|
On May 18 2017 22:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2017 20:50 xM(Z wrote:"proven" is a loaded word here. you took the latest(official) interpretation on the issue that was based on an interpretation of cherry picked words but sure, proven. i called it ideological, you call it theological/metaphysical; it's fine. now that we're working of a live an let live scenario, i'd cherry pick on this ...but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. as a disclaimer, i never cut off the line mid sentence to omit whatever came next; it's just how i found the quote on The Internet. on that part thou, i can pull at least three interpretations from the top of my head: - haters get punished to the fourth generation and lovers(of him) get love in return; forever, no repents, no crossovers. - haters get punished to the fourth generation but if they convert, they get love in return; - one lover gets to save his to the thousandth generation even when someone along from lineage switches/turns into a hater; basically that quote can not be used as a prof for neither/nor(as with most/all things in the bible). that covers Thieving Magpie too; it's about what you read, how you read it(punctuation), how you interpret what you read and i think, maybe a few more semantically prone inclinations. oh yea ... translation ... At the time of writing, the point was that you can't simply blame women--as the Greeks did--or pagans--as many monotheists still do--for the state of the world. that though, could be argued at length and in some cases, even proven that early(proto)eastern latin-romance people, come from a matriarchal lineage. for a religious association, Mary, the mother of Jesus is more important than Jesus itself for latin people. Edit: well maybe not matriarchal as the word is currently understood, but more like a split man - woman society where women ruled their side so to speak(transgressions happened obviously but as to their extent, things are muddy). It doesn't actually cover me since interpretation is not what I am discussing, dogma is what I'm talking about. Some christian groups believes baptism is important and to actually forgive people, even babies, even the dead, because no matter how good a person is, original sin (or proxies of it) is still there. Some christian groups believes that everything we do and believe in the here and now is what determines our goodness. Baptism is merely ritual because there is nothing to forgive, everything is a clean slate. Some don't even believe in either--Calvanists believe that the heavenly hierarchy is deterministic. Time is eternal and thus has already happened, thus everyone who deserves to be with God is already with God and those who aren't are already damned. And there is nothing we can do to change that. You having your own specific reading of a specific text does not dictate what the dogmas of societies and cultures outside of you have. For the same reason that racists don't get to define a race as lazy/violent just because they're reading and their research of that race suggests so. i'd argue, on that part, that you're being purposely blind to what else does it take to make an own specific reading into a dogma. i mean ... power?/being pretty? ... power +an idea and say hello to your new church/army/groupies/whatever floats your boat.
or is your argument that dogmas are somehow holy and arise organically from shared psychological needs and things and values and aw4kghsethgsrt.
i'm not getting your context, i don't think so. what is the effect or worth of a (new)dogma that you're looking at?, that you want it to have?.
my reading is not special, i make it special by projecting it+power onto unsuspecting victims. if i happen to read something differently or you know, how God intended it  , whether or not people get on board with it is irrelevant to me(that may or may not happen (peacefully)) but there's always the option of abuse, physical or psychological, at my disposal.
Edit: i read the posts from Acro and Yoav and though you both have some validity there(in smaller contexts) it is not interesting to me. i am saying to both of you that i can use your ambiguity on the interpretation of a text, irrespectively(?) of your sanctioned contemporary thought in Judeo-Christian society, to my benefit.
Editx: @Yoav: i'll file your "theory of Bible" notion under one hand washes the other category. you, people of the bible, need to stick together because it benefits all of you and that's fine. if you say that i don't have it or that i can't have it, that's fine too.
what i am saying though is, that based on the same texts, i can make my own religion, slightly different than yours and people will worship my dogma because your text does not limit me and that's exactly how religion branched out ...
if you think it helps you thinking about your clearly superior intellectual effort, that's fine with me; as long as you worship my dogma and pay me, i don't care.
|
On May 19 2017 00:16 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2017 22:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 18 2017 20:50 xM(Z wrote:"proven" is a loaded word here. you took the latest(official) interpretation on the issue that was based on an interpretation of cherry picked words but sure, proven. i called it ideological, you call it theological/metaphysical; it's fine. now that we're working of a live an let live scenario, i'd cherry pick on this ...but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. as a disclaimer, i never cut off the line mid sentence to omit whatever came next; it's just how i found the quote on The Internet. on that part thou, i can pull at least three interpretations from the top of my head: - haters get punished to the fourth generation and lovers(of him) get love in return; forever, no repents, no crossovers. - haters get punished to the fourth generation but if they convert, they get love in return; - one lover gets to save his to the thousandth generation even when someone along from lineage switches/turns into a hater; basically that quote can not be used as a prof for neither/nor(as with most/all things in the bible). that covers Thieving Magpie too; it's about what you read, how you read it(punctuation), how you interpret what you read and i think, maybe a few more semantically prone inclinations. oh yea ... translation ... At the time of writing, the point was that you can't simply blame women--as the Greeks did--or pagans--as many monotheists still do--for the state of the world. that though, could be argued at length and in some cases, even proven that early(proto)eastern latin-romance people, come from a matriarchal lineage. for a religious association, Mary, the mother of Jesus is more important than Jesus itself for latin people. Edit: well maybe not matriarchal as the word is currently understood, but more like a split man - woman society where women ruled their side so to speak(transgressions happened obviously but as to their extent, things are muddy). It doesn't actually cover me since interpretation is not what I am discussing, dogma is what I'm talking about. Some christian groups believes baptism is important and to actually forgive people, even babies, even the dead, because no matter how good a person is, original sin (or proxies of it) is still there. Some christian groups believes that everything we do and believe in the here and now is what determines our goodness. Baptism is merely ritual because there is nothing to forgive, everything is a clean slate. Some don't even believe in either--Calvanists believe that the heavenly hierarchy is deterministic. Time is eternal and thus has already happened, thus everyone who deserves to be with God is already with God and those who aren't are already damned. And there is nothing we can do to change that. You having your own specific reading of a specific text does not dictate what the dogmas of societies and cultures outside of you have. For the same reason that racists don't get to define a race as lazy/violent just because they're reading and their research of that race suggests so. i'd argue, on that part, that you're being purposely blind to what else does it take to make an own specific reading into a dogma. i mean ... power?/being pretty? ... power +an idea and say hello to your new church/army/groupies/whatever floats your boat. or is your argument that dogmas are somehow holy and arise organically from shared psychological needs and things and values and aw4kghsethgsrt. i'm not getting your context, i don't think so. what is the effect or worth of a (new)dogma that you're looking at?, that you want it to have?. my reading is not special, i make it special by projecting it+power onto unsuspecting victims. if i happen to read something differently or you know, how God intended it , whether or not people get on board with it is irrelevant to me(that may or may not happen (peacefully)) but there's always the option of abuse, physical or psychological, at my disposal. Edit: i read the posts from Acro and Yoav and though you both have some validity there(in smaller contexts) it is not interesting to me. i am saying to both of you that i can use your ambiguity on the interpretation of a text, irrespectively(?) of your sanctioned contemporary thought in Judeo-Christian society, to my benefit.
Nothing makes the dogma special--it's simply what people within that group believes to be the truth/axiom that they base their follow up arguments against.
There are some that believe (fully or metaphysically) in the passing down of sins. Social Justice movements hinges on the idea that the socio economic state of one's lineage greatly dictates your current and future success ie, you are societally punished/rewarded for the deeds of your ancestors.
Some believe that people are inherently evil unless they proactively do good works--ie original sin.
Whatever the case may be, it isn't something you can blanket as a Christian or Jewish (actually Abrahamic if we want to get nitpicky) ideal, because not all members of that group prescribe to that axiom or truth.
There are those who do, especially sociologists and majority of class focused liberals, but it's not a truism in regards to how people believe.
|
On May 18 2017 23:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2017 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 18 2017 21:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
How is it insulting? Religious people argue with religious people on the correct interpretation of their religion all the time. Preseumably because they wish to do so. Would you too would feel it insulting? I'd like to translate what you just said: "People of the same social groups discuss things about their social groups to each other, doesn't that mean someone outside their social group gets to dictate to them how their social group works" Replace the one instances of "dictate" with "discuss" or vice versa to harmonise the words, but I don't disagree with the basic premise of what you just said. I don't see a problem with that translation. The question would be, from your tone as transmitted through the written word, why you see it as problematic? In any case the discussion came about due to yoav deliberately equating the Christian various doctrines of original sin to liability for the sins of their parents generally.
Problematic and insulting are not equal terms. There are non-insulting things that are problematic and non-problematic things that are insulting.
The real question is what you wish to gain from said discussion.
If I walked up to a nazi and asked him why he doesn't simply allow the free market to let educated blacks get his job--I'd be punched in the face and the neonazi would be angry--a net loss for all parties involved.
But if I stood idle as that same nazi was berating my black friend--then that would be problematic as well.
Being insulting is should not be a deterrent--but it also should be a guideline of what you wish to gain from the exchange.
|
On May 19 2017 00:13 Yoav wrote:Acrofales' summary of the argument is basically correct. That said, I don't find the debate "insulting" exactly... the issue I have with a non-religious person saying what the Bible says is mostly that a non-religious person will generally not have a "theory of Bible." The Bible isn't obviously any one thing: some treat it as a rulebook, some as history, others as a story proper, others as prophecy, others as theology, and so on. There are bits that lend credence to each theory: there are laws (rulebook), history, stories + Show Spoiler +(it takes a pretty determined literalist to argue that Jonah is meant to be understood as a literal account of events) , prophecies, and a few tiny bits of theology + Show Spoiler +(in general, the Bible's pretty resistant to systematic theology or philosophy) . A religious person will generally have a theory of Bible through which they interpret it. (And you can argue theories of Bible with someone who shares some of your beliefs in a way you can't with someone who doesn't take these texts seriously in the end of the day.) + Show Spoiler +A scholar, too, will generally have some kind of theory... usually not an expansive "theory of Bible" since the scholar usually doesn't care about "the Bible" but rather about some particular bit of it, which they will argue for some interpretation in its original context, or in some later context. And importantly, original meaning isn't always the later meaning that matters. Even the most die-hard literalist doesn't think Abraham knew the Isaac thing had to do with Jesus... that's something that becomes clear centuries later. It's impossible for a modern reader to miss; but it's alien to the original context. So is that a "true" reading? If you think the Bible is inspired by the mind of a God who sees beyond the ages, then yeah, the writers may well have had no idea what the significance of their writings were. And as you develop a theory of why, you get a theory of Bible. But atheists usually don't do the intellectual effort to develop one (no disrepect... heck, why would they?) and so often lazily fall into the trap of assuming a fundamentalist lens without even bothering to properly understand that.
I'd like to emphasize that these things are true for nom-theological texts as well. Someone with a doctorate in astrophysics can't really discuss astrophysics with someone without the training in it--because for the most part the actual discourse of the topic is too far along for casuals to really understand without diving deep into the theories and mathematics that the discussion hinges on.
|
On May 19 2017 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 00:16 xM(Z wrote:On May 18 2017 22:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 18 2017 20:50 xM(Z wrote:"proven" is a loaded word here. you took the latest(official) interpretation on the issue that was based on an interpretation of cherry picked words but sure, proven. i called it ideological, you call it theological/metaphysical; it's fine. now that we're working of a live an let live scenario, i'd cherry pick on this ...but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. as a disclaimer, i never cut off the line mid sentence to omit whatever came next; it's just how i found the quote on The Internet. on that part thou, i can pull at least three interpretations from the top of my head: - haters get punished to the fourth generation and lovers(of him) get love in return; forever, no repents, no crossovers. - haters get punished to the fourth generation but if they convert, they get love in return; - one lover gets to save his to the thousandth generation even when someone along from lineage switches/turns into a hater; basically that quote can not be used as a prof for neither/nor(as with most/all things in the bible). that covers Thieving Magpie too; it's about what you read, how you read it(punctuation), how you interpret what you read and i think, maybe a few more semantically prone inclinations. oh yea ... translation ... At the time of writing, the point was that you can't simply blame women--as the Greeks did--or pagans--as many monotheists still do--for the state of the world. that though, could be argued at length and in some cases, even proven that early(proto)eastern latin-romance people, come from a matriarchal lineage. for a religious association, Mary, the mother of Jesus is more important than Jesus itself for latin people. Edit: well maybe not matriarchal as the word is currently understood, but more like a split man - woman society where women ruled their side so to speak(transgressions happened obviously but as to their extent, things are muddy). It doesn't actually cover me since interpretation is not what I am discussing, dogma is what I'm talking about. Some christian groups believes baptism is important and to actually forgive people, even babies, even the dead, because no matter how good a person is, original sin (or proxies of it) is still there. Some christian groups believes that everything we do and believe in the here and now is what determines our goodness. Baptism is merely ritual because there is nothing to forgive, everything is a clean slate. Some don't even believe in either--Calvanists believe that the heavenly hierarchy is deterministic. Time is eternal and thus has already happened, thus everyone who deserves to be with God is already with God and those who aren't are already damned. And there is nothing we can do to change that. You having your own specific reading of a specific text does not dictate what the dogmas of societies and cultures outside of you have. For the same reason that racists don't get to define a race as lazy/violent just because they're reading and their research of that race suggests so. i'd argue, on that part, that you're being purposely blind to what else does it take to make an own specific reading into a dogma. i mean ... power?/being pretty? ... power +an idea and say hello to your new church/army/groupies/whatever floats your boat. or is your argument that dogmas are somehow holy and arise organically from shared psychological needs and things and values and aw4kghsethgsrt. i'm not getting your context, i don't think so. what is the effect or worth of a (new)dogma that you're looking at?, that you want it to have?. my reading is not special, i make it special by projecting it+power onto unsuspecting victims. if i happen to read something differently or you know, how God intended it , whether or not people get on board with it is irrelevant to me(that may or may not happen (peacefully)) but there's always the option of abuse, physical or psychological, at my disposal. Edit: i read the posts from Acro and Yoav and though you both have some validity there(in smaller contexts) it is not interesting to me. i am saying to both of you that i can use your ambiguity on the interpretation of a text, irrespectively(?) of your sanctioned contemporary thought in Judeo-Christian society, to my benefit. Nothing makes the dogma special--it's simply what people within that group believes to be the truth/axiom that they base their follow up arguments against. There are some that believe (fully or metaphysically) in the passing down of sins. Social Justice movements hinges on the idea that the socio economic state of one's lineage greatly dictates your current and future success ie, you are societally punished/rewarded for the deeds of your ancestors. Some believe that people are inherently evil unless they proactively do good works--ie original sin. Whatever the case may be, it isn't something you can blanket as a Christian or Jewish (actually Abrahamic if we want to get nitpicky) ideal, because not all members of that group prescribe to that axiom or truth. There are those who do, especially sociologists and majority of class focused liberals, but it's not a truism in regards to how people believe. from your words i get that you think "the belief in" is a given(by nature, by Gods, by something outside the human sphere). things like "people within that group believes to be..." gives the word a meaning outside humans/humanity while me, dismissing gods all together, i'm claiming that i can create religions because religions were created before me, by men; maybe men specialer than me, but men not the less. men found a way to exploit human weaknesses(faith if you will) for personal gain and they did it.
if, when using belief you mean faith + Show Spoiler + =allegiance to duty or a person; the most casual definition
Edit: i'm playing here the good cracker part, telling you to get a better firewall for i shall exploit your programming to get bitcoins.
|
On May 19 2017 00:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2017 23:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 18 2017 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 18 2017 21:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
How is it insulting? Religious people argue with religious people on the correct interpretation of their religion all the time. Preseumably because they wish to do so. Would you too would feel it insulting? I'd like to translate what you just said: "People of the same social groups discuss things about their social groups to each other, doesn't that mean someone outside their social group gets to dictate to them how their social group works" Replace the one instances of "dictate" with "discuss" or vice versa to harmonise the words, but I don't disagree with the basic premise of what you just said. I don't see a problem with that translation. The question would be, from your tone as transmitted through the written word, why you see it as problematic? In any case the discussion came about due to yoav deliberately equating the Christian various doctrines of original sin to liability for the sins of their parents generally. Problematic and insulting are not equal terms. There are non-insulting things that are problematic and non-problematic things that are insulting. The real question is what you wish to gain from said discussion. If I walked up to a nazi and asked him why he doesn't simply allow the free market to let educated blacks get his job--I'd be punched in the face and the neonazi would be angry--a net loss for all parties involved. But if I stood idle as that same nazi was berating my black friend--then that would be problematic as well. Being insulting is should not be a deterrent--but it also should be a guideline of what you wish to gain from the exchange. Ok...I'll bite and swop the words around. So tell me what exactly do you see as insulting?
BTW, I don't really understand your nazi black person analogy. What exactly are you trying to say?
|
On May 19 2017 01:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 00:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 18 2017 23:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 18 2017 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 18 2017 21:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
How is it insulting? Religious people argue with religious people on the correct interpretation of their religion all the time. Preseumably because they wish to do so. Would you too would feel it insulting? I'd like to translate what you just said: "People of the same social groups discuss things about their social groups to each other, doesn't that mean someone outside their social group gets to dictate to them how their social group works" Replace the one instances of "dictate" with "discuss" or vice versa to harmonise the words, but I don't disagree with the basic premise of what you just said. I don't see a problem with that translation. The question would be, from your tone as transmitted through the written word, why you see it as problematic? In any case the discussion came about due to yoav deliberately equating the Christian various doctrines of original sin to liability for the sins of their parents generally. Problematic and insulting are not equal terms. There are non-insulting things that are problematic and non-problematic things that are insulting. The real question is what you wish to gain from said discussion. If I walked up to a nazi and asked him why he doesn't simply allow the free market to let educated blacks get his job--I'd be punched in the face and the neonazi would be angry--a net loss for all parties involved. But if I stood idle as that same nazi was berating my black friend--then that would be problematic as well. Being insulting is should not be a deterrent--but it also should be a guideline of what you wish to gain from the exchange. Ok...I'll bite and swop the words around. So tell me what exactly do you see as insulting? BTW, I don't really understand your nazi black person analogy. What exactly are you trying to say?
When people within a group discuss the realities of their group, it is discourse. When an outsider comes in to tell them what their realities are, it can be insulting. This is true be the topic about religioun, race, gender, hobbies, etc...
Being insulting is meaningless from an academic perspective, but critical from a communication perspective.
If an SC2 player came into the BW forums and started telling them everything that is wrong with BW--the people in that forum will be insulted no matter the accuracy/inaccuracy of the SC2 player's statements. The same is also true with religious and non-religious groups.
The nazi analogy (neo-Nazi really but autocorrect is hard), was to show that there are different circumstances and situations where being insulting to the person with different views as you is helpful, and times when insulting that same person is pointless; my example used the topic of now-nazi's perception of black people.
It is insulting because believing you, an outsider, can dictate the beliefs and ideals of a group you are not part of and hence don't have the full context of what living in that group is like on a day-to-day metric is, for the most part, patronizing, dehumanizing, and ignorant of you to engage in.
|
On May 19 2017 01:05 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 19 2017 00:16 xM(Z wrote:On May 18 2017 22:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 18 2017 20:50 xM(Z wrote:"proven" is a loaded word here. you took the latest(official) interpretation on the issue that was based on an interpretation of cherry picked words but sure, proven. i called it ideological, you call it theological/metaphysical; it's fine. now that we're working of a live an let live scenario, i'd cherry pick on this ...but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. as a disclaimer, i never cut off the line mid sentence to omit whatever came next; it's just how i found the quote on The Internet. on that part thou, i can pull at least three interpretations from the top of my head: - haters get punished to the fourth generation and lovers(of him) get love in return; forever, no repents, no crossovers. - haters get punished to the fourth generation but if they convert, they get love in return; - one lover gets to save his to the thousandth generation even when someone along from lineage switches/turns into a hater; basically that quote can not be used as a prof for neither/nor(as with most/all things in the bible). that covers Thieving Magpie too; it's about what you read, how you read it(punctuation), how you interpret what you read and i think, maybe a few more semantically prone inclinations. oh yea ... translation ... At the time of writing, the point was that you can't simply blame women--as the Greeks did--or pagans--as many monotheists still do--for the state of the world. that though, could be argued at length and in some cases, even proven that early(proto)eastern latin-romance people, come from a matriarchal lineage. for a religious association, Mary, the mother of Jesus is more important than Jesus itself for latin people. Edit: well maybe not matriarchal as the word is currently understood, but more like a split man - woman society where women ruled their side so to speak(transgressions happened obviously but as to their extent, things are muddy). It doesn't actually cover me since interpretation is not what I am discussing, dogma is what I'm talking about. Some christian groups believes baptism is important and to actually forgive people, even babies, even the dead, because no matter how good a person is, original sin (or proxies of it) is still there. Some christian groups believes that everything we do and believe in the here and now is what determines our goodness. Baptism is merely ritual because there is nothing to forgive, everything is a clean slate. Some don't even believe in either--Calvanists believe that the heavenly hierarchy is deterministic. Time is eternal and thus has already happened, thus everyone who deserves to be with God is already with God and those who aren't are already damned. And there is nothing we can do to change that. You having your own specific reading of a specific text does not dictate what the dogmas of societies and cultures outside of you have. For the same reason that racists don't get to define a race as lazy/violent just because they're reading and their research of that race suggests so. i'd argue, on that part, that you're being purposely blind to what else does it take to make an own specific reading into a dogma. i mean ... power?/being pretty? ... power +an idea and say hello to your new church/army/groupies/whatever floats your boat. or is your argument that dogmas are somehow holy and arise organically from shared psychological needs and things and values and aw4kghsethgsrt. i'm not getting your context, i don't think so. what is the effect or worth of a (new)dogma that you're looking at?, that you want it to have?. my reading is not special, i make it special by projecting it+power onto unsuspecting victims. if i happen to read something differently or you know, how God intended it , whether or not people get on board with it is irrelevant to me(that may or may not happen (peacefully)) but there's always the option of abuse, physical or psychological, at my disposal. Edit: i read the posts from Acro and Yoav and though you both have some validity there(in smaller contexts) it is not interesting to me. i am saying to both of you that i can use your ambiguity on the interpretation of a text, irrespectively(?) of your sanctioned contemporary thought in Judeo-Christian society, to my benefit. Nothing makes the dogma special--it's simply what people within that group believes to be the truth/axiom that they base their follow up arguments against. There are some that believe (fully or metaphysically) in the passing down of sins. Social Justice movements hinges on the idea that the socio economic state of one's lineage greatly dictates your current and future success ie, you are societally punished/rewarded for the deeds of your ancestors. Some believe that people are inherently evil unless they proactively do good works--ie original sin. Whatever the case may be, it isn't something you can blanket as a Christian or Jewish (actually Abrahamic if we want to get nitpicky) ideal, because not all members of that group prescribe to that axiom or truth. There are those who do, especially sociologists and majority of class focused liberals, but it's not a truism in regards to how people believe. from your words i get that you think "the belief in" is a given(by nature, by Gods, by something outside the human sphere). things like "people within that group believes to be..." gives the word a meaning outside humans/humanity while me, dismissing gods all together, i'm claiming that i can create religions because religions were created before me, by men; maybe men specialer than me, but men not the less. men found a way to exploit human weaknesses(faith if you will) for personal gain and they did it. if, when using belief you mean faith + Show Spoiler + =allegiance to duty or a person; the most casual definition , then to me, the difference is that belief already has a target, direction, it achieved a goal/purpose, while faith can be steered ... towards my dogma, in this case. Edit: i'm playing here the good cracker part, telling you to get a better firewall for i shall exploit your programming to get bitcoins.
The specificity of the belief is meaningless.
For example: very very few people on the planet actually *know* what gravity is, can sense it, can prove it exists. Very very very few people know the mathematical way to prove, beyond a doubt, that gravity is real. And, for the most part, even gravity "as is" is in contention due to specificities in how the mathematics of it works depending on scale of the phenomena. BUT, most people believe gravity is real because they go to a building called a school and have leaders called Teachers tell them that the books provided tell us that Gravity is real, has been proven, and that there are dead men who did all the work to show this X years ago. That is good enough for 99% of the population. We don't need 100% of the population to show you how to prove what gravity is for ma fundamental level, we just need for them to believe when told that it is real and that some guy with a piece of paper proved however many years ago.
This is true for majority of things in the world.
How many people in the Deep South do you know have physical proof that Africa exists other than stories their peers tell them and pictures in books? Does it matter that majority of poor people in the US will never hunt game in the serengety? That they will have to believe from the testimonies of others that these things are real?
It doesn't matter--since believing it is good enough.
When things move to the metaphysical it's much the same. Different groups will have different books and different scholars making different analyses on these same sources. The scholars pushing the boundaries of the research can dissect and discuss things very deeply--but for the majority within those faiths, the dogma is "enough" to get them through the day.
When going into specificities you'd need many things to align first from source texts, agreed upon theories, and agreed upon scholars to form the baseline of the discussion at hand.
|
On May 19 2017 02:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 01:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 19 2017 00:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 18 2017 23:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 18 2017 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 18 2017 21:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
How is it insulting? Religious people argue with religious people on the correct interpretation of their religion all the time. Preseumably because they wish to do so. Would you too would feel it insulting? I'd like to translate what you just said: "People of the same social groups discuss things about their social groups to each other, doesn't that mean someone outside their social group gets to dictate to them how their social group works" Replace the one instances of "dictate" with "discuss" or vice versa to harmonise the words, but I don't disagree with the basic premise of what you just said. I don't see a problem with that translation. The question would be, from your tone as transmitted through the written word, why you see it as problematic? In any case the discussion came about due to yoav deliberately equating the Christian various doctrines of original sin to liability for the sins of their parents generally. Problematic and insulting are not equal terms. There are non-insulting things that are problematic and non-problematic things that are insulting. The real question is what you wish to gain from said discussion. If I walked up to a nazi and asked him why he doesn't simply allow the free market to let educated blacks get his job--I'd be punched in the face and the neonazi would be angry--a net loss for all parties involved. But if I stood idle as that same nazi was berating my black friend--then that would be problematic as well. Being insulting is should not be a deterrent--but it also should be a guideline of what you wish to gain from the exchange. Ok...I'll bite and swop the words around. So tell me what exactly do you see as insulting? BTW, I don't really understand your nazi black person analogy. What exactly are you trying to say? When people within a group discuss the realities of their group, it is discourse. When an outsider comes in to tell them what their realities are, it can be insulting. This is true be the topic about religioun, race, gender, hobbies, etc... Being insulting is meaningless from an academic perspective, but critical from a communication perspective. If an SC2 player came into the BW forums and started telling them everything that is wrong with BW--the people in that forum will be insulted no matter the accuracy/inaccuracy of the SC2 player's statements. The same is also true with religious and non-religious groups. The nazi analogy (neo-Nazi really but autocorrect is hard), was to show that there are different circumstances and situations where being insulting to the person with different views as you is helpful, and times when insulting that same person is pointless; my example used the topic of now-nazi's perception of black people. It is insulting because believing you, an outsider, can dictate the beliefs and ideals of a group you are not part of and hence don't have the full context of what living in that group is like on a day-to-day metric is, for the most part, patronizing, dehumanizing, and ignorant of you to engage in.
You know, I get the feeling that you don't actually know what being insulted actually is. Is this like some sort of new-age American meaning of insult I am reading? Reading this I feel like there is this massive cultural barrier between us,exacerbated by the BW SC2 analogy, where I actually don't mind SC2 players talking about BW since I am not a snobby BW elitist unlike some.
|
Debates between atheists and believers are as old as religion itself. There is nothing inherently insulting about the debate in the abstract. However, the internet has given rise to a sort of pro-wrestling style of debate that is more about scoring points that enlightenment or simply enjoying the back and forth with another person. This could be due to the lack of social cues on the internet or simply that people enjoy winning argument. But even those debates did not really poison the well until social media and the rise of aggressive atheists communities that revel in “owning” religious people. And these communities have become louder and very much dominated the discussion of religion online.
This is the current social context around an atheists explain religion to a believer, especially on public forums like this one. It can and does leave a sour taste in some peoples mouth due to the connotations of that asshole atheists talk down religious people a lot on the internet.
|
On May 19 2017 02:36 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 02:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 19 2017 01:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 19 2017 00:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 18 2017 23:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 18 2017 22:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 18 2017 21:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
How is it insulting? Religious people argue with religious people on the correct interpretation of their religion all the time. Preseumably because they wish to do so. Would you too would feel it insulting? I'd like to translate what you just said: "People of the same social groups discuss things about their social groups to each other, doesn't that mean someone outside their social group gets to dictate to them how their social group works" Replace the one instances of "dictate" with "discuss" or vice versa to harmonise the words, but I don't disagree with the basic premise of what you just said. I don't see a problem with that translation. The question would be, from your tone as transmitted through the written word, why you see it as problematic? In any case the discussion came about due to yoav deliberately equating the Christian various doctrines of original sin to liability for the sins of their parents generally. Problematic and insulting are not equal terms. There are non-insulting things that are problematic and non-problematic things that are insulting. The real question is what you wish to gain from said discussion. If I walked up to a nazi and asked him why he doesn't simply allow the free market to let educated blacks get his job--I'd be punched in the face and the neonazi would be angry--a net loss for all parties involved. But if I stood idle as that same nazi was berating my black friend--then that would be problematic as well. Being insulting is should not be a deterrent--but it also should be a guideline of what you wish to gain from the exchange. Ok...I'll bite and swop the words around. So tell me what exactly do you see as insulting? BTW, I don't really understand your nazi black person analogy. What exactly are you trying to say? When people within a group discuss the realities of their group, it is discourse. When an outsider comes in to tell them what their realities are, it can be insulting. This is true be the topic about religioun, race, gender, hobbies, etc... Being insulting is meaningless from an academic perspective, but critical from a communication perspective. If an SC2 player came into the BW forums and started telling them everything that is wrong with BW--the people in that forum will be insulted no matter the accuracy/inaccuracy of the SC2 player's statements. The same is also true with religious and non-religious groups. The nazi analogy (neo-Nazi really but autocorrect is hard), was to show that there are different circumstances and situations where being insulting to the person with different views as you is helpful, and times when insulting that same person is pointless; my example used the topic of now-nazi's perception of black people. It is insulting because believing you, an outsider, can dictate the beliefs and ideals of a group you are not part of and hence don't have the full context of what living in that group is like on a day-to-day metric is, for the most part, patronizing, dehumanizing, and ignorant of you to engage in. You know, I get the feeling that you don't actually know what being insulted actually is. Is this like some sort of new-age American meaning of insult I am reading? Reading this I feel like there is this massive cultural barrier between us,exacerbated by the BW SC2 analogy, where I actually don't mind SC2 players talking about BW since I am not a snobby BW elitist unlike some.
How insulted you are does not determine how insulted others are.
|
Like I said there appears to be some sort of cultural barrier between us. You view certain actions due to certain situations and circumstances to be insulting, and upon those same situation and circumstance I do not, such as your strange neo nazi examples.
|
On May 19 2017 03:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Like I said there appears to be some sort of cultural barrier between us. You view certain actions due to certain situations and circumstances to be insulting, and upon those same situation and circumstance I do not, such as your strange neo nazi examples.
I do not determine whether someone is or is not insulted, the person himself will either be or not be insulted. It is very strange that you would determine something is insulting based on if *you yourself* will be insulted and not simply that other humans can experience and perceive things differently from you. But you're European, it makes sense that you don't really care about how others experience the world.
|
Does anyone else hate ticks
|
On May 19 2017 03:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 03:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Like I said there appears to be some sort of cultural barrier between us. You view certain actions due to certain situations and circumstances to be insulting, and upon those same situation and circumstance I do not, such as your strange neo nazi examples. I do not determine whether someone is or is not insulted, the person himself will either be or not be insulted. It is very strange that you would determine something is insulting based on if *you yourself* will be insulted and not simply that other humans can experience and perceive things differently from you. But you're European, it makes sense that you don't really care about how others experience the world. I am sorry for not being able to emphasize with Nazis to the point that I know what is insulting to them as a European.
And no I don't hate ticks. Because I am European.
|
Why wouldn't you hate ticks because you're European? That doesn't make sense. They're spread globally..
Being black != being religious. You can't talk about an inherent property as its the same as an acquired one.
And your example of someone from SC2 talking about issues in BW would be fine, as long as this person completely knows what they're talking about. It's insulting to groups to get talked down to because arguments are often times so superficial and don't strike at all to the core (at face value at least).
It's completely impossible for a white person to know what it's like to live as a black person and to comment on that? And that's insulting? Are you kidding me? Is it impossible for a black person to comment on the lives of white people?
Tone and behavior are really important things when you're going to try to be the pioneer that crosses the gaps between two groups, no matter what they are. How you do it, to me, is more important than you actually having the nerve doing it.
|
|
|
Ticks the blood sucking insect
|
On May 19 2017 04:42 Uldridge wrote:
Why wouldn't you hate ticks because you're European? That doesn't make sense. They're spread globally..
Being black != being religious. You can't talk about an inherent property as its the same as an acquired one.
And your example of someone from SC2 talking about issues in BW would be fine, as long as this person completely knows what they're talking about. It's insulting to groups to get talked down to because arguments are often times so superficial and don't strike at all to the core (at face value at least).
It's completely impossible for a white person to know what it's like to live as a black person and to comment on that? And that's insulting? Are you kidding me? Is it impossible for a black person to comment on the lives of white people?
Tone and behavior are really important things when you're going to try to be the pioneer that crosses the gaps between two groups, no matter what they are. How you do it, to me, is more important than you actually having the nerve doing it.
Being insulting does not mean you don't do it--it means the thing you are doing can be insulting to the person you are doing it to.
Union Strikes are insulting to companies being protested against. Underpaying employees is insulting to the staff of the person who hired them.
Being insulting is not a reason to not engage in something--it is simply a reality of living in the real world.
White people can experience racism, and they can talk about it to people of color. That doesn't mean that people of color wont find it insulting.
|
On May 19 2017 04:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 03:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 19 2017 03:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Like I said there appears to be some sort of cultural barrier between us. You view certain actions due to certain situations and circumstances to be insulting, and upon those same situation and circumstance I do not, such as your strange neo nazi examples. I do not determine whether someone is or is not insulted, the person himself will either be or not be insulted. It is very strange that you would determine something is insulting based on if *you yourself* will be insulted and not simply that other humans can experience and perceive things differently from you. But you're European, it makes sense that you don't really care about how others experience the world. I am sorry for not being able to emphasize with Nazis to the point that I know what is insulting to them as a European. And no I don't hate ticks. Because I am European.
You don't need to empathize with another person to know that human beings can be insulted. Just because he has different thoughts and ideals as you doesn't mean he doesn't feel what he feels and gets insulted by what he experiences. Whether you care about insulting him is irrelevant to the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
