Religion

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)

79. This is the difference:

Tue Jul 29, 2014, 03:57 PM

Jul 2014

"Born-agains" are Christians who self-identify as such or report having had a "born again experience" -a specific turning point in their life where they committed themselves to Christ. It's a specific subset of religious people. Your idea that being "born again" equals being somehow more religious than "non-born-agains" is begging the question of what counts as truly religious, which you've agreed you have no interest in.
-
And I pointed out that your interpretation undermined the original point the author was making, and you didn't rebut that, you just restated your interpretation without any further reference to the article.
-
I'm arguing for fair and consistent standards in judging religion v. non-religion. You seem to want a "heads I win, tails you lose" standard where religion gets all the blame for the bad, none of the credit for the good. I don't agree to that inconsistent standard, because your attempts to defend it as fair have not been convincing.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

120 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

When religious people do bad things in the name of religion... [View all] Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 OP

I don't like giving religion the respect many people do. upaloopa Jul 2014 #1

The article is not about whether or not you give a shit about religious beliefs or not. rug Jul 2014 #4

Blind belief in science is as stupid as blind belief in religion upaloopa Jul 2014 #11

Absolutely. rug Jul 2014 #12

Really? I find only one keeps the food in my fridge cold. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #24

Well you got something there but I am not sure what upaloopa Jul 2014 #26

You just equated a process that is used to detemine the nature of reality to a made up bit AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #33

I got good grades in logic. upaloopa Jul 2014 #34

There have been studies on the efficacy of intercessory prayer. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #36

I believe in the power or law of attraction upaloopa Jul 2014 #38

It can't be documented because edhopper Jul 2014 #39

You say what you think and that is the paradigm you upaloopa Jul 2014 #40

Like, with magnets, or what? AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #41

You need to read up on it. I don't want to try to explain upaloopa Jul 2014 #42

Sounds like the Dianetics book someone sent me when I graduated high school. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #43

Pure Oprah filtered edhopper Jul 2014 #44

You can also keep your opinions to yourself upaloopa Jul 2014 #45

I could, but I choose not to. edhopper Jul 2014 #46

It doesn't matter one twit to me what you upaloopa Jul 2014 #50

Probably not edhopper Jul 2014 #62

Here is what I think upaloopa Jul 2014 #64

Actually I am more enlightened than many others edhopper Jul 2014 #65

Fine I still don't give a shit what you think of me yourself or any other thing. upaloopa Jul 2014 #66

I guess your "secret" edhopper Jul 2014 #68

There are people all over the world who agree upaloopa Jul 2014 #70

I didn't think you were edhopper Jul 2014 #84

Post removed Post removed Jul 2014 #85

Hmmm? edhopper Jul 2014 #86

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service Capt. Obvious Jul 2014 #87

For the record, edhopper Jul 2014 #88

He wants to thank you Capt. Obvious Jul 2014 #89

You did use your opinion to suggest I waste a bunch of my time. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #48

Those are your thoughts not mine. upaloopa Jul 2014 #51

Did you, or did you not suggest a book? AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #52

You or someone said "like magnets" upaloopa Jul 2014 #58

No, but then I don't think I've seen anyone who has said that. trotsky Jul 2014 #2

Could you show us what you have in mind? Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #3

Here's my brief assessment: trotsky Jul 2014 #5

I don't think that's the same standard. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #7

No, I assume the possibility in both. trotsky Jul 2014 #10

The level of specificity needs to be kept the same also. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #13

Well that's something you aren't doing, you know. trotsky Jul 2014 #16

Ok, then change it to "Without religion, would people still give charity to the poor" Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #17

Please read the full article. trotsky Jul 2014 #18

Upon reading the full article... Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #19

You seem to be confused. trotsky Jul 2014 #21

Your reading eliminates the distinction she was trying to draw. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #22

Yes, it's uniquely stubborn. trotsky Jul 2014 #23

As you say, the graph is between Born Agains v. Non-Born Agains Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #25

That certainly explains why your numbers aren't zero yet. trotsky Jul 2014 #27

If I haven't accomplished empirical falsification by critiquing Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #29

Eh? You just sabotaged your own graph by undermining the lone distinction it made. trotsky Jul 2014 #32

No, I didn't. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #37

Yeah, you did. trotsky Jul 2014 #57

This is the difference: Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #79

There's religiosity, and "true religion." trotsky Jul 2014 #83

Take a look at the definition of "a Biblical worldview" Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #90

A fundamentalist view? trotsky Jul 2014 #91

But to get the "Biblical Worldview" you must have them all Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #92

Sounds like a lot of what you wrote is just your personal opinion. trotsky Jul 2014 #93

Whether what I said is "personal opinion" Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #96

But the fact that you agree with some of those items... trotsky Jul 2014 #97

You're creating a false dichotomy between Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #98

No, you're just wanting to pick a more nebulous standard for how we judge someone as being... trotsky Jul 2014 #99

A new false dichotomy Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #104

Ahem trotsky Jul 2014 #105

So the hidden assumption: Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #106

Ohhh, now I see your confusion. trotsky Jul 2014 #108

Can you expand on the meaning of Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #110

Some examples: trotsky Jul 2014 #111

Let's see if I understand now: Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #112

Or, to complete the circle: trotsky Aug 2014 #113

Then how do you answer my question: Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #114

Oh, I thought that was obvious. trotsky Aug 2014 #115

That yields some...odd results. Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #116

I don't believe that this is true. stone space Aug 2014 #119

You're right. Sedition acts are no more that secular blasphemy statutes. rug Aug 2014 #120

Using Sociology, we could call "religion" whatever calls itself that, or is called that, say. Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #8

OK Sirveau: so you've finally decided to come out as a Christian Liberal apologist. Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #54

Let's see if I can sum up: Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #78

Turnabout is fair play. Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #82

As a atheist pacifist, I must say that I find... stone space Aug 2014 #117

That would be a change of pace. rug Aug 2014 #118

The color-coded map: Jim__ Jul 2014 #6

I see problems for the authors' thesis: very liberal states often have severe environment Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #9

Two things strike me immediately about this map. okasha Jul 2014 #49

Saying slave states suffered 'threats' seems a strange value judgement muriel_volestrangler Jul 2014 #14

I think the authors stopped too soon on that one. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #15

What about the excuses for the states responsible for the procurement and transportation of slaves Leontius Jul 2014 #28

What are they? muriel_volestrangler Jul 2014 #31

....they are just following their superior "moral compass". n/t aka-chmeee Jul 2014 #20

Are you the new "But It's Not Because Of Religion!" Spokesperson? I saw there was a vacancy. mr blur Jul 2014 #30

Wow, just wow! hrmjustin Jul 2014 #35

I think it is pretty exciting too. That post has been vacant for a while. Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #47

I think this is a very interesting study, even if the results are not surprising. cbayer Jul 2014 #53

I find it unsurprising that strong religion is linked to poverty and ignorance; to the South Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #55

Surely the problem isn't "doing bad things", people will do those anyway intaglio Jul 2014 #56

It is not clear to me at all that "people will do those anyway". Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #59

It is people who do bad things and attaching further qualifications intaglio Jul 2014 #60

So, for example, the shithead who killed George Tiller. Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #61

He killed because he believed he was justified intaglio Jul 2014 #63

Religion has no responsibility for his actions? Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #67

Religion provided justification intaglio Jul 2014 #69

And the chief voice of anti-abortionism ... was Catholic conservative religion. Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #72

To take just one of your points intaglio Jul 2014 #74

1) Prove which one was primary Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #75

No, I'm saying that motive and justification are different intaglio Jul 2014 #76

OK, thanks for clarification. Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #80

Still arbitrary. Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #95

The crusades were motivated by both economics and religion. Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #94

When you bond religion into the national, cultural, ethnic or racial and economic identity of a Leontius Jul 2014 #100

I don't separate it, I don't give religion a pass. Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #101

But many people give all the other motivations a pass and just assign blame to religion. Leontius Jul 2014 #103

Well then these many people would be as wrong as the other many Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #107

Except you can't move on without being able to separate motivation from justification. Leontius Jul 2014 #109

Take the religious part of it out and see what happens. trotsky Jul 2014 #102

This is a good point. cbayer Jul 2014 #71

Let's turn that around: what if it is claimed that religion doesn't have positive effects ... Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #73

But since the claim is clearly false, your statement is meaningless. n/t Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2014 #77

? Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #81