[Saya]

I had this all replied to then it wouldn't submit properly and my response was lost -_-* So the annoyed rewrite version ahead.

Originally Posted by AshleyO

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?

I don't see the point of expressing disagreement just because? Like if I was being proselytized, sure, absolutely. But seeking Raelians out to tell them I think they're wrong isn't really my idea of a good time or a productive time. I think disagreement would be assumed and inherent in simply not being a Raelian.

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?

If it wouldn't be impossible, it would take a hell of a lot longer. We didn't join Canada until 1949, until then Newfoundland was effectively ruled by a merchant caste who could give no fucks about the proletariat. It was only after Confederation that education was seen as a right and the government pushed for things like more roads to make sure children could go to school. no, the supernatural had nothing to do with it, my point is that religious political action can be bad or good.

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.

Some? Some make good formations, some claim they don't and yet we know they do. Conservative religious people fought Liberation theology because they said the church should be apolitical. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ARGUED THAT IT SHOULD BE APOLITICAL. But we know they are, they're more deluded that they aren't than anything. And I don't think atheists are inherently any more progressive, but that's beside the point.

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.

I think CPC is decent and I did consider joining, but there's just some things they do that make me a little iffy.

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 had a big response to this and I'm more than annoyed that its gone, so I'm just going to point to the controversy over Liberation Theology. Conservative religious people, including the VATICAN, argued that God does not have a stake in human politics because hey, its all going to end soon right? And the poor will get their just desserts in heaven. Now obviously, despite their assertions to the contrary, fundamentalists and the Vatican are far far far from apolitical. Its just a matter of not wanting Christians to be Marxists.

Meanwhile, all Liberation Theology really asserts is Jesus was political and he is with the oppressed. In black theology this takes the form of black Jesus, if Jesus is with the most oppressed, and the most oppressed are black, then Jesus is black. But even the traditional white Jesus is very political, even if we're blind to it, because Jesus couldn't have been white and the only white people in the Bible were the Romans.

My point being, I'd rather stick with the liberation guys who are honest about their intentions at least. Religion can't help but be political, it seems.

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

Necessary how?

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

I don't blame you because I think the media really downplayed her death, white cops being scared trumps dead black women I suppose. But I don't think targeting people who had nothing to do with it, especially associated women, is a war tactic that isn't very revolutionary at all.

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.

Again, I had a big long response, but what it amounts to is this: The only Muslim country I can find that has laws against apostasy and was not ever colonized is Saudi Arabia, and even then that's a pretty modern development and might be in response to Islamism, I have to do more research on that. Historically, it has been the norm and not the exception that Muslim governments be secular, and most Muslim governments typically have Sharia law overlook more trivial things like marriage, hence why gay Muslims married in France and saw their marriages as perfectly legal under a secular anti-gay government that oppressed them for being too oppressive. Current Islamism and extremism is in response against Western influence, hell that's pretty much the whole point of Islamism explicitly. They view apostasy not only as a sin but as succumbing to that dangerous influence.

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.

When its a direct response to Western aggression, I don't feel comfortable telling them to go suck an egg when I'm a part of the problem. Its unfair to say what they'll do after one day the West stops being aggressive (HA) when that's such a hypothetical and we have no idea what will go down between now and then.

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.

Yeah Aristotle really got it right when he said women are illogical because our genitalia are inside. And everyone else since using logic to consider women (and PoC) as subhuman. Logic is a useful tool, but it doesn't mean its always right and it can't be faulty. Religion and philosophy were intimate bed fellows since the Middle Ages anyway.

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.

I'm just saying proletariat feminism isn't exactly an independent thing. While more academic, middle class or however you want to view it feminist theory may ignore those below, they're certainly capable of coming up with useful things we can use anyway.

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.

Who said anything about a stake? Did I say it was sacred? I think religion can be a positive thing or a negative thing, and I don't think I'm going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

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.

I don't think religion does that, but okay.