|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 08/24/2010 : 15:45:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
Not quite. I am talking about the dogma (the philosophy), not the people in it. |
And this is where you go wrong. What the dogma is, is decided by the people in the religion.
| The rigour of the people espousing to hold the philosophy is not my primary consideration on this point - the philosophy itself, and what it prescribes, is. |
And again, what the philosophy is and what it prescribes is determined by the people holding the philosophy. They decide how they think certain passages in their holy books should be interpreted.
| This is my concern because I suspect, based on billions of evidence-examples and thousands of years, that dogma does have influence on people. I hold that prescriptivity is the function within a dogma that exerts that influence. Yes, I hold that ideas influence people. |
But you refuse to actually examine the dogma people hold. This is the core of the problem. You are railing at what you say the dogma should be, instead of listening to the people who hold the religion and asking them what they think the dogma is. This is problematic.
| My detractors seem to be claiming that since prescriptivity is not an absolute (entailing) cause that it therefore has no influence whatsoever, which again runs contradictory to billions of examples and thousands of years of evidence. |
Whereever did you get that idea? This is another problem, you don't seem to actually understand what your detractors are saying.
| Similarly, they seem to be claiming that since there are differences in interpretation of the dogma that there is no dogma - more, that there is no content, much less content with influence. That is patently absurd. |
It would be. Luckily, it's not what we are saying.
Seriously dglas, at what point in time are you planning to actually discuss the issue, instead of what you think the issue should be?
This is a little bit like saying that scientific skepticism has no content. Obviously it does, with respect to using external referents (empirical data) as the adjudicator of contentious viewpoints - which is a content radically different from the "true for me" mentality. A content it is nonetheless and it has influence. Not with everyone, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have content.
|
Nobody is saying that religious books do not have content. What people are saying is that the way this content is interpreted by people can lead to very different dogma's. And that it is this actual dogma's that are the point of discussion.
Like it or not, religious people decide what their dogma is, not you. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
 |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2010 : 15:52:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
Religions thrive on polarization and conflict. They are conflict-engines. That's what prescriptivity is all about. For religious interests, the best of all possible worlds is one in which all who follow are seen as good and all who do not are seen as evil - precisely two possibilities.
The "mosque at ground zero" is an attempt (on both sides) to paint matters in painfully simplistic terms. If you oppose the "mosque at ground zero," it is said you are a bigot and a tea-party pawn - no other possible options. If you don't oppose it, you are labeled a "liberal" and anti-christian - no other possible options. It has absurdly become an issue of competing absolutisms.
Never mind that both are absolutist dogmas. We have forgotten about that in the sound and the fury.
What is astonishing is how so many so-called "skeptics" have bought into the dichotomous polarization - so much so that no other approach or inquiry is tolerated, let alone considered.
The "mosque at ground zero" conflict is good for christianity *and* for islam because it polarizes people along religious lines. It is, however, not so good for advancing the subject matter - the discussion of the effects of prescriptive absolutism and the bare minimum requirement for any ideology to coexist with another (which is to say a willingness to coexist, to let others exist, a "live and let live" mentality - as opposed to a "convert or die" mentality).
Both islam and christianity are "convert or die" mentalities at their core. Christianity is just better paper-trained (for the moment anyway). Of course the "mosque at ground zero" thing shows us how tenuous and temporary the paper-training is. It takes an incredible lack of acuity, or an incredible distraction - a distraction like, say, a huge media event about a "mosque at ground zero" - to not realize this.
The signal is lost in the noise.
|
All the more reason to build the community center then (no, it is not a mosque! Fuck, stop saying it is when it is not, polarizing prick). I mean, if we want to paper-train the different religions on issues of tolerance, peaceful conflict resolution etc etc, what better way then to have all these religions in close proximity to each other in a society where violent conflict resolution is abhorred? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2010 : 15:54:36 [Permalink]
|
| Ebone, sounds like Hitches is using a slippery-slope. We will oppose Islamic calls to censorship and the like when and if they happen. |
By then it is too late. Sometimes for practical purposes you have to use the slippery slope. Fuck those fuckers. We've got enough God damn problems with all of the Christians running around...we don't need to accomodate an even crazier bunch of fuckheads.
...and I'm not about to get into a 30 page point-counterpoint either. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
| Edited by - Ebone4rock on 08/24/2010 15:55:29 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2010 : 16:05:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
| Fuck those fuckers. We've got enough God damn problems with all of the Christians running around...we don't need to accomodate an even crazier bunch of fuckheads. |
Seems to me it's people of this mentality who are the problem.
|
Hey, we can't all be running around thinking it's all about tolerance and love and good happiness shit. Initially I was of that mindset but not any more. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2010 : 16:09:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
By then it is too late. |
No, it isn't. The Constitution protects freedom of religion and freedom of speech. If we just stick to our principles there is no issue. Muslims can cry for censorship all they want. It won't happen. Don't let yourself be manipulated by the fear mongers.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2010 : 16:09:57 [Permalink]
|
More from Harris. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2010/08/silence_is_not_moderation.html
He is saying much more eloquently something I was trying to get across yesterday.
| As many have pointed out, the controversy over the "ground zero mosque" is a false one. The project is legal to build, and it should remain legal. That does not mean, however, that any concern about building a mosque so close to ground zero is synonymous with bigotry. The true scandal here is that Muslim moderates have been so abysmally lacking in candor about the nature of their faith and so slow to disavow its genuine (and growing) pathologies--leading perfectly sane and tolerant people to worry whether Muslim moderation even exists. |
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2010 : 16:42:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
What the terrorists do should not affect our decision to build a mosque there. Not sure if you were implicitly suggests this or not. |
Brayton and others are saying that the right-wing screamers against the community center are demonizing Islam, which is exactly what the terrorists want because it will push moderates towards Wahabist extremism. In other words: the rampant anti-Islam bigotry makes America less safe by increasing the number of people who think the USA really is trying to wage a war against the whole religion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2010 : 17:11:40 [Permalink]
|
I have no problem with people criticizing religions, and we can all clearly see that Islam has some issues, and some European countries have let it get out of hand.
dglas's problem, and Harris's, is that they are assuming it is a foregone conclusion that the same thing will happen here, despite the obvious fact our laws and constitution explicitly prohibit the outcome they have already concluded is inevitable.
Further, they are willing to throw away the constitutional protections for speech that allow them to say what they are saying by creating a group of people that are denied those rights. That is a precedent we can't create, because it isn't a slippery slope fallacy to recognize such a precedent will eventually be turned against some other group.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2010 : 17:40:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Hey, we can't all be running around thinking it's all about tolerance and love and good happiness shit. |
It's not, it's about maintaining the constitutional principles that ensure that those Christian fuckers don't turn this country into a theocracy, either. If we make exceptions for one group of fuckers, then the other fuckers in power will decide that it's okay to get rid of any group they don't like. Like gun-toting, loud-mouth atheists from Wisconsin.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2010 : 20:07:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Yes Dave, and what I'm talking about is the next step. What do we do with this information, what does it mean as far as our actions go? And my answer is that it means absolutely jack squat. The same reasoning we use to argue that we don't back down from criticizing radical Islams works here. The right-wing screamers are wrong, but this line of thought adds absolutely nothing to the reason why they are wrong. |
You're right, this has nothing to do with why they are wrong, this "line of thought" is being put forth to do nothing more than point out that the screamers are acting against their own declared interests. In more-general terms, Republicans are encouraging terrorist attacks. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2010 : 01:49:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Brayton and others are saying that the right-wing screamers against the community center are demonizing Islam, which is exactly what the terrorists want because it will push moderates towards Wahabist extremism. In other words: the rampant anti-Islam bigotry makes America less safe by increasing the number of people who think the USA really is trying to wage a war against the whole religion.
|
I thought that was pretty obvious all along.
The Danish Muhammed cartoons weren't intended as anti-Islam, but Danish imams made them out to be. Then many imams around the world took the opportunity to use it for religio-political purposes... and see what happens: even reasonable Muslims I've talked to have felt offended. It's a manufactured conflict in which everyone is a loser.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I… WTF…?
