|
Post by Optimus on Jun 2, 2017 12:37:01 GMT -5
That's just a game of semantic hair-splitting. ISIS follows a specific ideology based on a specific set of beliefs in a specific god. Your original statement implied that ISIS followed an ideology that has "zero" to do with a belief in a god. ISIS follows a specific ideology based on a specific set of beliefs, in a "specific god" who happens to have the same name as the one that over a billion other people believe in, but who don't do or approve of the shit that ISIS does. It's not because ISIS believes in a god, it's because of what they believe, period. It's ideology. It's not hair-splitting. It's a crucially relevant difference. You're backtracking and strawmanning your own statement. You said that ISIS's ideology has "zero to do with a belief in god." Those are your exact words. That is 100%, demonstrably wrong. You are now backpedalling and trying to rephrase your original statement as referring to "belief in A god," which is not what you originally said. Were you hoping I wouldn't notice that you've shifted to a new phrase with a new meaning? Just admit that you either misspoke originally, and therefore weren't clear about your intended point, or admit that you were wrong that ISIS's ideology has "zero to do with a belief in god." An "opinion article?" You obviously didn't read it. Graeme embedded himself with actual ISIS members, interviewed actual ISIS members, and then reported what those actual ISIS members actually said. The only way that can be considered an "opinion article" is if one is referring to the fact that it is reporting the opinions of ISIS. Again, falling back on sarcastic, dismissive responses to people who disagree with you and/or point out flaws in your arguments. It's a typical response for you. I keep hoping that one day you'll outgrow that tendency. I'm not slamming religion. Nowhere in any of my posts in this thread did I slam religion or imply that religion can't be associated with positive things. My responses have all been focused on your demonstrably incorrect assertion that ISIS's ideology has "zero to do with a belief in god." Not, "zero to do with belief in A god" (which would still be technically wrong), as you tried to quickly rewrite it as, but "zero to do with a belief in god," which is what you originally said. Shifting the "a" in that sentence makes a world of difference in the meaning, as you apparently know given that you're trying to rewrite the phrase to argue something that your original post didn't claim. I'm not making the argument that "religious belief, itself" is the problem with ISIS. I'm making the argument that 1) their ideology is based on specific religious god beliefs and; 2) those specific beliefs are barbaric and wrong. In no way does that state or imply that all religions are bad or that simply believing in a religion is bad. I was pretty clear with my wording. You are the one choosing to misinterpret it and interpolate alternate meanings and accusations that are not there.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 2, 2017 14:34:12 GMT -5
My assertion is that these beliefs, whether they're held by ISIS or people like the guy in OP who decide climate change is something "god" will take care of but other stuff, like Michael pointed out, "god" expects *us* to take care of - that is not a function of belief in god. Or A god. That's ideology. Ideology is not a function of god belief.
My miscommunication is my fault. I'm trying to push back against the idea that believing in a god is "why" people develop shitty ideologies, whether it's death to the infidels or climate change denial.
The reason I changed it to A god (in the first sentence; note how in the second sentence already had the "a") is because I'm trying to address "god" as a concept, not an actual entity. This is part of my own journey from belief to lack of belief. I was not trying to change what I was saying, at all.
I don't appreciate your characterization of intent on my part. Nor do I appreciate your condescending remarks about "hoping I'll outgrow" whatever other tendencies you ascribe to me. Hey, I don't always like your debate style, either - quite frankly, you can be a real jerk sometimes - but I'm fine with you being you. Leave the personal critique out of it, please, or put me on ignore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 15:16:58 GMT -5
MOD NOTE:
FFS, we have like one fucking rule here: attack the argument, not the person.
Stop now, or I lock the thread and consider temp bans for anyone who persists.
if you must insult each other and talk about how you don't like each other, feel free to do it in PMs.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jun 2, 2017 15:25:17 GMT -5
For my 2 cents, I don't think Christine was wrong, but neither was Opty.
One could easily say that while ISIS says they do what they do in the name of God, Mohammed of Covfefe, but they're really doing it in the name of their ideology. Same with the putz with climate change, although to a much lesser degree. I think it might have been stated in a way that's easily misunderstood.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 16:25:28 GMT -5
*hugs Vince* *wipes tear*
You...you found something to agree with in two sides of an argument and posted without insulting anyone.
That was beautiful. A karma point you shall have, my son.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Jun 2, 2017 16:31:29 GMT -5
Hmmm...will God maintain adequate roads and bridges? You mock, but then there's this. NOW you may mock. Mercilessly, I hope.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 17:02:07 GMT -5
God also mows lawns, picks up the kids from school, gets rid of unwanted facial hair, gets rid of embarrassing age spots, delivers a pizza, lengthens, strengthens, finds that slipper that's been at large under the chaise lounge for several weeks, plays a mean Rhythm Master, makes excuses for unwanted lipstick on your collar, and forges your signature.*
*stolen shamelessly from Tom Waits. Except for the God part.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jun 2, 2017 18:53:29 GMT -5
My assertion is that these beliefs, whether they're held by ISIS or people like the guy in OP who decide climate change is something "god" will take care of but other stuff, like Michael pointed out, "god" expects *us* to take care of - that is not a function of belief in god. Or A god. That's ideology. Ideology is not a function of god belief. Okay, I apologize for my tone and for inferring your intent. Let's start over so that we're not talking past each other anymore. Perhaps we're getting hung up on terminology. So, I'll lay out what I mean by these terms and the ways they're used in belief research, not in an effort to be condescending or pedantic, but to ensure that I'm clear about my meaning. Admittedly, this is so tangential that it might no longer be recognizable as related to anything in the original post we were quibbling about, but I think it's an interesting discussion nonetheless. A person's religion would be near the top of his/her overriding set of beliefs, informing a complex framework of differing types of beliefs and behaviors underneath it that guides a person's life. There are so many other beliefs, expectations, behavioral norms, etc. that are related to it, that it's a bit messy to try to untangle. When it comes to ideology, the definition is so broad that it can mean several different things. Usually, an "ideology" is defined as a set of normative beliefs (beliefs about what we think other people want us to do or act like) within a particular ethical framework, and usually refers to political beliefs, but not always. But, an ideology is always based on something (e.g., a concept, a set of ideas/ideals, etc). So, when we're talking about religious beliefs, those are such a huge and influential set of ideas (there's dogma, doctrine, liturgy, morals, ethics, etc.) that we can think of it as sort of creating a belief hierarchy, under which "religious ideology" would be included/subsumed. So, a person can have an ideology based in a particular political philosophy (e.g., Liberalism, Communism, Marxism, etc.), or based in religion, or based in an ethical philosophy, etc. ISIS's main ideology (based on what they've said and the context of their actions) is religious, because their religious beliefs inform their morals, ethics, behaviors, social expectations, etc. And, when we conduct research about religious beliefs, we find that a lot people tend to use terms like "ideology" as synonymous with their religious beliefs (which is why we have to word our survey questions carefully sometimes). So, for ISIS, their ideology cannot have "zero" to do with a belief in god, because their worldview is based on their religious beliefs, and those beliefs center around a somewhat unique interpretation of a specific monotheism. That does not mean that the general concept of believing in god is inherently evil or will necessarily lead to barbaric ideas and actions. Indeed, there are some religious beliefs/ideologies (such as Jainism) that are inherently non-violent and strive for peace. But, there are also some that are destructive and disgusting (e.g., the radical interpretation of Islam by ISIS, the fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity by Westboro Baptist, etc.). These depend on the religious dogmas and doctrines specific to each religion and each group's interpretations of those. I agree that the idea of believing in a god isn't necessarily "why" people develop shitty ideologies. But, I am asserting that there are shitty ideologies mostly based on certain shitty beliefs in/about gods, and ISIS happens to follow one of the shittiest ones and it informs and guides their actions. The same is true for conservative politicians who deny the reality of climate change and say dumb shit about how their "god will provide/protect/whatever so we needn't worry about it." I think such attitudes come from a corrupted convergence of myopic religious and myopic political ideologies. So, when it comes to groups like ISIS, it's not correct to claim that their ideology has nothing to do with a belief in god, because their ideology is rooted in their specific fundamentalist beliefs about their god and his prophet's teachings. The two are inextricably intertwined. I'm sure this discussion and post have probably bored the hell out of anyone reading, but I wanted to make my points as clearly as I could.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 2, 2017 19:44:25 GMT -5
Not boring to me at all. Quite the opposite. I want to read that again when I'm not tired. Thank you for posting it -- your analytical skills/discourse is and always has been one of my favorite things. Also one reason why I could never hate you. Where I have come off as hateful, or dismissive, I apologize.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 19:52:32 GMT -5
*hugs Opty and Christine* *wipes tear*
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Jun 3, 2017 5:20:30 GMT -5
Is this the group hug room? Can I join?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 3, 2017 5:34:31 GMT -5
*grabs Max in giant bear hug*
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 4, 2017 20:19:02 GMT -5
Perhaps we're getting hung up on terminology. So, I'll lay out what I mean by these terms and the ways they're used in belief research, not in an effort to be condescending or pedantic, but to ensure that I'm clear about my meaning. Admittedly, this is so tangential that it might no longer be recognizable as related to anything in the original post we were quibbling about, but I think it's an interesting discussion nonetheless. A person's religion would be near the top of his/her overriding set of beliefs, informing a complex framework of differing types of beliefs and behaviors underneath it that guides a person's life. There are so many other beliefs, expectations, behavioral norms, etc. that are related to it, that it's a bit messy to try to untangle. This is something I've observed, personally, in people closest to me who are religious. And I agree, it's messy. So many of the beliefs/behaviors can't be traced back to any religious belief. I've tried to get people I know to do that. It's sort of a hem/haw/yeah well response. The simplest example is one I've mentioned elsewhere - that Jesus said to feed the hungry (etc.) but these particular Jesus-followers are vehemently against food stamps (etc.). The religious principle is customized, bastardized, hedged against or ignored entirely to fit the non-religious belief(s). Agreed. The question, for me, is how much an actual belief in a god informs ideology, as opposed to how much a person or group of people "use" the concept of a god to do what they want to do. I.e., is it: a god says to do X, Y, and Z, therefore, they must do X, Y, and Z (as they understand what their god has commanded) or is it: I want to do X, Y, and Z, and I'm using this interpretation of god to justify it? (Side note: this may in fact be the crux of why I don't believe in a god anymore. ) I totally agree that this is what they say, I mostly agree that it's what they actually believe... but I honestly do not think that for ISIS, absent belief in their god, they would not feel the same way they feel about the world and the infidels and the West and all the rest. I honestly do not think that absent their belief in their god, that they would not do the same things they do and want the same things that they want. And the below which you mentioned (my bold) is why, imo: That's it, right there, imo. It's the convergence. And I think the political ideology is the powerful part. I think, absent the religion, we'd still have ISIS. I think this would also be true historically. Hence, my terribly phrased badly worded attempt in saying it has nothing to do with belief in god. I'm not saying that it is not about their belief in their god, according to them. And yes, I understand the idea that we need to take them at their word. I'm not going for the No True Scotsman fallacy. I don't think a god belief is inherently good, either. I don't think it's inherently anything other than a product of the human brain. But from the standpoint of whether believing in a god can cause these sorts of evils (and blind or willful ignorance; see: the OP) I lean toward "no," and I think it's important that we don't blame evil on god beliefs, because there are so many examples of god beliefs that don't lead to evil or ignorance. That's why I say "it's ideology" as opposed to god belief. Though I do take the point about religiously-based ideology, and I'm not opposed to blaming religious ideology in the least. I will re-read and edit this for the next 30 minutes. Have mercy.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jun 4, 2017 21:20:51 GMT -5
A command to "feed the hungry" is not a license to take from others to provide the sustenance. It's not the same as saying "it's OK to take from Peter to feed Paul," and although I haven't extensively studied the bible, I'm pretty sure that latter statement's not in there. I see no relationship whatsoever between following Jesus and opposing forced redistribution of earnings. Don't make me trot out that Penn Jillette meme again!
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 4, 2017 21:27:55 GMT -5
It's not even about being forced. It's about voting for those sorts of initiatives. But even so, Jesus said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, biyatch."
|
|