It was a joke. Obviously their isn't really a way to rank which ones are subjectively worse. Though I'd start with Scientology.
I think we should do it because it would be the most epic thread in CP history and could you imagine the reaction in modville? I think V is the only poster who would have the balls to start that thread, so I nominate V to start that thread.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
The different beliefs, which give rise to different behaviours. Buddhism is different from Scientology, in that Buddhists don't try to ruin your life for criticizing their beliefs, whereas Scientologists believe this makes you an "enemy" of the Church, leading some of them to hire private investigators to follow you around and find dirt to use against you. Scientology is different from Christianity, in that Scientology views abortion as a personal choice, whereas most sects of Christianity view it as a mortal sin, which leads some Christians to murder abortion doctors. And so on.
Religions may all be wrong, but if so, they're certainly wrong about different things and to different degrees, because they each make mutually incompatible claims. These different claims lead to different behaviours from their respective adherents. Suggesting that they're all equally wrong or equally bad makes no sense given how different their tenets are.
You make good points, my point is they're all BS, sure there are differences but they are all made up.
You make good points, my point is they're all BS, sure there are differences but they are all made up.
I agree, at least in terms of most of the factual claims, and I'd agree on many of the ethical claims too. But even if literally everything in every religion was a lie (that is, Jesus and Muhammad and Moses were made up entirely out of someone's imagination and never existed, and every word in every book is a lie), that would not make the religions equal in any relevant way.
If I make up one story whose explicit moral lesson is that you should be kind to other people regardless of who they are, and another story whose explicit moral lesson is that you should kill people who don't look like you on sight like the North Sentinelese, it's pretty clear that those are not equivalent philosophies even though the underlying narratives may both be made up and thus equally false.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
You make good points, my point is they're all BS, sure there are differences but they are all made up.
Something being made up, doesn't mean it's bs. For example, numbers are made up, but they aren't bs.
Further, much of religion is not made up; There's a ton of historical events in the Bible for example. There are also lots of ones that are either made up or evolved to the point they were no longer historically relevant. The many proverbs that have made their way into many religions on the other hand were made up by someone, yet many of them are still relevant today as they reflect a human nature that hasn't really changed all that much over the centuries.
So being made up doesn't mean something is bs, and containing factual information doesn't mean that it's not bs. Jesus walking on water is probably bs, even though the water body referenced is real, for example.
I agree, at least in terms of most of the factual claims, and I'd agree on many of the ethical claims too. But even if literally everything in every religion was a lie (that is, Jesus and Muhammad and Moses were made up entirely out of someone's imagination and never existed, and every word in every book is a lie), that would not make the religions equal in any relevant way.
If I make up one story whose explicit moral lesson is that you should be kind to other people regardless of who they are, and another story whose explicit moral lesson is that you should kill people who don't look like you on sight like the North Sentinelese, it's pretty clear that those are not equivalent philosophies even though the underlying narratives may both be made up and thus equally false.
Morality is not the child of any religion though, they just like to think it is. Everyone knows inherently that being kind to others is a good thing, typical to though shalt not murder or rape.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
Morality is not the child of any religion though, they just like to think it is. Everyone knows inherently that being kind to others is a good thing, typical to though shalt not murder or rape.
I characterize this issue differently than you do. This isn't just enforcement of social norms. The issue is whether or not the province should do more to protect a particularly vulnerable community: LGBT teens at a Christian high school. There are real interests at stake.
The the very act of putting people into groups and assessing their relative power and vulnerability is political, rooted in a dogma and ideology that shares a lot of the characteristics of religion.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The the very act of putting people into groups and assessing their relative power and vulnerability is political, rooted in a dogma and ideology that shares a lot of the characteristics of religion.
Exactly.
And we all know it wouldn't take long for someone to do something like this to stir the pot and then sit back and watch the fireworks as the conversation devolves into trying to define a religion.
And we all know it wouldn't take long for someone to do something like this to stir the pot and then sit back and watch the fireworks as the conversation devolves into trying to define a religion.
Morality is not the child of any religion though, they just like to think it is. Everyone knows inherently that being kind to others is a good thing, typical to though shalt not murder or rape.
I didn't say it was. Religion is one source of moral principles, though. It's just that they're no more or less likely to be good moral principles solely by virtue of being sourced in religion - you might argue that, given the track record of Abrahamic religion, they're less likely to be good, but that's beside the point I'm making.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The the very act of putting people into groups and assessing their relative power and vulnerability is political, rooted in a dogma and ideology that shares a lot of the characteristics of religion.
That seems like an incredibly extreme position. So, I take it, you oppose, as a matter of principle, accessible parking spaces? The various provincial Human Rights Codes? Pay equity legislation? Child pornography offences? The list goes on and on. Those are all steps taken to address perceived vulnerabilities of people grouped in some way based on a personal characteristic.
EDIT: Perhaps I'm misstating your position. You seem to be suggesting that these steps are motivated by an ideology and dogma similar to religion. From that, I presumed that you were critical of or opposed to them. That may not be the case. In any event, I still don't understand your position.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Religions may all be wrong, but if so, they're certainly wrong about different things and to different degrees, because they each make mutually incompatible claims
All of them that start out with the core tenet of there being gods are wrong right from the word go. Then they start becoming wrong in different degrees.
__________________
Pass the bacon.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DuffMan For This Useful Post:
• 1+ million visitors to Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre Basilica (Quebec)
• 3+ million visitors to Mecca Hajj
• 6+ million visitors to Jerusalem’s Wailing Wall
• 80+ million visitors to India’s Kumbh Mela
Additionally, as current research shows that more than 35% of travelers are interested in and/or will be taking a religious-based journey in their lifetimes, the market is only expected to continue to grow.
The Top 5 Wealthiest Religions in the World are: (1) Roman Catholic Church (Unknown value – in the trillions); (2) Islam (Valued at $1.6 trillion); (3) Judaism (Unknown value – in the high billions); (4) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) (Valued at over $30 billion); and (5) The Church of England (Valued at about $7 billion).
There are no direct figures available identifying the value of the global religious industry, however, we can estimate that its value (across all religions across all countries) to be well into the quadrillions of dollars.
All. Tax. Free.
Last edited by Cheese; 03-27-2017 at 02:55 PM.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
• 1+ million visitors to Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre Basilica (Quebec)
• 3+ million visitors to Mecca Hajj
• 6+ million visitors to Jerusalem’s Wailing Wall
• 80+ million visitors to India’s Kumbh Mela
Additionally, as current research shows that more than 35% of travelers are interested in and/or will be taking a religious-based journey in their lifetimes, the market is only expected to continue to grow.
The Top 5 Wealthiest Religions in the World are: (1) Roman Catholic Church (Unknown value – in the trillions); (2) Islam (Valued at $1.6 trillion); (3) Judaism (Unknown value – in the high billions); (4) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) (Valued at over $30 billion); and (5) The Church of England (Valued at about $7 billion).
There are no direct figures available identifying the value of the global religious industry, however, we can estimate that its value (across all religions across all countries) to be well into the quadrillions of dollars.
All. Tax. Free.
You could have just posted this
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Ahem, if I may, religion should have no place in a society where people think logically and attempt to make decisions that will benefit everyone without prejudice.
You people who hide behind religion are weak. Period.
You're not using your brains to their full capacity.
Just curious if you feel like the Nobel prize isn't a decent indicator of intelligence, or as you put it "using you brain to the full capacity"? Since the award was introduced 20% of the winners have been Jewish or of Jewish decent. That's a fraction of the population of the world (0.2% I believe), who's fundamental belief system is thousand of years old, and who have some the most strict religious practices in the world. Don't try to say that people who are religious are unintelligent, when you can't even be bothered to look at the statistics and instead choose to jump to your own conclusions.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Darkknight For This Useful Post:
That seems like an incredibly extreme position. So, I take it, you oppose, as a matter of principle, accessible parking spaces?
They're perfectly legitimate for individuals who have proven they have a physical handicap. I would disagree with them if they were awarded to everyone 65 and older, under the rationale that people 65 and over are more likely to suffer from physical handicaps than people under the age of 65.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
The various provincial Human Rights Codes?
Too broad a question. I don't support all of them, no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Pay equity legislation?
I agree with legislation that makes it illegal to pay people differently for the same job based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. Again, the principle is to treat adult citizens as individuals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Child pornography offences?
Of course not. We protect children because they're inherently vulnerable. Though it is worth asking if we're treating other groups like children when we use the same justification to treat them differently from everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
The list goes on and on. Those are all steps taken to address perceived vulnerabilities of people grouped in some way based on a personal characteristic.
EDIT: Perhaps I'm misstating your position. You seem to be suggesting that these steps are motivated by an ideology and dogma similar to religion. From that, I presumed that you were critical of or opposed to them. That may not be the case. In any event, I still don't understand your position.
My position is quite common (or was once). It's what used to be regarded as liberalism - treat everyone as individuals. It's the principle that dealt social conservatism its' severest blows and was responsible for almost all of the liberal progress made in the last century.
Identity politics, the progressive left, the illiberal left - whatever you want to call it - runs contrary to classical liberalism in three fundamental ways:
* It regards group identity as the main political identity of citizens, and sees politics primarily as a struggle between those groups.
* It posits that we're wise enough to untangle history and a bewilderingly complex society to neatly award oppressor or victim status to groups of people numbering in the tens and hundreds of millions.
* It assumes that whoever is given the power to 'rebalance the scales' between those crudely drawn groups won't abuse that power.
The roots of the identity politics movement is cultural Marxism - a school of ideology that has all the hallmarks of religion. It's provides a remarkably simplistic model of society and presents it in the starkest moral terms - those who have power are oppressors and those who don't are righteous. It has inspired a whole lexicon of cant and dogma (patriarchal imperialist power structure, etc. etc.), along with a host of shibboleths and taboos around language. It's adherents are prone to appeals to sentiment and ad hominem. Either you understand and agree with their worldview - you've had your Revelation - or you are benighted in darkness and ignorance.
Ultimately, its advocates don't seem to be nearly as interested in utilitarian achievements as they are in outlining a stark moral order and leaving anyone who will listen with no doubts whatsoever as to where they stand in that moral order. Instead of demonstrating their virtue by going to church every Sunday morning and condemning the evils of gambling and drink, they gather on social media to denounce the representation of disadvantaged groups in pop culture. Different stage, same psychological needs of piety, conformity, and shaming being met.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 03-27-2017 at 07:49 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
