To the Christians here...

rocketdodger said:
No, we are not, because none of us know what "human nature" is.
Click to expand...

If you think so, what did you mean to say by referring to "people trying to reconcile human nature with religious doctrine"?


rocketdodger said:
The vast majority of suffering has been caused by the dominance hierarchies of society.
Click to expand...

So much for disaster, disease, and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to.

Don't the vast majority of effective efforts to alleviate suffering of all sorts also depend to a significant extent on the "dominance hierarchies of society"?


rocketdodger said:
As the most prevalent one in human history, organized religion must bear the brunt of criticism directed at such entities.
Click to expand...

First, what do you mean by most prevalent (for it has rarely been the most dominant)? Second, why can't we critique such entities on their own merits? Why why would we attribute to some "dominance hierarchies" vicarious liability for the acts of other ones?


rocketdodger said:
You might be able to argue that religion is the least damaging of the dominance hierarchies, but you cannot offer any evidence that religion abates or mitigates the consequences of "human nature," because "human nature" has for thousands of years been the learned behavior of setting up and operating within dominance hierarchies like organized religion.
Click to expand...

It makes no more sense to me to lump all religions together than it does to lump all "dominance hierarchies" together. But my point was that certain religious doctrines are directly or indirectly concerned with mitigating suffering, and I think it is clear that that the existence, promulgation and pursuit of such doctrines actually has achieved that result in many instances.

Still waiting to hear your view of which major advancements in human didn't contribute ad majorem dei gloriam, and how they were all opposed by the Church.
 
Huntster said:
If I burned wooden cresents, would I be considered Islamic?

If I burned wooden Star of Davids, would I be considered Jewish?
Click to expand...

That depends on the reason for the burning. The KKK's right to burn crosses has been protected by the Supreme Court because it's a religious expression.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Originally Posted by Huntster :
If I burned wooden cresents, would I be considered Islamic?

If I burned wooden Star of Davids, would I be considered Jewish?
Click to expand...
That depends on the reason for the burning. The KKK's right to burn crosses has been protected by the Supreme Court because it's a religious expression.
Click to expand...

And what is the "expression" that is being conveyed?
 
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken :
Originally Posted by Huntster :
If I burned wooden cresents, would I be considered Islamic?

If I burned wooden Star of Davids, would I be considered Jewish?

That depends on the reason for the burning. The KKK's right to burn crosses has been protected by the Supreme Court because it's a religious expression.
Click to expand...
thaiboxerken said:
Originally Posted by Huntster :
And what is the "expression" that is being conveyed?
Click to expand...
Religious expression.
Click to expand...

"We like religion"?

"We don't like religion"?

"We like our religion, but hate yours"?

What?

If, as you claim, "the KKK's right to burn crosses has been protected by the Supreme Court because it's a religious expression," then the actual "expression" was defined in the case summary.
 
Huntster said:
If, as you claim, "the KKK's right to burn crosses has been protected by the Supreme Court because it's a religious expression," then the actual "expression" was defined in the case summary.
Click to expand...

Yet as Justice Thomas noted in his oft-cited concurrence in Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995):

[T]he fact that the legal issue before us involves the Establishment Clause should not lead anyone to think that a cross erected by the Ku Klux Klan is a purely religious symbol. The erection of such a cross is a political act, not a Christian one. ... In Klan ceremony, the cross is a symbol of white supremacy and a tool for the intimidation and harassment of racial minorities, Catholics, Jews, Communists, and any other groups hated by the Klan. The cross is associated with the Klan not because of religious worship, but because of the Klan's practice of cross burning[.]
Click to expand...
 
elliotfc said:
Horrible is pushing it, innit? Lemme put it this way...anestehsia...now there's a corker of an analogy...come up with ten analogies that are better than darkness.

Here's a horrible analogy. Death/oblivion is like eating a muffin.

-Elliot
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think horrible is pushing it at all. It is an analogy that deliberately plays on people’s fears. The idea of existing within darkness for eternity seem rather unpleasant don’t you think? However, if you were incapable of experience, of any kind, how could it be like darkness? Anesthesia may not be the best analogy either, but it is a lot closer to no experience at all than your analogy of darkness describes. So far, I prefer the muffin analogy, goes great with D. Adam’s analogy of life. “Life, is like a grapefruit. [...]it's orangey-yellow and dimpled on the outside, wet and squidgy in the middle. It's got pips inside, too. Oh, and some people have half a one for breakfast.”

So, life is like a grapefruit, and death is like eating a muffin. Sums everything up rather nicely.
 
ceo_esq said:
Yet as Justice Thomas noted in his oft-cited concurrence in Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995):

.........In Klan ceremony, the cross is a symbol of white supremacy and a tool for the intimidation and harassment of racial minorities, Catholics, Jews, Communists, and any other groups hated by the Klan. The cross is associated with the Klan not because of religious worship, but because of the Klan's practice of cross burning[.]......
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thus, the "expression" wasn't "religious", but "white".

Kenny?....................
 
thaiboxerken said:
I think the "extremist" groups are the perfect sample for my conclusion, the extremists are the "extremely religious" after all.
Click to expand...
Here is your problem. Samples are, ideally, representative of the population. Extremists make a terrible sample, by definition.
Wikipedia
In normal scientific practice, we demand that it is selected in such a way as to avoid presenting a biased view of the population.
Click to expand...
If you point out extremists as examples, you are intentionally biasing your sample.
 
Extremists are not representative of the general population, I agree. Neither is the general population extremely religious.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Extremists are not representative of the general population, I agree. Neither is the general population extremely religious.
Click to expand...
Yes! Therefore you would have to show increases in bigotry from the non-religious, to the religious, THEN to the KKK for this correlation to even be positive. Like I say, more precisely measured concepts such as right-wing authoritarianism and empathy show much stronger, known correlations with bigotry. Extreme scores on these measures are also associated with cults and fundamentalists, which is what I believe is misleading you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom