5 ms·

Your argument is that, what, religions aren't real? Then you're saying that this stuff doesn't count because it's... also not real? What's the difference betwe

Your argument is that, what, religions aren't real? Then you're saying that this stuff doesn't count because it's... also not real? What's the difference between a person being religious and a person acting religious? To a non-believer I mean.

the_af 4y ago
No, my argument is that none of the examples given by the author are of people acting religious. The most obvious one is the photo of Stallman that opens the article, posing as "Saint Ignucious": that's a joke, and Stallman is a self-declared atheist. Likewise, "Folklore.org" is a website about the early history of Apple; anecdotes told by the people who were there; there's nothing spiritual or mystic about it. I also explained many of the rest of TFA's examples. The only exception is TempleOS, but that was the work of a schizophrenic and maybe not the best example of the hacker community at large. I wouldn't draw any conclusions from that particular example.
- kyleyeats 4y ago
  If you can't make the distinction without an internal testament, then yeah that's a religious idea. It's the mark of a religious idea.
  - the_af 4y ago
    I honestly don't understand what you mean. Can you challenge one of my assertions more directly, so that I can better understand? For example, do you believe Folklore.org is about what people commonly understand as "folklore"; or that Stallman believes himself a saint; or that programming "religious wars" (e.g. vim vs emacs, or Linux vs Windows) are truly religious in nature? Do you believe when people talk about the "Dragon Book" they revere it as a mystical book, or that someone believes the Tao of Programming is truly a religious text? Religion has permeated and shaped common language so that a lot of the expressions we use originally had a religious meaning but don't anymore. Others, like "crusade" or "religious wars", or even "evangelize" are not meant to be taken literally, they just evoke religious imagery but nowadays often mean something else.
    - kyleyeats 4y ago
      I think people can be canonized by others without a church, yeah. An Irish Catholic might fight me if I insult St. Patrick. A wokester might fight me if I insult George Floyd. A techie might fight me if I insult Elon or Stallman. The behavior is there and very real, and whether it's fueled by a religious or abstract idea is completely irrelevant to me if I don't share those beliefs. If someone does canonize Stallman, then Stallman's beliefs on the matter are similarly irrelevant. The "religious" behavior is exactly the same. There's just no supernatural element. But you already don't believe there's a supernatural element. So I guess I just don't get the distinction you're making here. Just the idea that you think something can be "truly" religious exposes this for what it is: Your opinion on a thing. You're an atheist and you don't think anything is truly religious, right? All pictures of Jesus are a guy dressed as Jesus. I just don't understand why the picture of Stallman dressed as Jesus is different. To you I mean. I get why I think that but I'm a Christian. Do you have any actual religious behaviors to point to that aren't already human behaviors? Because right now it's like, two guys are doing cartwheels. But one guy thinks cartwheels are very important so it's fundamentally different when he does them. The other guy was just doing cartwheels for fun so it's not the same.
      - the_af 4y ago
        Stallman isn't dressed as Jesus, but as a (mock) saint named Saint Ignucious. Get it? "Gnu". > But you already don't believe there's a supernatural element I didn't mention my own beliefs whatsoever. In order to note all of the examples in TFA are wrong, I don't need to refer to my own beliefs. The rest of your comment... I just don't know how to engage with it. So I guess I won't.
        kyleyeats 4y ago
        > Do you have any actual religious behaviors to point to that aren't already human behaviors? I couldn't answer this either! And that was the day I stopped hating religious people or seeing myself as somehow different or better than them.
        4y ago
jenadine 4y ago
Religious people are very real. But the example from the article are not example of religious people. At best it is parody of it. The difference is that the religious really believe in their nonsense. While the people "acting religious" are actually making fun of it.
- kyleyeats 4y ago
  No, they aren't. There's no separation between the religious and the non-religious. What atheists describe as religiousness is actually just how humans work.

the_af 4y ago

No, my argument is that none of the examples given by the author are of people acting religious. The most obvious one is the photo of Stallman that opens the article, posing as "Saint Ignucious": that's a joke, and Stallman is a self-declared atheist. Likewise, "Folklore.org" is a website about the early history of Apple; anecdotes told by the people who were there; there's nothing spiritual or mystic about it. I also explained many of the rest of TFA's examples. The only exception is TempleOS, but that was the work of a schizophrenic and maybe not the best example of the hacker community at large. I wouldn't draw any conclusions from that particular example.

kyleyeats 4y ago
If you can't make the distinction without an internal testament, then yeah that's a religious idea. It's the mark of a religious idea.
- the_af 4y ago
  I honestly don't understand what you mean. Can you challenge one of my assertions more directly, so that I can better understand? For example, do you believe Folklore.org is about what people commonly understand as "folklore"; or that Stallman believes himself a saint; or that programming "religious wars" (e.g. vim vs emacs, or Linux vs Windows) are truly religious in nature? Do you believe when people talk about the "Dragon Book" they revere it as a mystical book, or that someone believes the Tao of Programming is truly a religious text? Religion has permeated and shaped common language so that a lot of the expressions we use originally had a religious meaning but don't anymore. Others, like "crusade" or "religious wars", or even "evangelize" are not meant to be taken literally, they just evoke religious imagery but nowadays often mean something else.
  - kyleyeats 4y ago
    I think people can be canonized by others without a church, yeah. An Irish Catholic might fight me if I insult St. Patrick. A wokester might fight me if I insult George Floyd. A techie might fight me if I insult Elon or Stallman. The behavior is there and very real, and whether it's fueled by a religious or abstract idea is completely irrelevant to me if I don't share those beliefs. If someone does canonize Stallman, then Stallman's beliefs on the matter are similarly irrelevant. The "religious" behavior is exactly the same. There's just no supernatural element. But you already don't believe there's a supernatural element. So I guess I just don't get the distinction you're making here. Just the idea that you think something can be "truly" religious exposes this for what it is: Your opinion on a thing. You're an atheist and you don't think anything is truly religious, right? All pictures of Jesus are a guy dressed as Jesus. I just don't understand why the picture of Stallman dressed as Jesus is different. To you I mean. I get why I think that but I'm a Christian. Do you have any actual religious behaviors to point to that aren't already human behaviors? Because right now it's like, two guys are doing cartwheels. But one guy thinks cartwheels are very important so it's fundamentally different when he does them. The other guy was just doing cartwheels for fun so it's not the same.
    - the_af 4y ago
      Stallman isn't dressed as Jesus, but as a (mock) saint named Saint Ignucious. Get it? "Gnu". > But you already don't believe there's a supernatural element I didn't mention my own beliefs whatsoever. In order to note all of the examples in TFA are wrong, I don't need to refer to my own beliefs. The rest of your comment... I just don't know how to engage with it. So I guess I won't.
      - kyleyeats 4y ago
        > Do you have any actual religious behaviors to point to that aren't already human behaviors? I couldn't answer this either! And that was the day I stopped hating religious people or seeing myself as somehow different or better than them.
        4y ago

jenadine 4y ago

Religious people are very real. But the example from the article are not example of religious people. At best it is parody of it. The difference is that the religious really believe in their nonsense. While the people "acting religious" are actually making fun of it.

kyleyeats 4y ago
No, they aren't. There's no separation between the religious and the non-religious. What atheists describe as religiousness is actually just how humans work.