Discussion Thread from the Funny Anti-Religious Pictures thread.

[Jacquemar]

Only if you think learning three languages and taking a good fifty hours of college courses to investigate it qualifies as not "very far".

Yeah, that's not very impressive when there are people who study the subject for their whole lives, their perspectives on it continuing to grow and change until their death. James Frazer for example "investigated" religious practices for 15 years to support his premise for THE GOLDEN BOUGH. Alan Dundes spent his entire academic career studying mythology to write the monograph "The Hero Pattern and the Life of Jesus."

When considering that, fifty hours is hardly sufficient.

 

[Jacquemar]

^^ James Frazer also revised and updated his work until his death, changing what needed to be changed.

 

[Kulindahr]

Which ones don't disqualify themselves and prove the irrationality of Christianity then?

You state, "majority", therefore a minority would, by extention prove the irrationality of Christianity...

The logical incoherence here is astounding -- you're mixing up pieces of different sentences. Read it again:

I have yet to see any claim about irrationality in Christianity that is sustainable. The vast majority of claims are based on a priori assumptions, which disqualifies them from the start.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you've read several thousand pages about Hinduism and they don't begin with simple statements explaining that there's no single corpus of beliefs, you should find better sources. I can only assume you are reading "Christian portraits of false religions" or some such, because there's no respectable literature on Hinduism that would state otherwise.

I've never read such a book -- how would I find out about Hinduism by reading an attack on it? That would be like reading an explanation of great circle flight paths by a flat earther.

The books I've read tend to start with trimurti and go from there to explain about the multitude of gods.

 

[Kulindahr]

^I should probably add the thought that talking about "Hinduism" is rather like talking about "Abrahamism" only more imprecise.

Following Kulindahr's logic, because "Abrahamism" lacks a single corpus of beliefs, it's a smorgasbord and definitely something he doesn't need to understand.

Inventing false categories isn't a sound way to approach anything.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, that's not very impressive when there are people who study the subject for their whole lives, their perspectives on it continuing to grow and change until their death. James Frazer for example "investigated" religious practices for 15 years to support his premise for THE GOLDEN BOUGH. Alan Dundes spent his entire academic career studying mythology to write the monograph "The Hero Pattern and the Life of Jesus."

When considering that, fifty hours is hardly sufficient.

Um, what? Fifty hours of college courses is equivalent to somewhat more than a year of doing absolutely nothing else.

If I'd stopped there, it would still make the original assertion laughable.

 

[star-warrior]

The logical incoherence here is astounding -- you're mixing up pieces of different sentences. Read it again:

I have yet to see any claim about irrationality in Christianity that is sustainable. The vast majority of claims are based on a priori assumptions, which disqualifies them from the start.

I should've placed in an emoji for reference.

 

[Kulindahr]

I should've placed in an emoji for reference.

The incoherence was meant as humor?

 

[medic1]

If you fit the definition of a bigot, then you are a bigot. And by definition, anyone who finds humor in slurs against others is a bigot, and attacks based on inaccurate or false information, regardless of what it's called, is a slur.

All I see in my mirror is someone working to uphold logic and accuracy. Any fair look at my posts will see I enjoy actual humor about religion, mine or someone else's, but I do not enjoy bigotry.


BTW, the only one who has called you a bigot is you, above here.

My, you do like to see yourself preach don't you. Your wordplay is becoming more infantile, the more desperate you get. But hey, you carry on. You really are making your own case against yourself, when you condemn others for finding light relief in memes, which your Quaker background find infuriating. Feel free to respond. Although this will be the last response you get from me in this thread. My jaws are starting to ache with your hypocritical posts.

 

[Kulindahr]

My, you do like to see yourself preach don't you. Your wordplay is becoming more infantile, the more desperate you get. But hey, you carry on. You really are making your own case against yourself, when you condemn others for finding light relief in memes, which your Quaker background find infuriating. Feel free to respond. Although this will be the last response you get from me in this thread. My jaws are starting to ache with your hypocritical posts.

Whether I find a post "infuriating" is irrelevant -- the only question is whether it has errors.

You lie, BTW, not just about that but about me "condemn[ing] others for finding light relief in memes", because I have never done such a thing.

That you can read material based on fact and logic and no other criteria and call it "hypocritical" demonstrates that you aren't interested in anything but being insulting. That you can take rational objective analysis and call it "preaching" shows you aren't interested in any kind of communication, just in having your own way.

And if I have any desperation, it's over the fact that so many people delight so much in being as ignorant and illogical as the rednecks at the local bars -- and yet make a pretense of being superior. It speaks poorly for the future of civilization.

 

[HoodedRat]

Whether I find a post "infuriating" is irrelevant -- the only question is whether it has errors.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I've never read such a book -- how would I find out about Hinduism by reading an attack on it? That would be like reading an explanation of great circle flight paths by a flat earther.

The books I've read tend to start with trimurti and go from there to explain about the multitude of gods.

If this is the takeaway from whatever you've read you really should read more. I would make a suggestion, but I'm skeptical that you would approach it with an 'ecumenical' spirit.

Inventing false categories isn't a sound way to approach anything.

Oh, just imagine I'd written 'Abrahamic Religions' instead of 'Abrahamism'. My point remains if you care to try to understand it.

 

[dpnice]

..........................yet make a pretense of being superior. ................

But is this not what you pretend in all of your post?

I suppose that you would reply "no" to this question but unfortunately this is the impression you seem to give to other members.

 

[star-warrior]

Now folks, kindly stay on topic.

 

[Kulindahr]

Cute.

But interpretation as allegory was in use by the Greeks long before Jews or Christians got hold of it -- in fact, that's how they got hold of it, via the Hellenization of the east thanks to Alexander the Great.

 

[Kulindahr]

If this is the takeaway from whatever you've read you really should read more. I would make a suggestion, but I'm skeptical that you would approach it with an 'ecumenical' spirit.


Oh, just imagine I'd written 'Abrahamic Religions' instead of 'Abrahamism'. My point remains if you care to try to understand it.

Since you have drawn a sharp line of division between Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions, you make it impossible for there to be a point. And that line is valid; it's entailed in the concept Mohammed introduced, "people of the Book": the Abrahamics are the only religions that rely on a given set of data and disallow inventing more.

In essence, if there is no set body of beliefs, then there is no rational claim to being divine communication in the first place. No Creator who made the rules of the material world so precise and unchanging would communicate through a revelation where nothing is set.

Indeed, that's why Christianity gave rise to science: it crashed into the Roman world with the notion that there is such a thing as set truth. Once that set firmly in society, the obvious application to the material world was seen, that if there is set truth about the Creator, then there must be set truth about the creation. When the body of knowledge got so great that subjects were divided into such things as theology, natural philosophy, geography, and the like, then the part about the Creator became detached, and thus we got modern science which doesn't care about a Creator either way.

 

[Kulindahr]

But is this not what you pretend in all of your post?

I suppose that you would reply "no" to this question but unfortunately this is the impression you seem to give to other members.

I do reply "no", because I only speak where I have knowledge. I let many images pass because I didn't know enough to speak, even though something seemed off about them.

 

[Kulindahr]

If I posted on the basis of what I found infuriating, the FARIP thread would have been thirty pages longer than it is. I found many things infuriating but as they were not based on falsehoods or illogic, I didn't comment.

That you laugh at this -- along with your other responses to objective statements -- tells me you operate primarily, if not entirely, on a subjective basis. For reasons of upbringing and certain experiences, I find it very difficult to operate on anything but an objective basis (which makes chaos of my ability to relate to others or have a social life, except generally when wonderful people like Swerve drop into my life). Indeed I have spent many, many hours in therapy working to attempt to be able to respond in any way but objective analysis.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Since you have drawn a sharp line of division between Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions, you make it impossible for there to be a point. And that line is valid; it's entailed in the concept Mohammed introduced, "people of the Book": the Abrahamics are the only religions that rely on a given set of data and disallow inventing more.

In essence, if there is no set body of beliefs, then there is no rational claim to being divine communication in the first place. No Creator who made the rules of the material world so precise and unchanging would communicate through a revelation where nothing is set.

...

--I drew a sharp line of division between Hinduism and the Abrahamics? What? I compared them.

--The Abrahamics singularly don't invent more data? What does that mean?

--The Abrahamics don't share a single body of beliefs. That's what I said, at least. Right? Or do you believe Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share a single body of beliefs?

By the way, I don't subscribe to the notions of 'divine communication', 'claimants', 'revelation,' 'disqualifications,' etc that you've appended to this conversation. If that's important to your understanding of "false" religions and irrationality, cool. But it has nothing to do with any of the posts that I've made.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Now folks, kindly stay on topic.

Hey! This is a discussion thread! What are all these internet pictures doing here?

And Johan! You better get cracking. The discussion thread is starting to get more hits than the farip thread.

(I give it a week.)