Does opposing gay marriage make you an asshole?

[wisnoskij]

Ya, well at least with Catholic, you are not allowed to disagree.
That is their special thing, obedience to the church and god's representative on earth.
If you do not blindly follow the Catholic church than by definition you are not Catholic and are instead a Protestant.

[miguel]

Khris,
Why don't you realize that the world is full of people with different opinions and beliefs?
That shouldn't be that hard if you remove "crap" from your thoughts on others.
You say you don't get it. Because you just don't.

If you want to understand others you first have to cut down the attitude that you are right about whatever knowledge you think you possess.
Start to be humble with yourself first.
You posted a pretty clever cartoon the other day, but you fail to understand its meaning.

[Crimson Wizard]

Miguel, I think what Khris means is that your choice of agreeing/disagreeing with parts of Bible or Pope's opinion is like extracting parts of the house wall and still assuming roof will not fall down no matter what.

Why do you believe in God? Because you saw him? Or because Bible, or Pope, or Christians (parents, friends) taught you? If it is the latter, meaning you get this belief from the book, how do you decide which parts may be questioned and which not? I think that's most important question here.

[Khris]

I'm saying not following what Catholicism dictates but calling yourself a Catholic is stupid and useless. If everybody can arbitrarily redefine what "proper" Catholicism is, what's the point of the label?

wisnoskij makes a very good point; all of the 1,000s of Christian sects were founded because somebody didn't agree with what somebody else declared Christianity to be.

The point of the cartoon I posted is the following: if all you have to say about religious debates is that they're useless, keep your mouth shut instead. It was directed at SSH's useless and smug comment. It wasn't a general call for religious tolerance (which is pretty much an oxymoron).

This isn't about me being right or about what I know, it's about building your life on an artificial, man-made construct that defies all reason and logic.
I don't want to understand religious people, because there's absolutely no need to. I know why they believe, and I know what they believe. It's the result of the fear of death, not accepting the frailty and flaws of their brains, buying into lots of bullshit arguments and generations of tradition. Catholicism to me is indistinguishable from believing in the great Juju of the mountain. It's an ancient death cult, obsessed with sexuality and scape-goating. It doesn't deserve tolerance, just ridicule.

[Cyrus]

So, let me clarify this... are you against Catholicism or against ANY beliefs in the non-material realm of reality, afterlife, etc.?

[Snarky]

Again, why call yourself a Christian if you reject parts of the bible?
I'm perfectly aware of the fact that there are as much versions of Christianity as there are Christians, which is why I call them cherry-pickers.
Calling yourself Christian and being OK with gay marriage is a contradiction, plain and simple. It's like claiming you're a vegetarian while still eating fish.
Either follow the inspired word of Yahweh, the creator of everything, and call yourself a Christian, or don't.

You don't have to believe that any part of the Bible is inspired by God to be a Christian (although many do), and you certainly don't have to believe that every word is. Saying that in your opinion, being a Christian should mean a completely literal-minded adherence to every single thing stated in the Bible is completely beside the point when that has never historically been the case. (For one thing, the Bible has enough inconsistencies that there's no way to follow it literally on every point.)

BTW, pescetarians have often traditionally been considered vegetarians (and would still be seen as such in many parts of the world), although it's not how the term is generally understood in America today. There's nothing true or false about it, it's just a matter of definition.

And theology is nothing more than desperately trying to wrestle with the fact that the bronze age morality of religion has no place in a modern civilized society. They interpret and reinterpret and reinterpret, and suddenly the six days of creation become six ages. Right. I don't want to call theology ridiculous and laughable, but that's what it is. Here's a fine link explaining why: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply
(Not the parts that are about actual scientific work, like how the bible was authored, of course.)

Your opinion about the merits of theology don't really matter. Theological traditions and debates have been embedded as a key part of Christianity (and Judaism) since the beginning. If you just dismiss it from consideration, you're not talking about Christianity as it exists any more, you're talking about a fantasy religion in your head.

I don't want to understand religious people, because there's absolutely no need to. I know why they believe, and I know what they believe. It's the result of the fear of death, not accepting the frailty and flaws of their brains, buying into lots of bullshit arguments and generations of tradition. Catholicism to me is indistinguishable from believing in the great Juju of the mountain. It's an ancient death cult, obsessed with sexuality and scape-goating. It doesn't deserve tolerance, just ridicule.

This comes beautifully close to the sort of views ascribed to (and to some extent expressed by) homophobes and same-sex marriage opponents earlier in the thread.

[Calin Leafshade]

As someone who generally agrees with you Khris, I am a little dismayed by your dogmatic approach and dismissal.

Theology is useful and the idea of God is useful. If I were to say "I was lucky today", you wouldnt jump down my throat and declare that there is no such thing as luck and that I am kidding myself. That would make you a giant arse. In the same way, it is useful to consider "God" a thing even if that thing was not the creator of the universe. As Voltaire put it, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him".

Where modern Christianity goes wrong is that it ascribes all kinds of acts to God which were almost certainly intended to be allegorical and were taken as such before the inception of the modern perspectives (garden of eden and so forth). Islam is generally better in this regard and the eastern religions even more so.

[Khris]

I gotta go now, so just a short question:

Imagine I said, arguing about whether fairies have translucent wings or not is useless and stupid.
Imagine I said, somebody who thinks that vampires die from sunlight should leave "Team Edward".

Is any of this dismissal based on dogma? It is similar to arguing that "homos are evil", pointing to an old book?
Do I need to be aware of years of Twilight forum discussions in order to make the 2nd statement?

And how does theology fundamentally differ from these forum discussions?

[Calin Leafshade]

Another fairly standard internet atheist mistake. You can't casually substitute one piece of culture with another. Religious texts are not the same as the fucking twilight series.

When one discusses the nature of God, one is not discussing a work of literature by some guy. One is discussing an *entire cultural perspective*.

[Khris]

Yes I can, that's sorta my point. (Also I'm comparing religious texts to the entirety of vampire literature, not just Twilight.)

How is discussing the nature and will of God (and I'm talking about Yahweh here!) different from discussing vampire biology?
I'm talking about the god of Christianity, of Catholicism, not some arbitrary god concept that might be useful (how, exactly, btw? Because Voltaire said so...?)

I'm not saying that any and all philosophical debate about the nature of the universe, or about whether there's something "greater" than man, is useless. Not at all.
I'm pointing out that there are people who call themselves Christians who think that gay people are abominable, and that there are people who call themselves Christians who think that gay marriage is A-OK. No problem there so far, but both groups point to their book to support their position.

And my assessment of that fact is that some Christians have unchained more of their intellect from the old book than others. Theology in my mind is debating which chains we can cut.
Why not cut all of them, dismiss the book as a failed attempt at creating morality and a model of the universe, and move on?

If you don't understand my frustration and intolerance, please note that to my mind, being religious is no different than believing in auras, astrology, conspiracy theories, dowsing, psychics and all the other bullshit.
I don't have a purely materialist world view because that's how I want it to be, I have it because every single thing about the entire universe constantly tells us that's all there is.

There is a brilliant video online from some major Christian network. It starts out innocent enough, with six Christians starting to talk all kinds of stupid about the war on Christmas. About twenty minutes in or so, they suddenly split into two groups and spend the remaining two hours arguing whether the universe was created in six days or six ages. I laughed my ass off. I'll see if I can find it.
It just pains me to see grown adults behave like that. It's like watching six years olds argue which Pokemon is more powerful.
Edit: Awww Yissss, found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgueGotRqbM
(This just goes to show what happens if you chain your intellect to a book.)

[Calin Leafshade]

How is discussing the nature and will of God (and I'm talking about Yahweh here!) different from discussing vampire biology?
I'm talking about the god of Christianity, of Catholicism, not some arbitrary god concept that might be useful (how, exactly, btw? Because Voltaire said so...?)

Yes, because Voltaire said so. :/

No, as metaphor and shorthand for things that language are ill-equipped to describe but that the mind can understand. ("God does not play dice")

I'm not saying that any and all philosophical debate about the nature of the universe, or about whether there's something "greater" than man, is useless. Not at all.
I'm pointing out that there are people who call themselves Christians who think that gay people are abominable, and that there are people who call themselves Christians who think that gay marriage is A-OK. No problem there so far, but both groups point to their book to support their position.

Christianity is a fractured philosophy. Show me one that isn't.

And my assessment of that fact is that some Christians have unchained more of their intellect from the old book than others. Theology in my mind is debating which chains we can cut.
Why not cut all of them, dismiss the book as a failed attempt at creating morality and a model of the universe, and move on?

If you don't understand my frustration and intolerance, please note that to my mind, being religious is no different than believing in auras, astrology, conspiracy theories, dowsing, psychics and all the other bullshit.
I don't have a purely materialist world view because that's how I want it to be, I have it because every single thing about the entire universe constantly tells us that's all there is.

There is a brilliant video online from some major Christian network. It starts out innocent enough, with six Christians starting to talk all kinds of stupid about the war on Christmas. About twenty minutes in or so, they suddenly split into two groups and spend the remaining two hours arguing whether the universe was created in six days or six ages. I laughed my ass off. I'll see if I can find it.
It just pains me to see grown adults behave like that. It's like watching six years olds argue which Pokemon is more powerful.
Edit: Awww Yissss, found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgueGotRqbM
(This just goes to show what happens if you chain your intellect to a book.)

Let's be clear about something. There are the learned and there are the masses. One does not analyse feminism by searching tumblr and one does not critique theology by referencing some pop-youtube video. That's fucking Ken Ham for christ's sake. Have a little respect for the topic.

Also, I am a materialist. I think creationists are idiots. However I think it's dangerous to dismiss a huge part of academia out of hand as useless.

[Khris]

Again: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply
Also, as nutty as Ken Ham is, I think the stuff Ross says is much more sad and ridiculous at times. It's almost heartbreaking to see his obvious intellect go to waste like that.

And since you mentioned "God does not play dice", saying "The universe doesn't play dice" is much better. And not just because this quote still gets used today to claim that Einstein was religious.

Also, materialism isn't a fractured philosophy, right? And even if it was, having different opinions about whether some crimes warrant death sentences is different from discussing properties of imaginary beings.

[Calin Leafshade]

Again: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply

PZ Myers is not a place to get one's fallacies from. He's a buffoon.
The courtier's reply is horseshit anyway. It amounts to "I don't want to learn about your stuff because it conflicts with my philosophy which has already dismissed it". It's begging the question.

And since you mentioned "God does not play dice", saying "The universe doesn't play dice" is much better. And not just because this quote still gets used today to claim that Einstein was religious.

No, because they mean different things. This is exactly what I'm talking about. "God" means something to us beyond the physicality of the universe whether he exists or not.

Also, materialism isn't a fractured philosophy, right? And even if it was, having different opinions about whether some crimes warrant death sentences is different from discussing properties of imaginary beings.

Materialism is pretty scant as a philosophy. It's a statement at best and even then people can't quite agree what matter is or what it means to be material.

Also, Theology is also about the analysis of the properties *given* to imaginary beings by people.

[Khris]

I didn't make an argument from Myers' authority. Theology relies on the existence of a God. How is it not moot if there is no god? What place does it have, especially in academia?
I ask again: how is theology different from arguing about fairy wings? Just because religion is ingrained into our culture doesn't mean theology is more valid. I myself used to have more respect for religion, but there's really no good reason for it and I lost it.

If theology were only about arguing whether there actually is a god, or who wrote the bible, etc, I wouldn't have any problem with it. To be perfectly clear, I dismiss the part of theology that argues about how bible passages need to be reinterpreted in order to make them not clash with scientific findings.

(Btw, the Courtier's reply is given by the religious guy, and it amounts to "you can't dismiss theology unless you have studied it for years". And yes, it is horseshit.)

Regarding fractured philosophies: I consider myself a materialist humanist, and I'm of course aware that I don't necessarily share the opinions of every other materialist humanist. BUT, I'm not following an absolute authority or scripture. I'm free to change my views without mental gymnastics, without having to try and stuff reality into the narrow confinements of an old text.

[Calin Leafshade]

I meant that the courtier's reply as a fallacy is bullshit. Not the reply itself.

[Khris]

So rebutting the claim that one can't dismiss theology is a fallacy because...?

[Calin Leafshade]

How can "rebutting a claim" be a fallacy?

That's literally nonsense.

[Khris]

K.

Let's get back on track though.
Here's a fun read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology#Criticism (Especially Thomas Paine nails it beautifully.)
I'm not trying to argue from authority here; I'm just saying that my view might not be as radical as it is made out to be here.

So....
I ask again: how is theology different from arguing about fairy wings?

[Scavenger]

I ask again: how is theology different from arguing about fairy wings?

Scale.

You destroy a child's belief in fairies, and the wound it inflicts on them will heal quickly.
You destroy a man's belief in deities, you wound his entire world, the world of his ancestors, and every piece of culture that relies on his belief to exist. There is a reason why people feel the world would be an empty, soulless place without the existence of a deity. Because then everything that they held dear, all that energy, all their accomplishments, and all the accomplishments of their forebears, would be wasted. For nothing.

Ain't no one man fights harder, or suffers more, than the man who doesn't want to believe he is wrong.

[Calin Leafshade]

I realise you're being glib, but yes, scale.

More specifically the scale of the impact on human culture.