Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > General

General General questions and meet 'n greet and welcome!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-14-2013, 05:00 PM   #1326
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Your views can be informed by racism, sexism, ableism, etc and you can be an atheist and you can still vote unquestionably. Actually, American democracy was founded on the idea that it should be based on the white male racist slave owner's opinion, funny how democracy doesn't actually end oppression.
John Adams didn't own any slaves, and he was able to somehow have an opinion. Oppression is an arbitrary concept anyway. There are people who view the concept of any social contract at all as "oppression". No matter what, someone is going to weep softly and blog about it, or post Gene Wilder image macros in tumblr or whatever the fuck it is that kids do these days.

Quote:
Not only that, but how do you dissect someone's religious or irreligious views from their political? And does that mean they have no right to being involved in the world? Should Liberation Theologists continued to watch people starve to death and do nothing just because their theology informed their Marxism? Should oppressed religious minorities such as Muslims not vote for the people least likely to diminish their rights? I know many women in rural communities who's religion informs their desire to reform for the better, such as getting their churches to fight for genderless marriage, just because I don't like HOW they got to that answer, I should think the answer is wrong, even if its the same as mine or yours?
By cultivating critical thinking and the ability to separate reality from fantasy. Being trapped in a superstitious paradigm is self-delusion at best, and in too many cases actively detrimental to others.

In one sense, whatever random foolishness a given person ascribes to doesn't matter. It's only when those beliefs materialize into actions that negatively impact others that they mean anything.
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 06:44 PM   #1327
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
John Adams didn't own any slaves, and he was able to somehow have an opinion. Oppression is an arbitrary concept anyway. There are people who view the concept of any social contract at all as "oppression". No matter what, someone is going to weep softly and blog about it, or post Gene Wilder image macros in tumblr or whatever the fuck it is that kids do these days.
You know what I meant, and oppression isn't arbitrary or subjective. 34% of age black men in Alabama are not allowed to vote, for example. That's racist and that's not internet whining. Only certain people with certain privileges are guaranteed a say regardless of their religious views or whether they're educated.

Quote:
By cultivating critical thinking and the ability to separate reality from fantasy. Being trapped in a superstitious paradigm is self-delusion at best, and in too many cases actively detrimental to others.

In one sense, whatever random foolishness a given person ascribes to doesn't matter. It's only when those beliefs materialize into actions that negatively impact others that they mean anything.
Like your racism or ableism? Which I assumed isn't based on religion?
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 08:38 PM   #1328
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
You know what I meant, and oppression isn't arbitrary or subjective. 34% of age black men in Alabama are not allowed to vote, for example. That's racist and that's not internet whining. Only certain people with certain privileges are guaranteed a say regardless of their religious views or whether they're educated.
Yes it is! Are white felons allowed to vote in Alabama? Their disenfranchisement is not race based, it is based on their status as having been convicted of a felony. I'd like to see people who have 'paid their debt to society' reinstated as full citizens entitled to all the privileges thereof.

Quote:
Like your racism or ableism? Which I assumed isn't based on religion?
I gave up waiting on Alan to finish his list. And I'm no longer ableist, since starting work on establishing my political action committee to ensure the rights of the dangerously insane to own and enjoy firearms.
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 04:26 AM   #1329
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
Yes it is! Are white felons allowed to vote in Alabama? Their disenfranchisement is not race based, it is based on their status as having been convicted of a felony. I'd like to see people who have 'paid their debt to society' reinstated as full citizens entitled to all the privileges thereof.
Right, because laws aren't created knowing that they're going to limit the rights and freedoms of people of colour. Its not like Alabama only legalized interracial marriage thirteen years ago, I'm sure they're up to speed with the rest of the world by now. Similarily, I'm sure that immigration law in Arizona is fairly targetting any white people who look foreign too.

Quote:
I gave up waiting on Alan to finish his list. And I'm no longer ableist, since starting work on establishing my political action committee to ensure the rights of the dangerously insane to own and enjoy firearms.
See, this is what I' talking about. White male atheists just use atheism to reinforce their superiority complex, or express it in a new way. I have yet to meet an atheist who's so free of bias and harmful myths that he can cast stones at the rest of the world.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 09:46 AM   #1330
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Right, because laws aren't created knowing that they're going to limit the rights and freedoms of people of colour. Its not like Alabama only legalized interracial marriage thirteen years ago, I'm sure they're up to speed with the rest of the world by now. Similarily, I'm sure that immigration law in Arizona is fairly targetting any white people who look foreign too.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread. Why are you insisting on being disruptive to the conversation to push your agenda? Would you please consider not doing that?

Quote:
See, this is what I' talking about. White male atheists just use atheism to reinforce their superiority complex, or express it in a new way. I have yet to meet an atheist who's so free of bias and harmful myths that he can cast stones at the rest of the world.
It is possible to be smug and simultaneously concerned about the destructive influence religion and superstitious thought has on the society one is part of.

Just like it is possible to be concerned about social justice while at the same time being utterly insufferable.
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 03:09 PM   #1331
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread. Why are you insisting on being disruptive to the conversation to push your agenda? Would you please consider not doing that?

It is possible to be smug and simultaneously concerned about the destructive influence religion and superstitious thought has on the society one is part of.

Just like it is possible to be concerned about social justice while at the same time being utterly insufferable.
Aren't you pushing your own agenda? Again, this is what I'm talking about. The only things that matter are the oppression you can see and fuck anyone else. Everyone else is superstitious and stupid and destructive and if only, if only, they were as critical thinkers as you, our problems would be solved. We'd ignore racism and ableism and sexism that is commited by our favourite atheist white guys, of course.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 05:51 PM   #1332
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
No, I'm trying to contribute to a thread that isn't about racism or located in the Political section of this forum, despite your feverish attempt to collapse everything into a singularity of whining.
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 06:16 PM   #1333
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Nobody was whining until you came in all butthurt because the thread wasn't about you and your entitlement.

And if you're so mightily concerned about religious people voting against abortion rights, I can tell you this as a queer woman who grew up in a place where there is no seperation of church and all schools were church schools: They don't do it because of religion. They do it because of sexism, that survives religion or no religion.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 08:30 PM   #1334
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
And if you're so mightily concerned about religious people voting against abortion rights, I can tell you this as a queer woman who grew up in a place where there is no seperation of church and all schools were church schools: They don't do it because of religion. They do it because of sexism, that survives religion or no religion.
Reminds me of an arguement I had with Cracker Von Patriarch where he asserted that the holocaust was the conclusion to Darwin's theory of evolution, rather than racism.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 08:34 AM   #1335
ape descendant
 
ape descendant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Smexyville, Colorado
Posts: 2,424
*pulls out a bag of popcorn*
__________________
******

Be Kind
ape descendant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 09:03 AM   #1336
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
I didn't say they HAD proof, I said they FEEL they have proof. People who are anti-vac feel they have proof, 9/11 truthers feel they have proof. When people cling to theories they don't really listen to contradicty evidence.
Yeah well... feelings and all. I feel like imperialism and capitalism are bad things. But most Westerners feel differently. I feel like X-Files is an incredibly amazing show. Why the hell would you or anyone else care? Why SHOULD you? Are we supposed to change our minds about how people feel when that feeling becomes popular? How many people does it take to dispense an amount of respect for someone's feelings? Misogynists feel like there's a proper place for women. Why should I care? Am I not bound to offend that feeling? Shouldn't I?



Quote:
The burden of proof to who? To people they're proselytizing, sure. To anyone who asks, no.
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one who makes the claim. No one even has to god damned say it. The books and scriptures and all the myths are sitting right there on the god damned pages. Anyone who observes them will obviously be saddled with the burden of proof. Mostly because spoiler alert; religious observance isn't as personal as so many wish it were.



Quote:
Or bad, since it makes religion inescapable. The religion in pop culture is reflective of "real" religion anyway, and religion in turn responds to religion in pop culture.
Not really because your all encompassing definition doesn't necessarily change the fact that it brings us all back to square one and ideas within the zeitgeist are still set against each other. You can't escape doubt and skepticism simply because it's now thrown into some religious arena. By all means, let people try and pray the gay away. We'll see how effective it really is.

Quote:
Like the Jedi thing, Lucas was pretty open that it was largely based on Buddhism and Taoism, and the prequels were more Christian in narrative and tone. I don't think its surprising that people are responding to it when its repackaged in a more culturally familiar way.
Yeah and Brent made a fucking FABULOUS musical once about religious myths. It turned out way fucking awesome. I honestly don't see what the problem is with appropriating religious myths for some good story telling. Jesus Christ Superstar is fucking badass. They should do one about Muhammad. I'd pay good money to see that.



Quote:
Maybe one day when we have our liberal foot off their throats and aren't dropping progressive bombs of freedom on their children, they might not cling to extremism as a means of surviving neocolonialism.
Personally, I'd love to see them all unite against the west. I do in fact think that a better world will come from the non-core nations. Unfortunately they will have to do something about the extremism some day. Tit for tat, saya. The west deserves a whole hell heaping amount of the business end of global justice. But what do you want anyone to do about it? Who in the west can really be revolutionary in their name to make the struggle easier? We can't even celebrate the bravery of one cop deciding to eliminate a few corrupt ones without calling him a criminal.



Quote:
Because Buddhists (and I have to stress I'm generalizing and not speaking for all) according to scripture, view religion as a tool and a means, not the end goal. I don't think that's particularly unique when you look at experiential/mystical religious practice such as in the Orthodox church or Sufi Islam.
I don't mind religion in this context. If you want to move people with myths for doing the right thing; by all means. Irrational beliefs tend to galvanize action far more effectively than a nuanced logical point.



Quote:
Its odd you kinda say you only care about one, though, because when people tend to do that they ignore intersectionality. Like the Redstockings Manifesto stresses all men oppress all women and women are a class.
If it helps, I freely admit that there are some things I'm fairly absolute about. I don't care about any manifestation of bourgeois feminism. Not like I can stop a bunch of people from being empowered by Ayn Rand; but conflict is absolutely inevitable in that case.



Quote:
Many mainstream feminists (like the ones that are more likely to be listened to, go on tv, get book deals) are often racist and transphobic and a lot of other things, its really hard to avoid them. Perhaps that's because racist non-feminists are more willing to listen to the racist variety, I dunno.
Of course. I'm really not surprised by this. A lot of people have some bad beliefs that they want to desperately be true and any sort of incident that helps their confirmation bias must be a blessing from the gods for them.



Quote:
Hey, I don't stay silent. I feel in real life though when I say something people get sulky and shut up, but go ahead and do whatever anyway.
I apologize if I sounded like you stay silent when you see feminism go in a direction that's really not settling any important matters at hand. But I agree that it's a wretched thing.



Quote:
I'm not sure they're exactly the same thing, but that (pop) culture and religion are entangled and the distinction between the two aren't so clear, is what I'm getting at. Its hard to say one is authentic and the other is not when the spiritual satisfaction may be similar.

All I really have to say on it is that it's incredibly telling that you can actually get the same results from a drug addled rock show than you can at some religious service. Honestly; how can that NOT be good news for skeptics? Typically I get really excited when I hear or read about workers taking over a means of production or scientific advancements that do things such as ACTUALLY curing blindness or what-have-you. Frankly, if someone wants to thank a god for that... I don't see why they shouldn't. They wouldn't be correct about it; but whatever floats their boat.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 10:27 AM   #1337
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Speaking of, I fucking love how everybody says that Dorner is a vigilante or criminal, and fucking nobody suggests that he could have been mentally ill, especially Jonathan, but that doesn't really come as a surprise, does it?
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 10:35 AM   #1338
Murder.Of.Crows
 
Murder.Of.Crows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dude, I don't even know where I live anymore.
Posts: 1,276
Okay, Dorner was in no way good. An extremist fighting corruption in the police force. Okay. But, good? Fuck no. His first victems was the daughter and her boyfriend, of a guy that he had a vendetta against. Innocent people caught in his vendetta. That isn't a vigilante justice hero
__________________
Caution, I may bite.
Murder.Of.Crows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 12:04 PM   #1339
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleyO View Post
Yeah well... feelings and all. I feel like imperialism and capitalism are bad things. But most Westerners feel differently. I feel like X-Files is an incredibly amazing show. Why the hell would you or anyone else care? Why SHOULD you? Are we supposed to change our minds about how people feel when that feeling becomes popular? How many people does it take to dispense an amount of respect for someone's feelings? Misogynists feel like there's a proper place for women. Why should I care? Am I not bound to offend that feeling? Shouldn't I?
I think there's quite a difference between believing in UFOs and being a misogynist. Yes, misogynists feel they have proof, believe me, if there's ever a study done to show there's a difference between men and women, its thrown in my face. If there's any scientific appeal made, its thrown in my face. What goes on isn't pure logic, its picking the data that appeals to your sensibilities and sticking with it. And everybody does it, and we're also at the mercy of a media who cherry picks what studies to talk about and which to ignore. So if someone sees UFOs, they're probably likely to stick with what they saw, and its not like there's a respected body of scientists who will validate what they saw.


Quote:
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one who makes the claim. No one even has to god damned say it. The books and scriptures and all the myths are sitting right there on the god damned pages. Anyone who observes them will obviously be saddled with the burden of proof. Mostly because spoiler alert; religious observance isn't as personal as so many wish it were.
Neither is atheism? Again I'm not so sure if religion should merely be personal and have no impact. If that were done, Newfoundland would have no education system, for example, that was done purely because the church decided the proletariat caste here should be educate, while the merchants fought establishing religion in the outports because they didn't want workers to be empowered, spiritually or educationally. Some religions do harmful political work, some do good. In Canada most stay out of the practice of lobbying and there's little appeal made to religion, but that doesn't mean religion doesn't help shape one's political views. Indeed, its hard for me to say where my Buddhism starts and my socialism ends sometimes, I definitely prefer the BPF to the Communist Party of Canada or any white guy dominated group for that matter.


Quote:
Not really because your all encompassing definition doesn't necessarily change the fact that it brings us all back to square one and ideas within the zeitgeist are still set against each other. You can't escape doubt and skepticism simply because it's now thrown into some religious arena. By all means, let people try and pray the gay away. We'll see how effective it really is.
It was thrown into the arena in a long long time ago, nothing much is really new, just our understanding of how religious dynamics work. The American religious fundamentalism is actually relatively new and a backlash against skepticism, it didn't come before. You can see the differences between black churches and white churches, the black evangelical churches were from a time where the evangelical movement was more about social change; slaves could be preachers and preach to white people. Black churches evolved from this line of evangelicalism, and have been surviving pretty well and have often been involved in social justice. White evangelicalism still has churches that adhere to that, but for the most part white evangelicalism lost its significance, waned, then got popular again, and are more anti-worldly. It would seem, that perhaps, religion gain privilege from its members and not from itself, funny that.

Quote:
Yeah and Brent made a fucking FABULOUS musical once about religious myths. It turned out way fucking awesome. I honestly don't see what the problem is with appropriating religious myths for some good story telling. Jesus Christ Superstar is fucking badass. They should do one about Muhammad. I'd pay good money to see that.
I didn't say it was a bad thing? My Christian sister's idea about Jesus I think was actually very influenced by Jesus Christ Superstar, which is really about the quest for the historical Jesus that has been going on for the last two centuries. Religion influences culture which in turn influences religion, see?


Quote:
Personally, I'd love to see them all unite against the west. I do in fact think that a better world will come from the non-core nations. Unfortunately they will have to do something about the extremism some day. Tit for tat, saya. The west deserves a whole hell heaping amount of the business end of global justice. But what do you want anyone to do about it? Who in the west can really be revolutionary in their name to make the struggle easier? We can't even celebrate the bravery of one cop deciding to eliminate a few corrupt ones without calling him a criminal.
Yeah, he was so brave for shooting a black woman because of something her father did.

Islamic extremism is again, rather new and reactionary. Muslims are totally capable of being chill, some of the most compassionate and tolerant people I know are Muslim, and I don't think a Muslim in Canada or the US has to answer for the extremism of oppressed people in other countries. If I were Palestinian, I'd probably be extremist too, who can say?

And its not my place to tell them how to deal with it. If Afghanistan and Iraq are any indication, we tend to muck things up when we try to "help" so I don't think any of us should be in a position of authority over their lives.

Quote:
I don't mind religion in this context. If you want to move people with myths for doing the right thing; by all means. Irrational beliefs tend to galvanize action far more effectively than a nuanced logical point.
Religion and logic aren't mutually exclusive.

Quote:
If it helps, I freely admit that there are some things I'm fairly absolute about. I don't care about any manifestation of bourgeois feminism. Not like I can stop a bunch of people from being empowered by Ayn Rand; but conflict is absolutely inevitable in that case.
What I'm saying is in feminism there's way too much overlap to clearly state you're one kind of feminist over another, you know? Its not like how there's a million kinds of communists with distinct flairs. Even bourgeois feminists can think of really good things sometimes that is useful to the rest of us. In fact I'd say a whole lot of academic feminist is inherently bourgeois.

Quote:
Of course. I'm really not surprised by this. A lot of people have some bad beliefs that they want to desperately be true and any sort of incident that helps their confirmation bias must be a blessing from the gods for them.
Like most people I know, regardless of religion.



Quote:
All I really have to say on it is that it's incredibly telling that you can actually get the same results from a drug addled rock show than you can at some religious service. Honestly; how can that NOT be good news for skeptics? Typically I get really excited when I hear or read about workers taking over a means of production or scientific advancements that do things such as ACTUALLY curing blindness or what-have-you. Frankly, if someone wants to thank a god for that... I don't see why they shouldn't. They wouldn't be correct about it; but whatever floats their boat.
Actually, I haven't read it, but there's a book in the library I saw about queer religion, but it was mostly about how queer culture provides religious experience without organized religion. Without having read exactly what they say, I can definitely see that. I don't think that's dismissive of organized religion, just that people find religious meaning in ways more appropriate for themselves than what organized religion may be able to provide for them. Now there's actual gay churches popping up and previously established churches doing outreach to see how they can better serve their queer members. Being queer is a lonely thing, and I'm happy people find meaning and solace in the community, and now its more and more likely that even in rural Newfoundland where there are no gay bars, they'll still have access to it in churches. I can't really make a value judgement on why people turn to religion in any of its forms. Good for you that you see it as an opportunity to say how stupid belief is? But honestly the more I learn in class about religion the more I appreciate it. Its funny, because the department is probably mostly atheist and same with the undergrads, but they all reiterate this.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 01:04 PM   #1340
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Nobody was whining until you came in all butthurt because the thread wasn't about you and your entitlement.
Uh, I haven't done that here or in any other thread where you accused me of it. Is this one of the pre-recorded sayings that happens when your string gets pulled? It's boring. I tried asking you nicely to not be a terrible poster.

Quote:
And if you're so mightily concerned about religious people voting against abortion rights, I can tell you this as a queer woman who grew up in a place where there is no seperation of church and all schools were church schools: They don't do it because of religion. They do it because of sexism, that survives religion or no religion.
So there's no separation of church and some other thing (I'm guessing you mean state?), and religious institutions are in control of the eductional opportunities, and you submit that it isn't a religious issue. Right.

----

Versus:

Since you asked in an extraordinarily indirect way, yes, Dorner was fucking crazy. He thought that somehow shooting the daughter of his defense attorney and her fiance was going to clear his name? That a DVD of some guy getting roughed up justified his shooting of unrelated officers?

Of course there's already a thread to talk about that, but that's not nearly as fun as demonstrating that you and your sweetie can shit up any thread you like and staying on point is for other people.
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 02:07 PM   #1341
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
I think there's quite a difference between believing in UFOs and being a misogynist. Yes, misogynists feel they have proof, believe me, if there's ever a study done to show there's a difference between men and women, its thrown in my face. If there's any scientific appeal made, its thrown in my face. What goes on isn't pure logic, its picking the data that appeals to your sensibilities and sticking with it. And everybody does it, and we're also at the mercy of a media who cherry picks what studies to talk about and which to ignore. So if someone sees UFOs, they're probably likely to stick with what they saw, and its not like there's a respected body of scientists who will validate what they saw.
Why is it up to us to give them the benefit of the doubt and let them feel like we don't disagree with them? Why do they deserve that? Why is it wrong to perhaps tell them that it's probably more likely that they saw some experimental aircraft or even a trick of the light. The odds aren't in their favor; so why should we give them the courtesy of treating what they say as a truth?




Quote:
Neither is atheism? Again I'm not so sure if religion should merely be personal and have no impact. If that were done, Newfoundland would have no education system, for example, that was done purely because the church decided the proletariat caste here should be educate, while the merchants fought establishing religion in the outports because they didn't want workers to be empowered, spiritually or educationally.
Prove that this would have been an impossible thing without the church. Matter of fact; how is it made possible that Newfoundland has an education system because of what Jesus did. Prove the supernatural element of it. If it weren't the church it would have been some other organization EVENTUALLY. I mean... what does the actions of a religious organization have to do with divine claims? What does Jesus Christ have to do with Catholics being cozy with the Nazis?

Quote:
Some religions do harmful political work, some do good. In Canada most stay out of the practice of lobbying and there's little appeal made to religion, but that doesn't mean religion doesn't help shape one's political views.
Of course. Isn't that part of the problem? We can play the odds; yes? Who is more likely to be friendly to lgtb equality legislation? A southern baptist church in America or a shit load of Buddhists in Canada? Or a bunch of atheists? Some religions SHOULDN'T be forming any political opinions. That's the whole reason it seems like such a bad idea to base your worldview on myth first and foremost.

Quote:
Indeed, its hard for me to say where my Buddhism starts and my socialism ends sometimes, I definitely prefer the BPF to the Communist Party of Canada or any white guy dominated group for that matter.
If there's one thing I've noticed; the word communist doesn't mean much. There's a shit load of organizations who call themselves communist who are nothing more but a bunch of revisionists and reformists. Hell; I'd even argue that you'd find better socialists in the third world than the first.




Quote:
It was thrown into the arena in a long long time ago, nothing much is really new, just our understanding of how religious dynamics work. The American religious fundamentalism is actually relatively new and a backlash against skepticism, it didn't come before. You can see the differences between black churches and white churches, the black evangelical churches were from a time where the evangelical movement was more about social change; slaves could be preachers and preach to white people. Black churches evolved from this line of evangelicalism, and have been surviving pretty well and have often been involved in social justice. White evangelicalism still has churches that adhere to that, but for the most part white evangelicalism lost its significance, waned, then got popular again, and are more anti-worldly. It would seem, that perhaps, religion gain privilege from its members and not from itself, funny that.
Well this is a big part of the point I'm making. Notice how religions; much like animals, contort and adapt to their environment. They are responding to their material conditions. What I understand is that religious organizations do what they do all the time. But where is God in all this? The Nazis thought God was with them. Perhaps it's not such a bad idea to consider that maybe God doesn't have a horse in this race afterall and thinking so tends to distract more than help.



Quote:
I didn't say it was a bad thing? My Christian sister's idea about Jesus I think was actually very influenced by Jesus Christ Superstar, which is really about the quest for the historical Jesus that has been going on for the last two centuries. Religion influences culture which in turn influences religion, see?
Is it necessary? Barring the idea for a second that there's nothing we can do about it of course.




Quote:
Yeah, he was so brave for shooting a black woman because of something her father did.
Admittedly; I don't know the whole story. In any other context; this could have been a revolutionary act.

Quote:
Islamic extremism is again, rather new and reactionary. Muslims are totally capable of being chill, some of the most compassionate and tolerant people I know are Muslim, and I don't think a Muslim in Canada or the US has to answer for the extremism of oppressed people in other countries. If I were Palestinian, I'd probably be extremist too, who can say?
But I'm not really asking that. The only thing I'm asking is can it be proven that Allah is actually real. Seriously; I don't think that's an unfair question. There's a whole lot of things we can prove already. I'm asserting that it's a big nasty problem that gods of any stripe can't be proven to be real. If that implies other ideas that lead to thoughts of considering weather following a religion is worth it or not is no skin off my nose. I can't help if doubt makes apostates and I can't help if some people end up being convinced by weak non-evidence thus becoming a theist.

Quote:
And its not my place to tell them how to deal with it. If Afghanistan and Iraq are any indication, we tend to muck things up when we try to "help" so I don't think any of us should be in a position of authority over their lives.
I don't get it. Can you not imagine that MAYBE they'd be better off without the extremism? Hey... if they want to be extreme; even after the West goes away and leaves them alone for the rest of time, by all means... they can knock themselves out.



Quote:
Religion and logic aren't mutually exclusive.
We can certainly put it to the test. Suspend science outright and let religion determine how to interpret reality. I'm sure Jesus will come back again someday and save everyone from themselves. Logic doesn't really NEED religion. But my point on that is that I doubt religion can really stand on its own without logic.



Quote:
What I'm saying is in feminism there's way too much overlap to clearly state you're one kind of feminist over another, you know? Its not like how there's a million kinds of communists with distinct flairs. Even bourgeois feminists can think of really good things sometimes that is useful to the rest of us. In fact I'd say a whole lot of academic feminist is inherently bourgeois.
I'm not really sure what to tell you on that one. Push comes to shove, I'd rather put my lot in with proletarian feminism any day of the week. You can call me biased or prejudiced if you want. I'm okay with that.



Quote:
Like most people I know, regardless of religion.
I think it's interesting how you assert that religion has no stake in anything and yet for some reason, it's so very sacred anyway. I can't help but get the feeling that you want to just give religion more courtesy than it really deserves just because it's the nice thing to do or because it's so popular.





Quote:
Actually, I haven't read it, but there's a book in the library I saw about queer religion, but it was mostly about how queer culture provides religious experience without organized religion. Without having read exactly what they say, I can definitely see that. I don't think that's dismissive of organized religion, just that people find religious meaning in ways more appropriate for themselves than what organized religion may be able to provide for them. Now there's actual gay churches popping up and previously established churches doing outreach to see how they can better serve their queer members. Being queer is a lonely thing, and I'm happy people find meaning and solace in the community, and now its more and more likely that even in rural Newfoundland where there are no gay bars, they'll still have access to it in churches. I can't really make a value judgement on why people turn to religion in any of its forms. Good for you that you see it as an opportunity to say how stupid belief is? But honestly the more I learn in class about religion the more I appreciate it. Its funny, because the department is probably mostly atheist and same with the undergrads, but they all reiterate this.
I wouldn't really say that religion is stupid. It actually makes a lot of sense to draw conclusions on things that we don't fully understand. I think humanity has a superstitious inclination simply because we DON'T know everything. I'm just saying we shouldn't close the book on what we do or do not know simply because a religious idea is comforting and popular. I think everyone deserves better than that.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 02:47 PM   #1342
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 03:09 PM   #1343
Miss Absynthe
 
Miss Absynthe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hell, it's other people & both of them are you
Posts: 1,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
...you and your sweetie can shit up any thread you like and staying on point is for other people.
Dude. Feel free to be a complete fuckwit about things, but don't refer to a woman in context of her relationship to a man. TRY to stop being a patriarchal puppet.

Saya is a human being in her own right. Use her fucking name.
Miss Absynthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 05:42 PM   #1344
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
I had this all replied to then it wouldn't submit properly and my response was lost -_-* So the annoyed rewrite version ahead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleyO View Post
Why is it up to us to give them the benefit of the doubt and let them feel like we don't disagree with them? Why do they deserve that? Why is it wrong to perhaps tell them that it's probably more likely that they saw some experimental aircraft or even a trick of the light. The odds aren't in their favor; so why should we give them the courtesy of treating what they say as a truth?
I don't see the point of expressing disagreement just because? Like if I was being proselytized, sure, absolutely. But seeking Raelians out to tell them I think they're wrong isn't really my idea of a good time or a productive time. I think disagreement would be assumed and inherent in simply not being a Raelian.

Quote:
Prove that this would have been an impossible thing without the church. Matter of fact; how is it made possible that Newfoundland has an education system because of what Jesus did. Prove the supernatural element of it. If it weren't the church it would have been some other organization EVENTUALLY. I mean... what does the actions of a religious organization have to do with divine claims? What does Jesus Christ have to do with Catholics being cozy with the Nazis?
If it wouldn't be impossible, it would take a hell of a lot longer. We didn't join Canada until 1949, until then Newfoundland was effectively ruled by a merchant caste who could give no fucks about the proletariat. It was only after Confederation that education was seen as a right and the government pushed for things like more roads to make sure children could go to school. no, the supernatural had nothing to do with it, my point is that religious political action can be bad or good.

Quote:
Of course. Isn't that part of the problem? We can play the odds; yes? Who is more likely to be friendly to lgtb equality legislation? A southern baptist church in America or a shit load of Buddhists in Canada? Or a bunch of atheists? Some religions SHOULDN'T be forming any political opinions. That's the whole reason it seems like such a bad idea to base your worldview on myth first and foremost.
Some? Some make good formations, some claim they don't and yet we know they do. Conservative religious people fought Liberation theology because they said the church should be apolitical. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ARGUED THAT IT SHOULD BE APOLITICAL. But we know they are, they're more deluded that they aren't than anything. And I don't think atheists are inherently any more progressive, but that's beside the point.

Quote:
If there's one thing I've noticed; the word communist doesn't mean much. There's a shit load of organizations who call themselves communist who are nothing more but a bunch of revisionists and reformists. Hell; I'd even argue that you'd find better socialists in the third world than the first.
I think CPC is decent and I did consider joining, but there's just some things they do that make me a little iffy.

Quote:
Well this is a big part of the point I'm making. Notice how religions; much like animals, contort and adapt to their environment. They are responding to their material conditions. What I understand is that religious organizations do what they do all the time. But where is God in all this? The Nazis thought God was with them. Perhaps it's not such a bad idea to consider that maybe God doesn't have a horse in this race afterall and thinking so tends to distract more than help.
I had a big response to this and I'm more than annoyed that its gone, so I'm just going to point to the controversy over Liberation Theology. Conservative religious people, including the VATICAN, argued that God does not have a stake in human politics because hey, its all going to end soon right? And the poor will get their just desserts in heaven. Now obviously, despite their assertions to the contrary, fundamentalists and the Vatican are far far far from apolitical. Its just a matter of not wanting Christians to be Marxists.

Meanwhile, all Liberation Theology really asserts is Jesus was political and he is with the oppressed. In black theology this takes the form of black Jesus, if Jesus is with the most oppressed, and the most oppressed are black, then Jesus is black. But even the traditional white Jesus is very political, even if we're blind to it, because Jesus couldn't have been white and the only white people in the Bible were the Romans.

My point being, I'd rather stick with the liberation guys who are honest about their intentions at least. Religion can't help but be political, it seems.

Quote:
Is it necessary? Barring the idea for a second that there's nothing we can do about it of course.
Necessary how?

Quote:
Admittedly; I don't know the whole story. In any other context; this could have been a revolutionary act.
I don't blame you because I think the media really downplayed her death, white cops being scared trumps dead black women I suppose. But I don't think targeting people who had nothing to do with it, especially associated women, is a war tactic that isn't very revolutionary at all.

Quote:
But I'm not really asking that. The only thing I'm asking is can it be proven that Allah is actually real. Seriously; I don't think that's an unfair question. There's a whole lot of things we can prove already. I'm asserting that it's a big nasty problem that gods of any stripe can't be proven to be real. If that implies other ideas that lead to thoughts of considering weather following a religion is worth it or not is no skin off my nose. I can't help if doubt makes apostates and I can't help if some people end up being convinced by weak non-evidence thus becoming a theist.
Again, I had a big long response, but what it amounts to is this: The only Muslim country I can find that has laws against apostasy and was not ever colonized is Saudi Arabia, and even then that's a pretty modern development and might be in response to Islamism, I have to do more research on that. Historically, it has been the norm and not the exception that Muslim governments be secular, and most Muslim governments typically have Sharia law overlook more trivial things like marriage, hence why gay Muslims married in France and saw their marriages as perfectly legal under a secular anti-gay government that oppressed them for being too oppressive. Current Islamism and extremism is in response against Western influence, hell that's pretty much the whole point of Islamism explicitly. They view apostasy not only as a sin but as succumbing to that dangerous influence.

Quote:
I don't get it. Can you not imagine that MAYBE they'd be better off without the extremism? Hey... if they want to be extreme; even after the West goes away and leaves them alone for the rest of time, by all means... they can knock themselves out.
When its a direct response to Western aggression, I don't feel comfortable telling them to go suck an egg when I'm a part of the problem. Its unfair to say what they'll do after one day the West stops being aggressive (HA) when that's such a hypothetical and we have no idea what will go down between now and then.


Quote:
We can certainly put it to the test. Suspend science outright and let religion determine how to interpret reality. I'm sure Jesus will come back again someday and save everyone from themselves. Logic doesn't really NEED religion. But my point on that is that I doubt religion can really stand on its own without logic.
Yeah Aristotle really got it right when he said women are illogical because our genitalia are inside. And everyone else since using logic to consider women (and PoC) as subhuman. Logic is a useful tool, but it doesn't mean its always right and it can't be faulty. Religion and philosophy were intimate bed fellows since the Middle Ages anyway.

Quote:
I'm not really sure what to tell you on that one. Push comes to shove, I'd rather put my lot in with proletarian feminism any day of the week. You can call me biased or prejudiced if you want. I'm okay with that.
I'm just saying proletariat feminism isn't exactly an independent thing. While more academic, middle class or however you want to view it feminist theory may ignore those below, they're certainly capable of coming up with useful things we can use anyway.

Quote:
I think it's interesting how you assert that religion has no stake in anything and yet for some reason, it's so very sacred anyway. I can't help but get the feeling that you want to just give religion more courtesy than it really deserves just because it's the nice thing to do or because it's so popular.
Who said anything about a stake? Did I say it was sacred? I think religion can be a positive thing or a negative thing, and I don't think I'm going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


Quote:
I wouldn't really say that religion is stupid. It actually makes a lot of sense to draw conclusions on things that we don't fully understand. I think humanity has a superstitious inclination simply because we DON'T know everything. I'm just saying we shouldn't close the book on what we do or do not know simply because a religious idea is comforting and popular. I think everyone deserves better than that.
I don't think religion does that, but okay.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 06:30 PM   #1345
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Absynthe View Post
Dude. Feel free to be a complete fuckwit about things, but don't refer to a woman in context of her relationship to a man. TRY to stop being a patriarchal puppet.

Saya is a human being in her own right. Use her fucking name.
Of course she is a human being.

Does that mean, since you didn't use MY fucking name and addressed me in terms of my gender that you're trying to deny my personhood?

Can you see how fucking stupid that line of thought is?
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 08:40 AM   #1346
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post


I don't see the point of expressing disagreement just because? Like if I was being proselytized, sure, absolutely. *snip*
Oh sure. Frankly, the only things I can think of in which I actually think it's worth confronting any belief is either proselytizing, someone's safety, or politics/social issues and discussions of such. But going on witch hunts? That sounds exhausting. I didn't do that even in my most strident days.



Quote:
If it wouldn't be impossible, it would take a hell of a lot longer. We didn't join Canada until 1949, until then Newfoundland was effectively ruled by a merchant caste who could give no fucks about the proletariat. *snip*
And my point is that religion was simply an accessory to the thing that happened; NOT the religion you owe fealty to just because Christians were the ones that did it. Perhaps without joining Canada, the proles would have rose up in conflict with the merchants and Newfoundland would be practically a communist state instead. History didn't play out that way though.



Quote:
Some? Some make good formations, some claim they don't and yet we know they do. Conservative religious people fought Liberation theology because they said the church should be apolitical. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ARGUED THAT IT SHOULD BE APOLITICAL. *snip*
Well it certainly DOES depend, doesn't it. Admittedly, there wouldn't be an A+ if there wasn't a need for it, so they are wrought with their own problems. But right now; it looks to me like I'd put my eggs into the non-believer basket as far as that kind of attempt for equality is concerned. Maybe part of it is because religions seem to determine the politics of atheists. Many of us are set against religions, so it goes that if we're exposed more towards religiously motivated inequality towards a certain people, it would follow that we would be opposed to it, even if it's for crappy reasons as just sticking it to the papacy.



Quote:
I think CPC is decent and I did consider joining, but there's just some things they do that make me a little iffy.
It really does depend. To me, there's a certain point that I can't align myself with certain liberal notions. It's sort of a tit for tat thing. I'm not sure what their line is because I'm not familiar with them. But some things that DO cause me to take pause is when people talk about freedom and democracy and these sort of non-formed ideals that lack figure. Who's freedom? Why does the proletariat need bourgeois democracy? Why should the privileged have a chance to dominate those who have none? What kind of democracy is that but one that I can't imagine really benefits those that would be better off without such a kind? But that's really beside the point I guess because I've come to find that more and more, it's more expedient to admit that I myself AM a statist and an authoritarian. Sort of that... I like your freedom of speech, but only if I agree with it.



Quote:
I had a big response to this and I'm more than annoyed that its gone, so I'm just going to point to the controversy over Liberation Theology. Conservative religious people, *snip* Its just a matter of not wanting Christians to be Marxists.
Yes and those people are enemies to the people. I myself am not so convinced that religion is necessarily an opiate as Marx had asserted. I make a distinction between organizations, religious myth stories, and belief. The organizations are going to be there. But popularity doesn't make the divinity of Jesus real. Beliefs will be there. But this doesn't mean the beliefs are correct... just potentially useful.

Quote:
Meanwhile, all Liberation Theology really asserts is Jesus was political and he is with the oppressed. In black theology this takes the form of black *snip*
I find problems of white Jesus. I also think that it doesn't follow that one should say Jesus was black BECAUSE he was with the oppressed. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense except in a symbolic kind of way. Jesus could have been a red-skinned Jew for all we know. I don't think that his ethnicity should necessarily hinge on what he was all about. I equate Jesus to the same standings of Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Che, Sankara, and Tecumsah. They are good leaders to learn from of their people. I am convinced that Jesus was a revolutionary figure, not the son of God. And I also think it's problematic to hedge one's bets on the divinity of Jesus into a useless pacifism because one expects Jesus to do all the work for them. That's bad politics.

Quote:
My point being, I'd rather stick with the liberation guys who are honest about their intentions at least. Religion can't help but be political, it seems.
Of course. Religion IS a political force. I would almost argue that religion is in some ways... a very common people's politic. But the "mysticism" or magical aspects of it are terribly problematic. Basically; Jesus aint comin' back yo.

Quote:
Necessary how?
I'm getting the impression that you're saying that it is, so I AM asking you that. Unless you don't think religion is necessary.


Quote:
I don't blame you because I think the media really downplayed her death, white cops being scared trumps dead black women I suppose. But I don't think targeting people who had nothing to do with it, especially associated women, is a war tactic that isn't very revolutionary at all.
The extent of what I heard was that some cop went Rambo on a bunch of corrupt cops. That's really all I heard and then the LAPD was going ballistic with hunting him down. My point was even if that were the full extent of the matter; there wouldn't be popular support for the man which I find unfortunate. I would chalk that up to political and economic stability though. People don't seem to be happy with the institutions in play right now; but they still think that voting corruption away and putting markers to some poster board will actually work... eventually. It'd be nice if those that did it like that would admit that they may as well be thinking in terms of centuries like the Church instead of years or decades.



Quote:
Again, I had a big long response, but what it amounts to is this: The only Muslim country I can find that has laws against apostasy and was not ever colonized is Saudi Arabia, *snip*
Yes. Absolutely. Do away with the west entirely. Let's say that tomorrow the west was gone. The rest of the world was free of its influence. The issue that I see is that certain attitudes and ideas... certain things that are objectively a good thing that non-westerners actually have in common with westerners becomes a thing of ONLY westerners. I honestly feel like it'd be pretty tragic if at the end of the day, the things that they had in the past with their equality and their secularism becomes forever the brand of their western enemy thus locking themselves strictly into a very severe brand of extremism. That'd be pretty unfortunate. Hopefully it doesn't play out like that.



Quote:
When its a direct response to Western aggression, I don't feel comfortable telling them to go suck an egg *snip*
So what you're saying is that we should avoid asking the question of "Can you prove it?" because currently it's in bad tastes because we're being the bullies right now? Hmm. I'm not one to go on a crusade of asking the question; but frankly if someone professes their faith to me, I can't help but simply ask to prove the claim. Most people don't go testifying their faith though, so it's rare that I ever have to ask.




Quote:
Yeah Aristotle *snip*
No. If Aristotle was saying senseless shit like that, I'd have to beg him to prove his point. Are you even arguing the same things here or are you saying that because Aristotle was stupidly and terribly wrong that somehow that makes religion an appropriate substitute for reason? What the actual hell, Saya? Aristotle's opinion of women betrays reason. Logic is a useful tool. But seriously... you can't honestly say that superstitious thinking is an appropriate filler for faulty logic or bad reasoning. Saya, seriously. Since when was belief in unicorns a better solution to a problem than trying to actually figure out how to solve a problem? Damn.



Quote:
I'm just saying proletariat feminism isn't exactly an independent thing. While more academic, *snip*
Yeah. And in a communist society, there wont BE a bourgeois feminism. Come on. They're certainly not comrades here. Over time one will necessarily absorb the other, Saya. Some matters actually DO get settled.



Quote:
Who said anything about a stake? Did I say it was sacred? I think religion can be a positive thing or a negative thing, and I don't think I'm going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Religion is certainly useful, Saya. But someday; we're all going to have to get to the truth of the matter. Frankly, I don't think it's going to have to take that long. The more the prophecies and divine claims and promises of Heaven get less and less likely to be fulfilled; the more cavalier and casual people are going to be about their religion. I wouldn't be surprised if a significant number of people are religious just because they were raised that way and they observe out of habit instead of actually being convinced of the veracity of a man surviving days inside the belly of a big fuck off fish.




Quote:
I don't think religion does that, but okay.
Well I think it does, but oh well.

Good day, ma'am.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 12:45 PM   #1347
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleyO View Post
And my point is that religion was simply an accessory to the thing that happened; NOT the religion you owe fealty to just because Christians were the ones that did it. Perhaps without joining Canada, the proles would have rose up in conflict with the merchants and Newfoundland would be practically a communist state instead. History didn't play out that way though.
Its easy to talk in hypotheticals, but I doubt it would happen. With no education system, how would they have learned about Marx? How would they have brought down the RNC and the British army? With fishing nets? Today that era is actually very romanticized with wishes we would go back to that because joining Canada was a horrible idea, and the vote was rigged anyway. Regardless, religion wasn't the accessory, the revivals and conversion of fishermen was a huge push of social change as it empowered fishermen to be sober (alcoholism is a huge problem here, but it was even worse back in the day) and become educated. The push for schools didn't happen overnight as the merchants began deporting preachers who would try. The whole education movement was actually a big thing to the Protestants so people would be able to read the Bible. It wasn't that everyone thought education was a good idea and accessorized it with religion, its the other way around.

Quote:
Well it certainly DOES depend, doesn't it. Admittedly, there wouldn't be an A+ if there wasn't a need for it, so they are wrought with their own problems. But right now; it looks to me like I'd put my eggs into the non-believer basket as far as that kind of attempt for equality is concerned. Maybe part of it is because religions seem to determine the politics of atheists. Many of us are set against religions, so it goes that if we're exposed more towards religiously motivated inequality towards a certain people, it would follow that we would be opposed to it, even if it's for crappy reasons as just sticking it to the papacy.
I think more than that is going on. I have to give atheism movements the side eye for being so white and male dominated.

Quote:
It really does depend. To me, there's a certain point that I can't align myself with certain liberal notions. It's sort of a tit for tat thing. I'm not sure what their line is because I'm not familiar with them. But some things that DO cause me to take pause is when people talk about freedom and democracy and these sort of non-formed ideals that lack figure. Who's freedom? Why does the proletariat need bourgeois democracy? Why should the privileged have a chance to dominate those who have none? What kind of democracy is that but one that I can't imagine really benefits those that would be better off without such a kind? But that's really beside the point I guess because I've come to find that more and more, it's more expedient to admit that I myself AM a statist and an authoritarian. Sort of that... I like your freedom of speech, but only if I agree with it.
My problem isn't that they're liberal, is more their idolization of statism. I don't see how forcing people makes things any better, and that's probably a big reason why Communists states have failed.

Quote:
Yes and those people are enemies to the people. I myself am not so convinced that religion is necessarily an opiate as Marx had asserted. I make a distinction between organizations, religious myth stories, and belief. The organizations are going to be there. But popularity doesn't make the divinity of Jesus real. Beliefs will be there. But this doesn't mean the beliefs are correct... just potentially useful.
And I say it doesn't really matter to me if its real or not, so I don't get my panties in a twist about it.

Quote:
I find problems of white Jesus. I also think that it doesn't follow that one should say Jesus was black BECAUSE he was with the oppressed. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense except in a symbolic kind of way. Jesus could have been a red-skinned Jew for all we know. I don't think that his ethnicity should necessarily hinge on what he was all about. I equate Jesus to the same standings of Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Che, Sankara, and Tecumsah. They are good leaders to learn from of their people. I am convinced that Jesus was a revolutionary figure, not the son of God. And I also think it's problematic to hedge one's bets on the divinity of Jesus into a useless pacifism because one expects Jesus to do all the work for them. That's bad politics.
The black Jesus isn't a reflection of what Jesus's earthly body looked like, its how he would manifest himself now. He would not align himself with the whites. What came before was arguments that black churches are not authentic faiths, but poor reflections of superior white faith. The emergence of black liberation theology was partly reactionary to that, and also going along with the civil rights movement and then the Black Power movement.

At the very core of the Social Gospel Movement and Liberation Theology is that we can't wait for Jesus to come back and fix things, so I'm not sure why you bring that up.

Quote:
Of course. Religion IS a political force. I would almost argue that religion is in some ways... a very common people's politic. But the "mysticism" or magical aspects of it are terribly problematic. Basically; Jesus aint comin' back yo.
Mysticism is religious practice that places less emphasis on dogma and more on one's experience. Hesychasm being an example of Christian mysticism, and Zen Buddhism being a mystic sect of Buddhism. Its not magical, yo.

Quote:
I'm getting the impression that you're saying that it is, so I AM asking you that. Unless you don't think religion is necessary.
I just don't get the utilitarian approach. Why does it matter if religion is necessary or not? I'm not qualified, nor are you, to tell the people of the world what meaningful things in their lives are not necessary. Music isn't necessary, but I wouldn't think that it should be eliminated.


Quote:
Yes. Absolutely. Do away with the west entirely. Let's say that tomorrow the west was gone. The rest of the world was free of its influence. The issue that I see is that certain attitudes and ideas... certain things that are objectively a good thing that non-westerners actually have in common with westerners becomes a thing of ONLY westerners. I honestly feel like it'd be pretty tragic if at the end of the day, the things that they had in the past with their equality and their secularism becomes forever the brand of their western enemy thus locking themselves strictly into a very severe brand of extremism. That'd be pretty unfortunate. Hopefully it doesn't play out like that.
Even if the West went away, it would take a very long time to heal. We've inflicted a lot of shitty beliefs and ideas on other nations, such as shadeism and anti-black racism. Its not just a matter if we went away, because they'd still be grappling with the effects for maybe centuries to come. Like in the native population of Canada, before colonialism, women often had leadership roles, I won't say sexism wasn't a thing because certainly there were gender roles, but not nearly as severe as the Western perceptions of gender. But colonialism introduced sexism, women lost their leadership roles, and to this day many men in the native community insist it is traditional that men be in charge and only men in the sweat lodge, and only the interracial children of native men are really native, etc etc.

Quote:
So what you're saying is that we should avoid asking the question of "Can you prove it?" because currently it's in bad tastes because we're being the bullies right now? Hmm. I'm not one to go on a crusade of asking the question; but frankly if someone professes their faith to me, I can't help but simply ask to prove the claim. Most people don't go testifying their faith though, so it's rare that I ever have to ask.
What do you mean by professing their faith? Simply identifying as a faith is a profession, isn't it? Aren't Muslim women who wear the hijab, in the West at least, always professing their faith?

I just don't get sticking your nose into things that doesn't concern you, and again, it makes me side eye the whole thing because I suspect more than just atheism is at play, especially when it comes to faiths of people of colour.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 12:46 PM   #1348
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
No. If Aristotle was saying senseless shit like that, I'd have to beg him to prove his point. Are you even arguing the same things here or are you saying that because Aristotle was stupidly and terribly wrong that somehow that makes religion an appropriate substitute for reason? What the actual hell, Saya? Aristotle's opinion of women betrays reason. Logic is a useful tool. But seriously... you can't honestly say that superstitious thinking is an appropriate filler for faulty logic or bad reasoning. Saya, seriously. Since when was belief in unicorns a better solution to a problem than trying to actually figure out how to solve a problem? Damn.
My point is that the man used logic to get to this point, and it wasn't questioned for a very long time because people accepted that logic. You only question sexist logic because to use bell hooks' phrase, you've been converted to feminism. We continually use logic to prove the points we've made up our minds about, not often to seek new knowledge free of bias.

If someone who isn't educated uses faulty logic to get to the same point I'm using logic to get to, I don't think that's a bad thing. We use whatever we have at hand to understand the world. Atheists use bad logic all the time to uphold the status quo they like, and I know religious people who use religious logic to challenge it. So yeah, at times it does seem like I prefer religious people to dudebros who echo thousands of years of sexism.

Quote:
Yeah. And in a communist society, there wont BE a bourgeois feminism. Come on. They're certainly not comrades here. Over time one will necessarily absorb the other, Saya. Some matters actually DO get settled.
Assuming there's ever a communist society, which I'm not sure about. Capitalism isn't forever, but that doesn't necessarily mean communism comes next. God knows if feminism would even survive whatever economic collapse that might happen to destroy capitalism, or any revolution that might be headed by statist revolutionaries. After all, Stalin made abortion criminal for the first time in Russia, there's no guarantee that there will be any feminism allowed.


Quote:
Religion is certainly useful, Saya. But someday; we're all going to have to get to the truth of the matter. Frankly, I don't think it's going to have to take that long. The more the prophecies and divine claims and promises of Heaven get less and less likely to be fulfilled; the more cavalier and casual people are going to be about their religion. I wouldn't be surprised if a significant number of people are religious just because they were raised that way and they observe out of habit instead of actually being convinced of the veracity of a man surviving days inside the belly of a big fuck off fish.
Truth of the matter of what? I'm probably going to be dead before they figure out faster than light speed travel, depressingly. I nor you is going to see the day science has absolutely everything you can possibly think of figured out, and given the vastness of the universe, I doubt that day will ever come.

Until then, there will always be speculation. I don't think Biblical prophecy has any detriment on how things are working out, hell Jesus does not fit the bill of messiah prophecies of the Old Testament, but early Christians weren't too worried about that. The end of days was supposed to come in Jesus's day, and Albert Schweitzer, like you believed him to be a failed revolutionary, and while he was a popular guy, his theory never really took off among Christians. If the Social Gospel Movement is right and there needs to be a thousand years of peace before Jesus will come back, well they got their work cut out ahead of them, it will probably take a thousand years or more to get to that point, and God knows what will happen in that time. So no, I don't really see any time where the hammer falls on religion, unless all of civilization burns down and we have to begin anew, and even then, no guarantee.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 05:48 AM   #1349
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
My point is that the man used logic to get to this point, and it wasn't questioned for a very long time because people accepted that logic. You only question sexist logic because to use bell hooks' phrase, you've been converted to feminism. We continually use logic to prove the points we've made up our minds about, not often to seek new knowledge free of bias.
His reasoning was bad and everyone that bought into that should feel bad. My point is; is that at best, if you substitute reason for superstitious myth thinking you MIGHT get lucky and come to the right answer on something. But using reason to further the search for better answers. The other? One day they think a magical spell cures headaches; the next... they might stumble upon headache treatment by accident because of some herb they found that numbs the pain. Religion needs reason to stay legitimate. Reason doesn't require religion. Unless you're turning religion into a thing that basically means observing any idea. But if you're gonna do that; I'd have to stress that feminism as a worldview makes a whole hell of a lot more sense than some person assuming that we get reincarnated for a life time mulligan to have another chance to maybe do it right again. lulz.

Quote:
If someone who isn't educated uses faulty logic to get to the same point I'm using logic to get to, I don't think that's a bad thing.
You recognize this. Okay. I was starting to worry. But unfortunately, a lack of education is certainly a bad thing. I doubt it's wise to to let such a faulty logic go unchecked by education for long.


Quote:
We use whatever we have at hand to understand the world. Atheists use bad logic all the time to uphold the status quo they like, and I know religious people who use religious logic to challenge it.
They don't use religious logic, they use logic.

Quote:
So yeah, at times it does seem like I prefer religious people to dudebros who echo thousands of years of sexism.
It's unfortunate that you're saying that your only avenue to countering sexism is with superstitious camps. Fuck the dudebros for ruining reason for you. It makes me sad. But if religious observance and superstitious thinking is the only way to get to where you need to be... unfortunately, have at it. That's a terrible shame.



Quote:
Assuming there's ever a communist society, which I'm not sure about. Capitalism isn't forever, but that doesn't necessarily mean communism comes next. God knows if feminism would even survive whatever economic collapse that might happen to destroy capitalism, or any revolution that might be headed by statist revolutionaries.
Communism doesn't come next. Socialism is necessarily the transition into communism. The socialist state IS a dictatorship of the proletariat and it does mean that bourgeois, capitalists, and other oppressive classes we know today get oppressed themselves from expressing their own brands of oppression. I understand that not allowing a sexist to be a sexist is oppression but I don't care. The sexist can learn an be better through re-education or they can surrender in other ways.

Quote:
After all, Stalin made abortion criminal for the first time in Russia, there's no guarantee that there will be any feminism allowed.
I don't have a whole lot to say about this, but spare me the great man of history theory. Stalin was one guy who was part of a state apparatus beginning to dabble in revisionism. The USSR did in fact begin to abandon the socialist line. Now weather a result of this was banning abortion or whatever, I can't say. It could also follow that they banned abortion because Russia lost millions and millions of lives due to revolution and war and they needed lives to maintain the revolution. Who knows? But I don't think it's appropriate to hold up a non-western socialist state to western liberal moralism. When the west approaches socialism or a communist state; I can almost guarantee that it would be very unique to the revolutions of other attempts, though incredibly messy in its own way. If you ask me; the only way the West would ever become socialist outright is if it loses WW3 and is forced by the third world plus its own need to pick up the pieces and move on to become so. Right now, the west is far too stable on its own imperialism to take socialism remotely seriously. Hell... even now; considering that flash in the pan OWS stuff... Americans STILL don't even think in terms of class. The only Americans that I've seen that are remotely class conscious are the incredibly poor and the incredibly rich. The middle strata are still unfortunately too stable to care.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 06:33 PM   #1350
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleyO View Post
His reasoning was bad and everyone that bought into that should feel bad. My point is; is that at best, if you substitute reason for superstitious myth thinking you MIGHT get lucky and come to the right answer on something. But using reason to further the search for better answers. The other? One day they think a magical spell cures headaches; the next... they might stumble upon headache treatment by accident because of some herb they found that numbs the pain. Religion needs reason to stay legitimate. Reason doesn't require religion. Unless you're turning religion into a thing that basically means observing any idea. But if you're gonna do that; I'd have to stress that feminism as a worldview makes a whole hell of a lot more sense than some person assuming that we get reincarnated for a life time mulligan to have another chance to maybe do it right again. lulz.
Funny you mention that because there is a Buddhist story about gender that is thousands of years ahead of feminism and still gets it right much better than many feminists do. I was super surprised to come across that one.

Reason MIGHT be used to find better answers, but mostly I see it being used to stick with answers we think we already have.


Quote:
You recognize this. Okay. I was starting to worry. But unfortunately, a lack of education is certainly a bad thing. I doubt it's wise to to let such a faulty logic go unchecked by education for long.
That's not their fault though. And even among educated people, not everyone is educated in the same way. I have a good friend who got a degree in biology/biochemistry, got her nursing degree and is going back for her masters, brilliant lady. She can reason out biology very well. She's very bad with the arts though, hates it with a passion and doesn't think too much about it. She's superstitious too. And I mean that in a more folklore than religious sense that she thinks its bad luck to talk about fairies unless its a Tuesday. Not everyone care about the same things and not everyone is willing to put the same effort of thought into the same things. Which is fine, I don't get my panties in a twist when I meet people who know very little about religion or feminism. Like I know tons of women who generally support feminism in a general sense that they know its about equal rights, but isn't into reading about it.


Quote:
They don't use religious logic, they use logic.
You seemed really hung up on the word 'logic' so I tried to make it easy.

Quote:
It's unfortunate that you're saying that your only avenue to countering sexism is with superstitious camps. Fuck the dudebros for ruining reason for you. It makes me sad. But if religious observance and superstitious thinking is the only way to get to where you need to be... unfortunately, have at it. That's a terrible shame.
I should say atheist women can be pretty bad too, but what really turns me off about them isn't their sexism but their racism.

Quote:
Communism doesn't come next. Socialism is necessarily the transition into communism. The socialist state IS a dictatorship of the proletariat and it does mean that bourgeois, capitalists, and other oppressive classes we know today get oppressed themselves from expressing their own brands of oppression. I understand that not allowing a sexist to be a sexist is oppression but I don't care. The sexist can learn an be better through re-education or they can surrender in other ways.
I don't think its oppression to oppress oppressors? But what I'm saying we have no fricken clue what's going to happen next. Could be a Fallout scenario for all we know. What I'm saying is once the pressure is off it probably will pop up again. Or likely, communist revolutionaries will uphold sexism in a more subtle way. I don't think authoritarianism guarantees anyone's rights, really, just means you can't be too overt about it. There needs to be a huge psychological shift.

Quote:
I don't have a whole lot to say about this, but spare me the great man of history theory. Stalin was one guy who was part of a state apparatus beginning to dabble in revisionism. The USSR did in fact begin to abandon the socialist line. Now weather a result of this was banning abortion or whatever, I can't say. It could also follow that they banned abortion because Russia lost millions and millions of lives due to revolution and war and they needed lives to maintain the revolution. Who knows? But I don't think it's appropriate to hold up a non-western socialist state to western liberal moralism. When the west approaches socialism or a communist state; I can almost guarantee that it would be very unique to the revolutions of other attempts, though incredibly messy in its own way. If you ask me; the only way the West would ever become socialist outright is if it loses WW3 and is forced by the third world plus its own need to pick up the pieces and move on to become so. Right now, the west is far too stable on its own imperialism to take socialism remotely seriously. Hell... even now; considering that flash in the pan OWS stuff... Americans STILL don't even think in terms of class. The only Americans that I've seen that are remotely class conscious are the incredibly poor and the incredibly rich. The middle strata are still unfortunately too stable to care.

I'm using Stalin as an example, but overall the effort to stamp out sexism was a failure in the Soviet Union. Gender roles survived, and Russia had a feminist movement just like any other western country at the time. Lenin granted had his heart in the right place when it came to that, but no authoritarianism stamped it out, and no dictator was above sexism. I hope you take it as no offence that if you were in a position to try and stamp out sexism, you'd fail because you'd still be prone to sexism yourself. I can't say I've ever met any feminist men who were totally above it, just that they were at least open about it. But they definitely still have their blind spots they can't see. Having a token woman adviser wouldn't work because some women can't speak for all women. How would authoritarianism account for intersectionality, without free discourse? How would it deal with the internet, with which restrictions can and often are worked around?

I think the West can eventually progress to socialism, but its at a snail's pace at this rate. Something major has to happen to cause a fast major paradigm shift. And again, unpredictability. You'd think Greece would go socialist instead of fascist, but the risk is there that it can go that way.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:46 PM.