[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Saya

I think there's quite a difference between believing in UFOs and being a misogynist. Yes, misogynists feel they have proof, believe me, if there's ever a study done to show there's a difference between men and women, its thrown in my face. If there's any scientific appeal made, its thrown in my face. What goes on isn't pure logic, its picking the data that appeals to your sensibilities and sticking with it. And everybody does it, and we're also at the mercy of a media who cherry picks what studies to talk about and which to ignore. So if someone sees UFOs, they're probably likely to stick with what they saw, and its not like there's a respected body of scientists who will validate what they saw.

Why is it up to us to give them the benefit of the doubt and let them feel like we don't disagree with them? Why do they deserve that? Why is it wrong to perhaps tell them that it's probably more likely that they saw some experimental aircraft or even a trick of the light. The odds aren't in their favor; so why should we give them the courtesy of treating what they say as a truth?

Neither is atheism? Again I'm not so sure if religion should merely be personal and have no impact. If that were done, Newfoundland would have no education system, for example, that was done purely because the church decided the proletariat caste here should be educate, while the merchants fought establishing religion in the outports because they didn't want workers to be empowered, spiritually or educationally.

Prove that this would have been an impossible thing without the church. Matter of fact; how is it made possible that Newfoundland has an education system because of what Jesus did. Prove the supernatural element of it. If it weren't the church it would have been some other organization EVENTUALLY. I mean... what does the actions of a religious organization have to do with divine claims? What does Jesus Christ have to do with Catholics being cozy with the Nazis?

Some religions do harmful political work, some do good. In Canada most stay out of the practice of lobbying and there's little appeal made to religion, but that doesn't mean religion doesn't help shape one's political views.

Of course. Isn't that part of the problem? We can play the odds; yes? Who is more likely to be friendly to lgtb equality legislation? A southern baptist church in America or a shit load of Buddhists in Canada? Or a bunch of atheists? Some religions SHOULDN'T be forming any political opinions. That's the whole reason it seems like such a bad idea to base your worldview on myth first and foremost.

Indeed, its hard for me to say where my Buddhism starts and my socialism ends sometimes, I definitely prefer the BPF to the Communist Party of Canada or any white guy dominated group for that matter.

If there's one thing I've noticed; the word communist doesn't mean much. There's a shit load of organizations who call themselves communist who are nothing more but a bunch of revisionists and reformists. Hell; I'd even argue that you'd find better socialists in the third world than the first.

It was thrown into the arena in a long long time ago, nothing much is really new, just our understanding of how religious dynamics work. The American religious fundamentalism is actually relatively new and a backlash against skepticism, it didn't come before. You can see the differences between black churches and white churches, the black evangelical churches were from a time where the evangelical movement was more about social change; slaves could be preachers and preach to white people. Black churches evolved from this line of evangelicalism, and have been surviving pretty well and have often been involved in social justice. White evangelicalism still has churches that adhere to that, but for the most part white evangelicalism lost its significance, waned, then got popular again, and are more anti-worldly. It would seem, that perhaps, religion gain privilege from its members and not from itself, funny that.

Well this is a big part of the point I'm making. Notice how religions; much like animals, contort and adapt to their environment. They are responding to their material conditions. What I understand is that religious organizations do what they do all the time. But where is God in all this? The Nazis thought God was with them. Perhaps it's not such a bad idea to consider that maybe God doesn't have a horse in this race afterall and thinking so tends to distract more than help.

I didn't say it was a bad thing? My Christian sister's idea about Jesus I think was actually very influenced by Jesus Christ Superstar, which is really about the quest for the historical Jesus that has been going on for the last two centuries. Religion influences culture which in turn influences religion, see?

Is it necessary? Barring the idea for a second that there's nothing we can do about it of course.

Yeah, he was so brave for shooting a black woman because of something her father did.

Admittedly; I don't know the whole story. In any other context; this could have been a revolutionary act.

Islamic extremism is again, rather new and reactionary. Muslims are totally capable of being chill, some of the most compassionate and tolerant people I know are Muslim, and I don't think a Muslim in Canada or the US has to answer for the extremism of oppressed people in other countries. If I were Palestinian, I'd probably be extremist too, who can say?

But I'm not really asking that. The only thing I'm asking is can it be proven that Allah is actually real. Seriously; I don't think that's an unfair question. There's a whole lot of things we can prove already. I'm asserting that it's a big nasty problem that gods of any stripe can't be proven to be real. If that implies other ideas that lead to thoughts of considering weather following a religion is worth it or not is no skin off my nose. I can't help if doubt makes apostates and I can't help if some people end up being convinced by weak non-evidence thus becoming a theist.

And its not my place to tell them how to deal with it. If Afghanistan and Iraq are any indication, we tend to muck things up when we try to "help" so I don't think any of us should be in a position of authority over their lives.

I don't get it. Can you not imagine that MAYBE they'd be better off without the extremism? Hey... if they want to be extreme; even after the West goes away and leaves them alone for the rest of time, by all means... they can knock themselves out.

Religion and logic aren't mutually exclusive.

We can certainly put it to the test. Suspend science outright and let religion determine how to interpret reality. I'm sure Jesus will come back again someday and save everyone from themselves. Logic doesn't really NEED religion. But my point on that is that I doubt religion can really stand on its own without logic.

What I'm saying is in feminism there's way too much overlap to clearly state you're one kind of feminist over another, you know? Its not like how there's a million kinds of communists with distinct flairs. Even bourgeois feminists can think of really good things sometimes that is useful to the rest of us. In fact I'd say a whole lot of academic feminist is inherently bourgeois.

I'm not really sure what to tell you on that one. Push comes to shove, I'd rather put my lot in with proletarian feminism any day of the week. You can call me biased or prejudiced if you want. I'm okay with that.

Like most people I know, regardless of religion.

I think it's interesting how you assert that religion has no stake in anything and yet for some reason, it's so very sacred anyway. I can't help but get the feeling that you want to just give religion more courtesy than it really deserves just because it's the nice thing to do or because it's so popular.

Actually, I haven't read it, but there's a book in the library I saw about queer religion, but it was mostly about how queer culture provides religious experience without organized religion. Without having read exactly what they say, I can definitely see that. I don't think that's dismissive of organized religion, just that people find religious meaning in ways more appropriate for themselves than what organized religion may be able to provide for them. Now there's actual gay churches popping up and previously established churches doing outreach to see how they can better serve their queer members. Being queer is a lonely thing, and I'm happy people find meaning and solace in the community, and now its more and more likely that even in rural Newfoundland where there are no gay bars, they'll still have access to it in churches. I can't really make a value judgement on why people turn to religion in any of its forms. Good for you that you see it as an opportunity to say how stupid belief is? But honestly the more I learn in class about religion the more I appreciate it. Its funny, because the department is probably mostly atheist and same with the undergrads, but they all reiterate this.

I wouldn't really say that religion is stupid. It actually makes a lot of sense to draw conclusions on things that we don't fully understand. I think humanity has a superstitious inclination simply because we DON'T know everything. I'm just saying we shouldn't close the book on what we do or do not know simply because a religious idea is comforting and popular. I think everyone deserves better than that.