"I Am Not A Second Class Citizen"

[Demosthenes11]

No, it isn't new, but in this particular board I operate under the assumption that people aren't trolling (since, yknow, that's supposedly a rule). I am here for a discussion. Is it wrong for me to call people out for shitting up that discussion by passing off their venting as a part of the discussion itself? If someone wants to vent, that's fine, but it only takes a few simple words to make it clear that's what they're doing.

it's because people have had the same arguments thousands of times with theists. And each time, the argument always comes down to "I believe what I want!!!!" It's perfectly natural and understandable to be jaded at that point

[ronin sparthos]

I said before that I would never be participant in anything that tries to outlaw religion or peoples rights to believe what they want to. But for me to pretend to respect it would be lying on my part. I think honesty is important.

I'd hope you'd respect the people who believe so long as they reciprocate that respect back to you?

I apologize if this sounds derp obvious but on BG some people seem to teeter on the edge of believing that anyone who is theist is suddenly lacking in intelligence and not worthy of speaking to or even respecting in civil discourse. Naturally in the US this is a response caused by the religious right being a destructive force determined to send us back centuries but you can't simply blanket all religious folk under one banner. Shades of gray and all that.

I've had my fill of theists who revert to calling me a pawn of Satan and all the other colorful hatespeech they could manifest but I've had people who are more deist in their beliefs and can agree that doing good for the sake of good is more important than some human customs and textual commandments to hate certain groups. The future lay with people who are more moderate in their religious belief anyway.

Does this mean I agree with everything they say? Most certainly not.

[BaneTheBrawler]

it's because people have had the same arguments thousands of times with theists. And each time, the argument always comes down to "I believe what I want!!!!" It's perfectly natural and understandable to be jaded at that point

Is it? Because the implication of being upset that someone can believe what they want is that you don't think they can. Which means you think you're better suited to deciding their beliefs than they are. Highest form of arrogance.

And no, I don't mean you specifically.

Also, again, I agree with Ronin. That very teetering is what annoys me.

[Siatdiat]

This feels dangerously close to a semantics discussion of some kind.

Ok, in regards to the idea that morals are based off of nothing I think that is false. Morals evolve like anything else. I decided to do a quick wiki search of the definition of the "word" morals. I put word in quotes because morals is just a word trying to capture a complicated concept for purposes of communication. This is what I got:

1.A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
2.A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

So this is showing both an objective and subjective understanding of what the concept morals means. Morals aren't based on nothing, they are based on a culmination of human experience. Is it biological? Sure, but aren't we quickly learning that we are no longer evolving as quickly on a physical level as we are on a intellectual level? Our bodies are adapted for life on the grasslands, yet mentally we are shooting above and beyond. The modern morality isn't based off of nothing, it is based on quite a long time of human experience. Logic and reasoning don't exist in a vacuum, and language is the limitation in expressing ourselves, thats why I say it is in danger of becoming a semantic argument.

We are here, on earth, and we are alive. I agree that there is no magical meaning from the gods, and the question why are we here? is asked too often, when instead we should focus on the fact that we are here, and what are we going to do about it? There are many views on morals, and regardless of what they hold as true, I can't see that any view of morals is based off of nothing.

[Cantih]

aaaaaand Martin Sheen is fucking killing it

e: turds it's over

Woo, now that it's over you can go back and watch the whole thing from the top, just chop everything off starting at "&list",
The pre-show starts at :18 (background news clips) and the play itself looks like it starts at :30
From what I saw, this thing should be airing on PBS, (well, it should be on national broadcast, but reality =\)

[EternityEnd]

What's worse? Torturing cats or torturing dogs? It doesn't matter, torture is torture. I fail to see how arrogance does not equal arrogance.

Edit: and yeah, demo, I fiddled with the quote.

You're both not reading what I said and unskillfully utilizing a straw man fallacy. Allow me to be even clearer: Abrahamic fundamentalists—one side of the equation—actively and harmfully inhibit the advancement of key human rights, as well as usage of certain medical practices, with the former effectively relegating groups of people to second class citizenry, merited only by how they feel about individuals' innate, unchangeable qualities. Not only that, but such oppressors often perpetuate the ill or violent treatment of such groups, either directly, themselves, or indirectly, by indoctrinating youth (itself reprehensible), leading to school bullying and suicides—both by teenagers and adults.

By contrast, the decriers of such destructive behavior—the second half of the equation—almost universally non-violently voice their malcontent, and most certainly never move to restrict the rights of the oppressors to below those of a normal citizen.

The two are not by any stretch morally equivalent, and should not be treated as such. Stop trolling.

[Siatdiat]

Is it? Because the implication of being upset that someone can believe what they want is that you don't think they can. Which means you think you're better suited to deciding their beliefs than they are. Highest form of arrogance.

And no, I don't mean you specifically.

Also, again, I agree with Ronin. That very teetering is what annoys me.

I didn't say you can't decide what to believe or that I'm better suited to decide for you. But I don't have to respect your beliefs.

I am so amazed by reality on a personal level, just the sheer size and majesty of it all. I think the universe is an amazing and beautiful place. What I respect is honesty and clarity. Also a willingness to accept being wrong about something. Science when done right, tests things and comes to a conclusion not based off of preconceived notions. Science done wrong can be just as bad as religion to me because thats what I see religion and unprovable beliefs as, people working towards a decided end based off of no evidence.

Are you from a predominately christian country? I don't want to assume you are, although I am expecting that to be the case. Would you be a christian if you grew up in Japan in 800 BC? I would assume no.

If we were discussing something else I would be entirely different in my attitude, but I cannot respect religion, to pretend to do so for me would just be disingenuous.

[Caiyuo]

Woo, now that it's over you can go back and watch the whole thing from the top, just chop everything off starting at "&list",
The pre-show starts at :18 (background news clips) and the play itself looks like it starts at :30
From what I saw, this thing should be airing on PBS, (well, it should be on national broadcast, but reality =\)

yeah, thanks, I caught that at the end. Didn't realize it would be up for future viewing for some reason, here's for anyone else:

[Talint]

I've posted this in other threads. I'll post it here too, I guess.

[BaneTheBrawler]

You're both not reading what I said and unskillfully utilizing a straw man fallacy. Allow me to be even clearer: Abrahamic fundamentalists—one side of the equation—actively and harmfully inhibit the advancement of key human rights, as well as usage of certain medical practices, with the former effectively relegating groups of people to second class citizenry, merited only by how they feel about individuals' innate, unchangeable qualities. Not only that, but such oppressors often perpetuate the ill or violent treatment of such groups, either directly, themselves, or indirectly, by indoctrinating youth (itself reprehensible), leading to school bullying and suicides—both by teenagers and adults.

By contrast, the decriers of such destructive behavior—the second half of the equation—almost universally non-violently voice their malcontent, and most certainly never move to restrict the rights of the oppressors to below those of a normal citizen.

The two are not by any stretch morally equivalent, and should not be treated as such. Stop trolling.

The bolded part is the only part I'm talking about. The rest is irrelevant to the equation, and therefore a red herring.

It's not even about the good qualities, its about people complaining about hate while expressing how much they hate people. Either we're all held to the same standard, or everyone gets to choose their own standards. If everyone gets to pick, it leads to anarchy.

The assertion that some wrongs are worse than others because one side has power is the exact same justification used by some pretty awful people.

Edit: Also, it would be a straw-man argument... if I were disputing any of the horrible things religion has caused. But I'm not. Never have.

[Siatdiat]

Whose boner is killed by scissor sex?!

[EternityEnd]

No, you're just conveniently ignoring the rest of my post—and failing to respond to any part—wherein I dismantle your principle that religious people's prejudicial acts shouldn't be protested because "that's equally bad."

[Siatdiat]

No, you're just conveniently ignoring the rest of my post—and failing to respond to any part—wherein I dismantle your principle that religious people's prejudicial acts shouldn't be protested because "that's equally bad."

I brought up things like "should we respect neo-nazis beliefs and hold a discussion with them" and also asked his opinion about mormons, since most american protestants dont consider them christians and hate them, with no response. Dude is obviously going to ignore what he doesnt like and stick to his guns of "everyone respect my opinions!!!"

[Demosthenes11]

Is it? Because the implication of being upset that someone can believe what they want is that you don't think they can. Which means you think you're better suited to deciding their beliefs than they are. Highest form of arrogance.

And no, I don't mean you specifically.

Also, again, I agree with Ronin. That very teetering is what annoys me.

Are you saying you don't find someone that believes the earth is 6k years old to be retarded? Or that you don't know better than someone who thinks an old dude talked to God himself, build a boat, and fit 2 of every species of every living thing on the earth onto that boat?

[Yugl]

This feels dangerously close to a semantics discussion of some kind.

Ok, in regards to the idea that morals are based off of nothing I think that is false. Morals evolve like anything else. I decided to do a quick wiki search of the definition of the "word" morals. I put word in quotes because morals is just a word trying to capture a complicated concept for purposes of communication. This is what I got:

1.A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
2.A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

So this is showing both an objective and subjective understanding of what the concept morals means. Morals aren't based on nothing, they are based on a culmination of human experience. Is it biological? Sure, but aren't we quickly learning that we are no longer evolving as quickly on a physical level as we are on a intellectual level? Our bodies are adapted for life on the grasslands, yet mentally we are shooting above and beyond. The modern morality isn't based off of nothing, it is based on quite a long time of human experience. Logic and reasoning don't exist in a vacuum, and language is the limitation in expressing ourselves, thats why I say it is in danger of becoming a semantic argument.

We are here, on earth, and we are alive. I agree that there is no magical meaning from the gods, and the question why are we here? is asked too often, when instead we should focus on the fact that we are here, and what are we going to do about it? There are many views on morals, and regardless of what they hold as true, I can't see that any view of morals is based off of nothing.

Spoiler: show

Remember that I said they're based on nothing as premises. More on this later.

People believe they exist. I doubt they spontaneously believe they exist. Consequently, I believe they have a cause. Specifically, indoctrination. Biology, however, will limit what indoctrination 'sticks'. In this sense, they have basis (More correctly defined as 'cause'), but not in the sense that is relevant to the discussion. Similarly, the first definition listed, "a lesson", is irrelevant as well since it is merely there to account for phrases such as "the moral of the story is X." If morals are just lessons, then they fail to carry the force that most people use them for precisely because they are subjective. Moreover, it would ensure that you are almost always wrong to suggest that someone has no morals. Finally, the rules of logic do exist in a vacuum. You don't need anything to exist for "A; therefore, A" to function correctly.

As premises, they are based on nothing. In logic, you need premises to fulfill conclusions. You can put any premise you want which is why merely stating the premise is often meaningless. The most convincing premises are statements about the world because we can assess their truth value by comparing them with the world. So if you want to know whether the statement "All bears are black" is true, you just need to take a look at the world and see whether they are all, indeed, black. If you find one that is not black, you can deny the statement. You cannot do this with morals because people will proclaim morals that blatantly violate reality. To see why, consider different phrases for morals. "Murder is bad." This expresses an opinion about murder. However, if morals are merely opinions, then statements such as "RPG are the best type of video games" or "Blue is the best color" are moral statements. I doubt people seriously consider that a moral statement. "People should not murder." This is false because 'should' is the same as 'must', 'will', or 'shall'. However, the fact that people do murder negates the truth of both these meanings (Serves as a counterexample).

So what do we do if we cannot look into the world to see whether the statement is true or false? We could try looking to modal logic. In modal logic, we deal with necessity/possibility. However, the former is false precisely because we see no manifestation. The latter is doesn't help because even if it is a contingent manifestation in other words, that does not give us the right to assert it as a premise in this world.

Neither empiricism, hypothetical, nor modal reasoning helps us. It seems morals are treated as a form of base premise but without dependency on anything in the world. As such, it is based on nothing.

[Day]

Bottom line is religon is fine, believe what you want to believe or don't believe. Doesn't matter really. What matters is when you use your religon to force laws, practices etc upon a whole group of people who may or may not believe in what you do. Can't believe there's 3-4 pages of arguing over this shit when it's common sense.

[Elvis]

Bottom line is religon is fine, believe what you want to believe or don't believe. Doesn't matter really. What matters is when you use your religon to force laws, practices etc upon a whole group of people who may or may not believe in what you do. Can't believe there's 3-4 pages of arguing over this shit when it's common sense.

/thread over

[Alleya]

Bottom line is religon is fine, believe what you want to believe or don't believe. Doesn't matter really. What matters is when you use your religon to force laws, practices etc upon a whole group of people who may or may not believe in what you do. Can't believe there's 3-4 pages of arguing over this shit when it's common sense.

This is mainly how I feel. Only problem is, most religions instruct their followers to do precisely that. Even if they didn't, outgroups, group think, cliques, and tribalism are inherent in human nature. I'm more interested in trying to persuade people to transcend those things than to try to make do in a world where we let it run rampant out of undue tolerance.

[Siatdiat]

This is mainly how I feel. Only problem is, most religions instruct their followers to do precisely that. Even if they didn't, outgroups, group think, cliques, and tribalism are inherent in human nature. I'm more interested in trying to persuade people to transcend those things than to try to make do in a world where we let it run rampant out of undue tolerance.

Have you ever been successful at making any religious or superstitious person become critical of their beliefs in any real way? The only thing that I can hope will ever change their mind is the battle inside their head with their own cognitive dissonance. What do people think about neo-nazism? From my point of view, religious belief is equally as foolish and offensive and dangerous.

@Day:

It isn't common sense that religion is fine. It may be common sense to pretend that I think religion is fine on a forum or with people I meet in life, but as I said before that would be dishonest in I think a much more terribly offensive way. It also may seem like common sense to you to not rock any boats or something, but I think rocking boats or challenging philosophies have been pretty important in the history of the human race. I will not however, act as if religion or theology can or should be considered with the same respect as something real.

If someone is religious, and subscribes to all the views of that religion based on what they believe as the word of god, I obviously think they are an idiot, but I have more respect for the hardliners than for those people who say they follow a specific religion, but in reality they are just unintelligent and unthoughtful and have just never really considered it, and don't actually do anything in life that represents their proposed beliefs.

If someone is a "cool" christian/muslim/jew or w/e else, they are usually being cool in spite of what their religion teaches. Because holy texts make no real sense, there are hundreds of sects of each religion, all claiming to read it properly. Please explain to me exactly why I'm supposed to respect that? Other than just trying to be peaceful and friendly.

@Yugl:

Cool, I know what premises are. I took intro to philosophy too.

So you are proposing that abstract concepts like morality can't be subjected to logic or derived from reasonable thought?

[Alleya]

Have you ever been successful at making any religious or superstitious person become critical of their beliefs in any real way?

Technically, yes. If you set out to change minds you will fail. I don't try to change minds, that is useless. The thing to do is to raise consciousness. It's the same thing the feminist movement did, and it's worked extremely well. The point is to expose people to other ideas and, like you say, make them a victim of their own cognitive dissonance. Engaging someone one-on-one is very unlikely to work unless they are already doubters who just can't articulate what they feel until you come along and give it a voice. Those are the people I've gotten to change their minds. Otherwise, it's simply a matter of getting the ideas out into the culture. They seep in over time. Even blatant, unrepentant misogynists realize at this point that what they are doing is counter to a cultural force because of the consciousness-raising efforts of feminism. It's important to me that we do the same thing with rational free thinking, and not give religion a pass just because it's religion.