Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

You shouldn't need a beast of computer to do any of that.

[Skyrunner]

atm I have half a computer The disk drive is dying and I booted up the SMART utility only to see it warning me three times that disk failure is imminent.

I'm sure I'd need a better computer than a dual core 1.8ish ghz laptop with 4 GB RAM and a proprietary gpu to run a game server though :v

[nenjin]

Depends on the game. I know Terraria servers can run off very little power.

[Bouchart]

Dear Epson brand cyan ink cartridge,

I hate you.  The printer doesn't recognize you even though you have ink and the other ink cartridges in the printer are exactly the same as you.  And I can't print something in black and white because you don't work properly.

[nenjin]

Epsons rank right up there with HP printers in that they are my least favorite to work with.

[Flying Dice]

Yeah, knowing what you need it for would help.

I would argue that religion is an integral part of culture.

"The 'Enter' key is an integral part of a keyboard. Therefore the 'Enter' key is a keyboard."

 

That's pedantic. Your body wouldn't run without your heart. It'd be foolish to say your heart is your body though. No where did he make your false equivalency.

something is part of something =/= something is the entirety of something

Don't misrepresent me, thanks.

My impression was that he was responding to this:

Giuse

Islam is a religion, not a culture

In which case, yes, he was making that argument. "Integral" (in this context, as opposed to maths) literally means "essential, fundamental", which is blatantly untrue in the context of religion. It can be (and often is) an important component of culture, but it is not a requirement. Either he/you were arguing that culture by definition must include religion as part of itself, or he/you were using words without understanding what they mean. If it's pedantry to point out someone making an untrue statement, I'll gladly call myself a pedant.

:|

[nenjin]

I disagree. Whether or not you're religious, your religious beliefs one way or another are a fundamental part of your culture. Even "I don't do religion." Religion isn't some magical thing that sits outside of context or culture. It's a product of human interaction and belief, just like culture. That's the argument we're making. You seem to be inferring something different.

[GiglameshDespair]

You appear to be changing the goalposts.

At first, you disagreed with me, by stating that I said religion was the entirety of culture.

I would argue that religion is an integral part of culture.

"The 'Enter' key is an integral part of a keyboard. Therefore the 'Enter' key is a keyboard."

 

That is what that you were first saying - and misrepresents my argument entirely.

---

Now you're saying I stated that religion was an essential part of culture.

In which case, yes, he was making that argument. "Integral" (in this context, as opposed to maths) literally means "essential, fundamental", which is blatantly untrue in the context of religion. It can be (and often is) an important component of culture, but it is not a requirement. Either he/you were arguing that culture by definition must include religion as part of itself, or he/you were using words without understanding what they mean. If it's pedantry to point out someone making an untrue statement, I'll gladly call myself a pedant.

:|

So which one?

Besides, yes, human beliefs are and integral part of human culture. Name a human culture, throughout history, that has not been affected by religion, either inspiring it, being inspired by it, providing motivation or just been a part of it. I imagine you'll come up pretty short.

[Flying Dice]

You appear to be changing the goalposts.

At first, you disagreed with me, by stating that I said religion was the entirety of culture.

I would argue that religion is an integral part of culture.

"The 'Enter' key is an integral part of a keyboard. Therefore the 'Enter' key is a keyboard."

 

That is what that you were first saying - and misrepresents my argument entirely.

---

Now you're saying I stated that religion was an essential part of culture.

In which case, yes, he was making that argument. "Integral" (in this context, as opposed to maths) literally means "essential, fundamental", which is blatantly untrue in the context of religion. It can be (and often is) an important component of culture, but it is not a requirement. Either he/you were arguing that culture by definition must include religion as part of itself, or he/you were using words without understanding what they mean. If it's pedantry to point out someone making an untrue statement, I'll gladly call myself a pedant.

:|

So which one?

Besides, yes, human beliefs are and integral part of human culture. Name a human culture, throughout history, that has not been affected by religion, either inspiring it, being inspired by it, providing motivation or just been a part of it. I imagine you'll come up pretty short.

Funny, right after that bit about changing the goalposts? My point remains the same: A thing being an important, common element of another thing does not mean that that the whole is identical to the part, or that the whole cannot exist without the part.

I also think that you may be conflating "religion" with "spirituality". Religion implies belief in a god or gods, with some sort of organizing structure. So for starters there's the vast majority of Asia (at least pre-contact with Europe on a large scale); Buddhism has no gods and tends to have little or no organization. Cultures which "practice" animism would also count, as that's a completely informal belief without a real sense of gods (as opposed to spirits within various things).

On another note, if you're going to turn it in to "any culture which has in any way been influenced by the existence of religion", of course you're going to have an easier time of it. Inter-war Bolshevik culture was about as distanced from religion as possible, but under your terms it is still religious culture because the atheistic element of it was a rejection of religion. However, there are also modern post-religious cultures. A good example of this would be the Czech Republic, in which only 20.6% of people claimed to be religious, or Sweden, where only 23% of people believe in the existence of a god. But then, if you're going to argue that any culture which has been influenced in any way, shape, or form by religion is a religious culture, there's not much point in this discussion, because you can make the same argument about anything. For example, bigotry is an integral part of American culture because a decent percentage of the population has bigoted opinions.

Which brings us back to the point: A thing being an important, common element of another thing does not mean that that the whole is identical to the part, or that the whole cannot exist without the part.

[nenjin]

Buddhism has no gods and tends to have little or no organization.

Wrong on both counts. Not only has he been deified by certain sects (not to mention idolized by giant golden statues) there is plenty of organization in different buddhist sects. Are they as stringent as Judeo-Christian sects? No. But they have their own organization and even their own doctrinal conflicts.

A thing being an important, common element of another thing does not mean that that the whole is identical to the part, or that the whole cannot exist without the part.

Where did we ever say the whole is identical to the part? And where did we ever say that you can't exist without religion? You're bringing your own perception of our meaning to the argument. To come back to it though, religion is not, as you keep trying to stress, completely separate from culture. It flows from it. Does that mean the two eventually can operate without interacting? Sure. But to insist they're separate, period, ZOMG, is something I'll continue to disagree with. Because they're not. They're both of humanity and in plenty of cases you're not going to discuss, they are functionally inseparable.

[Bauglir]

>Dutchling says that a religion is not a culture
>Giglamesh says that religion is an important part of culture, strongly implying that this means he disagrees with Dutchling (otherwise, why post?)
>Flying Dice says that "part of" does not mean "equivalent to"
>Giglamesh agrees
>Flying Dice says that this suggests that Giglamesh's original post is a non sequitur
>Flying Dice is moving the goalposts?

[GiglameshDespair]

At no point whatsoever have I said the whole is identical to the part. For anything! At all! Stop pretending that I did!

---

And don't misunderstand me, there. I am arguing that, as something that has shaped all cultures, religion is a integral part of culture. Let's look at the definition of religion. Not changing the goalposts on my end, but expanding on my point.

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

especially

It seems that not all religions require a god to count.

So. Buddhism.

Buddhists accept the existence of beings in higher realms (see Buddhist cosmology), known as devas, but they, like humans, are said to be suffering in samsara,[18] and are not necessarily wiser than us. In fact, the Buddha is often portrayed as a teacher of the gods

Emphasis mine. No gods in Buddhism, eh? Just because they aren't Biblical gods does not mean they are not gods.

I would argue that having one out of five people still religious is not a 'post-religion' culture. If one out of five people had cancer rather than the previous two out of five it is not a 'post-cancer' society.

---

Bauglir, he did not say my post is a non sequitur, rather he called it a fallacy then continued to claim I said something other to what I did.

[Bauglir]

At no point whatsoever have I said the whole is identical to the part. For anything! At all! Stop pretending that I did!

The next two quotes are why people think you did.

Giuse

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Islam is a religion, not a culture

I would argue that religion is an integral part of culture.

It's assumed that you are objecting to Dutchling. The only way this makes sense as an objection is if you are saying the thing you say you never said. That's why we're talking past each other. Bringing up new points will solve nothing, until you clarify why your post was a relevant response to Dutchling's. The words "non sequitur" might not have been used, but I'm fairly confident that it's what's happened here.

[Vector]

Goddammit Candy Crush.

[GiglameshDespair]

But then, that's your assumptions, isn't it? I really don't see how "religion is a part of culture" is being read as "religion is the entirety of culture". I wasn't objecting to Dutchling so much as stating my own view - which isn't "religion is the entirety of culture". I just really don't see how people are getting that.