Religion Ranting Topic

[eclipse]

Yeah, I wish that Leo did not have to pay for "the sins of the father (or mother)", but the Church is within its rights to deny me, whether I like it or not. They don't think having one parent an unrepentant sinner and one parent being gnostic would lead us to raise him properly, but ironically I still have faith and believe in 99% of what Catholicism believes and plan to raise my son as such.

I think you have a better stance on the church than the church has on you.

Would having him baptized under a different denomination be acceptable?

(as for the rest, I need a vacation)

[Rezzy]

I think you have a better stance on the church than the church has on you.

Would having him baptized under a different denomination be acceptable?

(as for the rest, I need a vacation)

Technically anyone can baptize, it's just traditional for a priest to do it. They sometimes say "in an emergency" for baptism by non-clergy, but I considered my son's eternal soul being in question to be an emergency, so I baptized him myself, in private several months ago. I'd still like to do the ceremony to make it official, though.

[ping]

Technically anyone can baptize, it's just traditional for a priest to do it. They sometimes say "in an emergency" for baptism by non-clergy, but I considered my son's eternal soul being in question to be an emergency, so I baptized him myself, in private several months ago. I'd still like to do the ceremony to make it official, though.

Because of that I find the church's decision plain weird, to be honest, even ignoring the ethical implications. According to their own beliefs, they deny a kid entrance to heaven because they don't like his mother. And I can't imagine that's the official stance of the catholic church. I'd have assumed that they would deny you snacking on Jesus' flesh (sorry ;) ), but not that they extend that exclusion to your family.

[Raguna]

Because of that I find the church's decision plain weird, to be honest, even ignoring the ethical implications. According to their own beliefs, they deny a kid entrance to heaven because they don't like his mother. And I can't imagine that's the official stance of the catholic church. I'd have assumed that they would deny you snacking on Jesus' flesh (sorry ;) ), but not that they extend that exclusion to your family.

I think it's the general view in some of the Catholic clergy but there's also the view that the sins of the father or mother are not the ones the sons should suffer from. Everyone is judged for their own sin. I'll take a gander and assume it's because the clergyman in particular felt that Leo could easily be lead astray in such a household and that's why he didn't go through with it.

Leo should do well. While we are born to become sinners and then find repentance if according to the Christian sayings, Leo at his age is innocent since he doesn't fundamentally understand the difference between right and wrong.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Raguna

[ping]

Well, a quick google search that I probably should have done beforehand gave me this:

"The Church must have a well-founded hope that the baptism will bear fruit" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Infant Baptism, 1980).

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-a-priest-obligated-to-baptize-a-baby-even-if-the-parents-are-not-married-or-are-no

So I suppose you're assuming correctly, although I still find the reasoning strange. So because they're worried that Leo might suffer from a non-christian upbringing (not my perspective, I should add), they make it even harder for him to find the "right" path (again, not my perspective)?

[Raguna]

Well, a quick google search that I probably should have done beforehand gave me this:

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-a-priest-obligated-to-baptize-a-baby-even-if-the-parents-are-not-married-or-are-no

So I suppose you're assuming correctly, although I still find the reasoning strange. So because they're worried that Leo might suffer from a non-christian upbringing (not my perspective, I should add), they make it even harder for him to find the "right" path (again, not my perspective)?

It's not necessarily harder per se, but I see your point. For example, if someone is a non-Christian they wouldn't need to worry about being baptized since it's not necessary for them in their own view. In Rezzy's case, she can lead Leo in any particular direction but by the end it's his choice if he wants to believe or not. Plus baptism isn't a fixed thing since Jesus himself was baptized at 33 years old and some people baptized even older but baptism is suppose to be the dying of the old self to make way for the new sinless you. If the clergyman thought that the baptism wouldn't mean anything, then he has a valid reason to refuse. As an personal aside, I think babies are born without sin and it catches us later on when we tell our first lie so I think he's going to do fine. Plus after a certain age, like 16 or so it doesn't really matter who your parents are since you're more conscious of your actions and decisions so the Church is more willing to give you the service.

On a side note from my first argument. Here's a general point me and few buddies discussed in a theology class once and we came upon a consensus which others can refute. A gay man can be a priest but he cannot practice such a thing in his life. Since he is the Shepherd of the flock so to speak, he can't be shown to openly practice that which his office says is bad. He'd have a harder time than most if anything to try to keep himself within the general guidelines.

[Rezzy]

I'll speak more about my specific situation when I'm not on mobile.

For priests being gay, priests can't have sex at all, so who they're attracted to doesn't really matter, since they can't act on their feelings, regardless.

[tuvarkz]

I'll speak more about my specific situation when I'm not on mobile.

For priests being gay, priests can't have sex at all, so who they're attracted to doesn't really matter, since they can't act on their feelings, regardless.

...Not entirely true, as there is sin in thought as well. Immediate rejection of a sinful thought isn't troubling, but entertaining it can be a sin, if only venial in most cases. Taking the assumption (which may change from Church to church) that homosexuality is sinful, then not outright rejecting and ignoring such thoughts and feelings can be a source of sin.

[Phoenix Wright]

Errr, I don't agree with Eclipse's stance, but I'm guessing you have absolutely no experience with small business, because word of mouth can make or break a fledgling business owner.

Big businesses are more reputation-proof, but that also depends on how much traction a story gains in the media, the nature of the business and it's position in the market they represent.

eclipse's scenario was very vague. why do you immediately assume i have "no experience" with small business? this could be a corporation, a small dept., a warehouse, or a small business that eclispe was talking about. all that she specified was that if an "atheist" refused service she would tell people about it. there were no mentions of what or where.

i outline this because i want to make very clear the obvious bias people in your camp are arguing in this discussion.

further, and i really don't get why i keep having to say this--eclipse has ignored it completely several times herself despite it being a very valid argument--but there simply does not exist data as far as i can tell on any of the things you claim, let alone the main argument (that word of mouth has a non-negligible affect on business). that "source" that eclipse linked makes no mention of word of mouth, and focused only on restaurants because they have such a high failure rate. other businesses don't. so you guys are running off of....nothing. it is very difficult to have a discussion if you're just gonna think what you're gonna think and not actually share ideas and mull it over in your mind. there's no point in doing this.

I'm going to expand on that one.

Word of mouth absolutely destroys small businesses and I know it from first hand experience.

In my current workplace, my boss (the owner) goes out of his way to provide extra service to customers to return. And we're still operating at a loss (the place is a small bar/kitchen that has been open for 2.5 months since a renovation).

Imagine how bad it would be for the business if word got around about how the owner doesn't serve X person for a discriminatory reason. This place would shut down in a month.

I've seen new businesses fold very quickly. For a small business to reasonably survive, it has to chase the dollar. No two ways around it.

your personal experience doesn't mean anything and i'm quite certain there are dozens of other factors contributing to that. eclispes' link says as much!

Reading over my post, I didn't mean for it to sound so condescending, so sorry about that, not intended lol! @Phoenix

Above post:

Yes, I run a small business and have many friends who've either started their own successfully or been forced out of their chosen market as a result of whether or not they could connect with the communities in the cities they'd chosen to settle in. A small startup who was refusing to serve people based on their race/origin/religion/etc could very easily be hammering nails into their own coffin. I don't agree that the fact that they're punished independent of law or government intervention justifies the act of discrimination though.

no hard feelings. you can be condescending if you really want to.

again, this is all just based on "feeling." that really is not how facts work.

[Tangerine]

eclipse's scenario was very vague. why do you immediately assume i have "no experience" with small business? this could be a corporation, a small dept., a warehouse, or a small business that eclispe was talking about. all that she specified was that if an "atheist" refused service she would tell people about it. there were no mentions of what or where.

i outline this because i want to make very clear the obvious bias people in your camp are arguing in this discussion.

further, and i really don't get why i keep having to say this--eclipse has ignored it completely several times herself despite it being a very valid argument--but there simply does not exist data as far as i can tell on any of the things you claim, let alone the main argument (that word of mouth has a non-negligible affect on business). that "source" that eclipse linked makes no mention of word of mouth, and focused only on restaurants because they have such a high failure rate. other businesses don't. so you guys are running off of....nothing. it is very difficult to have a discussion if you're just gonna think what you're gonna think and not actually share ideas and mull it over in your mind. there's no point in doing this.

http://smallbiztrends.com/2014/06/small-businesses-get-customers-through-word-of-mouth.html

http://brainsonfire.com/2014/11/18/whats-business-impact-word-mouth/

Only big brands participated in the second link's study, but the impact on them is very clear as well.

Also, I like how you are telling me, who actually owns a small business, that I am "running off of nothing" when I stress the importance of word of mouth for new small businesses. Yeah, you got me, lol.

My intention wasn't to get involved in this discussion as a whole, it was to correct you on how much word of mouth matters to small businesses. I don't care to argue about anything else that you're talking about (in fact I made it a point to separate myself from their stance). I don't have a "camp" or a "side" in your beef. Grow up.

Edit: I don't agree with some of what is said in the third link, despite the article overall outlining the importance of WoM, and the other two links are sufficient enough so I'll remove it. May replace.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Tangerine

[Balcerzak]

There is also the countless millions Gawker lost through Gamergate's word of mouth campaign to advertisers. Former editor said Of all the enemies Gawker had made over the years [...] none were more effective than the Gamergaters.

[Phoenix Wright]

There is also the countless millions Gawker lost through Gamergate's word of mouth campaign to advertisers. Former editor said Of all the enemies Gawker had made over the years [...] none were more effective than the Gamergaters.

http://smallbiztrends.com/2014/06/small-businesses-get-customers-through-word-of-mouth.html

http://brainsonfire.com/2014/11/18/whats-business-impact-word-mouth/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kimberlywhitler/2014/07/17/why-word-of-mouth-marketing-is-the-most-important-social-media/#38b83b327a77

Only big brands participated in the second link's study, but the impact on them is very clear as well.

Also, I like how you are telling me, who actually owns a small business, that I am "running off of nothing" when I stress the importance of word of mouth for new small businesses. Yeah, you got me, lol.

My intention wasn't to get involved in this discussion as a whole, it was to correct you on how much word of mouth matters to small businesses. I don't care to argue about anything else that you're talking about (in fact I made it a point to separate myself from their stance). I don't have a "camp" or a "side" in your beef. Grow up.

thanks for links. will look it all over.

in the meantime i must say you are reading myy posts with hostility and are responding in kind. the reason for both of these things i am unsure. your owning of a small business does not mean you are an expert on micro and macroeconimcs. i study exoplanets, but this does not mean i'm an expert on pulsars and black holes, or cosmology or something. you know and i know a very small part of the whole.

with my use of camp, you took that way beyond what i meant it to be. it's not really an us v them thing, just more of a convenience thing for organising who holds what opinion. i don't got beef with anyone here lol. how lame would that be?

[Tangerine]

thanks for links. will look it all over.

in the meantime i must say you are reading myy posts with hostility and are responding in kind. the reason for both of these things i am unsure. your owning of a small business does not mean you are an expert on micro and macroeconimcs. i study exoplanets, but this does not mean i'm an expert on pulsars and black holes, or cosmology or something. you know and i know a very small part of the whole.

with my use of camp, you took that way beyond what i meant it to be. it's not really an us v them thing, just more of a convenience thing for organising who holds what opinion. i don't got beef with anyone here lol. how lame would that be?

Owning one doesn't make you an expert alone no, but someone who does and is successful is far more likely to be knowledgeable on the subject than not, and absolutely has experience. It's pretty rude to say that someone who has a successful small business is "running off of nothing" when they talk about factors that made them successful (and some of their friends, unfortunately, not) lol. If you didn't want me to interpret your post as hostile you would've been better served just asking me if I knew of any studies or research that supports my own (and my contacts') experience.

Either way, no harm done.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Tangerine

[Tryhard]

There is also the countless millions Gawker lost through Gamergate's word of mouth campaign to advertisers. Former editor said Of all the enemies Gawker had made over the years [...] none were more effective than the Gamergaters.

It's a good example, but wouldn't it be fair to say that it needs to go viral before it becomes any real force? I'm not really sure how most stupid business decisions that resulted in boycotts would have affected them, such as boycotts of Chick-Fil-A and Papa Johns, considering the other side (people who believe the same as the Chick-Fil-A CEO or are against Obamacare like John Schnatter) will just come out in droves to have their appreciation parties.

In this hypothetical situation in which all private businesses are allowed to have political views in terms of discrimination (which is different from the above two, fair), I'm not so sure that it would always result in a hurting of their businesses.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Tryhard

[Phoenix Wright]

http://smallbiztrends.com/2014/06/small-businesses-get-customers-through-word-of-mouth.html

http://brainsonfire.com/2014/11/18/whats-business-impact-word-mouth/

http://www.forbes.co...a/#38b83b327a77

Of all the enemies Gawker had made over the years [...] none were more effective than the Gamergaters.

firstly, i would like to apologize for the below links paywalls/education barriers. it's a bit hypocritical of me, but berkeley publications are well-known for trustworthiness, at least.

well, y'all are probably gonna get mad, but almost none of these fits the criteria of "data," except maybe the survey. i am genuinely unsure, and perhaps lord raven can chime in there. well, actually, the womma thing is probably good, but as far as i've been able to see, it's inaccessible. how am i supposed to analyze the data if i'm not given methods, data tables, etc.? i don't trust many economics conclusions, but can you blame me? what i have been given are:

--a survey that i can't seem to look up how it was produced. also, this doesn't answer my original question. it attempts to answer the opposite question.

--paywall

+ and i want to make absolutely clear i am not rejecting the conclusions of this, i simply demand more answers.

--2 editorials

this is not science! economics is not a discussion of what you think is right because it sounds good, it is supposed to be a science. do you actually think i am completely unaware of the discussion on word of mouth? i live in the united states, the capitalism capital of the galaxy! i know full-well the perceived effects of word of mouth. i know and follow the logic behind it. but what i'm asking for goes deeper than that; to be abundantly clear, i want it to be the conclusion without a doubt that negative word of mouth has adverse effects on business of all types to a non-negligible degree. i was given the example of gawker, but i give the counter-example of chick-fil-a. inconclusive. chick-fil-a is doing fine, and arguably committed a worse act in today's world.

physics has open data: kepler data is open, cern data is open, hubble data is open, slac data is open.

unfortunately, publishers strong-arm both economists and physicists and slap pay-walls on things that should be free. if i had it my way, research would be majority publicly funded, lagged data availability to a max of 2 years or so (probably less), and accountability on scientists who do bad science (ie, rush, fudge, or otherwise tamper experiment to get results). economics, medicine, and psychology have it real bad when it comes to publishing, and i truly feel sorry for those people that try to get trustworthy, correct results out there.

the truth is not in theory. we don't trust einstein's papers on relativity because he said them. it is the effort of thousands of scientists whose expertise and cleverness in testing relativity in its many facets that allows us to rule out other explanations.

Owning one doesn't make you an expert alone no, but someone who does and is successful is far more likely to be knowledgeable on the subject than not, and absolutely has experience. It's pretty rude to say that someone who has a successful small business is "running off of nothing" when they talk about factors that made them successful (and some of their friends, unfortunately, not) lol. If you didn't want me to interpret your post as hostile you would've been better served just asking me if I knew of any studies or research that supports my own (and my contacts') experience.

Either way, no harm done.

by running off of nothing i meant data, sorry. truth be told i don't really care for your personal experience or life's personal experience or my own personal experience. it's irrelevant.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Tangerine]

firstly, i would like to apologize for the below links paywalls/education barriers. it's a bit hypocritical of me, but berkeley publications are well-known for trustworthiness, at least.

well, y'all are probably gonna get mad, but almost none of these fits the criteria of "data," except maybe the survey. i am genuinely unsure, and perhaps lord raven can chime in there. well, actually, the womma thing is probably good, but as far as i've been able to see, it's inaccessible. how am i supposed to analyze the data if i'm not given methods, data tables, etc.? i don't trust many economics conclusions, but can you blame me? what i have been given are:

--a survey that i can't seem to look up how it was produced. also, this doesn't answer my original question. it attempts to answer the opposite question.

--paywall

+ and i want to make absolutely clear i am not rejecting the conclusions of this, i simply demand more answers.

--2 editorials

this is not science! economics is not a discussion of what you think is right because it sounds good, it is supposed to be a science. do you actually think i am completely unaware of the discussion on word of mouth? i live in the united states, the capitalism capital of the galaxy! i know full-well the perceived effects of word of mouth. i know and follow the logic behind it. but what i'm asking for goes deeper than that; to be abundantly clear, i want it to be the conclusion without a doubt that negative word of mouth has adverse effects on business of all types to a non-negligible degree. i was given the example of gawker, but i give the counter-example of chick-fil-a. inconclusive. chick-fil-a is doing fine, and arguably committed a worse act in today's world.

Gawker and Chic-Fil-A aren't even close to being comparable stories. Gawker is a company worth millions and founded in 2002, Chic-Fil-A is a company worth billions and founded in 1946. It goes without saying that a company that already has a massive customer base built over generations across thousands of locations is going to be more stable amidst criticism than a blog. Lets not even get into the fact that it had wildcards such as legitimate support from powerful politicians (Huckabee) during said controversies. Chic-Fil-A is a company big enough that it isn't going to lose partnerships or business relationships unless it does something really terrible.

For Chic-Fil-A I'd be interested in seeing individual store data over the time period, but as it's privately owned I doubt that's an option.

Anyway, you're free to believe or disregard the findings of the survey/research data for whatever reason you find justifiable lol. WoM and its impact is variable by nature (and often incalculable, ex: potential future business relationships).

Edited September 3, 2016 by Tangerine

[Phoenix Wright]

you missed the point but it's clear to me you don't want to talk so ok

[Rapier]

this wouldn't do anything.

This wouldn't do anything toward the company in case directly, but it would benefit a rival company that sees this as an opportunity for expanding its clientelle, which would indirectly affect the company in case.

Suppose McDonalds refuses to sell products to black people. Now suppose Bobs and Burger King sell their products to anyone regardless of any characteristic they have. I'm sure Bobs and BK will receive an advantage over McDonalds and their bigotry vs the inclusive behavior of their rivals will negatively affect sales and significantly impact McDonalds' standing as a business (at least on theory. I admit this is mere speculation and conjecture, I have no practical examples to back this up, but doesn't this make sense?).

So, yes, there is a punishment for bigotry, and it's not law driven.

[Phoenix Wright]

...do you actually think i am completely unaware of the discussion on word of mouth? i live in the united states, the capitalism capital of the galaxy! i know full-well the perceived effects of word of mouth. i know and follow the logic behind it. but what i'm asking for goes deeper than that; to be abundantly clear, i want it to be the conclusion without a doubt that negative word of mouth has adverse effects on business of all types to a non-negligible degree.

...the truth is not in theory...effort of thousands of scientists whose expertise in testing relativity allows us to rule out other explanations.

i'm not interested in theory or conjecture or "what makes sense" and have made that obvious from the beginning

[CyborgZeta]

Figured this would be the appropriate topic for this.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslims-acism-america-most-disliked-group-discrimination-anti-mosque-a7311151.html

Turns out, if there's one group American dislike almost as much as Muslims, it's atheists.

[Res]

Turns out, if there's one group American dislike almost as much as Muslims, it's atheists.

Heck, there are still states in which you can't hold public office as an atheist.

[Moblin Major General]

Heck, there are still states in which you can't hold public office as an atheist.

Thank God for Mississippi, ladies and gentleman.

[Espinosa]

If the online behaviour of atheists is an indication of anything, there sure is a whole lot to dislike about 'em.

[Balcerzak]

The same could be said of any group's fringe's behaviour online.

[Res]

If the online behaviour of atheists is an indication of anything, there sure is a whole lot to dislike about 'em.

Seriously?

The only thing atheists have in common with one another is a lack of belief in a god(s). There's no code or creed and no figureheads, so there are no other requirements; you don't need to have read anything or agree with Dawkins or Hitchens to lack a belief.

There are relatively large numbers of atheists, and the number continues to climb.

I'm atheist, as is most of my family, my inlaws are, too; the majority of my friends are also either atheist or non-religious. You probably know some atheists or agnostics, but without realizing it.

The same could be said of any group's fringe's behaviour online.

Yes.