I'm tired of "Religiously"
Offline Can we please put an end to the belief that one can equate two uses of the word "religiously" and make any valid points?
A religion is by definition an unscientific view of some part of the universe. That is, a religion is a system or code of faith in an unscientific precept. This all goes back to the idea of faith. Science is the opposite of faith. It is the systematic elimination of the unexplained and unjustified. Religion is the presevervation of faith through devotion to the unfalsifiable.
Ok, when we say that someone "religiously" does something, we tend to mean that they do it with great fervor or devotion, and we often mean "irrationally devoted." This is NOT the same as doing something out of faith. Devotion to an act or cause is NOT the same as believing in the unfalsiviable.
In fact, we seldom use the word "religiously" to mean "with noncontingent faith." The word, "religiously" does not mean "religious."
A scientist could religiously adhere to the fundamentals of the scientific method, and it would not mean that science was even remotely like a religion. It would just mean that the scientist was devoted -- perhaps even irrationally devoted in some sense -- to a particular part of science, which is NOT religion.
[/RANT OFF]
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
I'm just sick of the rejection of nuance in general.
I feel like I'm kicking a dead horse or possibly even raising the dead by bringing up the election, but it provided some great examples. Did you notice how Obama gave a very good, albeit extremely nuanced, answer about abortion that did not distinctly approve or disapprove of abortion? Yet when this occurred, he was accused of two things: 1) Being a spineless coward who is afraid to piss people off by expressing his "true feelings", and 2) just saying a bunch of babble that didn't mean much of anything.
I have problems with #1, but the point of this post is #2. It happened ALL THE TIME throughout the election season. So often McCain would say shit like, "You know I just admire Mr. Obama's eloquence." And he would say it in such a shitty way that you knew that what he meant by "elloquence" was "I love how Obama pretends to have a point when he's really not saying anything."
But he is!!! It's like... if understanding some point requires more than X amount of concentration and thought, it no longer becomes worth the effort, so the solution is "Fuck it. It's probably just babble."
It's the same thing with "religiously". Look, it can only imply faith in god. If it doens't, then you have to pick a new word.
It's the same with "atheist". Look, either that refers to a person who hates god who is the exact opposite of all the good christians I know, or else they need to pick a new word. (My belief is that some people bend over and accept this ridiculousness by accepting terms like "Brights" and so on. Don't placate people who reject nuance.)
The more I think of it, the more I notice it. Maybe this is just another way of voicing some platitude like "stupidity is everywhere" or something, but it is a very specific complaint.
Why must nuance be characterized as our enemy when it is totally our friend? (Rhetorical, but responses are welcome.)
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Hamby, you're asking if people could possibly learn the meaning of the words they use and if they could possibly not construe, conflate, or equate them. You're asking, in short, for people not to be ignorant morons. I can be religiously optimistic.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Just curious, what brought this rant on?
Hamby, you're a pretty bright guy, and I've come to respect you, but honestly - what did metaphorical adverbs ever do to you?
The "-ly" not only changes the part of speech of "religious" from noun to adverb, it also changes it into a metaphor. Metaphors are very, very necessary tools in language and thought. How are we to incorporate new ideas into our languages and thought processes, if not by comparing them to things we're already familiar with? We even do this amongst things we already know, at a more basic level of thought than language; for instance, we think and talk about time as if it possessed spatial dimensions of its own. We move things around in time, and it rushes by.
So leave the metaphorical adverb alone. It's doing its job conveying information that, as you admitted, we all get. No, "religiously" doesn't mean the same thing as "religious", but that's alright, we understand that too.
Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.
Hamby is not asking people to stop using derivational words. He wants people to use words accurately. I'm fairly certain that Hamby knows what an adverb is and how one is derived as well as what a metaphor is and how useful these are in language. I think he's probably fed up with people who don't and instead equivocate (or perform any other error of langauge) words simply because they sound and appear similar.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Right. As soon as we start letting people construe sentences like "I eat pudding religiously" as "I eat pudding as part of my pudding-eater religion", then we'd be entering into all kinds of crazy business. For example, we'd have to start being careful not to cut or impale ourselves around people who turn corners too sharply. We'd have to hand out parachutes to all falsettos, since they literally sing so extremely high, and shovels to all basses, since they literally sing so extremely low. And the next time someone responds dryly, it would be very nice of us to offer them a glass of water.
=]
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Thank you, Thomathy. I'm glad someone read my post as if the words I used meant what they mean.
To answer one question, what brought this on was another annoying theist rant about how science is a religion because people "religously follow" the scientific method. It's as if theists believe that if they can find any way to use any form of the word "religious" in conjunction with science, it makes it a religion.
To clarify a second point, I don't care if people use "religiously" to mean "fervently or irrationally devoted." However, if they do use it that way, they don't get to use it to prove that science is a religion. "Religiously" means either "fervently devoted" or "with blind faith." I don't care which meaning people use so long as they use it consistently and stop trying to sneak it into discussions of epistemology.
Everybody read my post again and notice that I don't suggest we abandon either meaning of the word. I suggest we use it consistently.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hamby, you should first be glad that someone read one of your posts (ba-dum-ting). I mean, how often is it that you post something you're fairly certain your interlocutor will never read... let alone read accurately? It's interesting here, though, that your careful language (and I do mean careful) has not been confused by theists.
I am bothered more by poor accuracy in reading. It seems to have more immediate (perhaps worse) consequences. At least with equivocating and some other problems of language one person can have the sense that something is wrong with how the language is being used.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
In my humble opinion what you are observing here isn't a problem in itself but rather it is a symptom of a larger problem, that being the anti-intellectualism (for want of a better word) of society.
The way people generally learn words is by reading them or hearing other people use them. They do not then go and look the word up, instead they try to ascertain the meaning of the word through the context it was used and then go off and parrot that themselves. If the word was used incorrectly, or if they misunderstood what the person was saying, then they go off and parrot the word with the incorrect meaning. The same thing happens in all walks of life, it why so many people seem to be against science and intelligence. Sure it may not be that difficult to check a few facts, but it just isn't done. Heck, I don't do it myself. I myself am admittedly a victim of this exact same mindset.
Another major symptom which is really getting my goat these days is CAM (Complementary Alternative Medicine). I remember when I was a teenager and first hearing of the calming affects of Lavender and Sandlewood. I laughed. My thoughts were along the lines of "How much of an idiot must you be to believe this claptrap". Everyone else around me reacted the same way. These days, I can no longer go in to a supermarket and buy soap or shampoo. I go in, and the isles are full of milk and honey shower gell, citrus and lavendar shampoo. The only options I have are for products which are supposedly based on this claptrap. If I laugh at the supposed affects of these things, I get angry looks and I am the one who is looked upon as being ignorant.
... and for the record, I use Lynx shower gel. Some blue bottle. I buy it purely because I like the smell, I don't care or give any credence to anything else written on the bottle other than the list of ingredients and the manufacturers address.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
One of the reasons I really appreciate Richard Dawkins is that he goes to a LOT of trouble to carefully define his words and use them consistently. He'll spend half a chapter prefacing his point by explaining in great detail exactly what he means -- and perhaps more importantly, what he doesn't mean -- when he uses a particular word or phrase.
I suspect that most of my author pages have only been read through by atheists. Most theists probably scan the first few paragraphs and quit, either realizing they can't think of any way to argue or simply ignoring it out of good religious training. I remember when I was a Christian I'd stop reading anything that was obviously anti-religious. Why read it, after all? Since it was anti-religious, it was obviously wrong.
I cannot decide whether I think poor reading or writing accuracy is more harmful. The thing is, if it's written accurately, someone can come along and cuff you on your ears and say in a loud, firm voice, "No, Thomathy. You're reading that incorrectly. See? You are assuming colloquial meaning for this word when he has clearly stated his intention that you interpret it only in the scientific sense." If it's written poorly, it's anybody's guess.
Still, we must ask if more harm is done in the world by poor reading or poor writing. Since the majority of the world's population are readers, not writers, I must assume that the disproportionate number of readers means poor reading has caused more ill.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
... which is precisely why I go to the trouble of pointing out common inconsistencies in the usage of important words. As I've often said, atheists are not necessarily good critical thinkers. They just thought critically about this one thing, or perhaps just came to the conclusion intuitively. Consider me as the professor for "Critical Thinking 101." The first semester is nothing but understanding definitions, reading comprehension, and clear expression of thought.
It's becoming more difficult for soap makers to impress women these days because so many formerly exotic items are commonly available. In the 80s, if you just put a picture of a passion fruit on a bottle somewhere near the word "goddess," you couldn't keep it on the shelf -- no matter what "it" was. I probably would have been a good ad executive, but in all honesty, I don't think I could live with myself if I made my living by suckering people.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hamby, to test your assumption, merely look at the tickets placed on cars near any number of street signs prescribing parking.
If people tend not to read those properly, imagine a more complex message. You could be espousing sexism and Hitlerian eugenics in your writing.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Wow, with this context, your OP makes a lot more sense. I guess I can decide to stop misunderstanding you now.
Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.
Always.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
It's a joke.
You've seen how I work. There are times when I find myself explaining quantum electrodynamics or autocatalysis to someone who can barely read. In such cases, I don't necessarily expect my interlocutor to be able to read and respond. What I expect is that I have drilled into them an understanding that this subject cannot be approached with elementary school understanding and that they should therefore not jump in and insist that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics when they themselves cannot even draw a P-V diagram.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Eee! I was also joking. Did not the tongue-stuck-out smiley make that apparent?
Actually, I think a lot of us here post things that are not well understood. At least, we all post things that we have an inkling will be glossed over.
But (and this question is for everyone), to go back to Hamby's rant, what is the cause behind such equivocation? I don't think there's often mallice or that it's intentional (though it's hard to say). Is it just ignorance, as has been suggested?
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
I think everyone who uses the word "religiously" knows the difference between it and religion. It's using religion as a comparison to describe something. And I think everyone who hears someone use the word "religiously" understands that.
There is no issue here. If anyone acuses a scientist of being religion because he said he religiously follows the scientific method, that that person is an idiot and probably has far worse problems with them.
I think it's the same reason theists charge that atheists have faith in science; or, actually, I think that means the same thing. It appears that they're projecting the flaws of their belief system onto others, ignoring the fact that this undermines their own position.
I mean, have you ever seen an atheist argue against a theist by calling them logical? No, because that's absurd. So, why do theists argue against atheists by calling them religious as if it's a bad thing?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
A preoccupation with an emotion (i.e. "this fucking atheist thinks he's sooo great. He's not better than me! I'll show him!) rather than on the question (i.e. "Am I right?" ).
Hmm.... one might conclude that religion has an inferiority complex. I wonder why.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
It's funny what you get when you start applying the DSM IV to religion and religious people. Dawkins was right about the god of the bible, of course. He's the most psychologically fucked up character in all of literature. Petty, misogynistic, unrepentantly jealous of nonexistent rivals (grandiose delusional disorder, anyone?!), abusive, manipulative, deceitful... the list could go on and on. But then, when you start looking at projection, projection identification, delusional disorder, and a good handful of other psychological disorders, you realize that christianity in particular teaches people to be disfunctional!
With each individual, it's certainly a chicken-egg question. Did the disorder come first, and the religion fit, or did the religion bring out a tendency towards the disorder, or was the religion solely responsible for it? Remember, a few years in a P.O.W. camp is enough to drive many people completely bat-shit insane. How much more will twenty or thirty years of constant indoctrination into a socially mandated or at least strongly encouraged religion?
This makes sense if you think about it. Logic simply doesn't work in religion. You must turn off your logic circuits to be able to embrace it. If logic is gone, what does that leave?
Kohlberg was onto something with the degrees of moral development, and I think it applies pretty well to this, too. Humans ought to develop past emotions once it becomes obvious that emotions are not always right. Out of pure self-interest, people ought to embrace logic since it's the best way for them to get ahead. Religion encourages the opposite, and the ironic consequence is that religion usually wins. As anyone who's ever tried to reason with an unreasonable assailant knows, emotion trumps logic -- even when logic is correct.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I think it would be interesting to see exactly what and how theists project, because the more I think about it the more projection I see and the more convoluted, and even insane, it is.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I've just changed the meaning of "religulously" to mean something that I've not put a lot of thought in and was just a stupid idea. I think it fits the term more precisely than it's original one.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
I can only speak for myself when I say that I accept calm contentment as an emotional state. Emotion need not be strong to be valid. When I make a rational decision despite an emotional desire to do otherwise, I normally reach a state of calm contentment after going through a few cycles of anxiety and/or sadness at not getting to do what I emotionally desired.
I suppose you can say that's unemotional, but I would disagree.
Maybe, but I don't think so. I think it comes from the assumption that life without god is purposeless. It then follows that those without purpose are unhappy.
I've certainly been accused of being detached. I've had girls break up with me because I wouldn't get into shouting matches, instead preferring calm conversation to work out differences. My response was always something like, "What good will it do to have a big fight? Why don't we just work out a solution and skip the fight? I wouldn't want to discuss this if it wasn't important. I just don't want to be irrational about it."
A lot of people are sexually attracted to strong emotion, for what it's worth.
I think many people believe this.
I've been pondering whether or not to write an article about theist projection. It's a daunting task, and I'm not sure I have the heart for it.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I would say religion leads to a handful of bad things like disfunctionality but the teaching of how relationships work especially how forgiveness works I would never have learned correctly if it wasnt for christianity. And I dont mean that my version is if I say Im sorry afterwards then I should be able to do anything I want. But the model is when you put yourself before anothe person and cause them harm you can break the relationship and forgiveness may be needed before it is restored.
I'm not going to argue that that outweighs all the bad in religion. But its probably the most useful lesson at least for me. And I appreciate the christian version of ellis' rational emotive therapy, although I have no idea if he did those himself or someone else did.
Without being able to give forgiveness or receive it, I would say that a person could be pretty disfunctional.
Speaking as something of a passable authority on psychology, sociology, evolutionary psychology and human nature in general, I fear for your understanding of how relationships work.
Sorry, but I was raised Christian, and I know what they teach about relationships. It's wrong on most counts.
That would be very juvenile.
You needed religion to figure this out? How sad. Out of curiosity, are you sure it was the religion itself (meaning the actual word of the bible) or was it the people in the religion who taught you this? I wonder if maybe you're attributing something to God that you should take credit for yourself.
A wise move.
If I were you, I'd consider doing some serious thinking about my own sense of morality. If you need a holy book to teach you to be nice to other people so you don't hurt their feelings.... well... honestly, I don't think I'd like to know you.
So you're telling me that some Christian ganked the principles of REBT, stuck God into the picture, and called it his own?
Seriously, man. I'm not trying to be rude here, but you need to do some thinking about where your morality comes from.
Have you read this article yet?
What Does Sugar Have To Do With Murder?!
If not, read it. When you're done, read this one:
Godless Morality and Fear
Do you have any idea how many non-theists have reached the same conclusion? Crutch much?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
It's 2 in the AM on a Saturday, man. I thought you'd be too drunk to type by now.
I think you would. I like you. And since I only like a few people who don't like me, you're probably not one of them.
... and it's fantastically entertaining. Those posters take what, two days to answer (if at all) and from what I remember, it's a lot of "YEAH, BUT WHAT DOES SCIENCE KNOW?"
It's called "science". They put "knowledge" in the name so nobody would get confused. Holy shit.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Really? You don't think you could have learned about forgiveness from a Buddhist?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
maybe I could have...but I didn't...one person I know who embraces buddhism (albeit perhaps poorly) doesnt understand forgiveness...literally...she said she just doesnt get it...and nothing she ever did was wrong...if it was wrong why would she do it...(theres no theology for it?) and the ones I hear of who are friends of friends tend to have relationship boundary issues...not that we all dont have some...
Yo Dude, I'm totally religious about not using the word "religiously" !!! As if !
I think perhaps you overestimate my desire to know people who need a book to figure out morality.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
You mean: you intimidate them to win the argument.
Nice.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
The rules of morality have a similar history to the rules of grammar. You don't need a book to be able to apply grammar and you don't need a book to apply morality. You just intuitively understand, by experience, how to be understood and how to not be an outcast.
The only time you need a book is when you want an authority to appeal to as you go around pissing everyone off by "correcting" their grammar. Or in religion's case, "correcting" morals.
Grammar isn't going to hell in a handbasket and neither are people's morals. Both phenomena are cultural fairy tales.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Well, not quite. It hasn't been my experience to see DG just arrogantly throw around his gargantuan, science-packed replies. Often times his replies are quite short and too the point. Often times his replies passively state his position and then move on without much discussion.
It really makes a difference who he's replying to. It seems to me that if a regular theist comes onto the board and asks relatively common questions in common language, they don't see the DG bazooka.
From what I have seen, those replies tend to be reserved for the theists that enter the room saying shit like, "I have a master's degree in blah-blah and I believe in god because of such-and-such, so there!"
In other words, he does intimidate with his posts, but only when he's reciprocating the behavior of his "I have a master's degree" type interlocutor, in which case it's totally fair.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
It's just that you said you never would have learned forgiveness if it weren't for Christianity. I imagine you would have learned about forgiveness somewhere. Likewise, I would think that you would learn how to forgive from practice, not from recommendation. That is, forgiving requires actually doing something before you can experience it. I'm sure you understood what forgiveness actually was - I'm not accusing you of not having a dictionary. It just seems unnecessary to have the step where you read about forgiveness in a holy book.
If you don't understand what she's saying, you might want her to qualify it. I don't think I can interpret it for you. But if you'd like to learn about forgiveness, you can take it from an atheist: it's difficult, and you have to work at it, but it allows you to escape a quagmire of negativity. That might be more practical advice than simply ordering you to do it on pain of eternal damnation.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
There's no argument to win at that point. When someone makes assertions that are nothing but apologist parroting, sometimes it helps to back them up with all the material they'd need to make an actual decision on the topic. If they have a hard time with that material, it might get them motivated to check it out. If it doesn't, at least they have an idea of the depth of the field that they're attacking.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence