Thaibebop wrote:What is disingenuous is believing that Asian cultures can't tell the difference between religion and philosophy.
I said the difference was contextualized with reference to Western history. The word "religion" didn't exist as such prior to the Western explication of it. I never said they couldn't tell the difference, I'm saying that while the difference is here now it wasn't always so.
You did not understand what I wrote.
As to religion generally, you are saying that some adherents are ignoring passages in the scriptures they don't like, but this is at least partly inaccurate. Often such passages receive one or another interpretation that locates them in a chronological or theological development. You cited parts of the Tanakh and a Pauline epistle, for example, but I doubt you are familiar with the various catechisms on those writings as followed by such adherents (the Talmud, for example, or the CCC). They render a different picture, one you seem to be ignorant of. It is on account of that ignorance that I caution you about your conclusions.
I have an MA-ABT in Comparative Religion, so I'm actually very comfortable talking about religion and philosophy in any capacity, contrary to your later claim. On that note:
Thaibebop wrote:Really, do I need to define religious trappings to you?
This is why I brought anything up at all; definitions are part and parcel of a discussion like this, and leaving terms such as this critically undefined is a problem. The definition of religion is itself a troublesome bugbear, how much more so 'religious trappings'? The difference between religion and philosophy is another such issue. Definitions are in fact wholly pertinent to the OP, so why would you not
take the time to clearly define your ideas?
I've read Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and others, so the video added nothing new. Note that this is a debate on the terms used, another example of how important definitions are. I decided to visit the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
on account of this:
"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." Simple. Agnosticism is more nuanced, but has to do with the lack of either
belief or disbelief. Atheism is thus a metaphysical claim about what exists and does not exist, while agnosticism takes the epistemological position that we don't know yet (or can't know ever - it can be used either way).
Also, Thomas Paine was a Deist (that's my BA in History getting dusted off, combined with a bit of internet verification).
As I said: clearer thinking is called for.
Wow, can the website hold your ego?!! Excuse me for doubting you noble professor.
You are right I didn't understand your previous statement as what you intended because that wasn't what you said. I guess you didn't have a care when you first wrote it.
Since you have exalted degrees in which to draw from then you should know that there is difference between what theologians spend their time debating and what the average person views when considering their religion. The passage in Leviticus is very clear I don't believe there is any room for interpretation there. A person who follows that faith and wishes to justify their hatred towards gays will use this passage, regardless of what comparative religion degree holders like yourself say about it's proper interpretation. Those who follow this faith and wish to support gay rights will ignore this passage and talk about Jesus. It's very simple, just watch the news, talk to a Christian, either way most people don't practice their faiths the same way and with the words of a religious scholar in their ear. So, pointless point for you.
Instead, you have said I am ignorant on this topic, though you don't have a care to spell out how, and you've pulled out your degrees out for me to marvel at. You are not debating any more, you realize this, yes?
Religious trappings? Why the confusion? The article in question, in the OP gave examples. Is that monks examples of religious trappings, plus the ones I have given not enough for you, or just not the right ones?
If you have read Hitchens then you should know that he makes a very strong case that unlike Jefferson, Paine was a atheist, wrote a whole book on it and I feel at least made a good argument. It was based off of Paine's revulsion at the French Revolution, to avoid a similar incident he would promote deism, yet made proclamations against all forms of organized religion. So, perhaps I should have said that he was an anti-theist. Of course, the argument stands that the beliefs of people like Paine and Jefferson may never be clearly known for their was only so much that they could've admitted to that society would have let them get away with.
Again, if you gave read Dawkins then you also are aware of the sitting on the fence agnosticism argument. Atheism can't be making a metaphysical claim because it's saying that the claims made are not validated, not proved. Stop sitting on the fence professor, there is either proof or not.
Alright, You have not contributed to this discussion. Instead you have tried to play school master and 'put me in my place' with your degrees. You have not addressed any of the points I brought up and instead picked at places that you though showed weakness. You made the claim that I was ignorant on the subject of these religions being discussed and didn't bother to explain how. If you really want to take part please do do, but this post is just ridiculous. I have my education as well and I am not using what I have done, or what I am doing as an debating point. Perhaps this burst of vanity from you was unintended and I am just misreading your post, but considering you told me to 'have a care' I will say the same to you. This is a conversion between equals, not a classroom you get to direct. M'okay? M'okay! Cheers!