The day you are saved - from religion

[quadraginta]

I'd rather say that by promoting atheism people is failing to see what the problem is. A Protestant forcing a Catholic to eat fish on Friday is a good example of violation of basic human rights and lack of the most basic morality; not an example of why religion is "bad" and should be replaced by fake skepticism (I use k instead of c when I talk of this specific scepticism).
<snip>

Did you get that part switched around? I assumed you did, but it occurred to me that it might be best to make sure.

 

[tsig]

Did you get that part switched around? I assumed you did, but it occurred to me that it might be best to make sure.

Interesting how many are interested in converting others to the doctrine of not converting others.

 

[truethat]

Is this related to your anecdote? Because you didn't mention that they were held down and had fish stuffed down their throat, or that there were guards confiscating sandwiches when people came to work and barricading the doors so they couldn't go out and eat somewhere else.

Or is this a new and different usage of the word "forced".





In defense of the state of Kentucky (something I wouldn't do lightly) Kim Davis has been compelled by law to issue valid marriage licenses in spite of her alleged religious beliefs.

In fact, across all the states such intransigence has been a rare enough exception as to provide news value mostly as an oddity, generally portrayed without a great deal of sympathy for the intransigent. The matter is, for all practical intents and purposes, settled. And relatively quickly at that.

So this diatribe of yours seems to not be particularly germane.

And the last sentence verges on incoherent.

You not understanding something doesn't make it "incoherent."

I would post that Princess Bride "you keep using that word......" meme but it's not worth the effort. LOL

 

[tsig]

You not understanding something doesn't make it "incoherent."

I would post that Princess Bride "you keep using that word......" meme but it's not worth the effort. LOL

OK you explain what he meant:

In the States there's such a confusion with that "by the power invested in my by the State of Californication" and the jury system where any mangia cirio (literally "candle eater", that is, religious freak) can overturn a guilty verdict, that they think it's a good idea to attack the rats in their burrows and try to brainwash them into "atheism" instead of having the law abode and public morals observed. In the States religion seems to be above the law and morality and non-theist freaks tend to confirm it with their actions.

 

[Prometheus]

<snip>

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 10. Do not disguise swearing in your posts; type the word in full and allow the autocensor to take care of it.

I always have trouble with this part. I guess I just don't have faith in The Autocensor. Does this mean I am going to Deep Storage when I die?

 

[truethat]

OK you explain what he meant:

He meant that although there are protections in place to circumvent people like Kim Davis when it's a law, jury systems (as an example, or voting) etc) are little different because they are subject to the opinion of individual jurors. In jury systems, religious beliefs can influence outcome. But so too can anti theists.

So for example, what got put on a national stage because of chest thumping and crazy overreaction, was actually already settled by the court system. Davis had no grounds not to issue marriage licenses. Everyone with half a brain knows that. The law is the law. Her stunt was just media humping. And the anti theists basically "fed the beast" Had it just been "What an idiot, she's going to have consequences for that" she would've faded into oblivion. Instead because people went after her with such ferocity she practically became a martyr.

That's what I understand. (seems a little colorful, but i think he was just being cheeky)


It's like someone who feels abortion is murder on religious grounds being asked to give out abortion pills. Well yeah, deluded though the person might be, it's pretty logical to understand why they don't want to do it. What precisely do you think cornering him and trying to show him that the Bible is flawed and there ain't no god, is going to accomplish.


I had a former teacher of mine post about Kim Davis every day on Facebook flipping out. (He's gay so of course I can't blame him) But all I could see was "why are you giving this woman mileage?"

Kinda reminds me of the story about the wind and the sun having a debate.

ETA I'm not getting into a huge brawl with the usual suspects. But I thought I'd post below for sylvana.

I've spoken about this issue of "anti theism" basically just keeping the religiosity of this country going and going and going for years on here. That's why I generally stay out of religion and philosophy. Anti theists want to "debate" religion all the time. So they keep the conversation alive and VALIDATE the religious believers convictions.

I've used two examples in the past.

A. When YEC says they "don't believe" in evolution. Then the angry atheist gets into a full on debate with them about which "theory" is better Well good going knucklehead, you just presented "evolution" as a belief system. It's not. It's a fact.


B. When someone cites the Bible as their reason for disagreeing with gay marriage and the Angry Atheist starts flailing about screaming about how Leviticus in OT and how the modern translations are wrong because it was referring to a particular kind of "bath house boy" in Greece (I can't be assed bothered to look it up)

Well HELLO Mr. SUPPOSED Atheist, why are you having a RELIGIOUS discussion about a legal concept? That conversation would take about two seconds with me. "You don't believe in gay marriage, well I know for a fact you are misinterpreting the Bible, and second it's the law." Man if I would tell them to look up ANYTHING in the Bible it would be Romans 13.

But beyond that, there is no conversation to be had, because your religious convictions have diddly squat to do with the law. By HAVING the religious conversation with the person, the atheist is keeping it alive.

They are making "religious beliefs" a valid point of "debate" in gay marriage laws.

Stop doing that.


I've compared it before to the difference in how an Astronomer would react with an Astrologist. I do not think the Astronomer is going to waste decades of their life arguing with Ms. Cleo over the validity of Astrology. He'd just think she was a nut and leave her to it.

Our energy needs to be on legal issues not emotional melt downs and attempts to "HELP THEM" and or ATTACK them because they believe WOO.

When someone asks you your sign do you go all crazy on them trying to disprove Astrology? Or do you just think "Oh they are one THOSE types" and scootch away.

Consider your feeling that you need to sort of come out to your family. What drives that feeling? If it's "Hey look I just want to let you know where I stand so you understand. That's one thing. But if it's a defensive position designed to get a rise out of them and throw down about how *********** stupid they are for believing it, then there's something wrong with it. After all, you were one of 'them" a while ago right? So why do you need to get on a high horse now? Does the Astronomer feel the need to"put the Astrologist" in her place and prove her wrong and tell her what an idiot she is?

Sorry so long.

 

[Desert Fox]

I always have trouble with this part. I guess I just don't have faith in The Autocensor. Does this mean I am going to Deep Storage when I die?

I was on another forum and I was discussing civil war generals and the censor software on the forum struck out the name "Hooker." (As in the General)

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I was on another forum and I was discussing civil war generals and the censor software on the forum struck out the name "Hooker." (As in the General)

Some forums have a real problem with Scunthorpe.

 

[quadraginta]

Interesting how many are interested in converting others to the doctrine of not converting others.

Huh??

What on earth are you talking about?

I don't think I understand your point.

 

[quadraginta]

You not understanding something doesn't make it "incoherent."

Nor does it mean it isn't.

I would post that Princess Bride "you keep using that word......" meme but it's not worth the effort. LOL

Gotta slip those gratuitous ad homs in, don't you. Can't help yourself, I guess.

I hope you realize it adds nothing to the weight or substance of your comments, but definitely reflects on their source.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Sorry, video is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

You made me laugh. What's the next step to that video? Sesame Street?

Wow, so there's some "proper" protocol for quoting people? If it's nto obvious what my response is to, maybe you should ask for clarification instead of attributing it to CLOSED MINDEDNESS. No, it's much more simply explained by laziness.

Right, because asking what someone means when THEY use a word is closed minded... how? If anything, I'd say those adhering to strict dictionary definitions are the closed minded individuals. All I did was ask for clarifications.

Sorry but I have no understanding by what you mean re divergent/convergent here. Feel free to quote me the proper way in order to explain yourself. Or not. You can explain yourself by any means if you'd like, I'm pretty open about that sort of thing.

Are you calling me a high schooler? I'm not sure what you mean here. What the hell is a "narrow palette of approaches with closed mindedness?"

With the rest I can't match which part are you replying to. That is the consequence of you not knowing -and apparently not willing to learn- how to quote others. I'll try to guess some points:

I'm saying you look like a person to whom high-school was the last step in her education, and I'm saying that departing from the epistemological abilities you show here, vocabulary, etc.

I was saying that maybe I am mixing up that narrow, stereotyped, limited purview of people who wouldn't go beyond high school with a greater degree of closemindedness than the real one.

Part of that lack of epistemological basis is not knowing how to tackle a problem. A convergent problem is one which solution improves as much as you continue to study it, for instance, what is the fastest way to go from Trafalgar Square to the stadium in Cardiff in order to watch Argentina win if one departs next Sunday morning? The more you put on it, the more unique the answer is. A divergent problem is one which the more you study it the more options you have, for instance, what is the best way to raise your children? These are "political" problems, you depend on guiding principles and values to narrow the scope.

That said, what I commented is that people with little education -which includes not to know how to tackle problems- tend to see unique solutions or best solutions in divergent problems by imposing their personal values and choices without even realizing that. They think it is common sense when in fact sometimes it might be sense but surely it's never "common" in the sense of prevailing or widespread (the case of this thread and subforum). In the case of convergent problems it's even more pathetic as they think that their opinion and choices count: the fastest way from London to Cardiff is by train just because they are afraid of flights. You'll see in the science subforum such disease-ridden transients perorating through their stolen cellphones from their shanties located close to a free wi-fi connection and telling you that you have to convince them that there's a global warming.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Is this related to your anecdote? Because you didn't mention that they were held down and had fish stuffed down their throat, or that there were guards confiscating sandwiches when people came to work and barricading the doors so they couldn't go out and eat somewhere else.

Or is this a new and different usage of the word "forced".

It's an hyperbole though they wouldn't give a plate of other than fish if she didn't make a scandal.

Anyway, it looks you are mostly trying to "encontrarle un pelo al huevo" (find a piece of hear in you boiled egg)

In defense of the state of Kentucky (something I wouldn't do lightly) Kim Davis has been compelled by law to issue valid marriage licenses in spite of her alleged religious beliefs.

In fact, across all the states such intransigence has been a rare enough exception as to provide news value mostly as an oddity, generally portrayed without a great deal of sympathy for the intransigent. The matter is, for all practical intents and purposes, settled. And relatively quickly at that.

So this diatribe of yours seems to not be particularly germane.

And the last sentence verges on incoherent.

"Has been compelled by law", what a funny man you are. Has been she indicted? That is the key. If not, nothing is settled. It's not a matter of "a religious freak had her fifteen minutes of fame but everything is back to business right now" but the conviction of the law and morality being above religion what many hurting "new-born" "atheists" seem not to catch.

What is your problem with the linguistic or logical soundness of "In the States religion seems to be above the law and morality and non-theist freaks tend to confirm it with their actions."?

 

[truethat]

You are explaining divergent in a way that's not going to make sense to them without a comparison. But that's a good point.

If I may .....it seems you are saying something interesting that I notice as well. It may seem snooty to try to come across showing education matters, but as you get older you start to recognize (easily) who has an education and who does not. So you're giving me something to think about here. Maybe it isn't the "raised in a home with a fanatical Christian background" but more different "thinking" abilities. This is something we study as well in psychometrics.

So for example many students struggle in learning and testing because they only are looking for the correct answer. They don't know how to think in different ways.

Case in point to pharphis

Convergent thinking comes from the premise that there is only ONE right answer.

What year was Abraham Lincoln Shot?

What is the capital of New York?

There is only ONE right answer.

Divergent thinking is thinking that requires more creativity and intelligence.

As alecCowaN has pointed out, "How many different ways can you think of to get to the soccerfootball match in Cardiff"


This is quite interesting to me to consider because it is precisely the problem. The former believer who is now newly Atheist, who can only think in a convergent way will think "Oh no! That old is answer is wrong! I have to tell everyone they have the wrong answer. This is the right answer."

A divergent thinker will realize there are many different possibilities to what is "right" and "wrong."

Fantastic! AlecCowaN! Bloody brilliant!

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/converge.htm

 

[aleCcowaN]

Did you get that part switched around? I assumed you did, but it occurred to me that it might be best to make sure.

Protestant cafeteria personnel wouldn't handle other dish than fish to my mother on Friday until she made a scandal about it. The public would take disapproving looks at my mother and some comment to her she should have taken the fish as if it is normal. During the next 45 weeks or so, my mother ate fish every Friday. We wouldn't eat much fish at home in the following decade though fish was available, good priced and my mother liked it.

The problem is not religion but the whole society not getting that religion can't bulldoze human rights at will.

 

[quadraginta]

It's an hyperbole though they wouldn't give a plate of other than fish if she didn't make a scandal.

Anyway, it looks you are mostly trying to "encontrarle un pelo al huevo" (find a piece of hear in you boiled egg)

In other words, you didn't really mean what you said, so now you're trying to weasel out of it and using pithy aphorisms to hide behind.

"Has been compelled by law", what a funny man you are. Has been she indicted? That is the key. If not, nothing is settled.

Why did she have to be indicted. It is settled because she has agreed to submit to the law.

It's not a matter of "a religious freak had her fifteen minutes of fame but everything is back to business right now" but the conviction of the law and morality being above religion what many hurting "new-born" "atheists" seem not to catch.

You aren't being clear here.

Are you saying law is above religion and these "new born atheists" you are so obsessed with do not understand this?

Or are you saying law is not above religion, and that's what they don't understand?

What is your problem with the linguistic or logical soundness of "In the States religion seems to be above the law and morality and non-theist freaks tend to confirm it with their actions."?

My problem is you seem to be making a rather nebulous claim.

It isn't very clear exactly what you mean.

Should non-theists ( the "freaks" embellishment isn't really necessary and reveals more than a little bit about the motives behind your diatribes) not resist the efforts of religious interests to have their beliefs take precedence over secular law?

Are you trying to say that by commenting against such efforts by the religious that non-believers are somehow abetting them?


Are you saying that because non-believers recognize the fact that religious interests actually do make overt efforts do have their beliefs take precedence over secular authority that they are somehow legitimatizing those efforts?

All of those things can, in one way or another, be inferred from that statement.

See if you can do better.

 

[pharphis]

You are explaining divergent in a way that's not going to make sense to them without a comparison. But that's a good point.

If I may .....it seems you are saying something interesting that I notice as well. It may seem snooty to try to come across showing education matters, but as you get older you start to recognize (easily) who has an education and who does not. So you're giving me something to think about here. Maybe it isn't the "raised in a home with a fanatical Christian background" but more different "thinking" abilities. This is something we study as well in psychometrics.

So for example many students struggle in learning and testing because they only are looking for the correct answer. They don't know how to think in different ways.

Case in point to pharphis

Convergent thinking comes from the premise that there is only ONE right answer.

What year was Abraham Lincoln Shot?

What is the capital of New York?

There is only ONE right answer.

Divergent thinking is thinking that requires more creativity and intelligence.

As alecCowaN has pointed out, "How many different ways can you think of to get to the soccerfootball match in Cardiff"


This is quite interesting to me to consider because it is precisely the problem. The former believer who is now newly Atheist, who can only think in a convergent way will think "Oh no! That old is answer is wrong! I have to tell everyone they have the wrong answer. This is the right answer."

A divergent thinker will realize there are many different possibilities to what is "right" and "wrong."
Fantastic! AlecCowaN! Bloody brilliant!

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/converge.htm

I understand the distinction, now, and I think that I am in fact treating the problem as a divergent one: I am advocating for a method that brings us closest to the truth. I am not claiming to have the right answer, only the right methodology. I've already made this quite clear.

FWIW I'm a chemistry MSc student and can acknowledge comfortably that my vocabulary and writing skills are mediocre. It probably won't help that I'm dropping out due to boredom next semester, either.

BTW I did understand his explanation but your comment was easier to respond to directly.

 

[aleCcowaN]

As alecCowaN has pointed out, "How many different ways can you think of to get to the soccerfootball match in Argentina"

In this case, rugby No problem, I'm not a fan either.

This is quite interesting to me to consider because it is precisely the problem. The former believer who is now newly Atheist, who can only think in a convergent way will think "Oh no! That old is answer is wrong! I have to tell everyone they have the wrong answer. This is the right answer."

A divergent thinker will realize there are many different possibilities to what is "right" and "wrong."

Fantastic! AlecCowaN! Bloody brilliant!

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/converge.htm

To outline more the sociological notion, the problem I see is that religious people, either theists and anti-theist (remember it's not what they believe but where do they get the psychological pulsion) believe societies to be open and this problem to be closed.

Seeing the society as open promotes ways of thinking like "all Muslims should go back to Arabia" or "the police should shoot dead all criminals the moment they found them". But societies are not open. You can't expel your own nationals just because they are criminals or they don't do, think, or believe what you want them to do, think or believe. O because they don't look the way you like.

About the problem being closed, here comes the bit about the convergent and divergent approaches to reality.

In fact the situation is the opposite: societies are closed (you can't throw out those who you don't like the same way the can't throw you out either) and these problems are open. That doesn't mean that any bus line take us to home. Divergent problems require principles and ideology, and there are many options for that and a lot to discuss. There's not a unique solution, but you won't get to anything good unless you understand first the nature of what you are calling a problem. And here comes the meme of "being part of the solution and not part of the problem". Any sound person with a minimal appetite for ethics will scrutinize first their own motivations before starting to pontificate.

That I did exactly that? No wonder. In an apparently pointless forum I take pleasure from patronizing those who patronize others and reject any effort made to get them aware of it. For instance, that fantasy of illustrating the religious folk about their bad ways and making them grow as people, something that was implied early in this thread.

The fact is that there's no special prize for hearing the bells tolling in the distance and not finding offence in it. You have to tolerate religious folks near you and make them aware of the law and public morals, which in turn must evolve in a certain direction (a convergent problem).

 

[pharphis]

You made me laugh. What's the next step to that video? Sesame Street?


With the rest I can't match which part are you replying to. That is the consequence of you not knowing -and apparently not willing to learn- how to quote others. I'll try to guess some points:

I'm saying you look like a person to whom high-school was the last step in her education, and I'm saying that departing from the epistemological abilities you show here, vocabulary, etc.

I was saying that maybe I am mixing up that narrow, stereotyped, limited purview of people who wouldn't go beyond high school with a greater degree of closemindedness than the real one.

Part of that lack of epistemological basis is not knowing how to tackle a problem. A convergent problem is one which solution improves as much as you continue to study it, for instance, what is the fastest way to go from Trafalgar Square to the stadium in Cardiff in order to watch Argentina win if one departs next Sunday morning? The more you put on it, the more unique the answer is. A divergent problem is one which the more you study it the more options you have, for instance, what is the best way to raise your children? These are "political" problems, you depend on guiding principles and values to narrow the scope.

That said, what I commented is that people with little education -which includes not to know how to tackle problems- tend to see unique solutions or best solutions in divergent problems by imposing their personal values and choices without even realizing that. They think it is common sense when in fact sometimes it might be sense but surely it's never "common" in the sense of prevailing or widespread (the case of this thread and subforum). In the case of convergent problems it's even more pathetic as they think that their opinion and choices count: the fastest way from London to Cardiff is by train just because they are afraid of flights. You'll see in the science subforum such disease-ridden transients perorating through their stolen cellphones from their shanties located close to a free wi-fi connection and telling you that you have to convince them that there's a global warming.

What problem do you have with the video? It's great for explaining to people what closed mindedness is because as it explains it is misused ALL the time to mean "not believing a claim" (whether there is strong evidence or not)
Do we agree on what closed mindedness is and only disagree that I am closed minded?

Also when have I ever said that there is only ONE method of solving a problem? I advocate for using all kinds of methods when it comes to speaking to and convincing the religious that they should re-evaluate their beliefs. I'm not like those people who think you need to always be kind or always be aggressive for a specific topic. I recognize that minds are complicated and multiple approaches should and probably need to be used.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Why did she have to be indicted. It is settled because she has agreed to submit to the law.

What a brazen one you are. In practical terms you are saying that a robbery didn't occurred because the thief returned -or was made to- the stolen item.


About the rest, you're just taking parts of my posts, pealing them like an orange, weaving the peals into a fabric and using that in quilting. Better wait sitting for my replies. One of those sayings you like says "a buen entendedor pocas palabras bastan" (those who want to/are able to understand don't need many words).

You know that I just post in this subforum when I'm bored, I have time to spare, nothing is going on elsewhere or I need to cross swords with irritating dudes because irritation makes me think in English when I forgot how to do it. The lower level in my English means the little attention I am giving to it while I write, because I already got what I come to get -thanks, Leumas- (no surprises as I told it before in this thread).

 

[quadraginta]

Protestant cafeteria personnel wouldn't handle other dish than fish to my mother on Friday until she made a scandal about it.

And therein lies the confusion.

Fish on Friday is not a particularly or even commonly followed practice among most Protestant sects. It is, to quote wikipedia;

" ... an Eastern Orthodox,[1] Roman Catholic, and Anglican practice."

Even though the Anglican church is by some considered to perhaps be Protestant its U.S. incarnation, the Episcopal Church, does not have any particular prohibitions against meat on Friday.

(Coming from a family whose affiliation with the Episcopal Church in the U.S. goes back nearly to its inception I can attest to this with a fair degree of confidence.)

The public would take disapproving looks at my mother and some comment to her she should have taken the fish as if it is normal.

Just so you'll know, "the public" in Boston is about 29% Catholic. Those would be the ones with a prohibition against meat on Friday.

A third of "the public" profess no religious affiliation at all, and therefore couldn't care less what your mother ate on Fridays (as long as they weren't on the menu, probably).

The remainder is mostly of various Protestant denominations (including Episcopalian) and generally have no particular prohibition against meat on Fridays.

As you can see, the idea that it would have been "Protestant cafeteria personnel" or "the public" in general who found fault with your mother eating meat on Fridays makes little or no sense. (Mostly the latter.)

During the next 45 weeks or so, my mother ate fish every Friday. We wouldn't eat much fish at home in the following decade though fish was available, good priced and my mother liked it.

That may well be, but your displeasure would appear to have been directed at the wrong religions, it would seem.

I have to admit that I find it curious that the cafeteria of a large insurance company would even bother with such a prohibition under any circumstances. The usual approach is to offer fish as an alternative, if any accommodation is made at all.

Boston does have a somewhat larger than usual percentage of Catholics in their demographics, but not enough to explain what you are asserting.

Were the company owners Catholics?

The problem is not religion but the whole society not getting that religion can't bulldoze human rights at will.

This I agree with 100%, which is why it is puzzling that you find it so offensive for non-theists to point that out when religious interests make attempts to do so.