Am I Being Stupid?

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Believing things without strongly motivating reasons, without evidence, corrupts a person's ability to think and act rationally. Once conclusions can be reached without exhaustive argument, any detrimental or counter-productive social view becomes immune to criticism. The worst damage that any religion has ever caused was to make it a social norm to base one's opinions and very way of life on an undefeatable non-reason. If you have a particularly poisonous view derived from your religious upbringing, it would not matter that there are countless compelling arguments opposed to it, as you would be inured to them.

This is the main problem I have with religion. The whole "We shouldn't reinterpret the bible because God is infallible and we are fallible therefore his word overrides anything that tries to disprove it" argument strikes me as blind. The bible was written by men. Even if they were writing the word of God down, if they're fallible they could have written it down wrong, or it could have gotten lost in translation. Taking something written collaboratively over a long time a long time ago strictly literally is an incredibly dangerous thing to do.

So that was definitely not at all what I was talking about.

[squibbles]

As you might know, California had a vote some time ago about a certain Proposition 8, the goal of which was to explicitly define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

I was under the impression that by definition, that's what marriage is, as the ritual given the title 'marriage' is purely Christian. I mean, the reality of it is that people of non-christian faith /do not marry/, but rather undergo a ritual of a different name, which bears many similarities and shares legal ramifications.

Although, I suppose with The Great Westernisation (No, fuck off, Firefox. I am /not/ putting a z in there.) Of The World, one could argue that the definition has changed, as evidenced by the crude labeling of every civil union as marriage. But then again, this really assumes that the correct definition of a word is based on popular usage, and the day that that happens will be a sad one indeed.

[Geti]

So that was definitely not at all what I was talking about.

Whoops, no it wasn't. The point I was going to make got forgotten because I went and read that carbon dating link.

[乳头的早餐谷物]

DERAILINING THE THREAD

But then again, this really assumes that the correct definition of a word is based on popular usage, and the day that that happens will be a sad one indeed.

Say what? That's exactly how words are defined—by their usage. Sometimes, you can reasonably argue that a certain change is 'incorrect', or that it's not widespread, but as far as 'marriage' goes, that's not the case—it's widely and validly used to refer to the social/legal/non-Christian custom as well as the specific wedding-in-a-church definition. To steal a phrase from the linguistics essay I'm writing: language changes, bitch, so deal with it*.

That said, I agree that the two concepts ought to be separated—the civil and legal aspect should apply to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples with absolutely no distinctions. Any kind of religious ceremony that someone may have should be purely decorative and of no legal standing.

* This phrase is not actually found in the essay.

[squibbles]

DERAILINING THE THREAD

But then again, this really assumes that the correct definition of a word is based on popular usage, and the day that that happens will be a sad one indeed.

Say what? That's exactly how words are defined—by their usage. Sometimes, you can reasonably argue that a certain change is 'incorrect', or that it's not widespread, but as far as 'marriage' goes, that's not the case—it's widely and validly used to refer to the social/legal/non-Christian custom as well as the specific wedding-in-a-church definition. To steal a phrase from the linguistics essay I'm writing: language changes, bitch, so deal with it*.

Wait, so you would have no problem with 'lol' finding it's way into the dictionary? I mean, don't get me wrong, I think that an evolution of language is a great thing, but I also think that it should be left to people who, you know...know what they're doing. Which is generally /not/ the general public.

[Seneschal]

DERAILINING THE THREAD

But then again, this really assumes that the correct definition of a word is based on popular usage, and the day that that happens will be a sad one indeed.

Say what? That's exactly how words are defined—by their usage. Sometimes, you can reasonably argue that a certain change is 'incorrect', or that it's not widespread, but as far as 'marriage' goes, that's not the case—it's widely and validly used to refer to the social/legal/non-Christian custom as well as the specific wedding-in-a-church definition. To steal a phrase from the linguistics essay I'm writing: language changes, bitch, so deal with it*.

Wait, so you would have no problem with 'lol' finding it's way into the dictionary? I mean, don't get me wrong, I think that an evolution of language is a great thing, but I also think that it should be left to people who, you know...know what they're doing. Which is generally /not/ the general public.

We can't possibly have "lol" in the dictionary because then people would look it up to see what it means, and that would defeat the whole purpose of the dictionary!

I have no objection to seeing something like "lol" in the dictionary (and neither do the people at Dictionary.com, either, incidentally) because it's become part of the common vernacular. If it needs to be tagged as a slang word, then so be it, but I really don't understand this objection to newer words being added to the dictionary simply because they are recent additions to the language. A hundred years ago, I imagine a lot of words in common usage today would not have been in the dictionary because they simply didn't exist; they were added as they became more and more popular.

Essentially, "language changes, bitch, so deal with it".

[Kablizzy]

Suki just said everything that has ever been on my mind, smashed down into chewable bites!

[otters~1]

Marriages can be delivered by a Justice of the Peace

Or a Ship Captain!

[SlappyMcGee]

I was only implying, and Tanner's post has not convinced me otherwise, that a religious worldview is not dangerous.

Oh wow I am surprised that not only did I not convince you but that you didn't communicate why!

whatever man this thread is pretty dumb like seriously let's go to denny's

I believe that the Great Satan is using Denny's as a hub for indoctrination of our youth.

Anybody got any proof against that? Whatever, it's a valid -theory-.

[Scrivener]

I was only implying, and Tanner's post has not convinced me otherwise, that a religious worldview is not dangerous.

Oh wow I am surprised that not only did I not convince you but that you didn't communicate why!

whatever man this thread is pretty dumb like seriously let's go to denny's

I believe that the Great Satan is using Denny's as a hub for indoctrination of our youth.

Anybody got any proof against that? Whatever, it's a valid -theory-.

actually, it's not a valid theory at all. it's not even a valid hypothesis. no religion i've ever heard of is a valid theory.
theories must make testable predictions. if anyone can give a basic prediction based only on the theory that there is a god, that hasn't already been predicted by science, i'd like to see it.

[origami_alligator]

On a side note, what is it with religious websites and horrible/ugly site designs? >_>

God has not spoken to the 12 Apostles.org of Jesus.net to define how a religious website should look yet.

[bobaganuesh_2]

Oh wow I am surprised that not only did I not convince you but that you didn't communicate why!

whatever man this thread is pretty dumb like seriously let's go to denny's

I believe that the Great Satan is using Denny's as a hub for indoctrination of our youth.

Anybody got any proof against that? Whatever, it's a valid -theory-.

actually, it's not a valid theory at all. it's not even a valid hypothesis. no religion i've ever heard of is a valid theory.
theories must make testable predictions. if anyone can give a basic prediction based only on the theory that there is a god, that hasn't already been predicted by science, i'd like to see it.

you can't expect a religion to be validated as a theory by using a method that evaluates the validity of only scientific theories.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

you can't expect a religion to be validated as a theory by using a method that evaluates the validity of only scientific theories.

yeah man in the same way you cant expect science to be validated as a religious theorey by using a method that evaluates the validity of religious theoreys
each invalidates the other......whos right its inpossible to tell both are equal so it comes down to personal preference

[otters]

you can't expect a religion to be validated as a theory by using a method that evaluates the validity of only scientific theories.

In fact, it's impossible! And that's why I'm not religious.

[otters~1]

Denny's? Denny's! I'ma get the triple-decker. With extra-satanic syrup.


EDIT: Post number my birth year. It's like being young again.