Who's Sin is it Anyway?

[Devils' Advocate]

From their perspective it is wrong. Period. Not just wrong for them. Wrong for everyone. It is why it is difficult for me to deal with fundamentalism. These groups want to treat reality as if it were a binary structure. Yes/No. Right/Wrong. I do not perceive reality in that way. Reality is way, way more complex than that.

 

[Emi]

From their perspective it is wrong. Period. Not just wrong for them. Wrong for everyone. It is why it is difficult for me to deal with fundamentalism. These groups want to treat reality as if it were a binary structure. Yes/No. Right/Wrong. I do not perceive reality in that way. Reality is way, way more complex than that.

Oh I understand what you are saying. My religion doesn't have any sort of fundamentalism so I was confused as to what you meant. Thank you for clarifying

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Geez, you see way more flesh than that on woman wearing string bikinis on the beach these days. Is that exploitive of women if the women are displaying themselves in public that way?

yes but obviously it isn't direct.

Great joke! And entirely accurate all too much of the time. Successful men want trophy wives. Women who other men are going to be jealous of that you 'have' her and not them. I would suggest that a lot of this is a part of our biological directive, which we still possess no matter how much we want to say we have advanced beyond such basic instincts.

We have ways of minimizing that "issue".

This is the reverse of what I was saying. Not suggesting you are wrong as you are not wrong. Often innocence or guilt is based upon the belief held by the largest majority of the society. That's what humans do.

no matter how secular a "state" is. it is fundamentally a loose theocracy. agreed.

We forget that in America only 150 years ago it was perfectly acceptable for a young girl to marry at 13, conceive and have a child before she turned 15. That was typical. She was also chattel, with no political rights to speak of.

to be fair. 13 was just a general number, there were many before that age.

I'm not as familiar with legal systems in other places, and I do understand there are differences...but the root core remains. What is socially acceptable now may at the turn of some unforeseen event become unacceptable, and likewise in reverse...as we have seen a lot of recently.

marrying cousins, not marrying interracially, etc... Societal issues.

So I've adopted the "to each their own," "live and let live" attitude...up to the point someone gets in my face about how to live "my" life...at which point the white gloves come off.

"should" vs "have to" is a word exchange many in most religious backrounds need a lesson in.

From their perspective it is wrong. Period. Not just wrong for them. Wrong for everyone. It is why it is difficult for me to deal with fundamentalism. These groups want to treat reality as if it were a binary structure. Yes/No. Right/Wrong. I do not perceive reality in that way. Reality is way, way more complex than that.

I must point out that your view is essentially a form of fundamentalism in itself. Maybe not extremism as many nowadays attempt to make a synonym, but essentially it is a view of your fundamental belief (ie. a basis).

Oh I understand what you are saying. My religion doesn't have any sort of fundamentalism so I was confused as to what you meant. Thank you for clarifying

my point above could go for you as well. whether you accept it or not every religion/worldview/lifeplan has a fundamental view of right/wrong otherwise it isn't a belief at all. Even Atheism has a fundamental idea... That there is no God.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

my point above could go for you as well. whether you accept it or not every religion/worldview/lifeplan has a fundamental view of right/wrong otherwise it isn't a belief at all. Even Atheism has a fundamental idea... That there is no God.

The concept of a fundamental idea is not the same as fundamentalism, at least how we define the latter term in current society.

A fundamental idea is defined as "a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based." Your example is accurate in that it is a fundamental belief amongst atheists that there are no gods. Where I disagree is where you say that is the same as fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism is defined as
"a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture. strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline." The strict, literal interpretation of scripture leads to a confrontation where nonbelievers must be taught that they are wrong. By force, if necessary.

Atheists are not attempting to force their belief structure on anyone else. They may mock and disparage those who believe in Gods, but they do not insist such people must be forced to disavow their beliefs.

Which is why I disagree with you next to last comment. That my view of fundamentalism is another form of fundamentalism. It is not because, as I said, fundamentalists live in a binary reality where something is either right or wrong. My statement that there is a lot more possibilities between those two extremes is quite the opposite of fundamentalism.

 

[wil]

Atheists are not attempting to force their belief structure on anyone else. They may mock and disparage those who believe in Gods, but they do not insist such people must be forced to disavow their beliefs

Generalization which is often proven wrong in lawsuits and YouTube videos

 

[Devils' Advocate]

no matter how secular a "state" is. it is fundamentally a loose theocracy. agreed.

Ha ha. Nice try, but I'm not going to let you alter my meaning so you can agree with it. Beliefs held by the majority have many sources. Religion is one of them but hardly the only one. There are also cultural beliefs. Racial beliefs. Political beliefs and others. a secular society is in no way necessarily a loose theocracy.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Generalization which is often proven wrong in lawsuits and YouTube videos

I am rather familiar with a lot of the better known atheists on YouTube and such. I have never seen someone say people who believe in religion must be forced to change their beliefs. Oh I'm sure there are some, there are 'some' of everything under the sun. The majority of atheists mock religious people, have intense beliefs that religion is destructive to society. But that they should be made atheists by force? No.

 

[wil]

The majority of atheists mock religious people, have intense beliefs that religion is destructive to society. But that they should be made atheists by force? No

and how do we differentiate that from the peer pressure and bullying we tell children is wrong? Do as I say not as I do?

Yes I know we have a problem historically of religionists doing the same...but gleefully jumping in the gutter is a solution?

 

[Emi]

my point above could go for you as well. whether you accept it or not every religion/worldview/lifeplan has a fundamental view of right/wrong otherwise it isn't a belief at all. Even Atheism has a fundamental idea... That there is no God.

What if the fundamental view of your religion is that there is no fundamental view?

 

[BigJoeNobody]

The strict, literal interpretation of scripture leads to a confrontation where nonbelievers must be taught that they are wrong. By force, if necessary.

Highly disagree from an Islamic Perspective.

Atheists are not attempting to force their belief structure on anyone else. They may mock and disparage those who believe in Gods, but they do not insist such people must be forced to disavow their beliefs.

you and I must know different Atheists.

but the meat of the post...

The concept of a fundamental idea is not the same as fundamentalism, at least how we define the latter term in current society.

Is essentially what I've advocated is the issue with contemporary studies. We are changing the meanings of words, to the point of denying the basic etymology of the word so that it can be used as a focal point for talking. Fundamentalism = Fundamental (forming a necessary base or core; of central importance.) - ism (a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement)... so where does one add that this word means anything other than an adherent to the core principles? How is "Islam" or "Protestant Christianity" even considered in the definition. It isn't, it is nothing more than someone at some point didn't want people following these ideals so they gave the name fundamentalism to incinuate the idea that the core principles of these religions isn't peaceful by attributing the word to the most violent of people in other faiths.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Ha ha. Nice try, but I'm not going to let you alter my meaning so you can agree with it. Beliefs held by the majority have many sources. Religion is one of them but hardly the only one. There are also cultural beliefs. Racial beliefs. Political beliefs and others. a secular society is in no way necessarily a loose theocracy.

Me thinks you are trying to twist what I say so you can disagree

Nowhere did I say it is the ONLY contributing factor, but rather it is a factor, of which I doubt you will deny. If Religious views influence the law of the land, how is this any different than a loose theocracy?

 

[BigJoeNobody]

The majority of atheists mock religious people, have intense beliefs that religion is destructive to society. But that they should be made atheists by force? No.

how would someone on Youtube physically force someone to not believe... for that matter how would one force anyone to believe??? maybe force their children by not allowing anyone to say otherwise... but if someone can disbelieve at the tip of a sword, they never truly believed.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

What if the fundamental view of your religion is that there is no fundamental view?

Then that is a disorganized mess, not a religion. One says there is a God, another says there is not, another says there are 40,000 gods. Peaceful existance is important, yet it isn't, yet it is encouraged, and discouraged. At some point for a "religion" to be established it must have by definition some kind of concensus amongst its followers. That concensus, is the religion. (even if it is 1 person who believes that religion). If there is no fundamentals to the religion it is just many religions working peacefully together.

Let's not butcher the language to detract from the reality.

 

[Emi]

Then that is a disorganized mess, not a religion. One says there is a God, another says there is not, another says there are 40,000 gods. Peaceful existance is important, yet it isn't, yet it is encouraged, and discouraged. At some point for a "religion" to be established it must have by definition some kind of concensus amongst its followers. That concensus, is the religion. (even if it is 1 person who believes that religion). If there is no fundamentals to the religion it is just many religions working peacefully together.

Let's not butcher the language to detract from the reality.

I am speaking more of native religions. The only that have very little grounds on which others can agree upon. Do you consider this a religion, or do you not, based upon what you have just said?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Nowhere did I say it is the ONLY contributing factor, but rather it is a factor, of which I doubt you will deny. If Religious views influence the law of the land, how is this any different than a loose theocracy?

You man not have meant it was the only factor. It was the only factor you mentioned though. And of course I agree religion is one of the contributing factors; said so in my post! Your last sentence is problematical. Religious views influencing the law of the land would make it a loose theocracy ONLY IF no other sources also influence the law of the land. Which was my point. There are other influences that are not related to religion so it cannot be called a loose theocracy.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

I am speaking more of native religions. The only that have very little grounds on which others can agree upon. Do you consider this a religion, or do you not, based upon what you have just said?

I'm assuming you are referring to things such as Animism. Collectively are they a religion, no. are they individually religions, yes. as stated with other threads, if there is core beliefs that are stated, and a concensus amongst followers (even if that is 1 person)

 

[Emi]

I'm assuming you are referring to things such as Animism. Collectively are they a religion, no. are they individually religions, yes. as stated with other threads, if there is core beliefs that are stated, and a concensus amongst followers (even if that is 1 person)

Yes, I was almost referring to animism entirely. Thank you for answering my question. I understand where you are coming from.
What religion do you follow, if any, if you don't mind my asking?

 

[BigJoeNobody]

You man not have meant it was the only factor. It was the only factor you mentioned though. And of course I agree religion is one of the contributing factors; said so in my post! Your last sentence is problematical. Religious views influencing the law of the land would make it a loose theocracy ONLY IF no other sources also influence the law of the land. Which was my point. There are other influences that are not related to religion so it cannot be called a loose theocracy.

then what's the point of referring to a country as a strict theocracy? Obviously we aren't referring to a Full theocracy.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Yes, I was almost referring to animism entirely. Thank you for answering my question. I understand where you are coming from.
What religion do you follow, if any, if you don't mind my asking?

I am Muslim.

 

[Emi]

I am Muslim.

I thought so. If you don't mind my asking, were you born into your faith or did you convert?