Funny events in anti-woke world

[Dirty Hipsters]

It starts with the definition of atheist, because it's not just not believing in God, but rather believing there is no God.

Can you explain what the functional difference is between "not believing in the existence of God" and "believing there is no God" since you are claiming that these are distinctly different positions?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Religion isn't just what you believe, it's what you practice, it requires practice. The practice of religion. You can believe in the things someone else does while following different practices, there are numerous denominations of Christianity that share beliefs but practice differently, thus belonging to different religions.

One would consider these different sects of the same religion rather than different religions. Christianity is Christianity whether you're Catholic or one of the various Protestant denominations.

Believing in God doesn't make you religious if you don't practice it. Not practicing religion doesn't mean you don't believe in God.

I would argue that believing in a specific god does make one religious, regardless of how you practice that belief. The people who aren't religious in any way are ones that don't believe in the existence of any god.

 

[Silvanus]

Religion isn't just what you believe, it's what you practice, it requires practice. The practice of religion. You can believe in the things someone else does while following different practices, there are numerous denominations of Christianity that share beliefs but practice differently, thus belonging to different religions.

No, practice (or 'ritual') isn't a requirement. Hence why a huge number of Christians do not go to Church, do not actively worship, etc-- and yet are considered Christians by wider society, by census, by government, and by themselves. Religion is defined by belief system-- not what you choose to do to validate it.

Point to Silvanus between the two of you for saying things without casually condescending on millions of people who aren't here to defend themselves.

This is somewhat rich, considering you're the one here who has been by far the most condescending and insulting towards entire belief systems and the millions of people who ascribe to them.

 

[Trunkage]

No, that's not a thing.

It definitely wasn't Christian. The Founding Father took great pains to not be a Christian country. So a country with no religion, even atheism. Is that better?

Anyway, I'm assuming that the initial comment I made was assumed to be targeting only religious people. I did not mean to imply that. These policies should placed on everyone, including atheists

 

[Chimpzy]

Since we're on the topic of religion, enjoy some thoroughly heretical idolatry.

 

[Trunkage]

Religion isn't just what you believe, it's what you practice, it requires practice. The practice of religion. You can believe in the things someone else does while following different practices, there are numerous denominations of Christianity that share beliefs but practice differently, thus belonging to different religions.

Believing in God doesn't make you religious if you don't practice it. Not practicing religion doesn't mean you don't believe in God.

Point to Silvanus between the two of you for saying things without casually condescending on millions of people who aren't here to defend themselves.

I probably would not define it like this, as there probably wouldn't many people who could be classed as religious. Eg. most Christians, and Jews, only follow holiday religious practices. Hindu and Muslim might have restrictive diets but still be holiday religious practices, so I don't know if that follows for you. It wouldn't for me.

Then you get to the complication that most Christians don't follow Jesus' teachings at all. Which I personally find far more important as a religious practice then turning up to church. Same with Jews and Muslims.

Like, most religious people are probably closer to how the Japanese see Shinto. I don't know if you would classed this as a religious practice. I would

 

[tstorm823]

Can you explain what the functional difference is between "not believing in the existence of God" and "believing there is no God" since you are claiming that these are distinctly different positions?

One is claiming a specific belief "there is no God", where the other is not claiming the belief "there is a God." If I showed you an opaque, unopenable box, and told you nothing about what was inside, you would likely say you don't know if there's a shoe inside, you wouldn't say you know there's not a shoe inside.

Christianity is Christianity whether you're Catholic or one of the various Protestant denominations.

Tell that to the protestants. [Ba dum tss]

Edit: For what it's worth, there are a bunch of different ways things do or do not tie together. There are denominations that are run separately but consider themselves the same, there are others that are largely the same but with minor differences, and then there are some with beliefs so heretical to the others that it's genuinely wrong to call them the same religion. At a certain point, you have to accept that things are different in kind. Christian Science is not the same religion as like the Greek Orthodox Church.

I would argue that believing in a specific god does make one religious, regardless of how you practice that belief. The people who aren't religious in any way are ones that don't believe in the existence of any god.

The origin of the term religion was in reference to oaths or obligations, be they a matter of reverence or even just a social responsibility. Being religious is submitting to a certain order and accepting the obligations of it, even if it's just a self-imposed order. One can believe in a god and still decide they owe nothing to that.

Religion is defined by belief system-- not what you choose to do to validate it.

Religion is defined by what your beliefs obligate you to do. If you choose not to fulfill those obligations, it does not take your religion away, so long as that comes with the understanding that you are doing wrong by yourself. If you decide you have no obligation of practice, you have left that religion.

This is somewhat rich, considering you're the one here who has been by far the most condescending and insulting towards entire belief systems and the millions of people who ascribe to them.

I don't think I've ever suggested the majority of the entire human population doesn't know what they think because they're so much less enlightened than me.

I might say something like that about people here, but I have higher opinions of the general population.

Since we're on the topic of religion, enjoy some thoroughly heretical idolatry.
View attachment 11343

Whoever put that cover image together deserves to be paid more. Unless it's AI, then I retract my statement. Isn't the future fun?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

One is claiming a specific belief "there is no God", where the other is not claiming the belief "there is a God." If I showed you an opaque, unopenable box, and told you nothing about what was inside, you would likely say you don't know if there's a shoe inside, you wouldn't say you know there's not a shoe inside.

Saying "I don't believe in the existence of shoes" would very much imply that I don't think there could possibly be a shoe inside of the box, even if I didn't declare "I believe there is not a shoe inside of that box."

 

[tstorm823]

Saying "I don't believe in the existence of shoes" would very much imply that I don't think there could possibly be a shoe inside of the box, even if I didn't declare "I believe there is not a shoe inside of that box."

That's not really a perfectly parallel argument, but setting that aside, you very much shouldn't be judging people's beliefs based on what you think it implies. An implication is not a logical requirement, not matching your inferences is not a contradiction.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

That's not really a perfectly parallel argument, but setting that aside, you very much shouldn't be judging people's beliefs based on what you think it implies. An implication is not a logical requirement, not matching your inferences is not a contradiction.

If I clearly say that I do not believe in the existence of God, it clearly means that I do not believe in God. Unless you have a way to believe in something that you don't think actually exists.

 

[tstorm823]

If I clearly say that I do not believe in the existence of God, it clearly means that I do not believe in God. Unless you have a way to believe in something that you don't think actually exists.

But it doesn't necessarily mean that you believe there isn't. Lacking a belief is not the same as actively believing the inverse.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

But it doesn't necessarily mean that you believe there isn't. Lacking a belief is not the same as actively believing the inverse.

How is not believing in the existence of God somehow the inverse of not believing in God? What exactly do you think a belief in God means if it doesn't have to do with believing in the existence of a specific God?

I literally cannot follow your train of thought in this matter, and I suspect that you're attempting to be obtuse on purpose.

 

[tstorm823]

How is not believing in the existence of God somehow the inverse of not believing in God? What exactly do you think a belief in God means if it doesn't have to do with believing in the existence of a specific God?

I literally cannot follow your train of thought in this matter, and I suspect that you're attempting to be obtuse on purpose.

You're not saying it right. There is "not believing in the existence of God", and there is "believing in the non-existence of God". The former could just be "I don't know", the latter cannot.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I mean, same as it ever is with him. Certain Christians just can't fathom that some people just legit do not believe in his supernatural entity

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

You're not saying it right. There is "not believing in the existence of God", and there is "believing in the non-existence of God". The former could just be "I don't know", the latter cannot.

I'm saying it right, you're just not understanding it right, or being intentionally obtuse.

Saying "I do not believe in the existence of God" does not mean "I don't know if God exists." There's nothing open to interpretation.

I'm saying 1+1=2, and you're upset that I'm not saying that 2=1+1.

 

[Satinavian]

First, equating religion and god is... sketchy. There are religions working perfectly fine without gods and relying completely on ancestor spirits and similar. There are also other religions that have gods but only in a minor role where everything important is more about metaphysics, philosophy and an unpersonal cosmic order.

Second, yes, not believing in any of that is enough to be called atheist. That is how it is used in most parts of the world.

Third, belief without ritual is still called "religious". And that is particularly influenced by Christianity where the "sola fide" had such in important role.

 

[Silvanus]

Religion is defined by what your beliefs obligate you to do. If you choose not to fulfill those obligations, it does not take your religion away, so long as that comes with the understanding that you are doing wrong by yourself. If you decide you have no obligation of practice, you have left that religion.

Bollocks. This focus on obligation and the notion of "doing wrong" if you don't fulfil it are a particularly Catholic perspective, categorically not shared by most religions both historic and modern. Religion has always been about belief-- despite how some organised religions would like to claim ownership.

I don't think I've ever suggested the majority of the entire human population doesn't know what they think because they're so much less enlightened than me.

No, you've merely said that hundreds of millions of people worldwide are mostly just "edgelords", and hundreds of millions of others don't count as proper believers in their own religions unless they acknowledge they're "doing themselves wrong".

 

[tstorm823]

Saying "I do not believe in the existence of God" does not mean "I don't know if God exists." There's nothing open to interpretation.

It can mean that, it doesn't have to mean that. Both "I don't know if God exists" and "I know God doesn't exist" are subsets of "I do not believe in God".

Religion has always been about belief-- despite how some organised religions would like to claim ownership.

religion | Etymology of religion by etymonline

"state of life bound by monastic vows," also "action or conduct indicating a belief in a… See origin and meaning of religion.

www.etymonline.com

"...popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via the notion of "place an obligation on,"

Religion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The term religion comes from both Old French and Anglo-Norman (1200s CE) and means respect for sense of right, moral obligation, sanctity, what is sacred, reverence for the gods. It is ultimately derived from the Latin word religiō.

Religio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Newer research shows that in the ancient and medieval world, the etymological Latin root religio was understood as an individual virtue of worship in mundane contexts; never as doctrine, practice, or actual source of knowledge. In general, religio referred to broad social obligations towards anything including family, neighbors, rulers, and even towards God."

Do you recall, this used to be Religion and Politics? Can you guess which of those I care about more? We argue on fairly equal footing about modern politics, but we have ventured into my wheelhouse, you're gonna learn things you didn't know.

The concept of religion I'm describing is not some recent claim of organized religions, it predates Jesus.

 

[Silvanus]

religion | Etymology of religion by etymonline

"state of life bound by monastic vows," also "action or conduct indicating a belief in a… See origin and meaning of religion.

www.etymonline.com

"...popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via the notion of "place an obligation on,"

Religion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The term religion comes from both Old French and Anglo-Norman (1200s CE) and means respect for sense of right, moral obligation, sanctity, what is sacred, reverence for the gods. It is ultimately derived from the Latin word religiō.

Religio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Newer research shows that in the ancient and medieval world, the etymological Latin root religio was understood as an individual virtue of worship in mundane contexts; never as doctrine, practice, or actual source of knowledge. In general, religio referred to broad social obligations towards anything including family, neighbors, rulers, and even towards God."

Do you understand that etymology is not the same as definition?

Do you recall, this used to be Religion and Politics? Can you guess which of those I care about more? We argue on fairly equal footing about modern politics, but we have ventured into my wheelhouse, you're gonna learn things you didn't know.

You have exactly as much authority on every religion except Catholicism as I do.

((Putting aside the fact that you've also tried to push a definition of atheism onto the rest of us, so you clearly don't believe one's perspectives are limited by their own theological stances)).

The concept of religion I'm describing is not some recent claim of organized religions, it predates Jesus.

Yes; organised religions and institutions arrogantly claiming ownership of people's beliefs has been around many thousands of years longer.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Didn't know of this old interview, basically admitting the entire strategy of gop rhetoric and policy for all their pre-trump era in 1981, am amazed no-one learnt from it or seemingly even remember it. This is crazy level of generational/political amnesia, more than the usual.

Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy

The forty-two-minute recording, acquired by James Carter IV, confirms Atwater’s incendiary remarks and places them in context.

www.thenation.com

Some uncensored language in article, am unsure about rules for quoting but playing it safe and censoring them anyway, also to avoid bad-faith flagging or other hassles;

It has become, for liberals and leftists enraged by the way Republicans never suffer the consequences for turning electoral politics into a cesspool, a kind of smoking gun. The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*****, n*****, n*****." By 1968 you can’t say “n*****”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N*****, n*****.”


Now, the same indefatigable researcher who brought us Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” remarks, James Carter IV, has dug up the entire forty-two-minute interview from which that quote derives. Here, The Nation publishes it in its entirety for the very first time.

Listen to the full forty-two-minute conversation with Atwater:


The back-story goes like this. In 1981, Atwater, after a decade as South Carolina’s most effective Republican operative, was working in Ronald Reagan’s White House when he was interviewed by Alexander Lamis, a political scientist at Case Western Reserve University. Lamis published the interview without using Atwater’s name in his 1984 book The Two-Party South. Fifteen years later—and eight years after Atwater passed away from cancer—Lamis republished the interview in another book using Atwater’s name. For seven years no one paid much attention. Then the New York Times‘ Bob Herbert, a bit of an Atwater obsessive, quoted it in an October 6, 2005 column—then five more times over the next four years.

Those words soon became legend—quoted in both screeds (The GOP-Haters Handbook, 2007) and scholarship (Corey Robin’s 2011 classic work of political theory, The Reactionary Mind). Google Books records its use in ten books published so far this year alone. Curious about the remarks’ context, Carter, who learned Lamis had died in 2012, asked his widow if she would consider releasing the audio of the interview, especially in light of the use of race-baiting dog-whistles (lies about Obama ending work requirements for welfare; “jokes” about his supposed Kenyan provenance) in the Romney presidential campaign. Renée Lamis, an Obama donor, agreed that very same night. For one thing she was “upset,” Carter told me, that “for some time, conservatives believed [her] husband made up the Atwater interview.” For another, she was eager to illustrate that her husband’s use of the Atwater quote was scholarly, not political.

is just there, in plain sight all these years. and ppl still try taking them seriously at their word. Wtf.