If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Onion)   Gay teen worried he might be Christian   (theonion.com) divider line 31
    More: Amusing, evangelical christianity, Oral Roberts University, Left Behind series, radical right  
•       •       •

9632 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2013 at 1:58 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-28 02:03:39 AM
8 votes:

Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.


I know, right?  He has no idea what thread count the Emperor's new clothes are!
2013-02-28 01:24:26 AM
4 votes:
Jan 12, 2010

/just sayin'
//could've sworn the article is even older than that
2013-02-28 02:58:37 AM
3 votes:

Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.


*Shrug*  Maybe.
But I don't really see that, or the article you linked,  as being particularly relevant.
Dawkins does not, in general, even try to engage religion as a sociological construct, and for the purposes of what he is trying to do that is perfectly fine.  He isn't being indiscriminately anti-religious based on his own definition of what a religion is, he is engaging very specific facets of their belief systems.  Specifically, if a religion makes a supernatural claim about the way that the universe actually works, those are the things he is arguing with.  If he is addressing only specific types of claims, it doesn't matter how much he does or doesn't know about the cultural construct that is making them.  That is a central pillar of science -- the hypothesis is separate from the person (or organization) making the claim.

To test and debate the concept of God or gods and the claims made about them does not require that he know anything about the history of religion or even the abstract philosophical underpinnings, he only has to know what the logical consequences of those beliefs are and how they relate to the real world that we see around us.  To claim that he doesn't have any business talking about religion just because he doesn't have training in the Religious philosophical hand-waving is just elitist academic masturbation.
2013-02-28 02:04:36 AM
3 votes:
(Although, now that the web is getting a few years under its belt, maybe Fark needs a [CLASSIC] tag.)
2013-02-28 02:01:54 AM
3 votes:

Paris1127: Jan 12, 2010

/just sayin'
//could've sworn the article is even older than that


I saw the headline and thought it was a play on the very popular Onion article from a few years ago, then saw that it was the very popular Onion article from a few years ago.
2013-02-28 12:36:54 AM
3 votes:
Why, I bet Richard Dawkins doesn't even have any training in homeopathy, either!
2013-02-28 03:01:07 PM
2 votes:

PsiChick: Oh, look, you've uncovered the dirty secret of religion...

...Several thousand years ago.

/This is 2013. If someone  actually believes a bolt of lightning is named Zeus, that might be a valid argument, but nobody actually believes that anymore.
//And no, nobody who isn't an utter idiot believes God found missing car keys either.
///If I had a nickel for each time I'd heard this strawman...


Surely, you believe in a much more sophisticated, modern version of ascribing agency to the universe than those stupid peasants thousands of years ago.
2013-02-28 07:43:33 AM
2 votes:

Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.


Right, Maher has a degree in history from Cornell, but a C is all he'd be able to muster at the all-world academic powerhouse that is TCU (where Plate is tenured).
2013-02-28 05:21:11 AM
2 votes:

Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.


This is like saying you don't understand super heroes unless you have fully invested yourself into the canon of them all. I think they get it. And every one of them has discussed the phenomena of religion and described it as what fills the vacuum understanding when science is not present, and being a convenient fantasy to believe in because it's what people want to believe.
2013-02-28 03:49:44 AM
2 votes:

Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.


A competently taught freshman religious studies course generally provides enough information to tear apart the diseased aspects of religion - that is, the idea of a perfect divine revealed truth.
2013-02-28 02:38:57 AM
2 votes:

nerftaig: On a lighter note does anyone else love when Christians use "that argument is so old 100 years come on get with the times man" as a criticism?


A couple months ago, a 9/11 Truther chided me for using "decade-old" arguments in rebutting his claims. Some people just don't consider the possibility that the reason they're hearing the same rebuttals over and over again is that their own position hasn't gotten any cleverer, as opposed to there being some inadequacy on the part of the people they're arguing with.
2013-02-28 12:03:34 AM
2 votes:
"absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods."

Wtf?

You went full retard, you never go full retard.
2013-02-27 10:39:36 PM
2 votes:
Sick. This kid needs major therapy to cure his mental disorder. Christianity is a CHOICE!
2013-02-28 05:03:15 PM
1 votes:

PsiChick: Epicedion: PsiChick: Tell you what, I'll explain my beliefs to you if you answer this question: Why do you care? What the hell does it matter to you what other people believe?

I don't care what they believe. I care what they promote, and you were promoting bullshiat.

The idea that to be an  actual expert in religion, not just an online-degree pastor, takes years of training in logic, debate, philosophy  and other topics?

So much bullshiat that some of the most famous secular colleges in the world agree with me.

/I'm stunned you're pretending to be on the scientific side of this. Facts are not only knowable, Mr. Google sometimes even has them for free. No experimentation required.


No, he was responding to the comment "science tells you how the frog was made; religion tells you why"and that  IS utter BS. It is ascribing agency to the universe for no discernible reason. You say there is a why so there MUST be one. And yes my (poor sad deluded) catholic mother did tell me that or something very like it. She was very educated in the ways of the catholic church and was the director of religious education for more than 25 years for a parish that had weekly attendance of around 3,500 people.

Now as for being educated in the ways of a religion, just because a University offers a degree in something does not make it a worthwhile endeavor to get that degree (keep in mind all of the women's or ethnic studies programs out there). There is also a huge difference between studying religion (comparitive religion without the neccesity of buying into the truthfulness of any particular religion) and studying theology (often of a single religion and entry into the school is predicated on being a believer). I really don't care how many years you study  HOW the wine and bread turn into the blood and body of Jesus, if they DON'T turn into flesh and blood then those years are wasted years. They don't make you some kind of expert just sadly deluded.

/not that believing in god neccesarily makes you sadly deluded but if you (like my parents) believe that the bread actually changes and that the reason you can't see the change is a "mystery" then yes you are sadly deluded.
2013-02-28 03:20:29 PM
1 votes:

PsiChick: Tell you what, I'll explain my beliefs to you if you answer this question: Why do you care? What the hell does it matter to you what other people believe?


I don't care what they believe. I care what they promote, and you were promoting bullshiat.
2013-02-28 02:05:38 PM
1 votes:

PsiChick: Your mother never taught you the phrase 'science tells you how the frog was made; religion tells you why'


Your mother never taught you that ascribing agency to natural processes leads you to irrational conclusions, did she?
2013-02-28 11:23:18 AM
1 votes:

Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.


I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.
Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed - how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry - but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.
Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.
2013-02-28 09:34:26 AM
1 votes:

ciberido: The mistake that Dawkins, New Atheists, and Fark Atheists make is that they assume that the scientific plausibility of religion is the only question worth considering, and moreover that answering that one question implies the answer to whether or not religion is worthwhile (in some psychological or anthropological sense).  And that, frankly, is embarrassingly naïve and ignorant, which is why New Atheists come across as angry idiots, not just to religious people, but to most other atheists as well.


Could you elaborate on that? There are a few facts about the world that don't reconcile with your word salad:

1. Daniel Dennett is a "New Atheist."  His book "Breaking the Spell" is about religion as a natural phenomenon to be studied. Isn't this exactly what you say the new atheists don't do?
2. Aren't you ignoring the fact that christains and other religionists don't argue that religion is "false but useful?"  Every religious person is making an explicit or implicit claim to knowledge about the world, either moral or otherwise. Therefore. contrary to your statement, it is sufficient to show that religion is untrue, coupled with evidence that religion causes harm, to deem it toxic (or un-worthwhile, to use your term).

Maybe you would be taken seriously if you agreed (now, not later) what arguments against religion you would consider valid. What arguments against religion would you consider as having merit?  So far there are volumes written about how each religion is empirically false/contradictory, volumes showing how it lacks any explanatory power about the world, books written about how ideas from christianity were stolen wholesale from earlier myths, and many more showing that it causes real harm.  Why are these "angry" and "idiotic?"  If these points aren't salient, which are?
2013-02-28 07:46:50 AM
1 votes:

Somacandra: But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods.


Oh please, "religious studies theory or methods", theories need evidence and testability neither of which apply to relicion which seems to consist of "read an old book, assume it is true and pull some ideas out of your butt". As far as I can see that's all it takes to be a religious "expert".
2013-02-28 03:42:15 AM
1 votes:

Huck And Molly Ziegler: Hey, Focus on the Family -- you guys need to pay attention to this one! This is a real news article! Written about a real person with real anxieties. You need to issue a press release, and offer support to the young man in his time of crisis! I'm serious! This is NO JOKE!!!!


That would be an interesting troll, send it to them as a concerned parent and christen.
lulz
2013-02-28 03:36:22 AM
1 votes:
Hey, Focus on the Family -- you guys need to pay attention to this one! This is a real news article! Written about a real person with real anxieties. You need to issue a press release, and offer support to the young man in his time of crisis! I'm serious! This is NO JOKE!!!!
2013-02-28 02:43:40 AM
1 votes:
In partial deference to Somacandra, Dawkins is generally not content to argue that religion is untrue - he insists on arguing that it's harmful as well. And arguing that in the general case, rather than the specific Abrahamic religions with which he has direct experience, requires not so much theology as a broad (and fairly deep) grounding in the anthropology and history of religion - and that background Dawkins does indeed lack.

Dawkins does pretty well when arguing that religions are either untrue or "not even wrong" (in the sense of making "claims" that can't possibly be tested). He's on much weaker ground when he tries to argue that all religions, solely by being religions, are harmful to the societies that retain them.
2013-02-28 02:26:46 AM
1 votes:

Mithiwithi: Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.

I know, right?  He has no idea what thread count the Emperor's new clothes are!


<3 Love this point.

I do respect Somacandra for at least admitting that Hitchens, Dawkins, and maybe even Maher  would pass such a course. High praise.

The idea that religion Hitchens did not engage with religion as phenomena is just incorrect. Most of his arguments were not about the disproof of god, but instead he turned an eye of criticism towards that phenomena you say he never addressed. The same could be said of most anti religious advocates, at the end of the day we don't really care about god, because god is, from our perspective, a non issue. It is that lived phenomena of religion that is problematic, and the point.

I don't mind you disagreeing with the arguments, but please don't misrepresent them.

On a lighter note does anyone else love when Christians use "that argument is so old 100 years come on get with the times man" as a criticism?
2013-02-28 02:18:41 AM
1 votes:
This link is ancient history, but it's definitely in the Onion All-time Greatest, so I can't complain.

/quick, someone submit Why Do All These Homosexuals Keep Sucking My Cock
2013-02-28 02:13:51 AM
1 votes:
Oldie but a goodie.

And this one's about a month old, but it was the last one that had me laughing hysterically.

The Onion Freely and Happily Give It's Employees' Passwords to China
 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onion-freely-and-happily-gives- it s-employees-p,31102/
2013-02-28 02:10:24 AM
1 votes:

Somacandra: Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods.


Exactly - just like people with PhDs in Falloutology are the only ones qualified to comment on whether or not the Vault Dweller exists.
2013-02-28 02:03:30 AM
1 votes:
You know I saw a good movie/documentary on this the other day. Fish out of Water-trailer
2013-02-28 02:03:22 AM
1 votes:
Is it just me or is this kid kind of a coont?
2013-02-27 11:54:00 PM
1 votes:

exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.


Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.
2013-02-27 10:56:20 AM
1 votes:
Future GOP candidate?

By the time he's 25, he should have his wide stance down pat.
2013-02-27 10:29:40 AM
1 votes:
At first glance, high school senior Lucas Faber, 18, seems like any ordinary gay teen. He's a member of his school's swing choir, enjoys shopping at the mall, and has sex with other males his age. But lately, a growing worry has begun to plague this young gay man. A gnawing feeling that, deep down, he may be a fundamentalist, right-wing Christian.

lawl
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report