Hitler on the Origins of Religion:

[wynn]

Have I? JDawg would argue that I defend religion, You say that I criticize it. How is it that you both reached completely different conclusions?

Because I am I, and JDawg is JDawg.

Maybe you aren't actually reading my posts and instead are looking for key phrases that trigger kneejerk assumptions about one's position. Go back and read with the intention to understand and you will likely fair better on your next try.

Oh. I see. Your knee-jerk reaction to the word "criticism" is that you resort to PC.

I have merely said, REPEATEDLY, that I see Religion as neither good nor bad. I see it as a tool that can be used for either purpose.

And I think this is a criticism, an unjust one.
I've previously pointed out how incomplete your approach is.

Some people don't like meat loaf. I doubt they think it is evil.

I know that some who don't like meat loaf think it's evil to eat meat loaf.

 

[Neverfly]

And I think this is a criticism, an unjust one.
I've previously pointed out how incomplete your approach is.

Yes, how dare she refer to Religion as neutral!
There's assuredly some very gray overtones, there. That's extremely far to the right as much as it is to the left.
I'm so upset, I have no opinion on that. But given a choice, I'd definitely choose 'maybe.'

 

[seagypsy]

Because I am I, and JDawg is JDawg.




Oh. I see. Your knee-jerk reaction to the word "criticism" is that you resort to PC.

really, wynn? and here I thought we understood each other fairly well, until your previous post anyway.

And I think this is a criticism, an unjust one.
I've previously pointed out how incomplete your approach is.

That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.If you choose to take offense where none is intended that too is your choice.

Explain how and why it is incomplete. Forgive me if I am asking you to repeat yourself. If that is the case just link me back to where you previously clarified that.

I know that some who don't like meat loaf think it's evil to eat meat loaf.

I am sure some people think you are evil, that doesn't make it so does it.

 

[seagypsy]

Off Topic Question:


Did I miss something? Is there a SciForum rule that says no one can disagree with wynn's ever so vague philosophies? If there is how is it that anyone besides wynn is not banned?:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

I do apologize for the extreme length of this post. It has taken me hours to complete this. I personally dislike wordy explanations but I am not the most skilled at explaining myself. I most probably lack vocabulary skills that would help me to express my thoughts in a more concise manner. So if you are sure you really want to read this, i suggest you go get a large fresh cup of coffee and a snack to get you through to the end.

I prefer beer, but give me a second to situate myself.

There, all better.

In their particular case I agree and disagree. Their religion as they interpret it is the same as their political ideology.But if you study Islam at all you will see that their acts violated many virtually unforgivable laws of Islam. They would be the ones referred to as hypocrites which to the best of my understanding, is Allah's least favorite people. He hates them more even than non-believers.

Since all of the monotheistic holy books are collections of texts written by multiple authors (themselves being taken from oral traditions) it isn't surprising that the Koran commands a thing on one hand and condemns it on the other. All of the various texts do this. So yes, in some interpretations the Islamofacists would be seen as hypocrites or worse, but by another they would be seen as heroes. And neither would be wrong, as both sides have textual warrant. Or, if you prefer, both sides would be both right and wrong.

In any case, these contradictions do not mean that the injunctions for violence are not there.

To say they were good representatives of Islam would be like saying Hitler was representative of atheists.

That is incorrect. As I stated above, even though violence is condemned in the Koran, it is also commanded, and so those who choose to be violent fundamentalists are just as representative of the faith as those who choose to be peaceful. Both sides have to ignore aspects of the text.

First of all, atheism and religiosity are not two sides of the same coin. Atheism is simply a lack of faith. It has no doctrine, no binding ethical code, and as such nothing can be "representative" of it. Secondly, what makes you so sure he was one? His distaste for religion does not automatically mean he didn't believe in a god.

Ever hear a bully on the play ground say to another child," You have to do what I say because I am bigger than you and will beat you up!" The bully sees his size as qualifying him as an authority. Some men believe that because they are bigger and stronger than women, they are inherently better than women. Many atheist men, and some women surprisingly, think men are smarter than women. They will even post "studies" to prove it.

You're painting a caricature of a bully. Size has nothing to do with why bullies do what they do. And while I'm sure there are idiot men (and idiot women) who believe that there is a smarter sex, you'll notice that those men do not therefore treat their women as second-class citizens. They do not force their wives to walk five paces behind them, or to dress in cloth sacks while outside, or prevent them from attending school.

It's all well and good to point out how chauvinistic some men can be, what you're missing is the injunction (indeed, the very desire) to make women secondary, to make them chattel. You don't see that outside of religion, so how is it that you can still deny that this is religiously motivated?

Fair enough, but they aren't promised 72 virgins, are they? Honestly, I can't figure out how 72 virgins would be a reward. Seems like a punishment to me, but then I am female. We don't usually like wasting time with someone who has no idea what they are doing. lol.

You're taking me too literally. I mentioned the 72 virgins as an example of an eternal reward offered to Islamic suicide bombers. Certainly other suicide bombers (or warriors going into a fight they knew they couldn't win) are today and have been motivated by other rewards. Kamikaze pilots are an example of one such "other."

But yes, 72 virgins really would be less exciting than it sounds. It's the purity of the virgin that attracts them, and as a man who has spent plenty of time pretending his significant others have never had sex prior to his conquest, I can assure you there's something alluring about being the only guy on the block, if you know what I mean.

This is a matter of perspective. Suicide bomber commits murder and suicide at the same time. So in my opinion, they are the same thing. Simply two ways to achieve the same goal. You may remember Columbine. These two kids were considered mentally ill. They suffered some anxiety and depression due to being bullied.They were motivated by hate for those who had treated them badly. A justifiable reason to severely dislike someone in my opinion. But not justifiable reason to kill. However they did kill, revenge being their motivation and if I remember correctly they were reported to be atheists. I know I went through the same thing they did and even had similar fantasies way back in my teen years. Luckily it was my faith at the time that stopped me from acting on it. Back then my perspective on life was different. I have since matured and now no longer need the fear of hell to keep me from committing atrocities.

Murder-suicides in the sense that you mean are typically crimes of passion, whereas suicide bombings are "missions" that one has to sign up for...or be signed up for, as is the case many times. So no, I don't think any psychologist would classify them as the same phenomenon.

And I do not discount that your faith kept you from doing bad things. I'm sure it does the same for many. But you can't let your personal experience cloud your vision. "Religion kept me in line, so therefore it cannot do anything but keep people in line" is faulty logic.

Have you read the personal stories of any suicide bombers? You don't really know if they were normal or not. For the most part, the media only tells us that they committed the crime. They do not go out of their way to reveal that they were in anyway like the rest of us. It would be considered in bad taste to humanize someone the world wishes to perceive as a monster. That doesn't sell news papers or magazines. And the media is a business and like any business its goal is profit, and to make profit it must be viewed in a favorable like to the consumer. If you read the papers in the middle east, Americans are the monsters and suicide bombers are heroes.

I do not get all of my news from the networks, and I'm not sure what you mean by "read the personal stories" of the bombers. I have done a great deal of reading about the phenomenon, and know that there are simply too many of them for it to be restricted to psychopaths and sociopaths. I won't deny that there are other pressures, not the least of which being the desire to be a hero, to be remembered, but even then, the stuff that straightens their spines is the scripture. Or in the current case, the surah.

Consider the psychological profile of the typical cult follower. They are usually not working on all thrusters when they get lured in. Then they go through intensive brain washing.

If they were not working on all thrusters, then why the brainwashing? Point being, most cult followers are perfectly sane people who are taken advantage of by charismatic personalities who mean to exploit them. It could happen to anyone.

You can't really think a person is sane when they believe God wants them to give their children arsenic laced kool-aid.

Sure you can. If the source of the information has made themselves credible enough, people will believe anything. And let's be honest, that's not too far off from what God wanted Abraham to do, and old Abe was ready and willing to go through with it.

These so called Islamic fundamentalist groups are cults. Just like those started by David Koresh, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite. A typical cult follower would be someone like Tom Cruise or Charlie Sheen.

All religions are cults. The difference between Christianity and Scientology? About two thousand years. All religions begin as unpopular and untrusted off-shoots whose followers get withering glares from scornful outsiders.

All joking aside, people who join cults can then be related to those who join gangs. Humans have an insatiable need to belong to a group. They will adapt their thinking in order to be accepted. When self esteem is low this need becomes more apparent. Cult leaders bent on violence rarely put themselves in harms way. They find willing, weak minded patsies, to brainwash into doing their dirty work. And the strongest tool for brainwashing is Religion. Religion has equal potential to be used for good as it does for being used for evil.

You make a lot of assumptions here, including the mental acuity of cult followers. I can't really get on board with any of it, and certainly don't believe people are religious because they need to be part of a group. Most religious people were born into their faith and never had a choice in the matter, and those that "Find God" do so as a result of a profound personal experience.

I have done a search of the thread for the word "bigot" and the only results turning up are your posts accusing me of calling you one and my response to the accusation. I have never called you or anyone else on this thread a bigot. Nor have I referred to any idea as being bigoted. Please refrain from this dishonest line of debating.

Oh boy, I made the mistake of assuming you were an adult, didn't I?

Here is the post you were looking for, but conveniently couldn't find:

Some people, with and without faith, commit horrible atrocities. Are we to hold their spiritual beliefs or lack thereof to blame for their actions? If that is the case then we have to blame religions for many atrocities throughout history. Or perhaps you can avoid making such bigoted judgements and attribute horrible acts to mental illness and acknowledging that one's spiritual beliefs or lack thereof are merely a tiny piece in a gigantic puzzle of their mind.

Normally I ask for an apology in such cases, but usually the person on the receiving end of this is a troll whose self esteem is so reliant upon their internet forum rightness that apologizing for a mistake would be tantamount to slitting their wrists. Should I assume you're just another in the long line, or might you actually rise above trolldom and make amends for your flub?

You, on the other hand, have accused me of "willful ignorance".

And I stand by it. You have done nothing but prove me right since.

I allowed you to express your opinion of me without returning fire. From this point on I will report you for ad hominem attacks and intellectual dishonesty.

Another rather large "Oops" on your part. I'll simply refer any more in this post up to my original request for an apology.

I have made no charges of bigotry towards any individual, group, or idea. Quote me where I have or stop making the dishonest claim.

Man, you are really digging yourself a hole here! It's alright, maybe you really did forget that you called blaming violence and war on religion "a bigoted opinion." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. Until you prove otherwise, of course.

I am not defending religion, exactly. It would appear so to you only because you do not look at things from the same perspective as I do.

I am atheist and hold a strong code of ethics. Theists will call that code religion. If you loosely define the term religion then I guess it would qualify. But semantics are not that important to me. A rose by any other name.....

Semantics may not be important to you, but during the exchange of ideas, they're very important. Calling yourself essentially a religious atheist does nothing to clarify what exactly you claim to be. To be honest, it isn't important, because you're still defending religion. The perspective here is irrelevant. Me being a Buddhist or a Shintoist or a rapist or Bill Gates wouldn't change the fact that you are defending religion at the cost of your credibility.

I stand up for what I believe is right. And I believe it is important to find the real cause of things so that we can understand how to prevent atrocities. I don't necessarily accept the easy explanations. In terms of physics Occam's Razor may apply quite well but when it comes to understanding psychology its a whole other story. Understanding, or at least attempting to understand, how or why the first humans created religion helped me to realize why religion is flawed and therefore cannot be created by a perfect god. If a god is not perfect then why bother worshiping it. I believe that humanity created gods in their own image. I cannot worship that which I create in my own mind. And if it is merely a figment of my imagination, then I can simply stop imagining it and it will cease to exist. So the sole evidences for God's existence, for me, was invalidated.

I would take no issue with this, except that while you claim to be looking for an underlying cause, you are also disregarding the apparent cause and simply positing a different cause in its stead, and without any sort of rhyme or reason other than, apparently, not wanting to admit that religion is at the heart of it the matter. This could be why you spend paragraphs defending it against attacks, but then give in briefly at the end by saying something to the effect of "Okay, religion's bad, but it's not the ONLY bad thing!" This base-covering is a desperate tactic, whether you realize it or not.

I sympathize with your disdain for religion as a whole. My disdain for religion does not however justify holding it accountable for all or even most of the bad things people do.

You're knocking down straw men again? I was punished earlier in this post for assuming you were an honest adult capable of carrying on an adult conversation, so I'm hesitant to again treat you like an adult and go on without asking if you know what a straw man is...ah, what the hell, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt one more time.

In any case, I never said that religion was accountable for all of the bad things people do. I wouldn't even say "most," given how many bad things are done by people. That has never been my position, and you damn well know it. The only context in which I referred to religion playing a predominant role in violence and unrest was war.

The internet is demonized by many when in the hands of those who would troll, commit piracy, or publish child pornography. Many people blame the internet for all the foul things that occur on it. Should we ban the internet since some people use it to do bad things? The internet, like religion, is another tool. Nothing more. The internet is a tangible tool for tangible purposes. Religion is a psychological tool for psychological purposes.

Again, you're comparing apples to oranges. Religion can be a tool, but for most people it is simply their philosophy. The internet isn't a philosophy, it's a venue. The internet does not promote anything, it's simply a place for things to be done. Religion on the other hand does promote things--both good and bad, but mostly bad. You see the difference?

Have you never spent any time observing people,at all? Though not always violent, in every day life, misunderstandings are common place.

A plausible hypothetical situation : A guy in a bar accidentally bumps the elbow of another guy causing him to spill his drink. He is unaware of what he has done because it is crowded and everyone is bumping everyone. The guy who has been bumped takes offense to the lack of apology and assumes the guy who bumped him did it on purpose. He then assaults the first guy. When the second guy notices the first guy is of a different race he proceeds to call him a slew of names some having racial undertones. The first guy, unaware that he even bumped the second guy, has no idea why he is being assaulted but assumes the attack is racially motivated. Onlookers who also do not know what ACTUALLY led to the confrontation hear the racial slurs and assume it is a racially motivated attack. When the real motivation for the attack was simple misunderstanding. And the one who attacked had an inclination to violence and racial bigotry.

First, let me apologize: I thought you were talking about conflicts as in wars. Obviously I'm aware that personal conflicts can begin with misunderstandings. However, your example above is an odd one. Speaking from experience, fights beginning over a spilled drink are not begun because the spillee believes the spiller acted intentionally, but because the spillee is drunk and overreacted to what they both know was carelessness. The rest of the misunderstandings in your example are on the behalf of the onlookers, for whom the causes are of no consequence, and therefore irrelevant.

Very few religions get officially written into law in modern times.

I'll agree that there are very few religions afforded this benefit, but those that do have quite a large market share. And that's not what I meant by "their religion is their politics." What I meant was that their religion dictates their ethics and their politics.

In the past, religion was the law. So in that sense, I have to agree with you that they WERE the same. Modern times are moving away from Religion being law, however. In countries where Religion is law, such as Islamic countries, well technically they are violating the religion. At least in regards to Islam anyway. The concept of Sharia Law is unIslamic.

Sharia is simply the gathering and formalization of laws found in the Koran, so I don't know how you mean that it is un-Islamic. Certainly the seemingly random passage you've quoted has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I have no idea what strawmen you are referring to, however if there are any, shouldn't they be knocked down. They are not usually good ways to prove a point.

Really? I tell you exactly what you did in the portion of the post you quoted. Don't play that game.

I don't feel I did a 180, maybe I just better explained my position and you understand me now. Or maybe you said something that made sense and I had to accept it. Hey stranger things have happened.

That you don't know confuses me...

I can't agree that ignorance contributes to Religious beliefs. I can't say that it doesn't either. I simply don't know.

Well, the good thing is that you don't have to know. Your own ignorance on this matter is irrelevant.

 

[wynn]

Off Topic Question:

Did I miss something? Is there a SciForum rule that says no one can disagree with wynn's ever so vague philosophies? If there is how is it that anyone besides wynn is not banned?

Chill, lady. This is Sciforums. Not a crocheting circle.

:m:

 

[wynn]

That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.If you choose to take offense where none is intended that too is your choice.

:bugeye:

Explain how and why it is incomplete. Forgive me if I am asking you to repeat yourself. If that is the case just link me back to where you previously clarified that.

Already addressed earlier:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2940581&postcount=59
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2940616&postcount=62
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2940618&postcount=63

You are focusing on the perspective from which being religious is harmful for the person themselves and for others. This is how your view is incomplete.

Anyway, it seems to me that like so many people who believe they were once religious, and who then gave up on religion, you, too, have a double-bind, self-victimizing understanding of religion. Ie. you're likely to focus on those tenets that corner you (or another person).

This is how you can state -

So if the woman is sincere, the man can use her faith against her and constantly remind her of her "place" keeping her in a state of submission.

As if being sincere in one's faith would automatically make one easy to exploit.
As if being religious would be a liability, a burden, even a potentially self-defeating or self-sabotaging endeavor.

If this is how one views religion (and many people who consider themselves religious, do), then one probably hasn't taken up and isn't practicing the religion on one's own volition and insight, but was instead manipulated or forced by other people, circumstances or confusion.

So before making judgments about religion (such as whether it can be used for good or for bad), let's check how complete a person's understanding and practice of religion are and how they have come to join it to begin with. If their understanding and practice are incomplete and/or if they joined on what can reasonably be seen as unhealthy terms, then this is a fault to consider, instead of simply blaming the religion they (supposedly) practice.

I am sure some people think you are evil, that doesn't make it so does it.

Words can kill.

 

[seagypsy]

:bugeye:



Already addressed earlier:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2940581&postcount=59
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2940616&postcount=62
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2940618&postcount=63

I said:

“
In some religions women are given no recourse for justice.
”

You said:

In some religions, or in some cultures?

I agree that in some cultures, women are considered lesser beings.

More often than not, religion dictates culture. In Islamic countries, their culture is dictated by Islam, or at least the local popular interpretation of it. In ancient Native American cultures, nature and animals were treated a certain way because their religion told them it was the way it should be. The United States today is a melting pot of many cultures and religions. However the dominate cultural traits of our society reflect Christian concepts because the majority of people in the US are Christian. Christianity has dictated North American Culture. In China the dominate faith is something else, and so their culture has stark contrasts to the North American culture. Atheists who are born and raised in a Christian environment will likely still hold basic Christian ethics to be of personal value whereas an Atheist who is born and raised in a Muslim country will still likely maintain some Muslim values in their code of ethics. A major difference for example could be that the Atheist from a Christian culture would be against bigamy but the Atheist from a Muslim country would not see anything morally wrong with taking more than one wife.

You are focusing on the perspective from which being religious is harmful for the person themselves and for others. This is how your view is incomplete.

Only in response to what seems to be your perspective that religion is only Good. I have pointed out several times that I do not believe religion is good or bad. I don't know how you keep falling back to anything otherwise. I have even offered examples of when religion served or could serve a good purpose as well as examples of how it can be used for bad purposes.
The example i gave, which you are aware of, of a man oppressing a woman is an example of bad.

This is an example of good it can be used for that you must have missed since it was in response to something from JDawg:

I know I went through the same thing they did and even had similar fantasies way back in my teen years. Luckily it was my faith at the time that stopped me from acting on it.

Anyway, it seems to me that like so many people who believe they were once religious, and who then gave up on religion, you, too, have a double-bind, self-victimizing understanding of religion. Ie. you're likely to focus on those tenets that corner you (or another person).

I may have focused on that possibility for the sake of making a point. If you asked me to give an example of HOW religion could be used for a bad purpose then I gave you one. That didn't mean that it is the only way religion can be used.

It was one example of how religion can be USED create to harm. Religion alone, IMO, has to be coupled with some other human trait or motivator in order to have any real effect on anything. I guess you could say, our personal driving force, could be love, hate, greed, arrogance, humility, altruism, etc., would affect how one interprets religion.

This is how you can state -

As if being sincere in one's faith would automatically make one easy to exploit.
As if being religious would be a liability, a burden, even a potentially self-defeating or self-sabotaging endeavor.

If we never question authority, we will easily be exploited. This is Is religion not a perceived authority? And many religions DEMAND unwavering loyalty, unquestioning obedience,and blind faith. In every church and every mosque I ever attended I was admonished by the clergy and other leaders for questioning God's reasoning for things. I had scriptures quoted at me that indicated that humans place is not to understand but to act in faith alone. As a woman,Not being allowed to question God and then the person he says has authority over her, man, puts her in a position of potential exploitation. That is not to say that it would happen to every woman who has religion. Or that every man would cease the opportunity to exploit the woman.

If this is how one views religion (and many people who consider themselves religious, do), then one probably hasn't taken up and isn't practicing the religion on one's own volition and insight, but was instead manipulated or forced by other people, circumstances or confusion.

So before making judgments about religion (such as whether it can be used for good or for bad), let's check how complete a person's understanding and practice of religion are and how they have come to join it to begin with. If their understanding and practice are incomplete and/or if they joined on what can reasonably be seen as unhealthy terms, then this is a fault to consider, instead of simply blaming the religion they (supposedly) practice.

I bolded certain words because it is something you keep falling back on in spite of the fact that I have stated multiple times, that I DO NOT BLAME RELIGION. I blame the underlying motivations existing in the HUMAN EGO.


The topic of religion and it's role in the human psyche is truly subjective. Neither your views nor mine can be proven or even shown to be more accurate than the other. Our perspectives are strongly affected by each of our personal experiences and observations. I have not and will not say that you are wrong in your approach to the subject. But I do respectfully disagree with your conclusion, due to my own experiences and observations and what I have analytically deduced from them. Any further debate is just exhaustive to me and those who are punishing themselves by reading this thread. So I am stepping down from any further discussion with you on this out of respect for you, myself and the readers.

Words can kill.

True, indirectly anyway, but even your death would not make you evil.

 

[Balerion]

Chill, lady. This is Sciforums. Not a crocheting circle.

:m:

That's like the fiftieth person to notice this about you, Wynn.

I'll never understand why the moderators allow it to continue.

 

[seagypsy]

I am going to address only a few things this time out of pity for those who are sadistic enough to keep torturing themselves by reading this thread.

And I do not discount that your faith kept you from doing bad things. I'm sure it does the same for many. But you can't let your personal experience cloud your vision. "Religion kept me in line, so therefore it cannot do anything but keep people in line" is faulty logic.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said or implied "Religion... ...cannot do anything but keep people in line". To say that I did is a LIE.

I merely provided an example of ONE occasion where religion DID get used for a good purpose. I have demonstrated to wynn examples of how religion can be used for bad purposes.

Oh boy, I made the mistake of assuming you were an adult, didn't I?

Ad hominem attack.

Here is the post you were looking for,

This would have been a sufficient response to my assertion. And my equally appropriate response would be an apology. And I do apologize for mistakenly accusing you of lying in regards to my saying an idea is bigoted. I simply did not remember making the statement, perhaps because it was not in direct response to you. Either way, however, it is a critique of an idea not a person. If I am not allowed to critique an idea and express my opinion of it, then you must also recant your statements that insist that religion is bad. Religion being a set of ideas people adhere to.

but conveniently couldn't find:

another ad hominem attack. the word "conveniently" implies that I lied about not being able to find my remark in the thread. In reality I even held back on addressing it right away because I was unsure if I had said it or not. I used the "search this thread" tool and it did not produce that particular post for some reason. I also had a third party go over the thread manually and they too managed to overlook my remark. It was only then that I felt it reasonable to believe that I had not actually made the remark. You obviously knew where to find it and pointed it out. I appreciate the correction but the condescending remarks and implied accusations are not called for.

Normally I ask for an apology in such cases, but usually the person on the receiving end of this is a troll whose self esteem is so reliant upon their internet forum rightness that apologizing for a mistake would be tantamount to slitting their wrists. Should I assume you're just another in the long line, or might you actually rise above trolldom and make amends for your flub?

another ad hominem attack.
You have no basis for your personal attack on me considering I am new to the forum and do not yet have an established pattern of behavior. You are judging my character based on the behaviors of others who have nothing to do with me.

You, on the other hand, have accused me of "willful ignorance".

And I stand by it.

And I stand by the fact that it IS an ad hominem attack. Being ignorant of something is something that everyone is guilty of from time to time. After all NONE of us know EVERYTHING. But stating that my ignorance, as you define it, is WILLFUL. is stating that I knowingly choose to be ignorant. This is insulting at the very least and an outright LIE. It is a PERSONAL ATTACK that is completely uncalled for. Personal attacks are counter productive to promoting an idea and are detrimental to a civilized discussion.

You have done nothing but prove me right since.

Where is the PROOF of my willingness to be ignorant? Only if you define ignorant to mean anyone who disagrees with JDawg would your assertion be valid. And then it would only be valid to you. True willful ignorance would be ones blatant and shameless refusal to do research and consider all possible perspectives. My views are a result of textbook research, relatively objective human observation, consultation with trained psychologists and psychiatrists, past experiences and intense introspection. Having been a believer as well as a nonbeliever, and having lived in cultures outside of my own (I lived in Pakistan for a year). I have considered your views and at one time agreed with you 100%, I have considered wynn's views and at one time agreed with wynn 100%, I did not reach my first conclusion and just accept it as fact then stop trying to learn. I have always kept in mind my own fallible nature and welcomed alternative views, even at risk of having my view changed in the process. You have no evidence to the contrary and you are the one making the claim I am WILLFULLY ignorant, so it is your obligation to PROVE my willfulness to be ignorant. Or retract the statement and admit that it was nothing more than an unwarranted personal attack.


See my response to wynn in post #88since I am now extending the same to you:

The topic of religion and it's role in the human psyche is truly subjective. Neither your views nor mine can be proven or even shown to be more accurate than the other. Our perspectives are strongly affected by each of our personal experiences and observations. I have not and will not say that you are wrong in your approach to the subject. But I do respectfully disagree with your conclusion, due to my own experiences and observations and what I have analytically deduced from them. Any further debate is just exhaustive to me and those who are punishing themselves by reading this thread. So I am stepping down from any further discussion with you on this out of respect for you, myself and the readers.

Another rather large "Oops" on your part. I'll simply refer any more in this post up to my original request for an apology.

My apology is stated above. My "Oops" does not justify your abhorrent behavior on this thread.

Calling yourself essentially a religious atheist does nothing to clarify what exactly you claim to be.

Asserting that I called myself a religious atheist is a LIE.
Where have I called myself a religious atheist? That seems to be what YOU are trying to label me as. Not what I personally have identified myself as.

The perspective here is irrelevant. Me being a Buddhist or a Shintoist or a rapist or Bill Gates wouldn't change the fact that you are defending religion at the cost of your credibility.

If I have lost my credibility with YOU, I am ok with that. I certainly won't be having any nightmares over it considering your shameful tactics in this thread have cost you your credibility with me. I won't go as far as you and even risk implying that I know how others view you.

"Okay, religion's bad, but it's not the ONLY bad thing!" This base-covering is a desperate tactic, whether you realize it or not.

You are misrepresenting my position. This is intellectual dishonesty.

You're knocking down straw men again? I was punished earlier in this post for assuming you were an honest adult capable of carrying on an adult conversation,

Another ad hominem attack.Implies that not only am I not an adult but that I am dishonest. Show proof of my dishonesty or admit it was an unwarranted personal attack that serves no purpose in the discussion except to distract from the topic at hand.

so I'm hesitant to again treat you like an adult and go on without asking if you know what a straw man is...ah, what the hell, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt one more time.

Indicates your willful disrespect for me and the rules of this forum.

Really? I tell you exactly what you did in the portion of the post you quoted. Don't play that game.

Implying that I am playing a game is a personal attack. Unless you back this up with evidence that I am playing a game, without resorting to further ad hominem attacks, and stick to FACTS, you are without grounds to make such an implication.

Well, the good thing is that you don't have to know. Your own ignorance on this matter is irrelevant.

If you want to write me off as irrelevant because I disagree with you, which seems to be your definition of ignorance. I will gladly afford you the same respect.


No disrespect intended to wynn, but I have observed many people criticizing him/her for being trollish among other things. I do not know for certain if their opinions have basis or not but I will say this much. Wynn has debated the topic in this thread as passionately as you have, yet wynn has not, even once, stooped to ad hominem attacks or disrespectful condescending remarks in this thread. You have. He has remained on topic, occasionally criticized my ideas (ideas are fair game for criticism), and maturely responded when I asked him to provide links to statements previously made.

Until you can conduct yourself according to forum rules and maintain a tone of civility I will no longer discuss this or any other topic with you.

 

[Balerion]

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said or implied "Religion... ...cannot do anything but keep people in line". To say that I did is a LIE.

It was a generalization. If untrue, then it was a mistake, not a lie. But I will keep in mind that you are crying about perceived personal attacks while also making them yourself at every opportunity.

I merely provided an example of ONE occasion where religion DID get used for a good purpose. I have demonstrated to wynn examples of how religion can be used for bad purposes.

I'm not following your conversation with Wynn. If you have a point to make to me, make it to me and not someone else.

Ad hominem attack.

Pot, meet kettle.

This would have been a sufficient response to my assertion. And my equally appropriate response would be an apology. And I do apologize for mistakenly accusing you of lying in regards to my saying an idea is bigoted. I simply did not remember making the statement, perhaps because it was not in direct response to you. Either way, however, it is a critique of an idea not a person. If I am not allowed to critique an idea and express my opinion of it, then you must also recant your statements that insist that religion is bad. Religion being a set of ideas people adhere to.

If you did not remember making the statement, perhaps you should have gone back and double-checked, rather than making wild accusations about my conduct. And please, do not try to twist my words again: I never said you accused any person of being bigoted, I simply said that you had referred to "bigoted opinions," or more accurately, "bigoted judgment," though they amount to the same thing.

I forgive you for blowing, because if you really believed you never said such a thing, my contention that you did would have seemed unfounded and mean-spirited. You responding with hostility to my repeated mentions is understandable (if avoidable, had you actually gone back and checked, which took me all of thirty seconds). Knowing this, ask yourself why I should be held to a higher standard when being accused of lying repeatedly. Why is it my responsibility to treat your petulant outburst with respect when you did not afford me the same courtesy?

another ad hominem attack. the word "conveniently" implies that I lied about not being able to find my remark in the thread. In reality I even held back on addressing it right away because I was unsure if I had said it or not. I used the "search this thread" tool and it did not produce that particular post for some reason. I also had a third party go over the thread manually and they too managed to overlook my remark. It was only then that I felt it reasonable to believe that I had not actually made the remark. You obviously knew where to find it and pointed it out. I appreciate the correction but the condescending remarks and implied accusations are not called for.

As I have told Jan, Wynn, and LG, you cannot simply redefine words to suit your needs. Saying that you "conveniently" overlooked the part of the post in which you made the comments you later denied making is not an ad hominem attack. It was an assertion based on three items: (1) the fact that you claimed to go back through the thread and failed to find any mention of "bigot" prior to my usage of the word, (2) the fact that it took me less than a minute to go back and find the quoted passage when I needed to respond to your accusation, and (3) your vehement denial of making the statement. Adding these together, it seemed plausible that you were trying to sweep it under the rug. If that's not the case, then I apologize. But you need to understand how it looked.

another ad hominem attack.
You have no basis for your personal attack on me considering I am new to the forum and do not yet have an established pattern of behavior. You are judging my character based on the behaviors of others who have nothing to do with me.

Now you're just looking to take offense. I never called you a troll, I said the people on this forum who usually employ the tactics you have are trolls, and then asked if you were better than that or simply just another of their number. Can you not see the difference?

And I stand by the fact that it IS an ad hominem attack.

If you want to take offense, that's your business. But that doesn't make it untrue. You choose to ignore evidence so that you can protect an image of religion that fits your preconceptions. That's willful ignorance. I am not responsible for your feelings if you don't like to hear about it.

Being ignorant of something is something that everyone is guilty of from time to time. After all NONE of us know EVERYTHING. But stating that my ignorance, as you define it, is WILLFUL. is stating that I knowingly choose to be ignorant.

Yes, and I stand by it.

This is insulting at the very least and an outright LIE. It is a PERSONAL ATTACK that is completely uncalled for. Personal attacks are counter productive to promoting an idea and are detrimental to a civilized discussion.

As are people who choose to ignore facts so that they may continued holding their sheltered and immature opinions. If you want to have a grown-up discussion. start acting like a grown up.

Where is the PROOF of my willingness to be ignorant? Only if you define ignorant to mean anyone who disagrees with JDawg would your assertion be valid. And then it would only be valid to you. True willful ignorance would be ones blatant and shameless refusal to do research and consider all possible perspectives. My views are a result of textbook research, relatively objective human observation, consultation with trained psychologists and psychiatrists, past experiences and intense introspection. Having been a believer as well as a nonbeliever, and having lived in cultures outside of my own (I lived in Pakistan for a year). I have considered your views and at one time agreed with you 100%, I have considered wynn's views and at one time agreed with wynn 100%, I did not reach my first conclusion and just accept it as fact then stop trying to learn. I have always kept in mind my own fallible nature and welcomed alternative views, even at risk of having my view changed in the process. You have no evidence to the contrary and you are the one making the claim I am WILLFULLY ignorant, so it is your obligation to PROVE my willfulness to be ignorant. Or retract the statement and admit that it was nothing more than an unwarranted personal attack.

I've made my case, and your personal history is of no interest to me. Until you can demonstrate how I'm wrong, all of this is hot air.

My apology is stated above. My "Oops" does not justify your abhorrent behavior on this thread.

Classic overreaction. It's okay when you make accusations, but when they're turned around on you, it's time for a queen-sized tantrum. Very mature.

Asserting that I called myself a religious atheist is a LIE.
Where have I called myself a religious atheist? That seems to be what YOU are trying to label me as. Not what I personally have identified myself as.

Again, you complain about ad hominem attacks, yet you accuse me of lying at every opportunity.

But here, since I apparently have to play Daddy and remind you of all the things you've said:

I am atheist and hold a strong code of ethics. Theists will call that code religion. If you loosely define the term religion then I guess it would qualify.

How else am I supposed to take this other than "I am a religious atheist"? By all means, correct me if I'm wrong. The fact that your first move was to accuse me of lying rather than pointing out where I have you wrong is quite telling.

If I have lost my credibility with YOU, I am ok with that. I certainly won't be having any nightmares over it considering your shameful tactics in this thread have cost you your credibility with me. I won't go as far as you and even risk implying that I know how others view you.

:shrug:

You are misrepresenting my position. This is intellectual dishonesty.

Again, from your previous post:

Religion has equal potential to be used for good as it does for being used for evil.

Instead of mudslinging, how about you tell me how I'm misrepresenting you when I'm quoting you directly.

Another ad hominem attack.Implies that not only am I not an adult but that I am dishonest.

You mean like the four or five times you've accused me of lying? Are you really going to go there?

Show proof of my dishonesty or admit it was an unwarranted personal attack that serves no purpose in the discussion except to distract from the topic at hand.

I've already shown you. Go back and read my earlier posts to you. I make my case at length.

Indicates your willful disrespect for me and the rules of this forum.

Again, I simply said that when I did treat you like an adult, I was personally insulted for it. You understand why continuing to treat you as an adult might make me skittish.

Implying that I am playing a game is a personal attack.

Go back and read the thread.

Unless you back this up with evidence that I am playing a game, without resorting to further ad hominem attacks, and stick to FACTS, you are without grounds to make such an implication.

Again, go back and read the thread. It's all there.

If you want to write me off as irrelevant because I disagree with you, which seems to be your definition of ignorance. I will gladly afford you the same respect.

I write you off as irrelevant because the truth of the matter exists without reference to your opinion. In other words, I reject your "Agree to disagree" on the premise that this argument is not undecided.

No disrespect intended to wynn, but I have observed many people criticizing him/her for being trollish among other things. I do not know for certain if their opinions have basis or not but I will say this much. Wynn has debated the topic in this thread as passionately as you have, yet wynn has not, even once, stooped to ad hominem attacks or disrespectful condescending remarks in this thread. You have. He has remained on topic, occasionally criticized my ideas (ideas are fair game for criticism), and maturely responded when I asked him to provide links to statements previously made.

Wynn is a she, and she is very much a troll. And all of my attacks have been in relation to your ideas as well. But do not pretend that you didn't already complain about Wynn, because you very much did, with the somewhat petulant "Is no one allowed to disagree with Wynn's ever-so vague ideas?"

Stick around a while. You'll see why she's so beloved.

Until you can conduct yourself according to forum rules and maintain a tone of civility I will no longer discuss this or any other topic with you.

Yawn.

 

[seagypsy]

@JDawg I have reported your behavior and pointed out your errors. This latest post from you only shows your refusal to acknowledge wrong doing. Yes I had a complaint about wynn earlier. In hindsight I think I owe wynn an apology. I let other people's public declarations of wynn's character influence my opinion of him/her. In the future I will do my best to base my impressions of someone on the actions and words I personally witness them displaying.

@wynn, please accept my sincerest apologies for post #84

@Carcano, I also apologize to you for my part in your thread being all but hijacked and completely taken off course. I hope that my action of putting JDawg on ignore will help deter me from being tempted to re-engage in distracting unproductive ego contests.

 

[Balerion]

@JDawg I have reported your behavior and pointed out your errors. This latest post from you only shows your refusal to acknowledge wrong doing. Yes I had a complaint about wynn earlier. In hindsight I think I owe wynn an apology. I let other people's public declarations of wynn's character influence my opinion of him/her. In the future I will do my best to base my impressions of someone on the actions and words I personally witness them displaying.

Well, at least now I know never to take you seriously again.

 

[Bells]

How about we just tone it back a bit, hmm?

Yes?

Excellent..

 

[Balerion]

How about we just tone it back a bit, hmm?

Yes?

Excellent..

The conversation is over, so no worries. But again, can you not see how your credibility here is somewhat lacking?

 

[Bells]

The conversation is over, so no worries. But again, can you not see how your credibility here is somewhat lacking?

Would you prefer I entered the thread tearing at my clothes and hair while wailing like a banshee?

I have asked you and the other participants of this thread politely to just tone it back a bit. That is all.

I won't always agree with you JDawg. Your main issue with me is that you don't like it when I disagree with you. When I agree with you, you never had an issue with how I moderated. If you now have an issue with how I moderate, then I would suggest you take your concerns to the administrators of this site via a PM. I believe I have made myself quite clear for you. I hope I won't have to explain that to you again.

 

[Balerion]

Would you prefer I entered the thread tearing at my clothes and hair while wailing like a banshee?

I have asked you and the other participants of this thread politely to just tone it back a bit. That is all.

I won't always agree with you JDawg. Your main issue with me is that you don't like it when I disagree with you. When I agree with you, you never had an issue with how I moderated. If you now have an issue with how I moderate, then I would suggest you take your concerns to the administrators of this site via a PM. I believe I have made myself quite clear for you. I hope I won't have to explain that to you again.

I don't recall very often taking issue with how you moderate, only that you moderate. The point of my comment is that our last exchange featured you derisively calling me "champ" while reaching for the nearest (and largest) facepalm emoticon, and now here you are telling people to "tone it back," whatever that's supposed to mean. You're one of the biggest offenders, and yet you're giving orders. It's just an irony that I can't let pass without mention.

It's one thing that we have to suffer people like Wynn, Jan, and LG, but at least they're not moderators.

At any rate, as I've said, the conversation is over, so you're a bit late to the party. Job well done, I suppose.

 

[Bells]

I don't recall very often taking issue with how you moderate, only that you moderate.

And here you are, the one who last month(?) told me he wished all moderators were like me. Or what was the word you used? "Cool"? Flavour of the day has changed I guess.

I don't have a problem with you JDawg. Yet you wish for me to.

Knock yourself out. However do it in the appropriate threads or by PM. In other words, not this one.

Again, if you have a problem that I moderate, then please, PLEASE PM the administrators of this site with your concerns.

The point of my comment is that our last exchange featured you derisively calling me "champ" while reaching for the nearest (and largest) facepalm emoticon, and now here you are telling people to "tone it back," whatever that's supposed to mean. You're one of the biggest offenders, and yet you're giving orders. It's just an irony that I can't let pass without mention.

You mean the last time I spoke to you when you took what I said out of context and twisted it around? I shall be sure to congratulate you on a job well done next time.

However, that is not what this thread is about. Again, if you have an issue with me or my position on this site, take it to Admin. Hopefully it will be 3rd time lucky. If you wish to take whatever other issues you have with me further, you are free to PM me or take it to the threads they actually came from.

It's one thing that we have to suffer people like Wynn, Jan, and LG, but at least they're not moderators.

You'd be surprised at just what the staff have to put up with and suffer. I understand your suffering..

Sorry, I don't offer cookies.

At any rate, as I've said, the conversation is over, so you're a bit late to the party. Job well done, I suppose.

You determined the conversation was over after you went on an abusive spray and after she advised she had reported you. And hopefully you are correct.

I advised you and others in this thread to tone it down. That was all. It was more to head off the anger you would have faced from your opposers in this thread.

If you wish to take it further about me, again, for the last time, take it to Admin. You can do that by clicking on your PM button and typing in their names and writing your complaint and concerns in the text box and hitting the send/submit button.

 

[wynn]

Only in response to what seems to be your perspective that religion is only Good. I have pointed out several times that I do not believe religion is good or bad. I don't know how you keep falling back to anything otherwise. I have even offered examples of when religion served or could serve a good purpose as well as examples of how it can be used for bad purposes.

It seems to me that we operate out of considerably different understandings of what "religion" is.

It was one example of how religion can be USED create to harm. Religion alone, IMO, has to be coupled with some other human trait or motivator in order to have any real effect on anything. I guess you could say, our personal driving force, could be love, hate, greed, arrogance, humility, altruism, etc., would affect how one interprets religion.

This seems to be coming from an Abrahamic-Western perspective.

In contrast, in some forms of Hindu theism, those "personal driving forces" are acknowledged, and so there is a concept of hierarchy in terms of religious advancement.

If we never question authority, we will easily be exploited. This is Is religion not a perceived authority? And many religions DEMAND unwavering loyalty, unquestioning obedience,and blind faith. In every church and every mosque I ever attended I was admonished by the clergy and other leaders for questioning God's reasoning for things. I had scriptures quoted at me that indicated that humans place is not to understand but to act in faith alone.

Did anyone force you to go to those religious establishments?

If you went there freely, and identified yourself as a non-member, then you were actually a mere observer and a guest. And as such, it is common decency not to question the hospitality or beliefs of one's host. And it is also to be expected that the hosts will be less or more firm with the ungrateful guest - before they kick him out.


People often complain about the dogmatic, forceful nature of religion, but seem to be oblivious to their own status in the whole situation.

As a woman,Not being allowed to question God and then the person he says has authority over her, man, puts her in a position of potential exploitation.

I don't think so. What does put her into a position of potential exploitation are her own mental, verbal and bodily actions.

I bolded certain words because it is something you keep falling back on in spite of the fact that I have stated multiple times, that I DO NOT BLAME RELIGION. I blame the underlying motivations existing in the HUMAN EGO.

As mentioned earlier, some religions do acknowledge the existence of the "human ego" (as you call it) and have incorporated it into their system of values and beliefs, given it a place.

The topic of religion and it's role in the human psyche is truly subjective. Neither your views nor mine can be proven or even shown to be more accurate than the other. Our perspectives are strongly affected by each of our personal experiences and observations. I have not and will not say that you are wrong in your approach to the subject. But I do respectfully disagree with your conclusion, due to my own experiences and observations and what I have analytically deduced from them. Any further debate is just exhaustive to me and those who are punishing themselves by reading this thread. So I am stepping down from any further discussion with you on this out of respect for you, myself and the readers.

You bow out just when things got interesting!

 

[seagypsy]

It seems to me that we operate out of considerably different understandings of what "religion" is.

You can say that again.

This seems to be coming from an Abrahamic-Western perspective.

As one may expect, considering I am from a culture that is predominately influenced by Abrahamic Religions. Though I have had some breif formal education on Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism, I was never a practitioner of any of those. So my insight into any of those would be weak at best. Though the Buddhist monk I studied with in college in order to prepare for my exams on Buddhism said I had a better understanding of the base concepts of the teachings than many aspiring monks. I discounted his flattery as flirting at the time. Either, he thought I was as cute as I thought he was, or I actually understood it. Or maybe he was just being really nice. For the record, I failed my exam. So who knows what he based his comment on.

In contrast, in some forms of Hindu theism, those "personal driving forces" are acknowledged, and so there is a concept of hierarchy in terms of religious advancement.

That's interesting, I will have to do some research on that.

Did anyone force you to go to those religious establishments?

No, absolutely not. My mother did not and still doesn't attend church. She is not atheist however. She just dislikes organized religion. However, she always allowed me to attend church if I wanted to. And I usually did choose to go. Mainly so I could hang out with other kids.

As an adult, my religious views began to evolve due to exposure to people from other cultures and my life experiences. I became disenchanted with Christianity after having been appointed the duties of conducting bible study at my church. I accepted the job with honor and took my duties very seriously so I began to read and re-read the bible wholeheartedly. The more I read the more issue I took with it. As a result I denounced my faith because I felt if I had to cherry pick it, I should just not claim any of it. And dropped the label so as to avoid hypocrisy. Through learning about world religions in a college course I decided to convert to Islam.

Long story short, that didn't work out so well for me either.

But I attended Church as a Christian. I attended the mosque as a Muslim. Even now I still have the entire prayer memorized in Arabic. I creep my husband out from time to time reciting parts of it lol.

If you went there freely, and identified yourself as a non-member, then you were actually a mere observer and a guest. And as such, it is common decency not to question the hospitality or beliefs of one's host. And it is also to be expected that the hosts will be less or more firm with the ungrateful guest - before they kick him out.

See above. This was not the situation at all. I was one of them. Fully accepted and embraced. I was even asked to be the American liason at the local Islamic Information center immediately after 911. It was a center set up for nonMuslims to be able to come and learn about Islam without being proselytized to. They felt that being a convert who did so out of pure will and not due to marriage, that I would be the best to mediate between Angry Americans and Islam.

People often complain about the dogmatic, forceful nature of religion, but seem to be oblivious to their own status in the whole situation.

Again our differing perspectives come into play here. It has been my observation, that those who oppose religion complain that religion is dogmatic and forceful. And that those who uphold religion say otherwise. But any individual who adheres to a religion can be oblivious to their status. For a long time I convinced myself that I fully believed the tenets of my faith that were being taught to me. When in reality I was ashamed to admit to myself that I only accepted things that felt instinctively wrong, to me, because I didn't want to be rejected by God or those who claimed to follow him and know more about the religion than me. Denial is a weird coping mechanism. I know I am only one example. No two people are EXACTLY alike but I doubt I am really so unique that NO ONE else has deluded themselves. Victims of domestic abuse often cope with the abuse by deluding themselves that it is their own fault, that they somehow earned the abuse and that if they just improve, the abuse will stop.

I don't think so. What does put her into a position of potential exploitation are her own mental, verbal and bodily actions.

Verbal and bodily actions cannot occur unless they happen in the mind first. Except for reflexes and other involuntary muscle movement, we first have to think about an act before actually doing it.

I agree that her mental activities, thought processes, put her into a position of potential exploitation. But it is a mental activity to accept religion. And I feel religion can help to create a mental environment that, if the holder of the religion is submissive by nature (I think i said weak minded before, this was a poor choice of words on my part), he/she could use the religion to justify not questioning religious authority. In Christianity at least, the woman is supposed to submit to her own husband as the church is to submit to Christ. In Islam the wife is to always obey the husband or suffer the curses of the angels until she submits. He is also instructed to beat her if she is disobedient.

If a person is not given to being submissive by nature. They would likely reject this religions immediately. So you see, I am not blaming the religion. I am blaming the submissive nature of the one who holds the religion. And ones nature CAN change over time. Mine sure did.

As mentioned earlier, some religions do acknowledge the existence of the "human ego" (as you call it) and have incorporated it into their system of values and beliefs, given it a place.

I think I know which ones, but can you suggest a couple. I have been too busy over the past few years to study anything in regards to specific faiths. Ones that acknowledge ego would definitely pique my interests.

You bow out just when things got interesting!

Well as long as we are ok with disagreeing with each other on things, and it seems we both agree that our perspectives are different and therefore our opinions as well, it would seem we can maintain a civilized and interesting discussion. However there is one concern, I think we have totally gotten away from what the OP was about. Perhaps we should move this to another thread? What do you think?