|
Replies: 44
| visibility 1
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Neo-Atheism, Islam and the media.
Aug 12, 2015, 12:54 AM
|
|
Any adults with a chance of open-mindedness who want to expand their perspective on religion and Islam in the media.... An Agnostic talks to a Muslim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGBsmvRbpck
If you are one of those who wants to dig in to something you already believe in... this is not for you.
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1482]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 2011
Joined: 3/4/11
|
Re: Neo-Atheism, Islam and the media.
Aug 12, 2015, 10:03 AM
|
|
F that.
I "learn" by seeking out things that reinforce my perspective. I "learn" especially well if provided with a simple scapegoat too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
You could probably have said more about who these folks are
Aug 12, 2015, 12:14 PM
|
|
Cenk Uygur is a host of a progressive talk radio show and was supposed to have a show on MSNBC. He's also been awarded by the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the American Humanist Association. He says he's "argued vehemently against religion." At any rate, the guy is hard core secular left.
Reza Aslan is right to criticize new atheists for their caricatures, but his liberal sociological perspective on religion is simply bad theology. It's an attempt to import modernism into particular theologies in order to make them more compatible with modish ways of thinking. He can say that there's nothing in particular about Islam that causes Islamic radicalism if he can boil particular theologies into a general syncretic "religion" that's not really Islam or Christianity. That's why he can say he's a Sunni Muslim from the Sufi tradition who also thinks he's a follower of Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7013]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5127
Joined: 8/30/14
|
Atheism is easy - just do not believe in something.
Aug 12, 2015, 2:13 PM
|
|
If you are Christian, you are also atheist in regard to the 1000 + other deities out there.
Atheism does not need apologetics to defend their points of view. Disbelief is all it takes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Atheism is easy - just do not believe in something.
Aug 12, 2015, 2:40 PM
|
|
Furthermore, it is a disbelief based on a lack of evidence. It is not anti-religion in any sense.
Now some atheist are anti-religion but being an atheist simply means you don't believe in a god or gods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Atheists do believe in something. They believe there is no
Aug 12, 2015, 4:22 PM
[ in reply to Atheism is easy - just do not believe in something. ] |
|
God.
That's just as much as a belief as the other way around.
Now Agnostics, who make no claims, are different. But anyone who believes there is no God has just as much of a belief system as anyone else.
Many casual atheists seem to not understand the logic of their own position, similar to casual followers of any religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: Atheists do believe in something. They believe there is no
Aug 14, 2015, 3:30 PM
|
|
No, they don't. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. That's different from saying "I believe there is no god."
I lack belief because I haven't been shown good evidence that any god exists. I don't say it's impossible for a god to exist.
Your strawman attempts are weak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
That's such a semantics cop-out. Either someone
Aug 14, 2015, 4:11 PM
|
|
believes in God or believes there is no God or they don't have a belief one way or the other.
There are no other possibilities. A "lack of a belief in God" isintentionally vague as it includes two different possibilities.
Most of those who associate with atheists believe that there is not a God. Which is why some prefer agnostic because they feel it's unknowable, leaving them with no belief either way.
Are you saying that the following statement does not correctly describe you...
I believe that there probably isn't a God.
If it does, then you have a belief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: That's such a semantics cop-out. Either someone
Aug 14, 2015, 4:26 PM
|
|
Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
disbelieve: be unable to believe (someone or something).
disbelief: inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
I think you are trying to say that Atheism is as much of a belief system as theism is. But that's not the case. It's actually the complete opposite. An atheist literally lacks the belief in a god or gods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: That's such a semantics cop-out. Either someone
Aug 14, 2015, 6:38 PM
[ in reply to That's such a semantics cop-out. Either someone ] |
|
"Most of those who associate with atheists believe that there is not a God."
Citation, please.
"Which is why some prefer agnostic because they feel it's unknowable, leaving them with no belief either way."
Agnosticism and atheism are two different things. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism deals with belief. I happen to be an agnostic atheist - I don't know if a god exists, and I don't believe in any. Agnosticism isn't some halfway house between belief and non-belief, it's a completely separate category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
So you are telling me that you don't believe that...
Aug 20, 2015, 3:24 PM
|
|
there is no God?
You avoided that direct question in the last post, which is the point I was making. The definition of the word has dishonestly shifted once atheists realized that they had the same level of faith that theists had.
Atheism DOES NOT mean what many claim it does today. Those of us familiar with intellectual history on the subject know better. Like many words, there has been a shift in the definition to suit the modern position of it's proponents.
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#1
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9107]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14107
Joined: 11/5/05
|
Not really.
Aug 20, 2015, 3:47 PM
|
|
> The definition of
> the word has dishonestly shifted once atheists
> realized that they had the same level of faith that
> theists had.
This is a dishonest argument, and one that is false.
Not having proof of something and believing in it requires faith.
Asking for proof of something, not receiving it, and then not believing it does not require faith. It's absence of belief due to lack of evidence.
If I told you that I had found evidence of life on other planets and offered no evidence, and you said you didn't believe it due to that lack of evidence, our differing beliefs do not require the same level of faith.
One believes despite the lack of evidence, the other does not believe due to the lack of evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
If you believe there is no God... you believe in something
Aug 20, 2015, 7:43 PM
|
|
that has not been proved.
Therefore, you have faith that there is no God. You may believe that there is more of a chance that what you believe is true, but that still requires faith. Many atheists, like followers of any other form of group-think, bend logic to refute the fact that logic isn't any more on their side.
Everyone has faith in everything in order to believe anything. Even our own perception requires faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9107]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14107
Joined: 11/5/05
|
Again, not really.
Aug 21, 2015, 8:10 AM
|
|
At the end of the day, not believing in something due to lack of evidence =/= believing in something despite lack of evidence. It is what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Logic is on my side here. Your wording is not the same idea
Aug 21, 2015, 12:10 PM
|
|
as mine.
You can't argue with my wording, so you stuck to your own, (thus changing the meaning) which is the underlying problem of neo-atheism.
Neo-atheism erroneously attempts to grab the logical high ground, even though it's not possible.
If you believe that it is true that there is no God, then that is different than merely not believing in a God.
This is where being precise helps an honest debate. Neo-Atheists avoid precision, which is disingenuous.
Lacking a belief and having a belief are different. This is why the original definition of Atheism was a claim that no God existed while agnostics were those who didn't make a claim. Once Atheists realized that their position also relied on faith, semantics were toyed with which enabled Atheists to pretend their claim didn't need evidence while the opposition's claim did. That is simply illogical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9107]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14107
Joined: 11/5/05
|
Re: Logic is on my side here. Your wording is not the same idea
Aug 21, 2015, 12:16 PM
|
|
> If you believe that it is true that there is no God,
> then that is different than merely not believing in a
> God.
Hmmmm, so believing it's true that there's not an invisible green monster on the wall of my living room right now is different than not believing there's an invisible green monster on the wall of my living room right now?
I guess I see your point. Good luck on your quest to convince the world that not believing in god due to lack of evidence requires the same amount of faith as believing in god despite a lack of evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
I would question your claim in lack of evidence. I happen to
Aug 21, 2015, 12:20 PM
|
|
believe that there is overwhelmingly more evidence to support the general idea of a organizing/creating force. Whether one wants to call it Mother Nature, a higher power, a creator or whatever, there is strong evidence that planning/organization/purpose surrounds everything.
Bearded dudes in the sky who prefer certain people? No evidence of that, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9107]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14107
Joined: 11/5/05
|
I guess that depends on what you mean by an
Aug 21, 2015, 12:23 PM
|
|
organizing or creating force. If you're talking about something supernatural then I would disagree.
Definitely agree with the second part of your post.
Good talk, Russ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
That begs the question: What defines supernatural?
Aug 21, 2015, 12:33 PM
|
|
Hypothetically speaking, if Hindus are right about the Great World Soul, would that count as supernatural?
It's a claim that the Universe is a physical manifestation of a interconnected Soul that all forms of life are sparks of a central organizing force. A source of all logic, meaning, and purpose.
Surely its reasonable to believe in cause and effect. Atheism is the only denial of cause and effect in existence.
Is life itself supernatural?
I think people are too comfortable with their preconceived notions of natural vs supernatural. These ideas are really just a contra-reaction to Judaic monotheism and its offshoots. A very Western perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9107]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14107
Joined: 11/5/05
|
Meh, being a Western perspective doesn't make it less valid.
Aug 21, 2015, 1:04 PM
|
|
Something supernatural is basically like #### - hard to define but I know it when I see it.
It seems as if this is another attempt to define atheism as faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9107]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14107
Joined: 11/5/05
|
Oh nevermid, you seem to be arguing from the perspective
Aug 21, 2015, 1:16 PM
[ in reply to That begs the question: What defines supernatural? ] |
|
of supernaturalism or that atheism defies the law of causality.
I've never found those to be particularly compelling arguments. Way too many holes in them for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
What I really mean to say is...
Aug 22, 2015, 2:59 PM
|
|
the popular understanding of the word supernatural is a bit odd.
Humans understand very little about the Universe. If we define "supernatural" as something that humans haven't established as scientific knowledge, then that isn't much a useful definition.
Let's look at the actual definition of the word.
attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
If we are being honest and accurate, nearly all of modern science has at some point fit into this definition. Considering the entire purpose of science is to improve one's understanding of reality, anyone willing to cast aside possibilities because they don't fit into a current understanding of a universe is being very unscientific.
In other words, if there really is a Great World Soul, then it's not supernatural. It's as real as gravity. If there really is a benevolent designing/organizing force behind the physical universe, then it isn't supernatural. Instead of being outside of science, that would be the SOURCE of science.
My criticism of the word supernatural is that it is intellectually counterproductive. Eliminating possibilities based on imperfect associations arising from a comprehensively incomplete understanding of the Universe brings no one close to understanding reality.
In this sense, overusing the concept of supernatural is similar to relying on the Christian Bible as the blueprint for all meaning. It's limited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9107]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14107
Joined: 11/5/05
|
I don't agree.
Aug 23, 2015, 1:53 PM
|
|
Just because something is real, doesn't mean it can't be supernatural.
If the monotheistic god of popular Judeo-Christian theology does in fact exist, with the supposed omniscient and omnipotent powers that followers of said religious traditions attribute, he/she/it would not be able to be explained by science since he/she/it would not be subject to the physical laws that we have observed in our universe. He/she/it literally could not even be tested by scientific inquiry. How could you devise a test for a being that literally could do anything and knows everything? How would you know if he/she/it didn't manipulate the results or simply put incorrect information directly into your brain? Therefore, beyond scientific understanding...aka "supernatural".
It's a useful term when used in the way I did since it means something that is beyond the ability of science to understand.
Also, I think you're making the mistake of thinking I equate current scientific knowledge with the ability of science to understand something. I don't do that, and I don't know anyone who does. Some folks probably do though.
Regardless, there's no evidence for this monotheistic god (or the one world soul for that matter) that I've seen aside from the cultural trappings in various religions and the "personal testimony" of believers, which isn't evidence that something actually exists at all. I'm not discounting them as possibilities, I'm saying I haven't seen any evidence for them so I don't believe they exist. That doesn't require any faith at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Re: I don't agree.
Aug 23, 2015, 5:29 PM
|
|
Just because something is real, doesn't mean it can't be supernatural.
That doesn't make sense to me. If it's real, then it fits into nature, humans just may not know how yet. I mean... black holes could be supernatural if we are that loose with the term.
If the monotheistic god of popular Judeo-Christian theology does in fact exist
The Judeo-Christian World-view isn't possible, I believe. The story, if taken anything close to literal goes against even the little portion of science we know today. So you would have to step outside of Judeo Christian schemes to see my point.
he/she/it would not be able to be explained by science since he/she/it would not be subject to the physical laws that we have observed in our universe.
This simply isn't true. If there is an organizing force, or a source of purpose that connects all of the universe, it may very well be observable. One is being enormously overconfident to claim they know otherwise.
It's a useful term when used in the way I did since it means something that is beyond the ability of science to understand.
The does that mean that a large portion of physics is supernatural, now thanks to relativity? Science can't measure or observe most of the universe right now. Doesn't that make it supernatural at this point? Ideas about what constitutes supernatural are very presentist.
Regardless, there's no evidence for this monotheistic god (or the one world soul for that matter) that I've seen aside from the cultural trappings in various religions and the "personal testimony" of believers, which isn't evidence that something actually exists at all. I'm not discounting them as possibilities, I'm saying I haven't seen any evidence for them so I don't believe they exist. That doesn't require any faith at all.
Monotheism is a very specific belief about the nature of the Universe. Limiting the argument to that one narrow scenario makes the discussion invalid. There is plenty of evidence of a organizing force or purpose. All animals are inclined to survive. While many take that for granted, its a huge clue. The existence of intricate, extremely complicated systems that coordinate to promote life proves that purpose exists. The scientifically observable relationship between cause and effect. If literally everything happens for a reason, then the most irrational conclusion possible is that all of those reasons are for no reason. If we see the top of a skyscraper, we assume there is a foundation. Assuming there is no underlying purpose is choosing to believe in suspended skyscraper upper halves.
And your last sentence is illogical. ANY belief without proof requires a certain amount of faith. That is just the way it is. If you believe there probably isn't any underlying source of logic/purpose/meaning, unless you can scientifically prove it, that belief is partially faith-based. Just like I have faith that when I click "Post Message" it will be view-able to other users. I have solid evidence that causes me to believe that, but I don't know for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9107]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14107
Joined: 11/5/05
|
Meh, I've explained that I'm not "presentist",
Aug 24, 2015, 8:14 AM
|
|
and you're still making the mistake of assuming I am. That's OK. You keep using words like "now" or phrases like "at this point". Again, you're making the mistake of thinking I equate current scientific knowledge with the ability of science to understand something. I don't.
Relativity is more philosophy than science at this point (although science is descended from philosophy), and I don't think that it can't be explained, I think it eventually will be either rightly or wrongly. Not supernatural at all IMO, for that reason.
As to a god being natural not supernatural - re-read my previous post on that. It is explained pretty well why that is the case and why the term is useful the way it was used. Also, being observable and being testable are not the same thing.
I don't buy the kalam cosmological argument, a version of which is apparently the argument you're making. I won't spend any more time on that, as there are too many suppositions for it to pass the smell test.
Your last two paragraphs are non-sensical and wrong IMO. The amount of faith it takes to not believe in something that has no evidence to support it is so small that it is essentially zero. The same amount of faith that I have in the prediction that tomorrow will be the first day in recorded history that the sun doesn't come up. If me admitting that it takes some miniscule amount of "faith" to be an atheist constitutes a victory, so be it. I don't mind, but I do realize that it is no where near the amount of faith that it takes to believe in a deity with no evidence of its existence, which was the entire point of my first post in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
I think you are overconfident in your assumptions about
Aug 25, 2015, 12:01 AM
|
|
how much evidence exists for the existence of something that could be considered a God. We don't have access to nearly all of the true evidence in the universe. To start to think that you can know things about the universe just because you haven't encountered or considered all possibilities is limiting your perspective.
And to allow that type of thinking to convince you that you don't require faith to believe it is equally counterproductive.
Statements like this...I don't buy the kalam cosmological argument, a version of which is apparently the argument you're making. I won't spend any more time on that, as there are too many suppositions for it to pass the smell test....to me, smell like oversimplification. It appears you arbitrarily reject something just because you can. Saying "The Universe just is" sounds like a fundamentalist going on about the Lord working in mysterious ways.
And relativity is definitely scientific... its a friggin scientific watershed. It literally changed the way science was done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: So you are telling me that you don't believe that...
Aug 20, 2015, 10:33 PM
[ in reply to So you are telling me that you don't believe that... ] |
|
You don't get to define what I do or do not believe in, or which definition of atheism suits me better. I adhere to the definition that atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. That describes my position the best, as does the definition of agnostic, which means I don't know if gods exist.
If you can't accept that, then I can't help you. I have no faith in god. I am an atheist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Ok but ask yourself this...
Aug 20, 2015, 10:42 PM
|
|
why go to the trouble of responding, but refuse to answer an easy question about your own beliefs?
Instead of acknowledging the points I made and sharing your perspective about them, you avoid them and go down the very path of misdirection I am talking about.
Nobody is trying to tell you what you believe. I am telling you that the particular definition that suits you is a recent twist to the original definition of the word. And I am telling you that the more convenient definition lacks specificity. If you don't want to engage that, then that's perfectly fine with me, but reality is reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: Ok but ask yourself this...
Aug 21, 2015, 11:52 AM
|
|
I did answer your question, you just don't like that it doesn't line up with your preconceived notions about atheists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: Ok but ask yourself this...
Aug 21, 2015, 11:55 AM
|
|
And if you want it spelled out, I do not subscribe to the belief that there probably isn't a god. I don't know if a god exists, and because of this I don't believe in one. I don't make a positive claim about god not existing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
As I have demonstrated with citations above, my notions
Aug 21, 2015, 12:02 PM
[ in reply to Re: Ok but ask yourself this... ] |
|
about Atheism are not preconceived. Rather, they are deduced from research.
I would argue that the alternative understanding of the definition is the more likely to be preconceived, as it contradicts the original definition of the word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: As I have demonstrated with citations above, my notions
Aug 21, 2015, 12:22 PM
|
|
Definitions change over time. At one time, the term pagan meant any religious belief other than Christianity; today it's a specific subset of beliefs more akin to worshiping nature and ancient mythologies. The modern definition of atheism is the one that most atheists accept as accurately descriptive of their position.
And if we're going to talk about the "original definition," we should look at the etymology. "A-" meaning without, "-theism" meaning belief in a god or gods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: Um... ok but..
Aug 21, 2015, 12:34 PM
|
|
From the Iron Chariots link:
"In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God"."
Again, definitions change over time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Why should I? I figured anyone who would get value out of it
Aug 12, 2015, 4:35 PM
[ in reply to You could probably have said more about who these folks are ] |
|
would look it up themselves. Their words and ideas are the only things I cared to share.
On your point about about Reza...his liberal sociological perspective on religion is simply bad theology.
His perspective of religion involves the claim that the religious are usually not self-aware of their relationship with their own religions. As both speakers pointed out, most religious are not even aware of their own beliefs, as polling data shows and mutually exclusive elements of scripture make clear.
While I disagree with Reza's implication that the text of Islam, relatively speaking, doesn't make it easier for naturally violent people to use Islam to justify violence, I do agree with him that any society will use religion for violence if other factors permit.
I agree with Cenk's criticism of Reza's association with Islam though. Why associate with a language you know to be largely incorrect and easily manipulable? But then I think about my association with Clemson. I care very much about Clemson and participate in the injection of meaning into rivalries. I yell at refs and I get emotional about touchdowns. It's simply because of the human desire for tribalism. I get my tribalism fix with sports, instead of religion or politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Another good one.***
Aug 20, 2015, 3:25 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
I watched the Reza Aslan one.
Aug 20, 2015, 3:30 PM
|
|
I enjoyed it very much, and it's interesting how his views are not actually that different from Sam Harris's, despite their apparent hostility toward each other's position.
One point on which Reza is just absolutely nuts is his claim that "If you say you're a Christian [or Muslim, or whatever], then you are one."
That's so obviously wrong that it's crazy to think that a religious scholar would say it. But there he is, saying it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Why is it wrong?***
Aug 20, 2015, 7:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
It's either wrong or a useless definition.
Aug 21, 2015, 12:32 PM
|
|
Here, watch this: I'm a Muslim.
Does that mean I'm a Muslim now? No. (And not just because I said it insincerely.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
I'm not trying to be annoying, but...
Aug 22, 2015, 3:01 PM
|
|
how are you so sure about what exactly constitutes a legitimate membership in a certain religion?
That sounds very religious to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Not an annoying question at all.
Aug 23, 2015, 8:07 PM
|
|
It comes down to this: Aren't you pretty sure that my earlier post, where I said "I am a Muslim" doesn't entail that I am, in fact, a Muslim?
And look: We could define religious membership as including anyone who states that they are a member of a religion. But then you'd have to count me as a Muslim. Which is weird.
In the end, agreeing on a definition comes down to how useful the definition is. Reza's definition of a Christian, Muslim, etc. is useful to a point, but there are more useful definitions available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23418
Joined: 8/16/03
|
If I felt that you believed you were a Muslim, then I would
Aug 25, 2015, 12:06 AM
|
|
just accept that you were a Muslim. Religion is so dang open-ended that I don't think I have any other choice. This is exactly why I avoid religion. It's so loose and easy to bend that as a logic-fearing soul, I stay away.
That's why Reza's relationship with Islam puzzles me. He seems to deconstruct it's legitimacy, but then embraces it for reasons that nearly no one else agrees with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: If I felt that you believed you were a Muslim, then I would
Aug 25, 2015, 11:09 AM
|
|
I totally agree that, as a pragmatic matter, we can approximate the number of actual members by simply asking people what religion they are.
That works for polls. It doesn't work for a religious scholar who is defining what it actually means to be a member of a religion.
That's my problem with Reza's definition. It works for polls but it's not the real meaning of religious membership.
I completely concur with your view of Reza's relationship with Islam. He's a "Muslim" who doesn't believe the Qu'ran. He uses an utterly empty definition of Muslim (and Christian, etc.), which prevents any criticism of any religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 44
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
