The end of religious discussion in GD

[Sarahfeena]

@Contrapuntal

“Laughable nonsense” is your term, not mine. Or, are you saying that talking dogs are laughable nonsense?

Well, of course I am…do you think I’m crazy? What I was trying to say, though, is that when you ask a question like that, it implies that you think it’s all laughable nonsense.

How about if I say it this way : Inasmuch as there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of ghosts, is there any reason, in your mind, to afford their existence any more probability than any other thing for which there is absolutely no evidence?

See, now, that’s an entirely different way of asking, and one that will probably lend itself to an interesting conversation. Do you want to foster interesting conversation, or do you want people to feel insulted? What is the goal?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Omegaman

No, what part do you find to be?

As a matter of fact, **God has never spoken to me ** nor anyone I know. This is the business of prophets and I’ve never seen one of those either. I am just a simple man attempting to navigate my way through life with what I have been given with **the grace of God to show me what is right ** even when the answer is not clearly apparent to me.

[my bolding]
If he’s not talking to you, how is he showing you what is right?

[Voyager]

@Czarcasm

Are you saying that it never occurred to you that others might think that you want the name of your deity to be capitalized to emphasize that your deity is much more than those other “gods”?

Ive always taken the difference to be that “god” is a generic term and “God” is the name of the Western god. Maybe we should call him Jehovah to eliminate the confusion.

[mswas]

God isn’t necessarily a proper noun, so putting it in lower case letters is perfectly acceptable. Jewish tradition holds that we don’t really know the true name of God. So you can capitalize it or not. It doesn’t really matter.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Voyager

Ive always taken the difference to be that “god” is a generic term and “God” is the name of the Western god. Maybe we should call him Jehovah to eliminate the confusion.

Hindus refer to God (capitalized, if in English) as well.

So you can capitalize it or not. It doesn’t really matter.

Not to you, perhaps, but to Lib it apparently does.

[mswas]

@Voyager

Ive always taken the difference to be that “god” is a generic term and “God” is the name of the Western god. Maybe we should call him Jehovah to eliminate the confusion.

How about יהוה

[mswas]

@Really Not All That Bright

Not to you, perhaps, but to Lib it apparently does.

I think people should come into the notion as though a certain level of linguistic corruption is the baseline. If everyone started there, we’d have a lot less conflict in the world.

[Malthus]

@Really Not All That Bright

They’re still reading the same B/book and reciting the same prayers (though in the lingua rustica).

You can’t have it both ways. If the “antiquity of their beliefs” is a factor in determining that they aren’t a cult, it’s a factor in determining much - perhaps everything - else about their faith.

Don’t agree. At all.

“Antiquity” is a factor because it points to culture and tradition - one factor among several pointing to the difference between a “cult” and a genuine religion. Obviously not a determinative factor (some genuine religions are quite new), but certainly an indicative one. Few true “cults” last for generations, at least not as “cults”.

The fact that Catholics read the same book as the Borgia Popes does not thereby tie all Catholics forever to the crimes of the Borgias.

[Syntropy]

@Malthus

Well, to my mind the quality of respect is not accorded because I happen to agree with the beliefs at issue, but because I respect the persons who hold such beliefs - until such time, of course, that they forefit that respect through some act of illegality, hatred, or contempt for others.

Okay. I think this is where we differ. I don’t believe my respect for a person necessarily needs to be bound up in my respect for their beliefs.

As for what seperates out a religion from a scam or a cult - the difference is a combination of a number of factors, such as:

1. The antiquity of the belief in issue;

I’m not sure how long something has been believed is necessarily a selling point. People have believed a lot of things for long periods of time that turned out to be wrong. But if you’re saying a tradition linked to belief like Seder on Passover should be respected because it’s established and a part of that people’s culture, then I can agree with that.

2. Whether the leadership believes in the program (or are out for cash or child-brides);

3. Whether they do good works in the community, or use cash from followers for the leaders’ child brides or whatever;

4. The content of the theology - ego-inflating self-helpery, following the leader no matter what, or a message of love and humbleness?

These are each their own threads, IMO, and multi pagers at that, but I’ll restrict my response to saying that I think you will find each end of the spectrum and every action in between in any religion you care to name.

To my mind there is a difference between (say) Scientology and the Quakers. I believe in neither, and believe both are just as “untrue” (IMO God exists no more than Xenu), but the one is deserving of respect and the other is not.

Sure. And I agree with you. But again, the point I’m getting at is that it’s interpretational. Followers of The Great and Mighty Oz…er…L. Ron feel that they’re every bit as deserving of your respect as those Quakers. You cannot, in all honesty, say that you are an atheist but afford one religion more respect than you do another except as a matter of personal preference and opinion.

Moreover, until I have reason not to, my general attitude is to accord others the respect I would wish them to accord me.

And I think that’s a good rule of thumb. Again, back to my first point, I’d add the qualifier that I believe I can show my respect for someone as a person while at the same time finding their religious/political beliefs absolute twaddle.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@Mangetout

My interjection was intended to be along the lines of “ummm…guys… are you sure we’re doing this right?” - as one might in any other circumstance where a well-intentioned, but possibly misguided start has been made on something.

Let me start off by saying that I totally get that you were not intending to be insulting or to derail the conversation. However, I’m still of the opinion that your comment had no place in an IMHO thread. It appears to me that it was meant to be a relatively light-hearted discussion about what people were giving up for Lent, not whether or not Lent, Catholism, or religion in general is “misguided”.

[mswas]

I think in a cult, a central authority has a greater level of influence over the daily lives of its adherents. The Catholic Church doesn’t really qualify as it doesn’t really have the resources anymore to directly influence the lives of its adherents anymore. Also, it was kind of grandfathered in as an intrinsic part of Western culture. I think that a religion is more culturally diverse than a cult essentially.

[Contrapuntal]

@Sarahfeena

Well, of course I am…do you think I’m crazy? What I was trying to say, though, is that when you ask a question like that, it implies that you think it’s all laughable nonsense.

Well, I do think that if believing in one particular thing for which there is no evidence is laughable nonsense, then believing in any other thing for which there is no evidence must be also, as well.

This is not directed at you directly, but don’t some Christians believe that Balaam’s ass spoke to him? Is that laughable nonsense?

See, now, that’s an entirely different way of asking, and one that will probably lend itself to an interesting conversation. Do you want to foster interesting conversation, or do you want people to feel insulted? What is the goal?

Interesting conversation, hopefully. In all seriousness, how am I to know which examples of unbelievable things will offend, and which will not?

[Voyager]

@Sarahfeena

Well, that’s fine…although no offense, if you go around doing that kind of thing, I wouldn’t be surprised if people are insulted anyway. The point isn’t that you think that the existance of ghosts is laughable nonsense, it’s that it’s rude to say so except perhaps in very specific circumstances.

That’s the problem in the US today. Let’s take a leaf from the rules here. Calling someone an idiot for believing in ghosts, say is offensive and insulting. Saying that belief in ghosts (or astrology) is absurd shouldn’t be - so long as the evidence against is strong. The correct response when told that one of your beliefs is wrong or absurd is to explain why it isn’t - not to walk away in a huff.

I do research, and what I learned in my grad school and younger years was that if I proposed something weak I was going to get whacked. People who couldn’t stand having their ideas challenged didn’t last long, but what came out was stronger.

When I first ran into the IPU, back in alt.atheism, it was used to illustrate how theists used special pleading. Many, when challenged, responded by saying that we couldn’t say that about God. (That’s not an issue around here.) Unfortunately, instead of explaining why it makes more sense to believe in God, people just get offended. I see that as a weakness in the argument.

Anyone who gets insulted when his or her ideas are challenged and even ridiculed shouldn’t be doing this kind of debating. And we all acknowledge that perfectly nice and sane people believe in all sorts of wacky things, and we’re all guilty of this. So I’m not too fond of the “if you call my ideas nutty you’re calling me nutty” response either.

[Syntropy]

@Sarahfeena

Well, of course I am…do you think I’m crazy? What I was trying to say, though, is that when you ask a question like that, it implies that you think it’s all laughable nonsense.

See, and here is where I start to feel that it’s getting a bit restrictive. My goodness. We’re not even allowed to imply that we think it might be laughable nonsense? I think there is an extent to which someone can realistically make the effort of not hurting someone’s feelings without being unreasonable, but maybe asking people to act as though they don’t find some things unbelievable is crossing a line.

[mswas]

@Maureen

See, and here is where I start to feel that it’s getting a bit restrictive. My goodness. We’re not even allowed to imply that we think it might be laughable nonsense? I think there is an extent to which someone can realistically make the effort of not hurting someone’s feelings without being unreasonable, but maybe asking people to act as though they don’t find some things unbelievable is crossing a line.

It’s ok, I think atheism is laughable nonsense.

[Malthus]

@Maureen

Okay. I think this is where we differ. I don’t believe my respect for a person necessarily needs to be bound up in my respect for their beliefs.

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

I think it is possible to respect a person while disagreeing with their beliefs; I do not think it is possible to respect a person while not respecting their beliefs.

I’m not sure how long something has been believed is necessarily a selling point. People have believed a lot of things for long periods of time that turned out to be wrong. But if you’re saying a tradition linked to belief like Seder on Passover should be respected because it’s established and a part of that people’s culture, then I can agree with that.

Nothing I say has anything to do with whether the religion is right or wrong - far as I’m concerned, on the central point (existence of God or gods) they are all wrong, and equally wrong.

Otherwise, we agree.

These are each their own threads, IMO, and multi pagers at that, but I’ll restrict my response to saying that I think you will find each end of the spectrum and every action in between in any religion you care to name.

That’s why it is a list of criteria. No one single criteria can demonstrate the difference between a religion and a cult - it takes a consideration of several. Indeed, no doubt my list is simplistic and further debate would flesh it out.

Sure. And I agree with you. But again, the point I’m getting at is that it’s interpretational. Followers of The Great and Mighty Oz…er…L. Ron feel that they’re every bit as deserving of your respect as those Quakers. You cannot, in all honesty, say that you are an atheist but afford one religion more respect than you do another except as a matter of personal preference and opinion.

Disagree on the last part. Sure, telling the difference between a religion and a cult requires judgment, but that does not mean it’s all just relative and there really is no difference.

And I think that’s a good rule of thumb. Again, back to my first point, I’d add the qualifier that I believe I can show my respect for someone as a person while at the same time finding their religious/political beliefs absolute twaddle.

Getting back to an earlier part of the conversation - on an Internet board, it is very difficult to show respect for a person while at the same time telling that person that they believe in “absolute twaddle”.

Moreover, as I said above, I will have to agree to disagree that one can truly respect someone while having none for their beliefs.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Malthus

Don’t agree. At all.

“Antiquity” is a factor because it points to culture and tradition - one factor among several pointing to the difference between a “cult” and a genuine religion. Obviously not a determinative factor (some genuine religions are quite new), but certainly an indicative one. Few true “cults” last for generations, at least not as “cults”.

The fact that Catholics read the same book as the Borgia Popes does not thereby tie all Catholics forever to the crimes of the Borgias.

Well, according to your criteria, Catholicism either is a cult, or graduated from culthood, no?

[Malthus]

@Voyager

That’s the problem in the US today. Let’s take a leaf from the rules here. Calling someone an idiot for believing in ghosts, say is offensive and insulting. Saying that belief in ghosts (or astrology) is absurd shouldn’t be - so long as the evidence against is strong. The correct response when told that one of your beliefs is wrong or absurd is to explain why it isn’t - not to walk away in a huff.

I do research, and what I learned in my grad school and younger years was that if I proposed something weak I was going to get whacked. People who couldn’t stand having their ideas challenged didn’t last long, but what came out was stronger.

When I first ran into the IPU, back in alt.atheism, it was used to illustrate how theists used special pleading. Many, when challenged, responded by saying that we couldn’t say that about God. (That’s not an issue around here.) Unfortunately, instead of explaining why it makes more sense to believe in God, people just get offended. I see that as a weakness in the argument.

Anyone who gets insulted when his or her ideas are challenged and even ridiculed shouldn’t be doing this kind of debating. And we all acknowledge that perfectly nice and sane people believe in all sorts of wacky things, and we’re all guilty of this. So I’m not too fond of the “if you call my ideas nutty you’re calling me nutty” response either.

Actually, according to the official alt.athiesm faq the IPU was always intended as a way to insult “witnessers”:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050227001657/alt-atheism.org/article_view.php?c=&id=1

What’s this IPU?
The IPU is the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves).

Some times theists get carried away, and begin preaching. As pointed out elsewhere, preaching is not appreciated on alt.atheism. On the other hand, flame wars over preaching aren’t much fun either.

So, some atheists will instead respond with some preaching of their own. There are a number of suitable deities available. J.R. “Bob” Dobbs is popular with SubGenius atheists, and the goddess Eris is popular with Discordians. But alt.atheism also has its own deity: The Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuhhh).

Like most Goddesses, she’s invisible and highly unlikely to exist. However, there is much argument as to her exact colour, her shape and size, and other properties of her nonexistence. She burns with anger against theists, and allegedly grinds them beneath her holy hooves.

More recent additions to the list of atheist gods are: Maeve - catgod of The Church of Last Thursday (the universe was created last Thursday and all memories of things happening before this were placed in our minds. Can you prove otherwise?), Nirfur - the catgod of All Things Yellow & Fuzzy and my very own catgods Si & Am who reside near The Great Litterbox In The Sky (evildoers are placed head down in the more pungent sections). (Lots of atheists like cats, y’see.)

The point of this silliness is to prod the theist into remembering that their preaching is likely to be viewed by atheists as having all the credibility and seriousness of their preaching about the IPU and various catgods.

[emphasis added]

According to this FAQ at least, it wasn’t some aspect of a legitimate logical argument - it was, quite deliberately, a tool of ridicule to discourage unwanted “preaching”. It is the conversational equivalent of a raised middle finger.

[Malthus]

@Really Not All That Bright

Well, according to your criteria, Catholicism either is a cult, or graduated from culthood, no?

Graduated from culthood, yes.

Perhaps every religion goes through a “cult” phase, and in a few hundred years we’ll see a genuine religion based on Scientology. Though I do not think every cult survives to become a religion …

[Syntropy]

@Malthus

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

Okay.

Getting back to an earlier part of the conversation - on an Internet board, it is very difficult to show respect for a person while at the same time telling that person that they believe in “absolute twaddle”.

On an internet message board? Sure. I think “I’m an atheist” pretty much covers it, though, don’t you? I can’t honestly say I respect someone’s beliefs if I consider them nothing more than a continuation of tradition and an emotional response to a fear of death. Which is, for the most part, why I don’t often take part in religious debate. But that doesn’t mean I can’t interact with those posters and show them the respect they deserve WRT other subjects.

@mswas

It’s ok, I think atheism is laughable nonsense.

But will you still respect me tomorrow morning?