TaterTot

deleted by creator

You just conceded my original point. “Several valid definitions that can’t be applied interchangeably” is… what contested means. All I claimed at the start was that religion doesn’t necessarily require magical thinking. So if several valid definitions exist and some of them cover nonmagical traditions, then the “necessarily” is dead.

Which gets at the actual problem here. Zarkanian made a point, you swapped in your own narrower definition of religion, and then argued against that instead. That’s a strawman. And “assume we meant the Christianity type” doesn’t fix that, because the thread explicitly widened to “any religion, for that matter.” You can’t broaden the scope to every religion and then retroactively narrow the definition when the counterexamples show up.

Also, some of this is just wrong. Ethical Culture was founded by Adler as a religion, and they literally went to court to be recognized as one (Washington Ethical Society v. DC, 1957). So “doesn’t call itself a religion” is an interesting claim. And you’ve got UU backwards. They’re creedless on purpose, humanism is one of their six official sources, and a big chunk of their members are atheists. Belief in a higher power isn’t “important to their identity,” it’s explicitly optional. That’s kind of their whole thing.

Everything you’ve argued follows from picking a definition, applying it to someone who wasn’t using it, and treating the mismatch as their mistake. That’s not a disagreement about religion. It’s a disagreement you manufactured. You may not like religions, but you sure debate like you’re in one.

If you want to use a definition of religion that requires belief in the supernatural, go for it. But that usage isn’t universal

I said the definition is contested, so you picked your preferred one and declared it “the practical one.” Practical for whom? Ethical Culture members with clergy, congregations, and 150 years of continuous practice? Defining religion as “philosophy plus magic” and then citing that definition as your evidence is just assuming your conclusion.

You’re welcome to the definition. Just notice you got there by defining the counterexamples away, not by addressing them.

Sure, by one definition of religion. By another, they’re literally religions. But more to the point, they were meant as tongue-in-cheek examples that intentionally missed the mark, to avoid getting pulled too deep into the linguistics debate over something I’d already conceded is so commonplace in religion that positing it is reasonable.

But I digress. For unambiguous examples, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanistic Judaism, and Unitarian Universalism are organized religions with congregations, clergy, rituals, and legal recognition, and they require no magical thinking of any kind. Beyond those, traditions like Theravāda Buddhism, Jainism, and Confucianism can be and are practiced without any supernatural belief, even if their classical forms include things like rebirth or ancestor veneration.

You could argue the first group are just philosophies whose adherents happen to gather for ceremony and ritual. But that brings us right back to my first point, which is that the definition is contested.

If you want to use a definition of religion that requires belief in the supernatural, go for it. But that usage isn’t universal, and your reply to zarkanian functionally forced your definition onto them. To me, that undermines the pursuit of truth and honest dialogue.

Honestly, this is the real underrated trick. A great manager removes blockers. Their job is first and foremost to get shit off the train tracks.

I don’t think the common thread is that they are “secretly gay”.

But I do believe one of the most common threads is self-loathing/self-hatred and emotional repression, which they then over compensate for by forcing draconian policy on others who are more comfortable with themselves.

Drug use, infidelity, the need to justify a lifetime of privilege, over valuing the 1950’s propagandized ‘traditional American family’, an uncountable list of problems with women, and yes, even repressed sexuality, are just some of the many root causes of their self-hatred.

I agree with your point that many people reveal latent homophobia, or at the very least a willingness to use it to disparage others, when discussing closeted LGBTQ Republican’s. And that doing so is just frankly fucked up. But I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water here. Much of their awful policies are because they are secretly something.

To be fair, while the definition of religion is essentially a contested ongoing linguistics debate, it does not necessarily require magical thinking.

Take the Satanic Temple or Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption for example.

Though still, I agree with your point about magical thinking, and as it is so commonplace as to be functionally synonymous with religion… I guess the point is largely moot.

edit: oof, I seem to have forgotten that pedantry should only be used against religion, and never in its defense. I will be sure to hand in my Atheist membership card at the next meeting.

There’s a video of a woman being dosed for research back in the 50’s. It is, for me, the easiest way to answer this question.

Invidious

YouTube

Might need to make that afternoon sound less awesome if they want to get their point across.

let’s not build a straw man.

walking in with a couple of button’s for eyes and a straw hat

“oh… okay…”

I thought he died from a fentanyl overdose?

Now without further ado…

I actually agree with basically all your points. But the Han Solo fan and pedant in me has to protest one claim.

Han acknowledging the Jedi as a fairy tale would be an improvement, but in A New Hope he just straight up says “I’ve been all over the galaxy and never heard of any shit like that”

Han doesn’t say he’s never heard of the Jedi, rather he echoes the apparetly prevalent view point of Admiral Motti from earlier in the movie, referring to the Force/Jedi as a “hokey religion”. And then goes on to talk about it like it’s a bullshit legend:

I’ve flown from one side of this galaxy to the other. I’ve seen a lot of strange stuff, but I’ve never seen anything to make me believe there’s one all-powerful Force controlling everything. There’s no mystical energy field that controls my destiny. It’s all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense.

Which, all the other massive plot holes in the prequels aside, would make sense in context. Canonically, Han was about 10 when Order 66 happened. So the fact that he has heard of the Jedi and the Force, but believes it’s all superstition and tall tales checks out.

Now, that I can get off that soap box… Yeah, the Prequels kinda felt like they were written by someone who had only heard the story of StarWars through the telephone game…

Don’t get me wrong, I got the Saturn on launch and played quite a lot of Sonic R. I’m not saying it is unlikable.

But from a “relative quality of game design” point of view, putting it on the same level as 2, Mania, and Adventure 2, seems crazy to me.

On the other hand, if the list is just based on how much you enjoyed each game, then don’t mind me. Just an old man yelling at clouds.

Sonic R is A tier!?

As in, the very same tier you put Mania and Adventure 2?

Are you sure that wasn’t an accidental placement? Or like, are you giving it bonus points for the sound track?

Goku: Now hear me out Gandalf. If I let him power up to 100% and beat him then, it’ll demoramalize him and he’ll never threaten anyone again!

I’m not cocky enough to believe I have the answers to “pretty much every problem”. And frankly there are lots of people who know what to do better than I, even on the topics I know the most about.

That being said, if a hand full of specific people would stop doing certain things I told them not to do… then I’m quite confident the world would be much improved.

Tank’s for your attention!

Lower your workload

Nah, gotta be AI ore some shit. Can’t convince me anyone has ever seen anything past the bullshit impossible jump.