43
   

Obama..... not religious?

 
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 08:25 pm
@sozobe,
Sozobe wrote:
I just don't see religion as inherently evil.

Neither do I. I see them as inherently false. "Inherently", because faith in your opinions inherently sabotages the error correction that would occur if you were skeptical about them. "False", because the lack of error correction means that errors get perpetuated eternally through the church tradition. Well, if I was in an objective mood today, maybe I would qualify the"false" a bit. Just as a broken watch is right twice a day, religions sometimes produce true statements every now and then. "Thou shalt not kill" would be one example. But I said "maybe", and anyway, I'm not in an objective mood today.

Anyway, my point is that I'm not opposing religion as a matter of good vs. evil. I'm opposing it as a matter of true vs. false.

sozobe wrote:
There seems to be an element of the convert here

I can't refute that, and it's not totally impossible, but I don't think so. For what it's worth, my transition from liberal Lutheran to an atheist was slow and gradual. It never felt like a dramatic conversion to me. But of course there are other elements as well -- like my general tendency to interpret texts as narrowly as possible. And then there's the element of general pig-headedness.... Together they will do the trick.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 08:31 pm
@JPB,
Thanks for the references, JPB. I haven't read them yet, but I will.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 10:16 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
You cannot be arrested for being stupid.

Grow a brain, then try again.

You are way out of your league here.

I suppose being unpleasant as possible is one way to end a debate, but it certainly does not win a debate.

TTFN.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 08:06 am
@Thomas,
Again, I am not personally religious. (I know you know this, but it seems to keep getting lost here.) The fact that I just don't believe this stuff -- that I don't find it rational -- is part of why I'm not religious.

However, I think that's kind of beside the point for people who are in fact religious. And I don't think THAT's inherently bad. I think you do.

Mostly, I think it's obnoxious to tell people what they should or shouldn't do in the privacy of their own brains.

That leaves, what is so bad about churches that we should care that people attend them? There are some obvious things, like the sexual abuse tragedy -- I definitely am all for such problems being addressed and eradicated. But are all churches so bad?

The "some churches have done some bad things so nobody should attend church" argument is profoundly unconvincing (and sophomoric). Some schools have done bad things -- should we tell all people who want to educate their children that they are deluded? Should we establish an algorithm that determines what percentage of churches (or schools) have done bad things + degree of badness + good things + degree of goodness + time (1000 years ago has a lower value than now)?

I, personally, am comfortable saying that what I have seen of churches -- to bring it back somewhat more on topic, most of these churches were liberal, activist churches, which accomplished a lot of good both in the larger community (food pantries, clothing for homeless, aid for refugees, etc.) and within the church community (providing concrete help and moral support during bad times, child care, etc.) -- has convinced me that whatever algorithm is applied, there is too much good about churches for me to wish them out of existence.

And I don't think faith is in and of itself a bad thing. Which leaves me unconcerned about whether other people want to believe in their own god or not.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 08:16 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
I suppose being unpleasant as possible is one way to end a debate, but it certainly does not win a debate.


You started the bullshit, DrewDad, live with it!

If you ever want to get back to the topic...that wouldn't be a bad idea either.



Quote:
TTFN.


If you want to run away...run away. You really don't have to pretend it has something to do with my return fire.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 08:30 am
@sozobe,
Quote:
Again, I am not personally religious. (I know you know this, but it seems to keep getting lost here.)The fact that I just don't believe this stuff -- that I don't find it rational -- is part of why I'm not religious.


Never has been lost on me! But...so what?

Quote:

Mostly, I think it's obnoxious to tell people what they should or shouldn't do in the privacy of their own brains.


Who is doing that??? We share opinions here. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Quote:

That leaves, what is so bad about churches that we should care that people attend them? There are some obvious things, like the sexual abuse tragedy -- I definitely am all for such problems being addressed and eradicated. But are all churches so bad?

The "some churches have done some bad things so nobody should attend church" argument is profoundly unconvincing (and sophomoric).


I think so, too. So why are you doing it??? I would certainly never suggest that.


Quote:
Some schools have done bad things -- should we tell all people who want to educate their children that they are deluded?


Terrible example. But a better question would be...should we simply ignore the “bad things”--or pretend that the “bad things” are really good things? If one of the bad things were “asbestos in deteriorating condition all over the place”...and the schools suggest that “it depends on your interpretation of the EPA protocols as to whether there should be remediation or not”...should we all silently go along with it...simply because WE are not in that school?


Quote:
I, personally, am comfortable saying that what I have seen of churches -- to bring it back somewhat more on topic, most of these churches were liberal, activist churches, which accomplished a lot of good both in the larger community (food pantries, clothing for homeless, aid for refugees, etc.) and within the church community (providing concrete help and moral support during bad times, child care, etc.) -- has convinced me that whatever algorithm is applied, there is too much good about churches for me to wish them out of existence. And I don't think faith is in and of itself a bad thing. Which leaves me unconcerned about whether other people want to believe in their own god or not.


That is a very interesting and well-articulated position to take, Sozobe.

Are you suggesting that anyone taking a different position should be silenced?



sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 08:41 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:

That leaves, what is so bad about churches that we should care that people attend them? There are some obvious things, like the sexual abuse tragedy -- I definitely am all for such problems being addressed and eradicated. But are all churches so bad?

The "some churches have done some bad things so nobody should attend church" argument is profoundly unconvincing (and sophomoric).


I think so, too. So why are you doing it??? I would certainly never suggest that.


That's... nice.


Frank Apisa wrote:
Quote:
Some schools have done bad things -- should we tell all people who want to educate their children that they are deluded?


Terrible example. But a better question would be...should we simply ignore the “bad things”--or pretend that the “bad things” are really good things?


Who's ignoring bad things? Who's pretending bad things are really good things?

Frank Apisa wrote:
Quote:
I, personally, am comfortable saying that what I have seen of churches -- to bring it back somewhat more on topic, most of these churches were liberal, activist churches, which accomplished a lot of good both in the larger community (food pantries, clothing for homeless, aid for refugees, etc.) and within the church community (providing concrete help and moral support during bad times, child care, etc.) -- has convinced me that whatever algorithm is applied, there is too much good about churches for me to wish them out of existence. And I don't think faith is in and of itself a bad thing. Which leaves me unconcerned about whether other people want to believe in their own god or not.


That is a very interesting and well-articulated position to take, Sozobe.

Are you suggesting that anyone taking a different position should be silenced?


No more than you are suggesting that religious people be silenced.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 08:44 am
@sozobe,
Well you seem to be crabbing about something, Sozobe...so what is it???
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 08:45 am
@Frank Apisa,
I've already said it -- you'd have seen if your eyes were open. Wink
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 09:07 am
@sozobe,
That one I liked! Wink

We've gotten along golden in the past, Sozobe...I hope this thread doesn't pose a strain!

DrewDad invited me to do the drunken sailor bit...and I am just obliging. I'm that kinda guy. Drunk
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 09:21 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

That one I liked! Wink

We've gotten along golden in the past, Sozobe...I hope this thread doesn't pose a strain!


Nah...

Quote:
DrewDad invited me to do the drunken sailor bit...and I am just obliging. I'm that kinda guy. Drunk


What will we do with you?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 09:27 am
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:
However, I think that's kind of beside the point for people who are in fact religious. And I don't think THAT's inherently bad. I think you do.

I think religion is inherently on the same level as homeopathic medicine, astrology, and UFO abduction phantasies.

sozobe wrote:
Mostly, I think it's obnoxious to tell people what they should or shouldn't do in the privacy of their own brains.

Then maybe the difference between us that I don't think religion, or its absence, ever stays in the privacy of ones own brain. Or do you find it obnoxious when I tell people that homeopathy and astrology don't work?
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 10:47 am
@Thomas,
But does religion not work?

For most of the people I know, it does.
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 11:08 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Or do you find it obnoxious when I tell people that homeopathy and astrology don't work?

Depends on the context, doesn't it? If I meet someone at a party and she goes on about astrology and it's obviously important to her, I dont tell her, "well I think thats all crap". I nod and smile.

If I'm her doctor and she's not taking her meds because she says it's all astrology anyway, I'd try to have a stern talk with her.

Where in between talking on a web forum falls is one of those things where your mileage may vary, I suppose.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 11:18 am
@nimh,
Nimh...I agree with everything you said there...up until that last sentence. Not really sure what you were trying to say there...but...

...here in this setting--something like this is fair game!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 11:19 am
@sozobe,
Quote:
But does religion not work?

For most of the people I know, it does.

 
Yes, it satisfies the needs of some people.
 
I think what Thomas is trying to say, though, is that satisfying a need is not a reasonable argument not to oppose an activity or institution.

Pedophelia works to calm the devils in some people…but the impact of pedophelia on civilization is too much for humanity to pay for the satisfaction pedophiles get from thier pedophelia. Arson works! Serial killing works! The KKK works! The Republican party works!

But folks oppose all those things...and rightly so.

Religion has, in my opinion, a net negative impact on humanity. Apparently, Thomas sees things that way, too.

I understand that decent, intelligent, well-intentioned people can disagree with that to the nth degree.

But those of us who are on this side of that particular line have a right (some of us feel it is an obligation) to oppose religion no matter that it “works” for some people.

blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 11:38 am
Religious belief/expression is almost always a social phenomenon, like language. As Thomas says, it doesn't reside inside an individual noggin in the manner of a personal memory or a fondness for shellfish. Many of the positive aspects of religion fall out from this fact as do most of the negatives which is why it bares watching where a person's personal food preferences do not.

As regards what we ought to voice to another who holds a certain belief set and what we ought to choke before expressing some honest but derogatory opinion, I'm not big on using "manners" as the criterion. If someone at a cocktail party suggests Muslims are Satan's minions here on earth, I'll certainly tell him he's an insane bigot unless he might beat me up.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 11:39 am
@Frank Apisa,
Getting circular. Have already addressed those points.


The context thing is important, nimh, I agree. I think someone alluded to that earlier in the thread, too -- that how religious people bring up their religion has a lot to do with the reaction they'll get here.

Pretty much my single longest and loudest argument on A2K was with Mama Angel/ Arella Mae when she was in her "homosexuality is bad, the bible says so" phase. I am not in any way saying that a) all religion is perfect or that b) I would never argue with a religious person.

But the people here -- JPB, ehBeth, DrewDad, Obama for that matter -- from what I know of them and their religion, they don't deserve the scorn that was heaped on them for being religious. So I said something.

Religion is way too big and way too varied for generalizations of the kind that were going on here.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 11:47 am
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:
But does religion not work?

It depends on how broadly you use the word "religion" in this sentence. In my case (liberal Lutheranism), it turns out that what actually worked were the cultural things: the church architecture, the liturgy, the Bach chorals, Luther's mastery of the German language, the community, the meditation aka prayer. It wasn't the theological content of the literature that "worked" back then. And I don't think I was alone in this. More community members than not had a slightly embarrassed look in their faces when they recited the Apostolic Creed.

So, if by "religion" you mean the theological content, my guess is that it makes no difference to most people. But if you mean the culture and community experience religion brings, then I agree it works people.

Hell, I'm even pretty sure it would work for me. Show me a Unitarian congregation in a nice, neo-Gothic building, with an arch-conservative Lutheran liturgy -- no music composed after the death of Johannes Brahms! -- and I'll probably attend.

But whether it works or not has nothing to do of whether or not the theological content is true.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 11:49 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
But if you mean the culture and community experience religion brings, then I agree it works people.


That's what I've been saying throughout.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 05:02:45