What's new
By:

The Morman hypothetical

Darkwing Duck said:
Ah, so MADD is a religion then. I didn't know.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ya might say that, eh, Dark? They're fanatics who try to dsiguise their true agenda, which is absolute prohibition. Inspired by God, probably.

"Candice (Candy) Lightner is the organizer and was the founding president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving....Lightner stated that MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving". That year, Lightner left her position with MADD.

Many who otherwise would have been sympathetic to MADD's cause feel the organization has gone too far. Radley Balko argued in a December 2002 article that MADD's policies are becoming overbearing....Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) supports legislation setting the illegal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit for adult drivers who have been previously convicted of DUI/DWI at .05 per se.

MADD's critics assert that the organization is focused entirely upon the presence of alcohol in the body, rather than upon the actual danger posed by any impairment...Original drunk driving laws addressed the danger by making it a criminal offense to drive a vehicle while impaired — that is, while "under the influence of alcohol"; the amount of alcohol in the body was evidence of that impairment. In part due to MADD's influence, all 50 states have now passed laws making it a criminal offense to drive with a designated level of alcohol, based on the presumption that all persons are impaired at the level specified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving
 
lol.

Are you Catholic? No.
Are you Protestant? No.
Are you LDS? No.
Are you Orthodox Jew? No.
Are you Presbyterian? No.
Are you Baptist? No.
Are you Lutheran? No.
Are you Druidic? No.
Are you MADD? YES.
 
Dark, not that I give a crap, actually, but why ya wanna pull thangs outta context to try to make some comparison of equivalency to begin with? Are you claimin, on behalf of MADD, the same thing Eric claimed about atheists, i. e.:

One Brow said:
Atheism has no causes, no principles, and no systems of belief.
Click to expand...
 
There's actually a couple of questions here that have been addressed.

1. Can any belief be considered "religious" if the subject matter of that belief does not relate to a diety? Your responses here suggest that you adhere to this as the sole criterion for deciding whether a set of beliefs could be considered "religious." With respect to atheism, I simply noted that even if this were the sole meaning of "religion," atheism would qualify, because it pertains to a theistic belief (Eric went on to argue, wrongly, I think, that the word "atheism" entails no belief).

2. A second question was raised when I pasted a dictionary definition suggesting that a foundation of "ardor and faith," not the mere subject matter, provided the criteria for categorizin sumthin as "religious." Since you apparently have pre-conceptions to the contrary, you appear to have completely ignored this aspect of the question.
 
My own damn self, whenever I see a post that is prefaced by "LOL," I immediately suspect that what follows will be a religious or quasi-religious recital of some article of faith held by that poster.
 
This should be sufficient.

https://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/Article on Religion.htm

Specifically,

In Religion in Human Life, Edward Norbeck (1974:6) observes that “religion is characteristically seen by anthropologists as a distinctive symbolic expression of human life that interprets man himself and his universe, providing motives for human action, and also a group of associated acts which have survival value for the human species.” Various formulations could be subsumed under that general description, such as Lessa and Vogt’s (1972:1) notion that “religion may be described as a system of beliefs and practices directed toward the ‘ultimate concern’ of a society,” or Geertz’s (1973:90) concept of religion as “a system of symbols” that integrates a culture's world view and ethos. Those definitions, however, could logically embrace existentialism, communism, secular humanism, or other philosophies which most anthropologists would be reluctant to call religion. How then is religion distinguished from comparable sets of beliefs and behaviors that fulfill similar functions?

As Norbeck (1974:6) explains, “the distinguishing trait commonly used is supernaturalism, ideas and acts centered on views of supernatural power.” The concept of the supernatural has been firmly tied to the anthropological definition of religion since the origins of the discipline. Edward Tylor (1958:8), for example, argued that “it seems best...to claim, as a minimum definition of Religion, the belief in Spiritual Beings.” Frazer (1963:58) maintained that “religion involves, first, a belief in superhuman beings who rule the world, and, second, an attempt to win their favour.” Malinowski (1954:17) observed that sacred “acts and observances are always associated with beliefs in supernatural forces, especially those of magic, or with ideas about beings, spirits, ghosts, dead ancestors, or gods.” The concept of the supernatural continues to dominate anthropological conceptions of religion today. Marvin Harris (1989:399), for example, declares that “the basis of all that is distinctly religious in human thought is animism, the belief that humans share the world with a population of extraordinary, extracorporeal, and mostly invisible beings.”
Click to expand...

The author, however, disputes the use of the word "supernatural" and argues to replace it with "paranormal." In my view, it's splitting hairs, but the notion remains the same.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
This should be sufficient.

https://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/Article on Religion.htm

Specifically,



The author, however, disputes the use of the word "supernatural" and argues to replace it with "paranormal." In my view, it's splitting hairs, but the notion remains the same.
Click to expand...

Sufficient? For who, exactly? Academic anthropologists, ya mean? This here is a basketball message board, know what I'm sayin?

Either way, since when is one guy's explication of his thesis "sufficient?" Wouldn't three guys (such as Lessa, Vogt, and Geetz) carry more weight than one, if that's the way such things are decided?

"Those definitions, however, could logically embrace existentialism, communism, secular humanism, or other philosophies..."
 
"which most anthropologists would be reluctant to call religion."

Finish the quote.

Sufficient to explain where I come from when discussing religion. What you cropped in your reply quote is explained in the rest of the link, reduced down to irrational beliefs in paranormal (closer to common definition of "supernatural" than common definition of "paranormal"). Atheism is NOT irrational, nor is there belief in the paranormal, thus is not religion.
 
Actually, the author you cite simply says:

"Irrationality is thus the defining element in religion. Religion and science are not at odds because religion wants to be "supernatural" while science wants to be "empirical;" instead, religion and science are at odds because religion wants to be irrational (relying ultimately upon beliefs that are either nonfalsifiable or falsified)...I am aware that many anthropologists are likely to react negatively to the pejorative connotations of the word “irrational.” The term, however, is simply descriptive and therefore entirely appropriate. It is unarguably irrational to maintain a belief in an allegedly propositional claim when that claim is either propositionally meaningless or has been decisively repudiated by objective evidence.

Given that definition, would the claim that "drinkin alcohol is a sin" be a "religious" claim?
 
Darkwing Duck said:
"Atheism is NOT irrational, nor is there belief in the paranormal, thus is not religion.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read the author you cited before claimin that, accordin to him, "atheism is not irrational," eh, Dark? Or claimin that belief in the "paranormal" is the criterion, for that matter.
 
Hopper said:
Given that definition, would the claim that "drinkin alcohol is a sin" be a "religious" claim?
Click to expand...
So?

If you're going to argue the "MADD as a religion" thing, does MADD have a "distinctive symbolic expression of human life that interprets man himself and his universe, providing motives for human action, and also a group of associated acts which have survival value for the human species?"
 
Hopper said:
Maybe you should read the author you cited before claimin that, accordin to him, "atheism is not irrational," eh, Dark? Or claimin that belief in the "paranormal" is the criterion, for that matter.
Click to expand...

Oh?

The simple truth of the matter is that religion is a thicket of superstition, and if we have an ethical obligation to tell the truth, we have an ethical obligation to say so.
Click to expand...

Atheism is not a "thicket of superstition."
 
1. (I believe) There is a God

2. (I believe) There is no God.

Both are equally non-falsifiable (irrational, in your chosen author's terminology)
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Both are statements that atheists wouldn't make, so what's the point?
Click to expand...

Webster's: Main Entry: athe·ist: one who believes that there is no deity

Looky here, Dark, I really don't care to engage in semantic quibbling witcha. If you know more about definitions and meanings than Websters, I tellya what: Take it up with they ***, eh?
 
Hopper said:
Webster's: Main Entry: athe·ist: one who believes that there is no deity

Looky here, Dark, I really don't care to engage in semantic quibbling witcha. If you know more about definitions and meanings than Websters, I tellya what: Take it up with they ***, eh?
Click to expand...

Seriously, you want to use a dictionary definition which is designed to be made as short as possible?

And then you use a null hypothesis statement to proclaim that having no belief is in fact a belief.

The reality is that atheists "believe in no deity" is that there IS NO RATIONAL EVIDENCE to support such an argument. If you want to argue that the rational (read: empirical) approach and conclusion is somehow irrational, then I don't know where else to go with this.
 
Theists have made a positive claim that God exists. Atheism is the condition of waiting for them to prove it.
 
Why is it, I wonder, that people think they can change accepted definitions, estabished by centuries of common usage, by mere assertion. And why do they think that their preferred "definition" can in any way alter the natural facts?

Always been a mystery to me.
 
In my book, what something is provides the basis for determining the appropriate thing to call it.

For others, what they call it is the best way to determine what it *is.*

Solipsism, it ROCKS, eh!?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top