What's a "cult?"

[Atticus]

I was not at all implying that such people would listen. Regardless, this does not mean one shouldn't criticize the behavior for what it is: dangerous, superstitious, and primitive. Personally I see more danger in religious moderates resorting to censorship in the face of of those annoying, immature secularists who call like they see it. Disagreement and dialogue is always welcome.I'd like to answer this in its own thread, since it's a direct reference to the rules in this forum. I disagree with the bolded section for several reasons. First, people rarely learn anything when they're being insulted. The human intellect has a remarkable tendency to shut down and shut out when it finds input that's too threatening too quickly. Studies of human learning show that the 'affective' or emotional elements of new input are just as important as the cognitive if we expect people to learning anything.

Second....well, I have to tell a story on myself. I was, at one time, a very conservative, evangelical Christian. I never participated in an exorcism, but I did once accuse someone of being possessed. What changed my position was not having my head pounded by "secularists who call like they see it." Rather, it was the academic study of religion that made me see differently. And the first rule of that academic study was that "value judgments" were out-of-bounds. In the academic study of religion it is considered anti-intellectual to talk about one religion (or secularism) as "better" or "worse" than another--or "ignorant," or "right" or "wrong." These kinds of words don't actually describe anything--they put emotional and value-laden judgments on ideas. The same thing is true, by the way, in the social sciences. Sociologists and anthropologists use terms like "functional" or "adaptive" that actually provide some meaning rather than just make value judgments. It takes a bit more effort, but it's well worth the trouble.

In my first year at college, my very first course (it was called a "freshman seminar" and served as an introduction to college skills and college life) bore the topic "Religious Cults." I thought we were going to talk about all those nasty, awful religions that sucked young people in and made them bang drums, shave their heads, beg for money, and basically ruin their lives. What I discovered instead was that coming up with a definition for "cult" is extremely difficult without resort to some "my-religion-is-better-than-yours" value judgment. We settled, eventually, on "new religion," as the only fair marker.

It was only in this context that I could really examine my own beliefs in comparison to anyone else's--and I was forced to see that my own ideas, however orthodox I found them--were not "better" or "worse" than someone else's. The exception to this rule was that sometimes beliefs actually led people to do themselves or others physical or emotional or financial harm (choking a three-year-old surely counts).

So my conclusion is that if one is truly interested in persuading another person to change a deep-seated belief, calling them an idiot (or, yes, 'superstitious') just doesn't work. It can be very emotionally satisfying for the speaker, but it's wholly unpersuasive to the audience.

[AgentM]

So my conclusion is that if one is truly interested in persuading another person to change a deep-seated belief, calling them an idiot (or, yes, 'superstitious') just doesn't work. It can be very emotionally satisfying for the speaker, but it's wholly unpersuasive to the audience.

I wholeheartedly agree Atticus. It's very true that we stop listening to someone who insults us. As soon as the insults start being thrown around the debate is essentially over. So whatever us atheists may think of people's religious beliefs (or them of us), we must try to keep the debate as civil as possible.

I think college/university is one of the best places to change people's minds because they're made to participate in group discussions with intelligent profs and fellow students who come from many diverse backgrounds that are often quite different from there's.

[burntgorilla]

So my conclusion is that if one is truly interested in persuading another person to change a deep-seated belief, calling them an idiot (or, yes, 'superstitious') just doesn't work. It can be very emotionally satisfying for the speaker, but it's wholly unpersuasive to the audience.

I don't think you really needed to make a new thread to point that out. Isn't it obvious?

Anyway, I remember doing a couple of sociology lessons on religion. I thought a cult was the term for a small religion. It starts a cult, turns into a sect, then a faith or a church or whatever. There's lots of variation with the order, of course, but I thought a cult was simply a small group of believers. I guess you're looking at it in the pejorative sense, but I think phrases such as "the cult of Islam" are essentially meaningless. If you're taking "cult" as the "weirdo" type of thing that you mentioned, then you're right that any religion is as much a cult as another. But does it not also have a more neutral meaning?

[Atticus]

I don't think you really needed to make a new thread to point that out. Isn't it obvious?If you look at some recent threads in this forum, it appears not.
Anyway, I remember doing a couple of sociology lessons on religion. I thought a cult was the term for a small religion. It starts a cult, turns into a sect, then a faith or a church or whatever. There's lots of variation with the order, of course, but I thought a cult was simply a small group of believers. I guess you're looking at it in the pejorative sense, but I think phrases such as "the cult of Islam" are essentially meaningless. If you're taking "cult" as the "weirdo" type of thing that you mentioned, then you're right that any religion is as much a cult as another. But does it not also have a more neutral meaning?You may have a point, but I'd argue that "cult" always has a pejorative tinge. I doubt any group, however small or new, refers to itself as a "cult."

[mataj]

http://www.ex-cult.org/
http://www.workingpsychology.com/cult.html
http://rickross.com/mind_control.html

[Sgt Schultz]

I've always heard a cult described as being a religion without any real power.

[burntgorilla]

I've always heard a cult described as being a religion without any real power.

Hmm, similar to the way a language is a dialect with an army and a navy? I can see that. But often cults hold lots of power, even if it's only over its own members. In fact they have more power over their members than the mainstream religions.

[Groucho]

Well, calling a religion a "superstition" is only an insult if you take it as one. I may argue that any belief in the supernatural (religion, unicorns, ghosts, leprechauns) is by definition a belief in superstition.

All mythology is superstition by definition, isn't it? And religion is just mythology that someone still believes, isn't it?

Seriously, I am not trying to be insulting. I just can't understand how anyone can logically say "All those other beliefs in the supernatural are superstition, but MY beliefs in the supernatural are not, simply because I believe them."

[burntgorilla]

If you look at some recent threads in this forum, it appears not.

Well, Lumpen Prole might not be interested in changing your mind. He might want to just show you how he thinks that you're wrong.


You may have a point, but I'd argue that "cult" always has a pejorative tinge. I doubt any group, however small or new, refers to itself as a "cult."

That's true. But I think it's a bit similar to the word "war". Lots of politicians like to avoid the word and use other terms instead, but it can also be applied in a neutral way. "The War On Drugs" and "a war between two nations" use quite different meanings of the word. "War" is often used (or avoided) as a politically loaded term, just as "cult" is. But a war is still a war, just as a cult is a cult. I also thought that "cult" wasn't used as a pejorative term in sociology or anthropology.

[Sgt Schultz]

Hmm, similar to the way a language is a dialect with an army and a navy? I can see that. But often cults hold lots of power, even if it's only over its own members. In fact they have more power over their members than the mainstream religions.

I guess I would change that to "a cult is a religion without any real power within the mainstream of society". Does that make more sense?

[Atticus]

Well, calling a religion a "superstition" is only an insult if you take it as one. That's a thin argument, really. All language requires the receiver to interpret it. You can call me an "idiot" and I don't have to take it as an insult. The test should be the way an ordinary person would interpret it in ordinary circumstances. I may argue that any belief in the supernatural (religion, unicorns, ghosts, leprechauns) is by definition a belief in superstition.But we've been through this on another recent thread. "Superstition" is by it's dictionary definition a pejorative term.
All mythology is superstition by definition, isn't it? And religion is just mythology that someone still believes, isn't it? No, actually, I don't think it's superstition. "Mythology" has a respected place in the world of literature as a powerful story with culturally determinative effects. "The Odyssey" is a mythological story, and while it's probably not historically accurate, it provided part of the basis for the culture of classical (and earlier) Greece. It told Greek men and women what their culture expected of them. To a someone lesser extent, it STILL provides a model for men in certain circumstances (the culture of warriors leans heavily on the values we see embodied in heroes like Achilles, Odysseus, and Ajax--as well as anti-heroes like Agamemmnon or Polyphemous). To my mind, the stories of Genesis are similar--they can be culturally true without being historically accurate. Calling it "superstition" fundamentally misunderstands and devalues the role myth plays in culture.
Seriously, I am not trying to be insulting. I just can't understand how anyone can logically say "All those other beliefs in the supernatural are superstition, but MY beliefs in the supernatural are not, simply because I believe them."And that's why we ask that everyone desist from making value-judgments, whatever their perspective.

[Atticus]

That's true. But I think it's a bit similar to the word "war". Lots of politicians like to avoid the word and use other terms instead, but it can also be applied in a neutral way. "The War On Drugs" and "a war between two nations" use quite different meanings of the word. "War" is often used (or avoided) as a politically loaded term, just as "cult" is. But a war is still a war, just as a cult is a cult. I also thought that "cult" wasn't used as a pejorative term in sociology or anthropology.I hadn't considered how the term "cult" might be used in a specific way within an academic field. That's an interesting and valid point.

But in common parlance, "war" has a much larger set of uses than "cult." It has positive connotations (connections with fury in response to righteous indignation) as well as negative ones (useless destruction). Politicians use "war" to bring favor to their ideas (as in "The War on Poverty"), while in ordinary discourse "cult" is pretty much negative. Can you think of a way we might use "cult" as a metaphor drawing only on its sense of newness or smallness or lack of power?

[burntgorilla]

Cult music, cult fashion or cult art. I've repeated "cult" so many times now it's beginning to look like a very weird word.

[GI Joe]

he Church of the Subgenius is the one true religion, believe or face the stark fist of removal

Slack-filled young men and women of Yeti descent who are spread, SEEMINGLY randomly, throughout the breakthinking world... but are bent on breaching all Earthly human political and cultural barriers with the searing nonhuman truth of the Word of "Bob": J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, that LIVING GOD WHO WALKS THIS PLANET EARTH IN HUCKSTER'S SHOES.
PRAISE HIS SWEET NAME

-- OR BURN IN SLACKLESSNESS TRYING NOT TO!


Pity the poor human Earth Pink who comes looking for a SIMPLE, SHORT EXPLANATION of The Church of the SubGenius™, one that he or she can UNDERSTAND QUICKLY. If the Church could provide THAT, it would be bigger than Islam or Christianity by now -- and probably much, much worse.

A True SubGenius, however, understands EVERYTHING, INSTANTLY upon exposure to the Word or even just the Face of Dobbs.

The next step after reading the Sacred Pamphlets would be to procure THE BOOK OF THE SUBGENIUS and its companion volume, REVELATION X



SubGenius Manifesto


Excerpted from SubGenius Pamphlet One and The Book of the SubGenius by J.R. "Bob" Dobbs edited by Rev. Ivan Stang of The SubGenius Foundation, Inc. Re-edited by the Reverend Kareem du Gristle of the Church of the SubGenius, Santa Cruz 25 Hour Clench.

(Modified by Reverend Modemac on November 18, 1995 and again by Bucky on September 13, 2005)

"Time Control? You've come to the right place..."

ARE YOU ABNORMAL?

Then you are probably BETTER than most people!

* IF you suspect that things are much worse than you ever suspected...
* IF the only thing you've been able to laugh at for the last 5 years is the fact that NOTHING is funny anymore...
* IF you sometimes want to collar people on the street and scream that you're more different than they could possibly imagine...
* IF you can possibly help us with a donation...
* IF you see the whole universe as one vast morbid sense of sick humor...
* IF the current "Age of Progress" seems more like the Dark Ages to you...
* IF you are looking for an inherently contradictory religion that will condone megadegeneracy and yet tell you that you are "above" everyone else...

Then...

THE CHURCH OF THE SUBGENIUS could save your sanity!


Your secret wishes can be granted in full once you know what they are!

"You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think."-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, 1961

NOW, AT LAST! The step-by-step process is revealed! THIS IS IT! The only "faith" that promises ACTION, THRILLS, SUCCESS IN SEX AND BUSINESS!

Feeling like there's just no SLACK?

You may have 'snapped' already from the information disease! ("The sleep of reason begets monsters.") Look to the High Unpredictables of the Church of the SubGenius for pancultural deprogramming and resynchronization!

Perfect your subliminal vision, edit your memory, relive your reincarnality! SYNC UP! THE SUBGENIUS MUST HAVE SLACK!

Using SubGenius secrets of BULLDADA and MOREALISM you can now MIRACULOUSLY ELIMINATE COMPULSIVE URGES such as smoking, eating, sleeping, working; end baldness, constipation, sex-money problems, assouliness, and painful shortage of SLACK!

Become a Doktor of the Forbidden Sciences... Make religion a kick-*** adventure! Indulge in Self-Help through Raising Hell!

The SubGenius:

* Patriot or Alien?
* Personal Savior or False Prophet?
* Nurd or Hero?
* Inspired Madman or Complete Jackass?

Thought you'd tried everything? YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHIN' YET! Learn to THINK BIG! Develop the tricks of Length Extension! Bring your weirdest dreams to rampaging LIFE!

Stand erect for you own abnormality. WISE UP! They are out to get you.

The "different" are being silenced by a global conspiracy. WEIRDOS ARISE!! You probably already knew that the U.S. Government is a SHAM. Something propped up there for you to blame. But did you know that the real "powers that be" are not even people? That they are actually shambling, unbelievable, unmentionable, unthinkable THINGS??

YES! JEHOVAH IS AN ALIEN AND STILL THREATENS THIS PLANET!

Defy the sinister "Star Forces" which mock us all. Evil demons have kept the truth from humanity for thousands of years - God has been misquoted all this time! His actual words may disturb you...but "Bob" Dobbs is a bulwark against the unbearable fear and anxiety tormenting mankind. "There's no 'Prob'...With "Bob"!"

"Bob" is a way of life to millions - yet half of them don't even KNOW it! He is the one true LIVING SLACK MASTER with the spiritual know-how to help you BASH THROUGH the locked doorway to FINANCIAL HEAVEN. He is the only real Short-Cut to Slack.

[Atticus]

Cult music, cult fashion or cult art. I've repeated "cult" so many times now it's beginning to look like a very weird word.Again, interesting.

I don't follow any of these, so I'll just ask--do they have a sort of "weird and slightly underground " connotation to them, as with "cult film?"

[GI Joe]

SEE ANOTHER DIMENSION ON YOUR TV

"Bob's" promise is to widen the scope and nature of abnormal behavior... to explore NEW WAYS of going over the edge and coming back. PLUS to bring back those who couldn't on their own... to help you create the HIGHEST POSSIBLE EARNINGS from the PSYCHODYMANICS of ABNORMALITY... to turn Conspiracy-implanted personality disorders AROUND and channel them into an ILLUSION OF CREATIVITY that will fool normals and GET YOU SEX!

As you learn more and more reliable, safe methods of Time Control, you will find your I.Q. increasing - your very cranium will seem to pulsate from within, barely able to contain the turmoil of glorious new concepts and mental skills. Soon you'll be able to withstand COMMUNICATION WITH THE XISTS, our mentors in space; you will be ready for TRANSFIGURATION into a new physical body, a more powerful one, built to contain the surging mental and material mutations that your brain now generates. YES - become and OVERHUMAN, a dangerous and feared superhuman of the future! Yet - because your SubGenius roots can never be forgotten - you won't be able to abuse your powers, but instead make them an unstoppable force for GOOD and JUSTICE, choosing always to defend the oppressed SubGenius wherever they may be

* The world is a turkey, and "Bob" gives you the carving knife.
* Fear THE STARK FIST OF REMOVAL no longer!
* Become PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE- overnight!
* Attain STATUS-LUCK-PROSPERITY by blowing them off!
* When you join this "Order of the Knights of Wotan," you get a mastery of fighting skills... good health, an attractive personality, and a WEIRD ABILITY TO INFLUENCE OTHERS! To BEND THEM to your WILL!
* You'll learn INCANTATIONS that lead to MASTERY over FISCAL PLANES... the OCCULT TECHNOLOGY of FINANCE POWER...E-Z ways to borrow money - from other people who don't have it either!
* Achieve SHEER GUT BLOWOUT. Our "ascetism" consists solely of the abstinence from abstinence. Give up the not giving into of temptation! Think thoughts that no human has ever dared think before. You CAN learn to recall memories from the past that you had forgotten, or that never existed at all.
* CONTACT ALIENS BOTH BENEVOLENT AND EVIL!

The Church of the SubGenius the first and last stand against a crumbling world filled with Pinks and Glorps."SURVIVE THE GREAT CATACLYSMS THROUGH UFO TRANSPORT!"

[GI Joe]

And so the true history of the SubGenius has been kept secret from Man. For Jehovah 1 is to the Xists and Us what a hungry fisherman is to a prize fish and his favorite pet worm - the last in the can. How many million other races were used before us in these ghastly galactic water-sports?

UNTIL NOW!!

For YOU are lucky enough to "live" in the End Times when the Word of Jehovah's Prime Ordinance has been made known to "Man"kind by the Primanimal SubGenius, the High Epopt of the Church!

In the early Fifties an industrious young American drilling equipment salesman, while watching late-night TV, was abruptly REMOVED and transported astrally to the 'IDGE' of JEHOVAH 1 HIMSELF! In this seizure-like trance he took the brunt of the first brain-buffeting communications of countless to come from the alien Jehovah: awesome pronouncements which form the sacred PRESCRIPTURES of the SubGenius (available for $19.98 at most bookstores!)

This milestone in Man's mined path to Slack was:

THE DIVINE EMACULATION OF J.R. "BOB" DOBBS!!

Who IS "Bob"?

While yet the least approachable or scrutable of the vast SubGenius membership, he is the preeminent and most frequently invoked of the godzillion PERSONAL SAVIORS of the SubGenius. While he remains an anonymous executive shunning publicity or recognition at a faceless multinational corporation, he is nevertheless The Most Ascended Master, the original Retriever of Jehovah's Message on Earth and basic model of the Archetype SubGenius. He set the "anti-pattern" of random conduct among all those who are now practicing SubGeniuses. His are the defects and peccadilloes that we 'analize,' his the SLONGS and the JESTS which we devotedly twist and distort for future generations according to our unexplored whims. -- AND YET the only photos of him that exist are grainy frame blow-ups from Grade Z movie thrillers in which he played bit parts!

Dobbs is, of course, the ultimate symbol of SubGeniusness, but despite/because of his infra-human mediumship he possesses one single failing above and beyond all other shortcomings: his omninclusive FOLLIES. Yet where they would be crippling stumbling-blocks for another person, in Dobbs they loom stranger-than-life. His ten billion all-too-human quasimodalities embody, in some cheaply symbolic way, all the Foibles of the Primate Race. Dobbs is a miacrocosm encapsulating the imperfektions of the so-called
'human condition;' his Blunders and Idiocies, errors and inadvertencies are perhaps more sacrosanct, more deserving of analization than even his hallowed salesmanship. None of "Bob's" words or deeds are particularly spectacular; their holiness lies IN their nondescript but inviolate triviality.
"THE STUPIDER IT LOOKS, THE MORE IMPORTANT IT PROBABLY IS."
-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs

You too can can be a part of this WAVE OF THE FUTURE!

* Make strangeness work for YOU!
* Thought you were 'ordinary'? WRONG.
* Tap your secret Abnormality Potential.
* Take control through liberated weirdness.
* Discover RADICAL INSANITY!

You may be suffering under many potentially dangerous misconceptions about the Church of the SubGenius. This isn't some small-time mail-order comedy publisher working on a minuscule budget out of an anonymous garret, but a powerful conglomerate of talented, wealthy professional abnormals with state-of-the-art equipment, living it up in a downtown Dallas skyscraper.


http://www.subgenius.com/index.htm

http://www.subgenius.com/slaq.htm#manifesto


http://www.subgenius.com/Graffix/dobbs.jpg

[Groucho]

1. I think cult has the connotation of being small but really really dedicated -- followers of a "cult film" are small but absolutely love their film, and the same for cult music fans. So a cult religion should by comparison be small but its followers really fervent about it.

2. I don't know what other word to use but superstition, and I will take suggestions. What other word best defines belief in the supernatural? And why should religion not be in this category? (I don't mean this as an insult but as a debate point)

[GI Joe]

1. I think cult has the connotation of being small but really really dedicated -- followers of a "cult film" are small but absolutely love their film, and the same for cult music fans. So a cult religion should by comparison be small but its followers really fervent about it.

2. I don't know what other word to use but superstition, and I will take suggestions. What other word best defines belief in the supernatural? And why should religion not be in this category? (I don't mean this as an insult but as a debate point)


Ask Bob(praise his sweet name) and he will provide you with all answers

[lawman]

2. I don't know what other word to use but superstition, and I will take suggestions. What other word best defines belief in the supernatural? And why should religion not be in this category? (I don't mean this as an insult but as a debate point)
A question that is both fair and pragmatic. Even granting that "superstition" could be perceived as pejorative insofar as it privileges "reason," I don't see why anyone who knowingly chooses to believe in supernatural phenomena -- i.e., things not explicable by reason -- would find it to be so. IOW: if you don't care about reason, why does it matter if your beliefs are said to defy it?

Anyway, if there's another term that denotes the same meaning without the potential connotations, I can't think of it.

[Atticus]

2. I don't know what other word to use but superstition, and I will take suggestions. What other word best defines belief in the supernatural? And why should religion not be in this category? (I don't mean this as an insult but as a debate point)Why is "belief" inadequate?

[Atticus]

A question that is both fair and pragmatic. Even granting that "superstition" could be perceived as pejorative insofar as it privileges "reason," I don't see why anyone who knowingly chooses to believe in supernatural phenomena -- i.e., things not explicable by reason -- would find it to be so. IOW: if you don't care about reason, why does it matter if your beliefs are said to defy it?

Anyway, if there's another term that denotes the same meaning without the potential connotations, I can't think of it.I don't have a problem with privileging reason, but your denial of anything metaphysical doesn't do that. It privileges the physical. It actually goes beyond merely privileging (which really means "foregrounding") the five physical senses--it denies anything else. Reason is what your brain does with input--you don't have a claim to exclusivity of reason. Rather, you're position limits what input you consider valid.

Reason can be applied to many things, and suggesting that anyone with a faith "doesn't care about reason" pronounces a great many people unreasonable.

[lawman]

I don't have a problem with privileging reason, but your denial of anything metaphysical doesn't do that. It privileges the physical. It actually goes beyond merely privileging (which really means "foregrounding") the five physical senses--it denies anything else.
Do you mean to propose that philosophical naturalism is extricable from reason in conceptual terms? The two are ordinarily understood to be hand-in-glove.

Reason can be applied to many things, and suggesting that anyone with a faith "doesn't care about reason" pronounces a great many people unreasonable. Reason is what your brain does with input--we aren't talking about that. We're talking about the input itself.
Reason can be applied to many things, yes -- but not to supernatural phenomena. Indeed, it's often raised as a defense of such beliefs (whether religious or not) that some things supposedly "transcend human reason." No one is charging that people reject reason altogether -- sorry if I didn't make that clear -- only that they don't find it to be a necessary component of their specific beliefs.

[lawman]

Why is "belief" inadequate?
Because it buries the distinction being made between types of belief. It's a shortcoming of the English language, perhaps, that the same word can be used to indicate "belief" in something that can be established through a process of assessing evidence, and "belief" in something that is asserted in the absence of evidence.

[Atticus]

Do you mean to propose that philosophical naturalism is extricable from reason in conceptual terms? The two are ordinarily understood to be hand-in-glove.I am not particularly well-versed in the concept of philosophical naturalism, but as I understand it, the equating of reason with philosophical naturalism is a tenet of philosophical naturalism, which would make your claim a tautology. If one believes that philosophical realism is the only perspective and that all others are not worth serious consideration, then if course the construct of that perspective would be the only one.

[Atticus]

Because it buries the distinction being made between types of belief. It's a shortcoming of the English language, perhaps, that the same word can be used to indicate "belief" in something that can be established through a process of assessing evidence, and "belief" in something that is asserted in the absence of evidence.But the claim you and Groucho seem to be making is that your perspective isn't really a belief at all, but fact. Your argument appears to say that you have no need of belief because your understanding of the world is based on fact. You don't need to preface your ideas with "I believe" because the self-evident nature of your constructs is a given, since it's based only on that which can be measured.

If "belief" strikes you as too broad a term, perhaps it would be best if you concentrated on expressing in positive terms your own ideas rather than defining your opponents ideas in negative terms; that is, you've pretty much defined the ideas of believers by what you say they lack.

If you need an adjective, how about "metaphysical belief?"

[lawman]

But the claim you and Groucho seem to be making is that your perspective isn't really a belief at all, but fact. Your argument appears to say that you have no need of belief because your understanding of the world is based on fact. You don't need to preface your ideas with "I believe" because the self-evident nature of your constructs is a given, since it's based only on that which can be measured.
I can't speak for Groucho, but I personally wouldn't go quite that far. I think "belief" is still a valid term, for a couple of reasons.

One, the scientific method (i.e., methodological naturalism, related but not identical to the philosophical naturalism I mentioned earlier) can and does create "constructs" that are not necessarily facts, but rather theories -- i.e., the best possible logical explanations for observed phenomena given the information at hand, but nonetheless always subject to revision. These may have been sufficiently tested and "proven" to the extent that it would be foolhardy to disbelieve them, but that doesn't mean something better might not come along eventually -- just as relativity introduced caveats to Newtonian physics.

Two, there is a difference between a priori and a posteriori reasoning. What precisely qualifies as a priori (if indeed anything at all does) is, to put it mildly, subject to some debate. Questions of analytic vs. synthetic propositions, necessary vs. contingent truths, what is and isn't a tautology, etc., could take us rather deeper into epistemology than I suspect we really want to go right now. Thus, describing anything I may believe as "self-evident" is in this context problematic at best.

All that being said, I personally will cheerfully concede for the sake of argument that "philosophical naturalism" and "reason," as means of apprehending the world, are coextensive and inseparable, two sides of the same coin; that each requires the other is indeed a tautology, in the logical sense that any contrary proposition is incoherent (although not in the rhetorical sense of being redundant or superfluous). I hardly think this observation harms any argument I've made here.

If "belief" strikes you as too broad a term, perhaps it would be best if you concentrated on expressing in positive terms your own ideas rather than defining your opponents ideas in negative terms; that is, you've pretty much defined the ideas of believers by what you say they lack.
But accepting the terms as "negative" rather than merely descriptive would be to concede the very proposition we're discussing! The question remains, if a description is accurate, why do you perceive it as negative?

OTOH... if, however, you believe that I've unjustly overlooked some way of thinking in which beliefs that explicitly do not depend upon or derive from the application of reason to naturalistic evidence, can nevertheless somehow still be defended by reason, then I'm all ears. Such examples would, indeed, present a strong case against the use of terms such as "supernatural" or "superstition."

[steveksux]

For my 2c, superstition is exactly the right word. Any negative connotation is due to religious people using the term to denigrate other people's religions, ancient or native religious practices, to seperate it from their "true" belief in the supernatural. The offense taken is from having their beloved religion placed on equal footing with all the others. Nothing more.

Belief in the supernatural = superstition. Its almost a circular definition.

Randy

[burntgorilla]

Again, interesting.

I don't follow any of these, so I'll just ask--do they have a sort of "weird and slightly underground " connotation to them, as with "cult film?"

Yep. "Cult" in that sense implies "away from the mainstream", "small", possibly "secretive" and often with a devoted following - like a real cult.

[Atticus]

But accepting the terms as "negative" rather than merely descriptive would be to concede the very proposition we're discussing! The question remains, if a description is accurate, why do you perceive it as negative?I thought that might be unclear. By "negative" I mean defining something by the qualities it lacks rather than those it exhibits. I didn't mean insulting.

[Atticus]

OTOH... if, however, you believe that I've unjustly overlooked some way of thinking in which beliefs that explicitly do not depend upon or derive from the application of reason to naturalistic evidence, can nevertheless somehow still be defended by reason, then I'm all ears. Such examples would, indeed, present a strong case against the use of terms such as "supernatural" or "superstition."As for this, all I can say is that I'm not particularly interested in debating the subject of spirituality with a wholly uninterested person. I'm not an evangelical; I have no particular interest in trying to convince you of something you're not interested in seeing. If you were seeking something and came to me for information, that would be different. As it is, I'm content to leave you alone. My only wish (and the intention of the R & P forum rules) is that you do the same for those who do have some spiritual beliefs and wish to discuss them.

[TomAZ]

Our illustrious president described religion as superstition in at least three of his past speeches and I heard no outcry from christians.

[Atticus]

Our illustrious president described religion as superstition in at least three of his past speeches and I heard no outcry from christians.He did? Got a link? Just curious.

I'm also not sure why that matters. I mean, does GWB post to WS? What's his screen name?

[Groucho]

Why is "belief" inadequate?

Well, belief in what? I have belief in science, for instance...

[Atticus]

Well, belief in what? I have belief in science, for instance...I'd ask you to look at the response I wrote earlier to lawman for further elaboration on that point.

Why, when you discuss someone's ideas, can you simply call them "beliefs"" I see no necessity for calling them superstition. Superstition characterizes them in a particular way--"belief" does not.

Here's the test--take any post you've made in one of our discussions on this or another recent thread. Substitute "belief" for "superstition" and show me how it doesn't work. :shrug:

Frankly, at this point I think you're perseverating (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/perseveration).

[lawman]

As for this, all I can say is that I'm not particularly interested in debating the subject of spirituality with a wholly uninterested person. I'm not an evangelical; I have no particular interest in trying to convince you... My only wish (and the intention of the R & P forum rules) is that you do the same for those who do have some spiritual beliefs and wish to discuss them.
But I'm not an uninterested person. If I were, I wouldn't come to this forum. I'm quite sincerely interested in matters of religion and spirituality, both in general and in terms of how they've influenced history and still influence politics, and regularly read books and articles on the topic. I simply reject the idea that "respect" in discussions thereof has any special meaning it doesn't have in other discussions of intellectual topics -- that it rises to a level that amounts, quite frankly, to deference. If you can't point out the shortcomings, or even the defining characteristics, of another's point of view, without being accused of "disrespect," then serious discussion becomes impossible.

And the whole purpose of discussion and debate, including in this forum, is to express one's views in a way that might persuade others of their merits. If you're not interested in convincing anyone of anything, why bother to post?

[lawman]

Why, when you discuss someone's ideas, can you simply call them "beliefs"" I see no necessity for calling them superstition. Superstition characterizes them in a particular way--"belief" does not.
Yes: an accurate way. As Randy noted, superstition means a belief in the supernatural. The supernatural is a defining characteristic of superstition. There's no way around it. The two terms are as intertwined as "naturalism" and "reason."

And supernatural phenomena are also, by definition, incompatible with naturalism, and thus with any form of reason that relies upon characteristics of the natural world. Causality, for instance. Any reasoned argument about the nature of reality assumes causality as a fundamental premise. Religion, however, does not -- for example, it assumes things can happen as a direct manifestation of the will of an ambiguously defined deity -- and this makes it precisely as superstitious as other beliefs that elide causality, from voodoo to astrology.

Those are beliefs, too. To merely describe them as such without any mention of the things that differentiate them from rational beliefs, however, is to hobble any attempt at serious discussion.

[Groucho]

Lawman is arguing my points too well, thus negating the need for a response other than "Yeah, what he said."

[Lumpen Prole]

I'd like to answer this in its own thread, since it's a direct reference to the rules in this forum. I disagree with the bolded section for several reasons. First, people rarely learn anything when they're being insulted. The human intellect has a remarkable tendency to shut down and shut out when it finds input that's too threatening too quickly. Studies of human learning show that the 'affective' or emotional elements of new input are just as important as the cognitive if we expect people to learning anything.

I agree. However, I see no reason to refrain from using words like "superstition" if they accurately convey my views on what, say, belief in a deity is. It's absurd that I should frame my language around what you consider appropriate simply because language has the potential to be interpreted negatively. Being purposefully rude and obnoxious is one thing, but that's not wht you're complaining about. What if I know someone who just got an abortion? Should we censor people from their opinion that abortion is murder, and therefore immoral? Should I refrain from calling Bush a bad president (and elaborating on my position) just becuase we have Republican members here? Puh-leeze.

Second....well, I have to tell a story on myself. I was, at one time, a very conservative, evangelical Christian. I never participated in an exorcism, but I did once accuse someone of being possessed. What changed my position was not having my head pounded by "secularists who call like they see it." Rather, it was the academic study of religion that made me see differently. And the first rule of that academic study was that "value judgments" were out-of-bounds. In the academic study of religion it is considered anti-intellectual to talk about one religion (or secularism) as "better" or "worse" than another--or "ignorant," or "right" or "wrong." These kinds of words don't actually describe anything--they put emotional and value-laden judgments on ideas. The same thing is true, by the way, in the social sciences. Sociologists and anthropologists use terms like "functional" or "adaptive" that actually provide some meaning rather than just make value judgments. It takes a bit more effort, but it's well worth the trouble.

"Ignorant" is often a perfectly neutral word. You are ignorant. I am ignorant. If that upsets you then stop reading. I can understand minimizing language that involves qualitative claims such as "better" or "worse." However, if I believe someone is wrong on a particular point I will not hesitate to say so. I would explain my reasoning for my conclusion, of course. If someone says, "God exists," and I reply by saying, "You have no rational basis for making that statement..." is that offensive? That sentence properly describes my own position. Upon request I am more than willing to alter my language if I can be provided with words that convey my views with equivalent accuracy, but I'm not going waste time replying to posts like this every time someone has a problem with what I am saying. Short of deliberately insulting someone, I think that would be disrespectful to my own views by undermining my abilitiy to properly articulate whatever point I wish to make.

So my conclusion is that if one is truly interested in persuading another person to change a deep-seated belief, calling them an idiot (or, yes, 'superstitious') just doesn't work. It can be very emotionally satisfying for the speaker, but it's wholly unpersuasive to the audience.

I cannot recall one instance in my life where I engaged in a "God" discussion with a believer thinking I would change their beliefs, or that they would change mine. If I wish to change anyone's mind it would undoubtedly be someone listening in from the sidelines. I enjoy discussing religion, etc. with people whose views greatly differ from my own so long as we're both grown up enough to hear things that might make us less than comfortable. That said, I often engage in dialogue not because I want someone to think what I think, but simply because I see dialogue as a stimulating activity in itself.

I will continue to use language I feel is appropraite while refraining from intentionally insulting anyone. That does not violate the rules of the forum. I'm sure someone could conceivably interpret the sentence, "Babies smell," as offensive, but I'm not going to go out of my way to ensure that every word I use in every post cannot possibly be interprested in a negative light by anyone who ever reads it.

[Lumpen Prole]

Suppose someone here says, "Atheists have no basis for an objective morality; they can never truly be good people." There are no doubt those who hold this position. I think it's a completely false statement, and I would likewise respond by explaining my position. I could easily start whining and crying that such a post is hurtful, but that would be childish and unproductive. Such a statement contains language that accurately describes someone's views. I completely disagree, and I'm happy to explain why without complaining or trying to hijack the English language because someone happens to hold a position that effectively labels me a bad person.

[Atticus]

Being purposefully rude and obnoxious is one thing, but that's not wht you're complaining about.Actually, it is. The problem in in crafting a set of rules to stop that and then administering those rules in some consistent way. The history of this forum shows that "rude and obnoxious" is difficult to define--there are some posters who would call that 'having a bit of fun.'

[Atticus]

Suppose someone here says, "Atheists have no basis for an objective morality; they can never truly be good people." There are no doubt those who hold this position. I think it's a completely false statement, and I would likewise respond by explaining my position. I could easily start whining and crying that such a post is hurtful, but that would be childish and unproductive. Such a statement contains language that accurately describes someone's views. I completely disagree, and I'm happy to explain why without complaining or trying to hijack the English language because someone happens to hold a position that effectively labels me a bad person.The bolded portion of your example is an offensive generalization on its face.

[steveksux]

The bolded portion of your example is an offensive generalization on its face.
And yet I can't count how many times that's been expressed or implied. That there's no basis for morality without religion, or generally more specifically, Christianity, 10 commandments, etc. Its not like it takes a brain surgeon to figure out similar rules like that which gives everyone equal rights, attempts to avoid rule of "Might makes Right", prevent a Mad Max sort of society.

Its as if they think murder was perfectly acceptable before Christianity... :rolleyes: Not to mention the obvious blunder that it was the Jews who came up with the 10 commandments... before Christianity.

Randy

[Atticus]

And yet I can't count how many times that's been expressed or implied. That there's no basis for morality without religion, or generally more specifically, Christianity, 10 commandments, etc. Its not like it takes a brain surgeon to figure out similar rules like that which gives everyone equal rights, attempts to avoid rule of "Might makes Right", prevent a Mad Max sort of society.

Its as if they think murder was perfectly acceptable before Christianity... :rolleyes: Not to mention the obvious blunder that it was the Jews who came up with the 10 commandments... before Christianity.

RandyAnd the rules of this forum should prevent statements of this kind, by either side.

[prst31]

First off, everyone needs to understand the "Religious Believer Bashing" history of this forum. No matter how we try and parse the meaning of a word, the intent is to ensure this forum remains free of that activity.

That being said, I don't care how you define it or how it is actually defined, to believers, superstitious (in this sense) can equate them to those afraid of breaking mirrors, walking under ladders, opening umbrellas indoors, or wearing the same socks during one's favorite sporting event. It's a sly way of jabbing someone.

Even if it wasn't intended as such, it should be realized that it could be taken as such. Maybe instead of trying to make a case for it, we should accept it as a word that offends someone, don't use it here (R & P) in that way, and move on.

And maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal if those insisting it wasn't a big deal weren't being so adamant about it not being a big deal. I know if someone said, "Hey prst, I don't appreciate your description of me as a superstitious person". I'd say, "My bad, I didn't mean it that way" and move on. If I would reply, "Sorry you have such a problem with a word that really means what you really are", well, then I think I'd be an inconsiderate prick.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but that word, here, serves no purpose than to denigrate believers. If this were the Science and Technology forum, call them superstitious.

[Lumpen Prole]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but that word, here, serves no purpose than to denigrate believers. If this were the Science and Technology forum, call them superstitious.

I am a working scientist and I am offended by this statement, which I interpret to mean that scientists are emotionless robots who disregard the feelings of others. Please review the forum rules.

[Dangerrmouse]

I'm curious as to prst31's perception of a juxtaposition between superstition and science.

[Groucho]

First off, everyone needs to understand the "Religious Believer Bashing" history of this forum. No matter how we try and parse the meaning of a word, the intent is to ensure this forum remains free of that activity.

That being said, I don't care how you define it or how it is actually defined, to believers, superstitious (in this sense) can equate them to those afraid of breaking mirrors, walking under ladders, opening umbrellas indoors, or wearing the same socks during one's favorite sporting event. It's a sly way of jabbing someone.

Even if it wasn't intended as such, it should be realized that it could be taken as such. Maybe instead of trying to make a case for it, we should accept it as a word that offends someone, don't use it here (R & P) in that way, and move on.

And maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal if those insisting it wasn't a big deal weren't being so adamant about it not being a big deal. I know if someone said, "Hey prst, I don't appreciate your description of me as a superstitious person". I'd say, "My bad, I didn't mean it that way" and move on. If I would reply, "Sorry you have such a problem with a word that really means what you really are", well, then I think I'd be an inconsiderate prick.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but that word, here, serves no purpose than to denigrate believers. If this were the Science and Technology forum, call them superstitious.

It certainly was not meant in that way, as previously explained.

But I do wish to ask the question of religious believers, and for debate purposes, if I may: What is the difference between your beliefs and those you would call superstitious? How can I, as a nonbeliever, determine which beliefs I can call superstitious without being insulting and which are considered insulting?

Please understand my dilemma: I do not logically see any difference between someone who thinks that breaking a mirror will give them 7 years of bad luck because Fate has so determined and someone who believes that if they eat pork they will be sent to a place full of fire for eternity.

Yes, yes, I know -- one is based on belief in a god and one isn't, but if you stand back and look at it objectively, what is the difference? Simply because one belief is based on an omnipotent being? Am I allowed to question the beliefs of one person and not the other? And why?

[Atticus]

But I do wish to ask the question of religious believers, and for debate purposes, if I may: What is the difference between your beliefs and those you would call superstitious? Asked and answered.

[Groucho]

Asked and answered.

I read back through the thread and didn't see a specific answer... are you referring to this?:

No, actually, I don't think it's superstition. "Mythology" has a respected place in the world of literature as a powerful story with culturally determinative effects. "The Odyssey" is a mythological story, and while it's probably not historically accurate, it provided part of the basis for the culture of classical (and earlier) Greece. It told Greek men and women what their culture expected of them. To a someone lesser extent, it STILL provides a model for men in certain circumstances (the culture of warriors leans heavily on the values we see embodied in heroes like Achilles, Odysseus, and Ajax--as well as anti-heroes like Agamemmnon or Polyphemous). To my mind, the stories of Genesis are similar--they can be culturally true without being historically accurate. Calling it "superstition" fundamentally misunderstands and devalues the role myth plays in culture.

...because that really doesn't address my question. What am I missing?

[Atticus]

Ok, I thought I made this clear before, but I'll say it again:

1. The distinction is difficult enough that we should probably avoid using the word altogether. That's my position.

2. We might very well make a distinction based on the fact that religions tend to be organized systems of ideas, not just random notions. To my knowledge, "step on a crack, break your mother's back" is not connected to any other system of thought regarding cracks, mothers, spines, or steps. Most of these ideas that we're taught as children but give up by the operational stage of development are based on actual dangers but blown out of proportion by childhood misunderstanding. It's probably a bad idea to break mirrors or walk under ladders, but it's not a disaster.

3. The comparison is both moot and a little silly because there isn't anyone on this forum propounding that view. If there were, we'd be ungracious (and breaking forum rules) not to treat their ideas with respect. There are many ways of exploring their idea with them to come to understand it better, but respecting the ideas of others is a key to both gracious behavior and following forum rules.

[MikeD4o7]

While I agree wholeheartedly with the original point that being insulting is hurting your chances of persuading somebody, I also don't think it can be reasonably expected for non-believers to treat religious beliefs with the same kind of solemn respect that believers give to it.

I'm not sure if this is fully understood, but I think for most people, religious beliefs aren't mocked just "to have a good time". I think for most of us non-believers, religious belief is genuinely frustrating. Whereas believers generally feel that religion is one of the primary sources of good in this world, non-believers feel just the opposite.

At least personally, I don't think of it as a playful or funny thing. I think of it as a serious problem. Because of that, it's hard to give the material itself any kind of "respect". There's no reason to ever enter into any personal attacks, but personally I feel like if the most damning thing being said about religion is just associating with superstition, then there needs to be more discussion.

[Atticus]

While I agree wholeheartedly with the original point that being insulting is hurting your chances of persuading somebody, I also don't think it can be reasonably expected for non-believers to treat religious beliefs with the same kind of solemn respect that believers give to it.

I'm not sure if this is fully understood, but I think for most people, religious beliefs aren't mocked just "to have a good time". I think for most of us non-believers, religious belief is genuinely frustrating. Whereas believers generally feel that religion is one of the primary sources of good in this world, non-believers feel just the opposite.

At least personally, I don't think of it as a playful or funny thing. I think of it as a serious problem. Because of that, it's hard to give the material itself any kind of "respect". There's no reason to ever enter into any personal attacks, but personally I feel like if the most damning thing being said about religion is just associating with superstition, then there needs to be more discussion.But you can avoid that trouble altogether by not posting a forum called "religion and philosophy." If you do post here, you need to follow the rules of the forum, which are based on the conventions of religion and philosophy as academic subjects.

It's been said here that any believer who doesn't want to be called superstitious can just avoid the forum, but that's getting things backwards, considering its name and the function of the forum as defined by its rules.

[Dangerrmouse]

The very existence of different rules for one category of discussion implies a special case is being made, and for no good reason.

[Groucho]

Well, here's the rub...

If we had a separate areas for conspiracy theories (enough of which get posted here) and I went there and said "Your beliefs are not supported by facts; how do you justify them?" I would be perfectly within the rules of the forum and would be using it for exactly what its purpose was set up for.

I am doing the same thing here in the religious forum, yet I seem to be accused of being insensitive and uncaring. As I see it, I am merely placing the same question to every claim, being the skeptic I am about everything.

Should I avoid the forum, as suggested? But isn't that the purpose of a forum, to discuss the topic? Since I don't believe the conspiracy theories posted here, should I merely avoid them completely?

[MikeD4o7]

But you can avoid that trouble altogether by not posting a forum called "religion and philosophy." If you do post here, you need to follow the rules of the forum, which are based on the conventions of religion and philosophy as academic subjects.

It's been said here that any believer who doesn't want to be called superstitious can just avoid the forum, but that's getting things backwards, considering its name and the function of the forum as defined by its rules.

It had been such a long time since I had been posting on WS that when I started posting again about a month ago, I hadn't even noticed the rules added specifically to this forum.

From the rules: "Treat each other and everyone’s beliefs with respect."

So you're right. I think the rule is a mistake, as I truly feel that no belief is entitled to the same kind of respect that we should give to other people, but I'll go along with it considering these aren't my forums and I do like posting here.

:sorry:

[Atticus]

The very existence of different rules for one category of discussion implies a special case is being made, and for no good reason.The reason is the kind of stuff that went on in this forum about a year ago when the rules were originally developed. Even in the academic world, the rules are different in different fields. You can't apply the same rules to sociology that you do to physics.

[GI Joe]

I am a working scientist and I am offended by this statement, which I interpret to mean that scientists are emotionless robots who disregard the feelings of others. Please review the forum rules.

Science rules my friend. My father is a Physicist/Polymer Scientist, one of the tops in his field. He is no emotionless robot

[Lumpen Prole]

Science rules my friend. My father is a Physicist/Polymer Scientist, one of the tops in his field. He is no emotionless robot

Context, my friend.

[prst31]

The very existence of different rules for one category of discussion implies a special case is being made, and for no good reason.No there is good reason. There is a history in this specific forum of disrespect. The labeling of superstitious here is pushing that boundary. While it's perfectly acceptable to discuss superstitions, to deny the connotations that word implies here is dishonest and disrespectful, that's the only point.

[JD3]

No there is good reason. There is a history in this specific forum of disrespect. The labeling of superstitious here is pushing that boundary. While it's perfectly acceptable to discuss superstitions, to deny the connotations that word implies here is dishonest and disrespectful, that's the only point.

Exactly. And it is enough that rules are there. Those who have to enforce the rules can only respond to that. They are posted.


But keep in mind, one seldom wins a debate by being disrespectful of those you debate. This forum always has maintained that civil debate was what we brought here. As hard it is sometimes to be civil, I do believe it pays off in the end. And it has served this site well.

[lawman]

Lawman is arguing my points too well, thus negating the need for a response other than "Yeah, what he said."
Nevertheless, thanks for chiming in. :D We all need a little egoboo from time to time!...

[lawman]

I cannot recall one instance in my life where I engaged in a "God" discussion with a believer thinking I would change their beliefs, or that they would change mine. If I wish to change anyone's mind it would undoubtedly be someone listening in from the sidelines. I enjoy discussing religion, etc. with people whose views greatly differ from my own so long as we're both grown up enough to hear things that might make us less than comfortable. That said, I often engage in dialogue not because I want someone to think what I think, but simply because I see dialogue as a stimulating activity in itself.
I agree with you about the value of discussion in and of itself. However, it is possible for fundamentalist Christians to break through the ideological wall that surrounds them. This blog (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/08/cracks-in-wall-part-ii-listening-to.html) offers an interesting discussion of the various ways it can happen, drawing from an online community with direct personal experience of "changing their minds", and Atticus's own experience as posted here fits in with one of the ways it's known to happen.

...I'm not going to go out of my way to ensure that every word I use in every post cannot possibly be interprested in a negative light by anyone who ever reads it.
Quite so. Same here.

[lawman]

And the rules of this forum should prevent statements of this kind [debating the origins of morality], by either side.
No, they shouldn't!

They should foster discussion of statements of this kind, by both sides!

You seem to be saying that such disagreements cannot, by definition, be discussed in civil terms. That just isn't so.

[JD3]

As one who believes laws can be separate from any particular religion, or even any religion, the trouble on this forum has been the disrespect. And it has been particularly bad. That is why new rules were sought. And we do revisit them from time to time. But I must hold that something as personal as faith needs a very detached way of discussing it, and that special effort be made to be respectful.

I agree it can be done, but note that these rules came about because it was not done.

[lawman]

And maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal if those insisting it wasn't a big deal weren't being so adamant about it not being a big deal. I know if someone said, "Hey prst, I don't appreciate your description of me as a superstitious person". I'd say, "My bad, I didn't mean it that way" and move on. If I would reply, "Sorry you have such a problem with a word that really means what you really are", well, then I think I'd be an inconsiderate prick.
You're attributing the "big deal"-ness of this to the wrong source. If someone would simply complain, as you posit, "hey, I don't appreciate that," I suspect that I and Groucho and Lumpen and pretty much any reasonable person would be happy to say "sorry, no offense intended" and move on with the discussion.

OTOH, when someone says, "hey, I don't appreciate that, and therefore you shouldn't be allowed to say it," that's a whole different story. And pressing the point thereafter, never mind starting entire new threads to explore whether the term is "respectful" enough to be "allowed," clearly gets in the way of moving on with any substantive discussion.

An anecdote: In this season's final few episodes of Studio 60, one of the cast members of the show (within the show), Simon, made some intemperate remarks to the media in a moment of justified stress. The network chairman, Jack, then insisted that he issue a formal apology. To make a long story short (unjustly so; it was an interesting, nuanced, and well-acted sequence; I love Aaron Sorkin), after hours of debate -- during which Simon stuck to his guns and refused to apologize, even at the cost of his job -- Jack finally had an epiphany (related to other events in the story) and backed down. He said, "Okay, you don't have to apologize." At which point Simon said, "Thank you. And with that, I will now go out there and apologize."

I related to Simon 110% in that storyline. There may be plenty of good reasons to do a thing -- but "because you're ordered to" is not one of them. If you can't relate to that, then you really don't understand the source of the dispute here.

[lawman]

It's been said here that any believer who doesn't want to be called superstitious can just avoid the forum, but that's getting things backwards, considering its name and the function of the forum as defined by its rules.
No, it's not backward. To quote the rules about this forum's function: "The primary purpose of this forum is debate and discussion. That means responding to each other’s criticisms and concerns."

Moreover, "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."

The same level of respect found in political debate. Not a level so much higher that it amounts to deference. Not a walking-on-eggshells approach that prevents, rather than responds to, "criticisms and concerns," and thus forecloses serious discussion of a great many topics that logically fall under the forum's heading.

I fully agree that anyone who knowingly uses provocative or insulting terms "just for fun" is violating the spirit and purpose of the forum. But that's not what we're talking about here, and you know it.

[Lumpen Prole]

As one who believes laws can be separate from any particular religion, or even any religion, the trouble on this forum has been the disrespect. And it has been particularly bad. That is why new rules were sought. And we do revisit them from time to time. But I must hold that something as personal as faith needs a very detached way of discussing it, and that special effort be made to be respectful.

I agree it can be done, but note that these rules came about because it was not done.

Disrespect is a problem. But the word "superstition" has been used to one of its specified definitions, and those using it have explicitly stated that it is not their intention to disrespect the beliefs of theists. From a theist's perspective "superstition" may be an incorrect categorization of religious belief, but from our perspective it is a perfectly accurate and prefectly neutral term. In fact, when we consider the circumstances I would argue that Atticus and co. are guilty of a kind of practical contradiction. By attempting to modify our language because it can potentially be interpreted in a negative light (as most words conceivably can) it is an indication that our secular perspective is not being properly understood and respected. Again, from our perspective we are using perfectly appropriate language that accurately conveys our thoughts on what belief in the supernatural, by definition, is. And again, multiple people have stated at multiple times that it is not our intention to insult anyone. Given this information I would appreciate it if our own perspectives were taken into account and viewed in their proper context.

[JD3]

Disrespect is a problem. But the word "superstition" has been used to one of its specified definitions, and those using it have explicitly stated that it is not their intention to disrespect the beliefs of theists. From a theist's perspective "superstition" may be an incorrect categorization of religious belief, but from our perspective it is a perfectly accurate and prefectly neutral term. In fact, when we consider the circumstances I would argue that Atticus and co. are guilty of a kind of practical contradiction. By attempting to modify our language because it can potentially be interpreted in a negative light (as most words conceivably can) it is an indication that our secular perspective is not being properly understood and respected. Again, from our perspective we are using perfectly appropriate language that accurately conveys our thoughts on what belief in the supernatural, by definition, is. And again, multiple people have stated at multiple times that it is not our intention to insult anyone. Given this information I would appreciate it if our own perspectives were taken into account and viewed in their proper context.

How can that word not be disrespectful? And it is not a neutral term. It carries a connotation, a negative connotation. It is also unnecessary to debate on these issues.

Also, intent is different than outcome. Once someone knows it is offensive, and that it will hinder the discussion, it is practical to seek another approach.

[MikeD4o7]

My problem with it personally is that the disrespect that's being guarded against here isn't the disrespect of fellow posters. I don't think anyone disagrees that we should treat the other people in these discussions with respect. The problem is treating beliefs with respect. There would be no forum if the application of such a rule was carried over to other parts of the board. Can you imagine telling one side that they have to treat the idea of deporting all illegal aliens by force with a reverent kind of respect? Or telling the other side that they have to treat the idea of completely open borders and mass assimilation with that same kind of respect?

Ideas are meant to be scrutinized, all of them. Part of how this is done is by comparing and contrasting. If a word like "superstition" fits because parallels can be drawn between religious beliefs and what we more commonly think of as "superstition", then what's the problem with saying it? Why should an idea that's offensive to somebody be specially safeguarded just because it's religious?

Perfect analogy is one that we see all of the time on the US boards. Homosexuality is attacked, and the comparison of homosexuality to polygamy is always brought up. I guarantee that assertion is just as offensive to me as the assertion that religion is just superstition is to anybody on these boards. However, I would never ever push for the banning of that comparison. It opens a discussion, and we can explain why that comparison isn't valid. Additionally, I think there's plenty of people who make that comparison that aren't intended to directly disrespect anyone, even though it offends them.

There's absolutely no reason to treat ideas as if they're people. We shouldn't hold back from analyzing any idea and "attacking" it if it seems weak. If it's so weak that it needs to be protected from scrutiny, then it doesn't deserve to be believed.

[JD3]

Well said MikeD4o7. I do miss your reasoned posts.

That said, I think when you use a word like "superstition," you are insulting the poster, aren't you? If something you put you life, heart and soul in is a "superstition," how can the poster not be insulted.

Talking religion is tricky business to start with. Politics much easier because not even the die hard fanatic invests as much as the faithful. It reaches deeper.

Can we challenge ideas without using language like this?

[lawman]

There's absolutely no reason to treat ideas as if they're people. We shouldn't hold back from analyzing any idea and "attacking" it if it seems weak. If it's so weak that it needs to be protected from scrutiny, then it doesn't deserve to be believed.
Quoted because it deserves repetition! :clap: :clap:

[lawman]

Talking religion is tricky business to start with. Politics much easier because not even the die hard fanatic invests as much as the faithful. It reaches deeper.
I don't accept that premise. For some people, certainly, it's true. On the other hand, I know plenty of people who hold their political convictions much more closely than their religion, even if they're believers.

[Lumpen Prole]

Religious belief has enjoyed a special kind of immunity from skeptical analysis and scrutiny in our society. That time is coming to an end. If you need me, I'll be engaging in dialogue with anyone willing and able to have their views criticized if I think they're flawed.

[Ethos]

So my conclusion is that if one is truly interested in persuading another person to change a deep-seated belief, calling them an idiot (or, yes, 'superstitious') just doesn't work. It can be very emotionally satisfying for the speaker, but it's wholly unpersuasive to the audience.

This assumes the intent of the speaker is persuasion. In the case of religious faith, it borders on pointless to attempt an actual alteration of another's beliefs, nor would I personally try. Faith is a personal matter that is handled exclusively by the individual.

My own intentions in this particular forum are a discussion of the relative merits between differing perspectives; this is precisely what philosophy and religion are at their core. Since there is an inherently strong emotional component of these topics, disagreement and offense are unavoidable.

It is unfortunate to limit the expression of one perspective by insisting that nominal words like "cult" or "superstition" reach the same value as "you're an idiot" in regard to forum rules. Here again we see divergent perspectives, thus while I see regarding religion as "superstition" the rhetorical equivalent of the faithful claiming "there is only one true God", obviously others do not.

Ethos

[JD3]

I don't accept that premise. For some people, certainly, it's true. On the other hand, I know plenty of people who hold their political convictions much more closely than their religion, even if they're believers.

Is that a result of a low religious conviction, or a strong political conviction? I think the comparison I see would be the strongly convicted politically with the strongly convicted religiously.

[JD3]

Religious belief has enjoyed a special kind of immunity from skeptical analysis and scrutiny in our society. That time is coming to an end. If you need me, I'll be engaging in dialogue with anyone willing and able to have their views criticized if I think they're flawed.

I don't think that is the problem as much as word choice.

[towski]

To the original question of "What's a Cult?", I offer the following simple answer:

A Cult. (http://www.aggieathletics.com/)

Carry on.

[Groucho]

I don't think that is the problem as much as word choice.

So if I had said "what makes your beliefs any different from someone who believes in leprechauns and unicorns" that would be OK, simply because I didn't use the "s" word?

[towski]

Hey, this looks like a fun chance to complain about semantics, and maybe do a little hair-splitting. Can I jump in? :)

[JD3]

So if I had said "what makes your beliefs any different from someone who believes in leprechauns and unicorns" that would be OK, simply because I didn't use the "s" word?

No, because they are not really the same. But I could ask what objective evidence can you present and say whether it convinces or not, imho. These discussions start with the acceptance that someone does believe this, and that it is a very personal belief.

[Ethos]

Hey, this looks like a fun chance to complain about semantics, and maybe do a little hair-splitting. Can I jump in? :)

By all means, though I would have thought this discussion would be over by now, yet somehow it keeps being brought up through existing or new threads devoted to the topic...

You are correct in that this issue is about semantics - the meaning or interpretation of a particular word. "Cult" has a few definitions, most relating to religion. In most cases a cult is considered a religious sect with extremist views - that is to say beliefs and practices outside the norms of society. The term is not negative, however the usual association of "cult" in popular culture does have a negative connotation, which is no doubt from where the objection to its use is derived.

There is a difference between standard meanings and the subjective interpretations of the word itself. "Idiot" for instance has a definition, however its application is subjective and technically incorrect in nearly all cases.

Ethos

[Atticus]

You are correct in that this issue is about semantics - the meaning or interpretation of a particular word. "Cult" has a few definitions, most relating to religion. In most cases a cult is considered a religious sect with extremist views - that is to say beliefs and practices outside the norms of society. According to some, ALL religion will soon be "outside the norms of society" and they work tirelessly to bring this circumstance about.

[Lumpen Prole]

According to some, ALL religion will soon be "outside the norms of society" and they work tirelessly to bring this circumstance about.

Do I fall into this category? If so I take offense to the statement and I request you retract it immediately. If not, then carry on! :)

[Ethos]

According to some, ALL religion will soon be "outside the norms of society" and they work tirelessly to bring this circumstance about.

Exactly how do you come to this conclusion, and what does it have to do with my previous post?

As an addition, it is interesting to note that by definition, the members of WS are a cult -


10. of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.


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

Ethos

[towski]

According to some, ALL religion will soon be "outside the norms of society" and they work tirelessly to bring this circumstance about.

The main people I've heard say that are religious people with a vested monetary interest in stirring the fears of the vast religious minority of this nation. :shrug:

[Atticus]

The main people I've heard say that are religious people with a vested monetary interest in stirring the fears of the vast religious minority of this nation. :shrug:Not in these forums. Here the argument is often that religion is an outdated notion soon to pass away. And, so far as I know, in "this nation" (meaning the US) religious people are in the majority.

[Atticus]

There is a difference between standard meanings and the subjective interpretations of the word itself. "Idiot" for instance has a definition, however its application is subjective and technically incorrect in nearly all cases.But the pejorative meaning of "idiot" is so widespread that the technical term "idiot" is no longer used.

[towski]

Not in these forums. Here the argument is often that religion is an outdated notion soon to pass away. And, so far as I know, in "this nation" (meaning the US) religious people are in the majority.

I agree that the religious are in the majority, which is why I wrote minority. Because I can neither type nor think.

Not in these forums? I must have made up all the war on christmas and war on jesus threads in my non majority/minority processing imagination.

[Atticus]

I agree that the religious are in the majority, which is why I wrote minority. Because I can neither type nor think.

Not in these forums? I must have made up all the war on christmas and war on jesus threads in my non majority/minority processing imagination.I think the distinction between "the war on Christmas" (in which I didn't participate much because it seemed silly to me) and evangelical nature of some rational positivists is clear. How someone greets you in a store is a long way, for example, from arguing that parents ought not share their religious experiences with their children. :angel:

[towski]

I think the distinction between "the war on Christmas" (in which I didn't participate much because it seemed silly to me) and evangelical nature of some rational positivists is clear. How someone greets you in a store is a long way, for example, from arguing that parents ought not share their religious experiences with their children. :angel:

And I've seen little or no evidence of anyone making a real or concerted effort to prevent anyone from sharing their religious experiences with their children, outside of minor internet forum debate. And yet the religious leadership seems to have a vested interest in convincing their flock that such is the case.

[Atticus]

And I've seen little or no evidence of anyone making a real or concerted effort to prevent anyone from sharing their religious experiences with their children, outside of minor internet forum debate. And yet the religious leadership seems to have a vested interest in convincing their flock that such is the case.Really? I hadn't seen that. Gotta link?

[Ethos]

But the pejorative meaning of "idiot" is so widespread that the technical term "idiot" is no longer used.

Yes, and even if it were used, one couldn't demonstrate its accuracy.

The same is not the case for "superstition" and "cult". Both have clear definitions and when appropriately applied within the discussion, the pejorative meaning are subjective in nature and assumed by the reader.

Ethos

[Atticus]

And I've seen little or no evidence of anyone making a real or concerted effort to prevent anyone from sharing their religious experiences with their children, outside of minor internet forum debate. And yet the religious leadership seems to have a vested interest in convincing their flock that such is the case.Oh, and the book on which the argument was based is a best-seller.

[Atticus]

The same is not the case for "superstition" and "cult". Both have clear definitions and when appropriately applied within the discussion, the pejorative meaning are subjective in nature and assumed by the reader. You don't get exclusive control over what language means. It's a negotiation between sender and receiver. And you have to negotiate in good faith, otherwise you get into silly, circular arguments like this one.

[towski]

Oh, and the book on which the argument was based is a best-seller.

Book? Huh?

As for your attempt to play the naive link game above:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801632.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801566.html

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/warxian.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49044

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1621

http://www.amazon.com/Persecution-Liberals-Waging-Against-Christians/dp/0895261111

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Politics/story?id=1778011

http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/207

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/29/MNGHCHVJNE1.DTL

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-29-letters-christianity_x.htm

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/conference.to.cover.cultural.war.on.christians/5676.htm

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=20902

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12079836/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177355,00.html

http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest38.htm

http://www.chalcedon.edu/underwriters.php

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3227.html

I can go on for pages, if you'd like.

[Ethos]

You don't get exclusive control over what language means. It's a negotiation between sender and receiver. And you have to negotiate in good faith, otherwise you get into silly, circular arguments like this one.

The negotiation is dependent on the term being used. Some words have little room for interpretation and some have a more varied meaning to some people than others. By saying that Neopaganism is a cult religion (for example), I am factually correct. There is absolutely no room to negotiate the accuracy of my statement.

In any event, I'm not sure why this is a "silly" argument. Besides the fact you keep bringing it up in new threads, I find it an interesting commentary on (as Towski mentioned) the power of semantics and language (as you mentioned).

Ethos

[lawman]

I don't accept that premise. For some people, certainly, it's true. On the other hand, I know plenty of people who hold their political convictions much more closely than their religion, even if they're believers. Is that a result of a low religious conviction, or a strong political conviction? I think the comparison I see would be the strongly convicted politically with the strongly convicted religiously.
I can't answer that in any empirical way -- nor could anyone, short of an elaborate social science research project; until then, all I can offer is my subjective impression of other people's subjective impressions of the depth of their beliefs. It hardly matters, though, as it's still sufficient to counter the remarkably broad assertion that "[talking] politics much easier because not even the die hard fanatic invests as much as the faithful. [Religion] reaches deeper." My point is merely that different people take different personal convictions to heart, and can be defensive or thin-skinned about any number of things, not just religion.

So if I had said "what makes your beliefs any different from someone who believes in leprechauns and unicorns" that would be OK, simply because I didn't use the "s" word?No, because they are not really the same. But I could ask what objective evidence can you present and say whether it convinces or not, imho. These discussions start with the acceptance that someone does believe this, and that it is a very personal belief.
But that's the whole point of the question: to explore why and how they're "not the same," if in fact they're not. Whether or not someone takes a particular belief personally is beside the point (so long as no insults are involved), except insofar as such a person is often the best one to ask about it.

One could as easily ask for a comparison/contrast with a superstitious belief that a great many people take very seriously and personally (Astrology -- even though it lacks the usual trappings of a religion)... or OTOH with a superstitious belief that no one takes seriously and personally (the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster) -- even though it has all the trappings of a religion), and the central question would remain the same.

What I think Groucho is really getting at with the hypothetical, though (Groucho, please correct me if I'm wrong), is -- in what terms would it be acceptable to pose the question, to launch a discussion of these issues, without someone claiming offense? Because so far we don't seem to have found one: the mere desire to point out and discuss the supernatural aspects of religiosity, in any terms at all, is being treated as offensive. Which results in the walking-on-eggshells dynamic I described earlier, and has a real chilling effect on discourse.


According to some, ALL religion will soon be "outside the norms of society" and they work tirelessly to bring this circumstance about.

...the argument is often that religion is an outdated notion soon to pass away.
I haven't seen anyone around here advance that proposition. I'll cheerfully admit that I think society would be better off [I]if religion were to subside to a fringe belief rather than something central and normative, but I've never suggested that I actually expect that to happen in the U.S. in the foreseeable future, nor that I "work tirelessly" to bring it about, nor have I seen anyone else do so.

But even were you right, so what? This is what debate is about: one person thinks Belief System A is accurate and/or beneficial; another person thinks it's false and/or harmful; they come together and levy their best arguments in defense of those propositions.

And as for the term "cult" (which prompted your remark about "norms of society"), IMHO it's traditionally been the term that institutionalized religions use to question the credibility of any religion smaller than themselves. To have the term turned about on them seems like nothing more than rhetorical fair play... and certainly nothing so incendiary that continued debate wouldn't shed useful light on the actual issues raised.

Oh, and the book on which the argument was based ["to prevent anyone from sharing their religious experiences with their children"] is a best-seller.
If you're talking about Dawkins again, you very much misstate his position. It's not that people should somehow be legally prohibited from sharing their religious experiences with their children (how would that be possible, anyway?)... it is, rather -- as we've discussed -- that we as a society should not treat religion as some sort of hereditary trait, referring to (e.g.) a "Catholic child" when the child in question is too young to have made that decision for himself; and as a corollary [quoting p. 326], that parents ought not be allowed "to limit the horizons of their children's knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow path of their own faith." IOW, sharing your beliefs is one thing; making them mandatory is quite another.

But if you disagree, then, of course, this is the forum in which we can and should discuss it.

I don't see a special forum anywhere on these boards for "Atheism" or "Secular Humanism," after all. It's only reasonable to assume they fall under the "and Philosophy" part of this forum's label. That being the case -- and stipulating again that all people participating deserve equal respect -- it's hardly fair to insist that religion qua religion be afforded an extra helping of deference and "respect," while alternative views get no such advantage.

[steveksux]

I suspect the problem is merely a double standard.

Would you consider Voodoo to be superstition? How about Australian aboriginal beliefs? Native American religious beliefs? Eskimos? ANcient Greek and Roman Gods? The Egyptian gods? The "Cargo Cults" of WWII, where natives who were isolated from the modern world encountered modern industrialized cultures, and assumed they were Gods because of their advanced technology.

These are all equally valid, earnestly held beliefs in supernatural beings who intercede on our behalf when we properly worship them and strive to live lifestyles pleasing to them. Unless the people who are complaining about being labelled "superstitious" are willing to stipulate that those other religions are equally valid, and are not superstitions either, they themselves deserve no protection from being labelled "superstitious" given that they are unwilling to extend the same protection to others.

Either these protections extend to all supernatural beliefs or we are playing favorites with those holding evangelical christian beliefs, and anyone else is a second class cybercitizen.

And for the record, I find it highly offensive when people equate belief in superstitions (yeah, I said the word.. what're you gonna do about it?????) to belief in science, when only science has hard fast testable, falsifiable evidence to support it.

I expect to see the equating of belief in science and belief in religion to be taboo as well, before I have any intention of not equating religion with "superstition". Especially when the former is demonstrably factually false, and the latter is demostrably factually true.

I refuse to be treated as a second class citizen. I have feelings too. Especially when I'm right.

What's next, are we to humor those who believe the Earth is flat?

Randy

[Atticus]

I suspect the problem is merely a double standard.

Would you consider Voodoo to be superstition? How about Australian aboriginal beliefs? Native American religious beliefs? Eskimos? ANcient Greek and Roman Gods? The Egyptian gods? The "Cargo Cults" of WWII, where natives who were isolated from the modern world encountered modern industrialized cultures, and assumed they were Gods because of their advanced technology.

These are all equally valid, earnestly held beliefs in supernatural beings who intercede on our behalf when we properly worship them and strive to live lifestyles pleasing to them. Unless the people who are complaining about being labelled "superstitious" are willing to stipulate that those other religions are equally valid, and are not superstitions either, they themselves deserve no protection from being labelled "superstitious" given that they are unwilling to extend the same protection to others.

Either these protections extend to all supernatural beliefs or we are playing favorites with those holding evangelical christian beliefs, and anyone else is a second class cybercitizen.

And for the record, I find it highly offensive when people equate belief in superstitions (yeah, I said the word.. what're you gonna do about it?????) to belief in science, when only science has hard fast testable, falsifiable evidence to support it.

I expect to see the equating of belief in science and belief in religion to be taboo as well, before I have any intention of abandoning "superstition". I refuse to be treated as a second class citizen. I have feelings too.

RandyAgain, I think this has been discussed earlier. If someone on the forum held any of these beliefs and wanted to defend them, I'd ask they receive the same respect I'm asking for.

[prst31]

Would you consider Voodoo to be superstition? How about Australian aboriginal beliefs? Native American religious beliefs? Eskimos? ANcient Greek and Roman Gods? The Egyptian gods? The "Cargo Cults" of WWII, where natives who were isolated from the modern world encountered modern industrialized cultures, and assumed they were Gods because of their advanced technology.No I wouldn't. None of it. Our culture reserves that term for wearing the same socks everytime you go to a Chiefs game, which I do. Not really, but I have worn the same shirt during March Madness, that's superstitious.

These are all equally valid, earnestly held beliefs in supernatural beings who intercede on our behalf when we properly worship them and strive to live lifestyles pleasing to them. Unless the people who are complaining about being labelled "superstitious" are willing to stipulate that those other religions are equally valid, and are not superstitions either, they themselves deserve no protection from being labelled "superstitious" given that they are unwilling to extend the same protection to others.

Either these protections extend to all supernatural beliefs or we are playing favorites with those holding evangelical christian beliefs, and anyone else is a second class cybercitizen.Yep.

And for the record, I find it highly offensive when people equate belief in superstitions (yeah, I said the word.. what're you gonna do about it?????) to belief in science, when only science has hard fast testable, falsifiable evidence to support it.

I expect to see the equating of belief in science and belief in religion to be taboo as well, before I have any intention of abandoning "superstition". I refuse to be treated as a second class citizen. I have feelings too.

RandyYep. Edit: There's nothing scientific about my socks. Well that's not entirely true. There's nothing scientific about me believing irrationally that if a wear the same shirt when my favorite team plays, they'll win.

[steveksux]

No I wouldn't. None of it. Our culture reserves that term for wearing the same socks everytime you go to a Chiefs game, which I do. Not really, but I have worn the same shirt during March Madness, that's superstitious. At the risk of starting an entirely new semantic sub-argument... :eek:, that's merely a different kind of superstition, believing in "fate" as opposed to the machinations of one or more mystical beings. That WAS an embryonic form of religion before mankind invented gods in his own image....



Yep.

Yep.And yet, you and I both know that these same people appalled at being labelled "superstitious" would be equally horrified to be compared to Voodoo practitioners, or any of those other religions, or to the Flat earthers, another earnestly held belief based on religion so eminently mockable.

Hence, I submit they will complain anyway, no matter how the point is made that those are all equivalent belief systems based on earnest faith and zero evidence.

So what is the point of singling out "superstion"? The problem is not the term, it is precisely the correct and proper meaning of that term that causes the umbrage. If you could strip off all the negative connotation people imagine the term implies, the very fact that the point that is being made is precisely and solely equating their religion to all those other religious beliefs on equal footing is what gives them heartburn.

You can call it any thing you want to, it won't make any difference. It is the CONCEPT that offends them. Not the terminology, the terminology is merely a smokescreen.

The reason the word "Superstition" has a negative connotation is that they themselves associate it with those other "lesser" religions and use it to mock them.

The minute you make the point of equating their treasured religion with these other relics of prior cultures "discredited", "primitive" religions, they'll have a fit. Someone's Howard Stern quote about the Pope and a native with a bone through his nose sums it up perfectly.

Randy

[Atticus]

Book? Huh?

As for your attempt to play the naive link game above:
Thank you for the links. You've made your point. Please believe me when I say that while I might be naive, it wasn't a game.

[MikeD4o7]

Well said MikeD4o7. I do miss your reasoned posts.

That said, I think when you use a word like "superstition," you are insulting the poster, aren't you? If something you put you life, heart and soul in is a "superstition," how can the poster not be insulted.

Talking religion is tricky business to start with. Politics much easier because not even the die hard fanatic invests as much as the faithful. It reaches deeper.

Can we challenge ideas without using language like this?


I agree that unfortunately, people probably will feel insulted by the use of that word. I think that's different though from the person saying it actually intending it as a personal insult.

I kind of feel like the way our society treats religion goes too far in protecting it though. On the spectrum of things, it's almost like religion is treated more like race or gender than it is to a political ideology. In truth though, I think it definitely has more in common with the latter. Religion is not something a person is born with that they can't choose. Everybody actively chooses what they believe, and everybody bases that belief on their personal reasoning, feeling, and emotions. In that regard it's exactly the same as a political belief

It's true that people generally have very deep-seeded feelings about religion, but I don't think that alone justifies protecting religions from the same kind of scrutiny and criticism that we apply to any other idea or belief. If anything, I would think that there are actually a handful of political debates that are even more offensive than religious criticism.

I really do think that the example of homosexuality is evidence of that. What could be more offensive than people throwing around the idea that an uncontrollable and defining characteristic of yourself is inherently wrong? At least with religion it's chosen. Again, even as I bring up that example, I think it wouldn't be a good idea to restrict that kind of debate either. Homosexual people will obviously be offended by it, but at the same time, it opens up a debate, and if homosexuality clearly is wrong, that will be proven reasonably. If it's not, that can also be made evident by reason.

This example is especially ironic too, considering those who argue against homosexuality and offend people in that manner almost always fall back to spiritual reasoning, but yet spiritual reasoning itself is not to be criticized for the fear that doing so is too offensive. Something in that equation seems way off to me.

[steveksux]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/08/idaho_congressman_disturbed_by.phpAccording to Congressman Sali, the only way the U.S. can continue to survive is under that protective hand of God. He states when a Hindu prayer is offered, "that's a different god" and that it "creates problems for the longevity of this country."

Apparently the Hindu religion is somehow inferior to Christianity. Perhaps he's even thinking its merely a "superstition".

Again I reiterate. The problem some have with Christianity being labelled superstition is merely a reflection of the disregard they have for other religions. They believe all religions are superstitions. Except theirs. That's the issue they have with the term being applied to them.
Period. Didn't the Pope himself cause a stir recently, labelling other religions as "Inferior"? Same thing in action.

Have to give them credit though. They are 99% right. All those other religions ARE superstitions, and they recognize and acknowlege that in their hearts. Only difference between them saying it and me is they mean that in a demeaning sense. They are only wrong about that one religion. Theirs.

Even if they were right and their religion was true, and God exists, its still a superstition, a belief in a supernatural being. That's why its simply not a demeaning term.

Randy

[Groucho]

Let's see...where's that quote? Ah, here it is.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

[TomAZ]

He did? Got a link? Just curious.

I'm also not sure why that matters. I mean, does GWB post to WS? What's his screen name?



Sorry for the delayed reply Atticus. Just returned from a long road trip.

Just review Bush's speeches from when the Iraq invasion began instead of trying to be a smart-***.

[Atticus]

Sorry for the delayed reply Atticus. Just returned from a long road trip.

Just review Bush's speeches from when the Iraq invasion began instead of trying to be a smart-***.I resent your calling me a smart-***, for two reasons.

First, because it is up to YOU to prove your point. Telling me to go look it up myself is a cop-out, since I may see different things in his speeches than you do.

Second, because if GWB doesn't post to this board, we need not respect HIS ideas.

***

As for Christians disrespecting Hindus or anyone else, the rules require that Christians respect the ideas of others as well. In fact, if you were to look at how the rules for the R & P forum have been enforced, you'd find that Christians have been pulled up short more than any other group.

[MikeD4o7]

What do we do when the religious beliefs themselves are disrespectful or offensive? Should discriminatory, violent, or dangerous beliefs really be safeguarded from criticism just because the beliefs are religious in nature?

Doesn't that seem like a bad idea?

[Atticus]

What do we do when the religious beliefs themselves are disrespectful or offensive? Should discriminatory, violent, or dangerous beliefs really be safeguarded from criticism just because the beliefs are religious in nature?

Doesn't that seem like a bad idea?We're not talking about law or even custom, but discussion on an internet forum. If someone were to advocate for an idea you found discriminatory, violent, or dangerous, you could certainly ask about it and even compare it to the law. It's possible to criticize a religious practice from the point of view of law or other practical concern. What's not appropriate is to compare it unfavorably with another belief or system of thought.

[Dangerrmouse]

Why not? Anyone professing a particular religion has necessarily rejected all others. What is inappropriate is giving one particular form of expression of ideas special undeserved status.

[Atticus]

Why not? Anyone professing a particular religion has necessarily rejected all others. What is inappropriate is giving one particular form of expression of ideas special undeserved status.I'm not sure you're being exactly clear here, but I'll suggest two places where I think need to disagree. First, I don't think that professing one belief means "rejecting all others." There are many religions, for example, that do not require rejecting every other one. And there are believers like myself who see their own religion as simply the most convenient expression of something more universal.

And then there's the word "deserved," which is entirely problematic, it seems to me. It's meaning reflects a moral or ethical distinction, which then becomes circular.

[Dangerrmouse]

Yet you plead a special case for religion to be treated "appropriately" but appear to have no moral or ethical qualms about deciding whether what is said is appropriate or otherwise in this one instance.

[Atticus]

Yet you plead a special case for religion to be treated "appropriately" but appear to have no moral or ethical qualms about deciding whether what is said is appropriate or otherwise in this one instance.Well, it's not a "special case" in a forum called "religion and philosophy." It's the forum that's special. And as for the rest, I'm not at all sure what you mean. What instance are you referring to? We have