force their beliefs on anybody else.
The Quiverfull is highly irresponsible thinking that they can out procreate all other groups in order to take control of the government. When and if humans over populate this world to the point that they exceed the carrying capacity of the planet it will not really matter which group is in charge because there won't be a planet worth living on. Religious extremists are so short sighted when it come to the long range consequences of their plots and plans.
Twice.
avebury
(10,946 posts)That is why the Crusades occurred a few centuries ago as the Christians tried to achieve dominance over the Muslims. If you look at all the positions of the Uber Conservative Christians, there is really NO DIFFERENCE between Conservative Muslims and Conservative Christians. You can even refer to Uber Christian Conservatives as the 21st Century version of the Christian Taliban.
ISIS, as it has viewed today, has not been around that long.
http://counterjihadreport.com/2014/08/21/what-is-isis-where-did-it-come-from-and-when-did-the-us-know-it-was-there/
A non-al-Qaeda revival of the al-Qaeda-sponsored Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) organization that tried to take over western Iraq 20032006, and
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi established al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) in April 2004 and swore allegiance to Osama Bin Laden.
The Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) fought multiple battles with U.S. and kidnapped American soldiers.[ii] It also carried out IED and suicide attacks against Iraqi and U.S. forces.
Following the 2006-07 surge, many of the groups members, including al-Zarqawi, were killed by Iraqi or U.S. forces; some remained in hiding. As of 2010, the U.S. considered the group to be dislodged from central AQ leadership. [iii]
Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi ISI leaders were killed in a joint U.S.-Iraqi mission in April 2010, leaving the leadership of ISI to Abu Bakr.[iv]
In 2011, all U.S. combat troops had left Iraq, but ISI predominated on the Syria-Iraq border. Had Syria not collapsed, ISI would have had a harder time gaining territory and funds.
By late 2012, much of the groups reformed leadership was already targeted by the U.S. treasury. [v]
The Islamic State of Iraq in the Levant (ISIL), another name for the same group, started operations in Northern Syria following large demonstrations against Assad.[vi]
ISIL officially declared its governance over the Levant in April 2013
In August 2013, U.S. officials said ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was operating from Syria, but directing suicide attacks in central Iraq[vii]
The group refocused efforts on Iraq-Syria border after fighting began with other rebel groups and Assad in late 2013 early 2014 [viii]
AQ Central and ISIS split due to differences over methodology and fighting in early 2014
rug
(82,333 posts)Having read this post, my opinion is the same.
LeftishBrit
(41,192 posts)The methods used by far-right Islamist groups are far more brutal than those of groups like Quiverful; but I don't see that many differences in the type of society that extremists of all religious groups want.
rug
(82,333 posts)Equating them is a dangerous pastime.
It reminds me of the blanket condemnation of Communism, ignoring the significant differences between Tito, Stalin, Mao and Ho. Not to mention Pol Pot. Treating them all as essentially the same was a strategic blunder.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)but by the methods they are using. Given time and political success, I think the two might be harder to distinguish one from the other, except by the underlying dogma.
Christian Dominionists believe that God desires Christians to rise to power through civil systems so that His Word might then govern the nation. The belief that America is a Christian nation is sometimes called soft dominionism; the idea that God wants only Christians to hold government office and run the country according to biblical law is called hard dominionism.
Dominion theologys beliefs are based on Genesis 1:28, which says, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (emphasis added).
This verse is taken by Christian Dominionists as a divine mandate to claim dominion over the earth, physically, spiritually and politically.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)Their goal, as stated in the video, is to take over all sectors of life, not just religious sectors, but political, economic, media, etc. And looking at the recent SCOTUS ruling, the numbers of fundamentalist (and for all we know they could be dominionists) running for office, the media takeover by a few. I am sure that these people are doing something already, and they will be working under the radar for a certain period of time.
I am sorry if I look at religions as a group. The reason for that is that they have many more things in common than some want to admit. I could have said "rational Christians", but then I would have offended many who would think that I was calling them "irrational". But also, it isn't just Christians who need to be concerned about the dominionists.
You are very sure of yourself that this group will be opposed and beaten. I am not as sure, at least without people knowing what is over the horizon.
As to your charge that accusations that nonextreme believers are complicit with the existence of ISIS, et al, I do not believe that I have ever stated that, and I don't see it as common. Nor do I see that as relevant to the conversation at hand.
rug
(82,333 posts)I see ISIS and the Dominionists through a political lens. In that regard, their circumstances and abilities are vastly different, no matter their propaganda.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)(It has been argued it isn't even a religious group at all, but not my call)
Poster you are responding to didn't cite ISIS.
Also, you should watch the video. The quiverfull people are actually acting. They just aren't blowing things up. Doesn't mean they are sitting around talking.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)So when you say "people like this are what make atheist and agnostics so opposed to religion" what are you using the word "religion" to mean?
avebury
(10,946 posts)force their ideologies on everyone else. You see it happening all the time now with:
1. Attempts to deny women their reproductive rights
2. Dumbing down of the educational system and society
3. Militarization of the police
4. Erosion of civil and constitutional rights
5. Creation of a for profit prison system based upon laws that are inherently unfavorable to certain classes of citizens
6. Attempts to make voting more restrictive
I think that the aging white population is trying to use religion to achieve permanent changes that may not be able to be undone when the day comes that the white people find themselves in a permanent minority status. Religion is the excuse, fear is the motivation.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)What I'm trying to find out is if I'm included in your concept of "religion that atheists and agnostics oppose". I identify as a religious person, and I oppose everything on your list.
avebury
(10,946 posts)used as a tool of world domination. There are plenty of groups that show no interest in religiously taking over the world. I have a problem with Christians who claim their is the one true religion, are totally stuck in the Old Testament and totally eschew the teachings of Jesus Christ. That to me it total hypocrisy. They may think that they are talking the talk but the fail to walk the walk.
The state legislature in Oklahoma attempted put a State Question on the ballot to ban sharia law from Oklahoma. Now what you have to realize is that most laws passed in Oklahoma have a religious theme to them which means that Oklahoma has been practicing a Christian form of sharia law for a long time. Religion should be kept strictly separate from government legislation.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)It is much appreciated. The people you are talking about are using Jesus as a tribal totem rather than as a challenge to grow in love. You can't love your neighbor if you are making up prejudiced lies about them to make yourself feel superior.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)for authoritarian ideologies. Christianity has been married to the state since the 300s. "As long as it is not..." - but basically it always has been.
Are all religious sects bad actors? Obviously not, but there most certainly is "something wrong with religion".
rug
(82,333 posts)I wonder if you realize the argument that religion is "irrational" is much different from your usual argument that religious beliefs lack evidence.
What is more likely to enable authoritarian ideologies is shallow propaganda containing false assumptions and accusations about groups.
So, Warren, how much responsibility do you say Christians have for the beheadings this year? Have they been "huge enablers"?
phil89
(1,043 posts)And believing something for which there is no evidence is not rational.
rug
(82,333 posts)Do you need the difference explained?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I would like to know the difference, in your opinion.
rug
(82,333 posts)Irrationality exists completely independently of observation, as does rationality.
I've said this before: religious belief proceeds from a datum, a given. That datum is not susceptible to scientific scrutiny. Nevertheless, what proceeds from it is often quite logical and rational. Its conclusions are ultimately only as good as the datum but that simply leads back to an evidentiary standard. What lies between is completely rational.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Regardless of how you view that datum, what follows is eminently rational. It is precisely that rationality that prevents religious belief from falling into the chaos that is ISIS.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)In this case, virtually all religions have as a starting point revelation, an awareness that cannot be reasoned into.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Sounds irrational.
rug
(82,333 posts)In any event, I daresay there are more things that cannot be reasoned into than can.
The counterargument that all things, even most things, can be reasoned into is a statement that overlooks the limits of reason. You could say that human reasoning is unlimited but that would be an irrational statement.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)idea as a possibility.
But not believing in it as an article of faith. That's a leap I can never take, no matter what the subject.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)when they try to express it to a non-believer, whether a non-believer of no faith at all, or a non-believer of a different brand of faith.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)An axiom is a statement which is assumed to be true, but for which no proof is given. Are you going to give up mathematics?
Religions are also axiomatic systems.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)without controversy"
And worse for your analogy:
"No explicit view regarding the absolute truth of axioms is ever taken in the context of modern mathematics, as such a thing is considered to be an irrelevant and impossible contradiction in terms."
In philosophy and mathematics, it's a starting point from which to derive other truths, and in doing so, it has to actually work.
I would LOVE if we treated religions like mathematical axioms. That would be excellent. We'd be chewing through them at a fantastic pace still, discarding one nonsense postulate after another.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)(I couldn't think of a math pun to respond with.)
rug
(82,333 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)"As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning." Or how about this, from the next paragraph: "'axiom,' 'postulate', and 'assumption' may be used interchangeably. In general, a non-logical axiom is not a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in deduction to build a mathematical theory."
As you should have realized, I was using "axiom" in this sense, not as defined in Aristotle's Posterior Analytics".
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You might note I used 'postulate' as well.
It's an idea that can be discarded easily if it doesn't pan out in common use. People don't use the assumption that god exists in that manner, and I wish they did. (As I said)
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)You quoted an obsolete definition of "axiom", when it was clear that I meant the other definition, as given in the sentence you were careful not to quote. I won't say this is dishonest of you, but it is certainly sleezy.
If you were to look at what I said with an open mind, you would realize that what I said makes sense.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So no, not sleazy, nor deceptive. As I said, I accept your preference.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Can be disproven. No, you are being dishonest here.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The axiom itself may not be testable, but can it be used to actually explain anything? Even philosophical axioms can be verified in this manner. Do they explain anything.
Nobody throws out an axiom and then has everyone believe in it, without doing anything else. You start using it to explain XYZ related issues, and if it doesn't explain anything, it's discarded. You might not be able to disprove it, but you can see if it can be used to explain anything. Nobody invests reverent hope/belief/faith in axioms that don't explain anything, don't do anything. I wish religion was actually treated like an axiom in this case.
The modern definition is 'starting point for reasoning' and I accept that. But you GO ON to reason and see if it is useful. You don't just stop there and walk away assuming it is true/useful
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)An axiom is a statement, given without proof, that is assumed to be true. Axioms can be accepted or rejected, but then cannot, by definition, be proven or disproven.
Tell me, have you ever had a course in pure mathematics?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Now, what do you then DO with an axiom? Mathematical OR philosophical?
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)You said that religious axioms would be disproven left and right. As I said, by definition, an axiom can neither be proven nor disproven.
What you do with axioms is build mathematical or philosophical systems. Indeed, let me give you an example from philosophy. When creating a system of ethics, you start with a belief that you accept: "The greatest good for the greatest number" or the Stoic view that the greatest good is contentment and serenity or the ancient Chinese view that evaluates the moral worth of an act based on how it contributes to the social harmony of the state and so on; you then see how you can develop an ethical system from it. The only thing that is required is consistency.
Similarly, in religion, you start with a few axioms. For example, God exists, Jesus is God, the Bible teaches truth and so on, and build something on that. Yes, one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, it is an axiom.
To repeat an earlier question, did you ever have a college level course in math? I am thinking specifically of geometry, but advanced calculus, abstract algebra (aka group theory), linear algebra, number theory and several others would suffice to prove my point. (BTW, as an undergraduate, I had a double major in math -- an attempt to please my father -- and history.)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Who is being 'sleezy' (sic) now?
My CV is of no interest to this discussion. I'll be happy to explain which logical fallacy that is, if you like.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)What you said in post #73 is
You, of course, are the one who claims that "As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy" and "As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning." mean the same thing. That is sleezy.
I mentioned my background in math because axioms, as I used them, are fundamental in math. In other words, I know what I am talking about. Establishing one's credentials is not fallacious. (I also have had multiple courses in logic and rhetoric, and have worked for years as a computer programmer. I say this to establish credentials as a logician.)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That is not the same thing as saying they mean the same thing.
You could have simply asked me what I meant when I said we'd be discarding them one after another. Axioms that don't do anything, don't work as a platform to start that reasoning point, get discarded. Hence, the axioms behind now-dead but previously claimed deities and origin stories like... zeus and the like. They fall into disuse or are discarded because they don't tell us anything useful or true about the universe or our place in it, or they do it in a way that can be done better, AND they don't serve as a useful basis to reason further into other ideas that might better describe or discover our place in the universe.
This axiom was found to be redundant and not useful, and hence, discarded;
"II.4. Any four points A, B, C, D of a line can always be labeled so that B shall lie between A and C and also between A and D, and, furthermore, that C shall lie between A and D and also between B and D."
It's called 'Hilbert's discarded axiom'. I used the word discarded for a reason, you see. "Discarded axiom" is a common term, if you do a Google Books search.
I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.
No axiom is immortal, I would think. You may disagree, and that's fine.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Now, if that doesn't mean "they say the same thing" or "the differences between the two definitions are trivial", then please tell me what it does mean.
There is, of course, a vast difference between the two: The first says that an axiom is "so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy"; the second says nothing about "accepted without controversy", only that it is accepted as true.
The classic example is in geometry, the parallel postulate. As originally stated by Euclid, it says
If a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles.
Now this looks more like one of Euclid's theorems -- theorems are derived from axioms -- so mathematicians tried for centuries to derive it from Euclid's other postulates. Then the Scots mathematician James Playfair, circa 1795, showed that Euclid's postulate was equivalent to "Given a line and a point not on that line, there is exactly one line containing that point which does not intersect with the given line." Had Euclid stated it in that fashion, it would have been immediately seen as an axiom and not as a possible theorem.
In 1829, the Russian Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky and, independently, in 1831, the Hungarian Janos Bolyai showed that one could construct consistent geometries by taking an alternate axiom, either that there are no non-intersecting lines through the given point, or that there are multiple non-intersecting lines through the point. These are called Non-Euclidian geometries. One reason I am telling you this is because Lobachevsky's paper was rejected by the St. Petersburg Academy of Science, because the truth of Lobachevsky's axiom was held to be so non-evident as to be false. However, his geometry "works", in that it is consistent. Thus, Lobachevsky's axiom fails the first definition of "axiom", but passes the second.
Hence the two definitions are not equivalent, and which one you choose does make a difference. Incidentally, if you had had a decent college course in geometry, you would know at least the outlines of this story. You certainly would have been introduced to non-Euclidian geometry.
Talking about discarded axioms is irrelevant. Religious beliefs are based on axioms, ideas which are accepted as true by the believer, without proof. You do not accept axioms such as "God exists", but that does not change the fact that it is, by definition, an axiom.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Now, if that doesn't mean "they say the same thing" or "the differences between the two definitions are trivial", then please tell me what it does mean. "
It means it applies the same. The result is the same. My claim still works to my satisfaction under either definition. It doesn't mean the two definitions are precisely the same. That is a whole different logical fallacy to assume so.
My claim:
"I would LOVE if we treated religions like mathematical axioms. That would be excellent. We'd be chewing through them at a fantastic pace still, discarding one nonsense postulate after another."
Second definition: "As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning."
I am quite happy with my claim under that definition, still.
"Talking about discarded axioms is irrelevant. Religious beliefs are based on axioms, ideas which are accepted as true by the believer, without proof. You do not accept axioms such as "God exists", but that does not change the fact that it is, by definition, an axiom."
Aren't you forgetting something? "Religious beliefs are based on axioms, ideas which are accepted as true by the believer, without proof" as a starting point for reasoning.
That is not my experience, having observed religious people talk themselves into faith. Not in person, not reading their books, etc. Reasoning isn't a factor. I wish it were.
Discarded axioms remain relevant, because when you start from the axiom and reason forward with whatever ideology is constructed around it, if it is not useful or could be better explained another way, it is discarded. I like that process.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Even though the definitions have significant differences, and, in fact, you were using the difference between the first and the second in your previous posts. No, AC, the result is NOT the same.
You say, "My claim still works to my satisfaction under either definition." You have unilaterally, and against all evidence to the contrary, decreed that the two definitions say the same thing. How remarkably arrogant of you. Clearly, you are of the Humpty Dumpty school of interpretation.
In Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, Humpty Dumpty says to Alice
'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master that's all.'
Let me make an analogy. Suppose, for the sake of argument, you are a fan of grunge music. I offer two definitions of grunge, "A school of alternative rock that emerged in Washington in the 1980s" and "A school of alternative rock that emerged in Washington in the 1980s whose unmusicality goes without question". Would you say that these two definitions say essentially the same thing? It's the same reasoning.
You now start nattering about believers not being rational. What you clearly mean is that because they start from a different set of axioms you start from (God does exist vs. God does not exist being the biggies), they come to different conclusions than you come to. Your argument here amounts to "They disagree with me, so they are irrational". If you weren't an atheist, the response "who died and made you God?" would be appropriate.
You discard the axiom, "God exists". Well, huzzah for you. Other people do not discard it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Let me make an analogy. Suppose, for the sake of argument, you are a fan of grunge music. I offer two definitions of grunge, "A school of alternative rock that emerged in Washington in the 1980s" and "A school of alternative rock that emerged in Washington in the 1980s whose unmusicality goes without question". Would you say that these two definitions say essentially the same thing? It's the same reasoning."
Where's the claim that I made that could be tested against either definition?
As a grunge fan, I might accept the 'unmusciality' bit, depending on what I was claiming.
You don't seem to have a grasp of what I said at all. Despite me copying and pasting it again for you.
" You have unilaterally, and against all evidence to the contrary, decreed that the two definitions say the same thing."
Absolutely not. I said I accept either definition, and that my claim is acceptable to me as valid regardless of which definition is used. I made no claim that both definitions are the same. That's purely going on inside your imagination.
"You now start nattering about believers not being rational."
There you go again, falsely attributing shit you made up, to try and box me into your kill zone. I SAID
"That is not my experience, having observed religious people talk themselves into faith. Not in person, not reading their books, etc. Reasoning isn't a factor. I wish it were."
Talking oneself into faith without employing reason does not imply the people in question aren't rational. Do you assume someone is a vegetarian simply because they skip meat at a single meal? I made a statement about a single decision/process, not about their character. Knock that shit off. I'm not going to sit back and let you attribute that shit to me.
"They disagree with me, so they are irrational"
Again, I ascribed no opinion about the individual's character. I described a single approach to a singular problem/idea. That is all. If I said something about their character en total, by all means, copy paste that shit. Otherwise, you're just trying to smear me here.
"You discard the axiom, "God exists". Well, huzzah for you. Other people do not discard it."
I understand that. I wish they approached it in a manner that would expose the axiom (one might even question if they consciously know that an axiom is in play at all) to considering if it is a useful starting point to reason forward into XYZ definitions of god, and why one is required at all, or does it tell us anything useful about the universe, our place in it, and most importantly, are there any other axioms that might serve understanding said universe better. etc. Axioms that do a better job of serving as that starting point tend to win, and the loser is discarded.
All of this also fits under the classic axiom, as considering whether something can be assumed true without controversy, as it does for whether it can serve as a starting point for reasoning.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)I give you an analogy to the two definitions of axiom that you claim are equivalent, and you clearly do not understand what I am saying. I suppose it's because you refuse to admit that the two definitions are NOT equivalent.
I said, "You now start nattering about believers not being rational."
You reply, "There you go again, falsely attributing shit you made up, to try and box me into your kill zone. I SAID 'That is not my experience, having observed religious people talk themselves into faith. Not in person, not reading their books, etc. Reasoning isn't a factor. I wish it were.'"
When I went to my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, one definition of "irrational" was "not based on reason". This says nothing about character, it speaks only to reasoning. Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary of your own.
And your penultimate paragraph is just you complaining that perfectly reasonable people come to different conclusions than you do. Your last paragraph is you proclaiming, once again, that the two quite different definition of axiom say the same thing. They do not.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"I give you an analogy to the two definitions of axiom that you claim are equivalent, and you clearly do not understand what I am saying. I suppose it's because you refuse to admit that the two definitions are NOT equivalent. "
No, the problem is twofold, one, the analogy is invalid. Two, I'm not claiming the definitions are equivalent. I am using them like a rule, and applying them to the data (my claim) and I find the results of the two rules is the same. That doesn't mean the rules are identical.
Here's a crafty lie.
"You now start nattering about believers not being rational."
That is a statement of character. If a believer makes a singular stupid mistake on one thing, I do not say 'believers not being smart'. Intelligent people make stupid blunders all the time, doesn't mean they are stupid. You scaled a decision not based on reason (as the math axiom you seemed to prefer uses an axiom as a starting place FOR reason) to the person him or herself being irrational. This is akin to the sleight of hand on the 'delusion' argument a while back, where I was talking about an individual laboring under a delusion, with the person being, clinically, delusional. That is a wildly abusive mischaracterization.
"And your penultimate paragraph is just you complaining that perfectly reasonable people come to different conclusions than you do."
No, it describes that in some cases, reason was not employed at coming to the conclusion. (That doesn't imply the people are unreasonable, so save yourself the attempted slight of hand)
"Your last paragraph is you proclaiming, once again, that the two quite different definition of axiom say the same thing."
I suggest you read it again. Because I did not claim they say the same thing. I essentially said the outcome is favorable to my point, whichever of the two rules one applies.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)You claim that the two definitions of axiom are not equivalent, while simultaneously claiming that they have the same result. If two definitions "have the same result", then they are equivalent. Given that they do not, in fact, say the same thing, then they cannot "have the same result". You are trying to have things both ways.
I said, "You now start nattering about believers not being rational."
Your reply starts, "That is a statement of character."
Let's your own words, "Reasoning isn't a factor" and my definition from the dictionary, "not based on reason". These statements do say the same thing, they are not using reason. If if I am speaking about character, so are you.
You ten go on, "If a believer makes a singular stupid mistake on one thing, I do not say 'believers not being smart'." Not being smart and not using reason are not the same thing. Smart people can make irrational decisions. Tell me, have you ever loved someone? Was that rational? Of course not, since reasoning isn't a factor in whether or not to be in love.
I think we are done. I said, correctly, that religion is an axiomatic system, in that the believer starts from a group of statements that he or she cannot prove, but accepts as true. You don't want to accept this, for some unknown reason -- perhaps because you want to think that believers have no basis whatsoever for their belief. Indeed, they have as much basis as any mathematical or philosophical system, which are also based on axioms.
phil89
(1,043 posts)It's not a given that there's a god. Never been demonstrated and not falsifiable. A statement can be logically sound but not valid. Just demonstrate that a god exists and you'll start making sense.
rug
(82,333 posts)Tell you what, I'll grant there is no scientific evidence for religious belief so long as you stick by your statement that it can be "logically sound" nonetheless.
phil89
(1,043 posts)To believe without evidence is irrational. I know you don't like it, but belief in an invisible in unfalsifiable god who can break the laws of physics is not rational.
rug
(82,333 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Oh boy! I thought I'd seen it all and your post is there for all to see a perfect example of the "irrational".
Did you actually see the thought that ran through your head when you posted that nonsensical statement?
I guess all blind people and those of us who enjoy the radio are delusional, not to mention those of us who can't see through walls or across light years.
You might want to look up the definition of "abstract noun"
As I have no evidence that you believe what you said, I will ignore it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)those participating in Moral Mondays or the NALT project.
If you are going to be opposed to religion based only on extreme examples, then you are edging into the territory of the religious extremists.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Sure, some religions seem benign from here, for now. But when your faith is built on unquestioning belief in divine revelation, handed down from some invisible benefactor, how much does it take for some cretin to worm its way into the church or whatever you call it, and start making very dangerous alterations to it?
I cite Mars Hill Church as an example. It's done enormous social damage. In *defense* of such orgs, it does seem to have some internal pushback/defense mechanism that is now beginning to act, but... much damage is done. Seemingly, in the eyes of some of the perpetrators, and victims, in the name of and on the authority of, god.
10 years ago, I would guess you and I would both have classified MHC as a non-extreme, inoffensive Christian same-same type normal church. Today? Not so much. (Allowing for pushback in the last two weeks, and the removal of their hyper sexist/misogynistic shithead pastor.)
I prefer people build their worldview on principle. That's my preference. Religion can be fine and all, but It would warm my cold, black, atheist heart if an individual's basis for their worldview didn't change much if they moved from one church to another, or from a church to non-belief, or the opposite. That's my desired state. That people invest themselves in knowing what they want, and what is right and wrong, rather than, (an example) my more fundamentalist friends that believe whatever they are told to believe, based on what they think is divine authority behind their spiritual leaders and how they interpret their holy books.
(Basically, I'm saying Philosophy should become one of the 'four R's' in public schools. And Civics needs a re-vamp. Badly)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You mean opposed to any belief in a higher power or opposed to some actions that might be taken in regard to that belief?
Some religion is benign. Some is positive. Some is negative.
If you develop your own criteria that includes things like unquestioning belief and dangerousness, that might make sense.
But to paint all religion or the concept of religion with the same broad brush is a kind of judgmental prejudice that is hard to accept.
Religious individuals, groups and institutions change. That's why the unquestioning part can be very problematic.
If something goes from a benign influence to a negative one, it is best to be able to see that and back away. But to reject it from the beginning on the principle that one opposes the concept of religion in general is wrong, imo. What if it goes from a benign group to a powerfully active and positive one. You would entirely miss out.
While you may prefer that people live in a particular way, the fact is that hey don't fit your mold. The fact that is that people don't generally change their world view when they move in or out or around religions. They are generally just looking for something that better fits their world views.
Your view of religious people as sheep who just believe what they are told to believe may be true of your fundamentalist friends, but you can't apply it to the billions of religious people around the world.
It is possible to emphasize philosophy without excluding religion.
Modifying the powerful GLBT slogan:
They revere
They're sincere
Get used to it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But when it gets down to it, the 'predisposition to faith' that we have discussed in the past, that most humans seem to exhibit, is, in my mind, really just a predisposition to follow-the-leader, or being told what to do/groupthink.
When that's your basis for faith, it's problematic, because I believe it leaves people predisposed to being told bad things to do. Many of the items in Hitchen's Book 'God is not great, how religion poisons everything' and the meme that he used to hammer away at primarily, that religion leads people to do morally reprehensible things they would otherwise not do. For instance, blind acceptance of patriarchy. (I'm glad that subject has been coming up here more frequently, it is a topic in dire need of exploration.)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)predisposed to faith are merely weak sheep, how are you any better than those who make such judgements about shoe who are not disposed to faith?
That may be the basis for faith for some, it is not for all. Again, it is your assumption that creates the problem.
Do you want to work against groups that tell people to do bad things? I'm with you.
Hitchens was wrong. Religion doesn't poison everything. Intolerance and prejudice poison everything.
So let's challenge the areas where religion is harmful and let's work with good religious people to do that.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Going right to the source of the Abrahamic faiths, which make up almost the entirety of US religions. The story of Adam and Eve.
Have you ever considered whether Eve chose Adam or not? She was, according to the story, created for him. After him. Did she choose him, or was she free to choose at all?
If I had a daughter, I wouldn't read that story to her. That's actually worse than most of the princess fuckery Disney has been up to for the last 80 years. Nobody fails the Bechtel test in style like Disney. Except the bible.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If I had a daughter, I might not choose that story either, but I don't think it's necessarily worse than the princess fuckery and I think it is possible to tell the story in a way that reduces or eliminates the possible sexist overtones.
But I don't really care.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But when you have to alter the 'IN THE BEGINNING' sort of foundational story from multiple faiths to try and scrub away patriarchy...
why bother?
If that isn't real, if that isn't meaningful, AND it is the basis for yet more patriarchal nonsense that follows throughout the book...
Why? Why go to the effort? And if it's wrong and can be scrubbed, what's left that isn't scrubbable-by-association?
I know plenty of Christians for which the idea of scrubbing something from the bible due to, for instance, correcting blindingly obvious patriarchy, is abhorrent. Would torpedo the whole deal for them.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I always thought of it as an environmental tale and the whole genocide thing was never something I considered until I read something about it from some anti-theists.
See, I don't think you really care why people go to the effort. You have decided it's all garbage and you can't for the life of you figure out why others don't see it like you do.
But they don't and that's a fact.
And you aren't smarter or more insightful than them.
The more I hear about the people you know who are christians, the more I understand why your view is so narrow.
You might need to get out more.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You mean, see it like it's written, right? Because the whole story is about god wiping out humans intentionally. A 'reboot', Michael Bay style.
"But they don't and that's a fact."
If that's the case, one of three things is true:
1. They can't read.
2. They can't comprehend what they read.
3. They choose not to comprehend what they read.
Because that's what Noah's Ark is, as the bible tells it; genocide.
When you read the story, did you maybe read it from some not-the-bible source? What I read in preschool was certainly edited for content, and not the verbatim bible story. It made the flood motive-free and some unavoidable 'was going to happen regardless, no one's falt' sort of thing, rather than a punishment/wipe-reset. I forget how they painted the rainbow scenario, but it wasn't 'whoopsie, won't do that again' as specified, again, in the bible, after wiping out 99.9% of humanity. Man, woman, and child.
Seriously, you missed that when you read it? I don't believe you.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)just as we all do.
And you see what you want to see, just as well all do.
Yours is not the perfect vision. Everyone else is not illiterate just because they see something different.
I'm not going to debate Noah's Ark with you. You see it one way, other's see it differently.
You are neither right nor wrong, but your insistence that yours is the only view a literate or intelligent person could have is much more about you than anyone else.
It's one wayism. It's fundamentalism.
It really doesn't suit you
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That's what it says, not 'what I see it as'.
You can choose to take some other meaning from it, or ignore it entirely, but you have no basis to suggest I am reading some meaning into it that it doesn't clearly state in plain English.
I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth"
That's god, in the first person, NIV bible. Did you miss that line? Does it say something about fluffy bunnies and rainbows that I can't decode through my 'prism'?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Every living thing that moved on land perishedbirds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."
What does YOUR 'filter' translate that into?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done."
I'm curious how you missed all that, supposedly.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And you really don't think that it's meta when you are having a debate with me, then open the door for my position to be attacked in a safe haven in which I can not respond? And in a group where you know the animosity towards me is so deep that any invitation to express it will be jumped on.
Really?
Every time I think you are better than this, you disappoint me.
But I have a toon for you that I hope you will find humorous.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I didn't attack you, and I specified no Meta.
You are pretending here, that "I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." doesn't say what it says it does, and that I am reading it through some prism thing.
I asked other atheists if they read the same thing out of it.
Don't pretend that question was an insult or attack. Not if you want anyone to take you seriously.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)is a metaphor for *something mysterious*.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Right into the awful personal attacks.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)um, seriously? You *always* thought of it that way? You were raised religious and from the very start you thought of the story as an environmental tale. Wow. You truly are the superior intellect you claim to be. Or you could be borrowing from the recent and awful movie that reworked the story to be an environmental fable.
I remember thinking that it was odd that people believed obvious nonsense like the awful story of Yahweh committing mass murder of multiple species, but then again I wasn't raised religious.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)And that naturally makes it more palatable. I mean, humans were wrecking the planet. Clearly that means it's OK to mass murder all of them except for the family you chose to spare!
edgineered
(2,101 posts)She abandoned the quiverful movement, divorced her husband, and put the kids in public school.
She has a Flying Spaghetti Monster hat.
She has been labeled as an atheist by her local community.
the 200 year family plan is 10 generations of 10 kids each, an enormous goal for a population, and what their intentions are with a general essentially converting the world.
questions start at about 33 minutes in. The first question and answer were shockingly racist and promote incest. later q&a gets into the subservient role of women in the movement, at one point explaining how their religion makes extramarital affairs the fault of the women and how it is her role to remedy it.
I'm only making these statements because it is so difficult to watch much of this and wanted to share what I did see and hear.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I have limited data access, so can't watch it.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)But you did a better job at putting into words. I also think that it is worth watching though, because she really does a good job of explaining what the thinking of the Quiver Full followers is and how they are able to keep members with indoctrination.
edgineered
(2,101 posts)From those, lets for a moment remove the people of faith whose intentions are not for a conquest to forcefully convert the world, and look at the quiverful people. They would like to return to the days when the only system for sharing knowledge, information, and standards were churches, churches of people and not buildings. (I have always been an athiest, yet see value and need for religion)
This group endangers the dynamic benefits achieved by various religions through the ages by narrowing what is good for humanity worldwide and as a whole, down to what is good for themselves. They benefit from portraying themselves the only true and honest source of outside influence, influencing followers to view themselves and their interpretations as the norm for the entire known world.
While no one can be faulted for having faith, it is when extremist leaders manipulate their followers and call it faith that we must look at them individually, and not as a religionistas in general (pardon the reference).
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)except to say that the Quiver Full followers are actually just taking the Bible literally. That narrow thinking of what is good for humanity comes right from the Bible, although I will say that it is all OT.
One thing that you didn't mention in the synopsis was their detailed plans for taking over, in every aspect of society....their "Seven Mountains". That was about as scary as anything---they don't just want to live their lives by these rules they believe in, they want the world to live by them. Sounds familiar.
But why do you say that there is value and a need for religion? Many atheists are moral and live a good life, while there are people who believe in God who are immoral and do evil things....so I don't see where religion is keeping us as a society any better.
edgineered
(2,101 posts)a set of rules to live by. When contact with other communities is infrequent those meetings can take on the characteristics of ritual, which in a stretch could be considered to be, or become a religious event, not necessarily following a known or formal religion, but the local equivalent of. Call it some wiggle room if nothing else.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)edgineered
(2,101 posts)Seems that history is filled with people turning pot luck raffles into church bazaars though...
Didn't make the rules.
Probably would have skipped the meeting.
Would have rolled my eyes as whoever was hitting on the birch bark talked about this god idea he had.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)no matter what their religious beliefs or lack of beliefs.
There are those on the religious left that feel equally as passionate about the danger of religious extremism as those in the non-relgious group.
I'm not sure who you are referring to when you talk about those that "think that the atheists are fighting for nothing, or are too intense in their fight". I've only seen that brought up here when talking about those who are anti-religion in general and can't seem to make a distinction between extremism and everyone else.
Whenever an issue of religious extremism or separation comes up, everyone here is pretty much on the same page, no matter what the memes may be.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)that we are too angry or too rude, even when we are not in that post.....there is some prejudice against some atheist just because of some of the snarky things that they have said, and it makes some posters frame all of their posts as inflammatory. But that isn't really the point. I see no problem with "anti-religion", and especially when there are discussions about the pro/con or religion...In this group that is all about the debate. Some just are taking it too personally, on both sides.
I am glad that you agree that we should all be concerned about the rise in fundamentalist and dominionist religion, because that is my first concern with religion. I cringe and get upset every time I hear "if they would not have taken prayer out of schools......" This sort of thing is what gets me angry, maybe because I hear that almost daily. Ugh.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I have never seen a single comment about rudeness or anger that would include you. There is not prejudice against atheists here. There is, however, some significant negativity towards some specific members who are very hostile and provocative. You are not one of those people, even if you are friends with them. It may be hard for you to recognize the difference, but I assure you that others have no problem making the distinction.
As you probably know, I have a great deal of problem with anti-theism or anti-religion. It's no different to me than being anti-atheist. Denouncing a whole group, equating their beliefs to an illness that must be cured and calling the individual adherents psychiatrically ill is wrong. Criticism where it is warranted is one thing. Blanket condemnation is quite another, especially when one is in a space occupied by liberal/progressive believers.
We should all fight together to push back against those seeking a theocracy in this country and those that use their religion to oppress others. You live in a place where you apparently hear the worst from the religious right, but here in this group, you can hear the best if you are willing to listen.
Thanks for posting this. I hope you will do so in the future.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I've never seen anyone here who would defend what this woman was involved in or not applaud her escape.
Don't you realize that we are all on the same page when it comes to this kind of extremist religion?
Have you really come to believe that the believers who frequent this group would attack you for posting something like this?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Avoid giving religion any of the blame for the situation she was in, hell yes.
Have you really come to believe that the believers who frequent this group would attack you for posting something like this?
That sounds kind of like an attack. Yikes.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)that I am not much of an OP poster. It isn't this group, it is most groups and forums (but not all). I just try not to call much attention to myself, and when I have in the few OP's that I have tried, I am always amazed at the people who find offense in something. It is better to just read more and post less.
BTW, did I say I was worried about posting this here?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think it's an important topic and it is very appropriate for this group.
But your assumptions about how it might be received were wrong. I hope you note that.
Of course you said you were worried about posting this here. It's there for anyone who doesn't have you on ignore to see, and I doubt that anyone has you on ignore. Why would they?
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)But I have had some posts in other forums savaged. It happens....and you never know what will set it off. When we could see how many people had us on ignore, I did have 3. I think it had to do with my writing a post in honor of my 10,000th post and several people had an issue with my mentioning it. It wasn't the subject of the post, it was that I announced that it was 10,000, for shame.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I am glad that you did this and can see for yourself what is really going on as opposed to the fairy tale that has been created.
But you are right, this board can be really unpredictable I have put up what I thought were innocuous things that turned into nightmares, lol.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Looks like you got some lively, yet civil debate. I haven't been able to watch the video due to bandwidth issues, but get the general picture. Sounds like these extremists want to take over the world by multiplying themselves by procreation, rather than beheading non-believers. They sound rather silly, to say the least, and not at all realistic.
That method has been tried in the past and didn't work too well then. I have friends who fit the Quiverfull description. 10 kids in 18 years, devout Christians, home schooled their kids, who when they turned 18 started to move away and join the real world. I have some ultra-orthodox Jewish friends who had a similar experience, 12 kids and the eldest have already transited to the secular world. I don't see these groups as a threat, as long as their kids learn to read and get to meet people outside their immediate families.
I'll reserve further comment until I can watch the entire video.
pinto
(106,886 posts)And it's self limiting in the long run.