A woman's place is at the kitchen page 6

174 posts

Flag Post
It’s like you’re saying heights are bad because you can fall. None of us disagree, but that doesn’t mean heights are actively out to make us fall. Religion and heights aren’t gendered concepts, they’re descriptions of things.

o my freaking sanity. come on now! just because religion is a concept and height is a concept and height is not inherently bad doesn’t meant that religion isn’t inherently bad.

just like rape, which is also a concept, is inherently bad. you can quote me a definition of rape, but that doesn’t change anything. religion is by definition dogmatised spirituality, myths, mythology and moral codes of conduct, and my suggestion is that this is inherently bad.

i am not proving that by comparing it to rape, no more than you are proving the opposite by comparing it to height. i am merely saying that I think it is inherently bad, and i have given you the reasons why. and instead of responding to that, you play semantics on me.

i’m done with this. piss off now, we’re done.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

The heck? You were the one using the argument, not I.

+1

This whole thread has been nothing but fallacious attacks on religion being met with equally fallacious arguments to show their absurdity, but then you claim fallacy. Religion isn’t a sentient thing, and it’s structure only lends itself to controlling others easily, and isn’t exclusively this feature. Parenting isn’t a sentient thing, and it takes an awful parent to make parenting bad. It takes a coercive person to make people’s faith into a dependency. Rape is literally defined as taking advantage of another person. You cannot say that religion is always this way if it isn’t. Many modern religious people do not listen to any authority figure when it comes to their spiritual beliefs, so that right there entirely debunks your argument.

But then I’m not even sure I know what your argument is. None of us disagree that religion is incredibly effective at providing cognitive dissonance to it’s followers, but cognitive dissonance is a feature of people either wanting to deceive themselves, or others purposefully deceiving them. Religion isn’t where that comes from. People self deceive when it comes to the attractiveness of their wives, the certainty of their political beliefs, and the validity of crystal healing. Magical, self serving thinking is the problem, and religion is just the name for institutions that use this uncertainty to comfort, control, or enrich people and communities.

It’s like you’re saying heights are bad because you can fall. None of us disagree, but that doesn’t mean heights are actively out to make us fall. Religion and heights aren’t gendered concepts, they’re descriptions of things.

Well said!

 
Flag Post

Oh the analogies!!

Height and rape and blah blah…well, analogies can be improved on.
How about we use the height analogy. We have a person at the ledge of a cliff…this ledge represents this persons ‘breaking point’, ‘guilliabilty’…along comes a gust of wind (lets call the wind Religion)…and over this person goes.

Now this person has been at the ledge for sometime, meaning this person has always been gullible, but it wasn’t until religion came along that they went ‘over the edge’.

I’ll concede one thing with this analogy…that it’s completely crap…but it’s just like all the other analogies I’ve heard so far they don’t prove anything, they are all pretty much crap.

The argument has obviously come down to you either think religion has the ability to led people towards acts of violence more so than if there wasn’t religion, or you don’t. Now replace the word ‘religion’ with ‘communism’ if you like…so on and so forth…it doesn’t change whether the first question is correct or not if it holds true for the second.
Try the question with a whole range of ideologies and see what answer you get…they are all independent of each other.

Does it mean that I think atheism is better than religion. No. Everybody is different. What is good and works for one person does not work for another.

 
Flag Post

i am merely saying that I think it is inherently bad, and i have given you the reasons why.

I think the only way we can say it is inherently bad is either:

1. It can never be used for good.
2. It was meant to do evil.
3. The amount of good it provides is insignificant to the amount of evil.

Aside from the fact that this is subjective for religion (not so for rape, as it is defined to be bad), these three are either false or can’t be proven. But hey, since you’re done with this topic, I won’t expand on this too much.

 
Flag Post
Aside from the fact that this is subjective for religion (not so for rape, as it is defined to be bad)

why? what about “rape” is defined to be bad? no, that’s just your opinion, in essence. the word is very old, and how “bad” it is is subjective. most people in our time would agree upon it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t subjective.

these three are either false or can’t be proven

can’t be proven? so you’re saying it’s unfalsifyable?

anyway, 3 is true to anyone that’s not ignorant. at least in the history of the past millenium or so. and 2 is also true, depending on your definition of evil.

it was meant to control people, to cause them to submit to an authorty. that was the whole intention. i call this intention bad, or evil. that’s the whole point.

but since all you want to do is argue semantic arguments about “religion can’t be evil because [semantics]”…yeah.

 
Flag Post

why? what about “rape” is defined to be bad? no, that’s just your opinion, in essence. the word is very old, and how “bad” it is is subjective.

I found several definitions. They include words such as “unlawful”, “forced upon”, “abuse” and “unwilling”. None of these have a positive attitude.

can’t be proven? so you’re saying it’s unfalsifyable?

That.

but since all you want to do is argue semantic arguments about “religion can’t be evil because [semantics]”…yeah.

Once again, I was merely replying to the claims. Why should your statements be true by default? At the very best situation for you, we both have no leg to stand on, and we can’t claim either way. In a worse situation, I simply criticise your claims and show that it can’t be used like that.

But if you say you’re uninterested in a discussion, feel free to step out.

 
Flag Post
I found several definitions. They include words such as “unlawful”, “forced upon”, “abuse” and “unwilling”. None of these have a positive attitude.

so? you’re saying religion isn’t wrong because it isn’t unlawful? are you saying it isn’t wrong because it isn’t forced upon people? (it is). are you saying it isn’t wrong because it isn’t abuse? (maybe it is). are you saying it isn’t wrong because it isn’t unwilling?

you got no argument. religion, i told you, involves exploitation, dogma’s, indoctrination, conditioning, guilt-tripping, manipulation, fear-inducing etc? are those nice terms? does this prove anything?

can’t be proven? so you’re saying it’s unfalsifyable?

That.

lol. this is such a dumb argument. so then the mafia isn’t bad either. neither is rape. or rape-cult, if you prefere. a military junta. slavery.

Why should your statements be true by default?

so challenge them! show me where i’m wrong. but you can’t, because i’m right, so you’re just gonna play semantics. “it’s not evil because it’s not a thing it’s a discription, and discriptions can’t be wrong, and you can’t prove otherwise nah nah nah i have my fingers in my ears, i can’t hear you!”

I simply criticise your claims

no you haven’t. you haven’t responded to any of that. you’re just hoping your semantic games is gonna work.

<blockqoute>But if you say you’re uninterested in a discussion, feel free to step out.

i am very interested in discussion, just not in having to repeat myself and being drawn into stupid semantic bullshit.

but so long as you keep misconstruing what i said while spewing semantic non-sense, defending something so vile as religion with that when the high-and-mighty high horse playing has been shot down enough already..so now it’s this eh?

whatever.

 
Flag Post

anyway, 3 is true to anyone that’s not ignorant. at least in the history of the past millenium or so.

Except it isn’t. Good and evil are unquantifiable and different people will weight the goodness of something vs. the evilness of something differently. Therefore, you can’t make the claim that religion does an insignificant amount of good compared to the vast evilness that it allegedly produces because you can’t quantify either.

defending something so vile as religion

I think that millions of people who have been helped by Catholic hospitals and the plethora of Christian charities would disagree.

 
Flag Post

so? you’re saying religion isn’t wrong because it isn’t unlawful? are you saying it isn’t wrong because it isn’t forced upon people? (it is). are you saying it isn’t wrong because it isn’t abuse? (maybe it is). are you saying it isn’t wrong because it isn’t unwilling?

I was actually saying rape was inherently wrong due to its definition. Religion does not have such a definition.

you got no argument. religion, i told you, involves exploitation, dogma’s, indoctrination, conditioning, guilt-tripping, manipulation, fear-inducing etc? are those nice terms? does this prove anything?

What it “involves” and what it is defined as are two different things. Guns shoot people, true, so we can argue they are inherently evil, right? Wrong. You can use a similar gun to shoot a shooter, saving more lives than the one life you might have just taken. Guns aren’t inherently evil just because they were made to kill. Evil people using guns are evil because they shoot for their own gains instead of killing people that are out to kill others. Evil people abusing religion for their own gains are evil. Good people in a happy community that donates to the poor and generally aren’t a threat to anyone can in no way be described as “inherently evil”, even though they’re religious, and they’re in a religion.

Rape is a description of a specific act that in all cases is forced upon an unwilling person, illegal in all cases, and nobody can argue it is a good act, ever (that the concept itself isn’t evil is something I’ll leave out of this discussion, since you don’t seem to like it, but it may be beside the point any way). Not so with religion.

lol. this is such a dumb argument. so then the mafia isn’t bad either. neither is rape. or rape-cult, if you prefere. a military junta. slavery.

You’re not even replying, just some minor left-over rant from the other paragraph. What I stated is that you can’t prove religion was initially created to control the masses with no intention of providing some good stuff to the world. This doesn’t help anyone’s case in particular, but I just wanted to point that out. It doesn’t even matter, because we have to look at the present any way.

 
Flag Post
Except it isn’t. Good and evil are unquantifiable and different people will weight the goodness of something vs. the evilness of something differently. Therefore, you can’t make the claim that religion does an insignificant amount of good compared to the vast evilness that it allegedly produces because you can’t quantify either.

yeah, ok, that’s it. this is fucking ballony. this is semantic epystemology. you’re just weasiling yourself out with blanket cop outs that can be used to defend absolutely every atrocity ever done.

you guys suck, now fuck off.

 
Flag Post

ITT:

Box: An individual is citing their religion as evidence for their evil opinion. Thus, religion is evil.
Everyone else: No it isn’t, people who used religion to control other people are evil. It is an opinion that all religions have this feature when you’re talking about a specific incident.
Ω: Everyone thinks rape is bad, so religion can be inherently bad too.
Everyone Else: But it is an opinion that religion is bad, it isn’t an opinion that rape is bad.
FWW & Ω: It’s just an opinion that rape is bad.
Everyone Else: Wait, you just said the exact opposite in order to validate your argument…
FWW & :Religion has been used countless times to control other people. That means religion is evil.
Everyone else: No it doesn’t, it means religion can be evil. Murder is the definition of killing someone without a good reason. Religion isn’t the definition of taking advantage of someone for your own benefit, even if it lends itself well to these ends. These are descriptions of what people are doing, and aren’t objects with goals and intentions themselves. Rape doesn’t cause people to rape, rape is what people do.
Ω: Fuck off.

If you can’t argue respectfully, leave. None of us have been rude, attacked you, or even necessarily disagreed with you. We’re pointing out that something you’re saying isn’t true. There are situations where religion isn’t evil, thus it isn’t inherently evil. That’s the argument you stomped your foot and cried about, and it only implies you either can’t defend your argument, or you can’t admit you’re wrong. It doesn’t imply that you’re interested in actually having a valid opinion as much as you are interested in asserting it.

Edit: Ignore the rest of this thread. Show me when rape is subjectively good (it’d be called sex, not rape), and when religion is objectively bad (cults). This will provide falsification for your argument. If there is any incident where your objective claim about religion is false, you must concede that the function is not related to the use.

What’s hilarious is that the subjective opinion that religion is evil is one that I agree with. In general, I agree that it is stupid to give yourself over to something. However, there’s no way for me to objectively prove that in every scenario it’s a bad thing. You and I would look upon a situation as being grave and despicable, while a religious person would see it as valid and awesome. Unless you can objectively show through logic why religion is always bad, it’s not an objective stance you can lord over people. Your opinion is that religion is evil, and it has not yet been proven as such.

 
Flag Post

^i never talked about proof BSG. i never claimed anything like that. THEY were pretending like they have PROVEN that it’s NOT because of some retarded semantic.

i just said that in my opinion it is, and gave my reasons, then THEY started some semantic bullshit. please don’t turn it around, thanks.

 
Flag Post

Maybe you should reread the thread, because we gave you several opportunities to downgrade your claim of certainty to an opinion. I’ve reread it twice now, because I like to see if I got carried away, and I nor anyone else did. You must have glazed over the part where I agree with you multiple times but am simply not willing to argue that objectively. DR said something to a very similar affect, in that you are missing our point, and think it’s our opinion. He and I probably disagree about whether religion is a good or bad thing, opinion wise. We only agreed that it’s not a matter of certainty at all, because it has to do with people’s decisions and nothing to do with the goal or lack of goal the description of people grouping together in faith that is “religion.” You’re absolutely right, it’s a semantic argument: You’re being interpreted as making an objective claim that can be disproved. If that’s not what you’re doing, then we don’t understand why you’re so defensive.

In fact, if you just used the word “faith,” I’d probably be willing to say that it’s objectively a bad thing because of it’s ease to be taken advantage of. It’s just that religion isn’t especially the concept of believing something without proof, it’s a description of people that are believing something without truth. Do you understand why, even if you don’t think this semantic argument is important, it’s important to be clear about your argument? You and I could be trying to compel Darkruler that the good of religion isn’t worth the inherent lack of critical thinking that comes with faith if you weren’t disagreeing with the idea that religion doesn’t MAKE anyone do anything, other people do. It’s not an opinion that religion makes people susceptible to being controlled, it is an opinion that all religion is malicious.

 
Flag Post
Maybe you should reread the thread, because we gave you several opportunities to downgrade your claim of certainty to an opinion.

yeah, i gotta stop you there. i never said that. you’re lying. or an idiot. whatever. get lost.

 
Flag Post

Can we just take a minute to point out how absolutely unworthy of other people’s time you are? Usually we’re arguing with disingenuous religious people who are trying to waste our time, but you actually have the gumption to call me a liar, idiot, and tell me to fuck off when I’m showing you respect and trying to communicate with you. Take a step back, cool down, and address me with that same respect. I am simply trying to clarify the situation, and if I’ve made a mistake, I’m more than willing to admit that we misunderstood you. The only reason I’ve wasted this much energy on you is that I agree with your argument and make it against theists regularly, and that I simply wish you’d be more careful about exactly what you’re trying to say. I don’t want religious people to disregard my arguments because I’m associated with semantically broken points that don’t need to be so ineffective.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

i am merely saying that I think it is inherently bad, and i have given you the reasons why.

I think the only way we can say it is inherently bad is either:

1. It can never be used for good.
2. It was meant to do evil.
3. The amount of good it provides is insignificant to the amount of evil.

Aside from the fact that this is subjective for religion (not so for rape, as it is defined to be bad), these three are either false or can’t be proven. But hey, since you’re done with this topic, I won’t expand on this too much.

Darkruler already said it here: Your opinion is that it is inherently bad. Your opinion is wrong because there are instances where we would disagree about the negativity of religion, and because bad is an issue of subjectivity, the claim is fallacious. The argument that believing in something without any reason makes people easy to take advantage of is incredibly sound, solid, and hard to defend against. You have shown that you believe the second, but you keep asserting the first. They’re two different arguments that needn’t be tied together. Everyone agrees that being easy to take advantage of is bad, not everyone agrees that religion always makes people easy to take advantage of. A part does not equal the whole. Semantics are important because you might be right while representing yourself as incredibly fallacious. I’m trying to help you, not hurt you, and you’re being incredibly difficult.

 
Flag Post

naw, i’m not the one being difficult. i’m just frustrated with being misrepresented and with blanket arguments that can justify anything.

you are saying, BSG, that my opinion is wrong, and this is somehow fact. so, in effect, you are saying that we quantifiably, positively know that religion is not wrong. and we know this, because we cannot objectively know that it is wrong because we cannot make objective claims about something that is a concept and not a person or some shit like that.

you’re just not making any sense. at all.

just because people may disagree with my opinion doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. you’re just failing to make the distinction between opinion vs fact, and structural vs incedental.

i am claiming it is my opinion, that it is structurally, or inherently wrong. that is the opinion i expressed.

you are confusing that with claiming that it is factually wrong as a known, unarguable fact. Darkrulers argument, however, is that it is factually, knowably not inherently wrong.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Rape is a description of a specific act that in all cases is forced upon an unwilling person, illegal in all cases, and nobody can argue it is a good act, ever (that the concept itself isn’t evil is something I’ll leave out of this discussion, since you don’t seem to like it, but it may be beside the point any way). Not so with religion.

Seriously? Seems your working with a very limited definition of rape that ignores things that were rather common in modern countries even until shortly and certainly still are common in many countries. What i am speaking about here is Marital rape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape
It has been and still is seen in certain cultures/religions that a married man has the right to rape his wife.

The moral Good and Evil are always subjective and the same goes for rape. While i would and will personally agree that its something Bad. I know that this is due to my subjective moral code(closely tied to the UN human rights) and that many people disagree with this code, see for example above about martial rape.

This does not mean that i believe that religion as such is objectively evil, though specific religions most generally are according to my own subjective morals. I would also say that subjectively from my point of view most(perhaps even all) religions that include a moral code justified based on proclaimed “transcendental knowledge” are inherently wrong/evil.

 
Flag Post

I certainly don’t disagree with that assessment, JohnnyBeGood, and I don’t think DR or I were necessarily argueing for rapes universal evil, so much as comparing the seemingly universal evil of rape to the implied universal evil of religion, and how the subjectivity of the situation leads to defining people’s choices as being the origin for unethical behavior, and not the vehicle that the unethical behavior was delivered with.

It’s the same way many people define TV as evil, simply because it’s a passive system of message delivery. Yeah, I get it, the very nature of a non-interactive medium that talks at you is inherently antagonizing to the idea of free thought, but that doesn’t mean that TV itself is what makes people stupid and lazy, it’s people deciding to watch TV, and other people deciding to pander their programming to the lowest common denominator. Is TV your problem, or is it people?

 
Flag Post

well, there certainly are people that consider TV evil. in fact ironically, the Buddhist religion often views watching tv as sinful (at least if excessively).

so then we can debate that. we can weigh the pros and the cons, and different sides might stick to different positions. but if you are to suggest that TV is by definition not evil because it’s only a concept, you’re obviously mistaken. for instance if we can prove either of these:

1. It can never be used for good.
2. It was meant to do evil.
3. The amount of good it provides is insignificant to the amount of evil.

but no instead you justify television with semantics and avoid the entire discussion with a claim that it cannot be wrong. which is patantly false. if i make a devise specifically designed to mindcontrol people by telepathy, in the style of Two-Face and Jokers machine in some awful Batman sequal, i would say that that device is bad, wrong, evil, in itself. if there’s an organisation with the sole purpose of distributing and operating those devices in order to enslave the human race, that organisation is evil.

that, my friend, is Religion. that’s what they do. that’s why religion is wrong.

ah, screw it.

 
Flag Post

It’d be nice if you didn’t tell us to fuck off in your posts that would contain the evidence of whether or not you ever asserted your opinion as a universal claim, because now they’re deleted. Let’s just give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you weren’t implying that all religions are automatically and inherently evil, just that religion is easily employed by people to do make other people do things, evil being the subjective part but the nature of believing a thing without a reason to believe it being objectively easy to take advantage of.

Now here’s the test, and what my lost point was: Does this Rabbi believe women should be subservient because of religion, or because he would like women to be subservient to him? Trick question, it’s the exact same thing. Bonus question: If a woman were subservient to a Rabbi willingly, is it her religion’s fault, the coercive rabbi, the girl? Again, it’s people’s stupid gullibility and desire to abandon themselves to a thing that makes them self-destructive. Religion is the manifestation of people’s cognitive dissonance. It isn’t the cause, but the description. It is simply a technical misnomer to think religion, or rape, or parenting is an agent of will that if removed would remove the problem that it causes, when the word is describing the subjectively defined problem itself.

Basically, your argument that religion is designed to control people is automatically invalidated by any instance where religion isn’t used to control people, when you don’t need to make an inclusive argument to say what you believe. “Religion is a powerful tool if you want to control people” says the exact same thing without being fallacious and easily argued against. If you disagree with this assessment of the weakness of your argument, please make a better point than “fuck off,” and “semantics!”

 
Flag Post
let’s just give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you weren’t implying that all religions are automatically and inherently evil, just that religion is easily employed by people to do make other people do things

but that kinda was what i was implying. although i said “most”, implying that it’s not 100% necessarily for all religions; just religion as such in general. i’m saying that religion in construct is a bad idea. i…

oh nevermind. apparently it’s too complicated. i give up.

Basically, your argument that religion is designed to control people is automatically invalidated by any instance where religion isn’t used to control people
-.- exceptions disprove general purpose? yeah. *deep, deep sigh*
 
Flag Post

Proving general purpose? For one that isn’t something that could be objectively proved, for two I’m saying that makes your argument weak, not wrong—you know, considering I agree with it. I’m literally only trying to help you strengthen your argument, why are you so combative?

 
Flag Post
you guys suck, now fuck off.

Stay classy

 
Flag Post

because i keep getting words shoved in my mouth. even after numerous re-attempts to make clear what i’m saying. but instead you ignore that, and throw my explanations for the misunderstanding at me as if those are my arguments, and…anyway, i should stop repeating myself.