I'll post here because it I believe that the general principles I am discussing have a direct impact on how LGBT rights and religion intersect and I will attempt to use illustrate how to keep it at least partly on topic.
Wow. I never said you can't disagree and debate with parts of Christianity or anything even close to that, calling it "absurd" or "silly" is different.
No it's not. Functionally what it's doing is placing artificial and arbitrary limits on the discourse. As a thought exercise instead of a religion, pick another sort of philosophical or ethical system. Would you say that Stoicism, Epicurianism, Laissez-Faire Capitalism, Juche or what have you can't be called absurd or silly (if you think so)? Or what about the more fringe religious beliefs that are generally considered Acceptable Targets
like the Raelians or Scientology? Was South Park
wrong for mocking them? And if not, what sets mainstream religious beliefs apart from them that renders them immune to similar treatment.
It's INCREDIBLY pointless to go out and call people's beliefs absurd
I can only disagree with this in the strongest possible terms. One of the key weapons used against groups like the Westboro Baptist Church is pointing out the absurdity of their position. God hates Shrimp was a popular counter to their extreme focus on the parts of Leviticus that are commonly read as condemning homosexuality.
Also, as a more general rule, calling the Song of Solomon ancient Hebrew porn, or Ecclesiastes ancient Hebrew emo, generally raises few hackles than calling out the more troubling passages of Judges and Kings and is a valuable tool to making a further point about how the Bible (or Torah and Tanakh if you're Jewish) are perhaps not the best guides to life in the 21st Century.
since nobody can prove it one way or the other.
Okay, that's just a stinking, steaming pile of bovine excrement. There are dozens of religious beliefs that have been proven wrong over the centuries. A young earth (the best you can hope for is creation with the appearance of age), geocentrism and others. To loop this back on topic, the increasing prevalence of legal, same sex marriages proves that there is nothing inherently wrong with same-sex relations and any religiously based prohibitions against it are purely arbitrary (or at best based on extremely outdated concepts).
It's like me saying that liking a purple is silly, when there is no objective proof or anything even close to a reason to NOT like purple except for my own subjective reasons.
Except that there have been many cases where religious beliefs have been proved objectively wrong. Silly or absurd might be somewhat subjective reactions (everyone's sense of humour is different after all), but by your own logic, that makes them just as a valid a reaction.
With the "billions of followers" point, that was me saying that several people could be offended by somebody calling their beliefs silly. You're not reading that right if you took it as" We are the majority, your opinion is irrelevent."
No, I took it as an argumentum ad populum. Just saying that a lot of people believe something (and might be offended) does not in of itself grant those beliefs validity.
It also illustrates a major problem with religious beliefs in general. It encourages people to make their beliefs part of their identity. I'm not insulting them, I'm insulting the belief system that they adhere to, but because people treat those beliefs as part of their self-identity they get all worked up because they perceive it as an attack on them. It's part of why people get so worked up about marriage equality when ultimately it has no effect on them whatsoever
I'm perfectly fine with people disagreeing with religion and debating it, but it's a whole 'nother idea to call the idea of believing in a God silly. [[quoteblock]]
I'll repeat myself here just for the sake of emphasis. No, it's not. It's a logical extension criticism and critique, even if couched in somewhat subjective language.
[[quoteblock]]I don't call Democrats silly for being Democrats, after all, and nobody should.
And again, no. For one thing, it's a prime example of confusing ideology and identity like I mentioned before. And being a Democrat just for being a Democrat is in fact silly and I have no compunctions about saying so. If you have a reason
for being a Democrat, then it stops being silly, at least inherently. It could still be silly depending on the exact reason.
I wasn't even being serious. Point was that he COULD have done it.
And I'm pointing out that it's bad arguement
because it's works on a superficial argument and Fridge Logic
results in it undermining the point it was trying to defend in the first place.
edited 27th Jun '13 9:46:36 PM by KnightofLsama