Omer gerd; go back and read your question... slowly.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:15 amIs that what you think a Christian is? Somebody who celebrates Christmas?
Diversity, Inclusion, Equity
Re: Diversity, Inclusion, Equity
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Diversity, Inclusion, Equity
Well, then your "are you serious" response isn't "serious" about anything.KLewchuk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:24 amOmer gerd; go back and read your question... slowly.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:15 amIs that what you think a Christian is? Somebody who celebrates Christmas?
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: Diversity, Inclusion, Equity
I found that the opposite is the case. That the religious WANT this to be meaningful, they prefer this to appear inable to be defined with clarity. That way, what is unclear itself cannot be closed. The issue of contention is to whether the class of people who believe X have a right to demand others to have FAITH in the religious person's declarations of reality that are clearly questionable when you cannot provide direct evidence among the arguing parties. That the nature of disagreement BY the religious to appear as either delusional or intentional deceptively is my issue of concern.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 3:40 pmYou're running into the problem all scholars of "religion" face first, Scott...the question of defining the subject matter. There's a whole literature on this subject, but it's failed to generate any definition that satisfies everyone...or even nearly everyone.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:13 pm I use the term, "religion" to refer to any set of beliefs that refer to specific histories and beliefs about gods, undetectible or uncomfirmABLE forces, or guarantees of universal consequences for NOT gambling that those who assert these things are real prior to proof. I'm sure this definition is leaving something out and may be able to use some other description. But I think you get the point.
The definition you float here will satisfy an Atheist. That's the only person it will satisfy, unfortunately. No person of faith will recognize themselves in a definition that is already so cynical. They'll all recognize it as "cooking the books" in favour of Atheism, and say, "No, sorry: leave me out of that one."
But I don't blame you for finding it a struggle. The best scholars in the discipline have tried and failed to solidify any single definition. And maybe that tells us all we need to know about the word "religion": namely, that it's not particularly accurate or useful. It only seems to "work" selectively and arbitrarily, and only in a cynical, secular framework. It's too vague a collective to do any justice to how human belief actually exists and works in the real world.
You have to be sincerely delusional OR you are intentionally exploiting others manipulatively when you use 'religion' as a rationale for logical validity and soundness in arguments. I cannot tell but know that we cannot accept those who behave like this. If you are 'religious' you are asserting realities that you EXPECT others to blindly believe on the most foundational factors that go against our everyday experiences that cannot be proven NOR disproven IN PRINCIPLE.
Furthermore, you are, by contrast, demanding others distrust those they can literally deal with directly, test to determine their claims, or share the literal agreements of things we SENSE collectively. This is the issue when you insult the 'atheist' as though they are the ones having some delusion. [...like attempting to gaslight anothers functional reality by false representation of them as being the nutcase instead.]
Re: Diversity, Inclusion, Equity
It is my responsibility, and yours, to decide how much suffering you will tolerate before you attend to the wounded Samaritan.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:33 amSorry, B. Again, you're missing the point.Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:48 pm
Actually, it can't be. For if it is, then your claim that God might allow too much suffering reduces to nothing more than "Belinda doesn't like the amount of suffering she gets." Is that all you want to say? I think it's probably not.
But |I am not the only person to use my judgement. I am not even a prime minister or a president. The more people who can reason the less suffering there will be.
The question is not "how much suffering does B., or the PM, or the President like?" That's irrelevant. Whether anybody at all "likes" it matters not a whit. After all, the supposition of somebody who doesn't believe in a Creator has to be that whatever amount of suffering in the world there may be, it's not "evil." And it's not "good." It's not either, or anything.
So the only real question that one can raise regarding God and suffering is, "How much suffering is actually justifiable for the ends gained thereby?" Whether or not anybody "likes" it...well, nothing could be more trivial. One doesn't have to "like" something for it to be justifiable or unjustifiable.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Diversity, Inclusion, Equity
But each and every every ethic is justified by a criterion. The 'socialist' criterion of the Good Samaritan parable is others matter. It is my responsibility and yours to decide if, when, and how, you will be merciful. If people don't take the responsibility nobody will.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:17 pmYou're mixing up your ethics with your justification. They are different issues.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Diversity, Inclusion, Equity
Your ethics. Not "all ethics."Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:01 pmBut each and every every ethic is justified by a criterion.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:17 pmYou're mixing up your ethics with your justification. They are different issues.
Your original complaint was that the amount of suffering in the world constitutes a reason not to believe in God. That's now not at all obvious. Suffering is sometimes justified. That's the simple point.
Whether or not you, B., "tolerate" suffering is a different question from whether or not suffering itself can be justified. And whether or not some can be justified is a different question from whether or not ALL suffering can be justified.
See it now?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Diversity, Inclusion, Equity
Scott, buddy...that's not "the opposite". Did you even read what I wrote?Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:39 amI found that the opposite is the case. That the religious WANT this to be meaningful,Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 3:40 pm But I don't blame you for finding it a struggle. The best scholars in the discipline have tried and failed to solidify any single definition. And maybe that tells us all we need to know about the word "religion": namely, that it's not particularly accurate or useful. It only seems to "work" selectively and arbitrarily, and only in a cynical, secular framework. It's too vague a collective to do any justice to how human belief actually exists and works in the real world.
Of course people who are 'religious" want their "religion" to be meaningful. That's not the point. The point is that THE WORD "religion" is not meaningful. And you will discover that "religious" people prefer to be identified by their beliefs, not as merely "religious." So they want to be called, "Hindu" or "Muslim" or Sikh or Christian or whatever else they choose. They don't say, "Just call me a 'religionist'."
Re: Diversity, Inclusion, Equity
You are confused by the passive voice as in "can be justified". There is always either a person or persons' moral code that does the justifying.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:14 pmYour ethics. Not "all ethics."Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:01 pmBut each and every every ethic is justified by a criterion.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:17 pm
You're mixing up your ethics with your justification. They are different issues.
Your original complaint was that the amount of suffering in the world constitutes a reason not to believe in God. That's now not at all obvious. Suffering is sometimes justified. That's the simple point.
Whether or not you, B., "tolerate" suffering is a different question from whether or not suffering itself can be justified. And whether or not some can be justified is a different question from whether or not ALL suffering can be justified.
See it now?
Which ethic is not decided by some criterion?
Re: Diversity, Inclusion, Equity
Immanuel, I agree religious sectarianism is divisive, clannish, and tribal.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:18 pmScott, buddy...that's not "the opposite". Did you even read what I wrote?Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:39 amI found that the opposite is the case. That the religious WANT this to be meaningful,Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 3:40 pm But I don't blame you for finding it a struggle. The best scholars in the discipline have tried and failed to solidify any single definition. And maybe that tells us all we need to know about the word "religion": namely, that it's not particularly accurate or useful. It only seems to "work" selectively and arbitrarily, and only in a cynical, secular framework. It's too vague a collective to do any justice to how human belief actually exists and works in the real world.
Of course people who are 'religious" want their "religion" to be meaningful. That's not the point. The point is that THE WORD "religion" is not meaningful. And you will discover that "religious" people prefer to be identified by their beliefs, not as merely "religious." So they want to be called, "Hindu" or "Muslim" or Sikh or Christian or whatever else they choose. They don't say, "Just call me a 'religionist'."
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Diversity, Inclusion, Equity
A person cannot "justify himself" anymore than he can lift himself off the ground by tugging on his shoelaces. Justification is a demonstration of the objective truth or rightness of a proposition or action, to others...not a mere declaration of personal preference.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Diversity, Inclusion, Equity
Of course you know I did not say or imply that. What I said was, just as you, B. don't want to be introduced as, "humanoid," instead of "Belinda," no "religionist" as you call them, wants to be called "religionist." They want to be acknowledge for the unique value or claims of the particular "religion" to which they belong.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:31 amImmanuel, I agree religious sectarianism is divisive, clannish, and tribal.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:18 pmScott, buddy...that's not "the opposite". Did you even read what I wrote?Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:39 am
I found that the opposite is the case. That the religious WANT this to be meaningful,
Of course people who are 'religious" want their "religion" to be meaningful. That's not the point. The point is that THE WORD "religion" is not meaningful. And you will discover that "religious" people prefer to be identified by their beliefs, not as merely "religious." So they want to be called, "Hindu" or "Muslim" or Sikh or Christian or whatever else they choose. They don't say, "Just call me a 'religionist'."
Anything else is incredibly rude and imperious, actually.
Imagine taking a friend to meet another, and introducing him thusly, "This is my pal, Ravinder: he's a Muslim -- which means he's no different from a Jew, a Christian, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Rastafarian or member of Jim Jones's Death Cult."
Do you think he would turn around and say to you, "Why B., what a kind introduction: you've captured my view of myself and my beliefs perfectly. You're right: I'm the same as any other 'religion,' really"?
Would he consider you "tolerant" and "respectful" of him?
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't. He would rightly see you as behaving very badly, being imperiously indifferent to his distinctive claims and values, and tin-eared when it came to detecting differences he would be at pains to emphasize. And I'm thinking you wouldn't keep that friendship long.
Re: Diversity, Inclusion, Equity
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 3:06 pmOf course you know I did not say or imply that. What I said was, just as you, B. don't want to be introduced as, "humanoid," instead of "Belinda," no "religionist" as you call them, wants to be called "religionist." They want to be acknowledge for the unique value or claims of the particular "religion" to which they belong.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:31 amImmanuel, I agree religious sectarianism is divisive, clannish, and tribal.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:18 pm
Scott, buddy...that's not "the opposite". Did you even read what I wrote?
Of course people who are 'religious" want their "religion" to be meaningful. That's not the point. The point is that THE WORD "religion" is not meaningful. And you will discover that "religious" people prefer to be identified by their beliefs, not as merely "religious." So they want to be called, "Hindu" or "Muslim" or Sikh or Christian or whatever else they choose. They don't say, "Just call me a 'religionist'."
Anything else is incredibly rude and imperious, actually.
Imagine taking a friend to meet another, and introducing him thusly, "This is my pal, Ravinder: he's a Muslim -- which means he's no different from a Jew, a Christian, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Rastafarian or member of Jim Jones's Death Cult."
Do you think he would turn around and say to you, "Why B., what a kind introduction: you've captured my view of myself and my beliefs perfectly. You're right: I'm the same as any other 'religion,' really"?
Would he consider you "tolerant" and "respectful" of him?
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't. He would rightly see you as behaving very badly, being imperiously indifferent to his distinctive claims and values, and tin-eared when it came to detecting differences he would be at pains to emphasize. And I'm thinking you wouldn't keep that friendship long.
. Religious sectarianism is clannish, divisive, and tribal. Sometimes a person has to be polite in order to be friends with the more dogmatic religionists.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Diversity, Inclusion, Equity
Is that why you are courteous to others? So they'll be your friends?
I am courteous to other's in recognition of their integrity as human beings. Most, I do not really care to be friends with.
Re: Diversity, Inclusion, Equity
You have to get on with all sorts of people even when they are not much fun.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 5:39 pmIs that why you are courteous to others? So they'll be your friends?
I am courteous to other's in recognition of their integrity as human beings. Most, I do not really care to be friends with.