2008-07-11 - Rider Down, NW11

As for the rest of your stuff on religion - erm, while I agree with you that the content of most religion is clearly irrational, the practice of using communally shared myths to maintain the cohesion of a group, enforce norms and provide a motivating force for collective action was, and still is, rational in a purely evolutionary sense

Agreed.

communities that work together effectively are more successful than those that don't. Admittedly we're still using mythologies created back when we were barely more than hunter-gatherers, but I guess that shows how effective they were.

Agreed.

Anyway, if you want people to stop believing in such superstitions you have to provide them with some other communal mythology to replace it,

I don't think I have stated that I would like people to do anything ! Perhaps my argument is a little too effete ? I would be horrified if these people lost their religion, it would be mayhem out there, the majority claim morality from god, god keeps them in check, provides moral guidance, I am often told that without faith there is nothing to stop you raping and killing, I would be horrified if this barrier was removed.

For god's sake keep them in their churches ! :)

Regardless, simply pointing at religious doctrine and saying 'it doesn't make sense' isn't going to make any religious person give up their faith.

Very true.

Noel would e a good name for a chid

Tynan, if I may say so, on religion you sound like a reformed smoker who screams whenever someone lights up within 1 mile of their nose because that's the only way they can resist the urge of lighting up themselves.

All religions are based on empathy but we are humans and to cultivate empathy is not as fun as getting angry and finding faults in others.

I am glad we can have this conversation, in some places we could be in serious trouble for talking against religion.

And Tynan you are a superstar on this forum.

Oh and a good thing about Jesus, if he hadn't changed water into wine our culture wouldn't be revolving so much around the pub ;)
or is that a bad thing?

Hi pajamas

No need for pointless ad hominem, if you don't agree with what I have posted then challenge what I have posted, no me as a person, but please don't drag my chid into this to attack my argument.

Low technique.

No low technique involved - I think I have a pretty good track record on that. It was the cloud business I was referring to and I was enjoying and agreeing with every word, no attacking going on man. And it was an affectionate joke about sleepless nights dude, not a dig, my sympathy for your night shifts are there but are not involved in my assimilation of anything you're saying...

Noel would e a good name for a chid

cliveo's a clever clogs. You crafted a eautiful joke out of something i had also noticed ut didn't have the heart to flag up..:D

Oh and a good thing about Jesus, if he hadn't changed water into wine our culture wouldn't be revolving so much around the pub ;)
or is that a bad thing?

And I guess if he hadn't rustled up catering for five thousand based on loaves and fishes we wouldn't be so into fish n chips?

I'm starting to think this Jesus bloke should have opened an English bar in Benidorm.

The rules are simple, pick something banal, the more banal the better, anything will do, the content is unimportnant it just needs to be imbued with some vagueness, some uncertainty as to what you are saying - "The cloud knows not where he is going, nor will he get there" - say it with complete authority, say it very very slowly, almost comically so, putting long pauses between odd couplings of words and place emphasis on where you would not expect emphasis:

The cloud . . .

Knows not W_h_e_r_e (really drag this word out). . .

he ? is going . . . (try and make 'he' sound like a question in it's own right)

Nor . . .

. . .

Will he get there. (always say the final word very very quietly, almost whisper it)

Music | Myspace Music

And I guess if he hadn't rustled up catering for five thousand based on loaves and fishes we wouldn't be so into fish n chips?

I'm starting to think this Jesus bloke should have opened an English bar in Benidorm.

He did! That's him now after reincarnation

All religions are based on empathy but we are humans and to cultivate empathy is not as fun as getting angry and finding faults in others.

I don't agree that religion is based on empathy, I think it is much more nuanced/complex than that, but I am sure empathy has some part somewhere, I agree with the rest though !

I am glad we can have this conversation, in some places we could be in serious trouble for talking against religion.

Yep, like I have said I think the foundations of religion (epistemological foundations not social or cultural foundations) are so blatantly nonsensical, so easy to see through that religion's only real defence over the centuries has been to to silence criticism, to establish a culture of reverence and deference.

If a politician tells us that we should kick all the homosexuals out of the country, I am free to tell him I find his ideas contemptuous, I find his views abhorrent. I could probably call him a cunt to his face and not be overly criticized for doing so (even if you may not agree with that kind of language yourself).

If a senior Church of England bishop tells us that the floods that devastated great swathes of the Midlands last year were caused by our increasing tolerance towards gays (Rt Rev Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle July 07) - and I walked up to him and I took the same line I took with our politician (going as far as to call him a cunt to his face) - there would be embarrassment all around and calls for me to 'calm down'.

This cultural deference, protection from challenge is what these superstitions rely on, it allows them the freedom to espouse the most arrogant and comic claims to knowledge without challenge.

And Tynan you are a superstar on this forum.

Brilliant news, do I get anything, a badge or something like that ? :)

Oh and a good thing about Jesus, if he hadn't changed water into wine our culture wouldn't be revolving so much around the pub ;)
or is that a bad thing?

I would love to see this extended to it's logical conclusion, a pub called '***the Jesus Christ'
***.

No low technique involved - I think I have a pretty good track record on that. It was the cloud business I was referring to and I was enjoying and agreeing with every word, no attacking going on man. And it was an affectionate joke about sleepless nights dude, not a dig, my sympathy for your night shifts are there but are not involved in my assimilation of anything you're saying...

Ok, got you, I take back what I said, I still love you*. :)

*(but you still might go to hell if you fuck around)

Brilliant news, do I get anything, a badge or something like that ? :)

You are the photoshop GOD, here's the raw material

Tynan - one of the original points made in this thread was if offence was caused by the statement 'Jesus was a cock', you baulk at the example of your chid being bought into the argument but to many people the 'relationship' they feel they have with Jesus is as real and tangible [however delusional and misguided you feel this is] as the relationship you have with your son

If a politician tells us that we should kick all the homosexuals out of the country, I am free to tell him I find his ideas contemptuous, I find his views abhorrent. I could probably call him a cunt to his face and not be overly criticized for doing so (even if you may not agree with that kind of language yourself).

If a senior Church of England bishop tells us that the floods that devastated great swathes of the Midlands last year were caused by our increasing tolerance towards gays (Rt Rev Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle July 07) - and I walked up to him and I took the same line I took with our politician (going as far as to call him a cunt to his face) - there would be embarrassment all around and calls for me to 'calm down'.
.

is this true? not from me there wouldn't. I'd be too busy chipping in "and a bellend".
Just to even up the gender-specific-organ-as-insult quota.

i can't believe someone said that. Tynan are you selectively quoting again.....? hold on...let me find the original statement...

rifles through papers

here we go - he actually said "Due to someone blocking the sink up in the Pink Flamingo in Birmingham - which is a gay bar and was open for several days and nights of revelling - the main Severn Trent distributor pipe serving much of the Midlands eventually exploded under the pressure, causing widespread floods across the region". I'm not sure why he was a bishop of Carlisle was appointed spokesman for the Severn Trent flood squad but there you go...;D

Tynan - one of the original points made in this thread was if offence was caused by the statement 'Jesus was a cock', you baulk at the example of your chid being bought into the argument but to many people the 'relationship' they feel they have with Jesus is as real and tangible [however delusional and misguided you feel this is] as the relationship you have with your son

ooh that's good point BDW...

Reminds me of this

:D - brilliant, love the 'stopping in the middle of the song' bit. :)

It's so true, throw in a load of demogogary to all the pseudo-profundity and it is perfectly applicable to politicians. :)

Blair did the pause between words it brilliantly, a few time I actually laughed out load (I am not joking) - once you notice it or have ot pointed out it is so blatantly a performance, but I am surprised at how you can missed it and be taken in with the whole 'fuck this is some heavy shit he is saying'.

With religion you are told the most blatant ideas and sold the idea that you have just heard the most profound and revelatory news, the 'good' man from Samaria (which kind kicked this off) is just exactly that, a basic idea of kindness wrapped up as a profound message.

On that political poem thing he even did the 'get real quiet at the end' bit (I went for 'whipser') - what I did miss out was the 'repeat the last line. Always makes anything sound important. :) I will have to nick that for my speeches. ;P

Right, the new deeply profound 'The Cloud'

The cloud . . .

Knows not W_h_e_r_e (really drag this word out). . .

he ? is going . . . (try and make 'he' sound like a question in it's own right)

Nor . . .

. . .

Will he get there. (always say the final word very very quietly, almost whisper it)

(And once again after a long pause - and now put as a question.)

Will he get there ?

(And finally with entirely arbitrary emphisis)

Will he get there ?

with Kevin Eldon doing it..

Tynan - one of the original points made in this thread was if offence was caused by the statement 'Jesus was a cock', you baulk at the example of your chid being bought into the argument but to many people the 'relationship' they feel they have with Jesus is as real and tangible [however delusional and misguided you feel this is] as the relationship you have with your son

What I said was:

"No need for pointless ad hominem, if you don't agree with what I have posted then challenge what I have posted, no me as a person, but please don't drag my chid into this to attack my argument."

Notice I am defending my argument not my child.

Jesus is the subject here, my child is not the subject here.

What I am saying is that if we are discussing something then we should stick to that subject as much as possible (within reason) and not turn to ad hominem.

It turns out I misunderstood Pajamamamamamas intention, but the point remains.

Let me put it like this, I see argument as valid when it goes like this:

a) I think XXXX is a load of shit
b) why is that then
a) XXXX has caused so much financial trouble it should have never been used.
b) but without XXXX we would have no banking system
a) that's true but there are alternatives to XXXX that would have been better
b) Go on then name one that would have worked
a) YYYY might have worked if it was given enough time
b) YYYY faied when it was used in France
a) The UK and France have very differing financial markets

etc etc

Argument and counter-argument.

But when argument goes like this, it becomes largely pointless:

a) I think XXXX is a load of shit
b) why is that then
a) XXXX has caused so much financial trouble it should have never been used.
b) oh, so you know all about banking now do you
a) I know more than you
b) Well if you do know more than me, why was your wife made bankrupt last year
a) maybe we didn't want to play the 9 -5 game like you

etc etc

I am not saying that this thread has come anywhere near the second example, but I am always weary of it, when the subject drifts from what is being discussed to the personalities and lives of those discussing it - it is going in the wrong direction in my opinion, I thought (mistakenly) that was were we were headed.

'Jesus is a cock' is my opening gambit, it is the subject I started with, it is something I am willing to expand on.

P.S. (I would have gone for YYYY, much better for long term investors and the elderly)

is this true? not from me there wouldn't. I'd be too busy chipping in "and a bellend".

:D

'Bellend', much underused insult in my opinion.

You might wade in and lamp him and so would many, but my point remains that religion has built up a wall of deference that protects it from legitimate questioning and criticism that we would not think twice about leveling at other ideas.

i can't believe someone said that. Tynan are you selectively quoting again.....? hold on...let me find the original statement...

What he said is not really the point, it is just an example to illustrate the point I am attempting to make, there are, of course, endless examples of religious nonsense spouted from the mouths of the vicars of god that are rarely if ever challenged.

If in any other area of public discourse I made similar outlandish and bizarre claims to knowledge about the nature of the universe, I would be quite rightly laughed at.

That is what these claims deserve, laugher, but what they demand is deference and respect, without that they would quickly be seen for what they are By the way the Bishop of Carlisle was not the only member of the COE to ascribe the floods last year to batty men, I forget the other bastards name right now.

Here is Graham Dow sharing with us information he received (presumably) though divine revelation from the creator of the universe:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1556131/Floods-are-judgment-on-society%2C-say-bishops.html

Gotta love these madmen ! :)

but I am always weary of it, when the subject drifts from what is being discussed to the personalities and lives of those discussing it - is is going to wrong way in my opinion, I thought (mistakenly) that was were we were going.

'Jesus is a cock' is my opening gambit, it is the subject I started with, it is something I am willing to expand on.

P.S. (I would have gone for YYYY, much better for long term investors and the elderly)

Now you're really being offensive - I don't want to know that you're willing to expand on Jesus's cock. Oh, hold on....

perhaps religion is one of those subjects that is so linked with the personalities and lives of those talking about it that it's difficult to kick it around without veering from the argument template you illustrate.

BTW who's this guy Ad Hominem? Does he veer off the subject a lot?

Okay.. I'm off out. Even though we've said all this though tynan - facts must be faced: handlebars don't chop themselves just because someone's gone over a van bonnet..... kindest regards as ever.....

*Jesus **is the subject here, my child is *not the subject here.

that's the parameters you are setting,

by making a statement that is percieved by adherents of a particular faith system as being beyond pure intellectual discourse and involves what to them is tangible and real then they will bring in a mutual reference point to exemplify what they feel they experience [ie, human relationships]

btw - chidist :^]

with Kevin Eldon doing it..

Perfect :)

:D

Here is Graham Dow sharing with us information he received (presumably) though divine revelation from the creator of the universe:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1556131/Floods-are-judgment-on-society%2C-say-bishops.html

but not specifically saying gays prompted floods - the article infers that he said that through connecting some other things but by the quotes present he didn't. He goes on about god's judgement metered out in weather; he goes on about society's permissiveness; he talks about the new sexual whatever laws..but not gays causing floods. At the same time yeah, he seems to directly say some stuff that is fairly dumb to your average thinking person.

okay, I'm going out..

I've no idea if I'll ever get to have a chid of my own.

*Jesus **is the subject here, my child is *not the subject here.

that's the parameters you are setting,

Hopefully yes, thats the subject Jesus, religion, god, the Bible, theology in general and people's views on that subject.

I don't think I can be said to be setting any parameters because I don't recognise an attack on the person putting the view forward as valid - whilst accepting an attack on the argument as perfectly valid ?

(again, just to reiterate that this in not what Pjamamamas intended)

by making a statement that is percieved by adherents of a particular faith system as being beyond pure intellectual discourse and involves what to them is tangible and real then they will bring in a mutual reference point to exemplify what they feel they experience [ie, human relationships]

Ok, you possibly have point here, so what can I say, if it promotes someone's argument do what you think works, but I can't help thinking these kinds tangents are less relevant.

I've no idea if I'll ever get to have a chid of my own.

Not when I have finished with you.