A More Accurate Categorization of Religion

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I didn't sense any bias in UT's classification system. Obviously if there was some, I'd call that unfair.

EDIT-- I take that back. After reading it, I realised it is rather biased.

In what way?

[Buffett and Colbert]

I didn't sense any bias in UT's classification system. Obviously if there was some, I'd call that unfair.

EDIT-- I take that back. After reading it, I realised it is rather biased.

In what way?

Well you name certain people that are "categorised" into a certain one (Bluth and Parth) and you implied in a way that they were inferior.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Well you name certain people that are "categorised" into a certain one (Bluth and Parth) and you implied in a way that they were inferior.

It was Bluth and History Land. Also, they do fit into the category of radical gnosticism. It constitutes anyone who believes that they are 100% absolutely correct beyond any and all question. I mentioned those two as they do comprise this group. Hell, Bluth even openly admits that he is absolutely correct.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Literalists/Fundamentalists: Reject large parts of modern science if it conflicts with their worldview. Believe their holy text is 100% literally true.

And it is. All those who don't do what the bible says 100% of the time will go to hell, the bible is very clear on this, no matter what sissy christians try to make themselves believe. Matthew 4 verse 4 clearly states:

[Jesus] answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

EVERY WORD. Not just the words you like. There's no picking and choosing here.

Keep kosher, much? Or do you except you'll have a very warm future as well?

[Buffett and Colbert]

Well you name certain people that are "categorised" into a certain one (Bluth and Parth) and you implied in a way that they were inferior.

It was Bluth and History Land. Also, they do fit into the category of radical gnosticism. It constitutes anyone who believes that they are 100% absolutely correct beyond any and all question. I mentioned those two as they do comprise this group. Hell, Bluth even openly admits that he is absolutely correct.

I'm aware of that, but it's the use of the example that sounds a little condescending.

[Muravyets]

Well you name certain people that are "categorised" into a certain one (Bluth and Parth) and you implied in a way that they were inferior.

It was Bluth and History Land. Also, they do fit into the category of radical gnosticism. It constitutes anyone who believes that they are 100% absolutely correct beyond any and all question. I mentioned those two as they do comprise this group. Hell, Bluth even openly admits that he is absolutely correct.

I'm aware of that, but it's the use of the example that sounds a little condescending.

Unless Bluth and HL gave their express permission to be named as examples and provided quotes for UT to use to show that he had consulted them as to the meanings of the categories he places them in, then I think it is very bad form to name specific posters as examples of something in a context like this. It smacks of talking about someone behind their back. It also smacks of UT just making stuff up about people, or at least presuming he knows or understands them without actually asking them if he's right or not.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Unless Bluth and HL gave their express permission to be named as examples and provided quotes for UT to use to show that he had consulted them as to the meanings of the categories he places them in, then I think it is very bad form to name specific posters as examples of something in a context like this. It smacks of talking about someone behind their back. It also smacks of UT just making stuff up about people, or at least presuming he knows or understands them without actually asking them if he's right or not.

I noticed that nobody gave me trouble about placing Dawkins, based on his writing, interviews, and television specials. Placing Bluth based on what he wrote, now that's unforgivable.

[Muravyets]

I noticed that nobody gave me trouble about placing Dawkins, based on his writing, interviews, and television specials. Placing Bluth based on what he wrote, now that's unforgivable.

I apologize for the oversight. Here's your trouble about Dawkins (ahem):

Source?

Do you have any quotes from Dawkins' work that supports your choice to place him in the category you did?

Happy now?

Of course, there is a slight but really plonkingly obvious difference between Dawkins and Bluth and HL. Two differences, actually:

1) Dawkins is a public figure, and public figures are fair game to be talked about in absentia. Bluth and HL are not public figures. They participate in this forum, but they do not put themselves out to the public as experts on anything, so they are not automatically fair game to be held up as examples of this or that. If you were more familiar with the forum protocols, you would have been able to figure that out.

2) Dawkins is not available to NSG for you to ask his permission to use him as you do. Bluth and HL are available. So you have no excuse for not TGing them to ask if you could cite them -- or even (gasp!) if you were right about your interpretation of their positions.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I apologize for the oversight. Here's your trouble about Dawkins (ahem):

Source?

Do you have any quotes from Dawkins' work that supports your choice to place him in the category you did?

Happy now?

Of course, there is a slight but really plonkingly obvious difference between Dawkins and Bluth and HL. Two differences, actually:

1) Dawkins is a public figure, and public figures are fair game to be talked about in absentia. Bluth and HL are not public figures. They participate in this forum, but they do not put themselves out to the public as experts on anything, so they are not automatically fair game to be held up as examples of this or that. If you were more familiar with the forum protocols, you would have been able to figure that out.

2) Dawkins is not available to NSG for you to ask his permission to use him as you do. Bluth and HL are available. So you have no excuse for not TGing them to ask if you could cite them -- or even (gasp!) if you were right about your interpretation of their positions.

You and I have seen Bluth specifically say that he is absolutely right according to the objective principles of the universe. That is an example of radical gnosticism. You saying that I should have to ask permission to cite him as an example is like telling me I should have to ask permission to cite Farnhamia as an example of a female. Also, this IS a public venue, and anything you say is fair game for citation.

Your real problem is not with this graph, your real problem is with me. You've had it out for me for a long time, and you specifically look for every single possible way to disagree with me however you can in a way that you simply don't with other posters. I don't know why you have a problem, but it's getting goddamn old.

Oh I'm sorry, do I have to ask permission to quote you?

[Muravyets]

You and I have seen Bluth specifically say that he is absolutely right according to the objective principles of the universe. That is an example of radical gnosticism. You saying that I should have to ask permission to cite him as an example is like telling me I should have to ask permission to cite Farnhamia as an example of a female. Also, this IS a public venue, and anything you say is fair game for citation.

Your real problem is not with this graph, your real problem is with me. You've had it out for me for a long time, and you specifically look for every single possible way to disagree with me however you can in a way that you simply don't with other posters. I don't know why you have a problem, but it's getting goddamn old.

Oh I'm sorry, do I have to ask permission to quote you?

What you and I have seen Bluth do or say is not the point, as I believe I made clear. Other people are not toys for us to play with. Posters are real people, and if they are not published authors or professional experts broadcasting statements in the public media, then it is rude not to ask their permission to use them. And if you are not quoting them directly, and you have not consulted them directly, then how can you or we know you are categorizing them correctly? You could be completely misinterpreting their position, you know. I realize that might be inconceivable to you, but believe me, it is very possible.

I'm not the only person on the whole forum who might feel this way. I have actually had other posters privately ask my permission to cite me in threads, and ask me to clarify my position before posting something about it. Did you do that with Bluth and HL? Apparently not.

I'm not saying it would or will bother them. I'm just saying that it looks bad. By the way, it's also against forum rules to make other posters the topic of a thread. You have not crossed that line, but it is another thing that makes it bad form to cite other posters as your examples of things, unless it is clear they volunteered to be such examples.

And by the way, for that same reason, you SHOULD ask Farnhamia's permission before citing her as an example of a "female." Even if something is very obvious about a poster, they should have the option to decline to be used by you to make a point.

Finally, I do not have a problem with you personally. I have a problem with your habit of posting bad arguments, and it is the arguments I attack and criticize.

In this instance, I am critical of your decision to go ahead and "categorize" religion and claim that your categorization system is "more accurate," even though you offer us no reason to think you know the first thing about religion or systems of categorization. You offer us no glimpse into your methodology. You offer us no links to authoritative sources that may have guided your decision-making. You do not tell us what you think your system is an improvement on, nor what you think is wrong with other systems of categorizing religions, nor why you think the world needs a better one.

All you do is set up a series of cubbyholes and then stick people into them, apparently without feeling any need to ask their permission to be used in your system demonstration. I am at a loss to see any purpose in this exercise.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

What you and I have seen Bluth do or say is not the point, as I believe I made clear. Other people are not toys for us to play with. Posters are real people, and if they are not published authors or professional experts broadcasting statements in the public media, then it is rude not to ask their permission to use them. And if you are not quoting them directly, and you have not consulted them directly, then how can you or we know you are categorizing them correctly? You could be completely misinterpreting their position, you know. I realize that might be inconceivable to you, but believe me, it is very possible.

I'm not the only person on the whole forum who might feel this way. I have actually had other posters privately ask my permission to cite me in threads, and ask me to clarify my position before posting something about it. Did you do that with Bluth and HL? Apparently not.

I'm not saying it would or will bother them. I'm just saying that it looks bad. By the way, it's also against forum rules to make other posters the topic of a thread. You have not crossed that line, but it is another thing that makes it bad form to cite other posters as your examples of things, unless it is clear they volunteered to be such examples.

And by the way, for that same reason, you SHOULD ask Farnhamia's permission before citing her as an example of a "female." Even if something is very obvious about a poster, they should have the option to decline to be used by you to make a point.

Finally, I do not have a problem with you personally. I have a problem with your habit of posting bad arguments, and it is the arguments I attack and criticize.

In this instance, I am critical of your decision to go ahead and "categorize" religion and claim that your categorization system is "more accurate," even though you offer us no reason to think you know the first thing about religion or systems of categorization. You offer us no glimpse into your methodology. You offer us no links to authoritative sources that may have guided your decision-making. You do not tell us what you think your system is an improvement on, nor what you think is wrong with other systems of categorizing religions, nor why you think the world needs a better one.

All you do is set up a series of cubbyholes and then stick people into them, apparently without feeling any need to ask their permission to be used in your system demonstration. I am at a loss to see any purpose in this exercise.

This is a public forum. Anything that anyone says or does is fair grounds for anyone else to comment on. If you put your ideas out into public then they don't belong to you anymore. If someone were to include me in a topic as an example, and their example was invalid and it bothered me that much, I could post a correction on the thread.

Second, yeah, you do have a problem with me. The thinly veiled hostility that drips from half of your posts toward me can attest to that. You don't like my anti-emotional views, and you have a problem with my hierarchical reductionism.

[Muravyets]

This is a public forum. Anything that anyone says or does is fair grounds for anyone else to comment on. If you put your ideas out into public then they don't belong to you anymore. If someone were to include me in a topic as an example, and their example was invalid and it bothered me that much, I could post a correction on the thread.

Second, yeah, you do have a problem with me. The thinly veiled hostility that drips from half of your posts toward me can attest to that. You don't like my anti-emotional views, and you have a problem with my hierarchical reductionism.

I see, so when I tell you precisely what parts of your arguments I am criticizing, how and why, you insist that I'm doing no such thing and that every post I address to you is...what? A personal attack "dripping" with "thinly veiled hostility"? So does this mean you are calling me a liar, as well as refusing to engage in a defense of your categorization system?

But I'm the one engaging in personal attacks. Right. Anyway...

If you really want to be rude to other posters, go right ahead. I only pointed out that it is bad form, and I originally brought it up in the context of other people saying they thought your argument was biased. I thought the fact that you are talking about other posters is what creates the appearance of bias, as if you are singling those posters out. But hey, you know better.

Also, please note, my hostility is never "veiled," "thinly" or otherwise. If you are complaining about "thinly veiled" hostility in my posts, then you are complaining about something that does not exist. I can't help it if you can't tell the difference between a personal attack and an attack on your argument. But if it really bothers you so much to have the flaws of your arguments pointed out to you, and you don't want to have to defend or improve them, you can always put me on your foes list, and then you won't have to see me pointing them out.

If it really annoys you that much, I would suggest that you do that, because as you said, this is an open forum, and I will comment on any post I see fit to comment on within the rules.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I see, so when I tell you precisely what parts of your arguments I am criticizing, how and why, you insist that I'm doing no such thing and that every post I address to you is...what? A personal attack "dripping" with "thinly veiled hostility"? So does this mean you are calling me a liar, as well as refusing to engage in a defense of your categorization system?

Yeah, I remember that part where I called you a liar. Oh wait, that never happened, you just pulled that out of your ass. Apparently disagreeing with someone is calling them a liar. Where exactly did I say that you didn't address my point? I never said that at all. I only insinuated that your response was not convincing. I guess failing to convince someone is also a form of lying. Who knew?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I give up on discussing this shit right now. I'm going to go work on something that actually matters.

[NERVUN]

I give up on discussing this shit religion right now. I'm going to go work on something that actually matters (To me).

We'll hold you to that.

[Muravyets]

I see, so when I tell you precisely what parts of your arguments I am criticizing, how and why, you insist that I'm doing no such thing and that every post I address to you is...what? A personal attack "dripping" with "thinly veiled hostility"? So does this mean you are calling me a liar, as well as refusing to engage in a defense of your categorization system?

Yeah, I remember that part where I called you a liar. Oh wait, that never happened, you just pulled that out of your ass. Apparently disagreeing with someone is calling them a liar. Where exactly did I say that you didn't address my point? I never said that at all. I only insinuated that your response was not convincing. I guess failing to convince someone is also a form of lying. Who knew?

You're funny. Where did I say that you said I hadn't addressed your point? "Oh wait, that never happened, you just pulled that out of your ass." I rest on the record of the thread for who said what, to whom, when and in what order. Also for who did not say this or that. And I stand by my version of the history.

And when did you "disagree" with me? All I saw was you accusing me of having "a problem" with you, for saying that something you did was bad form in forum etiquette, and for pointing out a list of flaws with your OP presentation (which you have not addressed at all).

And yeah, sorry, I didn't get that in UT-speak "you have a problem with me" and "yeah, you do have a problem with me" mean "I insinuate that your response is not convincing."

Look, whatEVER. As I said, if you want to be rude, go ahead. And if you want to claim that you have come up with a "more accurate" system of categorizing something without ever telling us how you devised it, or what it is better than, or how it is better, or how other systems are less accurate, etc, go ahead and do that, too.

But if you want to avoid having to defend your arguments by waging an off-topic war with me instead, don't bother. I am only interested in the arguments and their flaws. Any further posts about how you don't like me or whatever the hell you're on about will be met with a reference back to this post. I came here to challenge the validity of your "system."

[Conservatives states]

Strong agnosticism/Materialist for me

[Mutant Cyborg Killers]

Radical agnosticism: Essentially solipsism or epistemic nihilism. Denies the possibility of knowing anything.

Cogito, ergo sum? Prove it!!

Materialist: All that exists is physical phenomena. Considers both QFT actions and particles to really exist. Rejects that epiphenomena are anything more than a convenient abstraction.

Qualified by my Radical Agnosticism.

I think this system works well to explain my beliefs in relation to most people I’ve meet (including many Pagans). Although I don’t know the other posters mentioned so their inclusion dose confuse the issue.

[Angleter]

As a Catholic, I believe that I may just be placed in the Catholic Church/Mainstream Protestant category. We are one fifth of the world's population though, must we share a category with the C of E and other assorted small Protestant organisations?

I have two questions:
1. Do You believe in God, or do You just follow the traditions?
2. If the answer to the first question is "yes," then is it the same God as the one Muslims believe in, i.e. do You believe they just call the Lord using a different name, or You think there are several gods?

1. I believe in God, I find it to be a quite important part of my Catholic faith.
2. There is only one God, and the Muslims and Jews also believe in Him. There are just differences as to the nature, teachings, etc. of that God.

[Angleter]

As a Catholic, I believe that I may just be placed in the Catholic Church/Mainstream Protestant category. We are one fifth of the world's population though, must we share a category with the C of E and other assorted small Protestant organisations?

You Mary worshippers are going to hell for violating the word of God and adding traditions that are not mentioned in the bible.

The Bishop of Rome is God's representative on Earth. His teachings are God's teachings. The Church doctrine, formed over the years by many Popes and the Bible, is God's doctrine. You who disassociate yourselves from the true Church and from His Holiness will spend a long, long time in purgatory.

[Gift-of-god]

How can you have strong agnosticism and strong gnosticism simultaneously?

I am strongly agnostic in that I believe that humanity will never find any scientific evidence for god, but I am also certain that god reveals herself personally to people.

How can you take the bible very seriously and also have deistic, universalist, and non-theistic beliefs? This is self-contradictory in the extreme.

By only taking parts of it seriously, and by understanding that holy books are meant to be taken seriously but not literally. When I read articles in a science magazine, I take them seriously. When I read epic poetry, I also take it seriously, but a different kind of seriously.

[Landover Baptist]

By only taking parts of it seriously, and by understanding that holy books are meant to be taken seriously but not literally.

What a joke. In that way, you can explain away the hatred in just about every book that contains hatred (like the bible and quran do so extensively). Hey! We don't take it literally!!

Better, not to believe at all, because religion is bullshit.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I would say I'm a weak agnostic. I don't deny the existence of a divine being but there's just not enough evidence. For me, that is.

[New Mitanni]

For what it's worth, weak gnostic Catholic Church/Mainstream Protestant.