 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| David wrote: | Gotta agree with that, Tannin. As if any religion can be simplified in such a way!
For instance, is Christianity inherently peaceful or inherently violent? I dunno. Both? Neither?
Anyway, I'm surprised that so many Republican voters went with the 'liberal airhead' option. A good sign, I guess. |
I would suggest, from what i recall of studies as a kid, that Christianity is inherently peaceful as it is based on the new testament, the gospels of Christ, who preached turning the other cheek and forgiveness.
That hasn't stopped peanuts using the bible as a cover to do violent acts and lots of them, taking shit in the old testament literally.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I don't agree. I think it preaches peace and violence, and that violence has been committed both through the twisting of its teachings and literal adherence to its commands.
I suspect Islam's relationship with the Koran is much the same.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Now you're talking about the book rather than the religion based on it.
If you think Christianity as a religion preaches violence in it's current form, would you care to provide an example of that, and I don't mean a fkn bible quote.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | | Just so, Mugwump. Further, it is a disgrace of a survey. The real fool here is the writer of that moronic question. |
Sorry, it's a technically reasonable survey as it stands. It is not investigating some "ontological truth" and depriving people of the right to be "truthful" because that's its interest. Rather, it's investigating human beliefs under pressure. The use of the comparative form /~er/, however, means it is not even completely binary, though it provides about the right degree of pressure I reckon.
There's nothing ostensibly technically wrong with it, even if the pressure makes some people feel a loss of control.
You would have to combine it with other evidence if your interests differ from that of the author, but as it stands there is nothing rationally untoward about it.
It is often much better to approach an emotionally-charged topic with a dichotomous question to avoid socially-adjusted neutral answers, which in turn require another dozen questions with a whole new scale of their own in order to test if the neutral answers are genuine or socially-modified.
These respondents have consented to expressing a preference. If the population sample is not biased and the research as a whole has validity, that expression of belief has empirical merit.
Survey instruments are not designed to satisfy other people's personal desires and wishes; they're operationalised tests of hypotheses and may not have anything to do with other people's perceived interests.
Edit: Cleaned up the expression! |
^ Complete rubbish. Good lord, I have always assumed you were smarter than that. Providing respondents with two palpably untrue statements and no further option is simply a form of push-polling, and the results have no validity whatsoever. Designing a survey like that would get you an automatic FAIL in any course teaching survey research methods.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: |
If you think Christianity as a religion preaches violence in it's current form, would you care to provide an example of that, and I don't mean a fkn bible quote. |
He wouldn't for me, so whats make you think he will for you?
Are you special or something. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 1061 wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: |
If you think Christianity as a religion preaches violence in it's current form, would you care to provide an example of that, and I don't mean a fkn bible quote. |
He wouldn't for me, so whats make you think he will for you?
Are you special or something. |
Trying different phrasing of yes, essentially the same question. Sometimes it's all in the wording.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Depends how you define Christianity. Most mainstream variants of Islam eschew violence completely, but extreme groups preach it. On the other hand, some extreme forms of Christianity preach bombing abortion clinics or going to the Middle East to fight Muslims or retiring to survivalist communes with their collection of shotguns. And what are Biblical literalists supposed to make of Jesus's claim that "I come not to bring peace, but a sword"?
If we're talking about inherent qualities, I don't know how you can separate modern denominations from the holy book that lies at the core of it. It seems like an exercise in goalpost-shifting. Anyway, you were the one who brought up the New Testament; have you read Revelation? Many, many Christians (particularly in America) believe that the events described in that book are going to happen within their lifetimes.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| It is a ritual I do the same way every time. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Depends how you define Christianity. Most mainstream variants of Islam eschew violence completely, but extreme groups preach it. On the other hand, some extreme forms of Christianity preach bombing abortion clinics or going to the Middle East to fight Muslims or retiring to survivalist communes with their collection of shotguns. And what are Biblical literalists supposed to make of Jesus's claim that "I come not to bring peace, but a sword"?
If we're talking about inherent qualities, I don't know how you can separate modern denominations from the holy book that lies at the core of it. It seems like an exercise in goalpost-shifting. Anyway, you were the one who brought up the New Testament; have you read Revelation? Many, many Christians (particularly in America) believe that the events described in that book are going to happen within their lifetimes. |
Absolutely i can separate the religion from the book, that's not goal post shifting that's the only fair and reasonable way to judge the religion - by how THEY interpret the book and how THEY act, not what you or I interpret the book.
Without getting into a numerical argument, you only have to look at the number of christian "preachers" for want of a better collective term who preach violence against those who disagree with them as opposed to the number of Muslim ones. Ever heard of the Ayatollah Khomenei? He wasn't exactly a lay preacher in a church with 20 inbred rednecks for a congregation.
So lets go back to the basics, you've made a statement I'm asking for cites or examples to back it up. I'll give you Westboro church as a freebie, everyone knows they're nucking futs except them. So examples of behaviour, not theoretical, not bible passages, actual literal behaviour endorsed by a Christian church leader advocating violence against others who are not of the same faith, on the basis of that faith.
Google yourself silly.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
But you're laying out barriers to a debate that I wasn't engaged in. If you want to argue that, when taken as a whole, modern Christianity is on average more tolerant and less aggressive than modern Islam, then you'll find few who disagree with you. I wouldn't either. There are many reasons why they ended up that way, and despite claims by Pa Marmo and his ilk they have little to do with the inherent nature of the respective faiths—we all know how violent Christianity has been until recently—and much more to do with wealth, cultural autonomy, living conditions and all the other stuff PTID always talks about.
Given all of the above, keep in mind that the original poll referred to inherent qualities of the Muslim faith: inherent; fundamental; essential. If you ask whether a faith is inherently peaceful or violent, you're going to have to look at the history and the holy book as well as the modern iterations of that faith. To only focus on one of those things is to change the argument, and on those narrow terms I suspect we'll end up in furious agreement. And the irony was that the only reason I became engaged in this thread in the first place was because of the very absurdity of that argument.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Jezza wrote: | | I'd like to see a survey conducted on attitudes towards Islamism (the ideology based on religious teachings of the Quran and Hadith) and not Islam the religion! |
You don't need to because the answer is already in your definition, which itself needs more thought.
The interesting work in the field of religion is in the psychiatry of religion. The presence of nasty things in books has a complex relationship with behaviour. Most of the contradictions and undesirable aspects of holy books are ignored by sane believers ipso facto, and they metaphorise them, ignore them, explain them away, etc. to preserve their social commitment and identity.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | But you're laying out barriers to a debate that I wasn't engaged in. If you want to argue that, when taken as a whole, modern Christianity is on average more tolerant and less aggressive than modern Islam, then you'll find few who disagree with you. I wouldn't either. There are many reasons why they ended up that way, and despite claims by Pa Marmo and his ilk they have little to do with the inherent nature of the respective faiths—we all know how violent Christianity has been until recently—and much more to do with wealth, cultural autonomy, living conditions and all the other stuff PTID always talks about.
Given all of the above, keep in mind that the original poll referred to inherent qualities of the Muslim faith: inherent; fundamental; essential. If you ask whether a faith is inherently peaceful or violent, you're going to have to look at the history and the holy book as well as the modern iterations of that faith. To only focus on one of those things is to change the argument, and on those narrow terms I suspect we'll end up in furious agreement. And the irony was that the only reason I became engaged in this thread in the first place was because of the very absurdity of that argument. |
Whether you meant it or not that's Exactly the debate you've been engaged in. if you didn't realise that you need to work on how you express yourself and how you comprehend things.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | | Just so, Mugwump. Further, it is a disgrace of a survey. The real fool here is the writer of that moronic question. |
Sorry, it's a technically reasonable survey as it stands. It is not investigating some "ontological truth" and depriving people of the right to be "truthful" because that's its interest. Rather, it's investigating human beliefs under pressure. The use of the comparative form /~er/, however, means it is not even completely binary, though it provides about the right degree of pressure I reckon.
There's nothing ostensibly technically wrong with it, even if the pressure makes some people feel a loss of control.
You would have to combine it with other evidence if your interests differ from that of the author, but as it stands there is nothing rationally untoward about it.
It is often much better to approach an emotionally-charged topic with a dichotomous question to avoid socially-adjusted neutral answers, which in turn require another dozen questions with a whole new scale of their own in order to test if the neutral answers are genuine or socially-modified.
These respondents have consented to expressing a preference. If the population sample is not biased and the research as a whole has validity, that expression of belief has empirical merit.
Survey instruments are not designed to satisfy other people's personal desires and wishes; they're operationalised tests of hypotheses and may not have anything to do with other people's perceived interests.
Edit: Cleaned up the expression! |
^ Complete rubbish. Good lord, I have always assumed you were smarter than that. Providing respondents with two palpably untrue statements and no further option is simply a form of push-polling, and the results have no validity whatsoever. Designing a survey like that would get you an automatic FAIL in any course teaching survey research methods. |
Sorry, wrong. Push polling is about mischievously planting ideas in people's heads before an election or purchase or such. Surveys, if they're part of proper research, are about testing an hypothesis. Your paranoia about being manipulated is not the researcher's concern; that's what researchers do to elicit information. To critique the question you need to critique whether it is a sensible operationalisation of the construct under investigation, which you don't know on face value.
Carry on all you like, but there's nothing ostensibly wrong with it and you've conducted no validity tests on it at all. I'm afraid it's you who would fail research methods because you're talking rot. I'm not going to teach you just so you can pretend to know, but if you want more than a defensive Wikipedia understanding I can.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Whether you meant it or not that's Exactly the debate you've been engaged in. if you didn't realise that you need to work on how you express yourself and how you comprehend things. |
This was the beginning of the current discussion (bolding mine):
| stui magpie wrote: | I would suggest, from what i recall of studies as a kid, that Christianity is inherently peaceful as it is based on the new testament, the gospels of Christ, who preached turning the other cheek and forgiveness.
That hasn't stopped peanuts using the bible as a cover to do violent acts and lots of them, taking shit in the old testament literally. |
Your conclusion was incorrect on two counts. Firstly, Christianity is not just based on the New Testament; there's a reason that the OT is included in the Bible. The focus on it will vary from church to church, but it is taught. There are many references to it in the NT as well. Secondly, the New Testament is not all about loving your neighbour. It also features threats of violence against sinners and non-believers, violent acts of God and passages that could be interpreted as exhortations to violence. All of these passages are taught in Christian churches, though some may put a different spin on them.
Given that, your statement that Christianity is inherently peaceful is wrong, or only right insofar as it is also inherently violent. The same is true for Islam, which is why that poll (which was all I was actually talking about before 1061 misunderstood and/or willfully misinterpreted my argument) sets up a false dichotomy. Now, to discuss whether modern forms of Christianity are more peaceful than their Islamic counterparts is another issue. That's not what inherently means.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 1061 wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: |
If you think Christianity as a religion preaches violence in it's current form, would you care to provide an example of that, and I don't mean a fkn bible quote. |
He wouldn't for me, so whats make you think he will for you?
Are you special or something. |
Christianity has evolved with the societies in which it has been predominantly embedded. So much of it as an institution or sub-culture has supported violence of all kinds and still does. E.g., a good percentage supported the Iraq War. That was unbelievably violent. A certain number run misinformation campaigns against global warming, doing great violence against the environment and therefore those vulnerable to it. Others oppose the legalization of prostitution, enabling massive violence against women. Latin America, as explained, is 90% Christian and has horrific homicide rates, which, if you're ignoring social context, should count. And let's not start on the astonishing, flabbergasting institutionalised child rape and cover ups, and persecution of the gay community to the point of extreme violence in many countries.
So, you're ignoring the goal posts if you think it's about behaviour only, and are overlooking such inconvenient facts. Now, just imagine those nutters without the law, order, historical stability and economic incentives that sane folk have embraced which now fence them in. Okay, that gives you ISIS.
I'm not attacking any religion here, just pointing out your two sets of rules.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
