Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 From the Fundamentalism as child abuse thread:I feel like you are intentionally misrepresenting my argument. What you are saying is, "I am a moderate.... I am not responsible for extremists."What you seem intent on circling around without noticing is, "Without moderates, there wouldn't be extremists." Sorry to keep coming back to it... but take America's civil rights as an example: (I'm not saying racism is dead.... Systemic racism is alive an kicking, granted.) Once the majority of society rejected racism, the lynch mobs and burning crosses disappeared. Extremism cannot exist in a vacuum.No. What you are saying is that without religious belief there would be no religious extemism. That still does not make religious moderates responsible for the actions of religious extremists. By your logic believing in animal rights makes moderate animal rights activists responsible for the actions of extremists. Almost any human philosophy can be twisted to justify acts of violence. People taking extremist actions are not the responsiblity of moderates who have similar but much less extreme views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 probably need a definition of 'extremism.' it's always stricken me as a nebulous & more or less worthless term of opprobrium. that objection aside: no, moderates aren't responsible for 'extremists.' no center-left social liberal loser is responsible for me, by the gods, and i will kindly decline responsibility for the stalinists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I agree with you, Scott. I am religious person, I believe in God and I fast at least once a year. I light the candles for both living and dead, and I believe there is something out there. However, I am also a scientist. Two completely opposite things, one may say. But, even though some think you can't be both, I am perfectly satisfied because Church was always something that is very private and innocent. Since I also live in country where several priests committed atrocities that are even difficult to say, I can say that I always wanted to smack each of their heads and what they had done in the name of the God I believe in, country I am born in, deserves the worst. So, no, moderates are no responsible for extremists. But, they share some responsibility if they just allow some things to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egalitarianism Always Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Proof of enabling would be required for someone who could be called a 'moderate', fraternization by association for example, and the word extremist would need defining for the individual being enabled, this defining to be done not in an abstract depersonalized sense which is the method of abuse narratives that rely on cliche and stereotyping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Flow Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Scott.... I am not blaming you directly for the actions of extremists. What I would like for you to at least acknowledge is that the same mechanism you use to connect to your god is the same mechanism that extremists use to disassociate themselves from committed atrocities. That is all.Let me clarify for everyone who thinks I am an asshole who is gonna show up at your door and collect your Bible/Torah/Koran for the bondfire: Are you entitled to your religion? Yes Am I advocating the forcible removal of religious people? No Do I think your are dumb because you believe in god? Yea. Okay... your got me I am a _little_ bit of an asshole.I'm just saying that Society is a living organism that is constantly evolving. Just like the human appendix which is shrinking up and withering away, Religion will disappear as Society slowly comes to the realization that it is a useless holdover from a simpler time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 Jon,I see you really are a radical materialist. That which cannot be emperically perceived cannot exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 we can of course disagree over the existence or significance of certain things without holding each other's respective intellects in contempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterOJ Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 What exactly is point the post quoted in the OP is trying to make with regard to religion and the civil rights movement? Because didn't religious folks play a pretty major role in making that movement a success? Or am I misremembering my American history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Scott.... I am not blaming you directly for the actions of extremists. What I would like for you to at least acknowledge is that the same mechanism you use to connect to your god is the same mechanism that extremists use to disassociate themselves from committed atrocities. That is all. Wait so me going to church is the same as Al Qaeda saying that they are innocent for what they have done? Are you f**king kidding me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 Mladen,I believe, Jon please correct me if I'm wrong, he's attacking the idea of faith itself. He's claiming the existence of belief not grounded in the "material" leads to beliefs held by those of the Daesh, AQ, and other radical religious groups. I think he's taking this way too far but I see where he's coming from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Flow Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Scott, Where do you see that I said Definitively that god doesn't exist? I will say this: The evidence we have now contradicts what most organized religions have held as true. (Amount of time the earth has been around... etc....) True... The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but stop kidding yourself by saying science and the Bible jibe together. Cuz they don't. Mister OJ....You were mis-taught your American history. Religious extremists were on both sides of that argument and in my mind ended up muddying the water hopelessly. The civil rights movement would have been better served if it worked on a solely secular-humanist idea. Then, maybe women wouldn't have had to wait so long to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Flow Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Scott.... Ding Ding.... Finally. I'd buy you a beer if I could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 Jon,Are you now going to tell me that if I don't take the Bible literally I'm a poor Christian?I'd drink that beer if you'd send it my way. Belgian (with the exception of Stella Artios) prefered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liffguard Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Jon,I see you really are a radical materialist. That which cannot be emperically perceived cannot exist?Not directed at me but I'll give my answer. That which cannot be perceived may in theory exist but since, by definition, we cannot interact with it in any way it may as well not exist. We can posit the existence of all sorts of things that don't interact with our universe but even if they did hypothetically exist, their existence would be meaningless. Wait so me going to church is the same as Al Qaeda saying that they are innocent for what they have done? Are you f**king kidding me?No, but Al Qaeda bombers have the same reasons for their beliefs as you have for yours. Their beliefs may be more damaging but they're not less justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Mladen,I believe, Jon please correct me if I'm wrong, he's attacking the idea of faith itself. He's claiming the existence of belief not grounded in the "material" leads to beliefs held by those of the Daesh, AQ, and other radical religious groups. I think he's taking this way too far but I see where he's coming from now. Well, even attacking the idea of faith itself is wrong. What would be the next thing - becoming "Equilibrium"-type of society where we would attack people for having emotions towards art or anything as for that matter? I simply fail to see how my sincerely benign religious feelings can actually be compared to whatever religious terrorist we talk about. Jon,Are you now going to tell me that if I don't take the Bible literally I'm a poor Christian? I don't take Bible literally. I don't spend my days reading it . Honestly, I think Americans are far more preoccupied with the question of religion than here in Europe. Or at least that is my opinion. For me, being religious =/= taking Bible literally in every meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 Mladen,I'm Orthodox too. So, obviously, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Flow Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Scott, Not at all... What I'd like you to realize is that there are a lot of people who do take their religious text at face value. I consider myself a liberal and a fan of comedy in all it's incarnations. But let's just say that 1.6 billion people one day decide to take 'A Modest Proposal' seriously and started eating their young, I would probably ban Jonathon Swift (As much as it would kill me to do so) until sanity is restored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 Jon,Glad to hear. There have been a number of posters, recently, who want to tell Christians what we must believe to be "Christians" who are not themselves Christians. It's an interesting phenomenon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Flow Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Back to the original beating I took over being an asshole....I want everyone to realize one thing. If we were talking sports or having a discussion about ASOIAF how many of you would have linked to articles teaching me how to 'not be a dick' ? I want you all to realize that even though you pose like hey... everything is cool.... Yall got seriously tweaked when someone you don't know came on an expressed his opinion about how religion is silly.Let's all agree to have less 'sacred cows' from now on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Moderates define extremists. A moderate Presbyterian is different from a moderate Pentecostal. I think it's partly about shifting Overton windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.