fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #1901 ]

[ SECRET POST #1901 ]

⌈ Secret Post #1901 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

__________________________________________________

20.

__________________________________________________

21.

__________________________________________________

22.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 150 secrets from Secret Submission Post #272.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 2 - broken links ], [ 1 2 3 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeats ]
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It just seems that whenever accusations of hypocrisy are thrown at more liberal websites like this, it usually comes from people who can't seem to separate their religious views from their politics(ie stuff like abortion and gay rights), and they get upset when people expect them to back their arguments in a logic and evidence based way.

I don't think it's a good thing, but it's also not something that makes me deeply upset, honestly.

That's not what I'm getting from the OP at all. To be honest, I don't think there's a way to separate one's belief from their political ideas: whatever metaphysical base you have (even if it's none) shapes the way you see the world.

It upsets me in the same way that all forms of bigotry upsets me. if you (general you) really don't care for religion, there is no point in attacking any of them because you know it's just an opinion. One can criticise the religious institutions but religion itself is beyond attack.

I'm not a Christian, by the way. I'm not even a religious person.

Is there really anything that deserves to be beyond attack?

...and if there is, would you really chose religion?

Yes. A lot of things are beyond questioning, we do it all the time: we don't question people's kinks or how they identify themselves, for example. And belief is one of those things. Religious institutions/organised religion can be analysed and discussed but if someone honestly and truly believes something and they are not hurting anyone, that's beyond attack.

For example, one of my best friends is a very devout Catholic and she is against abortion. However, she respects people who, like me, are pro-choice. I don't agree with the Catholic Church, but I respect the hell out of her convictions and all the work she does because of her convictions.

'Not hurting anyone'

being the central qualifier.

That stretches awful far, and we can't control how our views affect other people. Merely expressing an identification perpetuates ideas which leave themselves open to question.

If one takes the approach that religion isn't true, then perpetuating it is a negative, because truth in and of itself is something to be aimed for.

Yes, it's the central qualifier. And 90% of the religious people I know don't want to hurt anyone. They don't even want to mix state and religion.

I can't say that the beliefs behind religion aren't true. I can say that organised religion is a historical product and that's it. I don't know the truth, so who am I to dispute other's right to believe what they want to?

Do you take the same approach to everything in life?

Yeah solipsism is hard to refute, but why are you giving religion special privilege?

I take that approach to many things in life. There are some things I believe in and I feel I know the truth about them. Religion is not one of them.

I give religion the same treatment I give to anything that is beyond my reach.Who am I to tell someone that Jesus is not the Messiah or that Moses was not chosen by God to free his people? I don't believe those things, but my non-believing is not better than anyone's belief. So I respect them and spend my time discussing other, more earthly issues.

Yes it is, because it's true (so far as anything is true).

And all issues re earthly issues. There thoughts on religion affect their behaviour which affects how they treat other people.

Are you kidding me? Seriously? Religious belief is one of the most damaging things in this country. It's why people aren't just against abortion, they're voting and passing laws that are kicking the underpinnings out of abortion in order to pave the path to make it illegal. Hell, they've managed to get a law passed requiring women having an abortion have a damned transvaginal sonogram wand stuck up their vagina--ie. state mandated rape before the abortion.

Religious belief is why QUILTBAG members can't get married and have problems adopting.

Religious belief is why atheists are considered the scum of the earth and to be untrutworthy even though most criminals are religious. Only 0.02% of atheists are criminals and in prison vs. 80% of religious believing criminals.

Which country?

Yes. Because if there were no religion... that would solve... nothing. That would solve absolutely nothing.

You think religion is the only reason people hate each other? The only reason people have ever been dicks?

Your focus is too narrow. I can guarantee you that 99.99% of the shit in this world would remain in place. Only the justifications would change.

Oppression of x race? Evolution and Social Darwinism.

Oppression of X orientation? Eugenics and the continuation of biologically viable pairings.

Rape? Abuse? Murder... oh wait, these things happen right now every day with no religious pretense all the goddamn time.

And I hate to steal from south park, but we'd have factions warring over who had the "right" interpretation of science. Not to mention the inevitable advent of state/national religion: the worship of the unified peoples themselves.

You found an easy face. And it's not a false one, but you look at a label when the real cause of everything is our flawed nature. We are every bit the murderous little monkeys we started as, sentience just let us make up fancy new names and reason out reason for why we do what we do.

Good thing no one suggested religion was the sole problem.

Yeah no shit people can find other reasons, that doesn't stop the tremendously complex social zeitgeist that is the world of human experience and interaction being affected negatively by religion. And it doesn't mean that an elimination of 'magical thinking', wouldn't make the world a better place.

But to suggest that no one would ever change well,

a) what are you even doing arguing, everything is entirely unaffectable, you are committing an entirely pointless act by committing your sound and thunder to paper.

b) that is some top level misanthropy, and quite clearly not true.

Except it wouldn't change our capacity for magical thinking at all. Just what we used that magical thinking for.

I never said change was impossible. Though it sure as hell wouldn't be easy and I doubt would ever be perfect.

And the Anon I responded to did rather strongly insinuate that religious belief was the problem, yes. not organized religions, or a particular religion, but religious belief itself.

(no subject)

sandor051.livejournal.com - 2012-03-18 21:30 (UTC) - Expand

One can criticise the religious institutions but religion itself is beyond attack.

Why should we never criticize a set of ideas, a set of claims about the world? Why should a set of ideas enjoy such an enormous position of privilege simply because it's "religion"? Any set of ideas or claims that can't stand up to scrutiny on its own merits deserves to be torn down.

Because they can stand on their own merits and there is no way to discuss them rationally because they are irrational by definition. What is the point of trying to discuss something when it boils down to "I believe this is the truth".

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are can the claims stand on their own merits, or are they irrational by definition?

Both, actually. Belief is irrational and religion stands on its own merits because it has an internal logic based on that belief.

That... doesn't make any sense to me. You can't derive a valid conclusion from irrational premises. And it certainly doesn't explain why religion should be exempt from criticism or "attack," just like any other set of ideas, rational or otherwise. Especially because those ideas often have real-world consequences resulting from the actions those ideas inspire in people who hold them.

Maybe anon means that there's no point arguing about religions themselves? Because what can't be proven can't be disproven?

Though that doesn't mean the activities of a group are beyond reproach simply because said group identifies through a shared faith.

Doesn't work that way, srry, at least take some philosophy 101 or something before you feel ready to make arguments about the nature of truth - it turns out, you're not speaking some new fresh ideas, and there's already a large body of critique available to explain why this point is shit.

I'll have you know I got an A in philosophy 101, sir or madam. Therefore you're argument is invalid. Also, which part of my statement is the critique proving is shit? The part where I say you can't disprove or prove religion or the part where I say it doesn't matter? Be specific. Debate club should have prepped you for this!

I get the impression you want to have a fight with me more then a fight about this. Especially since you don't seem to be fully reading my posts.

(no subject)

sandor051.livejournal.com - 2012-03-18 21:24 (UTC) - Expand

New in this debate but I think that Revelation is a supernatural event, something you receive or you don't. Catholicism, at least, is built over the Revelation and derives all its logic from it. And if you accept the Revelation, it all has its own logic. I don't know how other forms of Christianity work because I only have experience with Catholicism, even though I have stopped believing more than 15 years ago.

I, personally, don't feel comfortable attacking anyone's beliefs because they are a personal experience and while I have not received the Revelation, other people have. And that's something that no political argument can change.

Now, disagreeing with the institution formed around faith is perfectly valid and something that most Catholics are willing to do. Most Catholic women use contraceptive measures, for example, because they know that the Church is wrong about it and because they know its prohibition is only a historical and human decision. I don't know a single person who accepts blindingly everything the Church says, even if they wholeheartedly believe in the core aspects of faith.

Lastly... most Western countries separate the Church from the State and the Church's power (the Catholic Church's power, at least) is quite diminished. My country is supposed to be a Catholic country and most people consider themselves so and yet last year the marriage laws were changed to include same sex marriage and only a minority opposed it. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that women who had been raped and got pregnant can get legal abortions, without even reporting the rape to the police, and over 85% of the population agrees with it. Legal abortion seems to be supported by the majority of the people in urban areas (and over 50% of the whole country lives in Buenos Aires metropolitan area). The Church is under constant criticism.

So, I'd say that religion is an important part of people's lives but it doesn't have the same weight everywhere and it can be taken away from political debates.

Edited 2012-03-18 17:48 (UTC)

I just feel like that's a very different and more generous standard than would be used to evaluate any other set of ideas, and I'm not sure why extending that special privilege to religion should be a thing. The "special revelation" argument doesn't fly when applied to any other set of ideas, does it? Most people would reject a person's claim of special insight or intuition stemming from psychic power or extraterrestrial aliens, wouldn't they?

I don't think that any set of ideas should be above or beyond question or scrutiny. Not least because those beliefs can often be used to justify some pretty horrible behaviors, and when religion is accorded a privileged status, the criticism of behavior defended by it is too often diminished.

I don't know other belief system that is based on Revelation, to be honest. When it comes to politics, most people offer, well, political arguments. Religion is not like that.

I, personally, don't see the point in debating anyone's faith. Their actions? Sure. Their political views? Sure. But if someone tells me "I believe in God and His son Jesus", well, what can I say?

But, again, I don't think faith is such a big issue. I see religious institutions as I see any other institution. I respect people who believe and they respect me and that's it.

I also think the political environment is important in how I see things. As I said, most people reject the Church for all the crap they pulled in the last few decades so I don't think it is a threat.