statue of baphomet in detroit - discuss civily

tomBitonti said:

The group doesn't seem to represent "Satanism" except in a very small way.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone claimed otherwise.

I don't have a way to tell how true the group's beliefs are, and how much might be a cover for usually frowned upon activities.

Click to expand...

Pardon me for making an example of something:

You don't have a way to tell how true a Christian's beliefs are, or whether their involvement is a cover for, say, their homophobia - "It isn't me! God said it was wrong!"

Replace the referent there from Satanic Temple to Christian, it becomes offensive, doesn't it? Then maybe the problem isn't with the referent, but with the prejudicial nature of the question.

And you are correct, this is exactly why government needs to stay out of, and protect, religious practices. Because our fellow humans cannot yet be trusted to do so.

Umbran said:

We could use a working definition of "religion" for this context. Nothing we come up with will be entirely satisfactory to anyone, but I'll submit we might steal from Wikipedia to get in the right neighborhood:

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

Atheism, in its basic form, does not qualify, as it is really only one belief - broadly, that there is/are no god or gods. And that's it. Not enough meat there to call it a religion.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm nitpicking but I don't think the absence of believe in a deity is the same as having a believe that no deity exists. That would be the purview of anti-theists.

Umbran said:

I don't think anyone claimed otherwise.

Pardon me for making an example of something:

You don't have a way to tell how true a Christian's beliefs are, or whether their involvement is a cover for, say, their homophobia - "It isn't me! God said it was wrong!"

Replace the referent there from Satanic Temple to Christian, it becomes offensive, doesn't it? Then maybe the problem isn't with the referent, but with the prejudicial nature of the question.

And you are correct, this is exactly why government needs to stay out of, and protect, religious practices. Because our fellow humans cannot yet be trusted to do so.

Click to expand...

Actually, I do (and so do most folks). They are the same tools that are used, generally, to tell what is true and heartfelt, or otherwise. In the case of Roman Catholics, I have more tools, since I know a lot more about that religion than others. I'm pretty sure that some Roman Catholics are against homosexuality because that is what they were taught. But I'm sure there is a lot of homophobia there, too. The tools are not 100% reliable, sure, but, in this case, sufficient to raise suspicions.

Thx!

TomB

Joker said:

Maybe I'm nitpicking but I don't think the absence of believe in a deity is the same as having a believe that no deity exists. That would be the purview of anti-theists.

Click to expand...

Some dictionaries will have atheism and anti-theism to be equivalent. I think that's missing some subtlety.

In modern use "anti-theism" is more usually the position that belief in gods is harmful or destructive. It connotes active opposition to theism. Technically, a person who believes in god(s) can still be an anti-theist, if he or she thinks the influence of the divine is bad for humanity - if you think, "God is a jerk," you can be an anti-theist.

Agnostics believe the truth of some metaphysical claims cannot be known by humans. "We cannot know if god(s) exist."

There are degrees and shades of atheism.

Implicit atheism- the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it (this may include some agnostics).

Then there's explicit atheism, which may be the more common form today, where the person consciously rejects the existence of god(s).

You might also hear reference to Strong or Weak atheism. Strong atheism is akin to the explicit atheism above - affirmation that no god(s) exist. Weak atheism is all other forms of non-theism (including agnosticism, and some Hindus who believe there are spiritual entities, but they aren't really gods, per se).

There is also practical atheism aka "apatheism" - whether god(s)s exist or not is irrelevant, or not a concern. Basically, "If god(s) exist, they are useless. They are not needed to explain natural phenomena, don't influence or give purpose to life, so I don't really care."

As an (explicit) atheist (who thankfully lives in Europe!) I usually say:
"Being an atheist is like being the only sober person in a car full of drunken people, yet nobody wants to give you the keys."

And that's all I'm saying on that matter, in order to comply to the OPs rules regarding manners.

tomBitonti said:

Actually, I do (and so do most folks).

Click to expand...

You do... what? Have the ability to tell if someone actually believes something?

Most folks *think* they have such ability, but empirical evidence - the ease with which most of us are taken in by con-men, for example, and how easy it is to get us to accept lies, suggests otherwise. Our ability to discern this without long and close personal association is weak, at best. A trained mental health professional can probably weed out what things a person believes, what things are rationalizations over some less-conscious belief, and what things are outright false statements, given a long period of observation and discussion, but laymen should probably not try it at home.

And, the idea that you can tell what people believe, without actually even speaking with them? No. Just no.

Very broadly - we humans are very bad at understanding where our own understanding stops, and just as bad at knowing when we are applying our own biases. Moving forward with a false belief that you actually know what's going on inside the other person's head can cause a great deal of harm.

I mean, do I have to mention the Inquisition to show how we should not rely on such abilities?

I wouldn't try to pin down exact beliefs. Folks are too changeable, and what is true is probably very complicated. I wouldn't even expect a person to know their own beliefs.

But, I'm not looking for full detail. I'm looking for enough evidence to be suspicious.

Certainly, the folks who put up the status may have a strong belief that the USA is too strongly centered on Christianity as a semi-official religion. That seems plausible, and possibly very likely. But so does the notion that those folks are using religion as a cover for a protest. My admitted uncertain instincts are to favor the latter.

What seems more likely: That the the point of the status is to make folks more aware of problems in other religions and in other religious displays, or is the point to actually have people join their religion? If there were a place where all manner of religions were openly practiced, with the current main-stays at the margins, would there be a purpose for the statue? Would it be displayed?

Thx!

TomB

Joker said:

AAAAAAAH! Atheism is not a religion!

That's a 50 dkp minus for you.

Click to expand...

Umbran said:

We could use a working definition of "religion" for this context. Nothing we come up with will be entirely satisfactory to anyone, but I'll submit we might steal from Wikipedia to get in the right neighborhood:

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

Atheism, in its basic form, does not qualify, as it is really only one belief - broadly, that there is/are no god or gods. And that's it. Not enough meat there to call it a religion.

Click to expand...

Would the belief that man is his own god - his own destiny - evolution is the origins of humanity be a religion unto itself?

I do believe those are some the elements of secular humanism and have some strong startings of being a religion in its whole.

tomBitonti said:

What seems more likely: That the the point of the status is to make folks more aware of problems in other religions and in other religious displays, or is the point to actually have people join their religion? If there were a place where all manner of religions were openly practiced, with the current main-stays at the margins, would there be a purpose for the statue? Would it be displayed?

Click to expand...

I suspect it is more the former than the latter. Modern Satanists don't strike me as particularly prone to proselytizing. If so many of my fellow Christians were not so concerned with professing their faith even beyond Constitutional boundaries and into state-sponsored displays of endorsement and evangelization, I doubt the statue would even have reached the drafting table.

tomBitonti said:

But, I'm not looking for full detail. I'm looking for enough evidence to be suspicious.

Click to expand...

Seek and you shall find. Really - if you are looking for a reason to be suspicious, you *will* find it. Humans are incredibly good at finding justifications.

But really, how *stupid* do you figure these folks are? Satan/Lucifer is well known as the "Prince of Lies" right? So, how utterly idiotic is it to pull that name up to use as false pretense?!? I mean, isn't using the name pretty much saying, "HEY! LOOKIT ME!! I'M A LYING LIAR-PANTS!!!!1!" So, everything they say or do will be scrutinized with an intense scrute for mistruths, pretense and falsehood...

A wise man said - the best way to tell a lie is to tell the truth, and make it sound like a whopper. The best way to "cover" their actual agenda is to tell you exactly what it is, because you are so busy trying to uncover the lie you won't believe it!

But so does the notion that those folks are using religion as a cover for a protest.

Click to expand...

The above aside, the very tenets of the religion include protest - there's no "cover" here. They are up-front about it.

My admitted uncertain instincts are to favor the latter.

Click to expand...

There is a word for that: Prejudice.

What seems more likely: That the the point of the status is to make folks more aware of problems in other religions and in other religious displays, or is the point to actually have people join their religion?

Click to expand...

Very simple false dichotomy there. It isn't as if those two are mutually exclusive, or the only reasons to have the statue.