LOGO
General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here.

Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 08-22-2008, 09:56 PM   #1
Broorbbub

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
610
Senior Member
Default Religions, ideologies, and the cultural protections afforded to both
If someone uses their religious beliefs as a basis for, or integral part of, a political ideology, it ought to be fair game.

Fire at will.

-Arrian
Broorbbub is offline


Old 08-23-2008, 12:46 AM   #2
UnduttRit

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
368
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't think either religions or ideologies are protected in western culture. Everything is fair game. If you are deluded you are deluded. That is BS and you know it.



Specific ideologies are protected. It is also politically incorect to criticize several religions.


Also delusion isn't objective, anyone is deluded in the right social frame. The West is just better at hiding its implied values and noncrimethink that other cultures are.
UnduttRit is offline


Old 08-23-2008, 01:48 AM   #3
violetgorman

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
491
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Kidicious

No, no. Just because something isn't objectively true, doesn't mean it isn't true. Some truths are subjective. Everyone is not delusional. sigh

You misunderstand, a lot of things are objectively true, but judging whether someone is insane/deluded is always a subjective procces. Since the only benchmark for delusion is society itself, and it is in the nature of psychiatric institutions to be at risk of becoming servants of teh elite.


Extreme example: Many Chinese dissidents are in locked up in psychiatric hospitals.

Silly example: Muslim Extremist considered "deluded" in Austria, is "normal" in Iran
violetgorman is offline


Old 08-23-2008, 02:03 AM   #4
mymnarorump

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
653
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Heraclitus


sigh

You misunderstand, a lot of things are objectively true, but judging whether someone is insane/deluded is always a subjective procces. Since the only benchmark for delusion is society itself, and it is in the nature of psychiatric institutions to be at risk of becoming servants of teh elite.


Extreme example: Many Chinese dissidents are in locked up in psychiatric hospitals.

Silly example: Muslim Extremist considered "deluded" in Austria, is "normal" in Iran The only point of contention that I have with your opinion is the case where the psychologist or psychiatrist is not diagnosing someone as delusional when they aren't actually delusional.

Actually I don't have much respect for psychologists as a group, but my statement stands, "if you are deluded, you are deluded." That's independent of subjective opinion.
mymnarorump is offline


Old 08-23-2008, 02:07 AM   #5
Gskdmidd

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
531
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Heraclitus


The US has classical military power, Europe has soft power.
Many argue that while soft power seems ineffective it has proven to have a greater impact on events.


Now let me draw an analogy between military power and mind control. Iran has strong and obvious control, the West has far more subtle methods.


It's the difference between 1984 and Brave New World.


Disclaimer: Am sleepy and on pain meds, may not be making sense. Will make sense tomorrow. I hope. I don't think it's as much "the West is better at hiding it's implied values." Many people in the West are delusional, and psychologist actually believe that a certain level of delusion is healthy. That said, I do not personally prefer to be delusional.
Gskdmidd is offline


Old 08-23-2008, 02:25 AM   #6
pushokalex1

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
418
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Kidicious
That said, I do not personally prefer to be delusional. Me neither, but this is also a delusion.
pushokalex1 is offline


Old 08-23-2008, 02:28 AM   #7
Pa33anger

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
713
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Heraclitus



You are right about that, but the obsession with entertainment, consumption and pleasure is an ideology in its own right. hmmm... I stand corrected.
Pa33anger is offline


Old 08-23-2008, 04:46 AM   #8
Guaranano

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
436
Senior Member
Default
Well, I would find it silly to listen to a bishop's opinion on biology, yet society finds no problem with some biologist discussing theology. Go figure.
Guaranano is offline


Old 08-23-2008, 05:25 PM   #9
Progniusis

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
477
Senior Member
Default
Nobody. We'd have to have a mature discussion consisting solely of people who know the subject. Horrific, I know. But don't worry, it won't happen anytime soon.
Progniusis is offline


Old 08-23-2008, 07:34 PM   #10
Elitiachirl

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
662
Senior Member
Default
And that calls for a Get serious, Kid.
Elitiachirl is offline


Old 08-23-2008, 07:42 PM   #11
hapasaparaz

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
461
Senior Member
Default
Not at all. Do you approve of the folks in Kansas screaming about how man was made in the image and likeness of God, God isn't a monkey, so Darwin must be wrong? I'm guessing not. Well, I don't approve of the inversion of that situation any more than I approve of that situation itself. I've no doubt that Dawkins is a splendid biologist, which is why he should stick to biology and STFU about things he doesn't know about.
hapasaparaz is offline


Old 08-23-2008, 08:53 PM   #12
chuecaloversvvp

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
378
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Elok
Not at all. Do you approve of the folks in Kansas screaming about how man was made in the image and likeness of God, God isn't a monkey, so Darwin must be wrong? I'm guessing not. Well, I don't approve of the inversion of that situation any more than I approve of that situation itself. I've no doubt that Dawkins is a splendid biologist, which is why he should stick to biology and STFU about things he doesn't know about. So nobody should ever write a book about anything they aren't a professional at? Nobody should ever write a book to simply express what they want to express, to tell the world, "This is what I think, and these are the reasons why I think so"?
chuecaloversvvp is offline


Old 08-23-2008, 10:10 PM   #13
Payodcapy542fro

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
426
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Elok
Not at all. Do you approve of the folks in Kansas screaming about how man was made in the image and likeness of God, God isn't a monkey, so Darwin must be wrong? I'm guessing not. I don't see that as the same thing. Such people really aren't interested finding out about truths. I've heard people like that say many times that it must be depressing to not believe in God. To me that means that they have to real interest in considering that their beliefs might be wrong.
Well, I don't approve of the inversion of that situation any more than I approve of that situation itself. I've no doubt that Dawkins is a splendid biologist, which is why he should stick to biology and STFU about things he doesn't know about. So you are comparing Dawkins to some redneck from Kansas? Nice.
Payodcapy542fro is offline


Old 08-24-2008, 02:08 AM   #14
Xbcofega

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
358
Senior Member
Default
Darwkins is an ass that gets other scientists' backs up. It's his smothering superiority attitude. I've got friends who had him as a lecturer and they just longed for him to be wrong on some point to bring him down a peg.
Xbcofega is offline


Old 08-24-2008, 01:53 PM   #15
elton

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
650
Senior Member
Default
Because I like what he's saying there :-). The man's a good scientist, the selfish gene is a fantastic concept that really strips out a lot of intellectual clutter and focuses you on an underlying dynamic of evolution and memes are useful (if far more nebulous) concepts. Dawkins can probably be blamed for the explosion in viral marketing.

But he's still an arsehole. I see him as an atheist fundamentalist, just as immovable as any religious fundamentalist. He's like it with lots of his pet theories though, just check out the long running and bitter battle with Gould over gradual evolution or punctured equilibrium evolution.

My lab has its more philosophical moments and one of our recent ones was on the nature of science. It's tempting, and very heady, to think that science = truth. It doesn't though. Science is observing and building models based on observation of what we think is going on. Any good scientist would ditch his model in favour of another one provided the new model did a better job of making sense of the data. Dawkins doesn't let go so easily and takes the battle into areas where making models is rather difficult.

(conversely, belief = truth isn't correct either. Religious models of the observable universe tend not to be changed so frequently)
elton is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:33 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity