Ted Cruz is driving people to Atheism!

[Ron_Tomkins]

If Priests buggering little children right within the supposed Hallowed Grounds of the Body Of Christ (i.e. the church) under the gazing eyes of its allegedly living and ever present Shepherd (i.e. Jesus) did not corrode the general belief in Jesus, I doubt some crazy preacher is going to be any more effectively corrosive.

There is always the Not True Scotsman fallacy to alleviate any possible Cognitive Dissonance.... and let's not forget the others ... "free will" and "who are you to question god's plan" and "god can do what he wants" and "how do you know that by not preventing the buggering he prevented a bigger disaster" etc. etc. etc.

No.

The fact that some religious folk disagree with other religious folk is not evidence that some people are so stupid that they drive others away from religion.

On one hand, I think that overall, Religion has become a bit outdated and that has generated a lot of rejection from people in general.

But on the other hand, you guys do have a point, because I believe that what happens is that people simply update their Religious beliefs to a more "acceptable" version. Or they just abide to a new religion. So someone who might claim that Christianity is really silly and obviously false, might still believe in Scientology.... or not necessarily another religion. Maybe they believe in Reincarnation, or in The Law of Attraction, and such.

As much as I would like to believe otherwise, the reality is that, if any particular Religion loses credibility, all that happens in the mind of someone who really just wants to believe in something, is that they'll replace it with another kind of irrational belief.

 

[Leumas]

Most publicly touted religion is prima facie evidence that most religious "thinking" is inadmissible as evidence in the court of reality.

It all depends on how nasty, gullible, stupid, biased, prejudiced, inculcated, indoctrinated and/or corrupted the Judge and Jury and Lawyers happen to be for that trial.

 

[Rincewind]

I hope he has a big enough vehicle!

 

[Puppycow]

Hey the Onion revealed J K Rowling's satisfaction that Harry Potter was converting kids to Satan, her Lord.

Some religious believed that, some atheists believe this. People are dumb.

Good one. I think I missed that one.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/harry-potter-books-spark-rise-in-satanism-among-ch,2413/

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No.

The fact that some religious folk disagree with other religious folk is not evidence that some people are so stupid that they drive others away from religion.

Really? Why not?

 

[phiwum]

Really? Why not?

Because disagreement just doesn't mean that one party is so stupid that they're driving others away.

Scientists disagree with one another publicly, vocally and sometimes aggressively. Do such disagreements drive people away from believing that science is a reliable method? Should they?

Similarly, religious folks have many disagreements, whether over doctrine or the behavior of their colleagues (such as Ham's public debates). So what? Why would that make anyone decide to drop their faith?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Because disagreement just doesn't mean that one party is so stupid that they're driving others away.

Scientists disagree with one another publicly, vocally and sometimes aggressively. Do such disagreements drive people away from believing that science is a reliable method? Should they?

Similarly, religious folks have many disagreements, whether over doctrine or the behavior of their colleagues (such as Ham's public debates). So what? Why would that make anyone decide to drop their faith?

I would say it's evidence that some people are so stupid they drive other people away from religion.

 

[phiwum]

I would say it's evidence that some people are so stupid they drive other people away from religion.

That's nice, but you haven't given any reason to believe that this is actually the case.

And you haven't addressed anything I've said.

 

[Manopolus]

As much as I would like to believe otherwise, the reality is that, if any particular Religion loses credibility, all that happens in the mind of someone who really just wants to believe in something, is that they'll replace it with another kind of irrational belief.

You're on the right track. Have you ever heard of the notion of believing in belief itself? It's been running through our cultural media for quite some time. The (usually) kids shows that basically tell you that if you just believe hard enough it will be true? Yeah, that's part of it, but it's also there in quite a few more mature movies, books, etc. (just a little more subtle).

The thing is... for most people of religion, the most important factor in their belief is not actually in the existence of the thing which they believe in. The main factor is that they think it is somehow virtuous to believe it -- mainly because they've been told so over and over again, and indeed, that's the base difference between a heaven and hell destination in the most viral belief systems.

So... in a very twisted way, they are not ALLOWED to even contemplate the notion of disbelief without risking their own self image. The actual existence or lack thereof of a deity is not even on the radar. You sort of have to first prove to them that belief itself does not confer virtue if you want to bring them to their senses. Some come to that by their own thoughts (like I did), but most apparently don't.

When you've come to the conclusion that your PARTICULAR set of beliefs may be faulty without challenging the belief in belief itself, there's a tendency to want to merely switch belief systems, rather than discarding religion/woo entirely. It sort of depends on the type of deconversion we're talking about. There's more than one way to come to the conclusion that your former belief system was faulty.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's nice, but you haven't given any reason to believe that this is actually the case.

And you haven't proven the obverse.

And you haven't addressed anything I've said.

Of course not.

 

[phiwum]

And you haven't proven the obverse.

Of course not.

I haven't proven the obverse, if you mean beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I have used a standard inductive argument (proof by analogy) which lends evidence to the claim.

• Two scientists have public disagreements. No one "leaves" science as a result.
• Two theists have public disagreements. As a result, you think that some people will think religion must be stupid, so they leave religion.

Now, you tell me why these two situations are fundamentally different.

Far as I can tell, not only is it unlikely that people would leave religion just because two religious folk have a dispute, but it would be a stupid reason to leave religion.

"Some people think Ham's debates with evolution scientists were badly done? Well, to hell with it then. No more religion for me!"

Yeah, that is a perfectly plausible and reasonable reaction.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

You're on the right track. Have you ever heard of the notion of believing in belief itself? It's been running through our cultural media for quite some time. The (usually) kids shows that basically tell you that if you just believe hard enough it will be true? Yeah, that's part of it, but it's also there in quite a few more mature movies, books, etc. (just a little more subtle).

The thing is... for most people of religion, the most important factor in their belief is not actually in the existence of the thing which they believe in. The main factor is that they think it is somehow virtuous to believe it -- mainly because they've been told so over and over again, and indeed, that's the base difference between a heaven and hell destination in the most viral belief systems.

So... in a very twisted way, they are not ALLOWED to even contemplate the notion of disbelief without risking their own self image. The actual existence or lack thereof of a deity is not even on the radar. You sort of have to first prove to them that belief itself does not confer virtue if you want to bring them to their senses. Some come to that by their own thoughts (like I did), but most apparently don't.

When you've come to the conclusion that your PARTICULAR set of beliefs may be faulty without challenging the belief in belief itself, there's a tendency to want to merely switch belief systems, rather than discarding religion/woo entirely. It sort of depends on the type of deconversion we're talking about. There's more than one way to come to the conclusion that your former belief system was faulty.

Yup. That's what Daniel Dennett refers to as "belief in belief", and I believe (pun not intended) that that's at the core of the problem.

 

[Leumas]

Yup. That's what Daniel Dennett refers to as "belief in belief", and I believe (pun not intended) that that's at the core of the problem.

The real core of the problem is that people are willing to delude themselves and let others dupe them because mentally they are frightened pathetic wretched children. They are trembling lumps of insignificant debris floating on the waves of space-time trying to construe by any self-delusion a significance for their fleeting moment of existence punctuated by terror, and inexorable calamities.

Impotent to exact justice or to stem the currents of time, they raise their arms up like children begging in supplication to an imagined sky daddy to lift them up and give them a comforting hug and to beat up the neighboring children.

The major tragedy of course is that this psychological condition was and is viciously and cynically and predatorily exploited by clever brigands and wily poltroons to huckster and bamboozle the quivering shivering sheep. Much like all the other cons, scams and hoaxes discovered or invented by numerous hoodwinkers and mountebanks throughout the ages and are still being utilized even today despite all available knowledge.

 

[Manopolus]

Yup. That's what Daniel Dennett refers to as "belief in belief", and I believe (pun not intended) that that's at the core of the problem.

Yeah, that's who the originator was (I checked). I picked it up from a secondary source. It fits some thoughts of my own quite well, although I probably wouldn't have used the same terminology (or even explained it very well) prior to seeing it.

It sort of explains the tired old argument that they often use which states that without their belief, they'd be bad people... and why it's used so frequently. You'll hear believers more-or-less come right out and say it quite often without fully realizing what it means, actually.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Now that I remember, there was this well known journalist whose name I forgot, who's a Theist (probably Christian) who completely disagreed with Ken Ham

By the way, I just remembered who it was: Pat Robertson.

 

[Peregrinus]

Pat Robertson a journalist? Bigoted, fundamentalist, evangelical snake oil salesman par excellence, but journalist, not so much.

 

[fuelair]

Ted Cruz is driving people to Atheism! Can he give me a ride???

 

[shemp]

Ted Cruz is driving people to Atheism! Can he give me a ride???

Sure, if he turns out to be another Ted Haggard.