The War Against Christianity

[articulett]

If it's the statement I think it is, what Dawkins is saying is that the mindset of religious belief, the unconditional acceptance of that which cannot be observed, and the encouragement of others to engage in that behavior by moderate believers is what enables the fundamentalists to act as they do. The only difference between moderate belief and fundamentalist belief is how far you take it. As articulett has said, the meme that faith is good is the underlying cause of fundamentalism.

And it's the underlying theme of most religions. It's a general paradigm that we are taught not to speak up against or question. If no one talks about it then everyone gets the idea that people are in agreement with this notion that there are divine truths and that faith and feeling can access them. We never discuss if that's true, much less rather we should be telling kids and trusting people that it is. And once you've agreed that there are divine truths, you have no right to say that your truth is more likely to be truer than another's conflicting divine truth--because you've both built your truths on a faulty premise.

A materialist could say to the hijackers, "how do you know that consciousness can survive death?" But a theist has already agreed that it can-- so who cares whether the theist thinks your heavenly plan is unlikely... their heavenly plan is equally unlikely--their god isn't the true one. A rationalist says, "there is no evidence for any life after death--you are trusting people whom you should examine more closely", but a theist can only say, "your religion is wrong and mine is right" with nothing to back it up with.

A theist makes a bargain with the devil-- in exchange for not probing his special delusions too closely, he agrees not to look too closely into anyone else's delusions... and then the ugliness festers underneath sacred platitudes.

It doesn't matter to me that most faiths are harmless--what matters to me is that we live in a world where it's really too dangerous to continue propping up this notion that "faith is good". What is it good for? Where are the stellar examples of people made fabulous by faith? It's weird, because people really do believe that they'd be wanton and immoral without religion...so maybe such people do need it-- but the evidence sure isn't there to show that this is the case. And if religion worked for boosting morality, would there be any pedophiliac clergy? Any witch hunts? Any suicide bombings? Would we need prisons and jails and laws and rules that involve rights and protecting the life liberty and property of others?

 

[JoeEllison]

Yes, using logical fallacies to create the attacks. Vis:

• All religions are evil
• All religions are usless
• All religious practices are child abuse

Making a general out of a specific is bad form. If you want to talk about specific practices that are harmful, be my guest. Waging what amounts to an ad hom argument writ large against this mythical beast called "religion" is just silly.

Why do you dismiss those positions out of hand as "fallacies", without showing your own logical process? I can tell you that my personal view that all religion is harmful by definition is the furthest thing from an "ad hom argument writ large."

 

[kmortis]

Why do you dismiss those positions out of hand as "fallacies", without showing your own logical process? I can tell you that my personal view that all religion is harmful by definition is the furthest thing from an "ad hom argument writ large."

The three examples I gave are some of the more common comments I read when these topics come up. Sure I may have stripped away some of the more flowery language, but it comes down to a variation of those themes. Here, let me drop you a hint, and then maybe you can follow what I'm saying.

To say that "all religions are useless" you'd have to research all religions that have ever existed, and then measure what they provided to the community that they were a majority force (we'll use this filter to reduce possible confounding factors). IF it is a negative impact, then it's not useless, just harmful. If it's positive then there is some utility. To be useless, then they could have no impact on the society that they are resident in. Get cracking, go and track down what paleolithic religions were like. The same research has to go for the other two statements as well.

Basically, what I'm saying is that it's a fallacy to take a few discrete instants and generalize them to all places and times. It is true to say that some religious practitioners are evil, but that's not quite as pithy or edgy or cool as saying "all religions are evil", right? It's true to say that some religious practitioners are of minimal use to their communities, but again, it's not as noticeable as "all religions are useless" is it? Doesn't get headlines. Why? Because the first statement is rather obvious, human behavior spans the gamut of nice guy to jackass pretty uniformly. Hell, some people can be both, depending on the audience.

So, if you want to say that all religion is harmful, then go on out and show that all religion is harmful. Good luck on that. When you happen across your first Catholic soup kitchen in a neighborhood that has nothing else, don't forget to discount it somehow, I recommend pedophile priests, it's rather popular these days.

 

[kmortis]

And it's the underlying theme of most religions. It's a general paradigm that we are taught not to speak up against or question. If no one talks about it then everyone gets the idea that people are in agreement with this notion that there are divine truths and that faith and feeling can access them. We never discuss if that's true, much less rather we should be telling kids and trusting people that it is. And once you've agreed that there are divine truths, you have no right to say that your truth is more likely to be truer than another's conflicting divine truth--because you've both built your truths on a faulty premise.

A materialist could say to the hijackers, "how do you know that consciousness can survive death?" But a theist has already agreed that it can-- so who cares whether the theist thinks your heavenly plan is unlikely... their heavenly plan is equally unlikely--their god isn't the true one. A rationalist says, "there is no evidence for any life after death--you are trusting people whom you should examine more closely", but a theist can only say, "your religion is wrong and mine is right" with nothing to back it up with.

A theist makes a bargain with the devil-- in exchange for not probing his special delusions too closely, he agrees not to look too closely into anyone else's delusions... and then the ugliness festers underneath sacred platitudes.

It doesn't matter to me that most faiths are harmless--what matters to me is that we live in a world where it's really too dangerous to continue propping up this notion that "faith is good". What is it good for? Where are the stellar examples of people made fabulous by faith? It's weird, because people really do believe that they'd be wanton and immoral without religion...so maybe such people do need it-- but the evidence sure isn't there to show that this is the case. And if religion worked for boosting morality, would there be any pedophiliac clergy? Any witch hunts? Any suicide bombings? Would we need prisons and jails and laws and rules that involve rights and protecting the life liberty and property of others?

Wow, articulett, I agree with that. I think you're softening. We'll make an apologist of you yet.

 

[JoeEllison]

So, if you want to say that all religion is harmful, then go on out and show that all religion is harmful. Good luck on that. When you happen across your first Catholic soup kitchen in a neighborhood that has nothing else, don't forget to discount it somehow, I recommend pedophile priests, it's rather popular these days.

You're engaged in another lapse in logic here. I say "all religion is harmful", not based on any individual behavior, but on the concept of religion, and the religious mindset. So, your attack has nothing to do with my position. Secondly, I don't have to prove that all religious people act in evil ways... that's just your strawman. Most people fall somewhere around the middle, don't they? Basically ok folks, on average. Most people are also religious, so that means... most religious people are basically ok folks, on average! What a shock!

That doesn't mean that religion isn't harmful, though... it just means it doesn't do as much damage to some as it does to others.

 

[kmortis]

If it's the statement I think it is, what Dawkins is saying is that the mindset of religious belief, the unconditional acceptance of that which cannot be observed, and the encouragement of others to engage in that behavior by moderate believers is what enables the fundamentalists to act as they do. The only difference between moderate belief and fundamentalist belief is how far you take it. As articulett has said, the meme that faith is good is the underlying cause of fundamentalism.

Well, I guess if Dawkins said it, we can take it on faith then?

I disagree with him. I think it's a rather large stretch to say that moderates and liberals encourage fundamentalists. Speaking as a former fundy, they look down their noses at the more milquetoast members. "Pew warmers" or "C&E" Christians, I used to call them. They'd come on Christmas and Easter, or if they were really "devout" most Sundays. They come and get Holy for the Week. They didn't Gird Themselves with the Armour of God! They aren't out there Fighting against the Evil One.

Seriously, there are plenty of moderate and liberal theists who would love it if their own particular Buttheads for God were to disappear. Hell, there are some of the more conservative ones who'd like to see it too, it makes them all look bad. I'm sure that there are plenty of moderate Muslims who are ashamed of what the fundamentalists have done to what they see as Islam's good name. It's the people who do kill in the "name of god", who shoot abortion doctors, who destroy property that need to be controlled. It's the actions, not the thoughts.

And yes, I do see the slight irony of me "preaching" a message that boils down to "hate the sin, love the sinner".

 

[biomorph]

Evidence shows us that any gods of such nature are highly improbable.

Quantify that probability, please.

Zero. prove me otherwise smartypants. read the rest of my post on why highly improbable means zero in reality.

Ok, this going to be ripped apart wholesale by the maths guys here, of that i'm sure. And rightly so.
And I'm no maths expert, actually. and from the demonstration below that will be obvious.
so........just for fun......

let "god exists" be valued at 1 (or greater), and "nonexistance" be valued at 0

gods existance relies on the sum of evidence that can be valued at 1 (one piece of indisputable evidence) or greater.

However the sum of the evidence for the existance of god is a known value it is 0. (there is none)

If the sum of the evidence x god exists = 1 (or greater) then god exists.
If the sum of the evidence x god exists = 0 then god does not exist.
However the value of the evidence for existance is already 0.
therefore 0x1=0, god does not exist.

If any evidence for gods existance can be demonstrated at a value greater than 0, then god must exist.

Otherwise gods existance is valued at 0, non existance

i'm reaching for my asbestos knickers again......

 

[kmortis]

Why do you dismiss those positions out of hand as "fallacies", without showing your own logical process? I can tell you that my personal view that all religion is harmful by definition is the furthest thing from an "ad hom argument writ large."

You're engaged in another lapse in logic here. I say "all religion is harmful", not based on any individual behavior, but on the concept of religion, and the religious mindset. So, your attack has nothing to do with my position. Secondly, I don't have to prove that all religious people act in evil ways... that's just your strawman. Most people fall somewhere around the middle, don't they? Basically ok folks, on average. Most people are also religious, so that means... most religious people are basically ok folks, on average! What a shock!

That doesn't mean that religion isn't harmful, though... it just means it doesn't do as much damage to some as it does to others.

How is me saying that you said that "all religion is harmful" a strawman? To prove that you'd have to research all religions. All of them. I didn't say that you had to show that all theists behave in harmful ways, but that the religions they subscribe to are harmful. It's not a strawman to have your statement challenged.

At least we agree that most people are ok. Well, my misanthropic side rears up and says "naa, they're still ****heads" but it's new years day and I just saw "Bee Movie" so I'm in a good mood.

 

[biomorph]

Wow, articulett, I agree with that. I think you're softening. We'll make an apologist of you yet.

I doubt it, and don't you dare!

 

[JoeEllison]

How is me saying that you said that "all religion is harmful" a strawman? To prove that you'd have to research all religions. All of them. I didn't say that you had to show that all theists behave in harmful ways, but that the religions they subscribe to are harmful. It's not a strawman to have your statement challenged.

At least we agree that most people are ok. Well, my misanthropic side rears up and says "naa, they're still ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊" but it's new years day and I just saw "Bee Movie" so I'm in a good mood.

I don't have to research all religions to know that religion is harmful. The whole idea is just bad juju. I'm not talking about any specific sect, or set of beliefs... I'm saying that viewing the world through the lens of religious belief is fundamentally flawed, and holding a fundamentally flawed worldview does harm to the person holding it. It strikes me,to some degree or another, as being intentional ignorance. That's no good, in my book.

 

[articulett]

Wow, articulett, I agree with that. I think you're softening. We'll make an apologist of you yet.

I don't think I've ever been as radical as alleged. I think people hear things that aren't there sometimes.... and I think it's because there is the subliminal underlying notion that we musn't stir up faith and the faithful-- and also, of course, the notion that atheists are evil, strident, shrill, militant, eat babies, etc.

But I will never be an apologist. An apologist "covers for" religion unknowingly it seems-- the whole "faith is good" meme-- or at least, that it's harmless. I feel like they are the people on this forum running to derail threads to call people bad for daring to criticize faith...pretending they said "all religions" whenever they speak of religions in general.

Not all faiths are bad-- but all faiths do promote a way of thinking that is counter to reason. And most faiths also promote a kind of bigotry against nonbelievers--which they must do to "keep the faith". Yet most of the faithful are good people who have come to rely on or "need" their faith.
I would like to see more people understanding objective truths and less people believing that faith and feelings are methods of finding objective truths. (Heck, I get peeved when people can't seem to separate an opinion based claim from a fact based claim.)

 

[biomorph]

Wow, articulett, I agree with that. I think you're softening. We'll make an apologist of you yet.

I doubt it, and don't you dare!

 

[articulett]

I doubt it, and don't you dare!

I will never ever relinquish my militant atheist crown.

Besides... it's very good for my ego; I just pretend that I'm annoying people in the same manner as Dawkins and Hitchens. If the people who complain about me are the same people that complain about them, then I am honored to be pissing off the right people! I just tell myself that it's due to my eloquence, wittiness, and razor shop logic.

 

[kmortis]

I don't think I've ever been as radical as alleged. I think people hear things that aren't there sometimes.... and I think it's because there is the subliminal underlying notion that we musn't stir up faith and the faithful-- and also, of course, the notion that atheists are evil, strident, shrill, militant, eat babies, etc.

But I will never be an apologist. An apologist "covers for" religion unknowingly it seems-- the whole "faith is good" meme-- or at least, that it's harmless. I feel like they are the people on this forum running to derail threads to call people bad for daring to criticize faith...pretending they said "all religions" whenever they speak of religions in general.

Not all faiths are bad-- but all faiths do promote a way of thinking that is counter to reason. And most faiths also promote a kind of bigotry against nonbelievers--which they must do to "keep the faith". Yet most of the faithful are good people who have come to rely on or "need" their faith.
I would like to see more people understanding objective truths and less people believing that faith and feelings are methods of finding objective truths. (Heck, I get peeved when people can't seem to separate an opinion based claim from a fact based claim.)

It's ok. I was just pulling your chain.





































You're already an apologist.

 

[articulett]

Don't you ever call me such a vile thing again, or I'll put you on ignore and talk about you behind your back.

 

[kmortis]

Don't you ever call me such a vile thing again, or I'll put you on ignore and talk about you behind your back.

So, the only real change would you putting me on ignore?

Ok, ok, I take it back...stop hitting me...OWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW

 

[CFLarsen]

I will never ever relinquish my militant atheist crown.

Besides... it's very good for my ego; I just pretend that I'm annoying people in the same manner as Dawkins and Hitchens. If the people who complain about me are the same people that complain about them, then I am honored to be pissing off the right people! I just tell myself that it's due to my eloquence, wittiness, and razor shop logic.

So, no evidence will persuade you to change your mind?

 

[Herzblut]

Zero. prove me otherwise smartypants.

I'm not making any claim to be proved.

If any evidence for gods existance can be demonstrated at a value greater than 0, then god must exist.

Otherwise gods existance is valued at 0, non existance

I'm afraid this is a classical fallacy called argument from ignorance, isn't it?

 

[articulett]

So, no evidence will persuade you to change your mind?

It depends on the source... Blowhards --nah... the more they criticize, the more it convinces me that it's because I'm Dawkinsesque. And it's not like they ever have evidence anyhow... just opinions, hyperbole, and tangents.

Of course,when the people I respect have encouraged me to tone it down, I do try. But the people who are peeved at me are also peeved at the posters I find funny and smart-- whereas, I find them ("the apologists") to be dopey, obnoxious, and generally ineffective in achieving any kind of dialogue-- They hear me saying things that aren't there and then I'm drawn into strawman battles regarding opinions and attempts to clarify what I actually said.

 

[kmortis]

It depends on the source... Blowhards --nah... the more they criticize, the more it convinces me that it's because I'm Dawkinsesque. And it's not like they ever have evidence anyhow... just opinions, hyperbole, and tangents.

I think it's cause they're jealous of your fat-cowness...