There is a timeless piece of advice on etiquette, that is often revolves around a well dressed dinner table, that goes "Don't discuss Religion or Politics". Why? Because people's opinions on these subjects are often strong, personal, held dearly and tend to resemble a child clutching their favourite toy, unwilling to share.
But though this rule may of started out to preserve the peace at Victorian dinner parties, where lets not forget that a major disagreement could end in pistols at dawn, It has slowly but surely simply became a rule of life. No longer do you need to be within arms length of a tea-cosy to be limited in what you might talk about amongst friends, Now we carry the dinner table around with us wherever we go, Just like Zarathustra's corpse.
Religion and Politics are, it seems, simply off limits.
I've seen people proclaim that Religion isn't something to be talked about on facebook, I've seen entire forums almost visibly flinch when those subjects are brought up, people will cower from discussing it directly but will find boundless energy with which to police the tone of those that do wish to discuss it, and obviously the almighty dinner table is as off limits as it has ever been.
But you may notice something of a trend here, an irony; Facebook, Forums, Social gatherings - They are all based entirely on conversation and sharing thoughts and opinions. Facebook is a place MADE to share your thoughts, your feelings, your life...but not on religion or politics. A Forum is made specifically to be a marketplace of idea's, an exchange of thoughts and opinions between anyone...but not on religion or politics. Dinner parties are usually between close friends, comfortable with each other, where the only entertainment is conversation...but not on religion or politics.
But religion and politics effect everyone, everyone has an opinion on them to some degree or another and a persons opinion on these matters can reveal a lot about a persons integrity, their ethics, their view of the universe and our collective place within it...and much more besides.
Where else are we supposed to discuss these topics, when "amongst friends" and "in places made for discussion" are off limits? Where even an attempt at bringing these subjects to the forefront of discussion are looked down upon. Where trying to engage with another human being on subjects deeper than what happened on last nights "America's next top Hooker" will net you little more than dismissive lectures on tone, or appropriateness.
And lets look again at the "Justifications" for avoiding these subjects, they can be summed up as off limits for the simple reason of "Well, they matter to me"; Yet this is a reason NOT to discuss them! Madness! It is as if we want to live in a superficial, shallow, fantasy world. Where everybody agrees, everybody gets along and nobody has to go through the pain of being wrong if we make it a sin to suggest it is even a possibility they're wrong.
And its something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. People get flustered, worked up and easily offended by dissenting opinions because they're rarely, if ever, confronted with them...and this somehow justifies not confronting them.
The opposite is true. If we did that, not only would we be able to have meaningful conversations with people without offense, but we would also have a greater understanding of the people we surround ourselves with and share this planet with.
Alternatively, however, you could always just keep clutching your prized firetruck, whimpering that no one else is allowed to play with it and never truly grow up.
~CleverCarbon
Wednesday 13 April 2011
Wednesday 9 March 2011
The UK Census form and Putting down "Jedi"
This particular post is inspired by this absurdly inaccurate, willfully misleading article on "The Escapist" website entitled UK Atheists Hope to Eliminate Jedi Population and the comments that were shit out in front of me in response to it.
First of all, most importantly; the title. Sensationalism in journalism is well known and well mocked (yet still well believed), as brilliantly shown in this SMBC comic, and yet the title of this piece is more ridiculous than others' satire of it. It seems to imply that Atheists are openly campaigning for genocide based on beliefs and, whilst many a-fool likely believe that this is something atheists have always secretly wanted to do, the actual truth of the campaign couldn't be further from this bizarre title.
One commenter (one of the aforementioned fools) exclaimed "No wonder nobody likes atheists!". Yes! No wonder nobody does; The press will lie through their teeth to make us seem like baby killers and you eat it up like it's made of chocolate and tits.
A far more accurate title, though unfortunately less exciting, would be "UK Atheists campaign for accuracy on the census form".
Yes everyone had a good joke in 2001 putting down "Jedi" in the optional religion question, the common reasons listed for doing so being - entertainment, trolling and protesting the inclusion of an optional question on religion.
But census information is important, you don't lie about the rest of the questions and there is simply no reason, beyond being an asstroll, for lying on the census form. The government uses this information to shape its policy and inaccurate information gives an inaccurate representation of the population.
And let me just hammer home the big point about the "protest" angle; ITS FUCKING OPTIONAL. What? Are you so disgusted by your own beliefs that the government isn't even allowed to ask what they are? Are you so childish and dimwitted in seeing that a more poignant protest would be to simply not answer the question? But no! Some intrepid imbeciles on the escapist are under the impression that the government is "Prying into their personal lives", and seeing as this objection arose a fair few times I'm going to have to assume this is a somewhat common thought.
If you are one of those who thinks that asking an optional question is, in any way, prying into your private life, then you are officially fucking paranoid. According to your way of thinking it is possible for the government to pry into your private life through a single question without you even answering it. That's some spectacular stupid you've got there.
And lets get this straight - The campaign is for accuracy. Accuracy, not the eradication of the "Jedi" answer. If you're really a Jedi, if you really do identify to that religion, then put down "Jedi".
If you're doing it to be amusing, if you're doing it to "Protest", if you're doing it because you think it makes you some sort of rebel right out of Grease; Don't. Put down the option that accurately describes you...or don't put down anything at all.
Please
First of all, most importantly; the title. Sensationalism in journalism is well known and well mocked (yet still well believed), as brilliantly shown in this SMBC comic, and yet the title of this piece is more ridiculous than others' satire of it. It seems to imply that Atheists are openly campaigning for genocide based on beliefs and, whilst many a-fool likely believe that this is something atheists have always secretly wanted to do, the actual truth of the campaign couldn't be further from this bizarre title.
One commenter (one of the aforementioned fools) exclaimed "No wonder nobody likes atheists!". Yes! No wonder nobody does; The press will lie through their teeth to make us seem like baby killers and you eat it up like it's made of chocolate and tits.
A far more accurate title, though unfortunately less exciting, would be "UK Atheists campaign for accuracy on the census form".
Yes everyone had a good joke in 2001 putting down "Jedi" in the optional religion question, the common reasons listed for doing so being - entertainment, trolling and protesting the inclusion of an optional question on religion.
But census information is important, you don't lie about the rest of the questions and there is simply no reason, beyond being an asstroll, for lying on the census form. The government uses this information to shape its policy and inaccurate information gives an inaccurate representation of the population.
And let me just hammer home the big point about the "protest" angle; ITS FUCKING OPTIONAL. What? Are you so disgusted by your own beliefs that the government isn't even allowed to ask what they are? Are you so childish and dimwitted in seeing that a more poignant protest would be to simply not answer the question? But no! Some intrepid imbeciles on the escapist are under the impression that the government is "Prying into their personal lives", and seeing as this objection arose a fair few times I'm going to have to assume this is a somewhat common thought.
If you are one of those who thinks that asking an optional question is, in any way, prying into your private life, then you are officially fucking paranoid. According to your way of thinking it is possible for the government to pry into your private life through a single question without you even answering it. That's some spectacular stupid you've got there.
And lets get this straight - The campaign is for accuracy. Accuracy, not the eradication of the "Jedi" answer. If you're really a Jedi, if you really do identify to that religion, then put down "Jedi".
If you're doing it to be amusing, if you're doing it to "Protest", if you're doing it because you think it makes you some sort of rebel right out of Grease; Don't. Put down the option that accurately describes you...or don't put down anything at all.
Please
Objective Morality - Why God isn't Objective
It is often said, by professors of more "Sophisticated" theology and apologetics, that God provides us with an objective morality and that without it we are unable to condemn any action as being immoral or moral. It does not take long after this statement is made for the Godwin's to start piling up, for Slippery slopes of the most well lubricated variety to burst forth from the ground like weeds, proclaiming that without an objective morality babies would be tortured in the streets and that no argument could ever be presented for the aforementioned actions immorality; Morals are just opinions, subjective, "untouchable".
Now, I'm not writing this post to demolish the flawed, unreasoned, emotionally driven argument found in the Argument from Morality; Such has been done before, by people far more eloquent and intelligent than myself. No, this post is being written because every time I see this argument brought up in a debate I often wonder why, in my opinion, the "base" of the argument is always granted by the opposing (often atheist) side.
Why is it given as granted that God even can be a source of Objective morality? Let alone the copious amounts of flaws that follow.
Whilst there is no universally accepted definition of what "Objective" is, the most common and well accepted definition is that, for something to be objectively true or false, the statement must be true or false "Mind-independent". That its truth is not Dependant on bias, personal feelings, or the existence of a conscious being.
But is God not described as a mind? Does God not have feelings? Emotions? Is God not a sentient, conscious entity? Every description of God I've ever heard, from the most fundamental right wing version of "God" to the most wishy washy left wing version, From Judaism to Mormonism, God is and has all of those things.
And thus I propose what God's morality would truly be; Subjective, but imposed. God's morality is, in fact, no less subjective than yours or mine, It is formed in the mind of God, through Gods personal feelings and biases, and then imposed on by this celestial dictator.
Even in a universe ruled by God(s), Morality would still not be Objective.
Now, I'm not writing this post to demolish the flawed, unreasoned, emotionally driven argument found in the Argument from Morality; Such has been done before, by people far more eloquent and intelligent than myself. No, this post is being written because every time I see this argument brought up in a debate I often wonder why, in my opinion, the "base" of the argument is always granted by the opposing (often atheist) side.
Why is it given as granted that God even can be a source of Objective morality? Let alone the copious amounts of flaws that follow.
Whilst there is no universally accepted definition of what "Objective" is, the most common and well accepted definition is that, for something to be objectively true or false, the statement must be true or false "Mind-independent". That its truth is not Dependant on bias, personal feelings, or the existence of a conscious being.
But is God not described as a mind? Does God not have feelings? Emotions? Is God not a sentient, conscious entity? Every description of God I've ever heard, from the most fundamental right wing version of "God" to the most wishy washy left wing version, From Judaism to Mormonism, God is and has all of those things.
And thus I propose what God's morality would truly be; Subjective, but imposed. God's morality is, in fact, no less subjective than yours or mine, It is formed in the mind of God, through Gods personal feelings and biases, and then imposed on by this celestial dictator.
Even in a universe ruled by God(s), Morality would still not be Objective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)