Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[theinevitable]

Yeah, JL, I totally have that same feeling (re: circumcision), and think about it a lot.

Thoughts along the lines of "wait, why is it OK when we do it, but not them? Because... their gods seem really silly and obviously aren't real?"

I am lately going through a phase where I am struggling a lot with my feelings about religion. in terms of... kind of going back to arguably less-mature attitudes in re: "wait, people actually believe that an all-powerful being dictated this big book of rules and stories to us?"

I am totally into the idea that religion is this amazing force in human culture, which leads to both good and bad in society, brings people together, makes people happy, etc. I can accept this and respect this. There are a lot of things which have really moved me both in my life and in literature/media/whatever which have their roots in some really amazing ideas which come out of religion.

but sometimes I remember that it is all based on all-powerful creator of the universe. I have a hard time with that part.
And I really don't like the feeling that when I try to respect the beliefs of others, I am really just humoring them. Condescending.
And when I talk to some hardcore atheists i know, I come away feeling like this is what I am doing.

[Ruta Bagas]

Is nobody gonna call me on the fact that I'm OK with circumcision on religious grounds but when the same argument is applied to female genital mutilation I'm totally opposed? 

I mean...it's a popular position, but that doesn't mean it's not still a bit hypocritical. 

Hypocrisy is dependent on justification, surely? I'd call you on it if you outright said that your opposition was based on a belief in bodily autonomy or similar, but I'm assuming it's more pragmatic than that, in which case it's like Wombat said. I still think you're wrong, but not hypocritical.

Also:

It rains on the righteous and the unrighteous alike.

The rain it raineth on the just,
And on the unjust fella,
But mainly on the just because
The unjust hath the just's umbrella.

[Doc]

JL: I'm not going to call you on it because there IS a funcitonal difference. My view is that you shouldn't apply an intervention unless you're treating a condition or trying to prevent one. Since there's basically no evidence that male circumcision leads to better health outcomes (as far as I've read anyway, haven't read that deeply on the subject) then I'd say it's a dumb thing to do. But it's fairly benign so who cares? Female circumcision isn't benign, at least so I am led to believe.

Inev: I'm in a similar place right now, going into med from science I'm surrounded by a totally different group of people and a lot of them spiritual. As far as I ran into people of faith in science they generally kept it to themselves or were of the 'yeah I go on sunday and am active in my church group that's about it' variety with a couple of exceptions, the general rule was atheist, agnostic or just plain uninterested. In the first month or so of med I've had someone proselytise to me about how buddhism explains how babies can die in pain and dictators live wonderful lives, had to reschedule a study thing due to a mid week prayer meeting and discussed whether the belief in a reality defying supernatural force affects how one would apply evidence based medicine.

I don't at all think that any of these people are going to be less able as doctors because of their beliefs (in fact the prayer meeting girl is going to be way better than me) but it is a change in that something that was previously a non issue for most of my time is now taken into account while talking to people day to day.

RutaBagas: You are justly cann'd.

[wombat]

I keep thinking someone should tell Ben that it is a waste of his time and intellect to defend God against messageboard posts by an imaginary person on the internet. But if you skip over LFM's posts and just read Ben's, it's so interesting, I can't bring myself to do it. If Ben had taught Sunday School maybe I'd still be going even if I didn't believe a word of it.

Nothing personal Mets. It's just that you are making points that other people have made a million times and you're not making them in a new or interesting way. But you are serving a useful function.

[KeithHernandez]

Yeah, but the points are valid and not applied everywhere so should be repeated right?  It seems LFMs main point is that religion is going to kill us all (something pretty easy to see, at least the possibility), so shouldn't he be arguing this every chance he gets?  though yeah, probably a better way then converting the 20-30 of us that read this board.

Also, don't think ben san would be teaching sunday school.

[pmcd9]

This thread is why Smells has left us.

[Ben-San]

It seems LFMs main point is that religion is going to kill us all (something pretty easy to see, at least the possibility), so shouldn't he be arguing this every chance he gets?

Religion isn't what's going to kill us all. Stupid people are what's going to kill us all. There are a lot of stupid religious people and a lot of stupid atheists.

edit: Wait, this was a circumcision thread, wasn't it. Anyhow, I've seen a bunch of case studies of dudes who don't like their junk who are circumcised, and dudes who don't like their junk who aren't circumcised, and the guys who say "I would like my junk if only it was uncircumcised" are, for the most part, exactly the same as the uncut dudes who say "I would like my junk if I had junk-embiggenment surgery". (This is the technical term for the process.) Junk-embiggenment resolves a dude's personal issues with his body image and feelings of inadequacy in a fairly small percentage of cases, so I'd have to suspect that using time travel to perform a chrono-retro-decircumcision (also the technical term) would have similarly low rates of success in raising manjunk-esteem, or in other words that the original circumcision is rarely the root cause of low manjunk-esteem to begin with. (Manjunk-esteem is also a highly technical term. And ha ha, "root cause".)

[KeithHernandez]

Yeah, stupid people are more easily controlled by the church and more dangerous when controlled by the church and a stupid atheist is not going to have a whole room of stupid people to be with on sat/sun/wed whenever.

[wombat]

OK, we all know I have led a sheltered life but... seriously? there is such a thing as junk-embiggenment surgery? Should I ask where they get the parts?

Also, I think it is correct that stupid people are what's most dangerous. That's depressing because if religion were the whole problem it probably would be easier to cure than stupidity.

There is one way that a stupid atheist is less dangerous though, and that is that he could never be elected president.

[Doc]

There is one way that a stupid atheist is less dangerous though, and that is that he could never be elected president.

Aww jeez, you have to rub it in?
I'll just go sit at the back of the bus where I belong.

[Ben-San]

Yeah, stupid people are more easily controlled by the church and more dangerous when controlled by the church and a stupid atheist is not going to have a whole room of stupid people to be with on sat/sun/wed whenever.

Nnno, stupid people generally find ways to congregate in stupidity. There are more and more atheistic or agnostic gatherings of dumbfucks as religious faith becomes less and less the norm. Historically most dumbfucks have believed in supernatural forces, but that's because historically damn near everyone has believed in supernatural forces.

[KeithHernandez]

I can buy that.

[wombat]

Aww jeez, you have to rub it in?
I'll just go sit at the back of the bus where I belong.

If I understand correctly you have a more fundamental handicap to your presidential candidacy, which is that you were not born in the US. So don't bother thinking of converting or anything.

[jay-ell]

If I promise to adhere strictly to the doctrine of separation of church and state, can I be the candidate of choice for non-religious types in '16?  Or do my personal religious beliefs disqualify me by exposing my inherent mental inferiority? 

[KeithHernandez]

If I promise to adhere strictly to the doctrine of separation of church and state, can I be the candidate of choice for non-religious types in '16?  Or do my personal religious beliefs disqualify me by exposing my inherent mental inferiority? 

Point taken.  Would be a lot funnier if presidents didn't have to act Christian for the last x years.  Certainly since Reagan.  Probably longer.