Religious Nonsense

Discussion in 'Religion' started by StrangerInAStrangeLand, Jul 21, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,372
    It doesn't require you to.
    If an abrahamic religion finds itself categorized with hinduism and buddhism, that in itself is a pretty good clue the stronger defining points lie outside religion.

    If you don't wish to define the problem as religious, why would you ask such a question?
    What blitherous or blatherous means are you calling in to play to engineer something causing an event, but in no way defining it?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,440
    That's not true. It almost completely ignores my posting.
    Disparaging your posting here is not even an expression of hatred.
    Projection?
    The matter of intellectual interest in your posting here, and that of other fundies who wander in, is the means as well as the ends. Not only why you post dishonestly, always, in order to disparage unbelievers, but how you come by the combinations of innuendo and slander by implication and assertion by false question techniques you share. The origin, apparently multifactored and complex, of this characteristic bullshit you guys post, is the only substance of discussion involving your posts.
    The ostensible attempt was to return you to it. The actual purpose was illustration - you would illustrate, by your response, my description of your posting. You did.
    As the shared foundation (in religious conflict and hostility) is the key and thread relevant aspect of that being one of the worst of this kind of thing (the East Timor genocide makes most of the top ten post WWII lists), your question is another of these strange ones. The personal attack was of course standard, from you and your kind.
    You are, like your fellow fundies in these science forums, fundamentally dishonest. Not just a lie or two here and there, but a basic agenda of establishing falsehood via pursuit of accusation and imposed judgment.
    And the commonality, the characteristic nature, of the rhetorical tactics employed is striking.
    The question becomes not only why, but how.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,440
    The exact opposite, would be the normal or reasoned implication.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,611
    Experience reminds something about expecting, at this point in the exchange, that the other will ever actually answer.

    However, one of the problems with letting people you think are incorrect define anything is that when they try to duck out, left hanging is a problematic question. Trying to follow this discussion back to the origin of that question is a bit difficult for the mess, but check #39↑, which suggests this track was probably a discussion best avoided.
     
  8. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,372
    Hinduism, buddhism and islam vs christianity as an inherent religious (distinct from a political, economic and geographic) dichotomy?
    At the very least, you desperately need a new buzz word aside from "abrahamic" ...
     
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,584
    Non sequitur.

    Let's try a different approach: Do you think the conflicts in the Middle East are caused by secularization?
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,440
    No. Again no - as is now always the first half of any reply to your posting, and in the standard pattern will be, indefinitely.
    Not for referring to Abrahamic religions and their adherents, such as yourself.
    Try capitalizing the names. It helps.
    And you still haven't told us what you were trying to say in post 83.
    Meanwhile:
    Which is where the thread topic keeps coming back - simplistic and irritatingly shallow and disrespectfully smartalec as it may seem, it turns out to be an actual arena of investigation.
    Are you sure they don't?
    The current President gained office on the overtly Christian, self-identified population of Christendom, vote.
    Christian is as Christian does.
     
  11. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,372
    If islam is not an eastern religion (like taoism, buddhism, hinduism, shintoism, confucianism, etc) obviously a different sort of thinking, besides mere religion, went in to categorizing the region as the middle east.

    You don't understand.
    There is a problem in reducing over a 1000 years of history down to a caricature for the sake of confining it to a narrow, singular cause. That problem lies in the act of reducing history, and not in identifying a cause to fulfill the needs of the caricature.
     
  12. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,372
    If only you were as attentive to the people you (attempt to) engage in discussions with as you are attentive to spelling .... although it should come as no surprise should our resident orthogonalist suddenly feel a need to dive into orthography.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2018
  13. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,584
    Don't try to obfuscate. The Middle East is a fairly well-defined concept.

    But you're the one who is doing that. Your claim was that secularism hasn't solved all of the problems of the world. Now you're admitting that problems are complex. So why would we expect secularism to have a magic wand?
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  14. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,372
    The fact that it has arisen as the "middle east", and not the "middle west", provides clear clues on how it is defined.

    I introduced secularism (and, to be fair, the industrial age, which is, IMHO, by far a greater contributor to what is wagered in the name of war than any particular ideology tacked to notions of God) in response to the claim of the following ...

    Throughout history religious beliefs and behaviors have been the source of incredible human suffering and misery and I think that's because religion is not actually true but is based on ancient myths and lies.

    My response that introduced secularism being ...

    The rise of secularism under the umbrella of the industrial revolution hasn't exactly ushered in an era of peace ... just in case you weren't familiar with modern history.

    Which then led to various defenses of secularism by distorting and dumbing down contemporary and historical affairs.

    If you want to analyze absurd, self destructive behaviour based on myths and lies, look no further than industrial civilization fueled by consumerism. If you think the solution lies in disempowering or disenfranchising religion, you can't see the elephant in the room.
    Far be it from secularism to be the form of government that rises to save humanity in its darkest hour, it appears to be the mode of governance that will be at helm when the world finally goes to hell in a handbasket.... or, to put it in more optimistic terms, there is no obvious path available to secularism that appears capable to steer civilization away from a trajectory headed to unprecedented levels of ecological, social, economical, political, etc disaster.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2018
  15. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,206
    Industrial civilization and consumerism were participated in equally by the secular and non-secular. And the dumbing down is when you imply that Stalin's purges were motivated by atheism alone, a philosophical position that is quite narrowly defined, with no holy book or founding ideology.
     
  16. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,584
    Do you think the conflicts in the Middle East are caused by secularism?
     
  17. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,372
    On the contrary, the industrial revolution effectively dismantled non-secular governance from the political arena.

    I never suggested that atheism has no other political expression outside what was offered by Stalin, et al. I did suggest, however, their example shows there is nothing intrinsic to atheism to reign in genocide, persecution, etc. The fact they did it in such flying colours shows that you don't need a holy book to remove maybe 25% of your population from the ecosystem over 5 years.
     
  18. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,372
    If I call out religion as a false flag for causing conflict in the Middle East, you are just introducing a false dichotomy when you try to frame (at least in your mind) the binary opposite of that under the tarred brush category of "secularism".
     
  19. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,584
    You're the one who brought it up. You said that secularism has not solved all of the world's problems. Nobody has suggested that it has or even that it should. If you have a point about secularism, try to make it.
     
  20. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,372
    Yet there was (and still is, if you shop around on various running threads) the idea that discarding religion will do a substantial "something" to solve the world's problems. My point in citing communism and secularism is to show that historically and currently it is most certainly not the case.
     
  21. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,584
    As long as you're equivocating communism and secularism, your point is empty. It wasn't the secular aspect of communism that produced ill effects and/or failed to cure all existing ill effects.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,440
    Again we read nothing but insult embedded in a fog of allusion and innuendo - much easier than refutation, isn't it.
    That would be the rise of the Industrial Revolution under an umbrella of "secularism" (whatever you decide to claim, later when you need the escape hatch, that "secularism" means).
    The "dismantling" of theocratic government came first, the industrial revolution second.
    Religion is neither narrow nor singular, especially in its role of fomenting and organizing violence.
    You are suggesting that now - you weren't, then. It's a valid point. And it's irrelevant.
    What you were doing earlier was denying there was anything intrinsic to theistic religion that encouraged genocide, persecution, etc, and suggesting that there was something intrinsic to "atheism" (a vague term, in your usage) that did.

    And all of that suggesting and implying and general innuendoing was embedded in the quasi-illiterate word-fogs that Abrahamic theists characteristically produce in science forums,
    in which it becomes the task of the reader to figure out what was meant, because what was posted made no sense,
    - as if there were some kind of fundie auto-fill AI they all use for selecting spun allusions in place of accurate terms, and deniability in bad syntax to cover for what would be too obviously dumb if stated clearly.

    Nonsense, characteristic nonsense, from the religious, overt and self-identified religious.
     
  23. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,206
    That's not a bug, it's a feature.
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page