Snowmen are anti-Islamic, promote lust

[OtherMichael]

As you wish:

(source)

[OtherMichael]

Pantophobia seems to be conspicuously absent:

[redesigned]

@jsroberts - thank you for the excellent information and points, they are much appreciated and I’ll be sure to look into those references further. That’s the exact sort of information that is both interesting and relevant.

@ActionAbe - historical academia doesn’t work the way you think. Majority consensus about things for which there is an incredibly strong cultural bias isn’t any sort of evidence nor a good reason to believe anything, that is weak sauce argument. I prefer things like actual information, or you know, facts. This isn’t extreme criteria, it is standard practice, and the exact same criteria HAVE been applied to everything possible. External to the source being critiqued, that is what we’ve been talking about, you can’t define a term you’ve been arguing against??? -makes no sense-

[quote=“ActionAbe, post:173, topic:49734”]
I had to stop him last night to confirm, that yes, I am in fact right.
[/quote] thank you so much for this.

@ActionAbe

But I refrain from argument from authority because this is the Internet, and I have never seen an Internet discussion where even the most ignorant novice doesn’t feel uncomfortable arguing the experts are wrong. Worse than that are the people who know just enough to dig themselves a nice hole.

[anon26940528]

@redesigned

• historical academia doesn’t work the way you think

Citation needed.

@redesigned

Majority consensus about things for which there is an incredibly strong cultural bias isn’t any sort of evidence nor a good reason to believe anything, that is weak sauce argument. I prefer things like actual information, or you know, facts. This isn’t extreme criteria, it is standard practice,

So wait, one the one hand strong cultural bias is standard practice, and so is the criteria that you set? Make up your mind, are historians consistently wrong, or consistently using what you define as standard practice.

@redesigned

External to the source being critiqued, that is what we’ve been talking about, you can’t define a term you’ve been arguing against??? -makes no sense-

Biblical texts are not a single source. What you pick up out of a hotel nightstand is not what historians look at. For someone who claims to have read the damn thing, I’d think you’d have an appreciation of that.

http://cdck-file-uploads-global.s3.dualstack.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/boingboing/original/2X/f/f012449fd6652a02cb683f057a5b6775ae34ebbc.gif

Nice. You’ve become a pleasure to talk with.

[GilbertWham]

Mmmmmm, Amanda…

[LDoBe]

I agree. I’m just saying that there’s a ton of American lay-christians who believe they’re on equal footing with theologians except they can’t read greek or hebrew or latin, and don’t know anything about church history or how the bible was constructed.

[kupfernigk]

@pixleshifter

I was wrong on the Jesus quote, you were wrong on the Age of Enlightenment.I suggest you stop digging.

Looking back on my posts I admit I have got unnecessarily heated. I’ll be honest, I’ve been having a difficult week (in the middle of helping get a new charity started, our dog developed a sudden serious illness - I really am not making excuses, just saying that if I have been a bit obnoxious, it was blowback and I am sorry for any offense.)
Although things wandered a bit off topic, this has been an interesting thread and, even when I have disagreed strongly with posts, I have been impressed by the level of dialogue. I have upvoted things I disagree with, so a check on my upvotes wouldn’t tell you about my opinions.
Once upon a time, before the Wahabis and their Saudi paymasters, a lot of Islam was like this. Scholars argued, and their scientific and technical development was such that Roger Bacon said that nobody was educated who did not know Arabic. It’s a great pity that the rise of science has led to a huge reaction, both in the US (the unholy alliance of evangelical fundamentalism and anti-science) and in the Middle East (Islamic fundamentalism and anti-equality.)
It is interesting to me, though, that some of the arguments presented on this thread are positively nineteenth century. Atheists who wish to engage with theology (rather than ignore it) might want to find some more modern Biblical scholarship and theological ideas to disagree with. It would be a bigger challenge. As for religion, could I finally exhaust everybody’s patience and point out that religion does not imply any concept of a (or more than one) gods? The word is derived from the Latin, res + ligio, literally the things that bind (society) together, and recent sociologists of religion have been arguing that in many parts of the East religion is far more about social identity and politics than actual theology. The fact that when members of political organisations like ISIL try and argue Islamic theology with actual scholars, they are made to look stupid, just reinforces this point.

[redesigned]

@ActionAbe

Biblical texts are not a single source. What you pick up out of a hotel nightstand is not what historians look at. For someone who claims to have read the damn thing, I’d think you’d have an appreciation of that.

You must have skipped over reading my entire previous reply to you where I specifically mention the 3 canonizations, or did you not know what those are? Please read my replies before arguing them.

@ActionAbe

Citation needed.

It is called the Historical Method: Historical method - Wikipedia

@ActionAbe

Nice. You’ve become a pleasure to talk with.

Look at the sentences of yours that I was applauding and tell me who the pleasure is? I was applauding some pretty appalling communication because that was preferable to replying in kind, and you have the gall to take issue with the mere applauding? wow

[pixleshifter]

Thanks for the response. I never actually take offense though, believing offense to be something that is taken, rather than given. I apologize if I got a little heated also. Our discussion made me check my own argument, only to find I was wrong, so in fact learned something. It’s certainly true that Islam was once at the height of some of the greatest scientific and mathematical innovations. It’s the fundies that took all the fun out of it, although I think (hope) that some sort of reformation has begun.

I have had many dogs over the years, so fully understand from that point of view. I genuinely hope he/she will be ok. We had to put down our beautiful cavalier spaniel a few months ago due to age-related illness. Her head in my hands. I’m still heartbroken over it.

Good luck with your charity, I hope you help many.

[anon61221983]

[anon61221983]

@pixleshifter

It’s the fundies that took all the fun out of it, although I think (hope) that some sort of reformation has begun.

Actually, the “decline” of Islam might have more to do with geo-politics, and the “rise of the west” than with religious fundamentalism - it’s a modernity problem, really.

[jerwin]

Salafism is akin to Fundamentalism. Both are reactions to Modernity, not preexisting movements.

[anon61221983]

I thought that’s what I said or what I meant to say. Maybe it wasn’t clear?

Either way, I think we agree on this notion, then. Let’s call it a day and get a wine pop!

[Medievalist]

I’m glad you’re here too.

I am very interested in categorization these days, and in how rhetorical priming shapes perception, debate and ultimately behavior. I recommend to you the books Women, Fire and Dangerous Things and Predictably Irrational.

Also, if you haven’t already done it, I can recommend Frazer’s Golden Bough. It is a very difficult read, even in the modern versions, but if you can get through the old testament you can handle it.

[popobawa4u]

@Medievalist

Also, if you haven’t already done it, I can recommend Frazer’s Golden Bough. It is a very difficult read, even in the modern versions, but if you can get through the old testament you can handle it.

I like Golden Bough, although I have only maybe 3/4 of the volumes. Complete sets tend to be pricey, but partial ones can be found for much less. What did you find difficult about it?

[Medievalist]

Frazer writes in the style of his era, and the point of his work is that to some extent it’s repetitive. Most people I’ve spoken to that have tried to read it found it inutterably tedious and even sleep-inducing. By modern standards it’s excessively verbose. It’s an important work, though, if one wishes to understand the reasons why the same attributes are assigned to religious figures throughout history and across cultures, even when said cultures have no contact whatsoever.

[redesigned]

I’ll look into those, thanks for the tips!