[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Lie

Dude. We were out of town last weekend visiting my grandpa and then some bad shit went down and I've been mentally temporarily out of order. I haven't abandoned you.

Okay, so to reply in summary to your last group of comments, I can't really see the serial killer analogy so much, and I'll tell you why. Well, first of all it's a pretty extreme example with an immediately negative connotation so it's a bit blurry to begin with, but then you're looking at the act of killing someone, which is a very definite, significant act that has an obvious effect on society, and you're comparing it to something (religion) which in itself has no definite or immediate effects on other people or even the person themselves which you as an outsider can definitely reasonably discern. I realize that the analogy was probably not intended to stretch that far, but it begs these comparisons because the significance or similarity factor is, I think, way off.

As an aside, I basically don't see the point or the value (totally aside from the question of legitimacy) in assigning any kind of responsibility to a person for being religious beyond "being religious" because I think it's almost entirely abstract.

Religion these days, or at least Christianity in most first-world countries, is more comparable to attending AA meetings, or being in chess club, than killing people. Everyone is there for their own reasons, even if many of those reasons bear similarities, some people were just dragged along, etc. In many cases there may be an element of weakness or herd mentality involved, but the same can be said of people who attend any kind of public gathering with a similar mindset. The same can be said for anyone who belongs to a major political party, or who goes to feminist rallies, or is a die-hard soccer fan. You can say, "But those things are just one part of a person's life, the kind of religious worldview I'm talking about is EVERYTHING!" and I see your point, but I still see it as that even among people who declare outright that their religion dictates their views on everything, that kind of devotion can only truly take place as a private contract in a person's own head, and any of those other things (soccer, feminism, etc.) can equally take a person over.

Understand that I'm not saying there's not significance in religion itself. I think I see what it is you're trying to say but all I'm trying to say is that I see no value whatsoever in placing a judgment on religious PEOPLE for being religious. Not even so much because it's stereotyping or not right or something like that as that it's a totally empty statement that is, practically speaking, worthless, and I think that makes it pretty much void of legitimacy as well.

In case we're still somehow misunderstanding each other let me try to clear up exactly how I feel. I have not ever been fond of the particular type of religious person who mentions their religion at the outset, or immediately ties it to something else, or shoves it in my face like that. Generally this type of person is one who I would prefer to stay away from. But let's say I meet someone and we talk about stuff that is non-related to religion, and we hang out, and we discuss things, etc., and then I happen to mention religion and outright ASK this person if they are religious and they say YES. I am aware that this is probably then something of some significance in their life and that they are therefore statistically more likely to feel certain ways about certain things, and I do automatically begin to consider this. But I'm aware of this fact that just because the window of this significance has been opened does not necessarily mean it will be filled, and even if it is, I don't necessarily know how. There are as many possibilities inside of a "religious" life as there are outside of one, because A) we are not theoretically considering what religion this is or what freedoms it may allow and B) both numbers of possibilities are essentially infinite, therefore I just see it as a statistical thing. It's like a "more likely to" Venn diagram kind of thing. There is still no definite connecting factor. I cannot think of one real, absolute guaranteed thing (I'm not talking about within the confines of language, like "this person believes in a god or gods", but in the reality of what all that means) that ties all of these people together and that is honestly how I see it. There are certain things you tend to count on just as there are certain things you count on with any group of people, but hell, religious people make up such a large group that it would probably be more practical to be racially focused to begin with and start coming up with similarities there.

i joking about the abandoning thing, that word was said tongue in cheek. the rest was from borat

i knew i was treading on thin ice with the serial killer analogy, just because of the connotations it obviously has which i didnt exactly intend, and evidently you got mislead by them. i wasnt implying the act of serial killing is at all akin to the act of choosing to have faith, but that here is just a hard, clear example of some aspect of someone (deeds and choices do always count towards a person) that cant ever be changed through discussion to the point that the fundamental point of it is erased. the analogy was hazy and the same ends couldve been serviced better with something else, but it still works for my point, which is that not all aspects to people are entirely malleable or user-defined (if you will) and that there are certain facts that are, while mutable to a degree, never really totally erasable. incontrovertible is the right word for it
and this was in response to the idea that you cant judge someone for being, say, a christian because not all christians are identical and their beliefs are always somehow idiosyncratic and personal or whatever. thats true, im accepting, but however idiosyncratic, they couldnt ever be enough to change that hard core of it (which is what im criticizing)

this is apart from this main strand to this talk, but i have to stop and object to this idea that being a christian and attending a church is at all comparably benign to something like AA or whatever. let me just, learning the lessons of your misunderstanding of my analogy (my fault for that, ok), and try and identify exactly what youre saying: the role or purpose these things serve when it comes down to it, on a practical, day to day basis, is similar to that of most other places people go for help or interaction or guidance or feelings of community or companionship or whatever. that its all pretty inconsequential and harmless, if not actively good for the person or society. right? well not only does religion, like you said, deal with everything of someones worldview, as opposed to what a chess club or something would do, and do so to a degree that i think is unique to religion, but it deals with much greater questions. i really dont like your equating religion-like things and religion, or behaviour that is religious-like to actually religious behaviour, or belief that is religious-like... and so on. there are such core differences that eliminate these comparisons, not least of which because of the point that comparison seems to be making within the context of your argument, which is that, basically, it is not right to specifically criticize religious people in such a way, when what youre criticizing also exists everywhere else. not so. for one, religion deals with the supernatural, which necessarily connotes faith. a radical feminist is still held within the bounds of reality (at least in way that a similarly radical religious person couldnt claim to be). any claims she would be making, or just the validity of anything she is doing or saying, pertain to the objective state of things, and they could be disproved or proved or whatever. religious belief, on the other hand, is totally unimpeachable. always and forever, no matter what. nothing at all can ever unseat it. with something like this involved, even the most devout and dogmatic of feminists or communists cant be compared. there are so many other levels to this, so many more things id like to bring up against this comparison, but ill mention this one more idea, just because i came across it recently and wouldnt mind sounding it off you, (maybe a tad presumptuous of me, pardon my poor manners). it was from this paragraph:

Religion is only area of our discourse in which people are systematically protected from the demand to give evidence in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs often determine what they live for, what they will die for, and - all too often - what they will kill for. This is a problem, because when the stakes are high, human beings have a simple choice between conversation and violence. Only a fundamental willingness to be reasonable - to have our beliefs about the world revised by new evidence and new arguments - can guarantee that we will keep talking to one another. Certainty without evidence is necessarily divisive and dehumanizing. While there is no guarantee that rational people will always agree, the irrational are certain to be divided by their dogmas.

i just like this idea that a wider personal effect to accepting religion exists, that making that choice (choosing to put faith above reason or reality (on some level at some point this is always done, i think)) has a kind of chilling effect throughout. it alters the nature of the debate within the person. their worldview is coloured by such a thing, the same way someone who vigorously held themselves accountable to reason and evidence and whatever would have their view of everything and anything effected. ok im having trouble expressing this idea. to just try with brute force to weasel this idea out of my head, let me put it one more way: it raises the stock of "faith" and lowers the stock of "reason" across the board.
i mean, let me ask you: who would you feel more comfortable around: a religious person or a fundamentally irreligious person? by comfortable i mean safe and i intentionally didnt specify a specifc religion. i bet anything youd pick the irreligious person. and why? i think this is good way to pose it



ok im reading as i reply and i see you say that you think there is significance in religion itself. im not going to erase everything i wrote though, even though a lot of it was founded on the assumption that you kind of felt the opposite

but i absolutely do think its right to place judgement on people for being religious. this idea is the whole focus of this discussion. if we first accept that we are able to (that it has some objective basis (which, it seems, we agree that it does) and that we, as humans, are, in general, capable of doing that) then its just about the right judgement. judging well. i wouldnt take any points off somone who is just innocent or naive, like, for instance, some kid that says he believes in father christ or some shit, so it clearly is not just about someone being "religious" and that automatically meaning xyz, it is of course more variable than that. but the example person in my mind was always someone mature, aware, and responsible, who knowingly and honestly makes that choice, which is why i ruled out that thing you said before about "how do you know if they actually believe?" we really can only assume my example person for this to work, i think


see but here it is again. A) whatever freedoms it allows or whatever its character, its still a Religion and, being a religion, has that hard core i was talking about that cant be reduced any further.