[ SECRET POST #1901 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

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".

[tigerdreams.livejournal.com]

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?

[(Anonymous)]

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

[tigerdreams.livejournal.com]

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.

[insanenoodlyguy.livejournal.com]

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.

[sandor051.livejournal.com]

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.

[insanenoodlyguy.livejournal.com]

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.

[sandor051.livejournal.com]

The point that there's a more then a trivially true difference between an unprovable truth, and an unprovable falsehood. There isn't.

Second to that would be the point that you're using truth in a colloquial manner, but in our empirical reality we have incredibly strong evidence about the nature of the claim - no we can't philosophically prove there to be no god (well some we can, but that's for another day), but that doesn't mean we're 99.9∞ sure about the answer.

Russels teapot etc. There are an infinite number of unknown truths, we shouldn't lend them any credence, one has to prove them to be of worth for them to hold worth. So to an extent you're right I guess, there is no point in arguing, but that's because the debate has been settled, you don't have a reason to believe in god - and you should change your incorrect beliefs, except this, and move on.

[lovelycudy.livejournal.com]

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.

[tigerdreams.livejournal.com]

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.

[lovelycudy.livejournal.com]

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.

[tigerdreams.livejournal.com]

For me, it's not just a matter of arguing the finer theoretical points of theology; it's that religious revelation is treated as a justification for other beliefs and actions that is just as valid as evidence-based reasoning -- if not more so, since it's okay to argue evidence-based reasoning, but religious "reasoning" is often treated as off-limits and unassailable. When a person's reasoning or justification for holding a position boils down to either "a feeling" or "supernatural intervention," I fail to see why their position should be given the same credibility as that of someone who has done actual research grounded in observable reality to support their position.

[lovelycudy.livejournal.com]

I think we are talking about different things, then. When I say "discuss religion" I mean discuss the theological aspects of it which seems pointless. Most of what people think of when they think of religion is nothing but human rules and institutional decisions and that's open to analysis.

[tigerdreams.livejournal.com]

I think we are. I'm not talking about engaging in philosophical discussions of theology, debating a triune vs. unitarian God or the reality of transubstantiation or the virginity of Mary. I'm talking about the real-world implications of religious beliefs. I live in a country where, despite having no state religion and an explicit prohibition on government endorsement of any faith, religion and politics have become almost inextricably entangled, and there are huge segments of the population that view any deviation from the accepted religious norms as immoral. Not far from where I live, a girl sued to have a religious banner removed from her public school, and she was vilified by her entire community -- even her government representative called her an "evil little thing." Questioning the dominant religious paradigm is a difficult and even dangerous undertaking in many parts of my country, so I tend to be very aware of the way religious reasoning gets a free pass in a way that other reasoning does not enjoy. A pharmacist can refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control, and the response here is, "Oh, that's their religious belief, that's okay." A school district can have an epidemic of homophobic bullying that drives several kids to suicide, and the dominant concern among administrators is not stepping on the religious freedom of the bullies. That's what I mean when I talk about the privileged status of religious reasoning.

[lovelycudy.livejournal.com]

We are definitely talking about different things, then. For me, to talk about religion is to talk about the belief part. The rest is human politics and I agree with everything you said.

I know things are getting... weird in the US, right?