Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

What if you're wrong?

124»

Comments

  • #152
    rozeboosje
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭rozeboosje


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    If you wish to offer or explain another interpretation of the sentence then do so. I repeat: I am discussing the suggestion that it is a social cohesive. No one is forcing you to discuss it with me.

    Nope. I want to see you engage your brain. You work it out. By all means offer suggestions for alternative readings of the sentence, and I'll tell you whether you're getting warmer or colder. Let's make a game out of this! :)


  • #153
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    So you can not offer another interpretation of it. Then I will stick to the topic of evaluating faith and religion as being a social cohesive or not.


  • #154
    rozeboosje
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭rozeboosje


    Feel free to do so, but since that is NOT the topic as stated in the OP, you have now knowingly gone off topic, and I cannot help but wonder whether you are actually here to deliberately derail this thread. If that is so, why?


  • #155
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Nothing detailing about discussing a sentence that is in the OP.

    One reason I think faith is not a social cohesive is it is actively socially divisive. The reason being that since there is no substantiation basis for the claims being made in faith, there is therefore no resolution process for a difference of opinion on faith related matters. Therefore issues that arise are irreconcilable, which results in the exact opposite of social cohesion.

    This is one reason why, for example, the World Christian Encyclopedia recognizes over 33,000 different branches and off shoots of Christianity. When a difference of opinion on the subject forms, it can not be reconciled. Hence a schism naturally occurs.


  • #156
    rozeboosje
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭rozeboosje


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    One reason I think faith is not a social cohesive

    Off topic


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Except it is not, it directly relates to a sentence in the OP.

    Another reason it is not a social cohesive is that it perpetuates an in group out group mentality between different faiths.


  • #158
    rozeboosje
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭rozeboosje


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Except it is not, it directly relates to a sentence in the OP.

    No, it directly relates to a misrepresentation of a sentence in the OP, and anything that follows is therefore a straw man.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    it is not a social cohesive

    Still off topic


  • #159
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    You have not shown it to be a misrepresentation at all. You just claim it is and then run. Quite the MO.

    The op mentioned faith as a social cohesive. I am free to discuss this. If you feel it to be a derail, alert the mods. No one is forcing you to reply to it.

    A third reason faith is not really a social cohesive is faith a personal thing. Which is therefore not relevant to social cohesion.


  • #160
    rozeboosje
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭rozeboosje


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    You have not shown it to be a misrepresentation at all. You just claim it is and then run. Quite the MO.

    It is not my job to ensure you understand my English. The phrase I use is perfectly clear, and anybody should be able to understand its true meaning. I even gave you a clue.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    The op mentioned faith as a social cohesive.

    Strawman


  • #161
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Except it is no such thing. It is a direct response to the sentence in the OP. A sentence you refuse to interpret any other way.

    So I think we are agreed, if someone were to make the claim that faith is a social cohesive, or that this is the "purpose" of faith, it would be an unsubstantiated and unsupported claim.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Rozeboosjes' premise is that some atheists and agnostics may be misdirected in discussing whether or not it is rational to believe in a deity, as s/he believes that the purpose of believing in a deity is social cohesion.

    The premise falters immediately on the assumption that 'some' athiests and agnostics are discussing the rationality of belief in a deity to an end that is not served by that belief being to the purpose of social cohesion.. i.e they might be wrong, when such a discussion can comfortably accommodate a purpose to belief if required.

    It's certainly possible that the purpose of some peoples belief is social cohesion, but we would need some believers to affirm that first of all; I've never yet come across anyone who believes in a deity because it makes them willing to cooperate with other members of society in order to survive and prosper. Generally they believe in deities because (in their opinion) they exist. However, if we could find such believers, then any atheists and agnostics discussing the rationality of their belief might be inclined to agree that whilst the belief remained irrational, the purpose of the belief might not be.

    On the other hand, if one were to maintain that the purpose of belief itself was to instill social cohesion, that would attribute a motivation to a sensation; implying intelligent direction, which is an effect an argument for the existence of a deity.

    Regardless, the title assumes that atheists and agnostics subscribe to the initial 'focus' on a particular 'rationality'; an assumption which can't be demonstrated.


  • #163
    rozeboosje
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭rozeboosje


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    So I think we are agreed, if someone were to make the claim that faith is a social cohesive, or that this is the "purpose" of faith, it would be an unsubstantiated and unsupported claim.

    Oh, so now you are making a distinction between your interpretation and what I actually said? So you DO understand my sentence?


  • #164
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mod:
    robindch wrote: »
    If you can't post in A+A within the charter, then the moderators will take action. That's the way it is here. You might want to read the charter before posting a reply
    rozeboosje wrote: »
    I'm sorry if this is all too difficult for the both of yous.
    rozeboosje wrote: »
    As far as I'm concerned you can go jump into a lake.
    rozeboosje wrote: »
    Good boy. Now go and actually understand that sentence.
    rozeboosje wrote: »
    I'm confident that you have the mental wherewithal to work it out all by yourself.
    rozeboosje wrote: »
    It is not my job to ensure you understand my English. The phrase I use is perfectly clear, and anybody should be able to understand its true meaning. I even gave you a clue.
    rozeboosje has been carded for incivility and ignoring a mod instruction.

    rozeboosje - your next stroppy post will earn you a red card and your next after that will earn you a ban.


  • #165
    rozeboosje
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭rozeboosje


    Absolam wrote: »
    It's certainly possible that the purpose of some peoples belief is social cohesion, but we would need some believers to affirm that first of all;

    Finally someone who gets it. Not necessarily; something may have arisen for a purpose that none of its users are "aware" of. Think, for example, of the purpose of a peacock's tail; the peacock himself doesn't have a clue why he has such a contraption; he is just happy he's getting laid.... ;)

    Absolam wrote: »
    Regardless, the title assumes that atheists and agnostics subscribe to the initial 'focus' on a particular 'rationality'; an assumption which can't be demonstrated.

    No, no..... *some* atheists. Certainly not all. After all, that would include me XD


  • #166
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    rozeboosje wrote: »
    Oh, so now you are making a distinction between your interpretation and what I actually said? So you DO understand my sentence?

    Not making any distinction that I have not been making all along. The sentence in the OP brings up the subject of viewing the purpose of faith as a cohesive. I am interested in discussing this topic that the sentence brings up.

    I am quite interested in human psychology, especially at the level of society. So the purpose and effects, positive or negative, of religion on social cohesion is very much in that purview.

    But as I said, it appears neither of us is aware of an argument which supports the idea of faith being relevant to social cohesion. So the conversation on the topic appears to be at an end.


  • #167
    rozeboosje
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭rozeboosje


    robindch wrote: »
    Mod:
    rozeboosje has been carded for incivility and ignoring a mod instruction.

    rozeboosje - your next stroppy post will earn you a red card and your next after that will earn you a ban.

    Hey robindch,

    I am under no obligation to put up with deliberately dishonest modes of discussion. You can clearly see what sort of disingenious tactics have been employed here.

    Instead of, as you're doing, anally focusing on a person's language or response to dishonest behaviour, you as a mod should be focusing on the behaviour itself. But it's easier to focus on "stroppy language" and that sort of thing, rather than to bother finding out what is actually going on, isn't it?

    Don't bother with the "red card". I'll get me coat.


  • #168
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Absolam wrote: »
    Rozeboosjes' premise is that some atheists and agnostics may be misdirected in discussing whether or not it is rational to believe in a deity

    I would not agree with such a premise. We are all humans and we find ourselves in this universe and we do not know how or why this is the case. So there is nothing misdirected in discussing any all hypotheses that address this open question, including whether there is rational reason to think the explanation is a non-human intelligent or intentional agent.

    IF there is such an entity, then this is something that would be important to know for sure. So it is very much a good idea to discuss the claim.
    Absolam wrote: »
    as s/he believes that the purpose of believing in a deity is social cohesion.

    And that is the beleif/Claim I am actively discussing as I find it quite interesting as a topic. At this time however I do not see something supporting such a belief at this time. Perhaps you do?

    I do not really think that faith has a "purpose" at all. It just is what it is.


  • #169
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mod:
    rozeboosje wrote: »
    [...] anally focusing on a person's language [...]
    I'm enforcing the forum charter. Which you might want to read before you post here in A+A again:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054860288


  • #170
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I do not really think that faith has a "purpose" at all. It just is what it is.

    You could say that for the the religious organisations, faith has the purpose of getting bums on seats. If people didn't believe in the mythology, they wouldn't show any deference to the priests and their organisations.

    I think organised religion did contribute to social cohesion much the same way any activity that brings a community together under largely friendly terms on a regular basis will. As people attend mass much less frequently, as is the case in this country, I'd guess there could be a negative impact on social cohesion if they didn't meet up in some other way. The same could be said of the decline of the rural pub, and the closing down of bingo halls. For older people who can easily become quite isolated, I think the main benefit of organised religion is to spend some face time with their mates for a chin wag.


  • #171
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Indeed but that would be less the purpose of faith and more the purpose of the religious organization who are profiting by faith.

    As for bringing people together weekly on a friendly basis, I wonder if this is so. When I see people going to mass there is very little interaction between them. People stick to the people they showed up with, and leave with the same people. I can not recall a single situation where I have, for example, entered into conversation before during or after mass with anyone other than the people I showed up there with.

    But even then this is less a purpose of "faith" which is what the OP was discussing (then pretended not to be discussing, before throwing toys out of the pram and leaving). It is more a purpose of religion. But it is not even than a purpose of religion per se. It is a purpose of social interaction, and as you say yourself there are numerous ways to get people to come together and socially interact. From Sport to Beer to religion to much more.

    Religion, at best, is just a service provider for this which profits by it and as I said earlier in the thread.... we can not just evaluate its efficacy of achieving this, but also the cost we pay for achieving it through this option and whether other options are available without that cost.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    rozeboosje wrote: »
    Finally someone who gets it. Not necessarily; something may have arisen for a purpose that none of its users are "aware" of. Think, for example, of the purpose of a peacock's tail; the peacock himself doesn't have a clue why he has such a contraption; he is just happy he's getting laid.... ;)
    That would not be the believers purpose in their belief; you're ascribing a purpose to the belief itself. Demonstrably the belief may have evolved by fulfilling a function, but that does not make it innately purposeful; no more than a peacocks tail.
    rozeboosje wrote: »
    No, no..... *some* atheists. Certainly not all. After all, that would include me XD
    Then your question should be 'What if a very specific sub-set of you that might exist are wrong?'
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I would not agree with such a premise. We are all humans and we find ourselves in this universe and we do not know how or why this is the case. So there is nothing misdirected in discussing any all hypotheses that address this open question, including whether there is rational reason to think the explanation is a non-human intelligent or intentional agent.
    I think Rozeboosje deliberately constructed the premise in order to elicit knee jerk reactions from anyone who considered the sense rather than the particulars of the post, since the particulars once considered have neither foundation nor merit.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    IF there is such an entity, then this is something that would be important to know for sure. So it is very much a good idea to discuss the claim.
    IN the context of the OP whether a deity exists or not is irrelevant to whether the purpose (more accurately the effective function) of believing in a deity is social cohesiveness.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    And that is the beleif/Claim I am actively discussing as I find it quite interesting as a topic. At this time however I do not see something supporting such a belief at this time. Perhaps you do?
    I don't. But I understand it's not the premise Rozeboosje was setting out, whilst obviously giving the impression of doing just that.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I do not really think that faith has a "purpose" at all. It just is what it is.
    I suppose faith can be set to a purpose (such as, famously, moving mountains), but I think Rozeboosje (deliberately?) obscured the premise by using the term 'purpose', which connotes a driving intelligence, when a more apt one might have been 'function'.


  • #173
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Absolam wrote: »
    IN the context of the OP whether a deity exists or not is irrelevant to whether the purpose (more accurately the effective function) of believing in a deity is social cohesiveness.

    True. But I was responding in general to the general point that "some atheists and agnostics may be misdirected in discussing whether or not it is rational to believe in a deity". I think it is very much worth discussing this in all religious contexts and discussions.
    Absolam wrote: »
    I understand it's not the premise Rozeboosje was setting out

    Before taking the ball home, the user in question asked "What if I said...." and I am answering that what if. That's all really. It seems asking a question and actually getting an answer is offensive to the user in question and they are gone now. So its pretty moot now.
    Absolam wrote: »
    I suppose faith can be set to a purpose

    That would be the point I was making yes. To highlight the difference between setting a faith to a purpose or function.... and inferring that is actually the purpose or function of it.


  • #174
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Indeed but that would be less the purpose of faith and more the purpose of the religious organization who are profiting by faith.

    Chains don't serve the prisoner either. Cynically perhaps, one could say those pushing religion invented faith, and it was always there first and foremost to serve the needs of those who would control the masses, rather than than those who attend masses ;)


  • #175
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,306 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    rozeboosje wrote: »
    Now there's a question for Atheists and Agnostics to ponder!
    If we're wrong, we go to heaven by good deeds. However, if you picked the wrong god, you're a heathen, destined to spend forever in the hell of the other god.

    I view religion as a way to get a peaceful man to fight barbaric wars.

    Faith, IMO, is a lazy way of not being able to say why you believe in your god, so giving it as a reason for your belief is lazy, IMO.


  • #176
    Field east
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,679 ✭✭✭Field east


    rozeboosje wrote: »
    But here, let me be kind to you and give you an example. I may choose to use a screwdriver for the PURPOSE of hammering in a nail. That would be neither smart nor efficient. But what point would there be in throwing away the screwdriver if I didn't replace it with a hammer?

    Given the above , I would seriously question the logic, direction, accuracy, etc, of your contributions to date on this thread and hints as to what you are proposing.

    You obviously are not aware that it would be smarter and more efficient and earlier on the fingers , in some situations , to use a flat headed screwdriver to drive a nail than using a hammer- especially where you might be using sprig type nails on softish timber . You would place the edge of a flat screwdriver on to the nail head and keep both in place /together with your thumb and index finger- of the same hand- while pushing/'hammering 'in the nail with the other hand. If one is thinking of using the screwdriver instead of a hammer, then I would recommend that one starts with the screwdriver in the first instance to get the nail imbedded sufficiently so that it is self supporting and then use the hammer to drive it home - assuming that it has not been thrown away in the meantime. The screwdriver/hammer combination will provide a much more uniform finish if there is a number of nails involved

    If you have big hands/fingers especially, the nail head might not protrude enough over ones fingers in order to be able to successfully complete the task, if using a hammer. And even if it did protrude a little one might be clumsy enough to hit one's fingers at times
    . A rampin , which is more like a screwdriver than a hammer, is used for inserting certain types of nails into wood.
    In your example, you had no problem in discarding/ throwing away something which was not required in your opinion - if you got the hammer the screwdriver was thrown away. I can only assume from that action that materialism would loom large in your proposed order of things whenever you get around to putting flesh on your overall ' proposal ' and that reusing / recycling/ possible future use of items would have no part to play in your greater scheme of things going forward. You might have lost a lot of possible ' converts ' on this 'sub issue' alone.
    So , if you cannot properly use ' a simple example' to explain complex issues, how on earth are you going to manage to explain what you are on about?


  • #177
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    FYI - rozeboosje appears to have closed his/her account and has, we hope, no doubt taken his/her talents elsewhere.


  • #178
    Field east
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,679 ✭✭✭Field east


    robindch wrote: »
    FYI - rozeboosje appears to have closed his/her account and has, we hope, no doubt taken his/her talents elsewhere.


    Having read all the posts in this thread , I hope that 'Rozebudde' is not involved in the fashioning of the new set of fictions to replace the current ones - if and when it ever happens. If she/he was , then we could end up with a very dictatorial, impatient,intolerant, divisive,inconsiderate, condescending, arrogant and a very unequal society IMO


  • #179
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Not making any distinction that I have not been making all along. The sentence in the OP brings up the subject of viewing the purpose of faith as a cohesive. I am interested in discussing this topic that the sentence brings up.

    I am quite interested in human psychology, especially at the level of society. So the purpose and effects, positive or negative, of religion on social cohesion is very much in that purview.

    But as I said, it appears neither of us is aware of an argument which supports the idea of faith being relevant to social cohesion. So the conversation on the topic appears to be at an end.

    Hey Nozz,

    I was doing a psychology assignment on positive aging and it touched on this point. The research suggests that as people age they lose touch with various social scenes which can effect social and psychological functioning such as depression, physical mobility, physical strength.

    Some social avenues are somewhat age dependent. For example when someone reaches retirement age and their children move on, they have lost 2 major social avenues and often suffer ill effects as a consequence.

    Religion serves as a venue for social interaction and those who get involved see social and psychological advantages. Interestingly they tested for belief and social participation in isolation. They found that simple belief was not the cause and had no effect on the outcome measures. Instead the positive effects were deemed to be caused by the social interaction at religious events.

    The same effects can be achieved by, meaningful occupation (paid or voluntary), Participation in support groups, low impact social sports (cards, golf).

    So to circle around to your point, you are correct in saying faith is not necessary for social cohesion in the research I have done at least.


  • #180
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Yes I think this is something we see often with religion. What religion does _at best_ in our society is offer packaging and/or facilities for things that are important in and of themselves for humanity... and then it attempts to convince people, like our OP, that it is religion and/or faith itself that brings these things.

    It reminds me of that article in the news papers this week that declared that science has now shown that going out with the lads once a week is healthy. That, like your own post, is basically pointing out that we are a social animal and hence we benefit from being social. Something one would have expected was obvious to start with.

    It is not just the benefits of being social that religion does this with. Morality and charity are two great examples of where religion assimilates something and then acts like it is some great source of it. When at best it is just putting packaging on it. At best our religions and churches are Charity Brokers. Yet when you enter into a discourse with a theist on the merits and demerits of religion they will almost invariably talk about all the charity work religions have inspired and done. Getting the causal link entirely reversed in my opinion.

    Having this distinction pointed out is likely what made the OP take their ball and storm off home and leave the forum entirely. Facts tend to be quite offensive to those trying to sell us a narrative of religion being the source of all this good stuff, when it is anything but.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement