Religion V: Utopianism, Fundamentalism, Apothesis

[Seaworth'sShipmate]

its just my pastor is a missionary there

[Stubby]

its just my pastor is a missionary there

I don't know your pastor. I don't know what he does. Maybe he does some good stuff, maybe he doesn't.

The fact that he is a missionary and a pastor does not automatically make him a good or bad person.

Article 1 about Ugandan homophobia and it's missionary source

Article 2.

[Gears of the Beast]

There's a difference between going to Africa for humanitarian reasons and going to Africa as a 'missionary', missionaries go with the goal (usually explicit, right?) to promote Christianity (or whichever cult), to indoctrinate; to plant the virtuous seeds of faith and superstition. The homophobia thing is just a symptom of that, it would be immoral irrespective of whether or not that was happening. It's not like Christian missionaries going to Africa has only been a problem since the right-wing American evangelicals started going. I think you're being quite naive when you say that these people have no compassion for other people. Usually religionists actually believe they stuff they claim to, Christians think they're literally saving these people. It probably takes a lot of compassion to go to Africa as a missionary. It's easy for someone who never believed this stuff to see it as opportunistic and horrible (which it is), not so much for someone who genuinely believes this stuff.

[Wise Fool]

It's hard to focus on what you say, Gears, when you continue to refer derogatorily to [all] religions and their followers as cults/cult members. Doing it winds up being an appeal to emotions; superiority and self-righteousness for you and those who would agree, and offense from those you would wish to provoke. And "religionist" is not a thing, and is simply silly.

[Gears of the Beast]

It's hard to focus on what you say, Gears, when you continue to refer derogatorily to [all] religions and their followers as cults/cult members. Doing it winds up being an appeal to emotions; superiority and self-righteousness for you and those who would agree, and offense from those you would wish to provoke. And "religionist" is not a thing, and is simply silly.

I find it difficult to believe you get so worked up about me calling religions cults that you find it hard to focus on what I say, but if you do then I'm sorry and I hope you find a way to get over it at some stage. I don't know what you mean by 'religionist is not a thing', do you mean it's not a word? Am I using it incorrectly?

[Galactus]

Ok- I can see the distinction you're making. But as far as I can tell Massimo is still interested in atheist advocacy in addition to just secularism.

It still comes back around to the question of what's distinct about 'New Atheists' as opposed to past atheists, and what is bad about them (because my experience has been that 'New Atheist' is a term mostly used with disdain)? And I come back to this question of, are 'New Atheists' a handful of celebrity writers and their followers and is their manner (evangelical fervor) and tone (they're dickish and dismissive) what's wrong with them, or is it anyone talking about atheism, and it's bad because they're engaged in activity that should not be engaged in?

The cartoon Gears linked is arguing that it's the latter, the term 'New Atheist' is used as pejorative for atheists who insist on talking about atheism at all. You replied with links to clear up the distinction, but I don't think they do that at all, as they're not in agreement. Massimo makes points I agree with- and fwiw I read the Harris-Chomsky exchange and agreed with Chomsky- and I can accept that the figures he's talking about are unpleasant and unserious on important issues; if all that's meant by 'New Atheists' is grouping these guys I can accept it as a pejorative term. But the broader argument that seeks to delegitimize atheism as an issue to write about, publicly discuss, and organize around I do not accept. Moreoever, I think this fails to get at the "New"ness of the 'New Atheists;' some of the past figures referenced by Massimo in a positive light wrote about atheism, publicly discussed it, and participated in organized Humanism. I can't see what's bad or new about it in this version.

De-facto I think "New Atheism" is less a philosophical movement than a group: It's a set of particular writers, their philsophy isn't that much different than any earlier atheism, and their political advocacy only slightly so. (Partially why I find them so uninteresting, there's really not much to them that haven't been said before)

It refers to a particular group of writers, and those who consider themselves kin of said writers. There's really not much more to the term.

[Galactus]

What's wrong with Sam Harris not finding anything useful from topics such as "metaethics" etc?

It's about the same as someone purporting to write a book about biology while dismissing words like "Cell" or "evolution".

[Gears of the Beast]

It's about the same as someone purporting to write a book about biology while dismissing words like "Cell" or "evolution".

As you may notice that question you quoted wasn't alone, I think the following question made it pretty obvious what I was suggesting, I'm suggesting if his position on morality is so philosophically juvenile then surely this genius philosopher can actually show how has Sam Harris has gone wrong as a result. His point to me seems like a dodge, a way to ridicule and dismiss Harris's position while not meaningfully engaging with it as is so common among these pieces

[Galactus]

Pretty sure I've linked to Massimo's past critiques about Harris and New Atheism in general at least twice? Happy to do so again, always good for new comers to see a legitimate skeptic like Massimo in action even if I think he's wrong about a variety of things. His Philosophy So Far Parts One and Two are a good introduction to questions like free will, causality, morality, etc. (Personally I'd lean toward Aquinas/Whitehead/Bergson when it comes to those questions, though who knows if that'll last.)

It's interesting to see you label the women who accused Shermer of rape as "SJWs". Was the woman (women?) who accused him of rape ever proven to be lying?

Of course the Atheist+ community being formed makes me wonder what exactly is the point of atheist evangelism if elements of the community are anti-progressive? Once it isn't latched on progressive movements it just seems pointless?

=-=-=

Irish plunge stake through Catholic Church’s heart

I should note that there's a bunch of links in the notes section of Pigliucci's statement, eg. on The moral Landscape here:

[Wise Fool]

I find it difficult to believe you get so worked up about me calling religions cults that you find it hard to focus on what I say, but if you do then I'm sorry and I hope you find a way to get over it at some stage.

Liar. Not only do you not find it difficult to believe I (or anyone) gets "worked up" over your consistent usage of derogatory labeling, you count on it, and welcome it - so that when anyone points it out, you can blurt out a smarmy passive aggressive response like this. And go where your argument really lies: emotion. Your emotion. Your sense of smug superiority. Your desire for interpersonal conflict.

Or, you just don't know what the word means and you're basically oblivious. But I'd find that alternative unlikely.

I'm not looking for an apology nor expressing outrage that I need to get over: I am pointing out a flaw in your attempts to communicate. Most of what you say is entirely unobjectionable, but then you just blurt out an epithet in the middle of it, seemingly out of nowhere. Like a tuxedo with a butt-flap.

[Gears of the Beast]

Liar. Not only do you not find it difficult to believe I (or anyone) gets "worked up" over your consistent usage of derogatory labeling, you count on it, and welcome it - so that when anyone points it out, you can blurt out a smarmy passive aggressive response like this. And go where your argument really lies: emotion. Your emotion. Your sense of smug superiority. Your desire for interpersonal conflict.

You have misread. I didn't say I find it difficult to believe that you get worked up. I said "I find it difficult to believe you get so worked up about me calling religions cults that you find it hard to focus on what I say"

edit: although that may have been a clever way of proving your point...

[Wise Fool]

You have misread. I didn't say I find it difficult to believe that you get worked up. I said "I find it difficult to believe you get so worked up about me calling religions cults that you find it hard to focus on what I say"

edit: although that may have been a clever way of proving your point...

I didn't misread, I omitted. And also, I never said I specifically found it difficult to focus on it (or was worked up over it), just that it makes it hard, in general, for people to focus on it. It's the same way with the use of any, shall we say, provocative or incendiary language. After all, your post was otherwise unobjectionable and well fashioned. But if you drop a piece of poop in the punch bowl, you might find people paying less attention to how awesome the punch is and more to the fact that there's a poo there. I mean, at this point, we both know it's a poo, right? "Religions are all cults" is a phrase like "meat is murder." That emotional appeal I may have mentioned. It's less a serious claim and more of a way of announcing to the world that, yes, you are putting that dooky into that punch bowl and daring anyone to defy you. And the punch turns out shitty and everyone goes home with Robert DeNiro Sourface.

[Galactus]

I just read that Harris-Chomsky exchange. Wow. They're both kind of douches, but Chomsky at least presents his point and sticks to it. Harris is all over the place.

[Relic]

I didn't misread, I omitted. And also, I never said I specifically found it difficult to focus on it (or was worked up over it), just that it makes it hard, in general, for people to focus on it. It's the same way with the use of any, shall we say, provocative or incendiary language. After all, your post was otherwise unobjectionable and well fashioned. But if you drop a piece of poop in the punch bowl, you might find people paying less attention to how awesome the punch is and more to the fact that there's a poo there. I mean, at this point, we both know it's a poo, right? "Religions are all cults" is a phrase like "meat is murder." That emotional appeal I may have mentioned. It's less a serious claim and more of a way of announcing to the world that, yes, you are putting that dooky into that punch bowl and daring anyone to defy you. And the punch turns out shitty and everyone goes home with Robert DeNiro Sourface.

just use the ignore function. it works wonders.

[Gears of the Beast]

I didn't misread, I omitted. And also, I never said I specifically found it difficult to focus on it (or was worked up over it), just that it makes it hard, in general, for people to focus on it. It's the same way with the use of any, shall we say, provocative or incendiary language. After all, your post was otherwise unobjectionable and well fashioned. But if you drop a piece of poop in the punch bowl, you might find people paying less attention to how awesome the punch is and more to the fact that there's a poo there. I mean, at this point, we both know it's a poo, right? "Religions are all cults" is a phrase like "meat is murder." That emotional appeal I may have mentioned. It's less a serious claim and more of a way of announcing to the world that, yes, you are putting that dooky into that punch bowl and daring anyone to defy you. And the punch turns out shitty and everyone goes home with Robert DeNiro Sourface.

I guess I presumed that you didn't presume to speak for people in general :P. I'm always partial to a good poo metaphor, your point is noted however I'm not entirely on board. If we are to consult Merriam-Webster again you'll see that my usage isn't entirely unjustified, certainly not to the point of "meat is murder".

: a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous

: a situation in which people admire and care about something or someone very much or too much

: a small group of very devoted supporters or fans

Full Definition of CULT

1 formal religious veneration : worship

2 a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

3 a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents

4 a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>

5

a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad

b : the object of such devotion

c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

[Galactus]

3-6 are all various shades of perjorative. . 1 and 2 have slightly different meanings in that sense (when talking about "The christian cult" you're talking about the specific acts of rituals "Christianity is a cult" makes no sense in this usage, since the cult is something that is practiced within the religion.

[Gears of the Beast]

3-6 are all various shades of perjorative. . 1 and 2 have slightly different meanings in that sense (when talking about "The christian cult" you're talking about the specific acts of rituals "Christianity is a cult" makes no sense in this usage, since the cult is something that is practiced within the religion.

I can't see how you're saying that "a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents" refers specifically to the rituals or a practice within the religion, it explicitly refers to the system.

[Magnar of Skagos]

Can someone explain to me the macro vs. micro evolution debate? I frequently hear people say "I agree with micro evolution but not macro evolution." I don't really understand this, and no one is ever willing to expand on it when I ask. If there is anyone on the micro evolution side that can chime in and give some info that'd be great.

Macro evolution is essentially that over a large period of time, small changes accumulate into big changes, correct? While micro evolution asserts that small changes only occur over a small period of time?

So if we look at it in terms of walking, "micros" would suggest that taking one single step a day qualifies as a small change over a small period of time, but they disagree that after fifteen years of taking a single step every day that this would accumulate in them having walked 4,380 steps.

Can someone explain what I am not understanding about this?

[TrueMetis]

The distinction is made purely for those who don't want to accept evolution, as they can't ignore the small scale changes we see they make a distinction that doesn't actually exist so they can continue to not believe in speciation. Biologists and other scientists don't make the distinction though, for the reason you point out.

[Wise Fool]

I guess I presumed that you didn't presume to speak for people in general :P. I'm always partial to a good poo metaphor, your point is noted however I'm not entirely on board. If we are to consult Merriam-Webster again you'll see that my usage isn't entirely unjustified, certainly not to the point of "meat is murder".

Heh! I presume to speak for everyone - (nay, even for God Almighty sometimes!) - all the time! In fact, I even presumed you presumed to already know that.

Okay, I guess it's not quite as obnoxious as "meat is murder."

The point is only that it's, well, it comes across as a kind of sloganization, or propagandizing when you refer to a religion as a cult. because, well, cults are bad, everybody kind of knows this. You don't ever hear someone say, in modern usage anyway, "So I'm joining this cult, you should totally join too." Many people, myself included, would agree that cults are dangerous and harmful. We know that. Nobody here is like, totally on board with cults in general. Murder, kidnapping, mass suicide, nobody you're going to be arguing with is, at least consciously, defending that. But when you say a major religion is a cult then that's the implication. And so in your own mind the argument ultimately comes down to good guys versus bad guys. It is a point of hostility and contention. Well deserved, in appropriate measure as a reaction and means to contain a more dangerous reaction. But when trying to use words in this way we just wind up bludgeoning ourselves.

Cults are bad, murder is bad - and if meat is murder and religions are cults, then eating meat is bad and being religious is bad. That is a message that winds up being communicated, or is at the least interpretable, based on the information (words) you have put "out there" for unknown others to process.

I'm writing this book about cults. Well, it's about a cult member who successfully (?) quit the cult but is severely mentally ill afterward. And is writing this book about cults. You might enjoy it. Cults are fucking insane and sad and terrifying. There are plenty of interesting documentaries or videos or books or papers on the subject, as it happens. It's an interesting topic, but it's not quite the same topic as talking about religions. It's certainly more of a specialty. But we're not specializing when we say that Islam is a cult, we are generalizing, and most likely we are trying to communicate our personal feelings of disdain or disgust in doing so. It's fine to have these feelings, it is normal, but directing that disdain so broadly may have unexpected consequences. Not really a big deal though.

Anyway, I'm kind of over this point of discussion at this point. Having mulled it over, you see.