The War Against Christianity

[Ryan O'Dine]

Nice try, but your absurdity is incorrectly applied. Being "disrespectful" shouldn't be conflated with "destroying" or "banning".

Well, I didn't exactly conflate it with "destroying," or "banning" (the oil companies aren't out to destroy Hoarani culture, only ride roughshod over it. And censorship isn't banning.) And just to specify what I mean by respectful, it's allowing the other party to exist as it wishes so long as it doesn't "pick my pocket or break my leg" (or however Jefferson put it). In other words, live and let live.

And since when is reality "dreary and colorless"? People who believe that should blame their lack of imagination and curiosity, not reality.

You have a point. But my point was that ImaginalDisc's "If it isn't true, why bother with it?" leaves you not bothering with a heck of a lot of extremely interesting things.

 

[thaiboxerken]

That's irrelevant. Let's assume that for a claim "G" no supporting evidence has been found. Anybody claiming "G" has to face the response that for "G" no evidence has been found. And that holding the belief "G" might be unjustified, by means of a plausible value judgment.

But there's no way to claim "not-G" in return , without accepting the burden of proof for "not-G" at the same time. Claiming "not-G" purely based on missing evidence of "G" is a fallacy.

As Someguy said, you are simply wrong. The negative assertion "not-G' is entirely logical since the assertion "G" has not been established as factual. If, for example, G stood for gravity and I decided that gravity does not exist, the burden would be upon me because it has been established that gravity does exist.

Gods do not exist. I carry no burden of evidence in saying so.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You have a point. But my point was that ImaginalDisc's "If it isn't true, why bother with it?" leaves you not bothering with a heck of a lot of extremely interesting things.

Hardly. Many things are not about truth, and are none the less worthwhile pastimes. While baseball is not a pursuit of truth, baseball is not antithetical to the pursuit of truth, as religion is. Religion invlolves arrogant pretenses towards knowledge, mystical nonsense, and pious mutterings. Religion pretends to have something to do with morality, meaning, and justice. Religion is not just some cheerful pastime, it aspires to be taken seriously.

As religion has nothing in it that should be taken seriously, it should be discarded as the archaic, superstitious worldview that it is, rather than preserved, as you would have us do.

 

[JoeEllison]

Well, I didn't exactly conflate it with "destroying," or "banning" (the oil companies aren't out to destroy Hoarani culture, only ride roughshod over it. And censorship isn't banning.) And just to specify what I mean by respectful, it's allowing the other party to exist as it wishes so long as it doesn't "pick my pocket or break my leg" (or however Jefferson put it). In other words, live and let live.

There's nothing in "live and let live" that involves respect.

You have a point. But my point was that ImaginalDisc's "If it isn't true, why bother with it?" leaves you not bothering with a heck of a lot of extremely interesting things.

Not really. It leaves you not bothering with a heck of a lot of NOTHING.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Hardly. Many things are not about truth, and are none the less worthwhile pastimes. While baseball is not a pursuit of truth, baseball is not antithetical to the pursuit of truth, as religion is. Religion invlolves arrogant pretenses towards knowledge, mystical nonsense, and pious mutterings. Religion pretends to have something to do with morality, meaning, and justice. Religion is not just some cheerful pastime, it aspires to be taken seriously.

As religion has nothing in it that should be taken seriously, it should be discarded as the archaic, superstitious worldview that it is, rather than preserved, as you would have us do.

I have a certain respect for what you're saying. I’m just not to the point of agreeing that it means religion should be intentionally discarded. For one thing, I think it’s fair to say that religions form subcultures -- that they’re more than just the sum of their supernatural claims. In a pluralistic society, there must be room for contradictory subcultures to coexist. Boundaries are necessary, and one can argue how tight they should be, but I think tolerance and pluralism ought to be given as much room to maneuver as possible.

I admit things can go too far. The evangelical influence on U.S. politics gives me no end of grief. I believe that, in that case, religion has overstepped its Magisterium. But if the choice is between ridding ourselves of religion altogether, and finding a way of coexisting with mutual tolerance, I think the latter is -- at very least -- a more achievable and therefore realistic goal than the former.


ETA: Oh, and I wouldn’t argue religion should be actively preserved. If it wants to find its own grave, I wouldn’t stand in the way.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

There's nothing in "live and let live" that involves respect.

Yes, it certainly looks like my concept of "respect" is not universally held. I hope this doesn't keep anyone from understanding my arguments.

Not really. It leaves you not bothering with a heck of a lot of NOTHING.

Another confusion of terms. Is art "true"? If it can't be said to be "true," shouldn't ImaginalDisc discard it?

That's how I read him. He elaborated that he meant antithetical to truth, so I think we're back on the same page.

 

[JoeEllison]

I think we're getting bogged down in terminology.

 

[kmortis]

I think we're getting bogged down in terminology.

How do you define "terminology"?

 

[Tanstaafl]

When I say that thing on your head is a "hat", I am using "terminology".

 

[JoeEllison]

How do you define "terminology"?

Can a bog be squared?

 

[kmortis]

When I say that thing on your head is a "hat", I am using "terminology".

What hat?

Can a bog be squared?

Yes, but the process would kill you.

 

[Herzblut]

As Someguy said, you are simply wrong. The negative assertion "not-G' is entirely logical since the assertion "G" has not been established as factual. If, for example, G stood for gravity and I decided that gravity does not exist, the burden would be upon me because it has been established that gravity does exist.

First of all "gravity" is no assertion, it's a .. noun. And it's a false analogy. A better one might be G = "Dark matter exists" or "White holes exist".

Gods do not exist. I carry no burden of evidence in saying so.

There is no burden of evidence because there is no evidence to be expected, neither for nor against G. Belief what you want.

 

[BenBurch]

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

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

Can you provide one shred of proof that these are not 100% true?

I didn't think so.

 

[kmortis]

Can you provide one shred of proof that these are not 100% true?

I didn't think so.

Don't have to. Much like the old atheism/theism debate, it's the one with the positive argument (i.e. the one claiming "all religions are evil") that has to provide proof. I'm simply rejecting that claim.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

There's nothing in "live and let live" that involves respect.

I realize there's been a semantic aspect to some recent posts here but wouldn't a "live and let live" attitude infer respecting the person, if not their positition/attitude/belief?

Can you provide one shred of proof that these are not 100% true?

I didn't think so.

Oh B.S. How about you prove that all religions are 100% evil, that all religions are 100% useless or that all religious practices are 100% child abuse rather than trying to shift the burden? Kmo has merely noted that these are the usual unsubstantiated claims by some here, you're the one who has stepped up the evidentiary level to "100%".

Instead of your smug "I didn't think so" remark, how about you put up or shut up?

 

[biomorph]

I realize there's been a semantic aspect to some recent posts here but wouldn't a "live and let live" attitude infer respecting the person, if not their positition/attitude/belief?

Well sort of, but there is a slight problem with the respect side of the deal.

The first problem is that people take their position/attitude/belief personally. This makes it hard to deal with the person on an objective level.

Unfortunately this is the nature of the animal one has to deal with.

If the afflicted could for once seperate the concept of their particular ideaology from themselves as a person, we would find it easier to get those sufferers to recognise the ridiculousness of the notions they decide to take up with.

With the godsquad this is hard work. The perceived nature of the ethos is that it is personal and global at the same time.

Clever stuff.

So in order to get these poor people to become less deluded you have to seperate them from their god.

You can see the semantic nightmare this could lead to, risking resorting to writing them off as people, when the objective is to write off only the erronious fallacy of the brainwashing they have received. Not the person as an individual.

In reality some tactics do resort to making the omlette by breaking eggs, but if possible it's prefererable to be kind and respect the person.

Its not always possible, thats all.

Its like sawing off a leg with gangrene and no anesthetic, it is going to hurt, but you know it'll be worth the pain.

If religion could be, by default, less personal, they'd be less insulted. But thats the nature of the thing they have embraced, so, so be it. They made their own bed, they can lie in it...

 

[kmortis]

Well sort of, but there is a slight problem with the respect side of the deal.

The first problem is that people take their position/attitude/belief personally. This makes it hard to deal with the person on an objective level.

Unfortunately this is the nature of the animal one has to deal with.

If the afflicted could for once seperate the concept of their particular ideaology from themselves as a person, we would find it easier to get those sufferers to recognise the ridiculousness of the notions they decide to take up with.

With the godsquad this is hard work. The perceived nature of the ethos is that it is personal and global at the same time.

Clever stuff.

So in order to get these poor people to become less deluded you have to seperate them from their god.

You can see the semantic nightmare this could lead to, risking resorting to writing them off as people, when the objective is to write off only the erronious fallacy of the brainwashing they have received. Not the person as an individual.

In reality some tactics do resort to making the omlette by breaking eggs, but if possible it's prefererable to be kind and respect the person.

Its not always possible, thats all.

Its like sawing off a leg with gangrene and no anesthetic, it is going to hurt, but you know it'll be worth the pain.

If religion could be, by default, less personal, they'd be less insulted. But thats the nature of the thing they have embraced, so, so be it. They made their own bed, they can lie in it...

1) Not all theists "personalize" their religion. Some are able to discuss it rationally without rancor. I've had at least two very pleasant conversations via email with people about their religious beliefs where we were able to discuss it without angering the other.

2) What you said can be said about any belief system, whether it's religion, politics or sport's team backing. There are some who can entertain opposing thoughts without causing much cognitive dissonance, and some who cannot. Painting all with the same brush isn't helpful.

3) You discuss the reactions of individuals and how they interpret their religion. That is a better place to discuss rather than making a monolithic Religion that you're trying to battle. When you make a singular entity out of something as varied and diverse as religion, you will never understand it and therefore never be able to effectively combat it.

 

[tsg]

Well sort of, but there is a slight problem with the respect side of the deal.

The first problem is that people take their position/attitude/belief personally. This makes it hard to deal with the person on an objective level.

Unfortunately this is the nature of the animal one has to deal with.

If the afflicted could for once seperate the concept of their particular ideaology from themselves as a person, we would find it easier to get those sufferers to recognise the ridiculousness of the notions they decide to take up with.

With the godsquad this is hard work. The perceived nature of the ethos is that it is personal and global at the same time.

Clever stuff.

So in order to get these poor people to become less deluded you have to seperate them from their god.

You can see the semantic nightmare this could lead to, risking resorting to writing them off as people, when the objective is to write off only the erronious fallacy of the brainwashing they have received. Not the person as an individual.

In reality some tactics do resort to making the omlette by breaking eggs, but if possible it's prefererable to be kind and respect the person.

Its not always possible, thats all.

Its like sawing off a leg with gangrene and no anesthetic, it is going to hurt, but you know it'll be worth the pain.

If religion could be, by default, less personal, they'd be less insulted. But thats the nature of the thing they have embraced, so, so be it. They made their own bed, they can lie in it...

For example, Kathy Griffin's "Suck it, Jesus" comment. Kathy Griffin didn't insult anyone except, possibly, Jesus. Many Christians took it personally. Whether it was her intent or not, I saw this as a perfect example of the desire for some Christians to have everyone else believe what they do. By condemning Griffin and taking offense for insulting Jesus, they are demanding that she hold their religious figure in the same high regard that they do. By taking that comment as a personal affront, they are saying that insulting their belief is insulting them. That is, frankly, their own problem. The solution is to not be offended.

I respect others' rights to believe whatever they hell they like. That doesn't mean I have to respect the belief any more than believing that people should be allowed to make their own decisions means I have to think their decisions are good ones. And I'm not going to refrain from criticizing that belief because of their irrational insistence that criticizing the belief is disrespecting them.

 

[biomorph]

1) Not all theists "personalize" their religion.

Find me one that doesn't and I'll prove you wrong, well i'll give it my best shot. You may well be right, but I don't think so......

Some are able to discuss it rationally without rancor. I've had at least two very pleasant conversations via email with people about their religious beliefs where we were able to discuss it without angering the other.

Me too, good for you. Now go out and do it in real life.
email is pretty impersonal, and IMO only counts for so much.

2) What you said can be said about any belief system, whether it's religion, politics or sport's team backing. There are some who can entertain opposing thoughts without causing much cognitive dissonance, and some who cannot. Painting all with the same brush isn't helpful.

Yes it is..... I'm talking about religion, tho thanks for the comparison with the others, which are not the same thing. However I appreciate your point.

3) You discuss the reactions of individuals and how they interpret their religion. That is a better place to discuss rather than making a monolithic Religion that you're trying to battle. When you make a singular entity out of something as varied and diverse as religion, you will never understand it and therefore never be able to effectively combat it.

Not so.
Religion is the same whatever the breed type or offshoot.
I cannot see the difference. Please expand, as i'm not sure what you mean there........diverse,? Nah. don't buy that...

Politics is my no.2 pet hate so i'm reserving equal invective for that one, matey. however we are discussing religion here, in general..

Sport, well you can take that how you want, i'm not that sport minded, but it has physical and tangible benefits. I'm not convinced that religion has such. Sport team supporters are something I have NO interest in either.

 

[kmortis]

Find me one that doesn't and I'll prove you wrong, well i'll give it my best shot. You may well be right, but I don't think so......Me too, good for you. Now go out and do it in real life.
email is pretty impersonal, and IMO only counts for so much.

I do, on an almost weekly basis. A goodly portion of the people I deal with at work know that I'm an atheist. We can actually joke about religion together, with ruffling their feathers. So far, I've yet to have anyone get offended by me or my point of view. I don't attack them, I will question them though.

Yes it is..... I'm talking about religion, tho thanks for the comparison with the others, which are not the same thing. However I appreciate your point.
Not so.
Religion is the same whatever the breed type or offshoot.
I cannot see the difference. Please expand, as i'm not sure what you mean there........diverse,? Nah. don't buy that...

Politics is my no.2 pet hate so i'm reserving equal invective for that one, matey. however we are discussing religion here, in general..

Sport, well you can take that how you want, i'm not that sport minded, but it has physical and tangible benefits. I'm not convinced that religion has such. Sport team supporters are something I have NO interest in either.

Ok, so how is lumping all religious beliefs in any way helpful to getting others to abandon their beliefs? If you treat all religions as if they are some brand of Christianity, you're going to just irritate people because you keep arguing against something they don't hold to be true. All religions are not the same. Islam is not Judaism is not Buddhism is not Taoism is not Christianity. Hell, different flavors of each of them aren't even the same. You start telling a Methodist that Christianity is wrong because "god doesn't heal amputees" they'll probably look at you like you have three heads because as a general rule, Methodists don't go in for faith healing to begin with. Try telling a Buddhist that religions are wrong because there's no evidence that god exists, there's an even chance that they'll agree that there isn't any evidence.

Also, not all adherents are equal. You have all kinds in every congregation. You're going to have the gamut from the moderate to the light-weight to the fanatic. And then every congregation is going to vary as well. Religion is not a singularity. About the only universal is that religions bring people together over a commonly held belief. If you do not understand what that belief is and how it relates to the community it's held in, you're not going to be effective in talking to them and convincing them whatever it is you want to convince them of.

Remember the first rule of diplomacy, your enemy never sees themselves as evil. the sooner you learn that and start modifying your rhetoric the sooner you'll start getting your point across.