The highly clichéd religion thread

[Maria92]

its threads like this that confuse me I always thought agnosticism was one cannot know if there is or is not a God. That even if there is a God, such a God is beyond human comprehension. Meaning two things, that neither religion or our human science could describe this God, and because we could not describe or know this God beyond comprehension, we ultimately don't even know if this God even exists? Agnosticism is saying, in essence, "I don't know." It means the person is unsure whether or not they believe in any sort of deity. An atheist, on the other hand, by definition, is one who simply does not believe in a deity; that is, they do not hold it to be true that there is a deity. They do not deny the possibility of a higher power, or claim that they have evidence to refute that argument; rather, since no evidence has been put forth to back up the notion of a god or gods, they see that there is no reason to believe in any form of a higher power; they do not accept that statement to be true. Agnosticism and atheism are fully compatible, though one who is both an agnostic and an atheist is more commonly referred to as a "weak atheist." Agnosticism on its own is more of a philosophy or school of thought. In short, it's a war of semantics, and matters about as much as a small clump of dirt.

[Tyler]

Sorry guys. I didn't mean for this to erupt into a debate about terms and definitions. I guess the best way to label me, is not to label me at all until I finally figure out what I beleive. It's annoying how many definitions and meanings one word can have to so many different people.

[Taosaur]

Heh, my main point was the absurdity and futility of semantic contortions, and not really aimed at O'nus. But yes, I do consider Western atheism a branch of Protestantism

[Indecent Exposure]

I can't tell if your being serious. If you are, care to elaborate?

[DuB]

Ironically, I approached the thread purely with the intent of semantic contortion . Personally what I think is absurd is taking a laissez-faire attitude toward language where you simply encourage people to be as arbitrary and vague with their verbiage as they please. That people self-apply these labels at hand in not-necessarily-coherent ways is precisely the problem to be fixed, not the solution to default to. Outside of semantics, I really don't have any special opinions with regard to religion/theism specifically. It is what it is. I've long taken the rather pessimistic view that people are going to do stupid, atrocious, or atrociously stupid things no matter what name it happens to be in, so to blame this fact on "religion" seems to be missing the point.

[Indecent Exposure]

You would use the same reasoning when discussing Fascism?

[DuB]

Absolutely. These are not malevolent (or even well-meaning) mind control agents that hijack our thoughts and occasionally force us to behave in irrational or unethical ways. These are ideological constructions that people consciously choose to either embrace or reject. Irrational and/or unethical people are going to perform irrational and/or unethical actions as well as subscribe to irrational and/or unethical worldviews. Punting the blame onto some abstract, theoretical entity like "religion" or "fascism" gets us nowhere.

[Indecent Exposure]

Absolutely. These are not malevolent (or even well-meaning) mind control agents that hijack our thoughts and occasionally force us to behave in irrational or unethical ways. These are ideological constructions that people consciously choose to either embrace or reject. Irrational and/or unethical people are going to perform irrational and/or unethical actions as well as subscribe to irrational and/or unethical worldviews. Punting the blame onto some abstract, theoretical entity like "religion" or "fascism" gets us nowhere. I agree on the whole that people should be held accountable for the actions. But in some cases there are exactly what you describe, "mind control agents" that cause us to act in unethical ways. The Nazis were a prime example, you can't tell me every Nazi that committed an atrocity was an inherently bad person. Some ideologies and systems have that affect on people; they fill them with absolute confidence in a position that is by nature completely anti-humanist and unethical, take militant Islam as an example. You don't agree that some world views, ideologies, take advantage of people with weak minds and almost bend them to their will? My opinion on it, is that you are an intelligent person who thinks things through and finds it hard to believe that people are weak enough to be controlled by ideology to the extent that it compromises their own previously held morals, however, there are millions of people worldwide weak enough to succumb to this sort of thing.

[DuB]

You don't agree that some world views, ideologies, take advantage of people with weak minds and almost bend them to their will? Of course I don't agree. Just listen to the language you're using: ideologies "take advantage" of people and "bend them to their will"? They are something that people "succumb to"? You'd think we were talking about a modern Machiavelli rather than something which has no objective existence. These are passive ideas with no possible causal powers; there is literally nothing to succumb to! The concept of Nazism did not reach down from the metaphysical ether and cause the Holocaust. The Holocaust was carried out by both of two kinds of people: sick individuals who chose to embrace a fittingly sick ideology, and people who were pressured, coerced, and forced by said sick individuals--not by the abstract set of ideas which is "Nazism." I'd like to bring us closer to topic and point out that this is as true for religion as it is for any ideology.

[O'nus]

Of course I don't agree. Just listen to the language you're using: ideologies "take advantage" of people and "bend them to their will"? They are something that people "succumb to"? You'd think we were talking about a modern Machiavelli rather than something which has no objective existence. These are passive ideas with no possible causal powers; there is literally nothing to succumb to! The concept of Nazism did not reach down from the metaphysical ether and cause the Holocaust. The Holocaust was carried out by both of two kinds of people: sick individuals who chose to embrace a fittingly sick ideology, and people who were pressured, coerced, and forced by said sick individuals--not by the abstract set of ideas which is "Nazism." I'd like to bring us closer to topic and point out that this is as true for religion as it is for any ideology. I treat religion in the same way I treat any characteristic; a characteristic. It is on par with rudeness, annoyance, deviance, etc. I find it is symbolic to a persons lack of intelligence or faculties of reasoning. However, I can easily still get along with that person, without patronizing. How? Because I know that they think the same of me. With that said, it is possible to still have civil debate and still even hate those ideologies. No, I do not think religion is an evil cloud of being that floats around and whispers into peoples ears. No, I don't think religion is a laughing face in the sky that manipulates people like puppets. It is a belief, just like racism, that I treat just the same (if not worse). However, it is still very easily possible to get along with that person. I would still confidently argue that there is no good that cannot be done without religion. If you cannot have a debate with someone without getting emotional and ruining your relationship with them, then that is your own incapability to control your emotions. However, I have befriended many people, of various beliefs, and we can easily get along. We have fierce debates and easily express hatred towards ideologies but not each other. If you cannot see the difference there and still accuse me of generalizing, then I accuse you to look in the mirror. ~

[DuB]

I'm more than a little confused about what the point is you're trying to make... whether or not there is any good that can be done with or without religious belief is neither here nor there. Likewise, whether or not one can get along on a personal level with someone who subscribes to a particular ideology bears no relation whatsoever to any point I was making. What are you on about?

[MementoMori]

Closed per OP's request as it was felt that it ventured off topic.