Religious bonds divide some parents, kids

[Ethos]

Pamela Moss worships every Sunday at Messiah Baptist Church in Grand Rapids, Mich., where they preach the Bible straight up, sing the old hymns "and then let me get on with my day."
But her son, George, 24, is a fervent Evangelical, witnessing to strangers and praying "in a church that looks like a gym. To me, he's just out the gate," his mystified mom says.

Stephen Rochester, 32, grew up "Jewish lite" in St. Louis, says his father, Marty. "So I was stunned when Stephen went religious with a capital R," switching to his Hebrew name, Shaya, and adopting the black hat of Hasidic Jews.

Mari Beth Nolan, 22, grew up a "Christmas and Easter" Catholic. Now she plans to go to work at a missionary clinic in Ecuador, leaving her parents proud — but confused.

Small wonder parents are befuddled. Though Gallup polls dating to the '50s say young adults are less likely to attend services or say religion is very important in their lives, clergy of all stripes say they are seeing a small wave of young adults who are more pious than their parents. And they're getting an earful from boomer moms and dads who range from shocked to delighted.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-07-08-kids-parents-religion_N.htm

I originally heard of this through an NPR report. Quite an interesting dynamic.

Ethos

[Atticus]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-07-08-kids-parents-religion_N.htm

I originally heard of this through an NPR report. Quite an interesting dynamic.

EthosI don't know that it's all that new. My own young adulthood included a strong turn toward the evangelical, even though my father was a mainline sort of Christian most of his life and my mother never darkened the door of a church my children's choir wasn't singing a cantata that morning.

People search for meaning, often finding it in different places or at different levels than their parents did.

[mataj]

Matthew 10,36

[Groucho]

A "small wave" of kids who are more religious than their parents? Doesn't sound like a great trend to me.

[Atticus]

A "small wave" of kids who are more religious than their parents? Doesn't sound like a great trend to me.Secularism not making grand strides with each succeeding generation, moving from "victory unto victory?" How sad. ;)

[whatever]

Secularism not making grand strides with each succeeding generation, moving from "victory unto victory?" How sad. ;)

What does Secularism has to do with this? Are you not for Secularism as a governing system, Atticus?


Athiesm is a different thing. And I wouldn't worry about it. Some will find meaning in religion, some will find religions are meaningless, has always been the case through the ages.

[Atticus]

What does Secularism has to do with this? Are you not for Secularism as a governing system, Atticus?


Athiesm is a different thing. And I wouldn't worry about it. Some will find meaning in religion, some will find religions are meaningless, has always been the case through the ages.I'm talking about evangelical secularism--the kind that would chase any theism at all from the scene, calling it an embarrassing superstition.

It is the position of many that religion is a superstition humankind has not yet outgrown (as they have done). The fact that some children might be more religious than their parents frightens them.

BTW, what has this thread got to do with governing?

[whatever]

I'm talking about evangelical secularism--the kind that would chase any theism at all from the scene, calling it an embarrassing superstition.

It is the position of many that religion is a superstition humankind has not yet outgrown (as they have done). The fact that some children might be more religious than their parents frightens them.

That's what I call "athiesm". If god does not exist, anyone who believe in something that does not exist must be believing in a superstition. :)


BTW, what has this thread got to do with governing?

I don't know, secularism to me is about keeping religion out of decision makings - in government and civil affairs. So naturally, from your jibe at "secularism", my thoughts led me there directly. :(

This is the first time I've heard of evengelical secularism. What does it mean BTW? :flowers:

[Ethos]

I'm talking about evangelical secularism--the kind that would chase any theism at all from the scene, calling it an embarrassing superstition.

It is the position of many that religion is a superstition humankind has not yet outgrown (as they have done). The fact that some children might be more religious than their parents frightens them.


Religions is in fact a superstition, though I doubt it is something to be "outgrown" or that man will ever do such. There will almost certainly be one conflicting aspect of our world that is not understood by a group of individuals, despite whatever intellectual progress is made by humanity as a whole. Because of this religion will remain as a means of controlling threats which cannot otherwise be controlled.

"Evangelical secularism" is an interesting, if transparent, term.

Ethos

[whatever]

repeats.

[::Major_Baker::]

hmm, i honestly thought this article would be going the other way, and i was going to praise the kids for fighting their indoctrination.
oh well.

[Atticus]

That's what I call "athiesm". If god does not exist, anyone who believe in something that does not exist must be believing in a superstition. :) A perfectly logical syllogism. But like so much in this forum, it's not really something worth arguing about--is it? One set of ideas excludes the other--and once we've established that, there's not much more to talk about.
This is the first time I've heard of evengelical secularism. What does it mean BTW? :flowers:An evangelical Christian is one who not only believes the truth of his (particular brand of) religion, he finds it necessary--his highest duty even--to spread the Good News to others--even those who don't care to listen. The message of his religion trumps even good manners. Those who do not share his beliefs find him irritating. Conveniently, an example appears almost immediately:
Religions is in fact a superstition, though I doubt it is something to be "outgrown" or that man will ever do suchHere we have someone breaking into the conversation to insist on the rightness of his point of view and the importance of putting that view front-and-center. I find this easily as irritating and objectionable as someone coming to my door to invite me to his church.

It's one thing to believe privately and speak of things when asked. It's quite another to inject your views in other places and insult with words like "superstitious" those persons who disagree. Secular people often find "you're going to hell" messages objectionable and social unacceptable. Others believe that they, conversely, have every right to disabuse people of their beliefs--and on pretty much the same basis. Christians believe that if everyone were a believer, this might lead to God's kingdom on earth. Secularists (or atheists, if you like) believe that human success would be most furthered by a world in which every person accepted science and reason (and only science and reason). If you believe this and work toward it--even to the point of using belittling terms like "superstition" at every opportunity, that's evangelism for a secular viewpoint.

I would point out the rules of this forum (http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/announcement.php?f=10&a=10), which insist that we treat each other's ideas with respect. Just as we don't allow "you're going to hell" threads in this forum (we get them and I or other moderators delete them), so we should expect non-religious members to respect the views of those who are religious. Something tells me that calling all belief in God (a fairly widespread idea among humankind) a "superstition" qualifies as disrespect.

[::Major_Baker::]

Atticus.
I disagree. He is calling it as he sees it.
Someone can state that evolution is false, which many of us believe in, and has the right to do so. Seeing as how evolution and religion are both simply theories, I would expect you to defend evolution in the same manner. Would you adhere to that should someone claim that evolution is a superstition?

[Ethos]

It's one thing to believe privately and speak of things when asked. It's quite another to inject your views in other places and insult with words like "superstitious" those persons who disagree. Secular people often find "you're going to hell" messages objectionable and social unacceptable. Others believe that they, conversely, have every right to disabuse people of their beliefs--and on pretty much the same basis. Christians believe that if everyone were a believer, this might lead to God's kingdom on earth. Secularists (or atheists, if you like) believe that human success would be most furthered by a world in which every person accepted science and reason (and only science and reason). If you believe this and work toward it--even to the point of using belittling terms like "superstition" at every opportunity, that's evangelism for a secular viewpoint.

Again, I would point out the rules of this forum, which insist that we treat each other's ideas with respect. Just as we don't allow "you're going to hell" threads in this forum (we get them and I or other moderators delete them), so we should expect non-religious members to respect the views of those who are religious. Something tells me that calling all belief in God (a fairly widespread idea among humankind) a "superstition" qualifies as disrespect.

As is often repeated, this is a forum where "breaking in and injecting your viewpoint" is encouraged. I don't mean any disrespect in this case, however I don't believe the simple label of "superstition" is inherently disrespectful. It is simply a well-defined word that applies to religious faith. Inferring its use as an insult is less a product of my intent as a signal of your own perception, in much the same way "ignorant" is seen as a negative term, though it applies to each of us without exception.

In any event, "evangelical secularist" could also be considered disrespectful. I have little need to approach strangers with these arguments out of context, but please do understand I will propose and discuss my beliefs (or non-beliefs) in the forum at points that seem appropriate to do so, such as this thread.

Ethos

[Ethos]

Atticus.
I disagree. He is calling it as he sees it.


Keep in mind that "calling it like I see it" is often used to defend a wide variety of vulgar expression. I fully understand Atticus's point and am willing to alter my language to better convey my ideas while avoiding unnecessary offense.

In this case I simply have no better terms to use than "superstition", a word I should point out was first posted by Atticus himself, and to which I was responding in kind.

Ethos

[::Major_Baker::]

look at thie definition of superstition:
1 a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superstition


actually i think Ethos was pretty accurate on this.

[Atticus]

"Superstitious" is not disrespectful. Really?

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contraryhttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/superstition

In calling me (and over half of humanity) "superstitious," you are saying we're "ignorant," "irrational" and are misled by a "false conception."

Were someone from one or another religion to say this about you (or about a believer in some other religion), I daresay you would find it disrespectful. Insulting even.

[Ethos]

"Superstitious" is not disrespectful. Really?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/superstition

In calling me (and over half of humanity) "superstitious," you are saying we're "ignorant," "irrational" and are misled by a "false conception."

Were someone from one or another religion to say this about you (or about a believer in some other religion), I daresay you would find it disrespectful. Insulting even.

Could we not apply the second definition of "superstition", or is only the first acceptable?

In any event, I am ignorant and to some degree led by irrational or otherwise false beliefs. Becoming indignant over truth isn't helpful. When faced with discovering a personal, irrational perception, I would rather find a way of correcting that error than continue my ignorance on the matter.

Ethos

[Atticus]

Could we not apply the second definition of "superstition", or is only the first acceptable?

In any event, I am ignorant and to some degree led by irrational or otherwise false beliefs. Becoming indignant over truth isn't helpful. When faced with discovering a personal, irrational perception, I would rather find a way of correcting that error than continue my ignorance on the matter.

EthosIt would be inappropriate for such a messages to come in this forum.

[::Major_Baker::]

Were someone from one or another religion to say this about you (or about a believer in some other religion), I daresay you would find it disrespectful. Insulting even.

inherantly, isn't this what you essentially do anyways?
You can't really believe that a Wiccan belief system holds any merit, since your religion most likely tells you it doesn't...right? Therefore you are dismissing it as silly, ignorant, and superstitious.

[Ethos]

It would be inappropriate for such a messages to come in this forum.

That would be up to moderation, of course. I would simply have no problem with that message.

In this case, I wish to understand your ultimate position. Are you telling me that when someone makes the following quote:


It is the position of many that religion is a superstition humankind has not yet outgrown (as they have done). The fact that some children might be more religious than their parents frightens them.

My only appropriate response to this is to deny religion is a "superstition", and therefore agree and support your own perspective, lest I risk breaking a forum rule?

Ethos

[Atticus]

inherantly, isn't this what you essentially do anyways?
You can't really believe that a Wiccan belief system holds any merit, since your religion most likely tells you it doesn't...right? Therefore you are dismissing it as silly, ignorant, and superstitious.You don't know what I believe, because I've done very little to discuss "my religion" here. What little I have said (were you to read it) would not support your statement here.

In any case, were you're statements here accurate, the rules of the forum would prevent me from expressing them.

[Atticus]

That would be up to moderation, of course. I would simply have no problem with that message.

In this case, I wish to understand your ultimate position. Are you telling me that when someone makes the following quote:



My only appropriate response to this is to deny religion is a "superstition", and therefore agree and support your own perspective, lest I risk breaking a forum rule?

EthosHmm...well you could talk about "them" in the third person. You could deny being frightened. We could have a rather lively discussion about just how the dynamics of religious belief flow from one generation to the next.

What you can't do is disrespect the beliefs of either believers or non-believers. I wasn't speaking to beliefs at all but to persons.

[Ethos]

Hmm...well you could talk about "them" in the third person. You could deny being frightened. We could have a rather lively discussion about just how the dynamics of religious belief flow from one generation to the next.

What you can't do is disrespect the beliefs of either believers or non-believers. I wasn't speaking to beliefs at all but to persons.

So calling other persons "frightened" of religious faith is respectful?

[::Major_Baker::]

You don't know what I believe, because I've done very little to discuss "my religion" here. What little I have said (were you to read it) would not support your statement here.

In any case, were you're statements here accurate, the rules of the forum would prevent me from expressing them.

Ok, you can try the mysterious 'you don't know me' route, but I'm judging you in this case based on my past experiences.
I stand by my statement--religion, in its very nature, is subjective, so i fully think its entire existence should be open to scrutiny, as long as it's not completely insulting. Calling it superstitious, is a view which many people hold, and therefore is as just as valid as the view from the pious side that it is the proper way to live.

Or, feel free to challenge the notion that religion is not synonymous with susperstition.

[Atticus]

Ok, you can try the mysterious 'you don't know me' route, but I'm judging you in this case based on my past experiences. But not past experiences WITH ME. If you judge me by your experiences with others, then all you're doing is stereotyping me, a kind of prejudice. Everyone is an individual and deserves to be treated as such.

I stand by my statement--religion, in its very nature, is subjective, so i fully think its entire existence should be open to scrutiny, as long as it's not completely insulting.Okay, so it can be a little insulting? How much insult is required before it becomes objectionable to you? Calling it superstitious, is a view which many people hold, and therefore is as just as valid as the view from the pious side that it is the proper way to live. Many people hold many views--and those views sometimes come into conflict. That's when a bit of diplomacy is in order, and that's what I'm asking for here. Many people believe that any deviation from their own belief system imperils the souls of others. I'd object just as strongly to that viewpoint on this forum, and I have. That's what "respect the ideas of others" means.
Or, feel free to challenge the notion that religion is not synonymous with susperstition.Except that my objection is that the term "supersitious" is, per se, insulting--and I've proven it with a definition. I don't need to prove that religion isn't superstition--only that the term "superstition" is unnecessarily negative and constitutes disrespect.

[Ethos]

Except that my objection is that the term "supersitious" is, per se, insulting--and I've proven it with a definition. I don't need to prove that religion isn't superstition--only that the term "superstition" is unnecessarily negative and constitutes disrespect.

You have used a narrow definition and applied your personal interpretation of it, so as a result you find it negative. I have already explained to you that the second definition of the two you listed is more appropriate. If you still find the language objectionable, then I suppose there is little that can be done to improve the damage. My sincere apologies if you were offended, however I will not retract a perfectly accurate descriptive simply because you find it uncomfortable or have chosen to extract a single definition among many to attach your debate.

Ethos

[Atticus]

You have used a narrow definition and applied your personal interpretation of it, so as a result you find it negative. I have already explained to you that the second definition of the two you listed is more appropriate. If you still find the language objectionable, then I suppose there is little that can be done to improve the damage. My sincere apologies if you were offended, however I will not retract a perfectly accurate descriptive simply because you find it uncomfortable or have chosen to extract a single definition among many to attach your debate.

EthosAnd yet that definition is part of what we mean when we use the word--you can't pick and choose the senses you mean unless you qualify them when you use them--language doesn't work that way.

I haven't applied a "personal interpretation." I think it's the obvious one. In fact, there weren't "many" senses, there were two. The one I chose was the first one--which for that dictionary means the most common. When we say "superstitious," we certainly aren't saying something good.

[::Major_Baker::]

But not past experiences WITH ME. If you judge me by your experiences with others, then all you're doing is stereotyping me, a kind of prejudice. Everyone is an individual and deserves to be treated as such.
I'm drawing a logical conclusion based on past experiences.

Okay, so it can be a little insulting? How much insult is required before it becomes objectionable to you? Many people hold many views--and those views sometimes come into conflict. That's when a bit of diplomacy is in order, and that's what I'm asking for here. Many people believe that any deviation from their own belief system imperils the souls of others. I'd object just as strongly to that viewpoint on this forum, and I have. That's what "respect the ideas of others" means.

I understand what you are getting at. Perhaps I'm playing the devils advocate(no parallels drawn here please) :flowers:

But why don't you respect the idea that religon is purely superstitious? This is a two way street--this idea is just as valuable as the one that states that Religion is the only true way to live one's life. It's not my fault that the definition may be offensive to you.

Even though you may be insulted by this notion, others are insulted by your espousments of what you think is right. What's important is that you personally know that what you believe is right. To expect others not to even challenge that is unfair.

Except that my objection is that the term "supersitious" is, per se, insulting--and I've proven it with a definition. I don't need to prove that religion isn't superstition--only that the term "superstition" is unnecessarily negative and constitutes disrespect.
No it's not. The notion of disrespect is subjective, and unique to your interpretation.
'Superstitious' is not a derogatory word--someone who is admitedly superstitious would probably concur with me here.
You may may find it insulting, but I find it quite accurate. Who's the judge on this?

All I am saying is that this should be just as valid as an idea as any other. Think about it.

[Lumpen Prole]

If you ask me, belief in the supernatural is superstition. If you have a problem with that then I request that you refrain from responding to my post. I am willing and able to defend my position, and I am happy to discuss and debate the issue (this is a forum, after all) with anyone no matter if they agree or disagree. I disagree that stem cell research is murder or that gay marriage is immoral, but I understand that there are people who express these viewpoints, and it's rather childish to accuse them of disrespect for simply stating there views.

I would like to make it clear that from now on I will simply ignore anyone who accuses me of "gnawing" at their beliefs by stating what I believe to be true about the universe or the metaphysical claims of others. If you're mature enough to discuss topics such as God and religon - a topic that is often emotionally charged - then I welcome all viewpoints, so long as you also welcome mine. If any staff member contends that that type of a discussion is in violation of the forum rules then I question the validity of the position of authority they are in.

[Ethos]

And yet that definition is part of what we mean when we use the word--you can't pick and choose the senses you mean unless you qualify them when you use them--language doesn't work that way.

I haven't applied a "personal interpretation." I think it's the obvious one. In fact, there weren't "many" senses, there were two. The one I chose was the first one--which for that dictionary means the most common. When we say "superstitious," we certainly aren't saying something good.

The dictionary I used has 5:


su·per·sti·tion /ˌsupərˈstɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soo-per-stish-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superstition

Webster seems to have an even more direct link to religion in their definition:


1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Whether you realize it or not, you are applying a subjective interpretation to a static concept. Superstition is not an inherently negative word and my qualifications (or lack thereof) did not imply a negative meaning to the term. You may not have completely understood my position, but rather than ask for clarification you proceeded to assume an unstated intent and formed a defensive position around what you perceive to be an insult.

"Superstititon" is not a good or bad word. I should again remind you it was you who used it in the first place. I found the term accurate as to its application, but your dismissal of the usage incorrect, which is why I provided the response which has apparently created this present issue.

Ethos

[Atticus]

I'm drawing a logical conclusion based on past experiences. This is the very definition of stereotyping..

I understand what you are getting at. Perhaps I'm playing the devils advocate(no parallels drawn here please) :flowers:

But why don't you respect the idea that religon is purely superstitious? Because it's an insult. This is a two way street--this idea is just as valuable as the one that states that Religion is the only true way to live one's life. I would probably censure a member who said something like this. In fact, I have. It's not my fault that the definition may be offensive to you.So in order to be fair to all ideas, I have to accept insults to ideas? I don't think so. This is the whole "tolerating intolerance" notion, and I'd challenge you to apply it to an idea you think is important. For example, hate speech is just another idea, right? Therefore we need to tolerate it?
Even though you may be insulted by this notion, others are insulted by your espousments of what you think is right. What's important is that you personally know that what you believe is right. To expect others not to even challenge that is unfair. I'm not opposed to people espousing what they think is right. I'm opposed (and I would argue this forum's rules oppose) insults to the ideas of others. If you get a religious member to argue with you on this point, fine. Just don't do it in an insulting way.
No it's not. The notion of disrespect is subjective, and unique to your interpretation.
'Superstitious' is not a derogatory word--someone who is admitedly superstitious would probably concur with me here.
You may may find it insulting, but I find it quite accurate. Who's the judge on this? Good question. A term can be both accurate and insulting, after all. I can call a member a idiot or imply it very strongly. WS won't allow that. In this forum specifically, we also extend that protection to ideas. So I can espouse any idea I like--the restriction is how I treat the ideas of others.
All I am saying is that this should be just as valid as an idea as any other. Think about it.I have. The rules of this forum were very carefully considered. All I'm asking is that you follow them.

[Atticus]

The dictionary I used has 5:



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superstition

Webster seems to have an even more direct link to religion in their definition:Merriam Webster is the one I used above.

Ok, so we go to dueling dictionaries. Even yours is salted with terms like "not [...] reason," "ominous," "irrational," and "blindly."
Whether you realize it or not, you are applying a subjective interpretation to a static concept. There are no static concepts anymore than there is language that doesn't change.
Superstition is not an inherently negative word This flies in the face of the common sense use of the term, which is decidedly negative. It's not my little subjective view--it's the obvious one.
and my qualifications (or lack thereof) did not imply a negative meaning to the term. You may not have completely understood my position, but rather than ask for clarification you proceeded to assume an unstated intent and formed a defensive position around what you perceive to be an insult.If you called me an ****head, I wouldn't ask what that meant either.
"Superstititon" is not a good or bad word. I'm not saying that the curse filter should eliminate it.
I should again remind you it was you who used it in the first place. I found the term accurate as to its application, but your dismissal of the usage incorrect, which is why I provided the response which has apparently created this present issue.

EthosIt's important to use words carefully, particularly about subjects like this. The fact that you used a term that is obviously insulting--it suggests that the ideas associated with it are unreasonable and based on falsehoods--tells more than you'll admit.

When we use a term, we bring to bear all the senses of that term. Words are the way we conflate ideas into single entities. When you use a term that is, on its face, insulting to anyone who considers himself a creature of reason, you are insulting.

This seems to me very much like the first scene in Romeo and Juliet, where the servant of one house says to a servant from an opposing house "I do not bite my thumb at you, sir. But I bite my thumb, sir."

[::Major_Baker::]

I'm not breaking the rules. No one here has.

This case involves your perception of an insult vs. a flat out insult.

This is an insult: all religous people are stupid.
This is an idea: religion is based on superstition.

My idea may be valid, so it should be treated as such.

the hate speech analogy doesn't fly because hate speech is directly insulting a person or group, which is clearly not allowed here. Discussing ideas is.

I am commenting on a group, and you are drawing a conclusion that is was a derogatory comment, based on your interpretation.

If you expanded on your notion that athiesm is based on fear, i would gladly field that and not consider it an insult, but instead an idea.

[Atticus]

I'm not breaking the rules. No one here has.

This case involves your perception of an insult vs. a flat out insult.

This is an insult: all religous people are stupid.
This is an idea: religion is based on superstition.Read the forum rules. In this particular forum (Religion and Philosophy) we offer the same protection to ideas that we do to persons. That's the point.

My idea may be valid, so it should be treated as such.

the hate speech analogy doesn't fly because hate speech is directly insulting a person or group, which is clearly not allowed here. Discussing ideas is.Yes, but we have to do that without invalidating an idea with an insult from the start. If you expanded on your notion that athiesm is based on fear, i would gladly field that and not consider it an insult, but instead an idea.I never made that claim.

[Ethos]

This flies in the face of the common sense use of the term, which is decidedly negative. It's not my little subjective view--it's the obvious one.
If you called me an ****head, I wouldn't ask what that meant either.
I'm not saying that the curse filter should eliminate it.
It's important to use words carefully, particularly about subjects like this. The fact that you used a term that is obviously insulting--it suggests that the ideas associated with it are unreasonable and based on falsehoods--tells more than you'll admit.


By all means, provide me with a term that describes religion as a collection of beliefs based on irrational conclusions resulting from ignorance of natural phenomena and human psychology in a less "insulting" way, and I will use that word instead.

No doubt you find "irrational" and "ignorance" to be insulting. Unfortunately these too are words which have very clear and neutral definitions that do apply in this instance.

Perhaps you should examine why it is you feel being called an "***head" is the rhetorical equivalent of claiming religion as superstition.

Ethos

[Atticus]

By all means, provide me with a term that describes religion as a collection of beliefs based on irrational conclusions resulting from ignorance of natural phenomena and human psychology in a less "insulting" way, and I will use that word instead.

No doubt you find "irrational" and "ignorance" to be insulting. Unfortunately these too are words which have very clear and neutral definitions that do apply in this instance.

Perhaps you should examine why it is you feel being called an "***head" is the rhetorical equivalent of claiming religion as superstition.

EthosAgain, read the forum rules and abide by them.

There are lots of ways to say what you mean, just as there are ways of saying another member is loopy without insulting them.

The old "that doesn't conform to my conception of the universe" mode works.
"I don't see how"
"As far as I know it doesn't make sense to say"

Think diplomacy.

[::Major_Baker::]

"As far as I know it doesn't make sense to say that conceptually, religion and superstition are not comparable and therefore should not be discussed on a religous discussion forum."

We're not breaking any rules here.

[towski]

"As far as I know it doesn't make sense to say that conceptually, religion and superstition are not comparable and therefore should not be discussed on a religous discussion forum."

We're not breaking any rules here.

Atticus is referring to the special rules we have put in place for the Religion & Philosophy forum, which are located in a sticky at the top of the forum itself. We put special rules in place as the R&P had become a place we were spending entirely too much time having to discuss and enforce the existing rules.

Atticus appears to feel that addressing his or others faith as "superstition" is violating the request that we treat each other with respect.

Whether or not you, or I, or Ethos, or whomever agree that said statement is disrespectful, it rather obviously is perceived that way. I'd like to think that such feelings would lead us to discontinue the use of such terminology, out of respect for each other and our beliefs.

:shrug:

[Lumpen Prole]

If you ask me, belief in the supernatural is superstition. If you have a problem with that then I request that you refrain from responding to my post. I am willing and able to defend my position, and I am happy to discuss and debate the issue (this is a forum, after all) with anyone no matter if they agree or disagree. I disagree that stem cell research is murder or that gay marriage is immoral, but I understand that there are people who express these viewpoints, and it's rather childish to accuse them of disrespect for simply stating there views.

I would like to make it clear that from now on I will simply ignore anyone who accuses me of "gnawing" at their beliefs by stating what I believe to be true about the universe or the metaphysical claims of others. If you're mature enough to discuss topics such as God and religon - a topic that is often emotionally charged - then I welcome all viewpoints, so long as you also welcome mine. If any staff member contends that that type of a discussion is in violation of the forum rules then I question the validity of the position of authority they are in.

I will add that if you are unwilling to hear criticism of your faith then stop whining and don't post in these threads. I'm open to criticism of my atheism and I am willing to defend my stance via dialogue. This is a forum. That is what we do. Get over it.

[::Major_Baker::]

'such terminology'?

I'll stop now, as I am not trying to offend Atticus.
At the end of the day, please just be aware that Whistlestopper is trying to disallow the use of the word 'superstition'.

[Ethos]

Atticus appears to feel that addressing his or others faith as "superstition" is violating the request that we treat each other with respect.

Whether or not you, or I, or Ethos, or whomever agree that said statement is disrespectful, it rather obviously is perceived that way. I'd like to think that such feelings would lead us to discontinue the use of such terminology, out of respect for each other and our beliefs.

:shrug:

With due respect to Atticus, I do not believe the language is quite so flexible.

As an example, if I were to call the belief in bad luck due to breaking a mirror a "superstition", would this be viewed as a rule infraction?

Ethos

[Atticus]

With due respect to Atticus, I do not believe the language is quite so flexible.

As an example, if I were to call the belief in bad luck due to breaking a mirror a "superstition", would this be viewed as a rule infraction?

EthosIf there were a belief system that included this in its teachings, I would say yes. If it's merely a notion based on an individual quirk, then no. Still, I'd probably avoid calling this superstition just out of respect.

Comparing an idle notion to a system of thought with a long history and wide adherence is just the kind of disrespect to which I refer.

You might ask for the basis of their beliefs vis a vis the concept of luck and the causality of mirror-breaking, of course, and discuss it with them if they were willing.

[Atticus]

'such terminology'?

I'll stop now, as I am not trying to offend Atticus.
At the end of the day, please just be aware that Whistlestopper is trying to disallow the use of the word 'superstition'.In the Religion and Philosophy forum only. Yes.

[Dangerrmouse]

How about "supernatural", or "superfluous" or "superannuated"?

[Atticus]

How about "supernatural", or "superfluous" or "superannuated"?Thinking just on the fly here, I'd react this way:

Supernatural means simply beyond the natural world, which a theism surely would be.

Superfluous means 'an unnecessary extra'. I think most theists would regard this as insulting.

Superannuated means "retired" or "no longer needed." Again, I think most theists would find that term offensive.

On the other hand, it would be perfectly reasonable for someone to call religion "superfluous" or "superannuated" for themselves (e.g., "In my own experience, religion is superannuated and superfluous notion") because it refers to one's own beliefs and experiences. To say, though that "all notions of God are superannuated today" would probably be offensive.

Again, I haven't had a chance to think about these terms for very long, but that's my initial impression.

[lawman]

I think Atticus is overstating what "respect" means, and suggesting an interpretation of the rules that would encourage oversensitive reactions and shut down meaningful debate. Let's take a fresh look at the Religion Forum's special addendum to the Rules, courtesy of Up2Date (emphasis mine)...
As always, we ask that you follow the general forum rules (http://www.whistlestopper.com/index.php?page=Rules). Given the tone of some of the discussions in this forum, please consider the following as well:

1. Treat each other and everyone’s beliefs with respect.
2. The primary purpose of this forum is debate and discussion. That means responding to each other’s criticisms and concerns. Failure to recognize and respond to the arguments of others (or maintain a polite silence) is trolling, as is repeatedly "calling" for another member to respond.
3. Do not proselytize. This means entering a discussion with the sole purpose of converting others to your own beliefs. Discussions on this forum must involve some give and take. Members who cannot display a degree of religious tolerance, and show the same respect to other ideologies as we ask for political debate, are advised to avoid this forum.

Ways to ensure that you are maintaining a civil discussion:

* Debate the topic not the person
* If you feel strongly about something, write the post but wait a few moments, take your mind off the forum and have a chance to re-read it before submitting.
* Remember to keep perspective.
I think it's entirely fair to say that referring to specific beliefs as "supersition," a word that is by definition descriptive and not pejorative (as Ethos has cited upthread)... and keeping in mind the need to maintain a broad perspective, focus on the topic, respond to points raised, and foster ongoing discussion... is not a personal attack or an offensive generalization, nor in any way "disrespectful."

To say that "respect" requires not mentioning anything that might be perceived to reflect negatively on any particular belief system is tantamount to saying that respect amounts to "agreement or silence," at which point discussion becomes impossible. It would bar us, e.g., even from quoting Einstein's remark that "the idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

(To call something a "silly" or "stupid" superstition, perhaps, would be disrespectful. But the distinction here is fairly clear -- that's the point at which the remark itself starts to interfere with continuing civil discussion, rather than the reaction to the remark doing so.)

Furthermore, I think it's worth citing one of the key points made early in Richard Dawkin's book The God Delusion:A widespread assumption, which nearly everybody in our society accepts -- the non-religious included -- is that religious faith is especially vulnerable to offence and should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect, in a different class from the respect that nay human being should pay to any other.

...I an not in favour of offending or hurting anyone just for the sake of it. But I am intrigued and mystified by the disproportionate privileging of religion in our otherwise secular societies... As H.L. Mencken said: "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
I think Dawkins has it exactly right. And if we pretend that believers are so sensitive they can't tolerate neutral descriptions of their beliefs, nor requests to defend those beliefs on their merits, then this forum loses its very purpose.

[Ethos]

If there were a belief system that included this in its teachings, I would say yes. If it's merely a notion based on an individual quirk, then no. Still, I'd probably avoid calling this superstition just out of respect.

Comparing an idle notion to a system of thought with a long history and wide adherence is just the kind of disrespect to which I refer.


An idle notion? How many millions of people do you suppose avoid breaking mirrors, walking under ladders, and following black cats for the sake of irrational fears?

The crux of this matter is here, valid comparison or not. If you cannot call the fear of breaking a mirror "superstition" just in case doing so offends someone, just what do you suggest we call it?

Ethos

[Atticus]

I think Atticus is overstating what "respect" means, and suggesting an interpretation of the rules that would encourage oversensitive reactions and shut down meaningful debate. Let's take a fresh look at the Religion Forum's special addendum to the Rules, courtesy of Up2Date (emphasis mine)...

I think it's entirely fair to say that referring to specific beliefs as "supersition," a word that is by definition descriptive and not pejorative (as Ethos has cited upthread)... and keeping in mind the need to maintain a broad perspective, focus on the topic, respond to points raised, and foster ongoing discussion... is not a personal attack or an offensive generalization, nor in any way "disrespectful."

To say that "respect" requires not mentioning anything that might be perceived to reflect negatively on any particular belief system is tantamount to saying that respect amounts to "agreement or silence," at which point discussion becomes impossible. It would bar us, e.g., even from quoting Einstein's remark that "the idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

(To call something a "silly" or "stupid" superstition, perhaps, would be disrespectful. But the distinction here is fairly clear -- that's the point at which the remark itself starts to interfere with continuing civil discussion, rather than the reaction to the remark doing so.)

Furthermore, I think it's worth citing one of the key points made early in Richard Dawkin's book The God Delusion:
I think Dawkins has it exactly right. And if we pretend that believers are so sensitive they can't tolerate neutral descriptions of their beliefs, nor requests to defend those beliefs on their merits, then this forum loses its very purpose.Actually, this forum loses its very purpose when two posters, both of whom base their ideas on a particular notion (the authority of a text, for example) cannot engage in a discussion of the ideas associated with that text without other posters who don't accept that text intervening to call their ideas "superstitious" and valueless. That happened a lot before the implementation of these rules.

Your interpretation of the rules you've sighted leaves them without any force at all. They might as well not be there.

You can certainly argue against a particular notion by pointing out that is contradicts another notion. Or that that YOU can't accept it because you don't accept some underlying premise. Pretending that NO ONE find rational sense in an idea because YOU don't accept its underlying premises is disrespectful on its face.

And trying to provide a basis for your argument grounded in a book whose TITLE is even more disrespectful to the idea of God seems like a bit of a tautology.

[Atticus]

An idle notion? How many millions of people do you suppose avoid breaking mirrors, walking under ladders, and following black cats for the sake of irrational fears?

The crux of this matter is here, valid comparison or not. If you cannot call the fear of breaking a mirror "superstition" just in case doing so offends someone, just what do you suggest we call it?

EthosWhy call it anything? Why not explore the idea with your opponent or leave it alone?

[Lumpen Prole]

We are exploring the idea. Some of us have simply concluded that it is irrational to consider the number 13 unlucky, just as it is to believe that Poseidon was responsible for Hurricane Katrina or that some guy rose from the dead in cave somewhere in the Middle East. If you believe that any of these things have a rational basis, I welcome you to present your argument. I disagree, and likewise you can expect me to defend my position. Religion does not get immunity from criticism or language that happens to upset your sensibilities. If there was no intention to insult you and the words were applied according to an accepted defintion, then you're going to have to live with it.

[Lumpen Prole]

Why call it anything? Why not explore the idea with your opponent or leave it alone?

I'm sorry, but that's absurd. I'm not going to refrain from using adjectives that accurately convey my point just because you disagree with my conclusions. Puh-leeze.

[Atticus]

We are exploring the idea. Some of us have simply concluded that it is irrational to consider the number 13 unlucky, just as it is to believe that Poseidon was responsible for Hurricane Katrina or that some guy rose from the dead in cave somewhere in the Middle East. If you believe that any of these things have a rational basis, I welcome you to present your argument. I disagree, and likewise you can expect me to defend my position. Religion does not get immunity from criticism or language that happens to upset your sensibilities. Yes, actually it does. In this forum. And it has for some time. There have been members who've been banned because they could not follow the rules of this forum. If there was no intention to insult you and the words were applied according to an accepted defintion, then you're going to have to live with it.No actually, I don't. The result of my acquiescing to this idea would be to run any self-respecting believer out of this forum. I won't allow that to happen.

[Atticus]

I'm sorry, but that's absurd. I'm not going to refrain from using adjectives that accurately convey my point just because you disagree with my conclusions. Puh-leeze.You will refrain from disrespecting the ideas of others in this forum.

[Atticus]

There are a great many members who have been upset at the way this forum is moderated. We explain our reasons to them but, at some point, the discussion has to stop and moderators have to enforce the rules as they see fit.

[Ethos]

Post removed by author.

[Atticus]

Because we have to call it something, otherwise we are incapable of having the discussion. I understand the rules and agree with their purpose, but I believe you are carrying the interpretation too far. If the intent of this particular forum is a discussion of philosophical concepts, yet we are unable to communicate our various perspectives related to those ideas, it is effectively pointless to attempt any form of dialogue beyond redundant agreements.

Actively insulting someone's faith is one thing, but using proper terminology to support a viewpoint is another. Carried to a similar extreme, virtually any adjective is subject to review. In order to ensure complete "civility" in this context, opposing viewpoints should be removed entirely.

EthosNot at all. So long as you make clear that you are speaking based on your own subjectivity, you can say a great many things. It's when one makes statements that LACK a nod to subjectivity that we get into trouble.

[Ethos]

Not at all. So long as you make clear that you are speaking based on your own subjectivity, you can say a great many things. It's when one makes statements that LACK a nod to subjectivity that we get into trouble.

At this point I simply capitulate to moderation authority. Nothing of value can come of continued argument in this case.

Ethos

[Dutch]

How about "supernatural", or "superfluous" or "superannuated"?

We're talking about religion not socialism. Try to keep up with the conversation will ya? dm. :cool:

[Lumpen Prole]

You will refrain from disrespecting the ideas of others in this forum.

Right. Kindly point out to me where I intentionally insulted someone and I will stand corrected.

[whatever]

Not at all. So long as you make clear that you are speaking based on your own subjectivity, you can say a great many things. It's when one makes statements that LACK a nod to subjectivity that we get into trouble.

I think it was clear from the start that Ethos' view were based on his belief system - that there is no god. As such, it's only logical that he thinks religion is a form of superstition. The subjectivity was implicit. I'm sure that as an intelligent person, you took that into account, and should base your interpretation of his statements around that. I'm abit puzzled why you didn't.

I have to agree with the others, if we take your interpreation of the rules as is, there's really no way to have a meaningful discussion. This is a forum, we will inevitably insult each other, the more important thing is that we attempt to listen to each other. I think Ethos shew that by listening to your complain that he's being insulting with the use of the word superstition, however he also can make his own judgement, I expect him to defend his own belief (in this case it's his use of the word superstition). That's all the considertaion he owns you, because you are being subjective as much as him. Of course, at this point, the ideal conclusion is that both parties would find that they have been arguing sematics and give up the arguement as useless. :)

[lawman]

Okay. Let's take this one step at a time...
Actually, this forum loses its very purpose when two posters, both of whom base their ideas on a particular notion (the authority of a text, for example) cannot engage in a discussion of the ideas associated with that text without other posters who don't accept that text intervening to call their ideas "superstitious" and valueless...
Looking back at the start of the thread, it was started by Ethos -- so it's fairly clear that this wasn't just a conversation between two people who buy into "the authority of a text." In fact, the topic he laid out relied on no spiritual text; it was more about cultural differences, based on a USA Today article he linked (and an NPR story he'd heard on the same topic).

The article itself is a classic "thumbsucker" piece, trying to cobble up some sort of generalizable trend out of scant evidence, in this case purporting to show an emerging generational conflict over degrees of piety... but even the article itself has to admit that "Gallup polls dating to the '50s say young adults are less likely to attend services or say religion is very important in their lives..."; it just proceeds thereafter to set aside that actual statistical trend in favor of anecdotes provided by individual "clergy of all stripes." IOW, so far as I can tell, there's no there there.

Now, looking for "disrespectful" remarks, I'd have to say that the first one in the thread actually came from Atticus, when he posted this:Secularism not making grand strides with each succeeding generation, moving from "victory unto victory?" How sad. ;)
... thus both drawing conclusions not in evidence from the article, and imputing positions to unspecified opponents that were not actually taken by anyone in the thread, all in a clearly antagonistic if sarcastic tone.

Moreover, it was Atticus who first introduced the term "superstition" to the thread, in this post:I'm talking about evangelical secularism--the kind that would chase any theism at all from the scene, calling it an embarrassing superstition.

It is the position of many that religion is a superstition humankind has not yet outgrown (as they have done). The fact that some children might be more religious than their parents frightens them.
...making what could easily be argued is an "offensive generalization" about an (again) unspecified group of opponents, calling it "the position of many" (a classic editorial-writer's move when setting up a strawman) and then imputing that these unnamed opponents are "frightened" by the purported trend.

Even if none of this amounts to a rule violation, it clearly seems intended to provoke a response.

It should hardly be a surprise, then, when a response was forthcoming -- when Ethos, the thread-starter, offered a calm and civil post opining that "superstition" (Atticus's choice of word, remember) is in fact an appropriate descriptor for religious faith, but nevertheless that (contrary to the imputed "opposition" view) he didn't think it would necessarily ever be "outgrown."

Oddly enough, Atticus then accused Ethos (the thread-starter) of "breaking into the conversation," and called the eminently foreseeable response to his own provocative posts "irritating and objectionable"... so much so, apparently, that he immediately invoked The Rules.

And things then veered off into a semantic discussion of word definitions and questions of what is and isn't insulting. Lumpen Prole posted an attempt to restore an actual on-topic discussion:If you ask me, belief in the supernatural is superstition. If you have a problem with that then I request that you refrain from responding to my post. I am willing and able to defend my position, and I am happy to discuss and debate the issue (this is a forum, after all) with anyone no matter if they agree or disagree...
...but Atticus declines to respond to that, instead delving into a discussion of how to enforce the Rules (which is precisely the sort of digression Towski says the amended rules were supposed to prevent). He even asserts at one point that "In this particular forum (Religion and Philosophy) we offer the same protection to ideas that we do to persons," a claim the actual language of the Rules (which I quoted in full) certainly does not support, and which quite frankly is impossible on its face.

This is a forum for the discussion of ideas. It is inevitable that people will disagree about those ideas. The purpose of the Rules is to make sure that disagreement is done in a civil and considered way, so as to foster more and better discussion -- not to shut down discussion because everyone's trying to self-censor themselves against anything that might somehow be perceived as disrespectful to an idea. People can be insulted and have their feelings hurt; ideas can't.

Your interpretation of the rules you've sighted leaves them without any force at all. They might as well not be there.
I respectfully disagree. I think it honors them in the most serious way possible, by fostering open discussion, for all the reasons I described in post 47 (http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1036204&postcount=47).

(continued...)

[lawman]

You can certainly argue against a particular notion by pointing out that is contradicts another notion. Or that that YOU can't accept it because you don't accept some underlying premise. Pretending that NO ONE find rational sense in an idea because YOU don't accept its underlying premises is disrespectful on its face.
Again, I respectfully disagree. It's always understood that what people express around here are their own opinions, not the Voice of God (no irony intended). Several posters have explained the reasons why they think "superstition" is a perfectly reasonable and accurate descriptor for religious faith. Long and short of it, it's a term that says religious faith is not based on reason. If you disagree with this, by all means feel free to offer rebuttals... but neglecting to do so while claiming to feel insulted by a term you introduced seems, frankly, not in the spirit of the Rules. OTOH, if you merely feel that beliefs don't need to be based on reason, then you're not even disagreeing with them, and feeling insulted becomes even more pointless.

And trying to provide a basis for your argument grounded in a book whose TITLE is even more disrespectful to the idea of God seems like a bit of a tautology.
The title is not disrespectful. In fact, Dawkins spends a large chunk of the book's preface justifying his use of the term, emphasizing the following: "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence."

If you disagree with him about that characterization, or about the remarks from him (and Mencken) upthread about the peculiarity of religion's presumptively thin skin, by all means express and explain that disagreement -- that's what this forum is all about. But if you're seriously trying to claim that one of the best-selling and most important books of the past year on matters of philosophy and religion is actually banned from discussion here, then your interpretation of the Rules is clearly not fostering meaningful discourse.

[lawman]

You will refrain from disrespecting the ideas of others in this forum.
Please, define what this means to you, and point out specifically where someone has violated it.

I emphatically concur with Ethos' point (edited away by him but retained in your quote) that "Actively insulting someone's faith is one thing, but using proper terminology to support a viewpoint is another."

If your interpretation of the Rules honestly doesn't recognize that distinction, then for bonus points, explain how under that interpretation you didn't actually violate them first, in the early posts I just cited.