VILLAMARV Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Yesterday, two posters got upset with a meme. Both reacting to something in that meme that wasn't liked. I should know, the anger was directed my way. I wonder if the page break added to the confusion? And that the quote only contained the word 'link' rather than the really horrible genocide in Brunei stuff? And whether we would even be having this conversation if all the religions didn't share a common name for their deities? But that's me. If I'm being misunderstood then I'm interested in why. As I can only control my own actions I have a tendency to look inwards. What could I have done better and all that. It's intriguing to me that you both had a similar reaction, where you both felt the need to defend the good things religion had to offer. Even though the joke and the story that were being talked about was nothing about the good things religion does, but about how someone in the world is using religion as an excuse for genocide. Again. Literal genocide from next Wednesday onwards. It has been suggested that this meant I was tarring all religions with the same brush. I have challenged this assertion as I do not believe it to be true. And I've gone further than that to suggest people are 'putting words in my mouth'. 15 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said: What the hell are you talking about? 14 hours ago, VILLAMARV said: Misdirection I think this not only applies to the diversionary nature of arguing something that isn't there - "So all genocide is in the name of God?" being your twisting of the words there Vive. But also conversationally, which is what 'the hell' I was on about. All this passive aggressive victim complex stuff though is surely a larger barrier to any real conversation 4 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said: The sarcasm and condescension started way before the Catholic church stuff. (Which I have never researched so wont comment on). Nope. Not intelligent enough. 15 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said: @Rugeley Villa I wouldn’t bother. Any opinion you have on this thread will just be put down with some sarcastic or condescending reply. We will never be intelligent enough to debate religion with those who are opposed to it. 4 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said: I don’t think that’s the case at all. I just think those on here that think religion is b**lshit as you put it are a lot more passionate in their views then I am respectful of religion. So it can get a little heated at times. Also I haven’t got the literary skills to express my views as well as others on here. So it’s difficult to continue debates. As I said yesterday, there's a better way of conducting myself than shouting FFS in capitals at people in an internet forum, yet offered insight into my reasoning for acting that way and re-iterated that there was no intention to offend. I did direct sarcasm your way as I addressed. I don't think that's a crime yet. I can't believe it is being used as an excuse to shut down communication though. I find that to be a little disingenuous. What do the guru's have to say about speaking untruths about people? Would this suggestion that I said one thing, when in fact I said another, constitute a lie? Especially in the context of whether they (the not true words) are being used to misrepresent something that was said or meant? Genuine questions, I'm not trying to antagonise a holy war. If it's along the lines of the 'implicit slander' argument that seems to dominate a lot of discussion between the Asian community (and I say that as it seems to me we are in a situation where people have riled against the idea of their religions being conflated to the 'bad ones'), where does that leave this discussion? Am I being implicitly slandered? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 30 minutes ago, Ingram85 said: I am still currently married (but separated) to an Indian Sikh girl from a Sikh family/background and - while it may be the Indian culture and not Sikh culture strictly - the caste system is still very much active without being openly spoke about and made obvious within Sikh communities. Perceived status and social standing is very important with a lot of Sikh families trying to keep up with the Joneses and this plays directly into the caste system. Although status and showing off can be applied to any culture I guess. It also has idols of worship. One over arching almighty. A god by any other name. Forcing Men to grow their hair and to not groom. As with all cultures a very conflicted view on homosexuality and is a very taboo subject within sikhism because of their misinterpreted belief in family life/marriage. Some very dodgy (mainly from older generations and those seeking high positions within the communities) views about inter racial marriage. We were warned at her local gurdwara about a Sikh group going around the West Midlands protesting and attempting to stop interracial weddings from happening. While certainly not nearly as bad as pretty much every other organised religion it still has its own doctrine, hierarchy and rules that people are expected to follow while simultaneously maintaining that everyone is equal. The text may say one thing, but since it’s inception, practice begs to differ. Everything you spoke of is the hypocrisy of people. Nothing to do with the religion itself. Also the part in bold is not true. Nobody is forced to do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 11 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said: Everything you spoke of is the hypocrisy of people. Nothing to do with the religion itself. Also the part in bold is not true. Nobody is forced to do anything. Well I quite clearly believe that all religion is man made twaddle so....... Ok, I will concede that Sikhism is that nice it lets people cut their hair (still an unenforced expectation to grow it though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 19 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said: Everything you spoke of is the hypocrisy of people. Nothing to do with the religion itself. Also the part in bold is not true. Nobody is forced to do anything. I think you are missing the point of what it is achieved at the time but fair enough mate. We’re all entitled to our opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 19 minutes ago, Ingram85 said: I’d never stop him from believing in his own personal deity either but I can still say I think that whatever god and religion he’s tied his flag to is a complete sham and should be treated the same as Scientology and the flat earrh brigade. I think whatever his chosen religion is is bull**** but I don’t think the person themselves are bull**** and would gladly have them round for a cup of tea or dinner. It is possible to like the person but completely disagree fundamentally with their beliefs. But it's not automatically a complete sham, unless someone's convinced themselves it's literal. It can't be literal as there are contradictions and variations on stories. So if someone has selected pieces from it to live their life by, as a sort of general guidelines, I cannot have a problem with that. It's not bullshit if it works. It might be a placebo, but if it works, it works. If someone is insisting that others have to be forced in to believing their particular code - that's the bullshit that needs resisting. Barring of course, things like thou shalt not kill. That should be fairly universal and enforced on others. Worrying about the meat of a pig before midnight on menstruation day if it's the feast of Odin, not so much. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Vive_La_Villa said: Everything you spoke of is the hypocrisy of people. Nothing to do with the religion itself. Also the part in bold is not true. Nobody is forced to do anything. Go read some history. The really, really hard work that went on for the church to arrive at this position and somehow make all things logically self-consistent, at least in some form of self-contained manner, is fantastic. I do good things, god has helped me. I do bad things and it's because I'm a limited man, but the generous god will forgive (so sin away?). Edited March 30, 2019 by villakram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 30, 2019 Moderator Share Posted March 30, 2019 5 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said: You could be right. But there is evidence of religion existing as far back as 100,000 BC so that may not be the case. I think you're conflating pagan worship with organised religion. Two completely separate things. The former is a natural consequence of man's environment and a lesser intelligence (for want of a better word). The latter is more a means by which to control the masses 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 (edited) On 29/03/2019 at 01:37, Wainy316 said: there really is no proof either way whether fairies are real or not. Both sides cannot prove the other wrong. It’s win win for us all . But we can go where the evidence takes us. The scientific method does not deal in proof but it does deal in corroboration. Edited March 30, 2019 by fruitvilla "does" 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 48 minutes ago, villakram said: Go read some history. The really, really hard work that went on for the church to arrive at this position and somehow make all things logically self-consistent, at least in some form of self-contained manner, is fantastic. I do good things, god has helped me. I do bad things and it's because I'm a limited man, but the generous god will forgive (so sin away?). I was referring to Sikhism in response to Ingram’s post. I personally couldn’t care less about the church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 On 29/03/2019 at 01:26, limpid said: Which statement is wrong? Do you mean the one you quoted? Please say how it is wrong, otherwise your dismissal is just a blind assertion. It appears that you don't know what agnostic means. (a)gnosticism is the range of certainty of knowledge, not belief. It is unrelated to (a)theism. I don't believe in god(s) without a reasonable evidence that it is true. I don't claim knowledge of the existence of god(s). I am both atheist and agnostic. A modern definition from the ancient Greeks whose word it is. What's your source for your claim that it's modern? And I agree, which is why I was asking the questions. The OP used the word atheist and I'm quibbling with his choice of adjective. Nice ad hominem at the end. That always means you win. You said: "You can't have a belief in atheism. That would be a belief in lacking a belief in god(s)." I took that to mean atheism does not involve beliefs. Plainly it can do … ie strong atheism. I just happen to come across a 1976 Webster's dictionary yesterday … it only gave the strong atheist definition. Apparently the word atheism came into the English language around the 1500s from wiki: The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods",[134] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566. and The term theism derives from the Greek theos or theoi meaning "god". The term theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688).[8] In Cudworth's definition, they are "strictly and properly called Theists, who affirm, that a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind, existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other thing So it would appear the term atheism(t) may predate theist in the English language. But note the early use of the strong definition of atheism. Here is an essay from SEP that is pushing (back) for a strong definition of atheism. Being both atheist and agnostic I agree is a perfectly logical position to hold. And broadly that would be mine assuming we are using the weak definition of atheism. My apologies for the word stasi. It was meant to be amusing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 30, 2019 Moderator Share Posted March 30, 2019 49 minutes ago, fruitvilla said: You said: "You can't have a belief in atheism. That would be a belief in lacking a belief in god(s)." I took that to mean atheism does not involve beliefs. Plainly it can do … ie strong atheism. I just happen to come across a 1976 Webster's dictionary yesterday … it only gave the strong atheist definition. Apparently the word atheism came into the English language around the 1500s from wiki: The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods",[134] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566. and The term theism derives from the Greek theos or theoi meaning "god". The term theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688).[8] In Cudworth's definition, they are "strictly and properly called Theists, who affirm, that a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind, existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other thing So it would appear the term atheism(t) may predate theist in the English language. But note the early use of the strong definition of atheism. Here is an essay from SEP that is pushing (back) for a strong definition of atheism. Being both atheist and agnostic I agree is a perfectly logical position to hold. And broadly that would be mine assuming we are using the weak definition of atheism. My apologies for the word stasi. It was meant to be amusing Hilarious, they are two sides of the same Greek word, you can't have one without the other. It's Ying and Yang. The first usage in an English text is utterly irrelevant when the words derive from the very same root many centuries earlier. The only reason atheist was in a text first is because it described the abnormal not the normal of the time (See what I did there!) You are either an atheist or not, there are no shades to it, it's impossible. You cannot 50% believe in no gods and be an atheist EDIT added last 4 words Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 (edited) There are two general meanings of the word atheist … a lack of belief in god and an active disbelief in god. The first is described by the adjectives weak, soft, negative, implicit, agnostic, and the second by strong, hard, positive, explicit and gnostic. We are talking about how/when and what were the actual meanings of the word when they entered the English language. Sure they have changed over the last five hundred years. So to say atheism does not involve belief would not necessarily be accurate. Your 50% comment does not make too much sense to me in that I don't see anyone claiming a 50 % belief in anything Edited March 30, 2019 by fruitvilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted March 30, 2019 Administrator Share Posted March 30, 2019 @fruitvilla 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 Another way of arranging the deck chairs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted March 30, 2019 Administrator Share Posted March 30, 2019 6 hours ago, chrisp65 said: It's long been described as being the opiate of the people. I can see how a lot of people have their own personal god. The only problem really, is it takes away some of the criticism of the people that think believing a text is bonkers. Most people can understand that texts are stories and illustrations that have been translated and translated and translated again. A personal god is by definition not a religion. I have no problem with people having an imaginary friend. It becomes a problem when they convince other people to do what their imaginary friend tells them to do. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 Just now, limpid said: A personal god is by definition not a religion. I have no problem with people having an imaginary friend. It becomes a problem when they convince other people to do what their imaginary friend tells them to do. sorry to be boring and keep on reverting to the Oxford every time, but: Quote The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted March 30, 2019 Administrator Share Posted March 30, 2019 Just now, chrisp65 said: sorry to be boring and keep on reverting to the Oxford every time, but: Is that the entire definition provided or just the bit that fulfils your need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, chrisp65 said: sorry to be boring and keep on reverting to the Oxford every time, but: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. OK there we have it, Buddhism is not a religion. It's official. Edited March 30, 2019 by fruitvilla add definition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 Just now, limpid said: Is that the entire definition provided or just the bit that fulfils your need? Well, there will be multiple definitions to any one word, and you can pick the one that suits, it's kind of how language works. The full definition in the online Oxford is: Quote The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. ‘ideas about the relationship between science and religion’ More example sentences Synonyms 1.1count noun A particular system of faith and worship. ‘the world's great religions’ More example sentences Synonyms 1.2count noun A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion. ‘consumerism is the new religion’ Perhaps you're referring to organised religion? Other dictionaries are available. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted April 11, 2019 Share Posted April 11, 2019 yeah but can you say it or not (I still have no idea!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts