Does anyone have any sympathy left for 'offended muslims' anymore? (God, pastor)

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Hyker

I am all for discussing ideas. If you think that I indicated otherwise, I would like to know how you reached that conclusion.

Did I anywhere suggest I had reached such a conclusion? My point was a general one on this topic as a whole, nothing to do with you specifically. AGAIN my point is that all too often on this topic of "respect" and "offence" and so forth.... people are merely taking offence vicariously on behalf of their ideas. They act like an affront to an idea is an affront to the person who holds them. And they scream "respect" and "tolerance" and tirades about their "right to have an opinion" and more.

But there is no reason why we have to respect and tolerate ideas. Just the people who hold them. And more often than not those screaming about their right to an opinion.... are doing so because they are attempting to silence the contrary opinions of others. The conversation all to often goes:

Person1: Expresses an Idea
Person2: Expresses a counter idea
Person1: Attempts to shut up person 2 by screaming how person 1 has a right to an opinion.

And it is all too clear that the Person1 in these situations is not so much demanding their right to an opinion, but is doing so in a way to attempt to silence that of Person2.

Originally Posted by Hyker

I'm not sure exactly what you are asserting here. Could you give me a few examples of contrived offense so that we can discuss?

I already did give examples of it. Blasphemy laws. And the attempts by the Muslim community to censor images of Mo. And also how this very forum, as with most others where religion is discusses, when you attempt to question the existence of god you get told you just "Hate Christians" or you are "intolerant" or much more.

Originally Posted by Hyker

Do you consider George Bush and Ronald Reagan to be deities and/or prophets? If so, that's pretty frightening. If not, this is a false equivocation.

Contriving to be ridiculous just makes you look ridiculous. Not me. Nowhere did I indicate any such thing. I am pointing out that when discussing current affairs and events in the political world our top selling news papers will often use a caricature cartoon to highlight some aspect of current events. And no one rises up attempting to kill the person who drew such a cartoon. Yet when we do the same thing to highlight some aspect of current events and affairs in the world of religion.... people DO rise up screaming offence and calling for (or even implementing) the deaths of those involved. This very forum has been known to delete whole posts if they so much as contain a link to the Jesus and Mo cartoons for example. Yet similar themed cartoons with the exact same intent featuring political figures are not so treated.

Originally Posted by Hyker

Seriously? How fares the battle against that straw man?

You will have to ask someone who is engaged in one. However simply throwing out the phrase at me for no reason does not change the point I have made, which is that requesting we take our issues up with "the intolerant" rather than the religion themselves..... is to act like religion is somehow blameless in the equation. My suggestion remains unaddressed by you dodging in behind the misuse of the straw man phrase. And it is this: That we should be taking our issue up with BOTH the intolerant AND the religions.

So my reply to "If you want to be angry and disgusted, direct it toward the intolerance rather than the religions themselves." is "No.... I will direct it towards BOTH".

Originally Posted by Hyker

I'm sure it would strengthen your argument if religions were equivalent to hobbies

They are. And simply calling that "absurd" does not magically make it so. And yes, the hobbies of many people are part of their self identify. Just like their careers can be. Just being important or dear to them, or something they build their life around, does not stop them being hobbies. Religions are little more than hobbies. The Churches are little more than Club Houses. Get over it. I know people who support Manchester United Football Club to a point that its ALSO part of their self identity. Probably more so than some religious people I have met. This, for one moment, does not change the fact that going along to the stadium to watch games, donating money through tickets and merchandising, thinking about it every day, laughing along side successes.... crying along side failures.... and self identifying as a ManU Fan every day..... is still their hobby.

Originally Posted by Hyker

I'll just snip out the rest of your statements comparing religion with a hobby since the false equivocation nullifies them at any rate.

You are welcome to dodge in any way that gets you to sleep at night. Especially the old canard of defining anyone who agrees with you as a "reasonable individual". We get THAT trick here all the time.

Originally Posted by Hyker

I have no idea how you could make this claim.

Quite easily actually. If you, or her, define a failure to find a place on your work premises to engage in a mere hobby as "dismay" then you simply know nothing of the depths of human dismay. I make the claim easily and accurately based on your own definition of something you feel warrants the use of the term. "Dismay" is defined often in dictionaries in terms of "distress" for example and if not being allowed to engage in a hobby on work time on work premises causes "distress" then you simply have an overly delicate disposition. I hope out of common human decency that you never have had, or will have, cause to feel real "distress" at any time in your life.

[Hyker]

Hello Nozzferrahhtoo.

Sorry to have kept you waiting so long for my response...it's been a busy week. I do 99% of my C-D posting on my phone during breaks in the day, but when conversations start getting too long I need to sit in front of my actual (home) computer. Anyway, let's review your last post...

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Did I anywhere suggest I had reached such a conclusion? [that I (meaning Hyker) oppose the exchange of ideas] My point was a general one on this topic as a whole, nothing to do with you specifically.

I wouldn't want anyone to infer this mistakenly, which is why I asked. Your response doesn't really answer the question directly, but the implication is that you do not believe I expressed a desire to stifle the exchange of ideas, so I'll take that as a point of agreement unless you wish to indicate otherwise.

AGAIN my point is that all too often on this topic of "respect" and "offence" and so forth.... people are merely taking offence vicariously on behalf of their ideas. They act like an affront to an idea is an affront to the person who holds them. And they scream "respect" and "tolerance" and tirades about their "right to have an opinion" and more.

But there is no reason why we have to respect and tolerate ideas. Just the people who hold them.

So your assertion is that you are only attacking the ideas rather than the individuals themselves? And yet in post #57 you wrote the following (emphasis added):

I see such people as those that need to be overcome. They are part of the problem, not the solution.

Sympathy for these people? Hell no. They are the enemy of open democracy and free speech and all the ideals I hold dear.

That sounds an awful lot like you are opposing the individuals rather than their ideas. Of course, a person and his or her ideas are closely related...

And more often than not those screaming about their right to an opinion.... are doing so because they are attempting to silence the contrary opinions of others. The conversation all to often goes:

Person1: Expresses an Idea
Person2: Expresses a counter idea
Person1: Attempts to shut up person 2 by screaming how person 1 has a right to an opinion.

And it is all too clear that the Person1 in these situations is not so much demanding their right to an opinion, but is doing so in a way to attempt to silence that of Person2.

Agreed...and that door swings both ways.

I already did give examples of [contrived offense]. Blasphemy laws.

Okay, I don't think anyone here is defending blasphemy laws. Moving on...

And the attempts by the Muslim community to censor images of Mo.

Right, no one here is promoting censorship either (we already agreed to this earlier in the post)

And also how this very forum, as with most others where religion is discusses, when you attempt to question the existence of god you get told you just "Hate Christians" or you are "intolerant" or much more.

Okay, that one's a little broad. I think I would have to take it on a more case-by-case basis, but I can see where that has happened.

Notwithstanding, only in the last case do I really see the offense as "contrived." It strikes me more as uncontrolled zealotry, which I'm certainly not going to defend.

Contriving to be ridiculous just makes you look ridiculous. Not me.

Umm...I'm not sure how one "contrive[s] to be ridiculous." I don't think I've ever heard that phrase before.

Nowhere did I indicate any such thing [that George Bush and/or Ronald Reagan are prophets and/or deities]

Right...you just compared them to Jesus and Mohammed, which is why I called you out on the false equivalence. No matter how much you may agree with these men, that's all they are to you...men.

While it may be a foreign concept to you, it is part of the believer's reality that some things are sacred. Nothing is sacred to you...fine...but simply telling everyone else that they should not hold anything sacred makes you not-so-different than those who take offense when their sacred ideas are challenged.

I am pointing out that when discussing current affairs and events in the political world our top selling news papers will often use a caricature cartoon to highlight some aspect of current events. And no one rises up attempting to kill the person who drew such a cartoon. Yet when we do the same thing to highlight some aspect of current events and affairs in the world of religion.... people DO rise up screaming offence and calling for (or even implementing) the deaths of those involved. This very forum has been known to delete whole posts if they so much as contain a link to the Jesus and Mo cartoons for example. Yet similar themed cartoons with the exact same intent featuring political figures are not so treated.

Okay, a couple of things on this point.

1. Let's remember that we've already agreed that censorship is a bad.

2. I don't know that all of this falls under "contrived offense." To say that the offense is contrived implies that it is not authentic. This may occur, but I think some people are authentically offended. This is a case of simple zealotry rather than "contrived offense." In that instance, there's not much I can tell you...some people are just bat s--- crazy.

You will have to ask someone who is engaged in one [a straw man argument]

Okay, let's review your comment from post #57...

So you can harp on about, and blame, human intolerance but religion is NOT blameless in that equation because it feeds people irreconcilable and divisive unsubstantiated nonsense that is the brightest burning fuel on which the fires of human intolerance can be set to light.

Your statement implies that I hold religion blameless, and then explains why I should not hold religion blameless. It would be a straw man argument if I did not hold religion blameless. So let's look at what I said...

(post54)
Respect for beliefs is not limited to the non-believer's attitude toward the believer, but applies to everyone.

Certainly that implies that do not hold religious believers blameless. Do I hold religions blameless? Not to the extent that they institutionalize intolerance, which is why I also said

(post 52)
Anger expressed against individuals that is really intended toward the institution doesn't help anyone.

So...that starts looking an awful lot like a straw man argument to me.

However simply throwing out the phrase at me for no reason does not change the point I have made, which is that requesting we take our issues up with "the intolerant" rather than the religion themselves..... is to act like religion is somehow blameless in the equation. My suggestion remains unaddressed by you dodging in behind the misuse of the straw man phrase.

Covered that above...

And it is this: That we should be taking our issue up with BOTH the intolerant AND the religions.

So my reply to "If you want to be angry and disgusted, direct it toward the intolerance rather than the religions themselves" is No.... I will direct it towards BOTH".

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here and don't want to accuse you of saying something that you did not intend. By this phrase (and the preceding sentiments) it almost seems to me as though you feel justified in hating religions because they can (in cases) lead to zealotry and intolerance. If that's not your claim here, please rephrase.

[Religions] are [hobbies]. And simply calling that "absurd" does not magically make it so.

And you labeling religion as a hobby does not make it so, does it? If you were elected as the world's arbiter on hobbies, I missed it.

And yes, the hobbies of many people are part of their self identify. Just like their careers can be. Just being important or dear to them, or something they build their life around, does not stop them being hobbies. Religions are little more than hobbies. The Churches are little more than Club Houses. Get over it.

And this is true because you say so?

I know people who support Manchester United Football Club to a point that its ALSO part of their self identity. Probably more so than some religious people I have met. This, for one moment, does not change the fact that going along to the stadium to watch games, donating money through tickets and merchandising, thinking about it every day, laughing along side successes.... crying along side failures.... and self identifying as a ManU Fan every day..... is still their hobby.

Being a ManU fan does seem more like a hobby. To compare it to a religion is rather like your George Bush - Jesus metaphor. It ignores important facets of the two distinct entities. For example, I don't care how much you love your sports team, I'm pretty sure that no one believes that their eternal fate rests on the shoulders of ManU. Whether one's eternal fate rests in their religion is irrelevant...what separates the two is that people believe it. Again it is the concept of that which is sacred.

You are welcome to dodge in any way that gets you to sleep at night.

Right...because I lay awake at night thinking about debating strangers on an internet forum.

Especially the old canard of defining anyone who agrees with you as a "reasonable individual". We get THAT trick here all the time.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and guess that you're not very familiar with law. Let me help you out there...

Reasonable person - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now that we have some background, let's look at my statement again...

but you and I both know that if we apply the standards of a "reasonable individual" (as one would do in court for example) the vast majority of people would disagree with the identification of religion as a hobby. Unfortunately, I suspect that we will be irreconcilable on this one.

So, you can see here that I'm not calling any particular person "reasonable" or "unreasonable." I am suggesting that the "reasonable individual" (i.e. "reasonable person") as traditionally applied in common law would not classify religion as a hobby. That is to say, it is not the consensus of our society as a whole. The idea that religion is a hobby is your personal idea, but just because you say it doesn't make it so.

It therefore boils down to this. I argue that religion is not a hobby because:

1. It entails a belief in that which is sacred. More importantly
2. Our society draws a distinction. Like etiquette, I would argue that this is a case where the ad populum argument is not fallacious because it is a case of social construct.

What does your argument hinge on aside from your personal opinion?

Quite easily actually. If you, or her, define a failure to find a place on your work premises to engage in a mere hobby as "dismay" then you simply know nothing of the depths of human dismay. I make the claim easily and accurately based on your own definition of something you feel warrants the use of the term. "Dismay" is defined often in dictionaries in terms of "distress" for example and if not being allowed to engage in a hobby on work time on work premises causes "distress" then you simply have an overly delicate disposition. I hope out of common human decency that you never have had, or will have, cause to feel real "distress" at any time in your life.

There are so many holes in this argument that it's hard to know where to begin. Really, I think it would be better for everyone if you just concede this point and admit that you made a completely baseless statement. If you're not going to do that, I guess you might as well read on...

1. Even if no other part of your argument was flawed, this would still fail because it makes the implicit assumption of severity. I didn't say "this was the worst thing to ever happen to her." If I had, then you would almost (but only almost) have a leg to stand on, because you could then gauge the severity of the distress that she has endured in her life against this occasion. However, I made no indication of severity. Therefore this may be mild dismay, relative to any number of occasions. Just because you're a bit under-the-weather doesn't mean that it's the sickest you've ever been.

2. You assume some objective standard for what distresses people, or at least what should distress people. Just because you don't value prayer does not make that universal - she may find a lack of prayer opportunity more distressing than something that you would consider a valid cause for "real human dismay." (side note: is there a definition of "human dismay" that differentiates it from simply "a human being in dismay"? If not, I wonder why you felt the need to specify that this individual is human - I would think that's pretty much a given)

3. You are not the judge of what is valid cause for "real human dismay."

4. You know literally nothing about her outside of my brief anecdote and are therefore incapable of considering any additional variables. For example, perhaps her religion is comfort to her because some tragedy occurred.

Well, I think that covers the important stuff for now.

Thanks.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Hyker

While it may be a foreign concept to you, it is part of the believer's reality that some things are sacred. Nothing is sacred to you...fine...but simply telling everyone else that they should not hold anything sacred makes you not-so-different than those who take offense when their sacred ideas are challenged.

The "sacredness" of religion causes so many problems. You should see my discussion/argument with someone on the thread about ISIS.

The rhetoric there is getting pretty thick.

But it is a really good example of why holding things as "sacred" is often a roadblock to problem resolution and peaceful solutions to political issues. When something is "sacred," especially in regards to religion, it becomes non-negotiable. It means that the religion in question must have ALL of its wants met or else there is no deal. Why do you think terrorism exists?

As I told the other person over on the other thread - this headstrong idea of "my religious beliefs are sacred and therefore cannot be changed at the bargaining table" is where much of the terror comes from. Since a peaceful solution cannot be bartered, negotiated, or found through diplomacy, the only other choice is open violence and warfare. Might makes right.

It is why I said that religion is the worst, most disastrous catalyst for warfare and violence that there is. Every long-standing dispute has religion at its core. Because when two religions are in dispute, there is no way to resolve the issue. None. And there never will be until one side is forced to submit to the other through open warfare.

Thus this idea of sacredness is just another word for immovable brick wall that makes political change and conflict resolution nigh impossible.

[Hyker]

Hello Shirina.

I would remind everyone again that my defense of religion does not extend to fundamentalism or zealotry, but merely their right to exist and expect that reasonable effort be made to accommodate all in the spirit of tolerance and cooperation. Remember that this thread started by discussing a few ultra-conservative Muslim leaders complaining about dogs, and even in that case I clearly indicated that I feel they are over-reaching. That said, most conflicts between religions are not based on the fact that such religions exist, but on the notion that no other belief system is tolerable, which was rather the point of my earlier post that lead down this rabbit hole.

There are times that compromise does seem neigh impossible due to the mutually exclusive interpretations of that which is "sacred" - and while I have not been keeping up with the ISIS thread I have always considered the Temple Mount to be the perfect example. Here the three major Abrahamic religions converge on a single location that has a somewhat distinct meaning to each of them.

I'm not going to claim to have a solution to every problem, but the fact that no one is willing to compromise on this issue does not necessarily mean that no solution exists. It's a difficult situation for certain, but what promise is there in resolving it by gathering all of the parties together and announcing that the problem would go away if they all gave up this religion silliness? On a pragmatic level, that seems to me as if it is the least likely scenario of all.

Thanks.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Hyker

That sounds an awful lot like you are opposing the individuals rather than their ideas.

Only because you are, probably deliberately, conflating two things. I repeat.... I respect people not ideas. But there are people who I oppose too. People who are actively using concepts like feux "offence" and "respect" and "tolerance" to erode free and open discourse.

I repeat again, there are people I oppose. For the reasons I just outlined. But my GENERAL approach is to respect people but never respect ideas. People deserve respect. Ideas do not.

If you conflate, deliberately or otherwise, those two facts about me you are liable to produce the confused responses we have just seen here. And alas much of your quite long post is not even worth responding to in the light of the clarification of your confusion on this point. But I will see what is left worthy of reply....

Originally Posted by Hyker

Right...you just compared them to Jesus and Mohammed, which is why I called you out on the false equivalence.

A lack of understanding of the difference between comparison and analogy might be to blame for your confusion here. I made no such "comparison". I was pointing out that people get very attached to their religious opinions. They also get very attached to their political opinions. Yet caricatures from each elicit entirely different reactions. And it is my contention that the reason for this is nothing to do with "deities" and more to do with the fact the religious, unlike the political, cohorts have in the past gotten away with playing the "offence" card to silence opposition.

Which is hardly surprising because with politics one can argue with facts, figures, policies, history, examples, data and more. In religion however unsubstantiated assertion is indefensible. So OF COURSE you will find defenders of unsubstantiated notions contriving to use tactics to silence opposition rather than confront it. This is NOT limited to religion. We see similar tactics from mediums, psychics, and people selling homeopathy. The LESS facts and figures and data a group has the MORE they resort to tactics to simply shut detractors up.

I hope that is now clearer for you.

Originally Posted by Hyker

While it may be a foreign concept to you, it is part of the believer's reality that some things are sacred.

Not at all foreign. There are many things sacred to me. Literature would be an example. My children another. And if someone were to ask me what I think the most sacred and important and worth of defense thing that exists on the planet is.... I would without reservation say "free and open human discourse" which is a concept I would die to defend more readily than any other.

But what may be a foreign concept to the religious cohort is the words 10 and 11 in the previous paragraph. "To Me". I am well aware of what is sacred to members of some religions. But unlike them I am aware of the PROPER boundaries those feelings ought to operate under.

The analogy I often make is to the patently ridiculous trousers many members of golf clubs wear. I am aware of how important it is to members and administration of such clubs that these comical pants be worn. I defend their right to wear them and respect how important it is to them. But not for one moment do I think anyone OUTSIDE that club or its membership have to wear such pants..... nor take them seriously..... nor make any jokes they wish about them. Nor, conversely, should people outside the club be prevented from wearing them.

Treat mohamad as sacred as you like in Muslim club houses. I respect that and defend it and would be on the front lines of the battlefield AGAINST anyone who tried to prevent stuff.

But if I walk down the street wearing one of the now 5 tshirts I now own from the Jesus'n'Mo website.... that is no ones business but my own either.

Again I hope that is now clearer for you.

Originally Posted by Hyker

Nothing is sacred to you

Keep your baseless, unsubstantiated, ad hominem, and entirely wrong assumptions about me to yourself thanks. Pocket them and keep them for a rainy day. Rather than make up false things about me, try responding to what I have actually written instead.

Originally Posted by Hyker

but simply telling everyone else that they should not hold anything sacred

Again..... quote me saying any such thing..... or even implying it...... or simply pocket your assumptions and misrepsentations of me.

Originally Posted by Hyker

I think some people are authentically offended.

Ah that wishy washy word "some". Of course "some" are. I would not be so crass or naive as to deny that. The question is how many ACTUALLY are? I am open to reading any citations, studies or verifiable numbers you have on that. But my expectation.... which I admit is all it is...... is the vast majority are either/or/both A) contriving to take offence to silence opposition and/or B) Not actually offended but conditioned to act in a certain way in defense of their religion.

Originally Posted by Hyker

it almost seems to me as though you feel justified in hating religions because they can (in cases) lead to zealotry and intolerance.

The word "hate" has so many negative connotations that I barely use it any more. It is like the recent buzz word "agenda". If you suggest someone has an "agenda" it automatically suggests some negative point to them. Yet we all have an "agenda".

So let us leave "hate" out of it.

The points I am making are about what leads our species to hate and intolerance. And I am merely suggesting that anything which erodes human discourse (remember i just said I hold it more sacred a human institution than any other) is something to be derided, avoided, combated or cured.

And as I said, quite simply, the more irreconcilable an idea or claim is, the more potential for hatred and intolerance it contains. I give often my childhood story of the two kids who shared an imaginary friend to illustrate what I mean by this.

To repeat: ALL I am saying here is that claims about a god, a gods will or wishes, or a gods opinions, are not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated. In ANY way. And the more unsubstantiated an idea or claim is.... the more room for intolerance there is. Because differences of opinion are simply irreconcilable.

For example if I tell you the fact that the earths poles have, in the history of the earth, reversed themselves.... we might have some heated disagreement. But I could then at least sit down and adumbate for you the evidence for such a claim. I could show you how lava in slow eruption from the earths core contain iron filings, which are attracted to the planets magnetic poles. I could show you how when the lava sets to rock that the filings ALWAYS set facing the pole. I could then show you that as we dig deeper we find older rock where the filings are in the reverse positions.

We have data upon which to potentially base reconciliation of our argument.

Religion offers the opposite of this. It offers unsubstantiated assertions not just ABOUT attributes, opinions and the will of god..... but the very existence of this entity. And as such any difference of opinion is de facto irreconcilible.

And I merely contend that this leads to a greater potential for intolerance and hatred and suspicion, anger.... and alas ultimately in our species..... violence.

Originally Posted by Hyker

And you labeling religion as a hobby does not make it so, does it?

No, its attributes do that for us. My labeling it does not make it so, but merely acknowledges it as such.

Originally Posted by Hyker

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and guess that you're not very familiar with law.

And as with your other shot in the dark assumptions about me, which appear to pepper your post, you are just coming out looking sillier than you are. The point I was making is that we too often see people on this forum declaring something "obvious" or "common sense" or "reasonable" or any such thing in place of making an argument. I am well aware what the phase means in law. What you are unaware of is that I was not making reference to the law. I was making reference to the tactic on internet forums of appending such qualifications in a crass attempt to substantiate an otherwise unsubstantiated line of argument. The "reasonable individual" in law is not quite the same thing as an internet forum user inventing a declared "reasonable individual" and declaring they agree with you.

Originally Posted by Hyker

There are so many holes in this argument that it's hard to know where to begin.

I would suggest you begin by showing some of them. Something you appear to have entirely failed in every way to do.

The point again is that I can judge your definition of "dismay" by viewing the situation and/or event to which you applied such a term. And the situation in question simply does not qualify for it, nor does it display an empathy for the true depths of "dismay" our species is not only capable of, but has alas experienced all too often.

Put another way, if the worst "dismay" anyone on this planet ever experienced was being unsure of an opportune place to make their arbitrary prostrations to their equally arbitrary choice of god..... then this world would be a much better place by quite an extreme degree.

I simply see no evidence or data here upon which I could form the opinion that either you or her really understand the term "dismay" at all.

Originally Posted by Hyker

Really, I think it would be better for everyone if you just concede this point and admit that you made a completely baseless statement.

"Everyone" being just you it seems as no one else has contested it. And me just "admitting" it would save you having to argue the point. Sorry, my statement stands uncontested, least of all by you, and I am not going to conceed a falsehood to because it is "better for" you. Alleviating your flailing is not my concern.

[TroutDude]

Gee, two whole weeks to rehearse and all we get is clubfooted semantic tap dancing.

Colour me disappointed.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

You had two weeks to interject. So you have less excuse than I .

I have been on holiday. I read his post 1 hour before I replied.

What is your excuse

At least I added to the thread. You give us but commentary.

[Clintone]

Originally Posted by Hyker

Don't be shy about your beliefs...but live and let live. For what it's worth, that's how I see it.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by el_marto

It in some way condenses everything ****ty about our species into one neat package and I would say that if you recognise all of this and you still pander to it or its followers then you are, to put it crudely, a ****ing pansy.

Well...you're both right depending on the situation. On Youtube there are numerous instances of atheists and theists suggesting atheists and theists kill themselves, that religion should be made illegal, that atheists will rot in fire and beg for forgiveness, etc.

I presume that doesn't happen on Citi-Data as much due to a combination of older visitors (because Citi-Data is more boring than Youtube) and the moderators...so that's an example of society without censorship, in an environment where the speakers are anonymous.

We must keep in mind who we are speaking to when we make statements. Some people deserve more respect than others. Spiraling into a flailing mass of energy and verbally expressed rage is a hazard of relying on anger too much to motivate us...and then we cease being taken seriously.

Too little irritation means nobody knows you're irritated. One thing about those crazy groups that scream constantly is they tend to get attention. Muslim groups, Homosexual groups, African American Groups and the NRA all scream enough to get what they want.

[northsider]

Originally Posted by el_marto

It's a religion, a form of brainwashing/mind control, full of superstition & ritual. Sounds like a cult minus a leader to me.

Sort of like so many Christian and other organised religions then eh?

[Hyker]

Hello again Nozzferrahhtoo.

I hope you enjoyed your vacation, and welcome back to our friendly discourse. I have been a bit overworked as of late, so I hope you'll forgive my relatively slow response. Once again we have a lot of ground to cover, so I'll dispense with any further pleasantries...

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Only because you are, probably deliberately, conflating two things. I repeat.... I respect people not ideas. But there are people who I oppose too. People who are actively using concepts like feux "offence" and "respect" and "tolerance" to erode free and open discourse.

The irony of this statement is that, despite your indignation and accusations, you are confirming my point, which was that you do in fact oppose people. You affirm this with the qualification that it is not your general approach, but this does not negate the fact that my statement was essentially accurate.

I repeat again, there are people I oppose. For the reasons I just outlined. But my GENERAL approach is to respect people but never respect ideas. People deserve respect. Ideas do not.

You are only "repeat[ing] again" insofar as you just made the point in the paragraph above. What you have not done prior to the post is provide the clarification that you "respect people but never respect ideas"...except when you don't. In some cases not only do you not respect the ideas but you also oppose the people who hold them.

If you conflate, deliberately or otherwise, those two facts about me you are liable to produce the confused responses we have just seen here.

My statement was neither confused nor inaccurate, it simply did not contain the exception to the "respect people but not ideas" rule that you did not explicitly express until this post. Thanks for the clarification.

Having established that you do in fact oppose people at times (even if this is not your general approach) may I ask how one invokes the exception to the "respect people" rule? Clearly you have stated that those expressing "feux offence" [sic] are worthy of being opposed. I assume that they are only a subset of those who would stifle free expression, who should be opposed as a whole. Is there anyone else? I'm just curious who is unworthy of respect.

And alas much of your quite long post is not even worth responding to in the light of the clarification of your confusion on this point. But I will see what is left worthy of reply....

If you have issue with statements I've made, please be specific. Merely waving your hand and calling them "not even worth responding to" doesn't do much to further your argument. We wouldn't want anyone to get the erroneous impression that you are dodging any of my points.

A lack of understanding of the difference between comparison and analogy might be to blame for your confusion here. I made no such "comparison".

I will confess to this...I am clearly confused by the way you are using the terms. If you did not make a comparison, what does that have to do with the definition of "analogy"? Surely you aren't claiming to have made an analogy without a comparison, are you?

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē/
noun


noun: analogy; plural noun: analogies

1. a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

(emphasis mine)

I was pointing out that people get very attached to their religious opinions. They also get very attached to their political opinions.

Right...you are comparing them.

Yet caricatures from each elicit entirely different reactions. And it is my contention that the reason for this is nothing to do with "deities" and more to do with the fact the religious, unlike the political, cohorts have in the past gotten away with playing the "offence" card to silence opposition.

And as noted in my previous post, it is my contention that the difference is the concept of that which is sacred, which is lacking in politics but present in religion. There is much more on the term "sacred" to come later in the post, but the real question here is how to objectively determine which contention is correct. I'm not sure that there is an objective means available to us, but I'm open to suggestions.

Which is hardly surprising because with politics one can argue with facts, figures, policies, history, examples, data and more. In religion however unsubstantiated assertion is indefensible. So OF COURSE you will find defenders of unsubstantiated notions contriving to use tactics to silence opposition rather than confront it. This is NOT limited to religion. We see similar tactics from mediums, psychics, and people selling homeopathy. The LESS facts and figures and data a group has the MORE they resort to tactics to simply shut detractors up.

I don't suppose you can support this with more than your own personal anecdotal evidence?

I hope that is now clearer for you.

Likewise.

[The concept of sacred is] Not at all foreign. There are many things sacred to me. Literature would be an example. My children another. And if someone were to ask me what I think the most sacred and important and worth of defense thing that exists on the planet is.... I would without reservation say "free and open human discourse" which is a concept I would die to defend more readily than any other.

I think the confusion here is in the use of the word "sacred." Googling the term gives you the Oxford dictionary definition:

sa·cred
ˈsākrid/
adjective

adjective: sacred

1. connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.

(emphasis mine)

So, I'm guessing that based on this definition you do not hold your children, literature or freedom of expression as sacred.

Now in fairness if we delve a little deeper by going to Merriam-Webster we get:

1
a: dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity <a tree sacred to the gods>
b: devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) <a fund sacred to charity>

2
a: worthy of religious veneration : holy b: entitled to reverence and respect

3: of or relating to religion : not secular or profane <sacred music>

4archaic: accursed

5
a: unassailable, inviolable
b: highly valued and important <a sacred responsibility>


So then, if we skip right down to definition 5 in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, then your claims become defensible. But this was not my intention. Taking the definition as a whole, that which is sacred is not only highly valued and important (5) but it is highly valued and important because it pertains to a deity (1).

Perhaps you would like to amend your response based on this clarification? If so, let's stick with the simple Oxford definition as that was my intention in the first place.

But what may be a foreign concept to the religious cohort

As a point of clarification, do I qualify as a "religious cohort" and if so what is the exact definition of this term?

is the words 10 and 11 in the previous paragraph. "To Me". I am well aware of what is sacred to members of some religions. But unlike them I am aware of the PROPER boundaries those feelings ought to operate under.

And who decides what these "PROPER boundaries" are? You?

The analogy I often make is to the patently ridiculous trousers many members of golf clubs wear. I am aware of how important it is to members and administration of such clubs that these comical pants be worn. I defend their right to wear them and respect how important it is to them. But not for one moment do I think anyone OUTSIDE that club or its membership have to wear such pants..... nor take them seriously..... nor make any jokes they wish about them. Nor, conversely, should people outside the club be prevented from wearing them.

My take-away from this analogy is that you defend your right to be totally inconsiderate of other people's feelings. Yea, I guess that's your right. That doesn't mean that I won't sympathize with the ridiculous-pants-wearing guy that you are mocking and probably think that you're a real such-and-such for disregarding his feelings. Does that make me "wrong"?

Treat mohamad as sacred as you like in Muslim club houses. I respect that and defend it and would be on the front lines of the battlefield AGAINST anyone who tried to prevent stuff.

But if I walk down the street wearing one of the now 5 tshirts I now own from the Jesus'n'Mo website.... that is no ones business but my own either.

Again I hope that is now clearer for you.

Clearer? Yes and no. So I have the right to believe that god should be taken seriously. You have the right to mock these beliefs. The question then becomes (and this is really critical) do I then have the right to think you're an inconsiderate such-and-such for mocking those beliefs? If I don't have that right, why not? If I do have that right, then why are you complaining about people exercising it?

Keep your baseless, unsubstantiated, ad hominem, and entirely wrong assumptions about me to yourself thanks. Pocket them and keep them for a rainy day. Rather than make up false things about me, try responding to what I have actually written instead.

This was in response to my assertion that nothing is sacred to you. Given my clarification of my meaning:

sa·cred
ˈsākrid/
adjective

adjective: sacred

1. connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.

I believe my statement to be quite accurate. If I'm wrong, please clarify what you hold as "connected with God (or the gods)" and I will retract my statement.

Again..... quote me saying any such thing [that everyone else should not hold anything sacred]..... or even implying it...... or simply pocket your assumptions and misrepsentations of me.

Fair enough, I will rephrase. What you seem to be doing here is dictating the terms under which they may hold something sacred. You are setting the "PROPER boundaries" for their beliefs...based on what, I do not know.

Ah that wishy washy word "some". Of course "some" are. [offended]

Rather like "some" people are worthy of being opposed (as noted earlier in the post)? Does that make your argument "wishy washy"?

I would not be so crass or naive as to deny that [some people are offended]. The question is how many ACTUALLY are? I am open to reading any citations, studies or verifiable numbers you have on that. But my expectation.... which I admit is all it is...... is the vast majority are either/or/both A) contriving to take offence to silence opposition and/or B) Not actually offended but conditioned to act in a certain way in defense of their religion.

Right...I do not have hard evidence, and neither do you. You merely assume that most are not. Out of curiosity, why do you assume this? At least my assumption is based on face-value: they are claiming to be offended so I take it that they are. Do you have any reason at all to believe that the majority are not?

The word "hate" has so many negative connotations that I barely use it any more. It is like the recent buzz word "agenda". If you suggest someone has an "agenda" it automatically suggests some negative point to them. Yet we all have an "agenda".

So let us leave "hate" out of it.

I'm sorry, but I am unable to choose my words based on your personal connotations.

The points I am making are about what leads our species to hate and intolerance. And I am merely suggesting that anything which erodes human discourse (remember i just said I hold it more sacred a human institution than any other) is something to be derided, avoided, combated or cured.

Right, and I've agreed with you on this point several times.

And as I said, quite simply, the more irreconcilable an idea or claim is, the more potential for hatred and intolerance it contains.

But as far as I know this is also your personal assumption.

I give often my childhood story of the two kids who shared an imaginary friend to illustrate what I mean by this.

Okay...was there supposed to be a story inserted here?

To repeat: ALL I am saying here is that claims about a god, a gods will or wishes, or a gods opinions, are not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated. In ANY way.

In terms of objective, scientific substantiation...I agree.

And the more unsubstantiated an idea or claim is.... the more room for intolerance there is. Because differences of opinion are simply irreconcilable.

For example if I tell you the fact that the earths poles have, in the history of the earth, reversed themselves.... we might have some heated disagreement. But I could then at least sit down and adumbate for you the evidence for such a claim. I could show you how lava in slow eruption from the earths core contain iron filings, which are attracted to the planets magnetic poles. I could show you how when the lava sets to rock that the filings ALWAYS set facing the pole. I could then show you that as we dig deeper we find older rock where the filings are in the reverse positions.

We have data upon which to potentially base reconciliation of our argument.

Religion offers the opposite of this. It offers unsubstantiated assertions not just ABOUT attributes, opinions and the will of god..... but the very existence of this entity. And as such any difference of opinion is de facto irreconcilible.

And I merely contend that this leads to a greater potential for intolerance and hatred and suspicion, anger.... and alas ultimately in our species..... violence.

Right...this is your contention. But as far as substantiation (which you seem to value highly) you really don't have any. To my knowledge you are taking this idea that unsubstantiated claims breed intolerance as a given without any real objective evidence that it is the case. Kind of ironic now that I think about it.

No, its attributes [of a religion] do that for us. My labeling it [as a hobby] does not make it so, but merely acknowledges it as such.

That's a very broad statement. Please be specific of these "attributes" as I have already laid out my argument as to why religion is not a "hobby." To make sure we are clear here:

hob·by1
ˈhäbē/
noun

noun: hobby; plural noun: hobbies

1. an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure.
   

re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

noun: religion

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   
   

Based on this, please make your case.

And as with your other shot in the dark assumptions about me, which appear to pepper your post, you are just coming out looking sillier than you are.

Your snide comments are now bordering on personal attacks. That's an interesting strategy. Notwithstanding, if you do indeed have some law background please specify and I will retract my statement. I only dabbled with the topic...it was one of my minor concentrations during my undergraduate.

The point I was making is that we too often see people on this forum declaring something "obvious" or "common sense" or "reasonable" or any such thing in place of making an argument

Such as the common sense notion that unsubstantiated claims are more likely to lead to intolerance and violence?

I am well aware what the phase means in law. What you are unaware of is that I was not making reference to the law. I was making reference to the tactic on internet forums of appending such qualifications in a crass attempt to substantiate an otherwise unsubstantiated line of argument.

Then your response was non-sequitur, because I specifically stated as one would do in court for example in post #58.

The "reasonable individual" in law is not quite the same thing as an internet forum user inventing a declared "reasonable individual" and declaring they agree with you.

True, but that's not what I did, which is why your response was non-sequitur. Since you are stuck on the use of the term, I'll rephrase my argument.

The number one distinction between religions and hobbies is that they are defined and treated differently by society as a whole. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, but it is the case. And since they are social constructs, they are what the society says they are (note my early claim that this is an exception to the ad populum fallacy for this reason). For you to claim that a religion is a hobby reflects your personal opinion, but it is contrary to the consensus of society.

I would suggest you begin by showing some of them [the holes in your argument]. Something you appear to have entirely failed in every way to do.

Wait...what? Okay, I'm going to admit that you really puzzled me here. You know what would help in showing some of the holes in your argument...an enumerated list. That's probably why I provided one directly below the quote you responded to. Here it is again:

1. Even if no other part of your argument was flawed, this would still fail because it makes the implicit assumption of severity. I didn't say "this was the worst thing to ever happen to her." If I had, then you would almost (but only almost) have a leg to stand on, because you could then gauge the severity of the distress that she has endured in her life against this occasion. However, I made no indication of severity. Therefore this may be mild dismay, relative to any number of occasions. Just because you're a bit under-the-weather doesn't mean that it's the sickest you've ever been.

2. You assume some objective standard for what distresses people, or at least what should distress people. Just because you don't value prayer does not make that universal - she may find a lack of prayer opportunity more distressing than something that you would consider a valid cause for "real human dismay." (side note: is there a definition of "human dismay" that differentiates it from simply "a human being in dismay"? If not, I wonder why you felt the need to specify that this individual is human - I would think that's pretty much a given)

3. You are not the judge of what is valid cause for "real human dismay."

4. You know literally nothing about her outside of my brief anecdote and are therefore incapable of considering any additional variables. For example, perhaps her religion is comfort to her because some tragedy occurred.

The point again is that I can judge your definition of "dismay" by viewing the situation and/or event to which you applied such a term. And the situation in question simply does not qualify for it, nor does it display an empathy for the true depths of "dismay" our species is not only capable of, but has alas experienced all too often.

Put another way, if the worst "dismay" anyone on this planet ever experienced was being unsure of an opportune place to make their arbitrary prostrations to their equally arbitrary choice of god..... then this world would be a much better place by quite an extreme degree.

This very accurately illustrates point #1 from the enumerated list of flaws in your argument that I provided in my previous post. Please note that this is not a retort to your statements above, but a point I made in post #62 before you ever typed the words above. Funny how that worked out.

I simply see no evidence or data here upon which I could form the opinion that either you or her really understand the term "dismay" at all.

See points #3 and #4 above (repeated from the enumerated list of flaws in your argument that I provided in post #62)

"Everyone" being just you it seems

No, I really do think it would be better for everyone...specifically yourself.

as no one else has contested it

I fail to see what this is intended to demonstrate. Both of us have made a number of claims that no one else has contested.

And me just "admitting" it would save you having to argue the point.

Again I would remind you that I already took the trouble of created a list that you completely overlooked before typing the above.

Sorry, my statement stands uncontested, least of all by you

On the contrary. I have clearly contested it.

and I am not going to conceed a falsehood to because it is "better for" you.

It would be better for me, but I also believe it would be better for you. I say this (and it is my personal opinion) because your stance seems so untenable to me. I fear that you will only damage your reputation by continuing to defend it. Let me paraphrase your contention: By a 138-word anecdote told second-hand by an all-but-anonymous internet poster on a message board you are capable of judging the quality of life experienced by an individual you have never met or spoken to and about whom you otherwise know absolutely nothing.

Really? Coming from an individual who expresses such value in substantiating claims, you're going to stand by that assertion as rational? If so, I have very little hope for a positive end to this discourse, because I see absolutely no logic in this assertion. In short, you are making a decision with almost no data and that doesn't seem to bother you.

Alleviating your flailing is not my concern.

If I start to feel that I am flailing, I'll let you know. That said, this comment raises one additional question. It's a bit besides the point, but perhaps you will indulge my curiosity. I've noticed that you tend to insert these types of snarky comments into your arguments. Why do you suppose you do that? Do you think it makes you sound more correct? Do you think it improves your position in the debate? Surely you can't believe that it enhances the free exchange of ideas that you claim to hold sacred...can you?

Thanks.