How to suck at your own religion

[Zso_Zso]

1. I am sorry if posting the link to that comic offended anyone, it was not my intention.

2. My problem with your approach, ARTHANASIOS, is that you seem to view the comic as an atheism vs religion thing and I simply do not understand where atheism comes into the picture in relation to the comic in the first place. It was you who brought atheism into the thread and shifted the focus into the atheism vs religion and I am still at loss to understand why.

3. In my reading of the comic, it talks about different ways a religious person could behave and tries to make the point (maybe a bit too offensively via its extreme "examples") that being a pushy, extremist of your religion is not the best way to serve it. Instead "if your religion inspires your to help other people", "makes you happier", then "carry on with your religion!".

"3rd: Even in those pics mentioned above, atheism is not even mentioned or touched as a subject."

Yes, that's exactly why I do not understand why you think the comic is about religion vs atheism !
IMHO, it is not attacking any particular religion, but instead generally attacking those individuals (the shouting minority extremists in OldTrees' picture) in any religion who are trying to force their views onto others.

[CrockettRocket]

Well, I can understand why this moved into an Atheism vs Religion topic because you ask about religions and Atheism is essentially "I don't have a religion." I wouldnt throw arth under the bus for that, cause I think its very understandable. But remember we come from diverse places in the world, how people see religion will be vastly different thus religion threads have to be careful. Im not saying your thread wasnt careful enough, rather stating the obvious and say I understand ARTHs point of view before this starts more flaming. Id rather this thread just be locked... or it turns into strictly answering your questions from the OP.

[ARTHANASIOS]

Question:

2. My problem with your approach, ARTHANASIOS, is that you seem to view the comic as an atheism vs religion thing and I simply do not understand where atheism comes into the picture in relation to the comic in the first place. It was you who brought atheism into the thread and shifted the focus into the atheism vs religion and I am still at loss to understand why.

Answer:

Well, I can understand why this moved into an Atheism vs Religion topic because you ask about religions and Atheism is essentially "I don't have a religion."

In other words, the author of the comic is clearly either an atheist or a religious person who adopts an atheistic way of view. In either case, this comic is an Atheism-attacks-Religion one. Though I have absolutely no problem with criticism towards religion (actually, I would like to see more kinds of criticism towards religions in general) I won't accept a lighthearted, lightheaded, satiric, irresponsible, untrue and non-PG-13 approach on the field, much like that comic does. Critisising something and making fun of something are two totally different things.

Question:

3. In my reading of the comic, it talks about different ways a religious person could behave and tries to make the point (maybe a bit too offensively via its extreme "examples") that being a pushy, extremist of your religion is not the best way to serve it. Instead "if your religion inspires your to help other people", "makes you happier", then "carry on with your religion!".

Answer:
The comic would had made that point if it wasn't a lighthearted, lightheaded, satiric, irresponsible, untrue and non-PG-13 approach on the field. A serious criticism would be a thousand times better (let alone more honest). Right now, this comic just reveals an antipathy towards every religion; an antipathy so huge it can't be hidden under its "innocent" humour.

Question:

"3rd: Even in those pics mentioned above, atheism is not even mentioned or touched as a subject."

Yes, that's exactly why I do not understand why you think the comic is about religion vs atheism !
IMHO, it is not attacking any particular religion, but instead generally attacking those individuals (the shouting minority extremists in OldTrees' picture) in any religion who are trying to force their views onto others.

Answer:
 The comic becomes what it hates; It mockes the "shouting minority extermists" and it becomes these "shouting minority extermists" by itself. I am also at the same danger (of becoming a shouting minority extermist myself), that's why I would had liked this discussion to had ended a few replies ago.
 Moreover, there are MANY parts where it makes fun with the very own beliefs of each religion and there is no mocking towards certain "shouting minority extermists" but to the religions themselves.

[OldTrees]

Personally I think the original comic is struggling with presenting its message.

1) Consider the tone of the first part with the tone of the beginning of the conclusion.
It has a very "Attack" tone in the first part. But then wraps all these statements up with "That's ok I suppose."

2) It seems to be trying to hide additional jabs and stereotypes in its examples. This adds no support.
Ex:
Cramming stem cells into the Heresy model for parallelism.
Your favored color vs claim about the world.
Conservatives(painted as theists) and Liberals(painted as anti theists)


That said I find it a rare, if poorly communicated perspective.
It is highly critical but willing to live at peace. It even implies that positions it disagrees with may be beneficial to the holders. It even seems unwilling to proselytize yet accept those that do proselytize(theist or atheist).

What do you think? What of this position is wisdom we can borrow and what can we improve with our own wisdom?

Sidenote: I believe a single team based approach to this discussion might have a higher success rate than the standard EtG debate*.

*Which is orders of magnitude more reasonable than where I have been lately. Gods, I have missed reasoned argument.

[ARTHANASIOS]

That said I find it a rare, if poorly communicated perspective. Agreed.
It is highly critical but willing to live at peace. In general I agree, though its attempts to "live at peace" are the worst kind of passive-agressive behaviour.
It even implies that positions it disagrees with may be beneficial to the holders. Agreed.
It even seems unwilling to proselytize yet accept those that do proselytize(theist or atheist). I strongly dissagree here. It tries to proselytize the reader to a kind of anti-proselytization, anti-religous ideology. It doesn't really accept them; it is more like tolerating the theists' existence because he/she has no other choice.

What do you think? What of this position is wisdom we can borrow and what can we improve with our own wisdom? The most wise example is probably the example with the favourite color. It is a parable indeed, but it shows how true discussions should really be.

Sidenote: I believe a single team based approach to this discussion might have a higher success rate than the standard EtG debate*. Agreed...

*Which is orders of magnitude more reasonable than where I have been lately. Gods, I have missed reasoned argument. Gods?

[Nepycros]

*Which is orders of magnitude more reasonable than where I have been lately. Gods, I have missed reasoned argument. Gods?

Generally a way for nonreligious folks to use the same exclamation without leaning one way or the other. It could also indicate a polytheist or jocular attitude.

[CrockettRocket]

It's the internet. I think we can rule out jocular attitude.  8)

[Treldon]

*Which is orders of magnitude more reasonable than where I have been lately. Gods, I have missed reasoned argument. Gods?

Think in EtG terms. Based on the system the Elements are set up, it is plausible that they each have a deity which controls that element. Especially with 12 elements, we could have 12 chief gods, like in greek/roman mythology. It would also be an interesting next level of Ai, naturally way harder than FGs

[OldTrees]

*Which is orders of magnitude more reasonable than where I have been lately. Gods, I have missed reasoned argument. Gods?

Shorthand for "The set of existing powers, possibly a null set".



Despite the comic's stumbling, I think the question of "What and How to Accept or Tolerate?" is a very valid question to discuss. It does come with 3 difficulties.
1) It does not have an objective answer checking method.
2) Most answers are merely self consistent
3) It can get charged
However I think it is possible to still discover the landscape while navigating those difficulties.

Some questions:
What is the difference between Accept and Tolerate?
Where is the grey area for this "What to Accept/Tolerate" question? (Accepting someone's preference for vanilla over chocolate is probably not in the grey area)

[Treldon]

Some questions:
What is the difference between Accept and Tolerate?
Where is the grey area for this "What to Accept/Tolerate" question? (Accepting someone's preference for vanilla over chocolate is probably not in the grey area)

Though not perfectly expressed, but I would say that the difference between Accept and Tolerate lies in how you relate to the subject.
If you only Tolerate something, then you acknowledge that the other person has the right to hold a different opinion (eg If Bill tolerates Charllie's preference of chocolate ice cream, it does not affect Bill's preference of strawberry and dislike of chocolate)
On the other hand, if you Accept the other's opinion, it means that you - at least in a small part - also embrace it. Which would mean that Bill might get some chocolate ice cream as well

[OldTrees]

Some questions:
What is the difference between Accept and Tolerate?
Where is the grey area for this "What to Accept/Tolerate" question? (Accepting someone's preference for vanilla over chocolate is probably not in the grey area)

Though not perfectly expressed, but I would say that the difference between Accept and Tolerate lies in how you relate to the subject.
If you only Tolerate something, then you acknowledge that the other person has the right to hold a different opinion (eg If Bill tolerates Charllie's preference of chocolate ice cream, it does not affect Bill's preference of strawberry and dislike of chocolate)
On the other hand, if you Accept the other's opinion, it means that you - at least in a small part - also embrace it. Which would mean that Bill might get some chocolate ice cream as well

You are crystal clear on Tolerate. Would you please expand on Accept?
What does it mean to "in a small part embrace it"? How does Accepting a belief another has differ from believing a belief another has?

[Treldon]

You are crystal clear on Tolerate. Would you please expand on Accept?
What does it mean to "in a small part embrace it"? How does Accepting a belief another has differ from believing a belief another has?

Simple, really. It is possible to only incorporate elements of other beliefs. For example I know several people who do believe in reincarnation, but refuse the rest of buddhism and are in fact hard core (at least in their point of view) christians